I've not listened to his show, as shows like this make my skin crawl, but what is his agenda and is it valid? I know people have different opinions on how things should work, but these people on Fox just seem to be way over the top. The impression you get from these people is that the federal government should just fund the armed services & law enforcement, everything else should be paid for by the individual (so taxes are kept to the minimum) and the bible should be your life map.
Query on the health care issue he's been ranting on about. How much is your healthcare payments on average over in the US? I think about £120 a month comes out of my wages to cover my national insurance contributions. I was wondering if your costs were about the same or dearer.
That is the real problem out here, it really varies quite a bit.
People with serious health conditions are at risk of losing any health care they have for "pre-existing" conditions.
Most people rely on health care from their jobs, others who do not get health care from their work have to resort to medi-care if we are broke... medi-care sucks.
When you add the costs up to live in the Bay area, I am surprised that more people haven't just up and left. The housing market is crazy right now, prices have nearly doubled on nicer places. Other housing is either run badly, or you are lucky for having a good landlord.
Ok so the following only works if your contributions are higher than us over here: (using sterling as an example, please convert in your own time )
On £20,000 year you probably pay about £120 - £130 in national insurance contributions. So if your payments were £200+, wouldn't the £120 - £130 contribution be better for the individual? Yes it's a tax, but you end up with more money in your pocket, giving you more money to spend, therefore potentially helping the economy. Or am I missing something here?
Wolfstan wrote:Ok so the following only works if your contributions are higher than us over here: (using sterling as an example, please convert in your own time )
On £20,000 year you probably pay about £120 - £130 in national insurance contributions. So if your payments were £200+, wouldn't the £120 - £130 contribution be better for the individual? Yes it's a tax, but you end up with more money in your pocket, giving you more money to spend, therefore potentially helping the economy. Or am I missing something here?
U.S. citizens fear socialism... and fire fighters? Maybe? Kinda? Sorta? Don't worry mate I may be in Europe quite soon... as will many U.S. citizens.
Wolfstan wrote:but these people on Fox just seem to be way over the top. The impression you get from these people is that the federal government should just fund the armed services & law enforcement
"War and the administration of justice are the chief tasks of even the most barbaric States."
--Heinrich von Treitschke
Current exchange rate as of writing is about $1.65 to the pound. So... a 20K pound a year salery would be about $33000 a year. That's a little less than what I pulled in last year before taxes. 120 pounds a month would equal out to $198 dollars a month. $198 by 12 months is $2367 a year. Seeing as I get paid 26 times a year that would be $91.39 a paycheck deducted for health care.
Now that the math is out of the way
On one hand I might think that is a lot as I am paying it but on the other hand... I can say that I would gladly pay that to never have to worry about any kind of health issue that would pop up. It sure beats the coverage I have now which is nothing. It would also beat situations like I have been in in the past where something has come up and I just had to ignore it and hope for the best because it was either go to a doctor or being able to pay rent and eat. But you know... we are the greatest nation in the world... USA USA #1#1 yeah... right.
Just one more bit... I checked and I made 32K taxable (really 35K but I do have a retirement plan and the deductions for that don't count towards taxable) before taxes last year. I contributions to medicare and FICA which is also part medicare was $2678. So... in reality... I already am paying almost that much and not getting ANYTHING!!! What do I have to do to become a British citizen?
If the plan was refocused this reform could result in some very substantial changes. One mistake I think the Obama administration has made is in their need to work way too fast.
I would not be surprised AT ALL if this whole situation put the republicans that are seriously against any sort of real change to the system to shame... serious and utter shame. The kind of personal degradation that could result in the devouring of FOX NEWS. I see a very powerful trend building up of people that are simply sick and tired of hearing huge amounts of nonsense, and they are making that completely clear.
If this change does not come, the U.S. will stand to lose quite a bit of support throughout the world, and on top of this quite a few of its citizens. I would rather be a citizen in the EU, than be in a country that has no spine when it comes to serious issues like this.
Wolfstan wrote:Ok so the following only works if your contributions are higher than us over here: (using sterling as an example, please convert in your own time )
On £20,000 year you probably pay about £120 - £130 in national insurance contributions. So if your payments were £200+, wouldn't the £120 - £130 contribution be better for the individual? Yes it's a tax, but you end up with more money in your pocket, giving you more money to spend, therefore potentially helping the economy. Or am I missing something here?
U.S. citizens fear socialism... and fire fighters? Maybe? Kinda? Sorta? Don't worry mate I may be in Europe quite soon... as will many U.S. citizens.
Escaping fears of socialism by running to Europe? You do know where socialism was invented right?
You guys do realise that socialism doesn't actually exist right ? It's all been a huge "Candid camera" style prank that has, I'll admit, gotten a bit out of hand. It started when you were a young, new, fresh faced country, we did similar to all the new countries. It's the equivalent of sending the new guy to get the bulb wrench or the tartan paint.
Wait until 2014 when we move the screens away and reveal to their astonishment that Australia is in fact just south of Brighton. How we'll laugh.
Glenn Beck and his employers know that screaming, crying, and appealing to emotions can make lots of money. Now they know that it can also make that money hard to come by in the short-run. Long-run that money will come back, just from different hands.
Anti-intellectualism has always been a part of American culture. Now it has more outlets. Let's hope it doesn't reach the levels of early Bolshevik Russia.
My impression of him is that he is a fear monger, and he makes a living off of scaring old/white people, and or the allready scared old/white people. He didn't used to be this way, so I personally believe he has found a new, more profitable target audience.
Now onto socialism and why Americans fear it. Americans are pretty much raised from birth to fear anything noncapitalistic. Unfortunately they end up confusing socialism with Marxism/communism. This is why you get all the, "them guys are a bunch of Commies", comments. The bottom line is that pure unfettered capitalism fails, and pure unfettered socialism fails. That's why you need a mixture of both. America allready has some forms of socialist programs like, medicare, social security, child labor laws, overtime laws, etc,etc. Americans tend to confuse any attempt at initiating social reforms as being communist.
And here is where people like Sean Hannity and Glen Beck come in, capitilizing on the ingrained fear of socialist reform.
I think the first problem is that you're looking for something "on earth" to explain Glenn Beck. Best-case, I'd be looking more to Mars or beyond.
The guy is a kook that gets only two kinds of people to listen to him: those that want to be offended and other kooks. Kinda like Rush, Coulter, O'Riley...
I think the main issue here is trust. The American people have seen how our government handles it's money. If you had a relative who could only keep foreclosure and bankruptcy at bay by finding new ways to borrow more money, would you be willing to pay them to oversee the funding of your healthcare? I know I'm not.
Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:
"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"
Lordhat wrote:I think the main issue here is trust. The American people have seen how our government handles it's money. If you had a relative who could only keep foreclosure and bankruptcy at bay by finding new ways to borrow more money, would you be willing to pay them to oversee the funding of your healthcare? I know I'm not.
This is a pretty good statement. Americans don't trust the government. We want choices and do what we want and we want to complain about it. Also if this reform were to actually work it would take at least a year to write, not a few months. It would be debated for another year. The problem is that presidents have 4 years to look good and make his term seem effective. Presidents don't look for long term solutions because they don't get the credit for it.
Also for the person who talked about social security - that program is not for retirement. When it was first created it was to help people from expenses they didn't plan on incurring. It was never supposed to be a retirement plan.
Wolfstan wrote:Ok so the following only works if your contributions are higher than us over here: (using sterling as an example, please convert in your own time )
On £20,000 year you probably pay about £120 - £130 in national insurance contributions. So if your payments were £200+, wouldn't the £120 - £130 contribution be better for the individual? Yes it's a tax, but you end up with more money in your pocket, giving you more money to spend, therefore potentially helping the economy. Or am I missing something here?
U.S. citizens fear socialism... and fire fighters? Maybe? Kinda? Sorta? Don't worry mate I may be in Europe quite soon... as will many U.S. citizens.
Escaping fears of socialism by running to Europe? You do know where socialism was invented right?
Wait... the joke... over the head... wait... look again... yeah, again... there you go Ahtman-dude-man.
Wolfstan wrote:Monthly
You heard him... monthly... we fear them monthly, like a ritual or something, with bones and... well it is macaroni actually, anyway though.
The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:
"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"
The better question is how you can think the pretend private system you have right now is at all efficient when you are spending 1/6 of your economy on healthcare? Germany and France spend about 11%, every other developed country is 8% or less. And they all have better healthcare than you. The fundamental question is what happend to make your anti-government ideology is so strong that you'll ignore the fact that strong government intervention in healthcare produces better outcomes at half the price.
The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:
"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"
Your not going to get an answer.
That way lies the emperor's new clothes and whatnot.
It's easier to say Beck is a kook.
The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:
"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"
The better question is how you can think the pretend private system you have right now is at all efficient when you are spending 1/6 of your economy on healthcare? Germany and France spend about 11%, every other developed country is 8% or less. And they all have better healthcare than you. The fundamental question is what happend to make your anti-government ideology is so strong that you'll ignore the fact that strong government intervention in healthcare produces better outcomes at half the price.
That... and Glenn Beck is an utter and complete disgrace to the news community on more levels than even he could imagine.
Do you listen to the guy in the tin-foil hat? Wait... you do? Could you have someone else ask me, I feel like I am talking to Alex Jones twin... but he bathes a bit more regularly, and he actually uses a toothbrush . Seriously... dude is whacked ten ways from Sunday and Friday as well.
Zip Napalm wrote:
The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:
"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"
Your not going to get an answer.
That way lies the emperor's new clothes and whatnot.
It's easier to say Beck is a kook.
He is a kook... that aside, he is a hypocrite who uses fear-mongering to bait people into a state of... you guessed it, into a state of Fear. Simple really, but it works better when you listen over time, the main point being is that the only questions he has are drowned out by jargonistic ranting/ranting/ranting/ranting... and LOOK WE GOT GOOD RATINGS!!!
If you have that big of an issue with your government you should be talking to the corporations that we allow to manipulate us. All of the money being invested into political gain through congress is absolutely ludicrous. Stop buying Mcdonalds and grill your own burgers, etc... etc... etc...
The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:
"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"
The better question is how you can think the pretend private system you have right now is at all efficient when you are spending 1/6 of your economy on healthcare? Germany and France spend about 11%, every other developed country is 8% or less. And they all have better healthcare than you. The fundamental question is what happend to make your anti-government ideology is so strong that you'll ignore the fact that strong government intervention in healthcare produces better outcomes at half the price.
Healthcare is not provided to save money. It's there to relieve suffering.
Is there something wrong with providing Health Care Reform in an efficient way?
This whole concept of economic efficiency is the only Republican talking point left aside the whole Obama is Hitler thing... and you don't need to go there...
Because Hitler has already been and gone in the form of the Glenn Beck thread making thing going on in the place with the pudding...
Man... totally hypnotizing eh? Yeah.. that is what I thought about while making this and the place with the pudding took place in the place with the YO DAWG I GIGGITY GIGGITY GOTTA GO DAWG!!!
1991 was a decent year for wine... and cheese too if I recall correctly from my book of factoids and special information. Peta and Pate suffered a serious decline of popularity at this point though du(de) to their connection to goose anus.
I edited again because I read this and laughed... ahhh, yes life is sweet.
Zip Napalm wrote:Healthcare is not provided to save money. It's there to relieve suffering.
Yeah, and the more money you spend the better you should able to relieve suffering... if the system is a decent one. And yet for all the money you spend, you don't extend lives as long as countries spending half as much. This is not a complex thing, you spend 50% more of GDP than the next country, and around double the average. For that amount of money you get the 37th best healthcare system. Behind Slovenia.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zip Napalm wrote:Your not going to get an answer.
That way lies the emperor's new clothes and whatnot.
It's easier to say Beck is a kook.
It's a crap question. It's a crap question because 'mishandled' is not a clear criticism, and there's no effort made to substantiate what 'mishandled' means.
And when someone says Obama is a racist who hates white people, I think kook is probably the kindest assessment.
Zip Napalm wrote:Your not going to get an answer.
That way lies the emperor's new clothes and whatnot.
It's easier to say Beck is a kook.
It's a crap question. It's a crap question because 'mishandled' is not a clear criticism, and there's no effort made to substantiate what 'mishandled' means.
And when someone says Obama is a racist who hates white people, I think kook is probably the kindest assessment.
The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:
"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"
What does 'mishandled' mean in the context of this question? All programs, over their lifetime, run into financial issues which require adjustment. Just like planning in the private sector; planning in the government requires adaptability. Unfortunately, given the nature of our government/electorate, adaptation is always a slow process.
Also, why the hell is banking in that list of things which the government has 'mishandled'?
Hey, I've got a better question:
"Given that the private sector has a history rife with financial incompetence, bankruptcy, duplicitous business practices, and outright crime; why should we allow them to have a hand in US healthcare?"
I addressed the question. I pointed out it was an awful question because 'mishandled' doesn't mean anything. I could have pointed out that the claim sounds meaningful to the collection of chuckleheads that like complaining about government, who wouldn't ever bother to stop to think about exactly what 'mishandled' means, as they take it as a given that it is government and therefore bad. So the claim works for Beck and his core audience, but fails as soon as it tries to address a mainstream audience, where 'mishandled' is quickly seen as a meaningless piece of rhetoric. But I didn't think I needed to spell that out.
Meanwhile, you didn't even try to substantiate what 'mishandled' meant. Is this because you never really thought about? Don't tell me you just took it for granted that it was true...
I want Glenn Beck to lose his hands... so that I don't have to see any more of his lying, slanted, bullcrap books in my workplace. I can turn off the radio, I can turn off the TV, but I can't avoid looking at the covers of books when I work at a bookstore.
One of the things that I think is keeping many Americans from supporting more government involvement in sectors like health care is its own wasteful spending and lack of accountability. For example, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) announced last week that it could not account for $24 billion from the Federal Budget last year. Now, I know some people will make the argument that that amount is really insignificant compared to the overall budget, but I think that is an excuse and a cop out. That is a massive amount of money, bigger than many nations' entire GDP, and there is no excuse for that much to just be "missing." The Federal government should be required to audit itself every year, and that should include the Federal Reserve. Yes that would be an enormous undertaking every year, but not only will it help to keep the government accountable, it will also help to create more jobs.
Accountability and wastefulness are just some of the many problems though that hinder any real developments on reform and the like. If President Obama had been thinking intelligently, he would not have trusted the Democrats on Capitol Hill to write the current health care bills, nor would he try and push it through in such a short amount of time. The Democrats are creating another bill, similar to the pork-ridden "stimulus" package that was passed earlier this year, that is both impossible and ridiculous. Combine this Christmas tree bill with the haste the President and the Democrats have employed to try and get this through Congress and you will get fear and paranoia among the American populace. Many Americans, including myself, do not see how there could be any sustainable, trustworthy program of reforms written and passed so quickly. This paranoia has fueled a movement of anger and hatred toward the bills (my last count put them at 5) that are being considered in Congress. All of these bills comprise over 1,000 pages of law and not one member of the House or Senate knows the bill thoroughly, not even the leadership of both parties.
Do I have an answer to the health care situation? No, and I don't presume to be wise or intelligent enough to find one soon. I can only think of several ideas that could be dealt with one at a time, and may help to bring down costs. The biggest one that I can think of is the frivolous lawsuits that plague the entire industry. Because the lawsuits occur frequently, and I don't think that they are always justified, they force the members of the health care industry to allocate more and more money to either fight them in court or to just pay plaintiffs in a settlement. Don't tell me that the trial lawyer lobby hasn't had a hand in blocking reform of this issue, especially since they are by and large some of the largest supporters of the Democratic party. If these costs were limited, the various companies would not have to charge so much in order to stay afloat. This would also help to alleviate doctors of the ridiculous costs they must endure in order to pay for malpractice insurance. (Here in California, Malpractice insurance can set a doctor back $150,000 a year easy, that is if they have a clean record and no lawsuits.)
Lastly, Glen Beck. I used to like Glen Beck quite a bit, but ever since his transfer to Fox News, the quality of his show has plummeted. He now is in the same arena as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Madcow and other partisan hacks. Its to bad, he used to be much better and much more intelligent...now the only one I like is pretty much Larry Elder.
JEB_Stuart wrote:For example, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) announced last week that it could not account for $24 billion from the Federal Budget last year. Now, I know some people will make the argument that that amount is really insignificant compared to the overall budget, but I think that is an excuse and a cop out.
I'm actually amazed that the budget is kept as closely as it is. All those cost-plus contracts are difficult to track.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
If President Obama had been thinking intelligently, he would not have trusted the Democrats on Capitol Hill to write the current health care bills, nor would he try and push it through in such a short amount of time.
The alternative would have been to present a bill of his own. Personally, I wish he would have done this. It would have made it harder for the opposition to lie about its content. However, it also would have tied the President to a single piece of legislation, which has it own issues. Though I suppose that has happened anyway.
Its amusing really, the controversy surrounding this bill has really elucidated just how simplistic American politics are. You have this big issue, healthcare reform, which can be approached in multiple ways. Everyone and their mother is clamoring for a longer debate; forgetting that the process of passing a bill into law is debate. One which actually forces officials to pay attention and think, rather than stall. This bill will likely be defeated, but hopefully another one will take its place soon after. That's how the process is supposed to work anyway. The rejection of a single bill isn't a defeat for those who championed it; simply a call to go back to the drawing board. Especially on something like healthcare which is so often called into question.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
The Democrats are creating another bill, similar to the pork-ridden "stimulus" package that was passed earlier this year, that is both impossible and ridiculous.
You'll have to clarify what you mean by 'pork' here. The stimulus package was designed to fund various projects around the nation with the overall intent of softening the recession. This pretty much necessitates spending of a more localized form, which is the normal definition of pork; a definition which is meaningless here.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Combine this Christmas tree bill with the haste the President and the Democrats have employed to try and get this through Congress and you will get fear and paranoia among the American populace. Many Americans, including myself, do not see how there could be any sustainable, trustworthy program of reforms written and passed so quickly.
You're correct. Writing a quality bill of that length in such a short time is impossible, but pushing the bill makes people pay attention to the issue.
dogma wrote:
I'm actually amazed that the budget is kept as closely as it is. All those cost-plus contracts are difficult to track.
While I appreciate the optimism I still find it inexcusable to lose that much money. I agree that the Federal budget is massive, too big in my opinion, but that doesn't mean a lack of accountability is in order.
dogma wrote:
The alternative would have been to present a bill of his own. Personally, I wish he would have done this. It would have made it harder for the opposition to lie about its content. However, it also would have tied the President to a single piece of legislation, which has it own issues. Though I suppose that has happened anyway.
QFT, I completely agree with you on this Dogma. While I have never been a big fan of the government being involved in health care, the President should have taken responsibility on this issue and had his administration craft the first bill for Congress. It is his responsibility to convince fiscal conservatives, such as myself, why we can and should have this, and how we can afford it without mortgaging our future to foreign countries. Sadly, I think that he has failed at this and the idiots in Congress, namely Pelosi and Reid, have strengthened the resolve of my resistance on this matter. For any of you who read her column, Camille Paglia (whom I consider to be one of the best women writers in the world), suggested the President come up with a system of small, realistic benchmarks in order to slowly gain the public's trust on the matter and educate them on the possibilities and realities of health care reform. Here is her blog, which can be found as listed on the Drudge Report: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/ .
dogma wrote:
You'll have to clarify what you mean by 'pork' here. The stimulus package was designed to fund various projects around the nation with the overall intent of softening the recession. This pretty much necessitates spending of a more localized form, which is the normal definition of pork; a definition which is meaningless here.
dogma wrote:
You're correct. Writing a quality bill of that length in such a short time is impossible, but pushing the bill makes people pay attention to the issue.
While attention on the issue is needed, and definitely more debate and research is merited, this still begs the question: what if we get saddled with this monstrosity of a bill? With the recent declaration of Democratic leadership that this bill will pass, whether the American people like it or not, and of course this also mean without the support of a single Republican in Congress. Now I am no fan of either party, I am definitely not a liberal, but even more definitely not a member of the neoconservative movement, but the thing that bugs me is the blame the Democratic Party is laying on Republicans. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26250.html) There is no way to blame the GOP as they are so out of power it isn't even funny. With a filibuster proof Senate and a large majority in the House, lets be honest, there is no excuse for any bill to be a problem. Back to my original point though. This current bill is a major mistake, and is just one huge bubbling pile of that makes Rosie O'Donnell look attractive. Let us not support this bill but work for a more sustainable, realistic approach that deals with the issues one at a time, and sets a series of benchmarks that require progress.
I find this ironic seeing as how Pelosi is the one who began the labeling of protesters as Nazi's.
Except that isn't true. She didn't call them nazis, she said they were wearing swastikas. The difference is important, because they were;
The difference is also important because she was talking about the extremism of the protestors, that they were just the nutty fringe, and didn't represent the majority opinion on healthcare. When someone is calling you a nazi for trying to expand healthcare, it's reasonable to call them nutty.
Whoever is telling you Pelosi started it was lying to you, or was themselves lied to and didn't properly check their source. You should stop listening to that person.
sebster wrote:Yeah, and the more money you spend the better you should able to relieve suffering... if the system is a decent one. And yet for all the money you spend, you don't extend lives as long as countries spending half as much. This is not a complex thing, you spend 50% more of GDP than the next country, and around double the average. For that amount of money you get the 37th best healthcare system. Behind Slovenia.
sebster, can you provide sources for the above info? I'm genuinely curious...
I find this ironic seeing as how Pelosi is the one who began the labeling of protesters as Nazi's.
Except that isn't true. She didn't call them nazis, she said they were wearing swastikas. The difference is important, because they were;
The difference is also important because she was talking about the extremism of the protestors, that they were just the nutty fringe, and didn't represent the majority opinion on healthcare. When someone is calling you a nazi for trying to expand healthcare, it's reasonable to call them nutty.
Whoever is telling you Pelosi started it was lying to you, or was themselves lied to and didn't properly check their source. You should stop listening to that person.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
QFT, I completely agree with you on this Dogma. While I have never been a big fan of the government being involved in health care, the President should have taken responsibility on this issue and had his administration craft the first bill for Congress. It is his responsibility to convince fiscal conservatives, such as myself, why we can and should have this,
Well, it isn't only his job. Its the job of anyone who believes a public option/single payer is the way to go (as distinct from general healthcare reform, which doesn't necessarily cost anything).
JEB_Stuart wrote:
and how we can afford it without mortgaging our future to foreign countries.
Our future is already mortgaged to foreign nations; its always been mortgaged to foreign nations. Especially if you go beyond fiscal debt, and into matters of relative power.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Sadly, I think that he has failed at this and the idiots in Congress, namely Pelosi and Reid, have strengthened the resolve of my resistance on this matter. For any of you who read her column, Camille Paglia (whom I consider to be one of the best women writers in the world), suggested the President come up with a system of small, realistic benchmarks in order to slowly gain the public's trust on the matter and educate them on the possibilities and realities of health care reform. Here is her blog, which can be found as listed on the Drudge Report: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/ .
Benchmarks mean nothing. They're essentially legislative excuses designed to ameliorate calls for action.
So its porky be dearth of granting flexibility to state governmental authorities? That's kinda wonky man. I'm not a huge fan of the stimulus bill as there are numerous projects which I think went untouched (why not work on getting closer to 100% wifi coverage?), but I wouldn't call it pork ridden. Like I said before, stimulus is pretty much just conventional pork (ancillary expenditures) that's been concentrated for effect; meaning that it isn't actually pork at all.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
While attention on the issue is needed, and definitely more debate and research is merited, this still begs the question: what if we get saddled with this monstrosity of a bill?
That's the risk you take in representative systems. Had there actually been honest consideration of the issue throughout both parties there might actually bills in circulation which were more than partisan talking points written into the legislative system.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
With the recent declaration of Democratic leadership that this bill will pass, whether the American people like it or not, and of course this also mean without the support of a single Republican in Congress. Now I am no fan of either party, I am definitely not a liberal, but even more definitely not a member of the neoconservative movement, but the thing that bugs me is the blame the Democratic Party is laying on Republicans. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26250.html) There is no way to blame the GOP as they are so out of power it isn't even funny. With a filibuster proof Senate and a large majority in the House, lets be honest, there is no excuse for any bill to be a problem. Back to my original point though. This current bill is a major mistake, and is just one huge bubbling pile of that makes Rosie O'Donnell look attractive. Let us not support this bill but work for a more sustainable, realistic approach that deals with the issues one at a time, and sets a series of benchmarks that require progress.
The bills floating around now are crap because they're little more than variations on the single payer system, or "let the magic hand sort it out".
Incremental reform is one way to go. The obvious point of departure being an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid (also know as a public option) in concert with a removal of the income ceiling on FICA (What do you mean conservatives won't support it? Its a flat tax!). However, its important to distinguish between setting benchmarks, and the deconstruction of a massive issue. Benchmarks are useless, repackaging issues is actually quite effective.
Yeah, that was a stupid promise. Any interest can be cast as a special interest. Its really gotten to the point where there aren't any other kinds of interests.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Urg...my stomach just lurched. The more I read about the government's wastefulness the more I despise it...
Then its probably a good idea not to spend to much time looking at the books of major multinationals. Not pretty.
Dogma wrote:Incremental reform is one way to go. The obvious point of departure being an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid (also know as a public option) in concert with a removal of the income ceiling on FICA (What do you mean conservatives won't support it? Its a flat tax!). However, its important to distinguish between setting benchmarks, and the deconstruction of a massive issue. Benchmarks are useless, repackaging issues is actually quite effective.
Hmmm... I fail to see how that truly makes any sense. Quite honestly I think Ron Paul had a much better idea that that one, and I was not a fan of his ideological push to get more non-profits to fill the gap; basically volunteers as I took what he said. Recently Medicare was cut twice... on top of which it is entirely overburdened and in need of a total re-work. This in itself I find to be a bit stupid, but it could be a politically affiliated decision based on distribution of pills. Not a paranoid theory, but I do wonder how all of these changes are going to work when all we have is super cheap pills for everything. No preventative care because Medicare has never really done that, and I highly doubt it will ever change in that respect.
I really wonder where this is going to end up, I cannot tell at this point if the U.S. is just totally screwed and this is the only way to distract everyone, or if real action is being taken to overwhelm the lobbyists and get a real bill passed. Perhaps it is some of the stuff I have been watching, or seeing everyone continue that ludicrous conversation with Halanchos, but the whole debate seems to be hinged on preconceptions about socialism and how to make this look like something other than another socialist reform. Sure it won't make the U.S. a socialist country entirely, but how in the hell can short term incremental fixes really fix anything? I fail to see how this new direction won't result in pay-offs and utter and total epic failure on the Democratic majority side. Don't they make the decisions now?
Wrexasaur wrote:
Hmmm... I fail to see how that truly makes any sense. Quite honestly I think Ron Paul had a much better idea that that one, and I was not a fan of his ideological push to get more non-profits to fill the gap; basically volunteers as I took what he said. Recently Medicare was cut twice... on top of which it is entirely overburdened and in need of a total re-work.
The basic idea is to gain trust from the people by fixing the public medical plans which we currently have. Any expansion of Medicare/Medicaid carries, in my mind, an implicit reform of those institutions. The removal of the FICA ceiling simply addresses the problems in inherent with funding (I believe its currently capped at 67k).
Wrexasaur wrote:
Perhaps it is some of the stuff I have been watching, or seeing everyone continue that ludicrous conversation with Halanchos, but the whole debate seems to be hinged on preconceptions about socialism and how to make this look like something other than another socialist reform.
That is a big part of it. I was talking to a former professor the other day, and the conversation eventually turned to the linguistic limitations of debate. The gist of it was that all the terminology which we use to discuss political reform (even the word government) has been so thoroughly tarnished by a combination of Democratic ineptitude, and Republican smear campaigns, that honest discussion is all but impossible.
A good example is the recent comparison of the state to Fascist Europe. A lot of people are looking at that nonsense and concluding that the people drawing the comparisons don't really understand the evil of Hitler and his ilk; something I agree with if understanding is cast in terms of intellect. They don't really know anything about how the Nazis came to power, or the overt nature of the violence perpetrated in his name. What they do understand is that Hitler, and Fascism, are evil. They have an emotional response to the term, an incredibly strong one, which can be used to gauge the level of apprehension surrounding the discussion of any concepts to which are portrayed analogically.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Sure it won't make the U.S. a socialist country entirely, but how in the hell can short term incremental fixes really fix anything? I fail to see how this new direction won't result in pay-offs and utter and total epic failure on the Democratic majority side. Don't they make the decisions now?
Kind of. In the end you have to stay in power to ensure your work isn't simply undone when you leave office.
However, that is the danger of incremental progress. The electorate may lose interest in the issue once a few bills are passed, and the problem is 'fixed', long before anything significant is really accomplished. Though even that isn't necessarily bad, as an electorate desensitized to the rhetoric surrounding a given issue is more likely to blithely accept any measure taken to address it.
The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:
"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"
What does 'mishandled' mean in the context of this question? All programs, over their lifetime, run into financial issues which require adjustment. Just like planning in the private sector; planning in the government requires adaptability. Unfortunately, given the nature of our government/electorate, adaptation is always a slow process.
Also, why the hell is banking in that list of things which the government has 'mishandled'?
What "mishandled" means in the context of the question is this: pure and utter bungling at best and outright theft at worst. None of the projections for the cost of Social Security or Medicare were even close to what it has ended up costing to fund those programs. The Social Security trust fund has been raided and worthless IOUs left where it was and now those nice letters I get telling me how much I'll get when I retire have little asterisks leading to footnotes reminding me the system will be Bankrupt before I retire. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac insisted that banks loan to people that probably should not have been homeowners in the name of fairness, bought up the bad loans and the Taxpayer is left holding the bag. I've included Banking in the mix because the Federal Government has a hand in banking... you have heard of the Federal Reserve system have you not? And the recent unpleasantness with banks requiring Federal bailouts... did you sleep through that? Who is left holding the bag (again)? The Taxpayer.
We are not talking about "financial issues" or "adjustments". What I see is a repeated pattern of politicians lying to get programs passed that will endear them to a sector of the populace in order to secure their votes and establish themselves in power. I don't trust either side of the Political aisle... they are all nothing but professional vote whores looking to keep themselves entrenched in the DC power brokers circle. This "Health Care Reform" ... excuse me "Health Insurance Reform" is nothing but a big vote buying excursion at the Taxpayer's expense.
There is no Socialist policy the US will EVER (in our lifetimes, at least, but sadly I imagine until it crumbles) implement that can adequately be described as such. You're so scared of anything that's even middle of the road, deriding it as the work of the Devil, Nazis, and Commies.
It's a funny as it is tragic.
The US healthcare system makes me cry - keeping only the rich alive is surely the antithesis of the American Dream. The point of all Men being equal (which, I thought, was self-evident) was that they could all get to healthcare when they need it? that they could continue to support their families while doing so, not being forced to choose between working and risking death or taking time off and risking their job.
It's far from a perfect system, but it's a lot better than your current one.
As for Obama being rushed? That would be because of your scaremonger Media moaning that he hasn't brought about as much change as he promised. I sincerely hope he gets the 8 years he'll need just to try and turn the country around, but sadly the electorates of the West are much more fickle than that.
VermGho5t wrote:That lady is not wearing a swastika in the pic.
So your attention to detail is vague enough that you don't mind the difference between 'they're wearing swastikas' and 'they're nazis'... when the difference is whether you're saying protestors are producing extreme, nonsensical rhetoric or they're white supremacists. It's a big difference.
But your attention to detail is strong enough that you have a problem with whether the swastikas are on armbands or posters. Because the difference is, umm....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:sebster, can you provide sources for the above info? I'm genuinely curious...
thanx,
GG
The 37th ranking is given by WHO, and is shown in the link from reds8n.
reds8n wrote: You guys do realise that socialism doesn't actually exist right ? It's all been a huge "Candid camera" style prank that has, I'll admit, gotten a bit out of hand. It started when you were a young, new, fresh faced country, we did similar to all the new countries. It's the equivalent of sending the new guy to get the bulb wrench or the tartan paint.
Wait until 2014 when we move the screens away and reveal to their astonishment that Australia is in fact just south of Brighton. How we'll laugh.
QFT...even the Australia bit. Most news you see on TV is there to divide the public so the powers-that-be conquer the populace.
Elessar wrote:
As for Obama being rushed? That would be because of your scaremonger Media moaning that he hasn't brought about as much change as he promised.
Just a note, as a professional journalist, I would like to point out that with the exception of Fox News, and a couple newspapers, the media by and large adores Barack Obama. To point to the media as the scaremonger is a gross misplacement of blame....
The Green Git wrote:
What "mishandled" means in the context of the question is this: pure and utter bungling at best and outright theft at worst.
So you explain the term 'mishandled' by using a synonym (bungling), and an epithet? You don't know what explain means, do you?
The Green Git wrote:
None of the projections for the cost of Social Security or Medicare were even close to what it has ended up costing to fund those programs.The Social Security trust fund has been raided and worthless IOUs left where it was and now those nice letters I get telling me how much I'll get when I retire have little asterisks leading to footnotes reminding me the system will be Bankrupt before I retire.
So none of the cost projections for Social Security or Medicare have been even close to accurate, except the ones that inform you that it will be bankrupt? Why would you trust the latest cost projection when you clearly believe prior ones were intrinsically flawed.
The Green Git wrote:
Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac insisted that banks loan to people that probably should not have been homeowners in the name of fairness, bought up the bad loans and the Taxpayer is left holding the bag.
I've had to rebut this nonsense far too many time for me to bother doing so again. Suffice it to say the issue if significantly more complicated than you want it to be.
The Green Git wrote:
I've included Banking in the mix because the Federal Government has a hand in banking... you have heard of the Federal Reserve system have you not? And the recent unpleasantness with banks requiring Federal bailouts... did you sleep through that? Who is left holding the bag (again)? The Taxpayer.
A hand is distinct from the kind of control which would be necessary to assign absolute blame, which is what you are clearly doing.
The Green Git wrote:
We are not talking about "financial issues" or "adjustments". What I see is a repeated pattern of politicians lying to get programs passed that will endear them to a sector of the populace in order to secure their votes and establish themselves in power.
Wow, representatives, working inside a representative system, attempting to benefit the people they represent. Shocking, truly shocking.
Either way, initial cost projections are often incorrect, regardless of the person making them. Making the inference of willful ignorance, or outright duplicity, attributes whole lot of excess agency to the people in power.
The Green Git wrote:
I don't trust either side of the Political aisle... they are all nothing but professional vote whores looking to keep themselves entrenched in the DC power brokers circle. This "Health Care Reform" ... excuse me "Health Insurance Reform" is nothing but a big vote buying excursion at the Taxpayer's expense.
I'd try reasoning with you, but I doubt it would have any impact.
Dogma wrote:I'd try reasoning with you, but I doubt it would have any impact.
Wait... wait wait... wait.... yeah, wait a bit more, and a... yeah, a bit more, yeah that is it...
You don't know what explain means, do you?
Dude... this part says to me that you stopped before you even started... like a... hmmm, this is a tough one... like a... like a, ummm.... a tofu platter. Yeah, that makes sense... Not a joke about the joke but a back-up to the joke that was delivered with the first-class... okay I will stop meow.
Yeah... and then this part...
"Note"
And clearly Dogma takes the sense with him towards that place known as... erm... what was that again? Wait, I know it was a ice cream store... no, it IS yogurt, and it IS frozen... crizzap the space-time continuum has glitched.
Dude... it is a plan to fry all of our brains... like potatoes' and... tomatoes... and grandma too . Wait, okay that isn't okay anymore, so he is like a yam now, or... a water... no... a pancreas... no... a... meh, never mind.
WAIT... STOP!!! Okay, now this... which is the point of the pudding having... with the place and blablabla...
The majority of the media did still love Obama (does, I suppose) but there is nothing more fickle in the world than a newspaper. He knows that they can destroy his presidency with libellous claims and outright lies, no matter what he achieves. THAT's pressure.
For every supposed "kook" like Glenn Beck on the right I could point to another "kook" on the left like the MoveOn.orgs or Huffington Posts or the New York Times.
I feel we've gotten off topic oddly enough here. If you've listened to his show on a regular basis, you'll find that he holds both parties in contempt for massively wasteful spending, unchecked expansion of governement power, willfully eroding the constitutional rights of everyday Americans. I don't agree with everything he says, but if you've read his book Common Sense, you'll find that it has, well, lots of common sense.
A few things that are his favorite topics that I'll spout off on here.
Bailouts (Financial and Auto Industries)- The government subsidized large banks, insurance firms, GM, and Chrysler to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. In return, they now have increased regulatory control of banking as a whole and partly own two large american automakers. The reason why Beck and others are against this is that it goes against EVERYTHING (Capitals, oh my) that America stands for, supposedly. Since they used taxpayer dollars to fund the bailout, it becomes a redistribution of wealth from everyday citizens to banks, auto industries, and oddly enough, the unions (who now have a larger stake in the GM and Chrysler). The creditors of GM were basically told to shove off as GM went into bankruptcy.
If I were a bank or auto maker who had kept his nose clean in the economic downturn and way before that (these problems didn't manifest overnight), I'd be furious. Instead of rewarding success with tax incentives, or simply showing that failur IS an option; they've gone ahead and given a safety net for companies. Where is the motivation now to be fiscally responsible?
Healthcare is a huge hot button topic in America right now. No one is saying the healthcare system is perfect. However, 85% of Americans are satisfied with their health insurance and a majority (I believe it's 51-54%) do not support the healthcare reform bill(s) in the congress right now. Alot of people seem to say that the Repulicans and the various talk show hosts are obstructionist and have a "do nothing" attitude. I believe that couldn't be farther from the truth. The simple fact of the matter is that the president and the controlling parties set the legislative agenda. With massive majorities in both houses, the Dems could push this through if they were willing to pay the political price. However, their own "blue dogs" are wavering on this because they know they'll get kicked out of office in 2010.
Arlen Specter, Barney Frank, Pelosi, and Reid are discounting the protestors as nazis, kooks, paid protestors, and wackos - simply because they disagree. For every protestor taking a gun to a meeting or holding up a swastika; there are a thousand more who are respectfully asking questions and raising concerns that the Dems will simply not answer. The fact that the majority of the media focuses on the few crazies as representative of the group seem to implicate them as being at least left-leaning if not openly leftist (ABC news comes to mind).
My biggest beef with healthcare is the fact that I don't believe the government could manage itself out of a wet paper bag. I work for the military so I know exactly the kind of massive costs incurred with everything the goverment does. My own state (Maine) recently figured out it had a 29 million dollar deficit which is illegal according to the state constitution (Maine law requires the budget to be balanced). The reason why? They projected 29 million dollars in "savings" from the Dirigo state health insurance plan which didn't materialize. With massive social security overruns, a current medicare/medicaid system headed toward bankruptcy, and skyrocketing debt, most Americans don't belive their government when they say they'll craft a comprehensive reform bill that will not only increase coverage, but lower costs and improve standard of care.
A few things from Beck that I whole-heartedly agree with.
1. Two party system is no longer good for the country especially since they're basically just different types of used car salesmen. We need a strong third party.
2. More government equals bad - whichever party is proposing it.
3. Government for a long time has not listened to the people it actually is supposed to represent. Frustration is finally boiling over and that is why you are seeing this massive outpouring of anger.
I find it odd that there are so many non Americans posting in these topics. Are your own national politics so boring that you feel you must "contribute" to ours? I'm not trying to flame-bait here, but I do wonder why you insist of telling us how superior your system is. I can't recall ever telling a Brit or Aussie how I think they should run their country. I can certainly understand on matter of international politics and foreign affairs - have at it. But is US healthcare really that important to you? just curious
There's a few things I feel I should say in regards to what I don't like about Beck. Some of the hates white people stuff about Obama is over the top but it makes for good ratings. It's no worse than claims that Bush/Cheney wanted blacks to die in New Orleans. The antics and hysterics are really just a ratings thing. You get riled up and it keeps people interested. That's why no one watches PBS - too dull.
In the end, I'll say that Beck doesn't really change anyone's mind just like MoveOn only preaches to the choir. The real problem is that there aren't enough Bob Novaks (RIP) left in this world who are just interested in the story - not advancing an ideology.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:For every supposed "kook" like Glenn Beck on the right I could point to another "kook" on the left like the MoveOn.orgs or Huffington Posts or the New York Times.
I feel we've gotten off topic oddly enough here. If you've listened to his show on a regular basis, you'll find that he holds both parties in contempt for massively wasteful spending, unchecked expansion of government power, willfully eroding the constitutional rights of everyday Americans. I don't agree with everything he says, but if you've read his book Common Sense, you'll find that it has, well, lots of common sense.
QFT.
I don't expect dogma or any of the other hard leftists to stop defending The Messiah™ or any of the Dems long enough to hear what I'm actually saying. They will just blather on about how I'm another Right Wing nutjob and not shut up long enough to bother to make the distinction between my cynicism and criticism of government in general and Republican rhetoric.
Let him with ears hear: The government is not looking out for you. They are securing positions of power for themselves at your expense.
Wolfstan wrote:The impression you get from these people is that the federal government should just fund the armed services & law enforcement, everything else should be paid for by the individual (so taxes are kept to the minimum) and the bible should be your life map.
This is kind of what the Republican party wants. Not actually the Republican leaders, but the 'base', the voters. It's not really anyone's fault. Every election the Republicans try to make some kind of 'grass roots' movement to electrify the 'base' of the party. To do this, they scare the gak out of them. And the things they've been using to scare the gak out of them has made the Republican 'base' very crazy in the eyes of a none zealot (I say zealot in terms of the words true definition. In this case someone who lets a political ideology rule their lives).
Americans pay about 300$ a month for decent health insurance. More if you want dental. The cost is actually astronomically more if you or someone you want on your insurance actually has a condition that is being treated or will need to be treated. Sometimes the insurance is unfeasible to attain if you possess a serious pre-existing condition. And if you do not divulge these conditions, the insurance company will drop you as soon as they find out you have such a condition, like when you go to the doctor/hospital with a serious condition. They can also arbitrarily drop you for a myriad of reasons.
Typeline wrote:This is kind of what the Republican party wants. Not actually the Republican leaders, but the 'base', the voters. It's not really anyone's fault. Every election the Republicans try to make some kind of 'grass roots' movement to electrify the 'base' of the party. To do this, they scare the gak out of them. And the things they've been using to scare the gak out of them has made the Republican 'base' very crazy in the eyes of a none zealot (I say zealot in terms of the words true definition. In this case someone who lets a political ideology rule their lives).
And the dems do the exact same thing. Zealotry is not confined to the right. The dems scream about racism and the "greedy rich" and the need for more governemnt control to ensure "fairness." This is what the Code Pink, MoveON, and other "grass roots" organizations funded by billionaires want. I'm not saying there aren't cynical people in power who manipulate the base of either side - I'm just saying both people do it. I figure they even each other out. The party out of power tends to scream louder since it's really all they can do.
Typeline wrote:This is kind of what the Republican party wants. Not actually the Republican leaders, but the 'base', the voters. It's not really anyone's fault. Every election the Republicans try to make some kind of 'grass roots' movement to electrify the 'base' of the party. To do this, they scare the gak out of them. And the things they've been using to scare the gak out of them has made the Republican 'base' very crazy in the eyes of a none zealot (I say zealot in terms of the words true definition. In this case someone who lets a political ideology rule their lives).
And the dems do the exact same thing. Zealotry is not confined to the right. The dems scream about racism and the "greedy rich" and the need for more governemnt control to ensure "fairness." This is what the Code Pink, MoveON, and other "grass roots" organizations funded by billionaires want. I'm not saying there aren't cynical people in power who manipulate the base of either side - I'm just saying both people do it. I figure they even each other out. The party out of power tends to scream louder since it's really all they can do.
I don't really think I hear it that often though. Fox News is big, and it's on cable. MoveOn is on the internet right? Just kind of a blog/news site right? I don't know what Code Pink is. Fox is just more out there in the open then any of the others. I've never met a left wing zealot before either, but I've met a lot of right wing ones. I go to school with one right now, she is an older woman and her zealotry really ruins her life.
I was also recently told NPR is considered very left wing, but I never hear any bias. Have I been brain washed already?
I can't recall ever telling a Brit or Aussie how I think they should run their country
AHHAHAHAHA, whilst I agree that you yourself might not...... where the feth have you been for the last 40+ years.
Despite all the near constant "OHNOES STOPOICKINGON AMERICA" shouting we get in pretty much every thread, you'll notice this normally starts not long after someone tells "us" ( as all us dern foreigners are of course one great unwashed mass) how infinitely better America is at... X/Y/Z.
Don't forget this is the same board where we have had American posters claiming that "Europe" has contributed nothing to the world at all except war for about 200 years, no culture exists outside or before America seemingly.
It is mainly an American board, so it tends to be dominated by USA themed topics......
.... not least as most Americans don't go anywhere or know anything at all* about other countries.
It took 130 years for any of Presidents to go abroad.
Its about time you manned up and acknowledged that fact. We call that the "American Way" of course the "American Way" also involves being completely stubborn and refusing to give up your stance. But you did bash europe in giving up that fact, so you too are now an american here's your apple pie.
Elessar wrote:The majority of the media did still love Obama (does, I suppose) but there is nothing more fickle in the world than a newspaper. He knows that they can destroy his presidency with libellous claims and outright lies, no matter what he achieves. THAT's pressure.
The media loved Clinton, but they turned on him. Truthfully, the media doesn't love individuals, it loves (what they perceive to be) good stories. Obama is a *great* story. But if Obama makes a mistake that they think is a good story, watch them pounce on it (and him).
People claim liberal bias, liberal bias! And surely there are liberals employed in the media. But said organizations are for-profit entities usually owned by large corporations. They won't hold back anything they think will help them sell advertising. Media critics also forget how the media largely turtled and acquiesed to Bush & co. after 9/11, even though their rationale for starting a war was painfully thin. The media likely didn't think investigations and hard questions were going to go over well with the public, and they were probably right. As the war dragged on and wasn't the cakewalk we were promised, then the media realized the story might have legs and get viewership/readership/etc. It's all about the benjamins.
I guess it depends on your point of view. What you might consider zealotry might seem fairly normal or just slightly right of conservative.
People bash fox all the time for being bias but never CNN or ABC or New York Time or MSNBC (probably the worst).
Here's a good example from ABC radio. Senator Kennedy is terminally ill with brain cancer. According to Massachusetts state law, should he die, there will be a 5 month special election to replace him. He pushed for that law in 2004 when it looked like John Kerry (another Massocrat) was going to win the election. He didn't want Mitt Romney (a Republican) to be able to appoint a senator as was then the law.
Now that kennedy is about to shed his mortal coil, he has written a letter to the state congress asking that the law be changed back to the governor being able to appoint someone. This has mostly to do with the fact that there is now a democratic governor in Duvall Patrick and that the dems need every vote they can get on the upcoming healthcare debate. It's clearly a naked power grab - Kennedy feels he can change state law to advance his own parties political agenda at a whim.
ABC comes into this by simply reporting that Kennedy wants to change the law. They neglect to inform the public that he already changed it once to suit his party and now wants to change it back for no other reason than political expediency. This when various local and national talk show hosts, fox news, and even local newspapers have all been screaming about this for a couple of days already. Tell me that isn't bias.
I don't listen to NPR much - I do like some of their more in depth interest pieces. When they cover the headlines - they really tend to pitch some softballs to the democrats and really challenge the republicans.
We're all shaped by the information we receive. Do I have a perfectly clear grasp of the truth? No... no one here does.
gorgon wrote:The media loved Clinton, but they turned on him. Truthfully, the media doesn't love individuals, it loves (what they perceive to be) good stories. Obama is a *great* story. But if Obama makes a mistake that they think is a good story, watch them pounce on it (and him).
People claim liberal bias, liberal bias! And surely there are liberals employed in the media. But said organizations are for-profit entities usually owned by large corporations. They won't hold back anything they think will help them sell advertising. Media critics also forget how the media largely turtled and acquiesed to Bush & co. after 9/11, even though their rationale for starting a war was painfully thin. The media likely didn't think investigations and hard questions were going to go over well with the public, and they were probably right. As the war dragged on and wasn't the cakewalk we were promised, then the media realized the story might have legs and get viewership/readership/etc. It's all about the benjamins.
They also unbalance things. As soon as pubic opinion begins to turn, 4/5 of them jump on the bandwagon, and change public opinion even more.
Elessar wrote:The majority of the media did still love Obama (does, I suppose) but there is nothing more fickle in the world than a newspaper. He knows that they can destroy his presidency with libellous claims and outright lies, no matter what he achieves. THAT's pressure.
The media loved Clinton, but they turned on him. Truthfully, the media doesn't love individuals, it loves (what they perceive to be) good stories. Obama is a *great* story. But if Obama makes a mistake that they think is a good story, watch them pounce on it (and him).
People claim liberal bias, liberal bias! And surely there are liberals employed in the media. But said organizations are for-profit entities usually owned by large corporations. They won't hold back anything they think will help them sell advertising. Media critics also forget how the media largely turtled and acquiesed to Bush & co. after 9/11, even though their rationale for starting a war was painfully thin. The media likely didn't think investigations and hard questions were going to go over well with the public, and they were probably right. As the war dragged on and wasn't the cakewalk we were promised, then the media realized the story might have legs and get viewership/readership/etc. It's all about the benjamins.
Sure they do, especially when its financially beneficial to them, or their parent companies (ABC comes screaming to mind).
gorgon wrote:The media loved Clinton, but they turned on him. Truthfully, the media doesn't love individuals, it loves (what they perceive to be) good stories. Obama is a *great* story. But if Obama makes a mistake that they think is a good story, watch them pounce on it (and him).
People claim liberal bias, liberal bias! And surely there are liberals employed in the media. But said organizations are for-profit entities usually owned by large corporations. They won't hold back anything they think will help them sell advertising. Media critics also forget how the media largely turtled and acquiesed to Bush & co. after 9/11, even though their rationale for starting a war was painfully thin. The media likely didn't think investigations and hard questions were going to go over well with the public, and they were probably right. As the war dragged on and wasn't the cakewalk we were promised, then the media realized the story might have legs and get viewership/readership/etc. It's all about the benjamins.
They also unbalance things. As soon as pubic opinion begins to turn, 4/5 of them jump on the bandwagon, and change public opinion even more.
I'd say that as soon as public opinion turns, we get accusations of nut jobs and extremism from one part of the media or the other. IE CNN and MSNBC's cracks about "tea baggers" in reference to the tea parties held by concerned citizens. Fox News calling Patriot Act protestors 'Un-American." Keith Olbermann being a douche. The list goes on and on.
I believe that while media is in it for the money - more and more you see ideology trumping journalism in newsrooms across the nation.
The Green Git wrote:I don't expect dogma or any of the other hard leftists to stop defending The Messiah™ or any of the Dems long enough to hear what I'm actually saying.
Meet...
The Green Git wrote:
They will just blather on about how I'm another Right Wing nutjob and not shut up long enough to bother to make the distinction between my cynicism and criticism of government in general and Republican rhetoric.
What's really funny is those sentences were sequential.
See, I don't think you're a right-wing nutjob. I think you're a misguided cynic who uses the big, bad government as a convenient means of explaining all the ills in this nation. You remind me of me, when I was about 14.
The Green Git wrote:
Let him with ears hear: The government is not looking out for you. They are securing positions of power for themselves at your expense.
Why would you ever assume that someone arguing for government reform believes the government is looking out for him? That's a very strange induction.
And 'hard leftist'? That's an interesting judgment to make considering I spend most of my time on here critiquing the arguments of other posters.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I'd say that as soon as public opinion turns, we get accusations of nut jobs and extremism from one part of the media or the other. IE CNN and MSNBC's cracks about "tea baggers" in reference to the tea parties held by concerned citizens. Fox News calling Patriot Act protestors 'Un-American." Keith Olbermann being a douche. The list goes on and on.
I believe that while media is in it for the money - more and more you see ideology trumping journalism in newsrooms across the nation.
The effect isn't as pronounced with political stories because there are still large amounts of people who'll never change their positions. Instead you get the majority attacking side A, while the minority fervently supports side A (or the majority attacks it while the minority defends it).
I can't recall ever telling a Brit or Aussie how I think they should run their country
AHHAHAHAHA, whilst I agree that you yourself might not...... where the feth have you been for the last 40+ years.
Despite all the near constant "OHNOES STOPOICKINGON AMERICA" shouting we get in pretty much every thread, you'll notice this normally starts not long after someone tells "us" ( as all us dern foreigners are of course one great unwashed mass) how infinitely better America is at... X/Y/Z.
Don't forget this is the same board where we have had American posters claiming that "Europe" has contributed nothing to the world at all except war for about 200 years, no culture exists outside or before America seemingly.
It is mainly an American board, so it tends to be dominated by USA themed topics......
.... not least as most Americans don't go anywhere or know anything at all* about other countries.
It took 130 years for any of Presidents to go abroad.
*Italics may indicate slight hyperbole. perhaps.
Well, I'm generalizing and you're generalizing so while we're at it, let's generalize together.
The point I'm trying to make is that it seems weird that europeans are telling us how to run our healthcare system. Foreign policy is fair game in my mind. I'm just not going to delve into European tax structure or health care practices and start criticizing you on int.
As for the 130 years thing. You're saying from 1783 to about 1910 - no president went abroad. No president took a long ass ride across the atlantic - basically leaving the country he's supposed to run for several months to go talk to a bunch of people they didn't really get along with all that well. Not to mention that until the last few years of that time period, America was a third rate power at best. Things were openly hostile with the British until at least 1815, not to mention that whole support for the Confederacy thing.
I suppose I could ask why Queen Victoria or Napoleon or the freakin' pope didn't visit America.
Americans came to the new world to escape the old. America had (until probably the era of Teddy Roosevelt - the original american progressive) an isolationist policy. Can't remember when the monroe doctrine came out but that's basically the start of American involvement in world affairs.
I don't think anyone here is telling you how to run your healthcare system.
What does happen is "we" correct spurious assertions and out and out lies that are told ( generally by side but not always) about the way things are or aren't "over here", and from then onwards, as we are now in a debate, occasionally correct errors or lies said by other participants. Like in every other thread on dakka.
I'm sure if we having a discussion about.... hmm..... the British railway system, Scandinavian saunas or ... err..... whether "Home and Away" is better than "Neighbours" then,again, there would be many participants from many countries.
I don't see why, on a discussion board, you're amazed that people try to discuss, argue or joke about things.
Victoria was busy going to India, the rest of the Empire and, as you say, important countries.
"Americans" didn't come to the new world at all, they were already there. Many people from all over the world did go to the new world, and most brought huge amount of baggage and ties with them, too many and this caused trouble i think it could be argued but that is a whole other thread methinks.
Okay reds8n, I'm thinking that the pie wasn't enough to get you to accept your new american status, what about a game of baseball or some processed foods?
Well, we could get you in on illegal immigrant status. Sure you won't make as much, but you don't pay taxes. If you play baseball good enough, I'm sure you can get citizenship status and make lots of money.
It would seem that I am on a list of BAD PEOPLE with regards to the USA Govt. We've had the USA ambassador to dinner 4 times where I work and on three of those occasions my management have been told that i cannot work or attend the event as a "security issue" has arisen with me.
They have been terribly polite about it every time though, and on one occassion nothing was said at all... so .. go figure.
There's many aspects of America I do support, I hope to continue to see it return to being a progressive and forward thinking nation that actively seeks to engage with other countries.
dogma wrote: See, I don't think you're a right-wing nutjob. I think you're a misguided cynic who uses the big, bad government as a convenient means of explaining all the ills in this nation.
So the Government is our Savior? I somehow doubt that. I don't think being suspicious of those that gleefully wield power over the populace is misguided.
dogma wrote:Why would you ever assume that someone arguing for government reform believes the government is looking out for him? That's a very strange induction.
Funny... I thought you were arguing that Federal intervention was required to right the ills of the nation. Are you arguing for government reform? Since you brought it up... how would you change our government for the better? What does dogma's paradise look like?
dogma wrote:And 'hard leftist'? That's an interesting judgment to make considering I spend most of my time on here critiquing the arguments of other posters.
Guilt by association... the left is so in love with big government and your posts seem to be leaning that way. Maybe I'm just not hearing enough.
The Green Git wrote:
I don't expect dogma or any of the other hard leftists to stop defending The Messiah™ or any of the Dems long enough to hear what I'm actually saying. They will just blather on about how I'm another Right Wing nutjob and not shut up long enough to bother to make the distinction between my cynicism and criticism of government in general and Republican rhetoric.
I think this is an unfair labeling and criticism of Dogma and others like him. I definitely don't agree with him among others on many issues, but many of them generally are very critical of ill-reasoned, poorly supported arguments, and I don't blame them. If you want to debate effectively as a conservative you have to stop relying on random media or statistical sources and start relying on respected, valuable mediums. My suggestions would be the Wall Street Journal and US News and World Report. The WSJ is right leaning and USN&WR is very balanced. Heck I would even suggest the NYT and the Drudge Report. Dogma, again among others, is very good about weeding out really bad arguments and showing their fallacies. If you can't handle that than that's fine, but don't complain and ridicule them.
When you study as much random crap as I do it tends to get a bit addled.
The Green Git wrote:
So the Government is our Savior? I somehow doubt that. I don't think being suspicious of those that gleefully wield power over the populace is misguided.
Savior? No, but we're not going to escape it anytime soon. Based on what I've said I'm not really sure why you would conclude that my stance is in diametric opposition to yours.
I do agree that we should be suspicious of power, wherever is is manifest. But that doesn't mean that we should allow out opinions devolve into hyperbole.
The Green Git wrote:
Funny... I thought you were arguing that Federal intervention was required to right the ills of the nation. Are you arguing for government reform? Since you brought it up... how would you change our government for the better? What does dogma's paradise look like?
In this instance, yes, I believe government intervention would do a great deal of good. Do I think it would create a paradise? No, but mostly because I don't believe in paradise. As far as government reform: an amendment preventing members of Congress from serving consecutive terms, an established third party (not really government reform, but close), educational reform (though this is more of a state thing), and selective tax/budget modifications/reforms(close redundant military bases, shift military expenditures to the maintenance of personnel, remove the ceiling on the FICA tax, etc.)
The Green Git wrote:
Guilt by association... the left is so in love with big government and your posts seem to be leaning that way. Maybe I'm just not hearing enough.
I find it interesting that you view the world in terms of generalizations, but get upset when you think others are generalizing you.
What you Americans, as a general rule, fail to understand, is that there is NO liberal bias in your media. You're so indoctrinated by that bs that you believe it - in fact, your most Left-wing paper is merely centre-right. There are Communists and Socialists in the nation, but none of them get any say in anything, because you're so scared of them.
I bet at least 3 people disagree with this statement. You people should read some Marx, learn what Leftism actually IS.
Not so. Just because Dems are further left than Republicans is irrelevant, when you have proper Lefties available, you just choose not to vote for them.
The US has never had a mainstream Left party or, AFAIK, candidate.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's made relevant as a distinction when idiots say how this policy/Obama are Socialist.
Calling everything either "right-wing" or "really right-wing" because there are fringe groups that are extremely left wing but not significant in any manner is ridiculous. It makes the terms useless.
By that logic advocating mandatory prayer in school isn't right wing, because you could conceivably replace the entirety of school with a religious service. And there are fringe groups who support it, but nobody votes for them.
Elessar wrote:Not so. Just because Dems are further left than Republicans is irrelevant, when you have proper Lefties available, you just choose not to vote for them.
The US has never had a mainstream Left party or, AFAIK, candidate.
It's made relevant as a distinction when idiots say how this policy/Obama are Socialist.
Not really. Left and right are relative concepts in any context (my left, or your left?).
As an exercise, who is more left-wing: Stalin or Hitler?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:For every supposed "kook" like Glenn Beck on the right I could point to another "kook" on the left like the MoveOn.orgs or Huffington Posts or the New York Times.
I don't think you will get many arguments from people on this forum about that.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Bailouts (Financial and Auto Industries)- The government subsidized large banks, insurance firms, GM, and Chrysler to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. In return, they now have increased regulatory control of banking as a whole and partly own two large american automakers. The reason why Beck and others are against this is that it goes against EVERYTHING (Capitals, oh my) that America stands for, supposedly. Since they used taxpayer dollars to fund the bailout, it becomes a redistribution of wealth from everyday citizens to banks, auto industries, and oddly enough, the unions (who now have a larger stake in the GM and Chrysler). The creditors of GM were basically told to shove off as GM went into bankruptcy.
The problem is that if the government did nothing we could very well have gone into another great depression. Government screwed up in relaxing controls and helped cause the mess, they needed to do something to help get us out of it. That money wasn't just given away, it's supposed to be paid back.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
If I were a bank or auto maker who had kept his nose clean in the economic downturn and way before that (these problems didn't manifest overnight), I'd be furious. Instead of rewarding success with tax incentives, or simply showing that failur IS an option; they've gone ahead and given a safety net for companies. Where is the motivation now to be fiscally responsible? .
It's the governments job to make laws to try to prevent a repeat. Which ironically enough there were laws in place for years that recently started to be ignored or overturned, which helped to lead to the recent mess.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Healthcare is a huge hot button topic in America right now. No one is saying the healthcare system is perfect. However, 85% of Americans are satisfied with their health insurance and a majority (I believe it's 51-54%) do not support the healthcare reform bill(s) in the congress right now. Alot of people seem to say that the Repulicans and the various talk show hosts are obstructionist and have a "do nothing" attitude. I believe that couldn't be farther from the truth. The simple fact of the matter is that the president and the controlling parties set the legislative agenda. With massive majorities in both houses, the Dems could push this through if they were willing to pay the political price. However, their own "blue dogs" are wavering on this because they know they'll get kicked out of office in 2010.
My opinion is that Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity are in this, not because they actually believe the rhetoric they spew, but because it makes them money. I wonder if their soapbox is more dangerouse than someone that really believes what they spew.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Arlen Specter, Barney Frank, Pelosi, and Reid are discounting the protestors as nazis, kooks, paid protestors, and wackos - simply because they disagree. For every protestor taking a gun to a meeting or holding up a swastika; there are a thousand more who are respectfully asking questions and raising concerns that the Dems will simply not answer. The fact that the majority of the media focuses on the few crazies as representative of the group seem to implicate them as being at least left-leaning if not openly leftist (ABC news comes to mind).
Not "simply because they disagree", but because they are using the same types of bullying tactics that the Brown shirts used. They are using these tactics to scare people, the same way the Nazis did to scare Germans. Also I think everyone knows that ABC/NBC/CBS are left leaning news outlets. Just like everyone knows that Fox is right leaning. The difference, I think is that Fox calls itself "fair and balanced" which is quite dishonest advertising in my opinion.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I find it odd that there are so many non Americans posting in these topics. Are your own national politics so boring that you feel you must "contribute" to ours? I'm not trying to flame-bait here, but I do wonder why you insist of telling us how superior your system is. I can't recall ever telling a Brit or Aussie how I think they should run their country. I can certainly understand on matter of international politics and foreign affairs - have at it. But is US healthcare really that important to you? just curious
I find this interesting as well. Especially the Australian contingent. :-) I look at it as valuable, since it can be a good thing to hear what people think outside of our box. I'm a long time republican, who listens to both sides of issues, like Fox news and NPR. I have fiound it very helpfull in trying to see the "Big Picture". The problem with so many of us, whether we are American or European/Aussie, is that we only allow ourselves to see things through our own rose colored glasses.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elessar wrote:Not so. Just because Dems are further left than Republicans is irrelevant, when you have proper Lefties available, you just choose not to vote for them.
The US has never had a mainstream Left party or, AFAIK, candidate.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's made relevant as a distinction when idiots say how this policy/Obama are Socialist.
Hmmm..you hang out with Gwar much?
Your dead wrong (as usual) healthcare reform whereby government runs it is a form of socialism. Obama(or Hilary Clinton) preaching government run healthcare is a socialistic cause. It's not the classic "rob from the rich give to the poor" marxist socialism, but it is a light form of socialism.
Also as has been pointed out when talking about right and left wing, you have to understand the context of the country that the discussion is centering on. Glen Beck = American commentator. Therefore left and right wing = American Politics. I think evryone knows that American politics overall are more conservative than other countries like Canada and UK. Why do you think it is so hard to get a National healthcare system here.
The problem is that a LOT of Americans are of the belief that ABC etc, and Obama, are actually left wing, instead of American Left, which as you all know is different. They don't. They think, for whatever reason, that the Healthcare Reform is actually tantamount to being a Red. I blame McCarthy.
Dogma: Obviously, Stalin was more Left wing, as you know. Most people are of the incorrect opinion that politics works in a straight line, left to right. Those of us who've studied it (and yes, I studied the American System as well as ours, admittedly in less detail, but I still know a lot more than the average Brit) know that it in fact more closely resembles a O albeit with the extremes not quite touching - Nazism has more in common with Stalinism than with Republican Democracy, despite ideologically being as far apart as it is possible to be.
It's not socialism. As a Socialist, I assure you that there is nothing Socialist whatsoever about thinking the US healthcare system is terrible and needs radical overhauls. Saying it is is akin to saying the fact that you have the FBI or a national army are socialist policies, because the Govt pays for them.
Who defines what's "actually left wing"? Do you take every political issue, take the most extreme possible position, and then cut it in half to find the middle? I don't see how you can figure something like that out objectively.
Unless, "actually left wing" is just "left wing" as used in Europe, and is for some reason the one true use of the term.
I agree that there are quite a few Americans who don't know where they lie politically in relation to other countries, but that doesn't mean they're using those words wrong.
Also, I like the square graph, although I'm sure it's operating under the same principle as the O is:
Elessar wrote:
Dogma: Obviously, Stalin was more Left wing, as you know. Most people are of the incorrect opinion that politics works in a straight line, left to right. Those of us who've studied it (and yes, I studied the American System as well as ours, admittedly in less detail, but I still know a lot more than the average Brit) know that it in fact more closely resembles a O albeit with the extremes not quite touching - Nazism has more in common with Stalinism than with Republican Democracy, despite ideologically being as far apart as it is possible to be.
Stalin was a fascist, despite his rhetoric. The question was rhetorical (meaning there are no obvious answers), he even duplicated Hitler's international bluster/truculence (yes, my vocabulary is that large/my ego is that big).
Stalinism isn't the same thing as Communism, even though Stalin was a Communist. In fact, Stalinism has nothing to do with ideology, its simply a mode of control (sic. Machiavelli). That said, the whole idea of 'wings' is nonsense. There are no wings. The human race is not a giant angel that will flit about and dance on the head of a pin. There are political positions that should be classified by their own nature, not some ridiculous sliding scale.
Elessar wrote:
It's not socialism. As a Socialist, I assure you that there is nothing Socialist whatsoever about thinking the US healthcare system is terrible and needs radical overhauls. Saying it is is akin to saying the fact that you have the FBI or a national army are socialist policies, because the Govt pays for them.
No, the desire for healthcare reform isn't socialist, but most of the proposed reforms are socialist (single-payer, public option). That doesn't mean they're bad, but they are socialist.
Elessar wrote:The problem is that a LOT of Americans are of the belief that ABC etc, and Obama, are actually left wing, instead of American Left, which as you all know is different. They don't. They think, for whatever reason, that the Healthcare Reform is actually tantamount to being a Red. I blame McCarthy.
Do I really need to say 'left of what'? Because I don't want to, even though its already escaped my fan-boi hole (fingers, fan-bois don't talk to other people, they don't have friends).
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
it goes against EVERYTHING (Capitals, oh my) that America stands for, supposedly.
I'm sorry, but when did America adopt a universal moral code?
generalgrog wrote:
The problem is that if the government did nothing we could very well have gone into another great depression. Government screwed up in relaxing controls and helped cause the mess, they needed to do something to help get us out of it. That money wasn't just given away, it's supposed to be paid back.
I need a drink. A large drink. Before I say the dreaded words of agreement.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
If I were a bank or auto maker who had kept his nose clean in the economic downturn and way before that (these problems didn't manifest overnight), I'd be furious. Instead of rewarding success with tax incentives, or simply showing that failur IS an option; they've gone ahead and given a safety net for companies. Where is the motivation now to be fiscally responsible? .
In profit.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Arlen Specter, Barney Frank, Pelosi, and Reid are discounting the protestors as nazis, kooks, paid protestors, and wackos - simply because they disagree. For every protestor taking a gun to a meeting or holding up a swastika; there are a thousand more who are yelling like morons, because America loves volume.
Fixed. There may be reasoned apprehension, but why isn't it being represented in the media? You can make all the excuses about marketing you want, but were it significant it would be there.
generalgrog wrote:
Not "simply because they disagree", but because they are using the same types of bullying tactics that the Brown shirts used. They are using these tactics to scare people, the same way the Nazis did to scare Germans.
Oh no! Did Kristallnacht pass without my knowledge?
Hmm... So this... wait, no dude. You are telling me in 3 words that most small businesses need to choose their left or right testicle to stay alive in the market, there is no middle ground here. Some would say that greed and corruption stem from money, but in essence I would say the opposite is in fact the case in most situations.
So the large companies get to enjoy their success of total profit based incentives (super lame at that...) that boil down to profit. Okay, I can see how that makes sense in economist land, where morals and blablabla... stockholders and profit are my morals etc... The little man will get stepped on unless they happen to have the exact same moves that those big fat companies up top used to get where they are now. Furthermore in a land of zombie-sharks and high powered lasers, I fail to see the intent of a positive outcome for the whole.
Overall, please elaborate Dogma, and if the world does truly fall apart I am guaranteed to have made a batch of my own beer for the occasion. Bottums up, and the stuff down with the having of... meh.
dogma wrote:In this instance, yes, I believe government intervention would do a great deal of good. Do I think it would create a paradise? No, but mostly because I don't believe in paradise. As far as government reform: an amendment preventing members of Congress from serving consecutive terms, an established third party (not really government reform, but close), educational reform (though this is more of a state thing), and selective tax/budget modifications/reforms(close redundant military bases, shift military expenditures to the maintenance of personnel, remove the ceiling on the FICA tax, etc.)
We certainly agree on term limits, third political party, and education reform (if you mean abolishing the NEA and moving education back to the States). I'm curious about the stance on removing the FICA ceiling.
dogma wrote:
I find it interesting that you view the world in terms of generalizations, but get upset when you think others are generalizing you.
The Green Git wrote:
We certainly agree on term limits, third political party, and education reform (if you mean abolishing the NEA and moving education back to the States).
I don't have a problem with Federal funding, but I do have a problem with their metric for disbursement.
The Green Git wrote:
I'm curious about the stance on removing the FICA ceiling.
Just a funding thing. Removing the ceiling on FICA should generate something on the order of a 5% increase in overall revenue. I'd also like it to be assessed according to a free-floating bracket system, but that's a much more difficult argument to make.
The Green Git wrote:
Who's upset? I think you're projecting now.
Damnable emotions!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:
Dogma wrote:In profit.
Hmm... So this... wait, no dude. You are telling me in 3 words that most small businesses need to choose their left or right testicle to stay alive in the market, there is no middle ground here. Some would say that greed and corruption stem from money, but in essence I would say the opposite is in fact the case in most situations.
Two words, and not just small businesses. Any business.
Wrexasaur wrote:
So the large companies get to enjoy their success of total profit based incentives (super lame at that...) that boil down to profit. Okay, I can see how that makes sense in economist land, where morals and blablabla... stockholders and profit are my morals etc... The little man will get stepped on unless they happen to have the exact same moves that those big fat companies up top used to get where they are now. Furthermore in a land of zombie-sharks and high powered lasers, I fail to see the intent of a positive outcome for the whole.
Overall, please elaborate Dogma, and if the world does truly fall apart I am guaranteed to have made a batch of my own beer for the occasion. Bottums up, and the stuff down with the having of... meh.
I'm not sure how I can explain it better. The incentive for any corporate action is in profit, not government action. Any given corporation will do what is profitable, not what guarantees tax avoidance.
Dogma wrote:Two words, and not just small businesses. Any business.
I can take this two ways, and only one of them is catastrophically funny... to me at least. Like a puzzle and a joke and... yeah okay whatever .
Okay direction number one: (This is the way we should go... *Hint*, or something)
We can say that in the fact that you responded you did have one extra word, and LAST word... which is not particularly funny... but it is witty? No, that doesn't work.
Now direction number two: (You can laugh now... *Hint, or something)
Well, well then mister smarty pants... periods are words too, and you better wise up to the facts buddy, because they are going to ruin this country (not like the insurance companies who are not not...not (hmm...) destroying this country.) and we are all going to die. Think about it... it will make sense.
"Note"
The second part was... filler. Yep, the joke needed some steroids, and there are no rules against that. Okay... epic fail, but is it funny?
... Yes, yes it is HAH- - haha... yeah, that was only good the first time .
"Sub-sub-note... or something"
This part was the second part...
Wrexasaur wrote:Furthermore in a land of zombie-sharks and high powered lasers, I fail to see the intent of a positive outcome for the whole.
Yeah, that was the... umm... not too sure, but hey if the thing works right . If it works you what? you die, that is what you do, because that was the "health-plan " in a nutshell from the very beginning. You can see the... yeah, this isn't so funny, but the other parts were.
Actually Left is defined by world politics. not US ones - again, a lot of ignorant US citizens don't seem to know the difference.
i'm not sure that Sqaure graph gets across my point as well as the horseshoe I inadequately described earlier, even though I was sober then.
Stalinism is the most extreme form of Communism - the point is, he wasn't a Fascist, but he was very very close to one. It's understandable not to asee the distinction as vaslid, but it does exist. He was the most Left-wing Govt in the world, ever.
That's why I said Stalinism rarther than COmmunism. It's virtually the same as Nazism - National Socialist was no coincidence.
Elessar wrote:Actually Left is defined by world politics. not US ones - again, a lot of ignorant US citizens don't seem to know the difference.
i'm not sure that Sqaure graph gets across my point as well as the horseshoe I inadequately described earlier, even though I was sober then.
Left is defined by...well...nothing. Its a useless term. Unless you're obsessed with the idea of a spectrum.
More to the point, if you want to use directional notation you can only ever be referring to a standardized frame. You could argue that the only true frame is a human frame (thus ignoring national boundaries), but that isn't a particularly useful argument in a world with discreet political entities.
Elessar wrote:
Stalinism is the most extreme form of Communism - the point is, he wasn't a Fascist, but he was very very close to one. It's understandable not to asee the distinction as vaslid, but it does exist. He was the most Left-wing Govt in the world, ever.
That's why I said Stalinism rarther than COmmunism. It's virtually the same as Nazism - National Socialist was no coincidence.
No, Stalin was a fascist, because fascism is fundamentally a philosophy of authoritarian control. Whatever rhetoric he used to disguise that methodology is irrelevant in terms of classifying his actual political apparatus.
Nazism is also fascist (duh), and that's why they are comparable modes of governance (top-down leadership based on ideological purity/success).
"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.
Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak. Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement. Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept. In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism."
It's NOT a method of control, it's a political ideology. Please stop calling Stalin a Fascist when he was the exact opposite. A Stalinist. It's ostensibly the same in practice, but it has a completely different ideology - which is KEY to being Fascist.
@Orkeosaurus:
I don't know about MOST people in the UK's basis for Left/Right in politics, but educated people do, yes.
Left and right depends on context. Whether you're looking from a world perspective, a nation specific perspective, and on the issue in question. You can say US politics is a lot more right wing than the politics of other developed countries, you can say Obama is to the left of the American political spectrum... but even then you run into problems. For instance, the US is a lot more right wing than the rest of us, but on some issues (like trade unionism or protection of agriculture) the US is arguably to the left. And while Obama is to the left of the US on most issues, he couldn't be described as anything but centrist on an issue like Israel.
Without context just saying some person or other is left or right is meaningless.
Elessar wrote:I don't know about MOST people in the UK's basis for Left/Right in politics, but educated people do, yes.
"Educated people" in the UK give the policies of China and India five times the weight of the policies of western Europe when discussing the internal politics of their own countries? Okay. I guess I'll take your word for it.
I have no idea why they would do that, though. Calling moves to decrease democracy in the country "centrist" because the UK is already more democratic than most? If that's how things operate, I think the terms used by the incredibly stupid Americans and uneducated British are more sensible.
Elessar wrote:"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.
That's an interesting definition of fascism; considering that it excludes Nazi Germany (corporatism).
Elessar wrote:
Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.
Incorrect. Fascism deals in group-think via nations and races, but does not necessarily speak of perpetual conflict. Notice Mussolini and the Ba'athists.
Elessar wrote:
Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement. Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.
Haven't read much about the conflict between Trotsky and Stalin, have you?
Elessar wrote:
In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism."
The qualifier 'many' prevents that entire point from being an intrinsic component of Fascism.
Elessar wrote:
It's NOT a method of control, it's a political ideology. Please stop calling Stalin a Fascist when he was the exact opposite. A Stalinist. It's ostensibly the same in practice, but it has a completely different ideology - which is KEY to being Fascist.
Uh, yes it is, because all forms of governance are methods of control.
Regardless, Stalin was a fascist. His entire approach to rule was predicated on the notion of Socialism in One Country, which envisioned the Soviet populace as a light against the capitalist dark. Read Marxism and the National Question, then you can carry this conversation.
"No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition."
Speaks for itself. Fascism is simply whatever the (US Political, for you global types) Liberal decides it is when they use the word (usually leveled at a Conservative).
sebster wrote:Left and right depends on context. Whether you're looking from a world perspective, a nation specific perspective, and on the issue in question. You can say US politics is a lot more right wing than the politics of other developed countries, you can say Obama is to the left of the American political spectrum... but even then you run into problems. For instance, the US is a lot more right wing than the rest of us, but on some issues (like trade unionism or protection of agriculture) the US is arguably to the left. And while Obama is to the left of the US on most issues, he couldn't be described as anything but centrist on an issue like Israel.
Without context just saying some person or other is left or right is meaningless.
Agreed Sebster.
@Elessar: To declare that there is a universal standard on the political spectrum of an individual is completely unrealistic. Because of the worlds incredibly diverse mix of cultures, political systems and social customs it is impossible to fit in the traditional Western idea of the Left-Right spectrum. This constant babbling of how only educated people speak in these proper terms is both arrogant and untrue. Would you then say that many of the most educated professors in the world aren't "educated" because they don't speak in this context? Further more, your ideas speak of a unified world that doesn't exist. The left-right terminology MUST apply individually to each country or else it would not work because of previously mentioned reasons. I can understand your idealism and I can even see some of the reasoning behind what you say, but I have disagree with your conclusion. The world is not as simple as your reasoning suggests, and I strongly recommend you re-thinking your argument in light of the infinite complexities of the world.
dogma wrote:
Haven't read much about the conflict between Trotsky and Stalin, have you?
Elessar wrote:"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.
That's an interesting definition of fascism; considering that it excludes Nazi Germany (corporatism).
Not sure what you mean there, as Nazi Germany was corporatist.
I was under the impression that Fascism was not a specific ideology, more of a general organization of power, and determination/ measurement of power based on A public opinion, excluding that which threatens the core ideals of the nation or circumstance.
I do this so that I am right and you are wrong.
Why am I wrong?
Why do you think you are wrong, and more importantly why does it matter because I am right and you are wrong.
In some ways I think this term can be used inappropriately which little to no effort in terms of ignorance; perhaps due to it's broad and sweeping nature it really has no place in defining much of anything in detail.
"No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition."
This is pretty much the truth of it. Fascism can be given such a limited definition as to include fascist Spain and no-one else, or fascist Italy and no-one else, or it can be given as broad a definition as to include every nationalist totalitarian state of the 20th century (so the Nazis, the Soviets, Spain, Italy, Pinochet's Chile and so on). At the end of the day I think it's more useful to describe each regime as it's own thing, than try to decide which regimes fit into some arbitrary definition.
Speaks for itself. Fascism is simply whatever the (US Political, for you global types) Liberal decides it is when they use the word (usually leveled at a Conservative).
However, this is nonsense. Yes, there is a reactionary element among the left that calls lots of things fascist, but trying to ascribe this to the entirety of the left is disingenuous. It's even less honest in pretending fascism as an attack is only a left wing, especially when you have so much of the right wing using the term to describe moderate social reform on healthcare.
Either we accept my view, in which case they aren't in a global sense of Left-Right Politics, or we don't and base it in the context of Russian/USSR politics, in which case...nope, still not Fascist.
Also, while I generally respect your opinion Dogma (though I certainly don't always agree) I hardly think referencing source material from 4 years before Stalin even got a sniff of power, by the man himself, relevant. It's like suggesting I read Pravda from the early 50's to get an accurate picture of Soviet Foreign Policy.
I am fully aware of the Stalinist/Trotskyite conflict - not that I pretend to know all the fact, since I never met either, but I have indeed studied the subject. In fact, I lost marks on a paper I submitted on the subject, for going over the word limit it was tacitly assumed would not be surpassed, and was not even explicitly mentioned as in effect.
As Sebster already corrected you, Nazism was indeed Corporatist, although, no, it doesn't follow the Italian model of Fascism. Since it was invented by good old Benito, it's only fair to exclude Nazism from a strict reading of the term...although Mussolini was more centrist than Hitler on a number of issues.
TGG, as you know, since I quoted nearly the entire rest of that Wiki page, the above statements are the ones not commonly contested as being an adequate description of Fascism - essentially, what I quoted IS the commonly accepted version, as it contains few contested statements. Except within this thread, of course.
Of course, it's always the problem with Interwebs debates of this kind that we don't have a clue about the educational background of each other. For all you know, I have a Russian parent, or am related to the Tsars. I'm not, and I don't. But you still don't know that to be true.
Elessar wrote:Neither Stalin nor Trotsky was Fascist.
It is literally as simple as that.
Trotsky certainly wasn't; an attachment to democratic principle pretty much precludes that classification. But Stalin was very, very close to being a Fascist; if not explicitly one. Even his interpretation of state property closely resembled the industrial apparatus of Nazi Germany.
Elessar wrote:
Either we accept my view, in which case they aren't in a global sense of Left-Right Politics, or we don't and base it in the context of Russian/USSR politics, in which case...nope, still not Fascist.
Either Stalin was fascist, or he wasn't. The presence of a theoretical political spectrum would not affect the ideological classification. That's why I consider any spectrum to be essentially useless outside of a very tight set of constraints.
Elessar wrote:
Also, while I generally respect your opinion Dogma (though I certainly don't always agree) I hardly think referencing source material from 4 years before Stalin even got a sniff of power, by the man himself, relevant. It's like suggesting I read Pravda from the early 50's to get an accurate picture of Soviet Foreign Policy.
I think that's a bit dismissive. Marxism and the National Question is considered by many to be Stalin's version of Mein Kampf, and given his notorious intractability I find it highly unlikely that the ideas presented within went through much in the way of evolutionary process during his rise to power. Especially given the strength of hand he used in the administration of his cult of personality.
Elessar wrote:
As Sebster already corrected you, Nazism was indeed Corporatist, although
Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking. Might have been drunk.
Elessar wrote:
, no, it doesn't follow the Italian model of Fascism. Since it was invented by good old Benito, it's only fair to exclude Nazism from a strict reading of the term...although Mussolini was more centrist than Hitler on a number of issues.
One of the intrinsic weaknesses in the term arises from the fact that it was coined, and politically co-opted in a such a short span of time. In many ways its simple a synonym for 'the mode of governance employed by the Axis nations'. If we look beyond that and examine the ideological similarities between the various authoritarian states of the period, excepting their treatment of class, I think it becomes difficult to draw a clear line between them all.
Yep... downhill from here, all down hill from here. OH SNAP A FRAKKING CLIFF!!!! (around 5:00 or so... yep that is the cliff, and it is so very very high.)
However, I'm from Norn Iron, where the IRA come from. We have more than enough of your guns, decommissioning or no. Anyway, I can sneak in while he's asleep, tie him up, and then burn his house down. Simples.
I'll do an Omagh on him, phoning him to say there's bomb in such and such a place, to make him go away from that place, towards the actual bomb. Simples.
I'll do an Omagh on him, phoning him to say there's bomb in such and such a place, to make him go away from that place, towards the actual bomb. Simples.
Won't work. As an AMURICAN he'd stay where he was. Because AMURICANS don't bow to no dern ferrener terrorists.
)
that makes Rosie O'Donnell look attractive. Let us not support this bill but work for a more sustainable, realistic approach that deals with the issues one at a time, and sets a series of benchmarks that require progress.
.
... and people thougt I had my own church....hmmm.... 
