What is Barack Obama actually like? It's hard to get an impression of him across the pond because there isn't much media coverage. Is he actually the messiah-like person how he was portrayed in the early days, or is he all show and no go?
Yeh if you haven't already noticed there is a strong republican majority amongst the american users on this site.
This thread will go the same way as all the gun-law, climate change and oh, countless other threads about the current US administration. Which I myself have learnt not to get involved in. This one will be no different.
I think he's a good man doing what he thinks is best. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't. This is true of most Presidents though. He isn't a demon or a savior or really even a paradigm changer. He is a man and thus subject to the flaws and virtues of us all. Only he gets 24 hour news coverage and I do not, which is a shame really.
A distinct improvement on his predecessor and decidedly preferable to a certain 'maverick' who might have got in had her elderly running mate been taken ill...
He has the least desierabel job ever, and he had to clean up the mess that monkey who where in charge before made. Give the man a year to prove himself althoue I hope he fails HARD
I dont give Aun O' much thought, a President is one man in the policy machine after all. From an outsiders perspective i prefer a panoramic outlook on US politics rather than the personality stuff.
But one thing that caught my attantion is the recent advertising using association techniques between Obama and Hitler. One of the Feurer saying he supports obamas new policy, the other of Obama with a square moustache and the caption 'I've Changed'.
Now what 'Naziism' is Obama up to? A new invasion, detentions, harassment of minorities. No, he was caught setting up healthcare reforms.
Now if his detractors accused him of Communism and tried to compare him to Lenin I could more or less get the connection and would be 'good' propoganda; but subsidised health care being associated with Nazism doesnt wash.
It is ironic that the groups behind the posters are solidly right wing and in many cases were possibly all for Iraq and War on Terror. And leaving the justifications of such policies aside you can see a valid propoganda connection between the Bush administration and Nazi Germany on some level. So this is doubly hypocritical allowing for Obamas stated opinions on his prcedecessors military policies for him to be considered morally suspect in a 'Nazi' way.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:He's a politician. As such, I think he should be punched in the face. But that's just me.
Now here is a youngin who already has seen clear to the appropriate policy!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:I dont give Aun O' much thought, a President is one man in the policy machine after all. From an outsiders perspective i prefer a panoramic outlook on US politics rather than the personality stuff.
But one thing that caught my attantion is the recent advertising using association techniques between Obama and Hitler. One of the Feurer saying he supports this policy, the other of Obama with a square moustache and the caption 'I've Changed'.
Now what 'Naziism is Obama up to? a new invasion, detentions, horrid cruelty. No, but for setting up healthcare reforms.
Now if his detractors accused him of Communism and tried to compare him to Lenin I could more or less get the connection and would be 'good' propoganda; but subsidised health care being associated with Nazism doesntv wash.
ity is ironic that the grouops behind the posters are solidly right wing and in many cases were all for Iraq and War on Terror. And leaving the justifications of such policies aside you can see a valid propoganda connection between the Bush administration and Nazi germany on some level. So this is doubly hypocritical allowing for Obamas stated opinions on those policies that could be considered morally suspect in a 'Nazi' way.
Um, no most are going the socialist comparison route. I'm not sure where you're getting the Nazi thing.
Frazzled wrote:
Um, no most are going the socialist comparison route. I'm not sure where you're getting the Nazi thing.
Uk press showing posters made by some hard right lobbyists against Obamas health reforms. let me see if I can find a link to an online article....
EDIT for links:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346530636332384.html?mod=googlenews_wsj "NewsBusters.org, a Web site of the conservative Media Research Center, notes that CNN, NBC and MSNBC have all shown "a poster of President Obama--on whose face a Hitler mustache has been Photo Shopped--bearing the caption ‘I've Changed.' " to illustrate the supposed extremism of ObamaCare critics:"
Here, let me get out my "lets blame bush for everything" easy button...
At least bush never bent over and kissed any foreign leaders asses and said America was wrong in regards to foreign policy aimed their way.
We'll see how much everyone loves Obama once he starts dipping into you paychecks to distribute your wealth to the people who are just too damn lazy to work.
We'll also see how much everyone loves him when all of the professionals in America leave or quit their practices because he is dictating what they can and cannot get paid.
I found it. thats Lyndon Larouche's kookjob group. They do that with every President. These are the guys that scare the aluminum hat crowd. Its interesting that the media picks up on it for them but not when it was done to Bush, Bush, Reagan, etc.
Frazzled wrote:
Um, no most are going the socialist comparison route. I'm not sure where you're getting the Nazi thing.
Uk press showing posters made by some hard right lobbyists against Obamas health reforms. let me see if I can find a link to an online article....
I have seen them as well. They aren't the most common but they are out there. [The Protestors] haven't heard of Goodwin's Law obliviously. Of course it doesn't really mean much anymore since in my lifetime I've heard the following referred to as Nazi's: Bill Clinton, Bush I, Hillary Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. Now I may not be an expert on National Socialism but I am pretty sure they can't all fit the definition.
usernamesareannoying wrote:Here, let me get out my "lets blame bush for everything" easy button...
At least bush never bent over and kissed any foreign leaders asses and said America was wrong in regards to foreign policy aimed their way.
We'll see how much everyone loves Obama once he starts dipping into you paychecks to distribute your wealth to the people who are just too damn lazy to work.
We'll also see how much everyone loves him when all of the professionals in America leave or quit their practices because he is dictating what they can and cannot get paid.
Start to? Check out his approval ratings against other Presidents. He's worse than everyone in many years but Clinton for the same time period. Thats change I can believe in!
usernamesareannoying wrote:Here, let me get out my "lets blame bush for everything" easy button...
At least bush never bent over and kissed any foreign leaders asses and said America was wrong in regards to foreign policy aimed their way.
We'll see how much everyone loves Obama once he starts dipping into you paychecks to distribute your wealth to the people who are just too damn lazy to work.
We'll also see how much everyone loves him when all of the professionals in America leave or quit their practices because he is dictating what they can and cannot get paid.
Start to? Check out his approval ratings against other Presidents. He's worse than everyone in many years but Clinton for the same time period. Thats change I can believe in!
i miss slick willy.
so he got a hummer off an intern, big deal. his only mistake over the other presidents that behaved just as badly was the fact that he got caught...
Have you not heard? Death Panels dude. Obama is the head of the Death Panels. He's going to Florida to kill all the old Jews because they're too old and they didn't vote for him.
The scariest thing about Obama so far is the fear mongering, hate that I have seen spew out of my beloved republican party. Quite frankly even though I initially agreed with Bush on Iraq, I gradually came to see that I was lied to about the reasons why we went in, I still supported Bush and wasn't embarassed about it the way I have been lately. Am I happy that Sadam Hussein is gone. YES, but am not happy about being lied to.
Anyway, I digress...there is a guy at my workplace that has a wall, full of propaganda where Obama's depicted as hitler this and that. This from a guy who you would not normally think is a radical. I wonder how much of this hate is racially motivated.
To the original question, I'm still wating to see what Obama's going to do. I wish him all the success in the world, the same way I did Clinton. I have to admit that I disliked Slick Willy, much more than I dislike Obama.
I like that he is trying to do something about healthcare, although I'm not sure at this point if his plan is all that good, because I don't think it's a full blown Nationalized health care system. It's more of a hybrid, which is why I think it will fail.
I was amused that someone said Dr Hawking would have been left to die under the NHS if he was British, which is what Obama's health plan is going to do to America.
Kilkrazy wrote:I was amused that someone said Dr Hawking would have been left to die under the NHS if he was British, which is what Obama's health plan is going to do to America.
Do you really believe that KK?
I'm not sure from the post if your being sarcastic or not.
usernamesareannoying wrote:Here, let me get out my "lets blame bush for everything" easy button...
At least bush never bent over and kissed any foreign leaders asses and said America was wrong in regards to foreign policy aimed their way.
We'll see how much everyone loves Obama once he starts dipping into you paychecks to distribute your wealth to the people who are just too damn lazy to work.
We'll also see how much everyone loves him when all of the professionals in America leave or quit their practices because he is dictating what they can and cannot get paid.
Start to? Check out his approval ratings against other Presidents. He's worse than everyone in many years but Clinton for the same time period. Thats change I can believe in!
i miss slick willy.
so he got a hummer off an intern, big deal. his only mistake over the other presidents that behaved just as badly was the fact that he got caught...
Yea I could have cared less about that (except come on he could have done so much better, now Flowers thats a different story )
But don't forget Kosovo and and that whole not doing anything about Al Qaeda thing.
Kilkrazy wrote:I was amused that someone said Dr Hawking would have been left to die under the NHS if he was British, which is what Obama's health plan is going to do to America.
Do you really believe that KK?
I'm not sure from the post if your being sarcastic or not.
GG
I should have quotationised it better.
I was amused that someone said "Dr Hawking would have been left to die under the NHS if he was British, which is what Obama's health plan is going to do to America."
Ahtman wrote:I think he's a good man doing what he thinks is best. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't. This is true of most Presidents though. He isn't a demon or a savior or really even a paradigm changer. He is a man and thus subject to the flaws and virtues of us all. Only he gets 24 hour news coverage and I do not, which is a shame really.
QFT.
"Note"
Ahtman, you do deserve 24 hour news coverage... why is the world so CRUEL???
Kilkrazy wrote:I should have quotationised it better.
I was amused that someone said "Dr Hawking would have been left to die under the NHS if he was British, which is what Obama's health plan is going to do to America."
This whole mess is just going to get messier isn't it... What exactly would be the difference for a person in Stephen Hawking's situation (I.Q. this + should have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with getting treatment) living in the U.S. without healthcare? ...well, they die perhaps; or even become a complete vegetable incapable of any treatment whatsoever? Arguments like this are complete nonsense and these types of nit-picking madness are going to be what drives this country into a revolution.
You may think that sounds a bit lofty, but I guarantee if things continue to get worse in the U.S. there is going to be some serious problems. MOST of the people in the country are not rich, and they will be the ones that are facing the full force of the privatized insurance companies; the poor will not on the other hand will me too busy dying left and right (wait... they kinda are now though) due to the continuing debate and eventual collapse of this entire change. A big waste of time it is looking like.
I would be happier if they just scrapped it now, got out of Iraq, and created jobs for the rest of Obama's term. If he manages to do well enough at that maybe he will get a second term... wait, that actually could happen, regardless of people disliking him Bush got re-elected eh? Just throw some poor shmuck into the ring from the Reppies side, and he should go down by round one. Oh man, the U.S. bipolar political system can be so very effective at being ineffective sometimes; it is a tradition that has been building up for quite some time.
Oh well... I think Europe sounds like the place to be, the U.S. just has too many people and too many opinions for anything substantial to ever actually take place. We could get up and protest throughout the whole country... scratch that, I am going to just move to Europe .
Who knows he says facetiously? Thats part of the problem the only bill thats made it anywhere is complete gobbledygook and then he says things about the bill that are just plain not true.
Kilkrazy wrote:I was amused that someone said Dr Hawking would have been left to die under the NHS if he was British, which is what Obama's health plan is going to do to America.
Do you really believe that KK?
I'm not sure from the post if your being sarcastic or not.
GG
I should have quotationised it better.
I was amused that someone said "Dr Hawking would have been left to die under the NHS if he was British, which is what Obama's health plan is going to do to America."
Thats a misquote. while there are problems of PC bias in the Health service, it mainly relates to the amount of money the NHS spends on health tourist cases, and sexuality related treatments such as free sex changes when compared to the substandard support for many wounded veterans. Now admittedly this can grate but there there is no real scare that being British means you get second rate treatment.
In any case the orignal quote was regarding some Americans belief that the NHS was substandard per se, because its a state provided service. This is just blatantly not true, NHS treatment is generally very good, though there have been some slippage in the standard of nursing recently, and some internal politicisation. But that is an inevitable side effect of the regime we are now living in and is not of itself the fault of the NHS.
Frazzled wrote:Who knows he says facetiously? Thats part of the problem the only bill thats made it anywhere is complete gobbledygook and then he says things about the bill that are just plain not true.
Throw it out, we have bigger fish to fry, and they taste a whole lot better. Am I the only one sick of this not going anywhere for such a long time? What an utter waste of our nation's time.
I like Obama just because he's supposed to give me like $7000 for buying a new house. If tax time comes and he doesn't pay up, I won't like him anymore.
Necros wrote:I like Obama just because he's supposed to give me like $7000 for buying a new house. If tax time comes and he doesn't pay up, I won't like him anymore.
this is how the majority of his positive approval rating folk think.
i loved the woman who was plastered all over the radio proclaiming how excited she was because Obama was gonna pay for her house, pay for her car, pay for everything and she didnt have to work.
the sad thing is you could tell she truly believed that this was going to happen.
People seem to like Obama for a lot of reasons, the main being is that he talks about "free" money, and people like to think that they will be able to live out of the governments pocket... Oddly enough this pocket is actually linked into YOUR pocket, and this money is not imaginary; well most of the time it isn't .
hehe I was being partially serious I know I qualify for the new home buyer credit, but I'm not expecting much. I dunno what it takes to get that full $7000 if it's even possible, I bought a 1 bedroom condo
if I can get $1000 out of uncle sam I'll be a happy camper, then I'll do the "wise" thing and turn around and blow it all on army men
You won't get a net tax break if any of the items proposed or passed by the House are approved. Sorry. On the positive mandating universal health insurance means all you youngins get to help pay for my medical needs. Thanks!
Orlanth wrote:This is just blatantly not true, NHS treatment is generally very good, though there have been some slippage in the standard of nursing recently, and some internal politicisation. But that is an inevitable side effect of the regime we are now living in and is not of itself the fault of the NHS.
It's interesting the amount of misinformation there is over here. Just about everyone of my republican friends keep talking about "all of those" Brits and Canadians that don't like/hate their NHS system yet they don't personally know any one of them.
Orlanth wrote:This is just blatantly not true, NHS treatment is generally very good, though there have been some slippage in the standard of nursing recently, and some internal politicisation. But that is an inevitable side effect of the regime we are now living in and is not of itself the fault of the NHS.
It's interesting the amount of misinformation there is over here. Just about everyone of my republican friends keep talking about "all of those" Brits and Canadians that don't like/hate their NHS system yet they don't personally know any one of them.
GG
But they have anecdotal evidence! ANECDOTAL! You can't can't argue with that.
Frazzled wrote:I do. I work for a Canadian company. From them- its great for youngin I broke my leg waugh waugh stuff but sucks for real cankillyou medical stuff.
Waiting time for advanced medical testing equipment is substantially longer than the US average. "Elective" surguries (in the example back surgery) not covered. Newer cancer fighting medicines were not available. One came down to yankee land for heart surgery because couldn't get the type there in under six months and he would have been you know, dead.
Having said that routine care was cheaper and precription costs were very minimal. 30s or under seemed to like it and it appeared to do well with pregnancy issues.
Much less contact with UK-have an office. NO ONE there liked it.
Frazzled wrote:Waiting time for advanced medical testing equipment is substantially longer than the US average. "Elective" surguries (in the example back surgery) not covered. Newer cancer fighting medicines were not available. One came down to yankee land for heart surgery because couldn't get the type there in under six months and he would have been you know, dead.
Having said that routine care was cheaper and precription costs were very minimal. 30s or under seemed to like it and it appeared to do well with pregnancy issues.
Much less contact with UK-have an office. NO ONE there liked it.
I can give you examples in our system where elective surgeries arn't covered by insurance either. Things like gastric bypass, and lasic aren't covered. Sleep apnea studies, autism care sometimes arn't covered either. I have heard stories of our illustrious American system trying to deny people cancer treatments, because "So and so doesn't really need a 3rd treatment, he's allready had 2, and thats enough".
Frazzled: On the positive mandating universal health insurance means all you youngins get to help pay for my medical needs. Thanks!
I'm all for a shaving off a small part of my income keeping you on the shelf long after your expiration date.
Your like one of those refrigerator pigs from the 80s, but for opening political threads instead of opening the frige.
::political thread opens:: [Frazzled: ***squeeeee squeeeee***] - it helps keep our pundit spare-tire down, or at least makes us feel guilty about it
So 10 thumbs up for giving you a long time to paint your minis!
You'll also be able to let my great-grand-kids know whether or not years dilate as you approach the speed of old.
Lasic won't kill you
gastric bypass won't kill you
sleep apnea won't kill you
autism won't kill you (can't do anything about it)
Waiting 1-2 months for an MRI can kill you.
But here's the joyous nonsensical part of this. Dems/Repubs acting like its yea or nay. Thats an utter falsehood and the fundamental problem. Instead of getting some brains together, getting tiger teams together to assess the good and bad of other countries, to carefully craft the best solution for the least cost, they drop a 1,000 joke at us. Then they lie.
The same as TARP
The same as the emergency "economic spending package" that hasn't spent 10% of the money to date and is just the world's largest pork barrel project
The same as the budget
The same as cap and trade which is so full of loopholes as to be a joke.
All pushed through fast. All are jokes on the American people. This summarizes it best:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Belphegor wrote:
You'll also be able to let my great-grand-kids know whether or not years dilate as you approach the speed of old.
Frazzled wrote:Lasic won't kill you gastric bypass won't kill you sleep apnea won't kill you autism won't kill you (can't do anything about it) Waiting 1-2 months for an MRI can kill you.
But here's the joyous nonsensical part of this. Dems/Repubs acting like its yea or nay. Thats an utter falsehood and the fundamental problem. Instead of getting some brains together, getting tiger teams together to assess the good and bad of other countries, to carefully craft the best solution for the least cost, they drop a 1,000 joke at us. Then they lie.
The same as TARP The same as the emergency "economic spending package" that hasn't spent 10% of the money to date and is just the world's largest pork barrel project The same as the budget The same as cap and trade which is so full of loopholes as to be a joke.
All pushed through fast. All are jokes on the American people. This summarizes it best:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Belphegor wrote: You'll also be able to let my great-grand-kids know whether or not years dilate as you approach the speed of old.
Pah I can answer that now.
YES.
Were you being ironic because all the things you listed can be life threatening, especially sleep apnea, not having gastric bypass, and undiagnosed/untreated autism.
MRIs can wait, those with conditions conducive to being solely diagnosed go to the front of the line, all those who need an MRI to prove a condition problematic wait. That is how it would be done under an American NHS, that is the way it is done now.
The one thing I always find funny is how so few American's know how this system works, I suppose that's why your all up in arms, because you have no idea what is/has been going on.
And as for Obama. I love him! I don't like some of his ideas with his healthcare reform, I'd like him to initiate a government run healthcare service. But this is a start to that. Maybe after Obama's two terms a Republican president will seal the deal for me.
Orlanth wrote:This is just blatantly not true, NHS treatment is generally very good, though there have been some slippage in the standard of nursing recently, and some internal politicisation. But that is an inevitable side effect of the regime we are now living in and is not of itself the fault of the NHS.
It's interesting the amount of misinformation there is over here. Just about everyone of my republican friends keep talking about "all of those" Brits and Canadians that don't like/hate their NHS system yet they don't personally know any one of them.
GG
But they have anecdotal evidence! ANECDOTAL! You can't can't argue with that.
but Morbid obesity is
Sleep apnea can lead to life threatening heart conditions not to mention falling asleep behind a semi truck.
Autism isn't life threatening per se, but some forms can be treated with therapies to make the individual with autism overcoem their disability. For example asbergers can become normal productive adults if treatment starts early enough.
Just thought I'd put that out there! I'd never voted before, and I'm part of the group that registered to vote for him. I don't agree with everything he's done, but I'm very happy with my decision to vote for him, and for the most part I support what he's done.
More than the specifics, I was very happy with the way he carried himself through a difficult period for our nation regarding the economy, military, etc... a steady hand at the tiller (or at least, giving that strong impression) goes a long way towards solving our problems, imho. Especially problems like the economy that are worsened by consumer fear...
Obama is a great politician and this adminstration is a significant upgrade over Bush and Cheney. Its also a great relief to have a president that doesn't sound, act, or pretend to be a cowboy and I'm a Texan. Bush may be a good public speaker when the cameras are off but when they're on he provides a smorgasbord worth of idiotic quotes. Hell has there ever been a president that has had as many movies, books, TV shows, plays (Will Ferrel ftw), etc. that was based around belittling and caricaturing one?
National health care is also a plan that should've been in place a long time ago and hopefully we'll start to finally catch up with the rest of the world. As a military brat whose also an injured Marine; not having to worry about medical expenses was a great quality in my family's life and one that should be extended to all.
The worst thats happened in Obama's adminstration is just the amount of partisan nonsense coming from the right. I'm no Democrat but I don't think the Repubs can ever dig out of the hole they've laid for themselves after the Bush Dynasty, Iraq Wars, Palin, etc.
Frazzled wrote:Lasic, you mean lasik as in cosmetic laser surgery so I don't have to wear glasses? How the feth is that life threatening? nonsense.
A gastric bypass is done when you're obese.
An MRI can wait? You don't have a clue.
In certain situations lasik is used to remove certain eye defects that cause sudden visual impairment. In a world were everyday people pilot very deadly blocks of metal at upwars of 70 miles an hour it can be dangerous. Although to be honest I really didn't mean lasics is that deadly.
Yes, gastric bypass surgery is performed mainly on the obese. I'm glad you know that.
Yes an M.R.I. can wait Frazz. It isn't necessary for everyone who is told by a doctor they need an M.R.I. to go out and receive one immediately. Those that need one immediately receive one immediately at the hospital. It's why it takes so long to get one electively. I don't really think you know what your talking about right here, so don't be so hostile.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
Sleep apnea can lead to life threatening heart conditions not to mention falling asleep behind a semi truck.
Just so we're clear, you know that Sleep Apnea is the cessation of breathing while asleep right?
generalgrog wrote:Lasik isn't life threatening of course...
but Morbid obesity is Sleep apnea can lead to life threatening heart conditions not to mention falling asleep behind a semi truck. Autism isn't life threatening per se, but some forms can be treated with therapies to make the individual with autism overcoem their disability. For example asbergers can become normal productive adults if treatment starts early enough.
GG
None of that compares to not getting a speedy MRI. If you wait and you have certain types of cancer, you're dead.
Cane wrote:Obama is a great politician and this adminstration is a significant upgrade over Bush and Cheney. Its also a great relief to have a president that doesn't sound, act, or pretend to be a cowboy and I'm a Texan. Bush may be a good public speaker when the cameras are off but when they're on he provides a smorgasbord worth of idiotic quotes. Hell has there ever been a president that has had as many movies, books, TV shows, plays (Will Ferrel ftw), etc. that was based around belittling and caricaturing one?
National health care is also a plan that should've been in place a long time ago and hopefully we'll start to finally catch up with the rest of the world. As a military brat whose also an injured Marine; not having to worry about medical expenses was a great quality in my family's life and one that should be extended to all.
The worst thats happened in Obama's adminstration is just the amount of partisan nonsense coming from the right. I'm no Democrat but I don't think the Repubs can ever dig out of the hole they've laid for themselves after the Bush Dynasty, Iraq Wars, Palin, etc.
That was refreshing to hear. I do admire how genuinely active Obama has been in the international scene. Perhaps he will not achieve much in one term, but I doubt that his next term hinges on this health-care bill alone. He also appears to be under ENORMOUS amounts of pressure that most presidents only face once or twice in their whole career; this could be how he plans to tackle some issues, although it is not directly head-on he appears to be a relatively down-to-earth guy.
generalgrog wrote:Just so we're clear, you know that Sleep Apnea is the cessation of breathing while asleep right?
My uncle has sleep apnea along with a few other serious problems. I am not sure that it is considered deadly, but it most definitely can be without treatment over a number of years. It will also lead to insomnia which is linked to numerous amounts of other problems, depression being among them. On the whole I would consider it rather serious on no uncertain terms.
Frazzled wrote:Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
When did I talk about MRI's?
As far as being denied healthcare by our illustrious American System, I certainly do know what I'm talking about. Since my illustrious Glorious insurance company has tried to deny me and my family services over and over again. I pay the highest premium I can at my work place, over $300.00 a month, and still have over $10,000 in medical bills due to insurance companies playing the deny.. services not necesary... game with me. I would gladly pay more than the $300.00 a month if I could ensure that the insurance would cover all of my expenses. I had them try and make me pay $12,000.00 in services for my son, and they would have gladly made me pay them if I couldn't prove that the Hospital didn't make a clerical error in the charge code. Welcome to the American system where the insurance companies play games to try to wear you out hoping you give up and just pay.
Until you have walked a mile in my shoes you don't have the right to say I don't know what I'm talking about.
GG
p.s. I still love ya Frazz...your just wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jp400 wrote:
My two cents.
How many Americans are bankrupt or even dead right now becuase of Insurance companies denying coverage. Ever heard of The Rain Maker, by John Grisham? I suggest you read it, or watch the film anyway.
Frazzled: None of that compares to not getting a speedy MRI. If you wait and you have certain types of cancer, you're dead.
Yep, agreed.
And a huge portion of this country can not afford to get looked at by a doctor to find out if they should get an MIR.
So right now it's worse than having to wait.
Since waiting indicates that you could get treatment.
Some healthcare is better than no healthcare.
belphegor, everyone in the US has access to emergency room treatment. US citizens have access to medicare and cade. One reason Sr. citizens are freaking out is that hundreds of billions are being pulled out of Medicare to pay for this.
Do I think the system is great? Nope never said so. It has problems. Lets fix the problems not socialize the freeking thing and hand it over to group that brought us such successes as Amtrak, the US Post Office, and the blindi9ng cost efficiency of the US government.
Again its all irrelevant. At the end of the day we'll have national insurance (good), mandated for everyone(good) some sort of increased coverage for uninsured (good) but not malpractice reform. Insurance portabilty may be nice also-we'll see if we get that but they'll fight that one and national coverage pretty hard.
Are there any examples of a healthcare system that works that wasn't part of some socialized concept? I'm not asking to be sarcastic, but asking because I truly want to know.
I think one of the problems Americans have is memories of Russians waiting in bread lines, and we think that this is how healthcare is going to end up. Nevermind the succes stories from other countries.
And nevermind that we are the only so called civilized country that doesn't have a National Health care system.
jp400 wrote: {insert lame prop-piece}
My two cents.
Why are the Republicans so afraid of the Dems spending money like they were Republicans?
Democrats = Jogging towards a risk of 'Bankruptcy'.
Republicans = Head-on sprint into Bankruptcy wearing rocket-shoes!!!!!
ROCKET-SHOES!!!!!
A silver lining on this. I've gone to several older doctors that have a no insurance accepted policy. Purely sliding scale for payment. With a strict "If your not a dick I'll treat you." policy. They also let you know if you decide to be a glowing-Popsicle-of-joy that you'd pretty-much be screwing around 50 people out of one of the few doctors that are able and willing to treat them without insurance.
Frazzled: everyone in the US has access to emergency room treatment
I wish this was true, I've know people refused care for broken bones in NYC (the day of, arm-flapping in the breeze sort of thing). And ER nurses that have be forced to (under loss of employment) deny people treatment, based on whether they could pay (specifically one bled out in a parking lot, and one drowned in her own mucus in the waiting room.)
A few city hospitals will prioritize based on payment (ie insurance) on who to treat first/at all in the ER.
...but I understand that in the less populated (ie not the NE and not the WC) areas of the country this doesn't happen as much.
generalgrog wrote:Are there any examples of a healthcare system that works that wasn't part of some socialized concept? I'm not asking to be sarcastic, but asking because I truly want to know.
I think one of the problems Americans have is memories of Russians waiting in bread lines, and we think that this is how healthcare is going to end up. Nevermind the succes stories from other countries.
And nevermind that we are the only so called civilized country that doesn't have a National Health care system.
GG
It is simply a system that need to be stream-lined according to the needs of the country that it serves. There are a high proportion of people who are very happy with socialized healthcare, and more often than not it has proven to be a complete success at least on generalized terms.
Our system on the other hand is god-awfully terrible for anyone without money. The reasons to change things are numerous, the reasons to stagnate in a ineffective system with hopes of minor improvements that may never arrive are very few indeed. It all boils down to how angry U.S. citizens get; I feel like ignoring this issue will cause HUGE problems in the long-run, but the pace it is going at now makes me feel that we are actually tuffed either way. All people appear to be saying is that we suck so very very much that we have no power over our government, and since inaction has been the game-plan before it should continue to be now.
Utter nonsense, but I cannot imagine any other compromise besides this. So hey, like I said, the U.S. will start to lose a lot of it's citizens who will continue to be replaced at an alarming rate by immigrants. At the point where action could be taken I am sure that people would be much to busy arguing over how great the U.S. should be and how gakky we are now.
My bad, I've only seen bumper stickers in that flavor on trucks in my area that belong to people who vote Republican and those that consider themselves fairly right-of-center.
It's like if I encountered a cue-ball with their boots laced with red or white.
I suppose it would be my mistake to assume.
Belphegor wrote:A silver lining on this. I've gone to several older doctors that have a no insurance accepted policy. Purely sliding scale for payment. With a strict "If your not a dick I'll treat you." policy. They also let you know if you decide to be a glowing-Popsicle-of-joy that you'd pretty-much be screwing around 50 people out of one of the few doctors that are able and willing to treat them without insurance.
1. I don't believe you. Flat out.
2. if so he's insane and a fool.
[quoteeveryone in the US has access to emergency room treatment[/color]
I wish this was true, I've know people refused care for broken bones in NYC (the day of, arm-flapping in the breeze sort of thing). And ER nurses that have be forced to (under loss of employment) deny people treatment, based on whether they could pay (specifically one bled out in a parking lot, and one drowned in her own mucus in the waiting room.)
A few city hospitals will prioritize based on payment (ie insurance) on who to treat first/at all in the ER.
...but I understand that in the less populated (ie not the NE and not the WC) areas of the country this doesn't happen as much.
Frazzled: 1. I don't believe you. Flat out.
2. if so he's insane and a fool.
That's fine. I don't know why it's so hard to swallow. Some nurse practitioners and mid-wives have been working that way for years. And recently some older doctors (ie have been practicing 35+ years) have been going to the modality of payment. A small number of doctors, I know of three, two from directly speaking to them, one from word of mouth from a patient.
Not insane or foolish, just sick of how things are being run.
So good on them taking responsibility for the care they give.
Like I said, silver lining.
It is not uncommon, and they have every right to do so.
What I am concerned with is the doctors who practically work for pill companies, and collaborate with insurance companies to establish border-line scam based fees. Makes me sick quite frankly, in more ways than one ... not funny, not funny...
Check this article out, it is pretty interesting when you think of the average 2-minute diagnosis that has become industry standard now. I see my doctor about 1% of the time that I am at the hospital... please do not talk to me about not having doctors in a socialized system because I know for a fact that my family in the U.K. has better care than I do. The only thing keeping you healthy is money now, there seems to be a huge divide in the actual application of a doctor's REQUIRED attention to patients. Too many patients? Tough, you took the job, and if you don't know where to draw the line YOU are the one at fault. Even in a socialized system doctor's can choose to take patients according to their schedule, and their seems to be no lack of doctors on the whole.
On Obama: wasn't my choice in the primaries, I voted for him in the general on general ideological grounds. He's a very good hack politician that seems to have little interest in governing, just in winning. In many ways, outside of ideology, he's very similar to George W. Bush.
On a larger scale, what I've seen from the right wing of this country bugs me. There are angry, poorly informed people on all sides of the spectrum, but the left wing protestors tend to be more extreme, younger, and generally small time. The sheer vitriol coming out of right wing, coupled with the wide spread willful ignorance on issues ranging from Obama's birth certificate to health care all the way to global warming and intelligent design casts the modern right as zealots for a belief, not a cogent platform.
I say this not as an angry leftie, but as a person that sees a huge value in fiscal and international conservatism. The marriage of the GOP to a huge swath of America that seems angry and willfully ignorant raises in me the worry that this is going to become, not simply a political, but a moral issue.
Was there outrage at W out of the box? Yes, and it wasn't all deserved. Over time, as the truth has oozed out, a lot of that outrage has panned out, IMO.
there seems to be a search for moral relativism by the right, where they can do ignore the justifiable reasons for actions by the left in order to simply do what they want. You see it in the efforts to link the actual boston tea party to these current tea parties, or the efforts of many people to disrupt town halls on health care. I'm not saying the left is always correct or has the moral high ground all the time, but sometimes it does, and that makes some actions justifiable. The right seems to be skipping past actually having a moral reason, and just attacking.
it's probably not as bad as I think, and of course the old saws about the media bias and what not make things difficult to read, but when you see the party line split on an issue like the birther thing, it makes you wonder what's really going on.
The guy has what has to be the hardest job on the planet right now. All his constituents are mad at him because he has to clean up a mess that was frankly left to him.
He's trying to subtly 'prime the pump' of the American economy as it were, and its just not working. He's going to have to start some massive (and thus more unpopular) public works projects to really achieve his goal. He *needed* to use the goodwill he had and get the people really behind the changes that need to happen. Now he's got to regain that too.
The man's original platform was positive, and acknowledged that there's going to be a suck time to get back where we need to be. I'm disappointed that we haven't simply accepted that we're in another depression (10% unemployment my big butt. If they're unemployed, but not looking, they're still unemployed!) and continued on what was (at face value) a platform of 'No more shennannigans'.
I think if he were to look into FDR's 'fireside chat' model he'd be popular again.
Frazzled wrote:
1. I don't believe you. Flat out.
2. if so he's insane and a fool.
I've seen this before as well. Usually they are people with established private practices who don't feel the need to earn more money.
No free care I get Doggy. Thats admirable and we have docs at church that go to Honduras and provide free care for extended periods. I meant practice without insurance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Belphegor wrote:
Frazzled: 1. I don't believe you. Flat out.
2. if so he's insane and a fool.
That's fine. I don't know why it's so hard to swallow. Some nurse practitioners and mid-wives have been working that way for years. And recently some older doctors (ie have been practicing 35+ years) have been going to the modality of payment. A small number of doctors, I know of three, two from directly speaking to them, one from word of mouth from a patient.
Not insane or foolish, just sick of how things are being run.
So good on them taking responsibility for the care they give.
Like I said, silver lining.
Wait crap my apologies. I thought you meant they operate without malpractice insurance. You meant not taking payments? Thats admirable. Sorry and thnks Dogma for jogging my few brain cells. My bad.
Frazzled wrote: I meant practice without insurance.
I know what you meant. I know several older GPs that don't accept insurance as a means of cutting down on their internal administrative costs. It works for them because they generally don't do in-house testing, and simply act as a source for preliminary diagnosis and referrals. They don't make as much as GPs that do accept insurance, but they also have far lower costs.
Now specialists, because of the costly nature of their work, could never do this in a cost effective manner.
Frazzled: None of that compares to not getting a speedy MRI. If you wait and you have certain types of cancer, you're dead.
Yep, agreed.
And a huge portion of this country can not afford to get looked at by a doctor to find out if they should get an MIR.
So right now it's worse than having to wait.
Since waiting indicates that you could get treatment.
Some healthcare is better than no healthcare.
So let me get this straight, in this post, you suggest that people who cannot afford to see a doctor go get a 3000$ procedure done without any kind of opinion from a medical professional?
Frazzled: None of that compares to not getting a speedy MRI. If you wait and you have certain types of cancer, you're dead.
Yep, agreed.
And a huge portion of this country can not afford to get looked at by a doctor to find out if they should get an MIR.
So right now it's worse than having to wait.
Since waiting indicates that you could get treatment.
Some healthcare is better than no healthcare.
So let me get this straight, in this post, you suggest that people who cannot afford to see a doctor go get a 3000$ procedure done without any kind of opinion from a medical professional?
I'm pretty sure his point was that lacking access to even primary care makes access to advanced care irrelevant: he won't use if if he has it.
All told, I'd rather be told I'd have to wait to get an MRI than never get a check to see if I could use one.
Polonius wrote:On a larger scale, what I've seen from the right wing of this country bugs me. There are angry, poorly informed people on all sides of the spectrum, but the left wing protestors tend to be more extreme, younger, and generally small time. The sheer vitriol coming out of right wing, coupled with the wide spread willful ignorance on issues ranging from Obama's birth certificate to health care all the way to global warming and intelligent design casts the modern right as zealots for a belief, not a cogent platform
Polonius you had me until you had to throw in your dig at Intelligent Design. I'm not sure why you have such a bone to pick about this issue but to compare intelligent design to birthers and call it "Willfull Ignorance" Is over the top, especially when there is plenty of research and evidence wich have called into question Macro Evolution and other pseudo scientific theories.
generalgrog wrote:
Polonius you had me until you had to throw in your dig at Intelligent Design. I'm not sure why you have such a bone to pick about this issue but to compare intelligent design to birthers and call it "Willfull Ignorance" Is over the top, especially when there is plenty of research and evidence wich have called into question Macro Evolution and other pseudo scientific theories.
And remember, you started this again not me.
GG
Three points:
1) Not this again.
2) If you think evolution is pseudoscience I'm not sure what you would consider to be real science.
3) Holes in the theory of evolution are not evidence for intelligent design.
Polonius wrote:On a larger scale, what I've seen from the right wing of this country bugs me. There are angry, poorly informed people on all sides of the spectrum, but the left wing protestors tend to be more extreme, younger, and generally small time. The sheer vitriol coming out of right wing, coupled with the wide spread willful ignorance on issues ranging from Obama's birth certificate to health care all the way to global warming and intelligent design casts the modern right as zealots for a belief, not a cogent platform
Polonius you had me until you had to throw in your dig at Intelligent Design. I'm not sure why you have such a bone to pick about this issue but to compare intelligent design to birthers and call it "Willfull Ignorance" Is over the top, especially when there is plenty of research and evidence wich have called into question Macro Evolution and other pseudo scientific theories.
And remember, you started this again not me.
GG
Just an FYI, calling Macro Evolution a pseudo scientific theory isn't exactly a diplomatic statement. It's a shot.
It's actually pretty similar, IMO. There is plenty of evidence to support both, but that evidence is waved away by people that don't want to see it. There are gaps, to be sure, in both, but in both areas there seems to be a demand for evidence that cannot be produced. As I've stated many times before, I don't mind teaching the flaws and holes in evolution, but intelligent design is not a better or more scientific theory for the diversity of species.
Just like with the birthers, or climate change, all the evidence that piles up is dismissed. I don't mind what people believe. I believe the universe was created by God and he had his hands in the development of every species. I also can look at the scientific evidence for evolution and realize that it's pretty solid, and ID doesn't help us in any way, scientifically.
And, I don't want to be insulting, but in our discussions about this topic the term willfull ignorance could be applied to you. It's not fair, and I don't say it to be mean, but you very clearly only see the evidence you want to. I'm not saying I've never been in that position, in fact I'm sure I probably am about any number of debates.
Part of the appeal of deliberate ignorance is that, if done right, you don't' even know you're doing it...
I'm not gonna respond to his second crack because even though it was insulting, I truly believe he doesn't realize it, and wasn't trying to be insulting.
Wow Obama and religion in the same thread..........Flame war in 5........4.......
Joking aside from what I have heard the current American system is good for really specialist healthcare (such as really rare conditions ect) but the British system of healthcare is better for the everyday stuff (if you catch my drift ).
The NHS is not perfect by a long shot but IMO is a more human way of doing things. The more we do for those in need the more we are defined as people in my opinion.
Isn't it kind of stupid to ask this question now? Who gives a damn what anyone thinks about Barack Obama...anyone expressing an opinion after only six months of a four-year term are either:
1) A Republican whose mind was already made up
2) A Democrat whose mind was already made up
3) Someone who doesn't understand how long it takes to get things done in Washington and/or the amount of time between legislation getting passed or policy enacted and actually taking effect enough for anyone to have an intelligent opinion as to whether said legislation/policy was good or not.
If you asked most people how Dumbya was doing two years into his first term they probably would have said he was a great President; but now that we can look back on his eight years we can see pretty clearly that history is going to judge as one of if not the most retardedly-stupid Presidents of all time who wiped his nose with the Constituion, helped ruined the economy with his stupid play-to-the-base tax cuts, enabled the whacko right wingers which gives us the Birther and Deather idiocies (but which are good for Democrats as the Republican Party is poised to destroy itself and good riddance, time for a new proper moderate party and let the stuck-in-the-last century holdouts all die out so we can get this country moving into the 21st), basically pissed away the lives of thousands of American soldiers in wars that didn't make us safer while ignoring threats like Iran and North Korea which actually could be and ARE dangerous...
Just a few examples. You can't judge a President until he is done. It's stupid to do otherwise. I don't give a gak what anyone thinks of Obama personally. I care about whether he leaves the country in better shape than he found it.
Thanks to Bush and the Republican majorities in Congress for six of his eight years that is unfortunately not a very high bar to meet...
Cairnius wrote:Isn't it kind of stupid to ask this question now? Who gives a damn what anyone thinks about Barack Obama...anyone expressing an opinion after only six months of a four-year term are either:
1) A Republican whose mind was already made up
2) A Democrat whose mind was already made up
3) Someone who doesn't understand how long it takes to get things done in Washington and/or the amount of time between legislation getting passed or policy enacted and actually taking effect enough for anyone to have an intelligent opinion as to whether said legislation/policy was good or not.
Aren't you the Buzz Killington, going around pointing out the obvious that doesn't matter. There are also people far more informed and educated on the subject then either of us and they give out opinions. Your list of possible people posters is woefully inadequate and ill-informed.
Although this thread seems to have gone off the rails a bit since it started. It has gone from 'what do you think of him?' and more 'what do you think of his administrations current policies?', which is a completely different thing.
I just love how so many right wingers were pointing out that you couldn't judge a president after their full term, it would take decades for people to fully understand the complexity of their position. So Bush may have just finished his eighth year in office but we should ignore those opinion polls. But we should taking opinion polls on Obama 200 days into his term as gospel.
As for Obama, he's just a charismatic centrist. His platform basically consists of a steady hand on foreign policy and the introduction of a few pieces of long overdue legislation to reform disfunctional parts of the US. These ideas have been met with panicked, willfully ignorant reactionaries. A lot of people seem to be assuming this is a racial thing but I don't think it is as the same vitriol is being shown towards all elements of the Democratic party. It seems to be the next step along, as the pundits say crazier and crazier things to outdo each other (remember when O'Reilly was the most hardline? Now I'm quietly waiting someone crazier than Glenn Beck), and the dedicated followers eat it up, no matter how ridiculous it is. Right now there are people saying that the healthcare bill will have death panels to decide if you're worthy of healthcare, and there are idiots out there believing it and heading out to protest it. Intellectual honesty has been utterly forgotten.
It basically reduces the right wing to obstructionism, with no capability for contribution. It means that there is little informed, honest debate of the proposals for healthcare reform, and looking at many of the proposals debate is badly needed. It means if a bill gets passed it is unlikely to address the core issues driving the cost blow outs (outrageous admin costs, profiteering on vital drugs), nor the core issues leading to so many deaths (little access to preventative care, insurance companies denying care). It might stop so many people being bankrupted, though.
It's a shame, one of the strengths of democracy is debate leading to improved legislation. If the Republican opposition spent their time pointing out the compromises in the current bill that won't lead to savings, such as the agreement not to use bulk buying power to secure lower prices for drugs from pharmaceutical companies, you might end up with a better bill. But instead you just hear complaints that the bill is 1,000 pages, there's death panels and it's socialism.
Meanwhile, GG you're an interesting cat. Your arguments here on healthcare have been really well put, and yet there's that ID thing. You remind me of a cousin of mine, where on a whole load of issues we can agree not just on the conclusion, but we POV we approach the issue from, and all the reasoning to reach the conclusion. Yet then we hit another issue and I cannot understand their reasoning at all. At some point down the line we're going to end up arguing about ID again, and somewhere in the middle of that conversation it may get a little heated. If that happens, just remind me of this thread.
Cairnius wrote:
Just a few examples. You can't judge a President until he is done. It's stupid to do otherwise. I don't give a gak what anyone thinks of Obama personally. I care about whether he leaves the country in better shape than he found it.
Wait, I thought part of living in a democracy was being ever-vigilant; always looking out for your own rights, and ensuring that your representatives understand what you want, or don't want done. That whole business pretty much requires forming an opinion on the current leadership (note that I am referring to the leader as defined by his policy, not his personality).
And, on that note.
Cairnius wrote:
Thanks to Bush and the Republican majorities in Congress for six of his eight years that is unfortunately not a very high bar to meet...
Meet...
Cairnius wrote:
3) Someone who doesn't understand how long it takes to get things done in Washington and/or the amount of time between legislation getting passed or policy enacted and actually taking effect enough for anyone to have an intelligent opinion as to whether said legislation/policy was good or not.
Your argument against forming opinions with respect to the current President has roughly the same amount of worth when applied to recent Presidents. It almost seems as if your entire list was constructed as a form of self-critiquing projection.
sebster wrote:I just love how so many right wingers were pointing out that you couldn't judge a president after their full term, it would take decades for people to fully understand the complexity of their position. So Bush may have just finished his eighth year in office but we should ignore those opinion polls. But we should taking opinion polls on Obama 200 days into his term as gospel.
As for Obama, he's just a charismatic centrist. His platform basically consists of a steady hand on foreign policy and the introduction of a few pieces of long overdue legislation to reform disfunctional parts of the US. These ideas have been met with panicked, willfully ignorant reactionaries. A lot of people seem to be assuming this is a racial thing but I don't think it is as the same vitriol is being shown towards all elements of the Democratic party. It seems to be the next step along, as the pundits say crazier and crazier things to outdo each other (remember when O'Reilly was the most hardline? Now I'm quietly waiting someone crazier than Glenn Beck), and the dedicated followers eat it up, no matter how ridiculous it is. Right now there are people saying that the healthcare bill will have death panels to decide if you're worthy of healthcare, and there are idiots out there believing it and heading out to protest it. Intellectual honesty has been utterly forgotten.
It basically reduces the right wing to obstructionism, with no capability for contribution. It means that there is little informed, honest debate of the proposals for healthcare reform, and looking at many of the proposals debate is badly needed. It means if a bill gets passed it is unlikely to address the core issues driving the cost blow outs (outrageous admin costs, profiteering on vital drugs), nor the core issues leading to so many deaths (little access to preventative care, insurance companies denying care). It might stop so many people being bankrupted, though.
It's a shame, one of the strengths of democracy is debate leading to improved legislation. If the Republican opposition spent their time pointing out the compromises in the current bill that won't lead to savings, such as the agreement not to use bulk buying power to secure lower prices for drugs from pharmaceutical companies, you might end up with a better bill. But instead you just hear complaints that the bill is 1,000 pages, there's death panels and it's socialism.
This isn't how you feel about Obama, this is how you feel other people feel about Obama.
He's only a centrist if your center is a bit left of center. He is no where near as left as some want to make him out to be, but he does lean a bit left.
sebster wrote:
Right now there are people saying that the healthcare bill will have death panels to decide if you're worthy of healthcare, and there are idiots out there believing it and heading out to protest it. Intellectual honesty has been utterly forgotten.
I work at a health club as a personal trainer/desk staff. When I'm on desk staff duty I read a lot. Mostly stuff on political theory (shocking, I know). I get asked multiple questions (I assume this is because of my reading preferences), daily, about my position on national healthcare. I always answer "no" because its work, and I need my job. Invariably it breaks down like this:
Dude: Really? Well, did you hear that the bill advocates euthanasia?
Me: I've read the House bill, at least 4 times, and it does no such thing.
Dude: Well, you're just naive.
Me: Right. Literacy is equivalent to naivete?
sebster wrote:
It basically reduces the right wing to obstructionism, with no capability for contribution. It means that there is little informed, honest debate of the proposals for healthcare reform, and looking at many of the proposals debate is badly needed. It means if a bill gets passed it is unlikely to address the core issues driving the cost blow outs (outrageous admin costs, profiteering on vital drugs), nor the core issues leading to so many deaths (little access to preventative care, insurance companies denying care). It might stop so many people being bankrupted, though.
Amusingly enough, this plays into the standard right-wing critique of the state as a body of people interested only in the acquisition of power.
sebster wrote:
It's a shame, one of the strengths of democracy is debate leading to improved legislation. If the Republican opposition spent their time pointing out the compromises in the current bill that won't lead to savings, such as the agreement not to use bulk buying power to secure lower prices for drugs from pharmaceutical companies, you might end up with a better bill. But instead you just hear complaints that the bill is 1,000 pages, there's death panels and it's socialism.
A lot of this has to do with matters of scale. The US is the largest established democracy in the world (India has similar problems, and is not yet what I would consider established) so one can expect simplification for the masses.
Ahtman wrote:This isn't how you feel about Obama, this is how you feel other people feel about Obama.
He's only a centrist if your center is a bit left of center. He is no where near as left as some want to make him out to be, but he does lean a bit left.
It depends how you look at it. If you accept centrist as the centre point of politics, then by US standards he's centre left. By the standard of Western style democracies he's centre right (one of the more bizarre things in recent politics is the number of left wing youngsters around the world falling over themselves to show support for the guy, when if he was a local politician he be far too right wing for them).
On the other hand, you can ignore tha political axis and just look at his politics. 'Centrist' is often used to describe someone that looks to build support for their politics by building conensus support, who doesn't argue from ideological frameworks. That describes Obama's approach pretty well, I think.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I work at a health club as a personal trainer/desk staff. When I'm on desk staff duty I read a lot. Mostly stuff on political theory (shocking, I know). I get asked multiple questions (I assume this is because of my reading preferences), daily, about my position on national healthcare. I always answer "no" because its work, and I need my job. Invariably it breaks down like this:
Dude: Really? Well, did you hear that the bill advocates euthanasia?
Me: I've read the House bill, at least 4 times, and it does no such thing.
Dude: Well, you're just naive.
Me: Right. Literacy is equivalent to naivete?
I liked Pat Buchanan's effort, he was saying how dangerous it was to have concepts such like those in the bill. When it was pointed out no such concepts were in the bill, he retorted 'it's 1,000 pages!' Who could know what's in the bill, reading it is unthinkable.
Amusingly enough, this plays into the standard right-wing critique of the state as a body of people interested only in the acquisition of power.
That's been the joke for a while. Politicians running on a platform of how corrupt and incompetent politicians are will almost always do everything possible to prove it once they're elected.
A lot of this has to do with matters of scale. The US is the largest established democracy in the world (India has similar problems, and is not yet what I would consider established) so one can expect simplification for the masses.
We're only a little country over here but you wouldn't find too many people here reading a 1,000 page bill. Not many would even read a summarised version (and there are summarised versions of the healthcare bill available). But even without reading the bill in any form, I think everyone has the critical faculties to know that there won't really be a clause in it about death panels. But people want to believe such silliness, other people are happy to sell them such lies, and so they are told and they believe.
sebster wrote: (one of the more bizarre things in recent politics is the number of left wing youngsters around the world falling over themselves to show support for the guy, when if he was a local politician he be far too right wing for them).
I mean, he is black
sebster wrote:
I liked Pat Buchanan's effort, he was saying how dangerous it was to have concepts such like those in the bill. When it was pointed out no such concepts were in the bill, he retorted 'it's 1,000 pages!' Who could know what's in the bill, reading it is unthinkable.
That made me sad, because normally I respect Pat.
sebster wrote:
That's been the joke for a while. Politicians running on a platform of how corrupt and incompetent politicians are will almost always do everything possible to prove it once they're elected.
Time for me to get elected. Elect me Dakka! I hate Gwar!(that seems to limit my vote-field a great deal).
sebster wrote:
We're only a little country over here but you wouldn't find too many people here reading a 1,000 page bill. Not many would even read a summarised version (and there are summarised versions of the healthcare bill available). But even without reading the bill in any form, I think everyone has the critical faculties to know that there won't really be a clause in it about death panels. But people want to believe such silliness, other people are happy to sell them such lies, and so they are told and they believe.
Sadly, I'm forced to agree with you. The sadness isn't from your agreement, but from the agreement of Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris. Stains.
Ahtman wrote:This isn't how you feel about Obama, this is how you feel other people feel about Obama.
He's only a centrist if your center is a bit left of center. He is no where near as left as some want to make him out to be, but he does lean a bit left.
It depends how you look at it. If you accept centrist as the centre point of politics, then by US standards he's centre left. By the standard of Western style democracies he's centre right (one of the more bizarre things in recent politics is the number of left wing youngsters around the world falling over themselves to show support for the guy, when if he was a local politician he be far too right wing for them).
Strangely enough I am looking at the American President from the point of view of an American voter under American Politics. Whether China thinks he is right wing because he is right of their politics is unimportant to me. He is passing legislation through the American system and thus has to deal with the unique qualities of it as such. In that context he is left, the only one that really matters.
sebster wrote:On the other hand, you can ignore tha political axis and just look at his politics. 'Centrist' is often used to describe someone that looks to build support for their politics by building conensus support, who doesn't argue from ideological frameworks. That describes Obama's approach pretty well, I think.
That is one possible way of looking at moderate but not the only one. Even by this definition though his dialogue is more moderate than the reality of his politics. He talks a mean bi-partisan game but I'm not sure it is playing out beyond that.
I think that's probably a bigger factor in his international popularity that it is in his domestic popularity. But there's also the point that he's not Bush.
That made me sad, because normally I respect Pat.
Really? I mean, he's said some pretty outrageous stuff over the years. He's also said plenty of reasonable stuff, and is valued because he does speak his own mind and not parrot party position, but I'm surprised you'd have that much time for him. Interesting.
Time for me to get elected. Elect me Dakka! I hate Gwar!(that seems to limit my vote-field a great deal).
If hypothetical Dogma ran for hypothetical election I would hypothetically vote for him.
Sadly, I'm forced to agree with you. The sadness isn't from your agreement, but from the agreement of Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris. Stains.
Sure. Nor is it only the rightwing believing in nonsense, but lately it seems their nonsense is more ridiculous and more commonly believed. Maybe there isn't a great sweeping cause, maybe it's just hard to be a Republican in the wake of Bush, and they really need to believe some horrible things about the other side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Strangely enough I am looking at the American President from the point of view of an American voter under American Politics. Whether China thinks he is right wing because he is right of their politics is unimportant to me. He is passing legislation through the American system and thus has to deal with the unique qualities of it as such. In that context he is left, the only one that really matters.
Whereas, strangely enough, as I'm not an American I am looking at an international leader from the point of international politics .
That is one possible way of looking at moderate but not the only one. Even by this definition though his dialogue is more moderate than the reality of his politics. He talks a mean bi-partisan game but I'm not sure it is playing out beyond that.
That's a fair point, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm also not convinced it completely works out that way. Obama's plans of consensus building have fallen over, but I'm not sure that's because Obama never intended it, but because of the realities of US politics right now.
Time for me to get elected. Elect me Dakka! I hate Gwar!(that seems to limit my vote-field a great deal).
Feth the elections, with that sort of wide ranging policy and portfolio you got my vote, from now on I'll be calling you El Presidente, I'll bring in the tanks and prepare a firing squad. You'll get the biggest hat and most medals. Change everyone can believe in...Or else...
No-one has time to read a 1,000 page bill. There simply isn't time to read that much verbiage and get on with the rest of your job.
There was a cabinet minister (UK) on Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago discussing this very issue and she said she was unable to read anything more than summaries except of the most crucial legislation she dealt with.
One answer to the problem is not to write 1,000 page bills. Another is to let the details get sorted out through the committee stages.
BTW a key reason for the popularity of Obama among lots of non-US people is that he isn't Bush.
Right-wingers in the USA don't realise how unpopular Bush managed to make himself, and his country.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong or that anyone in the US should care about it.
You mean like sending ships to and bilions to help the victims of the Tsunami; sending armies to defend muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia; getting good men killed trying to keep murders from stealing food meant for people starving to death in Somalia; taking out a dictator who's kids got their jollies putting people into wood chippers? Have 40,000 troops in some pissant country to keep Dear Leader from invading again? Yea we're freaking evil and bad mannered. You mean like risking the lives of every man, woman, and child in the USA to provide a nuclear shield so Europe could sip coffee and declaim how boorish and bad mannered we are?
Nuts and get over yourselves. Obama's gone around for six months sucking the world's lower regions and no additional aid has come to stop Iran, to help in Afghanistan (despite that whole NATO treaty thing), anything. You cluck cluck how oh the world likes us but don't do gak different. Forget you we should go our own way. None of the rest of the world is worth one US serviceman's life, except UK/Australia/Canada who have been allies throughout.
Kilkrazy wrote:No-one has time to read a 1,000 page bill. There simply isn't time to read that much verbiage and get on with the rest of your job.
There was a cabinet minister (UK) on Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago discussing this very issue and she said she was unable to read anything more than summaries except of the most crucial legislation she dealt with.
One answer to the problem is not to write 1,000 page bills. Another is to let the details get sorted out through the committee stages.
You miss the point. they make huge documents so that they get passed through without true scrutiny.
Same reason why dictats are handed out in healthcare and education. they are so big a lot of damaging junk gets carried through. Most of all this gets passed onto local government. Sometimes the long bs gets translated down into something simple and nasty, such as 'you need to pass your budgets through us now'. knownin g some town and county councils (from two different parties and in several different areas) I am seeing a very nasty control trend. veiled under an enormous pile of junk.
The New Labour junta, yes it is one has passed a lot of laws on the backs of unrelated bills. other bills have transparnet double meanings.
If anyone wants to get all ignorant over this let me expalin this , anecdote, <smiles>. Q. How did Gordon Brown deal with the icelandic banks funds. A. Prevention of terrorism act. Now even the most ignorant dogma swallowing denier will have to accept, or should accept that Icelandic banking was not a terror issue. nevertheless a principle remains Dakkites should be familiar with the Law is RAW, intent means squat, furthermore some beleive the intent is to veil the laws.
Best, as in most frightening example is the new Mental Health act. The RAW initially allowed the state to detain ANYONE on the opinion of a single uncorroborated 'Mental Health Professional' who could be anyone appointed for the task by the Home Secretary. The victim (my term, but refering to whoever the state considers mad) has no appeal, even through thier doctors, and no doctor can overturn the 'Mental Health Professional''s verdict, and the verdict listed as his 'opinion' in the act need not be openly defended. Once detained the 'Mental Health Professional' can set strictures in up to IIRC six areas assuming the victim is released at all. These include limits on where the victim can go, who they can see, what they can do and stipulations on where they must live. These strictures have no expiry date built in and can be made permenant. Failure to adhere to any of these strictures places the victim at risk of arrest (thus making it a criminal law issue).
This Bill was passed in the Commons in 2007 but defeated and heavily ammended in the Lords. Undetered the government is trying to bring it back.
Crap like this gets passed because its heavily veiled in lengthy documentation, or in the case of the Mental Health act processed quietly. BBC doesnt cover it, the only way you get to find out is if you bother to read the acts yourself. The UK is sleepwalking into Stalinism, and most poeple are too blind to see it.
Lots of the kind of stuff you are talking about was discovered and covered by the better quality media e.g. Radio 4 and The Grauniad and warned about before the bills such as Terrorism Act 2000 was passed into law.
Parliament passed the Acts, probably by use of the government's majority, and they became law despite the warnings against them and problems have come up since as was predicted.
But on Obama, let's just quote "You're the President? I didn't vote for you.".
I mean he has said some good things like how education is the key to the future. However that doesn't make up for the fact that Mrs. Obama went to england for fish and chips on the taxpayers expense or how they used air force 1 to get a better look at the fireworks. Couple that with him saying that we all need to cutback expenses makes him look like a deustch.
It actually makes you wonder if healthcare reform would have a better chance if the Dems *didn't* have the large majority. That'd mean Pelosi and co. might have had to work in a more bipartisan manner up to this point, which might mean a GOP that didn't feel so backed into a corner and thus more willing to actually debate this particular issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @halonachos: The great irony is that some of the same people that told Gore supporters to "GET OVER IT" now say "Obama's not MY president."
Barack Obama is your president, just as George Bush was and just as Warren Harding or James Buchanan would have been if you'd lived back then. You don't have to respect the person, but you have to respect the rank/position.
reds8n wrote: Wait, you're now claiming that you helped overthrow a violent dictator ? Bet those Chileans are feeling pretty stupid now eh ?
Hussein wasn't violent?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:No-one has time to read a 1,000 page bill. There simply isn't time to read that much verbiage and get on with the rest of your job.
There was a cabinet minister (UK) on Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago discussing this very issue and she said she was unable to read anything more than summaries except of the most crucial legislation she dealt with.
One answer to the problem is not to write 1,000 page bills. Another is to let the details get sorted out through the committee stages.
You miss the point. they make huge documents so that they get passed through without true scrutiny.
Same reason why dictats are handed out in healthcare and education. they are so big a lot of damaging junk gets carried through. Most of all this gets passed onto local government. Sometimes the long bs gets translated down into something simple and nasty, such as 'you need to pass your budgets through us now'. knownin g some town and county councils (from two different parties and in several different areas) I am seeing a very nasty control trend. veiled under an enormous pile of junk.
The New Labour junta, yes it is one has passed a lot of laws on the backs of unrelated bills. other bills have transparnet double meanings.
If anyone wants to get all ignorant over this let me expalin this , anecdote, <smiles>. Q. How did Gordon Brown deal with the icelandic banks funds. A. Prevention of terrorism act. Now even the most ignorant dogma swallowing denier will have to accept, or should accept that Icelandic banking was not a terror issue. nevertheless a principle remains Dakkites should be familiar with the Law is RAW, intent means squat, furthermore some beleive the intent is to veil the laws.
Best, as in most frightening example is the new Mental Health act. The RAW initially allowed the state to detain ANYONE on the opinion of a single uncorroborated 'Mental Health Professional' who could be anyone appointed for the task by the Home Secretary. The victim (my term, but refering to whoever the state considers mad) has no appeal, even through thier doctors, and no doctor can overturn the 'Mental Health Professional''s verdict, and the verdict listed as his 'opinion' in the act need not be openly defended. Once detained the 'Mental Health Professional' can set strictures in up to IIRC six areas assuming the victim is released at all. These include limits on where the victim can go, who they can see, what they can do and stipulations on where they must live. These strictures have no expiry date built in and can be made permenant. Failure to adhere to any of these strictures places the victim at risk of arrest (thus making it a criminal law issue).
This Bill was passed in the Commons in 2007 but defeated and heavily ammended in the Lords. Undetered the government is trying to bring it back.
Crap like this gets passed because its heavily veiled in lengthy documentation, or in the case of the Mental Health act processed quietly. BBC doesnt cover it, the only way you get to find out is if you bother to read the acts yourself. The UK is sleepwalking into Stalinism, and most poeple are too blind to see it.
Actually, I don't have to respect the position seeing as though he's supposed to be our servant, not the other way around. Sometimes I believe the government should just go to hell, get burned down, and get rebuilt.
I respect the Constitution, not the government that supposedly represents it.
gorgon wrote:It actually makes you wonder if healthcare reform would have a better chance if the Dems *didn't* have the large majority. That'd mean Pelosi and co. might have had to work in a more bipartisan manner up to this point, which might mean a GOP that didn't feel so backed into a corner and thus more willing to actually debate this particular issue.
Yep. That or he didn't leave it, like the budget and stimulus nightmare, to the left wing of the Democratic Congress. Its like Bush leaving an amnibus security/snooping bill to be crafted by the Captain Frazzled and the Four Paranoids dance troop. What comes out is going to be slanted and unusuable. The fact its so long and full of nightmarish side bits is the exact product of that pureblood methodlogy.
What you're getting now is the heavy counterattack. If done properly that will even out the nonsense and we'll get something smaller but more productive. This is democracy in its finest form. Its nonviolent democratic WAR at its finest. I love the smell of chaotic republicanism in the morning! It smells like...victory.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @halonachos: The great irony is that some of the same people that told Gore supporters to "GET OVER IT" now say "Obama's not MY president."
Barack Obama is your president, just as George Bush was and just as Warren Harding or James Buchanan would have been if you'd lived back then. You don't have to respect the person, but you have to respect the rank/position.
You can respect the office, but think its current occupier could use improvement.
You mean like sending ships to and bilions to help the victims of the Tsunami; sending armies to defend muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia; getting good men killed trying to keep murders from stealing food meant for people starving to death in Somalia; taking out a dictator who's kids got their jollies putting people into wood chippers? Have 40,000 troops in some pissant country to keep Dear Leader from invading again? Yea we're freaking evil and bad mannered. You mean like risking the lives of every man, woman, and child in the USA to provide a nuclear shield so Europe could sip coffee and declaim how boorish and bad mannered we are?
Nuts and get over yourselves. Obama's gone around for six months sucking the world's lower regions and no additional aid has come to stop Iran, to help in Afghanistan (despite that whole NATO treaty thing), anything. You cluck cluck how oh the world likes us but don't do gak different. Forget you we should go our own way. None of the rest of the world is worth one US serviceman's life, except UK/Australia/Canada who have been allies throughout.
Ok this is where I get all Republican on ya'll. I agree 100% with Frazz on the issue of Bush Hate and America hate. Was Bush perfect? Nope..Is America Perfect...Nope. Bush made mistakes in the people he selected to "help" him govern. Especially Rumsfeld, and Cheney. However much I am personally disapointed in the way the Iraq war was handled, the thing people seem to forget is that when you wake a sleeping giant, trees tend to get knocked over. Is it right..not saying it is, I'm just being a realist.
On to the America hate...people seem to forget that the U.S.A. was the only country in 1945 with atomic bombs. If we really wanted to, we could have held the world hostage or bombed our way across every capital city in the world.
Cairnius wrote:
Just a few examples. You can't judge a President until he is done. It's stupid to do otherwise. I don't give a gak what anyone thinks of Obama personally. I care about whether he leaves the country in better shape than he found it.
Wait, I thought part of living in a democracy was being ever-vigilant; always looking out for your own rights, and ensuring that your representatives understand what you want, or don't want done. That whole business pretty much requires forming an opinion on the current leadership (note that I am referring to the leader as defined by his policy, not his personality).
The original question was "Barack Obama...what do you think?" That question could be taken many ways. I took it as a question about his general worth as a President, which is what I spoke to. They way I took the question, it cannot be answered yet.
And let's just toss out the comment about being vigilant. I believe the days of Americans really being able to effect their democracy are long behind us. Even when you see this "tremendous grass roots movement" behind Obama it doesn't actually reflect his popularity or political capital. He can't even push past Republican obstructionists and make his own party fall into line.
In terms of policy - other than the eternal debate over how much influence the President really has over the economy, what has Obama really done so far that we're seeing concrete results of? We have a little more money in my paycheck, the world doesn't seem to hate us that much, some people are getting money for car trade-ins, he gave out a nice array of Medals of Freedom, and he's putting more troops into Afghanistan whose results we aren't really seeing yet.
I don't give him credit for pulling us back in Iraq, that was going to happen no matter who was in office because the Iraqi government set those terms and timelines, not us.
dogma wrote:
And, on that note.
Cairnius wrote:
Thanks to Bush and the Republican majorities in Congress for six of his eight years that is unfortunately not a very high bar to meet...
Meet...
Cairnius wrote:
3) Someone who doesn't understand how long it takes to get things done in Washington and/or the amount of time between legislation getting passed or policy enacted and actually taking effect enough for anyone to have an intelligent opinion as to whether said legislation/policy was good or not.
Your argument against forming opinions with respect to the current President has roughly the same amount of worth when applied to recent Presidents. It almost seems as if your entire list was constructed as a form of self-critiquing projection.
We've already seen the results of Bush's policies. We're living them. Arguing the point is just mind-boggling in its lack of common sense - therefore, trying to contrast those two statements of mine makes no logical sense whatsoever. Apples and oranges in the extreme.
Perhaps Bush is an anomaly historically due to how immediately his policies had drastic and lasting effects, but then again he would also be a historical anomaly in just how poor a President he was.
Frazzled wrote:Pinochet? what does Pinochet have to do with anything?
Because for every "violent dictator" you've overthrown you've helped install and place in power another one somewhere else just as bad. You're more than happy to shout on and on about all the "good" you've done, yet seem woefully quiet or ignorant when it comes to any harm you've done, to the point where any criticism of the USA is seem as some monstrous and unjust form of attack.
You being used in the general sense here of course, Mr. Frazzled not yet being personally responsible for the foreighn policy of his country. Yet.
Frazzled wrote:Pinochet? what does Pinochet have to do with anything?
Because for every "violent dictator" you've overthrown you've helped install and place in power another one somewhere else just as bad. You're more than happy to shout on and on about all the "good" you've done, yet seem woefully quiet or ignorant when it comes to any harm you've done, to the point where any criticism of the USA is seem as some monstrous and unjust form of attack.
You being used in the general sense here of course, Mr. Frazzled not yet being personally responsible for the foreighn policy of his country. Yet.
Its not the point of "any" criticism, its the nattering nabobs who always inevitably end a thread dragging it into America evil. Nuts. As stated, I am more than willing for the US to go its own way. To mutilate the title of an old Japanese book A US That Can Say No
I haven't read the whole thread so far, but I wanted to add my thoughts anyway. As you can see from the little flag next to my avatar I live in Germany. So I don't get quite as much information about his politics as you guys across the pond nor do I feel the impcat he makes on taxes or the healthcare system and stuff like that.
I guess I kinda got pulled along with the pro-Obama crowd. So far I don't see why he should screw up anything as much as his predecessor did.
I think that Obama is like a kid reaching their hand into the cookie jar. He's trying to get as much spending as he can get before the public catches him and his reckless policies become politically untenable with the 2010 elections coming around. The Democrat Congress/Senate are the kids hanging around at the bottom of the stool Obama's standing on to reach the cookie jar egging him on to grab more cookies. Without the threat of a veto that they faced under a Republican President (not that he didn't have reckless spening of his own) they're trying to get as much as they can while they're not having to face campaign adds pointing out their irresponsible spending.
halonachos wrote:I mean he has said some good things like how education is the key to the future. However that doesn't make up for the fact that Mrs. Obama went to england for fish and chips on the taxpayers expense or how they used air force 1 to get a better look at the fireworks. Couple that with him saying that we all need to cutback expenses makes him look like a deustch.
Uhm.....deustch? German? It makes him look German? Or did you mean to say "douche"? By the way, he is the president after all, and that job does come with a few perks. I mean, that's kinda like why everybody wants to be the president. Are you saying you wouldn't partake if you were the leader of the free world?
generalgrog wrote:[On to the America hate...people seem to forget that the U.S.A. was the only country in 1945 with atomic bombs. If we really wanted to, we could have held the world hostage or bombed our way across every capital city in the world.
Except that we couldn't, because we blew our two working bombs over Japan, and really didn't kill all that many people (we had a couple more in development, but hardly the capability to start mass producing A-bombs). Also, Truman wasn't really that keen on the idea of dropping them in the first place you may recall. They were powerful and shocking, yes, but nothing a wing of b-17's couldn't do with a dedicated carpet bombing raid. Basically, the Japanese folded instead of calling our bluff, because if we would have had to invade Japan, it would have been kinda ugly.
Some perks yes. Freaking out downtown Manhatten for a PR pic that could have been done on photoshop-no (and why does Air Force one need PR again?)
At the end of WWII the US had the largest empire in the history of mankind. To quote some nice LOTR, we had but to reach out our hand and the world would have been ours. But we gave it up. No other nation ever voluntarily did that.
Eh, depends how you define empire. After WW2, America definitely had an empire but it was rivaled by the Soviet Union. We had an empire via several military bases and embassies across the world and more importantly America's has had the world by its balls in terms of economic power. America never really let go and just grew instead.
As for that Air Force One PR stunt; that was a relatively bad idea however speaking as a student pilot myself I sure as hell wouldn't pass up that opportunity. Thats a once in a lifetime chance to fly low in a post 9/11 NYC!
Yes, but we had the nukes before russia did so, a few here, a few there and... OH LOOK IT IS AMERICA THE WORLD'S CONQUEROR!!
Oh, and no I wouldn't use air force 1 to go get fish and chips or to punch jervis in the face, no matter how tempting it would be. To tell the truth, I hate spending money that isn't my own.
Tyras wrote:I think that Obama is like a kid reaching their hand into the cookie jar. He's trying to get as much spending as he can get before the public catches him and his reckless policies become politically untenable with the 2010 elections coming around. The Democrat Congress/Senate are the kids hanging around at the bottom of the stool Obama's standing on to reach the cookie jar egging him on to grab more cookies. Without the threat of a veto that they faced under a Republican President (not that he didn't have reckless spening of his own) they're trying to get as much as they can while they're not having to face campaign adds pointing out their irresponsible spending.
This would make a lot more sense if the GOP didn't have a history of reckless spending, as evidenced by the Reagan and Bush II administrations. The GOP stopped being the party of financial sanity a looooooong time ago. The only difference between the GOP and Dems on spending is WHAT they want to spend our taxes on.
If they ever get back being a party of fiscal restraint and stop shoving puritianism down my throat, they might start capturing the vote of this registered independent.
Look, the US is the dominant power in the world. It has exercised that power to do some very good things, contributing to the defeat of Germany, defeating Japan, the Marshall Plan and plenty of others. It has also used the power to do some horrible and or stupid things, engineering the coup that put Pinochet in power, or that whole Iraq thing. It has a history full of good and bad.
Reasoned commentary on US foreign policy needs to recognise both sides.
reds8n wrote: Wait, you're now claiming that you helped overthrow a violent dictator ? Bet those Chileans are feeling pretty stupid now eh ?
Hussein wasn't violent?
Before or after "we" sold him all those weapons ?
Oh, you mean all of that Russian, Chinese and Frence equipment that the Iraqi army was using? Don't recall any US equipment being used against us.
We gave Iraq substantial aid back when we considered them the lesser evil compared to the religious fundamentalists (mainly Iran) in the region. IIRC, there's a photo op pic out there from the 1970s with Saddam and (ironically) either Rumsfeld or Cheney (can't remember which). I can't tell you what percentage was weapons, cash, etc., but we absolutely did help fund Iraq's war vs. Iran. (Iran who was our enemy because they hated the Shah, whom the U.S. helped set up.)
We prop up a dictator, dictator turns on us or becomes less useful, we knock him down and prop up a new one, rinse and repeat. You'd think we'd learn eventually.
He's a dastardly, ghastardly, shnasterdly, schnook, Trying to brainwash our brains, With his gobbledy guk. I know what he's up to pal. He's trying to shatter our morale. He's trying to stir up discontent. And seize the reigns of government. He's trying to throw sand in our eyes. He's trying to kill free enterprise. And raise the cost of figs and dates, And wreck our compound interest rates. And shut our schools, And steal our jewels, And even change our football rules. Take away our garden tools, And lock us up in vestibules...
Tyras wrote:I think that Obama is like a kid reaching their hand into the cookie jar. He's trying to get as much spending as he can get before the public catches him and his reckless policies become politically untenable with the 2010 elections coming around. The Democrat Congress/Senate are the kids hanging around at the bottom of the stool Obama's standing on to reach the cookie jar egging him on to grab more cookies. Without the threat of a veto that they faced under a Republican President (not that he didn't have reckless spening of his own) they're trying to get as much as they can while they're not having to face campaign adds pointing out their irresponsible spending.
:sigh:
Stimulus spending in response to economic downturn as per Keynesian theory. It's the most basic macroeconomic theory there is, and very intuitive. Go read about and you'll have a much better understanding of the fiscal policy of your government.
Tyras wrote:I think that Obama is like a kid reaching their hand into the cookie jar. He's trying to get as much spending as he can get before the public catches him and his reckless policies become politically untenable with the 2010 elections coming around. The Democrat Congress/Senate are the kids hanging around at the bottom of the stool Obama's standing on to reach the cookie jar egging him on to grab more cookies. Without the threat of a veto that they faced under a Republican President (not that he didn't have reckless spening of his own) they're trying to get as much as they can while they're not having to face campaign adds pointing out their irresponsible spending.
:sigh:
Stimulus spending in response to economic downturn as per Keynesian theory. It's the most basic macroeconomic theory there is, and very intuitive. Go read about and you'll have a much better understanding of the fiscal policy of your government.
1. Never proven to actually, you know, work or anything.
2. They've spent 10% of the "emergency funds" to date. Most of that money was in tax rebates/abatements (whatever you call it). The actual "spending side of it is materially insignificant. The emergency stimulus was Dem porkbarrel pure and simple.
Looks like yet another thread turned into "America is Da Evil!!!!! RAWR!!"
Seriously, no other country on the face of the earth has ANY room to talk about anything we do or have done, cause in your shoddy past.. you have done things just as bad if not worse.
sebster wrote:
Really? I mean, he's said some pretty outrageous stuff over the years. He's also said plenty of reasonable stuff, and is valued because he does speak his own mind and not parrot party position, but I'm surprised you'd have that much time for him. Interesting.
The way I look at is that he's somewhat like me. I've said some pretty whack stuff over time (though I'm 23, this is to be expected), but I've also said some insightful stuff. Ideologically we certainly don't agree, mostly because I strive to be without ideology, but I can appreciate his passion in the same way I appreciate my own.
sebster wrote:
If hypothetical Dogma ran for hypothetical election I would hypothetically vote for him.
And so it begins...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cairnius wrote:
We've already seen the results of Bush's policies. We're living them. Arguing the point is just mind-boggling in its lack of common sense - therefore, trying to contrast those two statements of mine makes no logical sense whatsoever. Apples and oranges in the extreme.
Wait, what? So we aren't living Obama's policy, but we're living Bush's because some arbitrary period of time (6 months) has passed since he left office. That's absurd, absolutely absurd. You're simply making excuses predicated on your own ideological affiliations.
Cairnius wrote:
Perhaps Bush is an anomaly historically due to how immediately his policies had drastic and lasting effects, but then again he would also be a historical anomaly in just how poor a President he was.
This is all predicated on the notion that he was the single causal force for all of our suffered ills, which doesn't really stand when you consider the various trends established by previous Administrations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
1. Never proven to actually, you know, work or anything.
You forgot about WWII? I didn't think you were that old.
Frazzled wrote:
2. They've spent 10% of the "emergency funds" to date. Most of that money was in tax rebates/abatements (whatever you call it). The actual "spending side of it is materially insignificant. The emergency stimulus was Dem porkbarrel pure and simple.
Only if you refuse to acknowledge tax breaks as a form of spending.
Cairnius wrote:
We've already seen the results of Bush's policies. We're living them. Arguing the point is just mind-boggling in its lack of common sense - therefore, trying to contrast those two statements of mine makes no logical sense whatsoever. Apples and oranges in the extreme.
Wait, what? So we aren't living Obama's policy, but we're living Bush's because some arbitrary period of time (6 months) has passed since he left office. That's absurd, absolutely absurd. You're simply making excuses predicated on your own ideological affiliations.
Bush was President for EIGHT YEARS. Obama has been President for six months. We are living Bush's policies because they have been in place for quite some time. Obama has only implemented a few, and several of them have yet to bear any real fruit (stimulus, changed plan of action in the war).
If I am making excuses you are arguing for its own sake. Pick another, more viable argument if you want to intellectually fence with me. This one of yours makes no sense whatsoever. We have had plenty of time to begin making some judgments on Dumbya. Much longer than six months. We're nowhere near even preliminary judgments of Obama along the same lines that make any sense.
dogma wrote:
Cairnius wrote:
Perhaps Bush is an anomaly historically due to how immediately his policies had drastic and lasting effects, but then again he would also be a historical anomaly in just how poor a President he was.
This is all predicated on the notion that he was the single causal force for all of our suffered ills, which doesn't really stand when you consider the various trends established by previous Administrations.
You will usually hear me argue that the President has much less power and influence than most people think he does. Bush does not have to be a single, causal force to be judged. He is the Commander In Chief - Iraq and Afghanistan get laid on his doorstep. I am pretty sure that Gore would not have invaded Iraq, and that the retaliation against the Taliban would have taken a different form.
The tax cuts were more standard Republican ideology than Bush's idea, but he did push the cuts. He takes a large portion of the blame as he was leading a Republican legislative majority.
He did basically let Cheney run the white house and in so doing gave the Neo-Cons unpredecented power.
He did allow Guantanamo to become a clearinghouse for pissing all over our laws. He did champion the Patriot Act. He did give the right-wing religious whackos and extreme right-wingers access to the executive branch.
If Bush's presidency were to be summed up, it would be "Took vacations and let other people run the country for him." He was "the decider," but who gave him the information from which he made his decisions and how much did he inquire, how much leadership did he show?
History can blame Bush for all of this. His lack of leadership allowed the United States to be run by narrow interests for eight years, and that's his fault. He could have manned up and actually been a President any time he wanted, and he chose not to, probably because he knew he was hopelessly over his head.
Cairnius wrote:
Bush was President for EIGHT YEARS. Obama has been President for six months. We are living Bush's policies because they have been in place for quite some time. Obama has only implemented a few, and several of them have yet to bear any real fruit (stimulus, changed plan of action in the war).
OH NO! CAPITALS! Eight years is nothing. For someone who discusses the lesson of history so freely, you seem horribly unable to actually apply them to your own observation.
Cairnius wrote:
If I am making excuses you are arguing for its own sake. Pick another, more viable argument if you want to intellectually fence with me. This one of yours makes no sense whatsoever. We have had plenty of time to begin making some judgments on Dumbya. Much longer than six months. We're nowhere near even preliminary judgments of Obama along the same lines that make any sense.
I like this topic just fine. You're vulnerable here, because your stance is moronic. The deprivation of agency becomes no argument.
Cairnius wrote:
You will usually hear me argue that the President has much less power and influence than most people think he does. Bush does not have to be a single, causal force to be judged. He is the Commander In Chief - Iraq and Afghanistan get laid on his doorstep. I am pretty sure that Gore would not have invaded Iraq, and that the retaliation against the Taliban would have taken a different form.
Wait, the President has little power, but can be blamed for major actions in foreign policy? That's contradictory.
Also, what would the retaliation against the Taliban have looked like under a Gore Administration? How would it have been different?
Cairnius wrote:
The tax cuts were more standard Republican ideology than Bush's idea, but he did push the cuts. He takes a large portion of the blame as he was leading a Republican legislative majority.
More waffling stupidity. If you're going to blame him, blame him. If not, make a case based on intellectual consideration.
Also, when did blame become useful? This looks more like catharsis than argument.
Cairnius wrote:
He did basically let Cheney run the white house and in so doing gave the Neo-Cons unpredecented power.
He makes a coherent point! But a bad one. Cheney may have run the White House, but he was only able to do so as a result of the Neo-Con saturation of the Executive. Cheney had power because the Neo-Cons were everywhere, not because Bush delegated his authority.
Cairnius wrote:
He did allow Guantanamo to become a clearinghouse for pissing all over our laws. He did champion the Patriot Act. He did give the right-wing religious whackos and extreme right-wingers access to the executive branch.
Oh, dear sweet Jesus. Shall I litanize the near comprehensive support for all of these initiatives? Or should I just point out the Realpolitik justification which underpins them?
Cairnius wrote:
If Bush's presidency were to be summed up, it would be "Took vacations and let other people run the country for him." He was "the decider," but who gave him the information from which he made his decisions and how much did he inquire, how much leadership did he show?
Sic Semper Obama.
Cairnius wrote:
History can blame Bush for all of this. His lack of leadership allowed the United States to be run by narrow interests for eight years, and that's his fault. He could have manned up and actually been a President any time he wanted, and he chose not to, probably because he knew he was hopelessly over his head.
History can blame him? When did it become history? I thought his policies were matters of current events?
I tip my cap to you, armchair intellectual. You remind me why I disdain the academy.
dogma wrote:OH NO! CAPITALS! Eight years is nothing. For someone who discusses the lesson of history so freely, you seem horribly unable to actually apply them to your own observation.
Eight years is more than enough to begin to judge Bush on his Presidency considering how radical so many of his policy stances were and therefore the rapidity with which they took effect. I say "begin to judge" not "make a final judgment." Your protestations would only make sense if I said the latter. I didn't, and have not, therefore they don't.
dogma wrote:
Cairnius wrote:
You will usually hear me argue that the President has much less power and influence than most people think he does. Bush does not have to be a single, causal force to be judged. He is the Commander In Chief - Iraq and Afghanistan get laid on his doorstep. I am pretty sure that Gore would not have invaded Iraq, and that the retaliation against the Taliban would have taken a different form.
Wait, the President has little power, but can be blamed for major actions in foreign policy? That's contradictory.
Also, what would the retaliation against the Taliban have looked like under a Gore Administration? How would it have been different?
When you make straw man arguments you begin to lose points. "Has much less power and influence than most people think he does" does not equal "has little power." It's one thing to misquote someone and turn it into a straw man if you're misquoting a speech or a piece of text which isn't readily available to check for the literal quotation, but my post was right above yours here...
The statement was also a general one, and then we moved into a specific arena of Executive power, namely approval over military action. It's not contradictory if the two statements aren't properly related to one another.
The President is the Commander In Chief. By the letter of the law, any and all overt military actions taken require the okay from the President. So, when it comes to military action, yes he can be blamed for it.
What do I expect Gore would have done? Air strikes followed by special ops missions, and we might have had bin Laden by now, just maybe. Flooding the area with conventional troops and driving the Taliban "to zee hills" was a formula for failure from the get-go.
dogma wrote:
Cairnius wrote:
The tax cuts were more standard Republican ideology than Bush's idea, but he did push the cuts. He takes a large portion of the blame as he was leading a Republican legislative majority.
More waffling stupidity. If you're going to blame him, blame him. If not, make a case based on intellectual consideration.
Also, when did blame become useful? This looks more like catharsis than argument.
"Moronic" and "stupidity" in one post. Temper, temper, dogma. Don't lose face, here. Go hit the weights and you'll calm down a titch.
Blaming Bush solely for the tax cuts would be stupidity, hence I did not do it. He shares blame, hence "a large portion," not "all." Again, this is just how our government works. You can't give him more blame than the Legislature that passed the tax cuts.
Blame is never useful? Interesting world you live in.
dogma wrote:Cheney may have run the White House, but he was only able to do so as a result of the Neo-Con saturation of the Executive. Cheney had power because the Neo-Cons were everywhere, not because Bush delegated his authority.
Bush didn't have to let the Neo-Cons saturate the Executive. He was the President. It was his branch of the government for the time during which he held the office. The Neo-Con saturation, as you put it, was spearheaded by Cheney, and Bush could have reined Cheney in at any point.
He did not. Direct, causal event.
dogma wrote:
Cairnius wrote:
He did allow Guantanamo to become a clearinghouse for pissing all over our laws. He did champion the Patriot Act. He did give the right-wing religious whackos and extreme right-wingers access to the executive branch.
Oh, dear sweet Jesus. Shall I litanize the near comprehensive support for all of these initiatives? Or should I just point out the Realpolitik justification which underpins them?
In a state of war, the power of the bully pulpit increases exponentially. The Legislature would have pretty much gotten behind anything the President said at that point. They had no choice. Therefore, if you are referring to comprehensive support for Guantanamo and the Patriot Act that's pretty thin ice to stand on. The Democrats didn't have the numbers to oppose any of this, and couple that with the realities of wartime politics and they had no choice but to fall into line.
Had the President not put these things into play, however, they would have not had them to fall into line behind. You're letting Bush off very easy. Neither of these things would have taken place if Bush had stood against them. You wouldn't have seen them take place with Gore in office and Republican majorities in the Legislature.
dogma wrote:
Cairnius wrote:
If Bush's presidency were to be summed up, it would be "Took vacations and let other people run the country for him." He was "the decider," but who gave him the information from which he made his decisions and how much did he inquire, how much leadership did he show?
Sic Semper Obama.
"Thus always to Obama?"
dogma wrote:
Cairnius wrote:
History can blame Bush for all of this. His lack of leadership allowed the United States to be run by narrow interests for eight years, and that's his fault. He could have manned up and actually been a President any time he wanted, and he chose not to, probably because he knew he was hopelessly over his head.
History can blame him? When did it become history? I thought his policies were matters of current events?
I tip my cap to you, armchair intellectual. You remind me why I disdain the academy.
History - took place in the past. Bush is no longer President. His Presidency became history the moment Barack Obama took office.
For someone who professes disdain for the academy you do an excellent impersonation of the disaffected intellectuals who, upon realizing that thought is an ability rarely valued and rather useless in the world most of the time, adopt an attitude of smug superiority and hide within its ivory towers.
Don't take this all so seriously, dogma. I'm having fun, and I hope I come across that way. Relax a little, you'll live longer.
Wrexasaur wrote:Trust me... Dogma can throw down internet style!!!
I’m not impressed thus far, but then again this is a pretty lightweight environment. I could count the number of serious debaters here on one hand, which is no criticism as this is a 40K site after all.
I'm always interested in how internet debaters would do in public. I'm much better in person than online...it's one thing to see people compose responses in text, another to see them think extremely rapidly on their feet. And also to be able to do so while entertaining and winning over a crowd.
I think watching dogma lose his cool in person would probably make me laugh with extreme merriment. Worth the price of a ticket.
Cairnius wrote:"Moronic" and "stupidity" in one post. Temper, temper, dogma. Don't lose face, here. Go hit the weights and you'll calm down a titch.
Blaming Bush solely for the tax cuts would be stupidity, hence I did not do it. He shares blame, hence "a large portion," not "all." Again, this is just how our government works. You can't give him more blame than the Legislature that passed the tax cuts.
Blame is never useful? Interesting world you live in.
Hah... you said stupid. Wearing too many shades only makes you look like the Guvernator... and Dogma is cool, you good sir, are most clearly not .
I think watching dogma lose his cool in person would probably make me laugh with extreme merriment. Worth the price of a ticket
Sorry mate... but EXTREME merriment? Jolly old Sant-E Claus in this piece .
Hell yes, extreme merriment! Watching people lose their gak is one of the funniest things imaginable, especially if it's over something trivial. You can't tell me you've never enjoyed the guilty pleasure, like watching someone lose their mind because their favorite sports team lost even though they had no bets placed. That cracks me up every time.
It's difficult to demonstrate true awesomeness online. The internet is a realm of bs, anonymous missives that hold little meaning as no one is really responsible for anything they have to say. I have that debate with my internet-famous wife all the time and it really pisses her off, but it's only when she actually goes out into the real world and does book readings or meetings or rallies and things like that, face-to-face, that I think she's really making a difference. Otherwise, it's just some kind of cross between pure entertainment or mental flossing expressed in words or pure rambling flowing into the text...
Cairnius wrote:
Eight years is more than enough to begin to judge Bush on his Presidency considering how radical so many of his policy stances were and therefore the rapidity with which they took effect. I say "begin to judge" not "make a final judgment." Your protestations would only make sense if I said the latter. I didn't, and have not, therefore they don't.
You didn't say any of that. You simply made a claim to judgment, which is final by definition. Learn your words son.
Cairnius wrote:
When you make straw man arguments you begin to lose points. "Has much less power and influence than most people think he does" does not equal "has little power." It's one thing to misquote someone and turn it into a straw man if you're misquoting a speech or a piece of text which isn't readily available to check for the literal quotation, but my post was right above yours here...
We're turning our positions on logic now? I thought that went out the door when you cited 'people'.
Cairnius wrote:
The statement was also a general one, and then we moved into a specific arena of Executive power, namely approval over military action. It's not contradictory if the two statements aren't properly related to one another
The President is the Commander In Chief. By the letter of the law, any and all overt military actions taken require the okay from the President. So, when it comes to military action, yes he can be blamed for it.
I can also blame the public for having elected him. Blame is a funny thing in that it tends to spread like fire once its accepted as a logical construct. Hence it being useless.
Cairnius wrote:
What do I expect Gore would have done? Air strikes followed by special ops missions, and we might have had bin Laden by now, just maybe. Flooding the area with conventional troops and driving the Taliban "to zee hills" was a formula for failure from the get-go.
You haven't read much about Afghanistan, have you? Air strikes and special-ops missions is pretty much how the 'war' was conducted from the beginning.
Cairnius wrote:
"Moronic" and "stupidity" in one post. Temper, temper, dogma. Don't lose face, here. Go hit the weights and you'll calm down a titch.
Aw, look at the prof. trying to bait.
Cairnius wrote:
Blaming Bush solely for the tax cuts would be stupidity, hence I did not do it. He shares blame, hence "a large portion," not "all." Again, this is just how our government works. You can't give him more blame than the Legislature that passed the tax cuts.
True. I misread that segment of your post.
Cairnius wrote:
Blame is never useful? Interesting world you live in.
See above.
Cairnius wrote:
Bush didn't have to let the Neo-Cons saturate the Executive. He was the President. It was his branch of the government for the time during which he held the office. The Neo-Con saturation, as you put it, was spearheaded by Cheney, and Bush could have reined Cheney in at any point.
The Neo-Con saturation predates Bush, by several years.
Cairnius wrote:
He did not. Direct, causal event.
Bukharin could have killed Stalin. Direct, causal events.
Cairnius wrote:
In a state of war, the power of the bully pulpit increases exponentially. The Legislature would have pretty much gotten behind anything the President said at that point. They had no choice. Therefore, if you are referring to comprehensive support for Guantanamo and the Patriot Act that's pretty thin ice to stand on. The Democrats didn't have the numbers to oppose any of this, and couple that with the realities of wartime politics and they had no choice but to fall into line.
They had a choice. Again, the removal of agency becomes no argument.
Cairnius wrote:
Had the President not put these things into play, however, they would have not had them to fall into line behind. You're letting Bush off very easy. Neither of these things would have taken place if Bush had stood against them. You wouldn't have seen them take place with Gore in office and Republican majorities in the Legislature.
No, I'm simply refusing to remove causal impetus from the other actors in question.
Cairnius wrote:
"Thus always to Obama?"
Yep.
Cairnius wrote:
History - took place in the past. Bush is no longer President. His Presidency became history the moment Barack Obama took office.
And yet we're living his polciies...
Cairnius wrote:
For someone who professes disdain for the academy you do an excellent impersonation of the disaffected intellectuals who, upon realizing that thought is an ability rarely valued and rather useless in the world most of the time, adopt an attitude of smug superiority and hide within its ivory towers.
I'm self-hating.
Cairnius wrote:
Don't take this all so seriously, dogma. I'm having fun, and I hope I come across that way. Relax a little, you'll live longer.
This is fun. Aggression is amusing.
Cairnius wrote:
I’m not impressed thus far, but then again this is a pretty lightweight environment. I could count the number of serious debaters here on one hand, which is no criticism as this is a 40K site after all.
I'm always interested in how internet debaters would do in public. I'm much better in person than online...it's one thing to see people compose responses in text, another to see them think extremely rapidly on their feet. And also to be able to do so while entertaining and winning over a crowd.
Funny thing about public debate, facts cease to matter.
Funny thing about any debate, the opinion of the debaters never matters.
Cairnius wrote:
I think watching dogma lose his cool in person would probably make me laugh with extreme merriment. Worth the price of a ticket.
If you laugh, you won't be detached, If you aren't detahced, emotion will play. If emotion plays...well, it gets interesting.
Dogma wrote:You haven't read much about Afghanistan, have you? Air strikes and special-ops missions is pretty much how the 'war' was conducted from the beginning.
As soon as they ran out of Navy seals with lasers on their heads they started making Swiss cheese out of the mountains .
The fact remains that one of the most "media-frenzied" parts of the war (from my memory at least) was how many goddam passover ramadan Sundays with extra sour cream explosives they actually "happened" to have dropped... and drop they did ever so liberm... conservatively. Funny how the... okay I will leave now -HAH- ...
Out of curiosity could Cairnius be a "Concern Troll" ? Perhaps this a superbly suiting tangent to this conversation. I am interested in Troll research, especially the false Troll/ actually angry dude face... or something along those lines.
Anyway...
Wiki wrote:In a more recent example, The Hill published an op-ed piece titled "Dems: Ignore 'Concern Trolls'." Again, the concern trolls in question were not Internet participants; they were Republicans offering public advice and warnings to the Democrats. The author defines "concern trolling" as "offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient."
Yes, I choose to quote Wiki quite often, GET OFF DEEZ NUTZE!!!
Diggity-Dogmatic DJ wrote:If you laugh, you won't be detached, If you aren't detahced, emotion will play. If emotion plays...well, it gets interesting.
Cairnius wrote:Hell yes, extreme merriment! Watching people lose their gak is one of the funniest things imaginable, especially if it's over something trivial. You can't tell me you've never enjoyed the guilty pleasure, like watching someone lose their mind because their favorite sports team lost even though they had no bets placed. That cracks me up every time.
Well, I'm not big into schaenfreude, and eventually the reality of people losing their cool unnerves me more than anything. There are times it's amusing to be sure, but I'm not sure is the funniest thing imaginable.
It's difficult to demonstrate true awesomeness online.
Which makes it all the more impressive when it happens.
The internet is a realm of bs, anonymous missives that hold little meaning as no one is really responsible for anything they have to say.
Come now anonymity ain't what it used to be. Most of us post here in at best a thinly concealed way. We don't list out home addresses in our profiles, but not every internet site is 4chan. And that's ignoring the inherent value of a persona in an environment like this. I don't know who dogma is IRL, but I know what his person on Dakka is, and he has a very good reputation. That makes him perhaps a chimera, but not anonymous.
In addition, anonymous missives have had profound influence in history. The Federalist papers are a classic example.
I have that debate with my internet-famous wife all the time and it really pisses her off, but it's only when she actually goes out into the real world and does book readings or meetings or rallies and things like that, face-to-face, that I think she's really making a difference. Otherwise, it's just some kind of cross between pure entertainment or mental flossing expressed in words or pure rambling flowing into the text...
I don't know if the above is just the result of "I got beat so I'm taking my toys and going home," if it's an inability to connect current phenomenon with historical trends, or just plain old academic snobbery, but it's pretty clueless. Yes, the internet allows every jack off with an opinion to vent it. The comments sections in daily newspapers and youtube make me want to weep.
That does not mean everybody online is an idiot nor does it make the medium inherently less valuable than any other means of communication.
To go back to the Federalist papers, pretty much anybody could print up pamphlets to get a point across. I"m sure not every pamplet in colonial America was as good as Common Sense, but the medium allowed ideas to travel in new and interesting ways.
If you find internet arguments too rough and tumble, that's fine. It's not for everybody and also tends not to really accomplish much (unlike all those other forms of debate that regularly settle things with finality). If thinking being able to defend your positions on the Dakka OT forum is beneath you, well, maybe it'll help you sleep at night. We don't mind.
Wrexasaur wrote:
As soon as they ran out of Navy seals with lasers on their heads they started making Swiss cheese out of the mountains .
Its all Predator Drones and Guinea Pig Soldiers...
Wrexasaur wrote:
The fact remains that one of the most "media-frenzied" parts of the war (from my memory at least) was how many goddam passover ramadan Sundays with extra sour cream explosives they actually "happened" to have dropped... and drop they did ever so liberm... conservatively. Funny how the... okay I will leave now -HAH- ...
Christ! Its an opium poppy! Kill it with fire!
Wrexasaur wrote:
Out of curiosity could Cairnius be a "Concern Troll" ? Perhaps this a superbly suiting tangent to this conversation. I am interested in Troll research, especially the false Troll/ actually angry dude face... or something along those lines.
Interesting point. He actually remind me of myself, to a disturbing extent. That's most likely the source of my hostility towards him. I really need to learn how to control that. Damned hormones, always getting the better of me.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Yes, I choose to quote Wiki quite often, GET OFF DEEZ NUTZE!!!
Despite what the old school says, wiki is pretty reliable. If only as a means of instigating deeper inquiry, or participating in debates on internet forums which are devoid of intrinsic meaning.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Speak wisely you do...
It seems I have my moments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:I don't know who dogma is IRL, but I know what his person on Dakka is, and he has a very good reputation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Meanwhile, elsewhere in the thread...
Orlanth wrote:
The New Labour junta, yes it is one has passed a lot of laws on the backs of unrelated bills. other bills have transparnet double meanings.
New Labor is an absolutist military regime? When did that become reality? Are you trying to be poetic?
Orlanth wrote:
The UK is sleepwalking into Stalinism, and most poeple are too blind to see it.
You can't sleepwalk into a mode of of governance characterized by the violent seizure of power.
In any case the road from liberalism to Stalinism runs through Trotskyism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
At the end of WWII the US had the largest empire in the history of mankind. To quote some nice LOTR, we had but to reach out our hand and the world would have been ours. But we gave it up. No other nation ever voluntarily did that.
Squick!?! We gave up our empire? Voluntarily?
1: We never gave up our empire. Its still alive and kicking.
2: You've proven yourself exceptionally fond of the notion that power can only be taken. Why are you positing otherwise here?
3: While we did avoid the acquisition of certain liberties, it wasn't as a result of charity. Following WWII the US was quite keen on the fronting it ideology of exceptionalism, which hinged on the notion that the old ways of Europe were immoral. Compound this with a general tendency to overestimate the strength of the Soviet Union (with a good deal of misappropriated ideological brotherhood) mixed with a fetish for American weakness (really just a poor assessment of forces all around), and you have recipe for business as usual with respect to the interaction of political realism/idealism.
Wrexasaur wrote:Yes, I choose to quote Wiki quite often, GET OFF DEEZ NUTZE!!!
Aww...but as Vince says:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote:
Zathras wrote:
reds8n wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
reds8n wrote: Wait, you're now claiming that you helped overthrow a violent dictator ? Bet those Chileans are feeling pretty stupid now eh ?
Hussein wasn't violent?
Before or after "we" sold him all those weapons ?
Oh, you mean all of that Russian, Chinese and Frence equipment that the Iraqi army was using? Don't recall any US equipment being used against us.
We gave Iraq substantial aid back when we considered them the lesser evil compared to the religious fundamentalists (mainly Iran) in the region. IIRC, there's a photo op pic out there from the 1970s with Saddam and (ironically) either Rumsfeld or Cheney (can't remember which). I can't tell you what percentage was weapons, cash, etc., but we absolutely did help fund Iraq's war vs. Iran. (Iran who was our enemy because they hated the Shah, whom the U.S. helped set up.)
We prop up a dictator, dictator turns on us or becomes less useful, we knock him down and prop up a new one, rinse and repeat. You'd think we'd learn eventually.
A while back I remember seeing a graph of which countries gave aid to Iraq during that time frame....the US's portion was about .2% of the total aid given. We did aid Iraq with satelite imagery during their war with Iran but other than that I'm not aware of what other aid we provided. And it was Rumsfeld that was in the picture with Hussein IIRC.
Frazzled wrote:1. Never proven to actually, you know, work or anything.
Sbuh? First up 'proven' is one of those terms that gets brought up all the time in political debates about one science or another, especially when it comes to soft sciences like economics. Nothing is 'proven' in science, because that isn't how science works. If you only consider what is 'proven' you end up with nothing, because science doesn't seek to 'prove' anything. It establishes hypotheses that it seeks to disprove, and then builds models with predictive power based on those models. 'Proven' is a political sleight of hand used by people when their politics don't line up with the intellectual consensus.
Second up, there is plenty of debate about how large the stimulus should be and what it should consist of, but outside of the Austrian School nutters and politicians with no economics background, who out there is claiming there should be no stimulus? The debate was over by the 70s, remember Nixon saying 'we're all Keynesian now'?
2. They've spent 10% of the "emergency funds" to date. Most of that money was in tax rebates/abatements (whatever you call it). The actual "spending side of it is materially insignificant. The emergency stimulus was Dem porkbarrel pure and simple.
I don't get it. You post graphs showing the Democrat blow out in the deficit, then later complain that they haven't spent the money. Pick one, they're spending too much money or they haven't spent the money.
Meanwhile, you're way off the mark when you claim the stimulus stuff was in the tax rebates, while the spending stuff is insignificant. Studies printed in The Economist put stimulus results from tax rebates somewhere around 30 or 40c return on the dollar, while infrastructure stimulus was somewhere around $1.20. Tax cuts are a political measure, so people can see an immediate benefit from the government's deficit spending, but the real meat of the stimulus is in the infrastructure.
Your first impression is what people will judge you one. Obama has made his first impression and has proven himself to be surrounded by a cult of personality and is himself a master of puppets.
He's also a hipocrite, as with most politicians, but while bush went on vacation to his private(as in he owned it) ranch, Obama takes air force 1 to see fireworks and spends millions to send his wife and kids overseas. I believe that is more of a waste of taxpayer's money than bush going home to relax.
However, blame can be useful and can be superfluous. A scapegoat is bad, while blaming bernie madoff is good.
Hitler never killed anyone, but ordered the killings. So you can blame him for the holocaust.
In non-sequiter fashion I pose this question: Who would you blame, Darth Vader for ordering the destruction of Alderaan or the guy who pushed the button?
halonachos wrote: In non-sequiter fashion I pose this question: Who would you blame, Darth Vader for ordering the destruction of Alderaan or the guy who pushed the button?
Neither. I'd blame Grand Moff Tarkin. Vader just stood there doing the "bad mama menace" thing behind princess hairdo. It was Tarkin who ordered the planetwide hit. (insert nerdrage here)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Well, WW2 got us out of the depression because the government was buying arms and other countires were buying from america.
Wrexy I'm stealing that one too.
That's what we need, another world war. Someone in germany needs to start something up again, if not then we'll find someone else.
yea but thats not Keynesian spend economics. The people espousing keynesian economics generally hang out out at the local antiwar college coffee shop.
This message brought to you by hurr hurr, now with more Durr!
Thief, you have violated the law. Pay the court a fine or serve your sentence.
I like how in Oblivion that you can kill as many people as you want and if you have enough money you can just get off without jailtime. Just like in real life.
halonachos wrote:
Your first impression is what people will judge you one. Obama has made his first impression and has proven himself to be surrounded by a cult of personality and is himself a master of puppets.
His whole point seems to have gone right over your head; seeing as you just validated it.
The reason I disputed his position was that, prior to him, no one talked about judgment. He introduced that concept where it wasn't present. Judgment is final, especially in colloquial usage, and if you judge someone based on a first impression (an inherently limited set of information) you are probably an idiot.
There's nothing wrong with forming an opinion based on a limited set of information, so long as the recognize the inherent limitations of that set. Judgment doesn't allow this.
halonachos wrote:
However, blame can be useful and can be superfluous. A scapegoat is bad, while blaming bernie madoff is good.
Hitler never killed anyone, but ordered the killings. So you can blame him for the holocaust.
Blame is only useful if you feel the need to have an emotional reaction to an event. Otherwise it doesn't sense to reference anything beyond a specific decision.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm sorry Sebster, I missed the US recession that "Government Spend" economics ever got us out of. Oh right, yea, there wasn't one.
Reagan.
Tax cuts - check
Massive spending increases - check
Recession ended - check
Frazzled wrote:
yea but thats not Keynesian spend economics. The people espousing keynesian economics generally hang out out at the local antiwar college coffee shop.
Yes, it is.
You're assuming that the current association Keynesian theory with the left has any bearing on the theory itself. It doesn't.
halonachos wrote:
In non-sequiter fashion I pose this question: Who would you blame, Darth Vader for ordering the destruction of Alderaan or the guy who pushed the button?
Neither. I'd blame Grand Moff Tarkin. Vader just stood there doing the "bad mama menace" thing behind princess hairdo. It was Tarkin who ordered the planetwide hit. (insert nerdrage here)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Well, WW2 got us out of the depression because the government was buying arms and other countires were buying from america.
Wrexy I'm stealing that one too.
That's what we need, another world war. Someone in germany needs to start something up again, if not then we'll find someone else.
yea but thats not Keynesian spend economics. The people espousing keynesian economics generally hang out out at the local antiwar college coffee shop.
This message brought to you by hurr hurr, now with more Durr!
Did you know a hurr durr is what Liverpudlian women go to get before a big date, a wedding or similar?
Well, dogma, he's saying that we shouldn't judge obama because he has had so little time in office. He then says to do so makes you an idiot.
However, I am not proving his point by saying that one is judged by first impressions, in fact I do believe that I am contradicting him.
This all goes unless you can prove 100% that I am an idiot, in which case then yes I am proving his point.
But how is blame useful ONLY if you want to have an emotional attachment? I mean if you look at history then you learn that things happen and that some things have a person responsible for them.
If I look back and remember the person that caused something(good or bad or neutral) then I am just remembering that a person has caused something.
Now the word "blame" itself is a negative way of simply saying "caused".
"I believe Hitler caused the holocaust." and
"I blame Hitler for the holocaust." mean the same exact thing but the latter makes it seem worse.
halonachos wrote:Well, dogma, he's saying that we shouldn't judge obama because he has had so little time in office. He then says to do so makes you an idiot.
However, I am not proving his point by saying that one is judged by first impressions, in fact I do believe that I am contradicting him.
This all goes unless you can prove 100% that I am an idiot, in which case then yes I am proving his point.
I didn't say you were proving his point, I said you were validating it. His point was clearly based on the assumption that a lot of people will make a judgment based upon unnecessarily limited information sets, and that doing so is bad. By postulating exactly that, while doing the same thing yourself, you validated his point.
halonachos wrote:
But how is blame useful ONLY if you want to have an emotional attachment? I mean if you look at history then you learn that things happen and that some things have a person responsible for them.
If I look back and remember the person that caused something(good or bad or neutral) then I am just remembering that a person has caused something
Now the word "blame" itself is a negative way of simply saying "caused".
"I believe Hitler caused the holocaust." and
"I blame Hitler for the holocaust." mean the same exact thing but the latter makes it seem worse.
You answered your own question by discussing the person. When you focus on the individual, rather than the choice, you necessarily move any conclusion drawn to new ground. Now there are ways of justifying this, but they are emotional. This doesn't make them bad, just limited in their overall usefulness.
There's a difference between saying "I blame Churchill for this decision, and I blame this decision for the war", and "I blame Churchill for the war".
Halanchos wrote:Now the word "blame" itself is a negative way of simply saying "caused".
"I believe Hitler caused the holocaust." and
"I blame Hitler for the holocaust." mean the same exact thing but the latter makes it seem worse.
If I am not mistaken you would have to say.... no more Godwin goodbye.
Anyway, how about this one...
"Jervis caused us all to be broke."
-or-
"I blame Jervis for the lack of spending power I have left."
Blame is a tool used to relieve your personal responsibility from the equation. Saying "caused" does not infer a lack of personal responsibility. I do think this is a bit pedantic but hey... nachos are great!
Sure they mean two different things, it should be a matter of context really. In a debate, blame should be explicitly avoided, but the circus that always ensues does reinforce your general perspective on this one. There are many other ways to approach the situation, such as presenting alternatives to knee-jerk reactionism... which Obama does a half-assed job at. If you take some of the things he is saying out of context it can sound really bad. His biggest flaw seems to be his almost dyslexic approach to answering specific questioning.
"Well, you know that this suck so very bad, but we are in a situation that sucks even more because we are actually living in that situation... or something..."
Sorry Obama... but HUH? Did you mean what you said or are you trying to be all hyper-witty and... wait, he meant it . I need to get my dyslexinese handbook out for his next speech .
Frazzled wrote:I'm sorry Sebster, I missed the US recession that "Government Spend" economics ever got us out of. Oh right, yea, there wasn't one.
What, that's it? I actually thought about spending the time to hunt down the Economist article that broke down the level of stimulus provided by various forms of stimulus. Good thing I didn't, given the depth and insight of your reply. But if you want examples, the recovery from the Great Depression actually began in 1933, largely as a result of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act. The recession of 1937 ended as a result of the increased spending of the second world war. The recession of 1960 ended as a result of direct stimulus spending. That's off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the early 80's recession was ended by increased govt spending as well.
halonachos wrote:Well, WW2 got us out of the depression because the government was buying arms and other countires were buying from america.
That's what we need, another world war. Someone in germany needs to start something up again, if not then we'll find someone else.
Yes, spending on the military produces stimulus. Because it involves government spending a pile of money, creating jobs, stimulating further spending and growing aggregate demand. Which is exactly what regular stimulus does, except this time it has the guns!guns!guns! appeal which makes it more politically acceptable certain types.
But actually pretending that government spending on the military is somehow magically different from spending on infrastructure or health? That's something no-one even vaguely educated in economics could try to sustain.
Frazzled wrote:yea but thats not Keynesian spend economics. The people espousing keynesian economics generally hang out out at the local antiwar college coffee shop.
Oh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
Hmm are you sure about that ? Even during his service in the german army during WW I ?
He was a messenger, and while he was very brave he probably didn't kill anyone in service. That said, I have a vague memory of Hitler killing someone during the Night of Long Knives, but I might have just gotten that from the History Channel, and if so it's probably junk.
reds8n wrote:
Hmm are you sure about that ? Even during his service in the german army during WW I ?
Sebster wrote:He was a messenger, and while he was very brave he probably didn't kill anyone in service. That said, I have a vague memory of Hitler killing someone during the Night of Long Knives, but I might have just gotten that from the History Channel, and if so it's probably junk.
I am concerned that the relevance to the original topic is... erm... would this happen to be the Alex Jones talkshow?
Skarwael wrote:What is Barack Obama actually like? It's hard to get an impression of him across the pond because there isn't much media coverage. Is he actually the messiah-like person how he was portrayed in the early days, or is he all show and no go?
Just curious.
I'm still kind of making up my mind about him... right now its leaning towards 'don't like'... mostly because he seems a bit similar to George W. Bush... and I liked Bush... a little... I think I'm just disappointed that he was overhyped like whatever the latest Codex would be... I'm curious as to how Obama would handle a 9/11-type or Hurricane Katrina-type situation.
Frazzled wrote:I'm sorry Sebster, I missed the US recession that "Government Spend" economics ever got us out of. Oh right, yea, there wasn't one.
What, that's it? I actually thought about spending the time to hunt down the Economist article that broke down the level of stimulus provided by various forms of stimulus. Good thing I didn't, given the depth and insight of your reply. But if you want examples, the recovery from the Great Depression actually began in 1933, largely as a result of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act. The recession of 1937 ended as a result of the increased spending of the second world war. The recession of 1960 ended as a result of direct stimulus spending. That's off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the early 80's recession was ended by increased govt spending as well.
[]
Depression-er no not at all, because fo the spending the country fell into a substantially worse recession in 36-37 and kept falling. The second part was worse than the first. That didn't end until WWII
1960:Sorry no. Kennedy put a substantial tax cut in place.
1980's ended vis massive tax cuts. You remember that reagan fellow.
Three strikes-yer OUTTA DERE
On the positive everyone remember the new phrase that pays
"Quick hide your beagle. Vick's now an Eagle."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
When you go to the hurrdresser and get your hurr dun.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Out of curiosity could Cairnius be a "Concern Troll" ? Perhaps this a superbly suiting tangent to this conversation. I am interested in Troll research, especially the false Troll/ actually angry dude face... or something along those lines.
Interesting point. He actually remind me of myself, to a disturbing extent. That's most likely the source of my hostility towards him. I really need to learn how to control that. Damned hormones, always getting the better of me.
Truer words were never spoken - before I showed up you were the only one of you in here, and now there's another one so you don't get to feel as speshul.
I'm just less angry than you are. It happens when you get older. Youthful rage turns to young adult cynicism turns to middle-aged amusement and resignation turns to elderly "I just don't give a gak anymore unless you're messing with my social security benefits."
Frazzled wrote:
Depression-er no not at all, because fo the spending the country fell into a substantially worse recession in 36-37 and kept falling. The second part was worse than the first. That didn't end until WWII
1960:Sorry no. Kennedy put a substantial tax cut in place.
1980's ended vis massive tax cuts. You remember that reagan fellow.
Substantially worse in 36-37 is just plain wrong. It was severe, but nowhere near as bad as the earlier recession. And claiming 'it didn't work because there was another recession several years later' is gibberish... do you have any idea about stimulus spending is meant to achieve? You realise it doesn't mean rainbows and puppy dogs and no more recessions ever again. It means that you spend to stimulate the economy to make the current recession a little less severe.
WWII ended the 36-37... because lots of money was spent.
You're getting confused when it comes to Kennedy's fiscal policy. His tax cut was introduced in '64, and that is three years after he introduced the first non-war deficit and moved the US out of recession. His tax cut came in the middle of a long period of growth, it's hard to attach any growth in activity to it.
Meanwhile, tax cuts are still going in to deficit. It's all the same thing, getting more money out there to maintain aggregate demand. There is lots of debate over which should be undertaken (most economists will argue the most effective is infrastructure, but tax cuts are the most obvious and that means a lot to politicians). When Reagan cut taxes and increased spending... both were economic stimulus.
Have you studied this, or are you just going off of news shows and the like?
Keynesian economics, as a school, advocates deficit spending. That's all it does. Any form of deficit spending is Keynesian. You can argue that its also other things, but it will always be Keynesian no matter what. That's simply the term for that type of thinking which is accepted.
What would not be Keynesian is a simultaneous cut in both taxes, and government spending. In other words, a general roll-back in terms of aggregates government functionality.
Frazzled wrote:I'll play hours in economics classes if you want Sebbie.
31.
What's that, econ 101 in first year? Did they do Keynes?
How about yourself?
Not including secondary? Guess not?
First year uni. Two semesters of straight economics 104 hours. Economic history 52 hours.
Second year uni, monetary economics 52 hours. Quanititative economics (shiver) 52 hours.
Third year uni, economic history 52 contact hours. Middle East economies 26 hours.
That's contact hours, if you include study the rule of thumb is to treble or quadruple it (but I was nowhere near that, except quantitative economics). And that, by the way, is just about the bare minimum needed for a B Com. Which is all I did, because I'm not some econs guru and don't want to claim I am. All I'm talking about here are very, very basic economic principles.
And that's what I'm wondering, do you have that basic foundation? Because declaring that something wasn't Keynesian stimulus because it was a tax cut doesn't come from any economics textbook, it comes from a list of Republican talking points.
1. Because declaring that something wasn't Keynesian stimulus because it was a tax cut doesn't come from any economics textbook, it comes from a list of Republican talking points.
Keynes wasn't about tax cuts. He lived and breathed spending, specifically deficit spending. If you're trying to tie tax cuts to Keynesian economics you might as well say that everything was Keynesian.
2. Hours calc are different over there. Each college course over here is anywhere from 2-4 hours (I think I had a 5 hour one once). So following yours it would be 8 courses give or take-its been a few years.
sebster wrote:
First year uni. Two semesters of straight economics 104 hours. Economic history 52 hours.
Second year uni, monetary economics 52 hours. Quanititative economics (shiver) 52 hours.
Third year uni, economic history 52 contact hours. Middle East economies 26 hours.
That's contact hours, if you include study the rule of thumb is to treble or quadruple it (but I was nowhere near that, except quantitative economics). And that, by the way, is just about the bare minimum needed for a B Com. Which is all I did, because I'm not some econs guru and don't want to claim I am. All I'm talking about here are very, very basic economic principles.
Economics major?
Can we change the title of this thread now to "Keynesian Economics... what do you think?" so that at least it will be more accurate. I think it stopped being about Obama a long time ago.
Frazzled wrote:
Keynes wasn't about tax cuts. He lived and breathed spending, specifically deficit spending. If you're trying to tie tax cuts to Keynesian economics you might as well say that everything was Keynesian.
Tax cuts equate to deficit spending when they are not accompanied by cuts in overall expenditure. Remember, Keynesian economics doesn't necessarily hinge on what Keynes actually wrote, only the work which followed from his initial position.
Tax cuts aren't intrinsically connected to deficit spending, but they certainly have the capacity to be manifestations of it. It doesn't matter if you create a deficit by spending more, or collecting less; either were its spending in deficit. Now you can argue that tax cuts are preferable because they tend to produce less market uncertainty, but that's not the same as saying that they can never be Keynesian.
..hmm.... it's almost like a certain group of people are trying to derail what's going on...
Speaking of derail but me likey
1. He's exercising his Second Amendment rights (Arizona is open carry)
2. His protesting potential regulation/banning of weapons currently being contemplated or have already been proposed.
(3. He's being a nut. Signs work. The President is a special case, this is both stupid and attracts negative publicity)
Whats funny is there's no comment about the 9 other people with firearms who were in their own section demonstrating, but away from the Obama people.
Frazzled wrote:
Keynes wasn't about tax cuts. He lived and breathed spending, specifically deficit spending. If you're trying to tie tax cuts to Keynesian economics you might as well say that everything was Keynesian.
Tax cuts equate to deficit spending when they are not accompanied by cuts in overall expenditure. Remember, Keynesian economics doesn't necessarily hinge on what Keynes actually wrote, only the work which followed from his initial position.
Tax cuts aren't intrinsically connected to deficit spending, but they certainly have the capacity to be manifestations of it. It doesn't matter if you create a deficit by spending more, or collecting less; either were its spending in deficit. Now you can argue that tax cuts are preferable because they tend to produce less market uncertainty, but that's not the same as saying that they can never be Keynesian.
Come on Dogma, we both know the connotations of Keynesian economics are government spending. Tax incentives follow the Laffer dialectic.
Frazzled wrote:
Come on Dogma, we both know the connotations of Keynesian economics are government spending. Tax incentives follow the Laffer dialectic.
Yes, it is. Andrew Laffer was a Keynesian Monetarist. The two terms are not mutually exclusive as they apply to different principles. Keynesian theory merely states that the government must intervene during economic crisis. Monetarist theory comments on the form that intervention should take; expanding on it through the use of monetary policy as preventive medicine.
There are main-line Keynesians, who don't accept the intervention methodology of Monetarist theory, but they are few and far between. There are also Monetarists who believe the budget must always be balanced, and they are equally rare.
Can we change the title of this thread now to "Keynesian Economics... what do you think?" so that at least it will be more accurate. I think it stopped being about Obama a long time ago.
Nah, Accounting and Finance double major. The econs units were straight up mandatory (perhaps not Middle East Economies, not sure why I took that. Maybe just because it was cool and didn't have an exam).
Frazzled wrote:Keynes wasn't about tax cuts. He lived and breathed spending, specifically deficit spending. If you're trying to tie tax cuts to Keynesian economics you might as well say that everything was Keynesian.
Have you read the General Theory?
"The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume partly through its scheme of taxation, partly by fixing the rate of interest, and partly, perhaps, in other ways."
And to some extent, everything is Keynesian. It has been since the near total win of Keynesian economics from the 60s onwards - remember Nixon's 'we're all Keynesian now'? Since then you've seen the near universal acceptance of basic Keynesian economics, at least in rhetoric (actual application has tended more towards deficits in the good times as well as the bad).
What you've seen since is either a variation on Keynes (debate as to the most effective way to manage aggregate demand) and a fringe of alternative theories, the hardline monetarists, the Austrian School...
2. Hours calc are different over there. Each college course over here is anywhere from 2-4 hours (I think I had a 5 hour one once). So following yours it would be 8 courses give or take-its been a few years.
Ah, over here they give you total contact hours in a semester. But again, this isn't a economics measuring contest; 'you must have sat in this many classes to contribute'. But you're making some pretty basic errors about what Keynesian economics are, so I just wanted to see where you where coming from. It might be a national thing, Keynes is probably bigger in Australia than anywhere else so it might just be that Keynes isn't covered in the same depth elsewhere.
Frazzled wrote:Come on Dogma, we both know the connotations of Keynesian economics are government spending. Tax incentives follow the Laffer dialectic.
Yeah, this is what I mean when I point out how closely you're following Republican talking points and not economics. Laffer's model is, no pun intended, a laughing stock in economics. The only place it has any traction at all is among the Republican party of the US. Nobel prize laureate (although we know what you think of them ) James Tobin said "the 'Laffer Curve' idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981."
Let’s think about what Laffer was saying... he wasn’t the first to theorise that if tax rates are too high you’ll remove the incentive to earn, reduce total income and thereby reduce total tax revenue. Funnily enough, Keynes mentioned that too; “Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget.” But Keynes was hardly the first either, it’s an old idea.
No, Laffer’s claim to fame was that he felt countries were taxing at a rate beyond the optimum point of revenue. To establish this claim he produced this graph;
And that was it. No consideration of the immense number of factors that lead to the wealth of a country and grow domestic product. No consideration of the wide variety of elements that make up tax policy. Just a plotting of countries and a silly attempt to draw a curve through it.
Here’s the WSJ’s 2004 attempt to plot the evidence of the Laffer curve;
What you see is a wide range of countries fitting a general mess. And a line picking the outlier of Norway and ignoring the rest, in order to establish a very dubious theory.
And that’s all Laffer has. A silly graph he made, the support of the Republican party, who have latched on to anything to justify their platform position of less taxes, and the editorial page of the WSJ. To dispute Keynes while assuming Laffer’s curve is established is absurd.
Economy is easy: the more gold you have the richer you are.
However, spending on military is much easier. Seeing as though each bullet can be used once, the brass can be recycled but the lead can't. Also, its hard to recycle bombs and things that get blowned up. Not to mention the fact that they have to try to compensate loss of dear ones.
Infrastructure is the same way, things need to get replaced.
Now healthcare is just giving money for a plan, nothing tangible.
But I will vote to rename this thread the "Off Topic Off Topic" Thread.
..hmm.... it's almost like a certain group of people are trying to derail what's going on...
Is that out of the ordinary for political protesters?
Dude... protesters with rifles? Wait... seriously? I am getting convinced more and more daily that there is an awful lot of money being poured into this whole reaction on the left. I am pretty sure at this point that the 9/11 Truthers (or at least some of them... Alex Jones, ahem...) are being funded by political affiliations with the Republican party.
This whole situation is going to get better, most people are not actually scared of a second civil war, but some one seems to think that they are...
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm rather disillusioned that President Obama can turn water into Bud Lite.
There's a lot you can do with a bucket of water -- water the garden, wash in it or drink it. None of these is possible with Bud Lite.
I would have hoped he could turn the water into some useful.
I find that muffins are quite useful... they sound rather easy to make as well. Maybe we could ask Obama to have a bake sale for Health care eh? Wait... no there simply aren't enough angry mothers to hold a bake sale against health care reform.
halonachos wrote:
Now healthcare is just giving money for a plan, nothing tangible.
You mean like military spending is based on the plan to purchase bullets, or the plan research a new weapons system?
Or infrastructure spending is based on the plan to construct new roads, utilities, and bridges?
Except that you actually pay for real bullets, not just a plan to buy bullets or you pay for actual roads to be built.
With healthcare you pay for a magical title that makes people call the homeless insured. Also, look at the cash 4 clunkers thing, not much of the promised money is reaching it. I believe payment is like the law saying you can't burn draft cards but you can burn the flag. If its not necessary for government function then it doesn't matter.
I think you should just say that you hate Obama already Halanchos... I think it is really quite clear that is the case.
Cash For Clunkers has been one of the most successful stimulus' to ever reach your pocket. You complain about everything put in action by Obama and his administration but I fail to see how A.) Cash For CLunkers was ANY kind of failure... and B.) How it has anything to do with Health Care reform... besides your obvious intent to make it seem like it actually means anything relevant.
Honestly though... before you start whining about the second hand parts stores (OMFG the cheating bastards are going out of business? Sorry that was unfair.. SOME of the cheating bastards are going out of business?) losing business, WHO CARES! The economy needs changes like this so that people will actively engage in taking some action against carbon emissions.
Trust me, I hate Prius drivers as much as anyone, but the cars are cool, they may not be all that effective at achieving their actual goal of cutting emissions from being built to being scrapped, but the concept is entirely sound.
If I could find some serious and reputable information on this I would present it, but as it stands this is not verified, but neither are you in terms of the questions that I want answered.
First of all... I drive a toyota... I know quite a few people that drive toyotas and a whole lot more who drive honda. The civic and the classic toyotas have some of the most overabundance of spare parts that cars have ever seen. If you could provide evidence to me that it actually matters that some junk-yard is going to go out of business... I thought they went out of business for being greedy bastards?
You know that friend with that crappy old bucket? Yeah, this plan is for him... GO TED GO! GET RID OF THE BUCKET ALREADY!!! WOOT!
halonachos wrote:
Except that you actually pay for real bullets, not just a plan to buy bullets or you pay for actual roads to be built.
That isn't how government budgeting works. The Executive submits a budget to Congress which is itself derived from the budgetary requests made by the various agencies of the state (military, entitlements, et al). These are all based on planned expenditures, not actual expenditures. They are plans to buy bullets, or plans to build roads.
halonachos wrote:
With healthcare you pay for a magical title that makes people call the homeless insured.
Dear God, the number of things wrong with this statement.
First off, we're not talking about the homeless. We're talking about the uninsured, and the overall cost of healthcare; whether or not some of the uninsured are homeless is irrelevant (actually, the statistics for the uninsured probably don't include the homeless, as they are based on a door census). Second, it isn't a title, it is a plan that actually accounts for the purchase of MRI scans, medication, and medical tests. You know, physical goods and the labor that goes into the provision of service.
halonachos wrote:
Also, look at the cash 4 clunkers thing, not much of the promised money is reaching it. I believe payment is like the law saying you can't burn draft cards but you can burn the flag. If its not necessary for government function then it doesn't matter.
That isn't even a complete thought, let alone anything related to the rest of what you've said.
halonachos wrote:Economy is easy: the more gold you have the richer you are.
However, spending on military is much easier. Seeing as though each bullet can be used once, the brass can be recycled but the lead can't. Also, its hard to recycle bombs and things that get blowned up. Not to mention the fact that they have to try to compensate loss of dear ones.
Infrastructure is the same way, things need to get replaced.
Now healthcare is just giving money for a plan, nothing tangible.
What you're written above doesn't really relate to any economic theory in any conceivable sense. You've confused a lot of different things, and attached some economic theories of your own that don’t relate to any economic concepts.
Healthcare reform and stimulus spending are different things. Stimulus spending is a short term thing, designed to maintain aggregate demand and prevent a spiral into an increasingly severe recession.
Healthcare reform is not a stimulus plan (although there have been some dubious Democratic efforts to sell it as such). It is a long term plan, that will exist over many business cycles, and should not be assessed on its stimulus effect.
Either way, the stimulus effects of different kinds of spending do not operate as you suggest above. Stimulus works because a dollar spent on a service is now in the hands of a citizen, who then spends that dollar on a consumable, so that the dollar is then in the hands of another citizen, who then spends that dollar another consumable, and so on. The primary concern is how likely a dollar spent on a type of service is to end up in that first consumer’s hand. You basically need to be confident that what you’re buying is locally manufactured.
*There are also other concerns, such as how quickly you can get the money spent and out into the economy, and how easily you can turn the spending off once the need for stimulus is over. This is why stimulus spending tends to be on one-off capital items, and why healthcare is only somewhat useful for stimulus. Yes, buying new MRIs will work, but most necessary healthcare expenditure will be on new staff, who will be getting paid over multiple business cycles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm rather disillusioned that President Obama can turn water into Bud Lite.
There's a lot you can do with a bucket of water -- water the garden, wash in it or drink it. None of these is possible with Bud Lite.
I would have hoped he could turn the water into some useful.
Sebster, you must have a chronic issue with making things up and saying that someone else said them, I didn't say anything about stimulus. All I said was that it's easier to spend on the military and infrastructure. When you start criticizing things that I actually say, then I will debate you because its kind of hard for me to defend a point I never made and easy for you to refute one that you made up or "interpreted" from my words.
@ wrex, personally I drive a ford that gets 23mpg so I'm happy.
However CNN just covered a simple fact: the money that was promised to the dealerships for the clunkers hasn't arrived like it was supposed to. Secondly, this thing is just going to be like the housing bubble. We have hundreds of people buying new cars because the government is helping them out, but what happens when the government stops? Business is going to continue booming? I highly doubt that.
@Dogma,
What I was referring to is that the military and infrastructure are more important than the C4C deal. The government has yet to send out the checks for the C4C deal, but sends them out for the military and infrastructure.
So the question is this; will healthcare be more important, or at least important enough, that the hospitals will actually receive payment.
Because if the hospitals don't receive payment, then why would they continue to accept those with the govt. healthcare plan?
halonachos wrote: All I said was that it's easier to spend on the military and infrastructure.
That's what stimulus is. Healthcare isn't stimulus. Not immediate stimulus anyway. Its a risk coverage plan that affords for potential medical expenses.
halonachos wrote:
What I was referring to is that the military and infrastructure are more important than the C4C deal. The government has yet to send out the checks for the C4C deal, but sends them out for the military and infrastructure.
First, nothing you said previously arrive anywhere near that point.
Second, there are pretty clear reasons for this. When spending is undertaken on the military, or in the construction of infrastructure, payments are made under the auspices of a contract. Cash 4 Clunkers is a rebate program. Try getting a rebate from a corporation. It takes time.
halonachos wrote:
So the question is this; will healthcare be more important, or at least important enough, that the hospitals will actually receive payment.
Because if the hospitals don't receive payment, then why would they continue to accept those with the govt. healthcare plan?
No, that's not what the question is. That doesn't follow from anything you have previously discussed.
However, to answer that question, I can't imagine that a single payer system (or a public option) would realize delays any more significant than those present in the current system. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy.
halonachos wrote:Sebster, you must have a chronic issue with making things up and saying that someone else said them, I didn't say anything about stimulus. All I said was that it's easier to spend on the military and infrastructure. When you start criticizing things that I actually say, then I will debate you because its kind of hard for me to defend a point I never made and easy for you to refute one that you made up or "interpreted" from my words.
My mistake. We were talking about stimulus spending, then you came in talking about how you spend money on different things and I assumed it was in reference to stimulus. That was an error on my part.
I've read your post again and now have no idea what you were talking about. I have no idea what relevance 'ease' of spending would have in setting policy, surely what matters is what needs money spent on it.
Look at it like this: What is everyone debating on currently and what is having a difficult time of getting passed? The healthcare plan right? While for the most part people agree that a military is necessary and that it should be well funded so armor, ammo, and people can get made or paid. Infrastructure is a necessity because it builds roads and thigns used by all persons, even homeless people use it and they don't pay for it.
While the healthcare plan is creating such a mess in just trying to get it passed that it would probably continue to do the same.
Now what does this have to do with ease of spending you ask?
Well, a congressman is more likely to pass bills increasing funding on things that their constituents like. Its easier to get someone to like military spending or infrastructure spending increases. If the healthcare issues keep up then it is less likely that increased funding or total funding will passed.
Its easier for a representative to pass bills for military spending.
halonachos wrote:Thief, you have violated the law. Pay the court a fine or serve your sentence.
I like how in Oblivion that you can kill as many people as you want and if you have enough money you can just get off without jailtime. Just like in real life.
You do realise, carrying on doing that will make your guy a weedy arse
halonachos wrote:Actually it is, seeing as though I was saying that it was easier to pass.
You're missing the point, as usual. You're entire notion that something might be easier to pass than something else is not relevant to any matter other than one of political tactics.
Dogma wrote:However, to answer that question, I can't imagine that a single payer system (or a public option) would realize delays any more significant than those present in the current system. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy.
Hmmm, I cannot agree with you here. Perhaps some carrots are like other carrots, but the carrot I want to run this whole operation seems to be equipped with a new way of approaching all of these issues. You could call it naive, but I call it progress. If the government well and truly cannot work out a way to provide single payer system through the states THAT WANT IT (seriously folks, why is this such a complicated issue? Why can't the states that don't want it deny it? No taxes and so one, on top of no subsidies for making such decisions... I feel like I am missing something here.) so that this issue can represent what it actually means to.
Bureaucracy is not a carrot BTW... it is a very complicated system that is used to make things harder to do, but in a good way... If the government cares (I wonder sometimes) it will be no problem to sit down and figure out the best way to organize such a large issue. For what other reason did we vote all of these supposed brains in? To stand there and cave under lobbyists requests?
Before you answer this Dogma... consider working with two dozen clones of yourself, all of which wear a different hat. You are now a super-person okay, and you can think two dozen times clearer due to the fact that you have two dozen heads. If you cannot organize clear communication between as few people as that you are in some seriously freaking messed up managerial issues.
This whole problem of managing seems to be something that Obama doesn't have the experience needed to pull off. I was actually worried that something like this would happen and in his attempts to get support his goal would be watered down. Quite frankly, a lot of the fiasco right now could be attributed to sources that many of us are not even aware of in our government. Intent to change through coercion on a very subtle level. Corporate interests via lobbyists are my final guess, because the buck always seems to stop with them.
It is very clear on the other hand that Obama expected more support from the public, and failed to organize his own plan beyond the rather vague platform that he campaigned on and the reason I did not vote at all. Hilary was my first pick, but she just had this kind of sinister vibe that I simply could not shake.
Except that those "political tactics" cause more money to be funneled towards different projects which will affect economy.
Obama does have support, the people are divided mostly 50-50 so its going to be rough for them to pass. Unless of course they ignore half of the nation and pass it.
The lies from both sides have affected this issue and I just hope that it won't devolve into violence, people are bringing in race and its getting dangerous.
No matter how you cut it, it is partly a racial issue mate. This is not that main talking point of either party of course, and for good reason, it is in no way the center of the real issue.
If people go ape-gak over some racist stuff, I would guess it was because someone was being racist? Whether or not it has anything to do with health care reform people are going to continue to have racial tension for many years. A lot of individuals are still angry that we even have a black president and I think that is where the problems start.
halonachos wrote:Look at it like this: What is everyone debating on currently and what is having a difficult time of getting passed? The healthcare plan right? While for the most part people agree that a military is necessary and that it should be well funded so armor, ammo, and people can get made or paid. Infrastructure is a necessity because it builds roads and thigns used by all persons, even homeless people use it and they don't pay for it.
While the healthcare plan is creating such a mess in just trying to get it passed that it would probably continue to do the same.
Now what does this have to do with ease of spending you ask?
Well, a congressman is more likely to pass bills increasing funding on things that their constituents like. Its easier to get someone to like military spending or infrastructure spending increases. If the healthcare issues keep up then it is less likely that increased funding or total funding will passed.
Its easier for a representative to pass bills for military spending.
You haven't addressed my question, just restated your original premise, so I'll just repeat my earlier question;
"I have no idea what relevance 'ease' of spending would have in setting policy, surely what matters is what needs money spent on it."
And sebster I said that the military needs more funding because most of what we spend on the military is expendable(bullets, bombs, etc). While this new healthcare plan would benefit 1/6 of the country the military supports 6/6 of the country. Not by just defending it, but by spending the money they earn.
My point was that the military needs more spending so they are going to focus on it. The reps in my area are military friendly because most of the population is comprised of military members or civil service members.
@Wrex, yes I understand the whole race thing. I would guess that same amount of voters voted against him because he was black as the amount that voted for him because he was black.
However, the swastika has been involved and the powers of godwin have been invoked. The ultimate flame war is approaching.
halanchos wrote:@Wrex, yes I understand the whole race thing. I would guess that same amount of voters voted against him because he was black as the amount that voted for him because he was black.
Okay... seriously though, what are you talking about now? Did you not understand why those people voted against him for being black? My mind is boggled by you right now man .
Wrexasaur wrote:Sebster... why? Seriously though, you know this is not going anywhere.
I just can't stand people saying things that are obviously wrong and or crazy. I know it won't go anywhere (how do you reason someone out of a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place?) and yet I do it anyway.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure it's fair to explain much of the freakout over healthcare reform on racial issues. The reaction was just as strong and just as weird when Clinton tried his reforms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:And sebster I said that the military needs more funding because most of what we spend on the military is expendable(bullets, bombs, etc). While this new healthcare plan would benefit 1/6 of the country the military supports 6/6 of the country. Not by just defending it, but by spending the money they earn.
The money is spent, either way. Whether you emply a doctor or buy a case of 5.56, the money is spent. Where did you get this idea? I'm not sure if you're making this up or mangling military keynesian ideas, but what you're saying makes zero sense.
My point was that the military needs more spending so they are going to focus on it. The reps in my area are military friendly because most of the population is comprised of military members or civil service members.
You understand that's basically the definition of porkbarrelling, and porkbarrelling is thought of as a bad thing?
Sebster wrote:Meanwhile, I'm not sure it's fair to explain much of the freakout over healthcare reform on racial issues. The reaction was just as strong and just as weird when Clinton tried his reforms.
Very true, and I even edited to keep that clear. Racial issues could be seen as a general 1/3 of this debate when generalized greatly, when you actually look closely most of the racial issues have little to do with health care reform and a great deal to do with racism.
ANYWAY PPPHHHHBBBBTTTTT.... okay... I am okay.
And OMG something that has to do with the thread making and the making of the thread being in the forum with the stuff and the things about the person.
He is playing the cool guy with a button... oh, right, GO OBAMA! Hmm... speak louder next time dude .
There has a been a distinct loss of authority for the President and what he says for quite some time now. It is almost like people are talking to G.W. jr. puffingstock. I remember when the nation would still listen to the President without an enourmous amount of disdain on both sides and I hesitate to say it is anyone's fault but our own for being so easily misinformed. I have respect for the President, especially after what we just had to go through with the last administration, you know he is trying to pick up all the pieces left behind. If Obama does well with health reform and we get a better system in place by his next election, he has my vote, and I can guarantee that at the very least. For a guy who thinks a bit like Clinton he needs to step his game up though, it is like watching a nervous lion stalk a rabbit... it is a freaking rabbit mate, no need for theatrics .
Wrexasaur wrote:
Hmmm, I cannot agree with you here. Perhaps some carrots are like other carrots, but the carrot I want to run this whole operation seems to be equipped with a new way of approaching all of these issues. You could call it naive, but I call it progress. If the government well and truly cannot work out a way to provide single payer system through the states THAT WANT IT (seriously folks, why is this such a complicated issue? Why can't the states that don't want it deny it? No taxes and so one, on top of no subsidies for making such decisions... I feel like I am missing something here.) so that this issue can represent what it actually means to.
Bureaucracy is not a carrot BTW... it is a very complicated system that is used to make things harder to do, but in a good way... If the government cares (I wonder sometimes) it will be no problem to sit down and figure out the best way to organize such a large issue. For what other reason did we vote all of these supposed brains in? To stand there and cave under lobbyists requests?
I should clarify. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy, but any given bureaucracy can vary considerably in scale. When discussing a public option or a single-payer system you're talking about either creating a parallel option, or replacing one level (businesses) of bureaucracy with another (the payment agency). In the end delays should be comparable to the present reality. Now, that doesn't necessarily address important issues, like cost, but it is something to consider.
Wrexasaur wrote:
This whole problem of managing seems to be something that Obama doesn't have the experience needed to pull off. I was actually worried that something like this would happen and in his attempts to get support his goal would be watered down. Quite frankly, a lot of the fiasco right now could be attributed to sources that many of us are not even aware of in our government. Intent to change through coercion on a very subtle level. Corporate interests via lobbyists are my final guess, because the buck always seems to stop with them.
Many of the nation's business interest favor healthcare reform. Anything that reduces the price of care also reduces the amount of their gross income which must be used to pay for insurance.
That said, you're right. Obama isn't a particularly effective manager, and that's a critical characteristic in an environment of high controversy.
Wrexasaur wrote:
It is very clear on the other hand that Obama expected more support from the public, and failed to organize his own plan beyond the rather vague platform that he campaigned on and the reason I did not vote at all. Hilary was my first pick, but she just had this kind of sinister vibe that I simply could not shake.
I also preferred Hilary. Though I think her additional experience would have been offset by the legacy of the Clinton name when considering opposition to any attempt at passing legislation.
Domga-dude wrote:Many of the nation's business interest favor healthcare reform. Anything that reduces the price of care also reduces the amount of their gross income which must be used to pay for insurance.
I want to see coverage of this though. I fail to see the dollars behind the rhetoric on this one, and if we vote with our dollars these companies are sure as apple pie to do so as well. Is there a complete swamping of the media right now? Can the market not handle this much information, and if so why is it not being clearly distributed on the internet to compete with the utterly moronic interpretations of the current debate? Wait...
Okay, I have a theory... and it involves us not demanding jobs in the new market that is the internet. There are careers waiting to be made, heck if Dog-man is a health advisor he has a job saying fact as we speak. If I can make a joke, I have a job as we speak... for at least six months . If Frazzled can... wait.... oh snap, where is Frazzled, he has a job anyway so it dizzon't matter. If sebster moved to the U.S. he could get a career and a lifetime of substantial female... erm... wait... yeah, he would be happy, chicks dig the Aussie accent, it reminds them of turtles or something . So... focus and more clearly, demand a new market of information, mainly due to the utter incompetence of news agencies to make their voice somewhat less idiotic that the rest. And we step in like, half-a million diggaroos for a spock, ya know? Yah... this will work out just fine... hmmm.
From the perspective of a SMART corporate executive, why in the hell even get involved? What purpose does this pedaling of lies serve? How can any of these interests know what they are actually promoting through the media? Take a second to think about it from a conversion of reality to fact to realistic perspective stance. Like a horse and a donkey fighting... or one is an elephant or something... I don't know, okay whatever .
Anyway, the fact still remains that I see a clear push from one side of the insurance industry (if you really want to boil it down to such a primitive term of such circumstances that brought on this issue in the first place) while the rest of the medical industry is just staring... like with laser eyes... and waiting for the worst moron... wait Glenn Beck... right... he has been and gone. Perhaps the battle is already won, I simply could not tell you that, and as far as I can tell neither could Obama . Man, the funny pouring out of this is totally delicious, gotta love one of the most circus like public democracies in on the entire surface of the planet... and that even includes chimpanzees with their totalitarian perspective on this total fiasco. No... actual monkeys, not the you are stupid for thinking that kind .
Man... that is at least 5 funnies... but they annoy... hmmm... so I am randomly editing them to make them less annoying.... Okay, this one is angry, this one is sad (typo there anyway.), and this one is... hmmm, ummm, a dakka gun should work well. A flame for good measure... wait... okay then, maybe that was tangential, but a buckshot at a deer never dropped not but a dear.
The problem with all news media but especially with the Internet (blogs, etc.) is that most people seek out information that validates their existing views, and ignore information that challenges them.
Even the very best newspapers (e.g. The Guardian, The Times) show evidence of leaning, or an agenda, if not actual bias.
The slightest bit of lean can be taken by people of the opposite political views as a reason not to read the said newspaper, or to disbelieve the information presented.
Do you remember thisnewscaster? Because I do and... wait... hmmm, too many extra jokes inferred by the picture... oh well.
Yes, the news that told it like it was, and kicked ass along the way... wait... we do have John Stewart, who is a comedian and, oh crap.
Wait... one more edit... just look like that far up the page... yep, that is what the media does not have now... yeah, that far, you know what I freaking mean .
Wrexasaur wrote:If sebster moved to the U.S. he could get a career and a lifetime of substantial female... erm... wait... yeah, he would be happy, chicks dig the Aussie accent, it reminds them of turtles or something .
....I never noticed. And now a sexy sexy turtle...
WAIT... seriously... just watch the clip, OKAY!!! Geez, like it is a kidney or something with the gafilta-fish and the matzoh balls... I dunno even what to think about the thing.
"Note"
P.M. me if I am just providing too much PWNage too this forum... yeah... with the stuff, and the funny.... eat burgers and feedom friesn... hah freedom friends... wait... forgot the funny... and added the period. See I did it. Yay. And another one.
Wait... This is not an attack... it is a funny, like a forgotten balloon from France or something, perhaps... and maybe too... Seriously J.K. Sebster... did you see the periods... that is serious business.
Yes I am joking. With a joke... and stuff, so you can laugh for things, and the other places with the inabilitya to laugh with the funny.
Wrexasaur wrote:"Note"
P.M. me if I am just providing too much PWNage too this forum... yeah... with the stuff, and the funny.... eat burgers and feedom friesn... hah freedom friends... wait... forgot the funny... and added the period. See I did it. Yay. And another one.
I would, but I haven't had the slightest idea what you've been talking about today
Wrexasaur wrote:"Note"
P.M. me if I am just providing too much PWNage too this forum... yeah... with the stuff, and the funny.... eat burgers and feedom friesn... hah freedom friends... wait... forgot the funny... and added the period. See I did it. Yay. And another one.
I would, but I haven't had the slightest idea what you've been talking about today
I would hesitate to disagree with you on this one... but we all need some retrospect hours later on the amount of Sake we consume... I apologize . Seriously, sorry if I messed with you, I meant no harm.
Orkeosaurus wrote:+1 poast
+2 post technically... but the economics of that one are quite deep...
My point was that the military needs more spending so they are going to focus on it. The reps in my area are military friendly because most of the population is comprised of military members or civil service members.
You understand that's basically the definition of porkbarrelling, and porkbarrelling is thought of as a bad thing?
Unless you are trying to do things that benefit the entire military. Pork barreling would be like having a bridge built in your district to boost the economy. Its incredibly hard to pork barrel with military spending unless you decided to have a military base built in your district because you need the extra funds. If you pass legislation for extra body armor or such, then its not really pork barreling.
Now someone said that morality caves to reality... WHat if the money for this new healthcare thing takes a long time to reach the doctors, especially the private practice ones? Now the morality would cause the doctors to see them anyways, but in "reality" they wouldn't take them because they aren't getting paid and the only "free" care they receive is emergency care. So the government HAS to be on the ball when it comes to paychecks, and it really isn't in some cases.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although this healthcare thing isn't employing doctors, its buying certificates saying that they are now insured and that money is available for certain care that's expensive for them to afford.
And you can't say that most businesses support this plan, even when it comes to medical associations saying that they support this plan, many of the doctors in said associations are also opposed.
@ Wrex, many saw him for the color of his skin, and many put their votes in on that factor only. This however was done by pro and anti obama people.
He was also young and many theorised that McCain would die in office, although my argument was "Yeah and Kennedy was pretty young as well.".
I just hope he isn't assassinated, that would be a serious gak-storm.
Ooooh, what would happen if this bill is or isn't passed? Not in terms of healthcare, but the population's response.
halonachos wrote:
Now someone said that morality caves to reality... WHat if the money for this new healthcare thing takes a long time to reach the doctors, especially the private practice ones? Now the morality would cause the doctors to see them anyways, but in "reality" they wouldn't take them because they aren't getting paid and the only "free" care they receive is emergency care. So the government HAS to be on the ball when it comes to paychecks, and it really isn't in some cases.
Why would morality force doctors to see patients? Most private practices, in my experience anyway, don't render service without the provision of insurance as of right now.
Hippocratic oath, although they won't give preventative care they promise to give emergency care. Which is why the money makes them give preventative care.
halonachos wrote:Hippocratic oath, although they won't give preventative care they promise to give emergency care. Which is why the money makes them give preventative care.
The Hippocratic oath isn't really a singular thing. There are several versions; including some moderns ones which include a mandate for preventative care. That said, I've never seen any version of it which specifically mandates emergency care. Its often assumed that 'first, do no harm' represents such a mandate, and it can be interpreted that way, but it doesn't have to be.
The reality is that doctors are most often forced to see patients due to the administrative ER policies which keep public funds coming into hospitals. They don't get paid any more, or less, to do so. Now, if you have public insurance, a lot of those people piling into ERs can suddenly see private physicians who can treat them with the promise of payment. Just like they treat people with private insurance.
I doubt that. Why would the government make sure that those on the public option will receive care if they don't want to do good, because obviously in the real world there is no morality and no good?
They lose money by paying and get nothing in return so why are they doing this?
halonachos wrote:I doubt that. Why would the government make sure that those on the public option will receive care if they don't want to do good, because obviously in the real world there is no morality and no good?
They lose money by paying and get nothing in return so why are they doing this?
I didn't say that morality doesn't exist. I said that reality trumps morality, which is another way of saying morality will fall prey to circumstance. In this particular instance a well run program is both moral, and useful for staying power. Morality and circumstance are in agreement, and all is right with the world.
englhockey wrote:NOT EVEN A USA citizen how is he president again?
My taxes went up he said that wouldn't happen
cant wait to see people hate him more than bush...
Sounds like a sensationalist to me. Prove that he isn't a US citizen.
And remember that your country is in a recession (unlike mine, whee!), so I suppose tax increases would occurr. Think for a moment; would you be any better off with the Republicans in power right now?
Obama could never, ever hope to live up to the hype.
He will do well but looking back in 20, 30 years people will see it as a chance for change that fizzled under the expectations, and sent the nation broke.
Whilst in 20-30 years time Bush will be seen as an ass kicker who fought back and took the battle to the enemy, whilst sending the nation broke.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Obama could never, ever hope to live up to the hype.
He will do well but looking back in 20, 30 years people will see it as a chance for change that fizzled under the expectations, and sent the nation broke.
Whilst in 20-30 years time Bush will be seen as an ass kicker who fought back and took the battle to the enemy, whilst sending the nation broke.
The problem with this is that if we actually go further into debt instead of starting to fix this problem the U.S. is as good as finished in 20 years, let alone looking back and saying hello. Obama either delivers something or we pay the price, it is simple as that. We need serious change, and if he decides to let the Republicans push him around along with the Democratic majority we will never see this reform take place.
The US is in no danger of death. You don't just abjurate the kind of dominance we possess. There will be changes for sure, but they will not sound some form of national death knell.
The worst that is likely to happen to the USA is that you will lose your position of dominance and will need to co-operate with other nations on international issues.
I think that point has practically arrived when you consider that the USA could have handled the Iraq and Afghan wars without the British, but you cannot handle any further conflicts which might arise in Korea or Iran.
Borrowing and running a national debt is perfectly acceptable economics when the money is used for essential defence or to build up productive infrastructure such as transportation systems. Then in the good times the debt can be paid back.
The USA's debt problem is that the money has been borrowed artificially cheaply, thanks to the USD's status as world reserve currency (now waning) and it has largely been spent on consumer fripperies such as inflated housing costs.
Nonetheless the USA is a huge nation with colossal resources of many types and should be able to get through the difficult times. It may require social changes.
Does anyone have any information on this? I would like to know the prospects of the U.S. I have never been the wild west John Wayne type. Well... maybe if I get to have a funny cigar and a stick of dynamite .
If someone could lay out what they see for the future of the U.S. given the outcomes of this reform, I would appreciate that as well.
Use this for reference. Or not... whatever you feel like really. Wait wait wait.... where the hell did Ron Paul come from .
halonachos wrote:I doubt that. Why would the government make sure that those on the public option will receive care if they don't want to do good, because obviously in the real world there is no morality and no good?
They lose money by paying and get nothing in return so why are they doing this?
I didn't say that morality doesn't exist. I said that reality trumps morality, which is another way of saying morality will fall prey to circumstance. In this particular instance a well run program is both moral, and useful for staying power. Morality and circumstance are in agreement, and all is right with the world.
But what kind of moral "good" does it do. There's qualitative and quantitative moral good. Sure it helps out 1/6 of the nation at the the expense of 5/6 the nation, so its not quantitative good or else it would help out 5/6 of the nation at the expense of 1/6 the nation. Surely it must be qualitative good, but these people are strangers for the most part and the money should be spent to help family or friends, so guess it isn't qualitative either.
Don't put yourself in the same boat of ignorance as those who said that about bush. He's your president but you didn't vote for him because you dislike/hate the guy or his politics.
Obama is our president but he sucks at the job and we want a new one.
halonachos wrote:Don't put yourself in the same boat of ignorance as those who said that about bush. He's your president but you didn't vote for him because you dislike/hate the guy or his politics.
Obama is our president but he sucks at the job and we want a new one.
WTH are you talking about?
If he wasn't even born in America - how can he qualify as a Natural-Born Citizen?
halonachos wrote:
But what kind of moral "good" does it do.
My default answer would be a utilitarian one, because I am a utilitarian.
"The greatest good, for the greatest number."
halonachos wrote:
There's qualitative and quantitative moral good.
There's quite a bit more to it than that. You can approach the concept of good from an almost unlimited number of angles: Utilitarian, Kantian, Platonic, Aristotelian, etc.
halonachos wrote:
Sure it helps out 1/6 of the nation at the the expense of 5/6 the nation, so its not quantitative good or else it would help out 5/6 of the nation at the expense of 1/6 the nation.
Have you not been paying attention? The primary argument for a public option is that it works to increase competition by segregating insurance from employment. It helps out 6/6 of the nation.
halonachos wrote:
Surely it must be qualitative good, but these people are strangers for the most part and the money should be spent to help family or friends, so guess it isn't qualitative either.
It seems you're under the impression that morality is a universal construct.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
WTH are you talking about?
If he wasn't even born in America - how can he qualify as a Natural-Born Citizen?
First, he doesn't necessarily have to be a Natural-Born Citizen. That isn't how the Constitution reads. That's how its been conventionally interpreted, but it certainly isn't iron-clad.
Second, Natural-Born Citizen has no legal definition. If you take the statement at face-value it seems to imply that the President must be a citizen from birth, but that is itself a very murky concept. If you're not a Birther its fully possible for someone to be born in another country to possess citizenship from birth.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
But how is this healthcare thing helping.
I already have insurance along with 5/6 of the nation. All this is doing is taxing those with insurance so that a public option may be made because 1/6 of the nation lacks insurance.
If I already have insurance this public plan won't truly help me. Even with the competition it may cause me to lose my insurance when my insurance company tanks.
Halapenos wrote:I already have insurance along with 5/6 of the nation. All this is doing is taxing those with insurance so that a public option may be made because 1/6 of the nation lacks insurance.
In case you did not know it is actually the year 2009 and there is no bill that has been passed putting this into effect.
One question, do you support re=working medicare/medicaid? If so, how do you explain to the people that are not eligible for it and even more importantly, the people who go bankrupt while having private insurance? In such a prosperous country this kind of moral debate is utterly disappointing to me, no Doctor in their right mind would not want change to the system. At this point I worry that the fear-mongering has effectively neutered any chance of real reform, not on the part of the people, but on the part of the congressmen and women who would like to avoid getting shot over it.
Welcome to the good ole' land of John Wayne Reagan pie, and shotgun shells that we use for our anesthesia... doesn't seem to be very effective.
halonachos wrote:Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Pay attention to that word 'or'. Its a very important word.
halonachos wrote:
But how is this healthcare thing helping.
I already have insurance along with 5/6 of the nation. All this is doing is taxing those with insurance so that a public option may be made because 1/6 of the nation lacks insurance.
Its also shifting the market agency for insurance to the people who will actually make use of the plan. This is important, because its the key component in both cutting costs, and benefiting everyone in the US. Pretending that it isn't critical to the argument is either disingenuous, or willful ignorance.
halonachos wrote:
If I already have insurance this public plan won't truly help me. Even with the competition it may cause me to lose my insurance when my insurance company tanks.
So no, its not utilitarian.
Then you'll have the public option to depend on while any insurance companies which fail are replaced. So yes, it is utilitarian.
Remember, 'good' is a highly relative concept; especially in utilitarian ethics. The act itself is not intrinsically utilitarian, however I am a utilitarian and so I judge 'good' according to a utilitarian standard. I believe that the public option is the best way to improve US healthcare, therefore I believe it is moral according to utilitarian principles.
So, by RAW, no one not alive at the date when the Constituition was adopted is eligible for the presidency then ? Also wasn't the country considerably smaller then too ?
So pretty much every president for ... what.. 150 odd years has in fact been illegal.
So, by RAW, no one not alive at the date when the Constituition was adopted is elliganle for the presidency then ? Also wasn;t the country considerably smaller then too ?
So pretty much every president for ... what.. 150 odd years hs in fact been illegal.
methinks you've been drinking. Likely Scottish whisky. Its best if you head over to the boycott Scotland thread then...
No reds8n, it means that you have to be born in america. However, at the time of the signing of the constitution most of them were british citizens and not american citizens because america had yet to be made.
That last bit just made it so that any of the colonists could be president as well as their children.
Heh. I mean, I think most of us had figured out your interest in reality was loose at best, but that's quite something.
You know what'd be more fun... pretending that Obama was ineligible because he was really only 32 years old. It wouldn't be any dumber and it would be at least a little original.
Well if we want to get original we could just call Obama a lizard... wait, that has been done. A crab... no.... horse... no (heh... funny)....a ... you know what this is dumb, find another maker-upper I quit.
Wow... I mean this one wins... by like a mile and 2.54 quarters... wait... hmmm.
sebster wrote:
You know what'd be more fun... pretending that Obama was ineligible because he was really only 32 years old. It wouldn't be any dumber and it would be at least a little original.
I'm weird, in that I'm giving Barack Obama a chance here, he inherited a pretty rough situation war and economy wise and has barely had 8 onths to turn things around.
I gave the last guy a year in office (which included 9/11) before becoming critical of him, and I'm doing the same for Obama.
Not being a US citizen, of course, I voted for none of the people in power
Nothing that Obama can do regardless of his blackness, supposed citizenship issue, or :gasp: Islamic connection can be worse then what has been done to the U.S. previous to his election by various administrations.
Nor will he be better. He is a politician, and is part of a corrupt and inefficient system of government so no miracles will be forthcoming.
The elite rich will continue to get richer, the poor will continue to fight their wars and die for their stock portfolios and racists and religous/political extremists will continue to wallow in ignorance.
, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
There is no debate, the commas separate it. Without the above it says:
No person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The commas were put there meaning that those who became citizens because of the constitutionand the revolutionary war would be able to be president.
So if you became a citizen at the time of the constitution then yes you could be president, I however doubt that the constitution is signed each year so that anyone who becomes a citizen can still run.
I maintain my sanity with controlled substances and Warhammer. If I had my way in this country there would be a big change. Things would ahppen...wonderful, terrible things.
Ah for a dictatorship for a day. Problem is can anyone be disciplined enough to allow a political system to railroad dramatic policy changes through and then switch back.
Before I die I will be moving to Canada. I have a lot of love for my country but it is less and less every year. I am glad Obama became president as I don't believe he is inherently evil and inept like the previous administration. I want drastic change and that is because I am a absolute socially progressive libertarian. And I totally feel that people in most other developed countries ahve way more on the ball then 80% of the zealous retards in America.
Lemartes wrote:If that is true give him a Oscar. Obama is really an alien and after he takes away all the guns the invasion will begin. You have been warned.
Ahhh yess.. It's amazing the Alien connection hasn't been mentioned until now. When will the American people wake up and realize the true threat is the Alien connection. I heard he is a secret Martian and has plans to sell out Earth.
Martian Communist...grumble grumble....
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean really why doesn't he provide proof that he wasn't born on Mars? What is trying to hide...Hmmmm?
halonachos wrote:
The commas were put there meaning that those who became citizens because of the constitutionand the revolutionary war would be able to be president.
The commas also mean the sentence could be interpreted a different way from the way you are claiming. As none of the founding fathers are alive to ask, the meaning remains unclear, except that plenty of constitutional historians have debated it's meaning for a long time.
So yea, clear to you, and clear as mud to everybody else.
Needless to say, Obama is an American citizen, born in Hawaii, and thus is eligible to be President of the United States.
EDIT:
And if you want to continue this ridiculous line of thought, how is John McCain eligible to be President? Where was he born again?
(BTW, McCain is eligible, I'm just curious if ol' halonachos is just parroting nonsense, or if he actually has a clear grasp of the issue.)
halonachos wrote:, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
There is no debate, the commas separate it. Without the above it says:
I take it you never learned the rules of punctuation. Read and learn. Focus on point three. When you use commas to remove a clause from the normal flow of a sentence it does not follow that it has no effect on the sentence. If that were the case there would be little point in the existence of the clause at all. And lets not even get into what a 'Natural Born Citizen' is.
Also if your point is to be taken at face value, we cannot consider 'or a citizen of the United States' linked to 'at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution'. Which neatly sidesteps the point you make below.
halonachos wrote:
The commas were put there meaning that those who became citizens because of the constitutionand the revolutionary war would be able to be president.
You're debating meaning, not letter. You don't get to clarify the meaning of the letter. You didn't write it.
halonachos wrote:
So if you became a citizen at the time of the constitution then yes you could be president, I however doubt that the constitution is signed each year so that anyone who becomes a citizen can still run.
Debate letter, not meaning. Repeat that to yourself as often as possible because meaning is a debate predicated on desire and historical context.
Rerspectfully Dogma, its an issue of some legal debate by legal scholars and historians. All of your points are in debate by people better versed in the topic than us. Halo's points are valid in that context.
All our interpretations are irrelevant if it goes to court.
Frazzled wrote:Rerspectfully Dogma, its an issue of some legal debate by legal scholars and historians. All of your points are in debate by people better versed in the topic than us. Halo's points are valid in that context.
All our interpretations are irrelevant if it goes to court.
Ah, I didn't meant to say I was right. I meant to say that his comment of 'there is no debate' is wrong. Because, as you've pointed out, there is a great deal of debate.
Though I still say its rather odd to treat one comma as some kind of wall, while treating another like it isn't there.
)
I know I qualify for the new home buyer credit, but I'm not expecting much. I dunno what it takes to get that full $7000 if it's even possible, I bought a 1 bedroom condo 
).
.
.
