Ryan will be able to tell you the last magazine that he has read. He might even be able to name 3 supreme count cases.
His baggage that trails him is a double edged sword. Extreme conservatism excites the radical right and the liberal left. The question is, what will it do to the moderates?
That depends on the Obama campaign's ability to articulate how Ryan's cuts will hurt the middle class and such.
And they will hurt the middle class, while helping no one except the upper class.
I don't know if he's under the delusion that tax cuts to the rich help the economy (we have many, many decades of evidence that it does not), or if it's just out of base self-interest... but I don't know which one would be worse.
There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence.
/doublestandard
Do they even televise VP debates, or have them anymore? If so hopefully Biden is more articulate than Rep. Wasserman. Which shouldn't be hard.
Biden is a moron because he used the same basic metaphor that Republicans used?
Republicans talk about business being unshackled (thereby implying that business is wearing shackles), everybody is cool.
Biden talks about people being put in chains instead of businesses, everybody freaks out.
Go figure...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: Do they even televise VP debates, or have them anymore? If so hopefully Biden is more articulate than Rep. Wasserman. Which shouldn't be hard.
How old are you?
Not meaning that as a "grow up" or anything like that, so don't take that the wrong way. But I know they televised the 2008 VP debates. Although I can't tell you from memory if they televised the 2004 VP debate (I was too young to care about politics then).
I'm shy of 30. I also don't watch loads of television, never did. The Internet has somewhat addressed my relative ignorance of what goes on in television. But I can't say I'm particularly plugged in especially to notice a debate between Biden and Palin or *shudder* Cheney and Edwards on Cspan8.
whembly wrote:What? So... are you implying that it's the Government's job to give out Government jobs?
No. Just no.
Aggregate demand is impacted by the amount the government spends. There is just no doubting this. So when you talk about changes to the overall level of government spending you need to account for the drop in aggregate demand produced by a drop in government spending.
That's just how it is. Ryan's bill doesn't do that, and that means the actual impact of his bill is unknown.
Whether or not you want to say 'boo government' doesn't change the basics of economics.
"boo government"
His bill doesn't go FAR enough. Did you know that overall government spending still goes up with his plan? Just not at the higher rate that the Obama/Democrate's plan.
You're thinking this is a political pick... Romney's political pick would've been T Paw (safe) or Rubio (Florida and Tea Party!). This pick is a "CEO pick", which is enlightening....
He's a politician picking a politician. Pretending it's anything else is just spin.
Yeah... can't argue that. I'd just think Rubio is a better strategic pick to win the WH.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Obama said:
“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”
did he say this w/o the teleprompter again?
Success and economic growth being enjoyed by all is what you're supposed to pretend to believe in. You know that old Republican thing about a rising tide lifting all ships?
No... don't tell me what I'm "supposed" to believe in... that kind of thinking is the path to socialism and eventually communism (the most destructive economic policies in history). The Risk takers and those who work hard striving for excellence are the driving force in a healthy robust economy. Government's jobs is to provide a stable framework. Excessive government intervention puts a damper on that. The real question is... when is it enough?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:I'd argue that the Ryan budget is a real and common talking point and has a much greater effect on the personal lives of the democrats (and to a large extent republicans) voter bases. Where Palin was a hollywood sideshow, that in a lot of ways worked to her credit. It's hard to base a vote around someone you don't take seriously and believe would be sidelined. Palin never did or said anything substantial, she just sort of parroted slogans and talked about hockey. Ryan and his budget are taken seriously as the role models of conservative deficit hawks and he is much more an enemy of the democrat party than even Romney himself. Romney can and will be overshadowed in this election cycle by his VP and I can't think of a time in my life when that has happened before. I suspect ryan will become inextricably linked to the elections primary issues (taxes and the economy) in a way that will be significantly more meaningful than VP choices in recent history.
That's the challenge for Obama and his team. It can't just be 'Ryan is bad because of these ideas' but 'Ryan is bad because of these ideas and therefore the guy who picked him as VP and also the whole Republican idea of the way forward is bad'.
I just don't think its a given to go from the first to the second. You might be right, and Ryan might overshadow the actual Presidential candidate and in that case it'll be pretty easy, but at the end of the day despite the fuss right now he's still just the VP candidate.
I agree with Shuma... Romeny's pick of Ryan will make it harder for him to win.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:And thats why we can't have a serious discussion about the budget, deficits, or pretty much anything. The candidate that makes that mistake is instantly destroyed by the other side as being EEEEVVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLL!!!!! Doesn't matter which side, or which issue.
Remember that 'fix the budget' thread we had ages ago, where I was trying to point out that bringing the budget into surplus is easy if you have a free hand, but hard in reality because everything is piece of spending, every tax concession is someone's sacred cow?
Well, yeah.
Yup... current entitlement will be on the conversation now... at some point, we'll elect enough adults to address this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:So, yeah... we don't get everything on a silver platter like your universal healthcare can provide, but we can make it work with what we have.
Actually, in the US the biggest cause of bankruptcy is medical expenses. So no, a lot of people don't make it work. Instead they get sick and go bankrupt because of it.
You say bankruptcy is a "bad thing". In a healthy economic society, bankruptcy is a GOOD thing. It's a reset button. So... according to this statistics:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/BankruptcyStatistics.aspx From March '11 to March '12 there were over 1.3 million bankruptcies filed. Out of that, based on a recent Harvard studies (I have issues with this study, but lets roll with it), about 40% of those were due to medical expenses. So, during this time period about 520K people filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses.
So... yes, we can make it work.
Regulation and Legal implications DRIVES up the cost. The Administrative architecture is so byzatine, it's assinine.
Yeah, because its a 50 year old reform of a 100 year old system. It's always going to end up a mess of competing interests all taking their own piece of the pie, coupled with a whole mess false economies.
Yup... agree with you here.
The HCR bill sought to tackle a lot of those issues, by the way. It's why the CBO expects there to be a $500 million saving to medicare without a single drop in the standard of care provided.
The politicians says the underline... in the real world... the standard of care will go down.
It's why the HCR should be viewed as the first step to a many layered reform of US healthcare, to limit the amount taken by special interests, and continue to pull out all those false economies.
Nope... it's LOADED with special interests. Big Pharma got goodies (and in the end, they still got shafted)
But the Republicans picked it as the issue they could hurt the Democrats on, and so its unlikely healthcare will be meaningfully touched by a government for a long time yet.
Right... and Democrates were serious all along polishing their halos... gotcha.
Not that I really blame the Republicans over this. Afterall, they went from the brink of oblivion back in to being legitimately considered for government in the course of a few months. But the idiots who let some inane soundbites about socialism convince them to ignore the actual substance of the HCR... those people should be fething ashamed of themselves.
It is socialism (not verbatim, but the direction).
To be fair, there are some good stuff in HCR bill. I think the problem was they tried to fix it "all at once", and in order to get it passed, you had to satisfy all the special interest groups to squeak it by and what's left is a bloated BAD law with a few redeeming stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:No, we didn't. The system has changed fundamentally in those years. Senate and congressional procedure is in no way identical now to either of those times.
I think its less the procedures and more the culture within the two parties, and how that culture has impacted the electorate as a whole. It used to be that variation within the party was accepted, so you could be a Republican because you liked tax cuts and small government and a big army, but you could potentially think that it was a woman's right to choose if she wanted to have an abortion.
But now such variation from the party line is unacceptable, and it makes cross party compromise a whole lot harder.
Yeah, the extremism on both sides are at fault. But let me just say this... I'm not quite sure how I feel about it, but isn't a better (long term) if one party controls only one branch? IE, Republican Congress vs. Democrate WH? It seems that we go all ape-gak crazy when one party controls both branch of government.
So, at some point, we need to understand that the contentious debate between a Republican Congress vs Democratic WH might actually be a healthy thing. Thoughts?
It might be pointed out how artificial such groupings are - how could one's beliefs on the idea size of the armed forces control how likely they were to be for or against abortion? Except increasingly the US is shifting into two camps that follow one artificial grouping of beliefs or the other - it used to be that you could go into rural areas and find people who believed in socially conservative values, but find they'd often differ with Republicans over social programs and farm subsidies. But now those social conservatives are increasingly in favour of more right wing economics. Similarly you used to be able to find upper middle class urbanites who held all the socially acceptable views on social policies, but who didn't believe they should pay more tax to fund someone else's unemployment - but now those people are becoming more liberal economically.
Yeah... it's the stereotyping that is getting outta hand... (I know I fall into that trap).
AustonT wrote:I'm shy of 30. I also don't watch loads of television, never did. The Internet has somewhat addressed my relative ignorance of what goes on in television. But I can't say I'm particularly plugged in especially to notice a debate between Biden and Palin or *shudder* Cheney and Edwards on Cspan8.
Understandable. Like I said, I didn't mean it as an insult. If you were maybe 20 or 22 then I figured you would have better things to do than to pay attention or watch VP debates. In 2004 I was 23 and I cared a little about politics but didn't really follow it that closely. 2008 was the first time I watched all the debates and the first time I realized that there were VP debates as well.
AustonT wrote:There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence.
/doublestandard
Joe Biden is the king of gaffs. Hes not a racist or moron. Every candidate makes gaffs...."Corporations are People too, my friend" or "Spread the Wealth around a little" That does not damage the Obama tickets chances of winning the election in a significant way.
Trying to make the case that Biden damages the Democrat ticket like Ryan damages the Republican ticket has no basis. Biden is a middle of the road candidate -- the safe choice. Ryan's damage comes from the fact hes an extremist. It would be like Obama picking Dennis Kucinich to be his running mate.
AustonT wrote:Do they even televise VP debates, or have them anymore?
Yes. It will be interesting seeing the VP debate. I expect Ryan to beat Biden, just as I expect Obama to beat Romney.
Fyi sebster... I like "debating" you... so, if I'm outta hand, I'll owe a beverage of your choice.
Now this...
sebster wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:Typically, private insurance is used more for travel to the USA (I won't set foot across the border without travel insurance).
When I booked my travel insurance for the US I was surprised to find out it wasn't a list 1 cheap insurance company like if I'd gone to Europe. It was in the same group as Africa... not because there's any great risk of something happening like there is in Africa, but because if I did get hurt it'd cost a stupid amount of money compared to if I suffered a similar injury in Europe or here at home.
A few days later an Australian woman suffered an injury in the US and it became a national story here because she was uninsured and the bill was in excess of a million.
That's interesting... never knew that.
Here's the website for booking travel insurance, tool around with it to see how much more companies will charge you to go to the USA, because of the nutty cost of health insurance;
http://www.medibank.com.au/travel-insurance/default.aspx
I put in a trip for one person to the USA, for 15th July to 31 October, and it cost $615. The same trip to the UK was $260. They're both stable countries with no reputation for criminal preying on tourists, only difference there is the cost of treatment if you get hurt and that more than doubles the cost of coverage.
Denmark is $260 as well. Afghanistan cost the same as the USA. Afghanistan... all the extra risk of getting attacked or abducted or whatever, and it breaks even with the USA because of the cost of health coverage.
Right... everything here is MORE expensive. Just the way it is... So how that segues into foreigner's travel cost... that interesting 'cuz now with that, travel expenses is even more spendy for ya'll.
My insurance covers me when I go abroad... but, I'm not sure how that works logistically (*looking for my plan detail).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:Ryan Paul and Sarah Palin are quite similar. They're both radical fiscal conservative dudes who don't like abortion. The only real difference between 'em is that Ryan Paul has social skills. And is male. So people aren't making fun of him as much (yet).
Ryan is a smart guy who earned himself a place at the centre of the Republican policy debate. I don't, and you may not, like his beliefs but that doesn't make him an idiot like Palin, who could only parrot concepts put forward by others (and not even that some of the time).
With Romney and Ryan at least we've got a pair of adults running for the presidency, unlike when Bush and Palin were on their respective tickets. They may be adults who want to sink a whole country on the mantra of balance the budget & no new taxes, but they're still adults.
Paul Ryan is "anti-progressive".
Palin is "Hollywood" and we weren't ready for a female VP (and I voted for McCain!).
AustonT wrote:I'm shy of 30. I also don't watch loads of television, never did. The Internet has somewhat addressed my relative ignorance of what goes on in television. But I can't say I'm particularly plugged in especially to notice a debate between Biden and Palin or *shudder* Cheney and Edwards on Cspan8.
Watch them on youtube. You don't need a TV, just the same tool your using to read this forum.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Fyi sebster... I like "debating" you... so, if I'm outta hand, I'll owe a beverage of your choice.
Now this...
Hats off to you whembly. What a great way to keep the conversation polite and productive.
AustonT wrote:There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence.
/doublestandard
Joe Biden is the king of gaffs. Hes not a racist or moron. Every candidate makes gaffs...."Corporations are People too, my friend" or "Spread the Wealth around a little" That does not damage the Obama tickets chances of winning the election in a significant way.
Trying to make the case that Biden damages the Democrat ticket like Ryan damages the Republican ticket has no basis. Biden is a middle of the road candidate -- the safe choice. Ryan's damage comes from the fact hes an extremist. It would be like Obama picking Dennis Kucinich to be his running mate.
Eh... now that Romney/Ryan are fighting back (McCain never did that)... Gafftastic Biden will be a liability.
Romney/Ryan is "extreme" just like Obama/Biden is "extreme. They're two polar opposites with clear contrast.
AustonT wrote:Do they even televise VP debates, or have them anymore?
Yes. It will be interesting seeing the VP debate. I expect Ryan to beat Biden, just as I expect Obama to beat Romney.
Right...
Moderator to Biden: What's your favorite color?
Moderator to Ryan: Why do you hate seniors and how many did you throw off the cliff last week?
I'm not sure if Ryan is going to have as much of an impact on the republican ticket as Palin did. A factor with Palin was the fact that McCain was in fact old as dust and you had to face the fact that there was a real possibility that Palin could become President because McCain drops over dead.
If McCain would have been 8 years younger she might have been less of a factor.
whembly wrote:Palin is "Hollywood" and we weren't ready for a female VP (and I voted for McCain!).
I would strongly advise against voicing that opinion in a public forum in person.
Such a comment is fine over the interwebs where people cannot find you, but that's a sexist comment. If you say something like that to your boss, co-worker, teacher, etc there may be repercussions. For example, if I made a comment like that to my co-worker I would get written up or fired.
AustonT wrote:I'm shy of 30. I also don't watch loads of television, never did. The Internet has somewhat addressed my relative ignorance of what goes on in television. But I can't say I'm particularly plugged in especially to notice a debate between Biden and Palin or *shudder* Cheney and Edwards on Cspan8.
Watch them on youtube. You don't need a TV, just the same tool your using to read this forum.
Agreed... try watching it w/o reading any commentary beforehand.... its what I try to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Fyi sebster... I like "debating" you... so, if I'm outta hand, I'll owe a beverage of your choice.
Now this...
Hats off to you whembly. What a great way to keep the conversation polite and productive.
It's a subject that folks are passionate about and could get heated. Just remember, this is an OT forum for our plastic-crack hobby.
AustonT wrote:There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence.
/doublestandard
Joe Biden is the king of gaffs. Hes not a racist or moron. Every candidate makes gaffs...."Corporations are People too, my friend" or "Spread the Wealth around a little" That does not damage the Obama tickets chances of winning the election in a significant way.
Trying to make the case that Biden damages the Democrat ticket like Ryan damages the Republican ticket has no basis. Biden is a middle of the road candidate -- the safe choice. Ryan's damage comes from the fact hes an extremist. It would be like Obama picking Dennis Kucinich to be his running mate.
Eh... now that Romney/Ryan are fighting back (McCain never did that)... Gafftastic Biden will be a liability.
Romney/Ryan is "extreme" just like Obama/Biden is "extreme. They're two polar opposites with clear contrast.
I think Obama is more of a moderate, Biden is probably the more "extreme" of the two.
Romney is a moderate that is trying to be a right wing conservative but you can tell that he doesn't know how to walk that talk. Ryan is probably the most hardcore out of the bunch when it comes to ideology.
whembly wrote:Palin is "Hollywood" and we weren't ready for a female VP (and I voted for McCain!).
I would strongly advise against voicing that opinion in a public forum in person.
Such a comment is fine over the interwebs where people cannot find you, but that's a sexist comment. If you say something like that to your boss, co-worker, teacher, etc there may be repercussions. For example, if I made a comment like that to my co-worker I would get written up or fired.
Oh I know...
But does that make it any less true? And, if someone takes the trouble in finding me based on this comment. I'm going to enjoy that meeting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
labmouse42 wrote:
AustonT wrote:There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence.
/doublestandard
Joe Biden is the king of gaffs. Hes not a racist or moron. Every candidate makes gaffs...."Corporations are People too, my friend" or "Spread the Wealth around a little" That does not damage the Obama tickets chances of winning the election in a significant way.
Trying to make the case that Biden damages the Democrat ticket like Ryan damages the Republican ticket has no basis. Biden is a middle of the road candidate -- the safe choice. Ryan's damage comes from the fact hes an extremist. It would be like Obama picking Dennis Kucinich to be his running mate.
Eh... now that Romney/Ryan are fighting back (McCain never did that)... Gafftastic Biden will be a liability.
Romney/Ryan is "extreme" just like Obama/Biden is "extreme. They're two polar opposites with clear contrast.
I think Obama is more of a moderate,
By the throne... Obama is so far left field, he's not in the stadium.
Biden is probably the more "extreme" of the two.
Biden is old school Northeastern Liberal Democrat (from Delaware I think).
Romney is a moderate that is trying to be a right wing conservative
Yup. Unfortunately... I didn't mind "Governor Romney"
Ryan is probably the most hardcore out of the bunch when it comes to ideology.
Disagree... both Ryan and Obama are the most hardcore with their ideology and if I had to pick, Obama would take the prize.
whembly wrote:Right...
Moderator to Biden: What's your favorite color?
Moderator to Ryan: Why do you hate seniors and how many did you throw off the cliff last week?
Did you actually watch any of the debates? The questions do not come out like that.
whembly wrote:But does that make it any less true? And, if someone takes the trouble in finding me based on this comment. I'm going to enjoy that meeting.
That is a matter of opinion. I think that ones sex does not prohibit one from doing a job. We cannot prove or disprove opinions, simply agree to disagree
I doubt you will have someone hound you down for a sexist comment on Dakka. The internet is full of far more offensive things. At worst you will be banned if your comments highly offend a woman here.
whembly wrote:By the throne... Obama is so far left field, he's not in the stadium.
Can you back up that claim please?
I gave you the wikipedia links of an extreme left leaning candidate and Obama. Can you show me some other moderates that are hard right of Obama?
A list of policies is best here, not a hypothetical description. Policies are what define a candidate's actions and what we should vote on.
d-usa wrote:Romney is a moderate that is trying to be a right wing conservative but you can tell that he doesn't know how to walk that talk. Ryan is probably the most hardcore out of the bunch when it comes to ideology.
Romney is the classic politician. He will say anything to get elected. That's why he flip-flops so often.
@labmouse42... goober'ed up the parsing... 2nd attempt... gah... still didn't work...
Denny is a nutter, they come in all shape and sizes (just like the extreme righties!)
Obama is a "leftist" (left to the classical liberals).
whembly wrote:Right...
Moderator to Biden: What's your favorite color?
Moderator to Ryan: Why do you hate seniors and how many did you throw off the cliff last week?
Did you actually watch any of the debates? The questions do not come out like that.
Forgot my sarcasm switch... sorry.
But, the "types" of questions from these Moderators are suspect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:
whembly wrote:But does that make it any less true? And, if someone takes the trouble in finding me based on this comment. I'm going to enjoy that meeting.
That is a matter of opinion. I think that ones sex does not prohibit one from doing a job. We cannot prove or disprove opinions, simply agree to disagree
I doubt you will have someone hound you down for a sexist comment on Dakka. The internet is full of far more offensive things. At worst you will be banned if your comments highly offend a woman here.
I didn't think it was THAT sexist. o.O
whembly wrote:By the throne... Obama is so far left field, he's not in the stadium.
Can you back up that claim please?
Sure... might take me awhile... stay tuned...
I gave you the wikipedia links of an extreme left leaning candidate and Obama. Can you show me some other moderates that are hard right of Obama?
A list of policies is best here, not a hypothetical description. Policies are what define a candidate's actions and what we should vote on.
Here's the problem... the moderates are REALLY short in supply. I'd have to check (no proof yet)... but Liberman I would think it's to the right of Obama.
d-usa wrote:Romney is a moderate that is trying to be a right wing conservative but you can tell that he doesn't know how to walk that talk. Ryan is probably the most hardcore out of the bunch when it comes to ideology.
Romney is the classic politician. He will say anything to get elected. That's why he flip-flops so often.
They're all politians... they all "flip-flop"... I never understand why there's so much angst about this. People change their mind all the time.
This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.
The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals.Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.
As outrageous as it may appear, civil libertarians and human rights supporters would have actually fared better under a Republican administration. Had a Bush or McCain presidency permitted extrajudicial executions virtually anywhere in the world ( www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/047/2012/en ), expanded drone strikes and introduced the NDAA, the Democratic Party would have howled from the rooftops. Senator Obama the Constitutional lawyer would have been one of the most vocal objectors. Under a Democratic administration however, these far-reaching developments have received scant opposition and a disgraceful absence of mainstream media coverage.
Democratic and, especially, some Republican candidates, will benefit massively from new legislation that permits them to receive unlimited and unaccountable funding. This means a significant shift of political power to the very moneyed interests that earlier elections tried to contain. Super PACs will inevitably reshape the system and undermine democracy. It would be naïve to suppose that a President Gingrich would feel no obligations towards his generous backer, Sheldon Adelson, one of the country's most influential men. Or a President Santorum towards billionaire mutual fund tycoon, Foster Freiss. (Santorum emerged as the most authoritarian candidate, not the least for his extreme stand against abortion and condom sales.) Or a President Paul, whose largest single donor, billionaire Peter Thiel, founded a controversial defence company contracting to the CIA and the FBI. Last year it was caught operating an illegal spy ring targeting opponents of the US Chamber of Commerce. In our opinion Romney, despite his consistent contempt for the impoverished, is correctly described as the weather vane candidate. He shares another similarity with Obama. His corporate-friendly health care plan for Massachusetts was strikingly similar to the President's "compromise" package. The emergence of the Tea Party enables an increasingly extreme GOP to present itself as middle-of-the road — between an ultra right movement with "some good ideas that might go a bit too far" and, on the other side, a dangerous "socialist" president.
The smaller non-Tea parties provide the only substantial electoral diversity — virtually unreported — in their Sisyphean struggle against the two mountainous conservative machines. Identity issues like gay marriage disguise the absence of fundamental differences and any real contrast of vision. Since FDR, the mainstream American "Left" has been much more concerned with the social rather than the economic scale. Identity politics; issues like peace, immigration, gay and women's rights, prayers in school have assumed far greater importance than matters like pensions and minimum wages that preoccupy their counterparts in other democracies. Hence the appeal of Ron Paul to many liberals, despite his far-right economics.
Our earlier assertion stil holds: that Ron Paul may yet emerge as the last person left standing at the Republican convention. His tenacious supporters are unnerving GOP headquarters by grasping control of the party apparatus in a growing number of states, and suing the National Party Chair and various state parties for the right to vote freely at the convention — in other words, the right to vote for Ron Paul. With Paul as presidential candidate, the Republicans could expect something that Romney wouldn't deliver: a significant crossover vote from Democrats.
If Romney succeeds in his struggle to consolidate party support but goes on to lose the election, it would hardly be devastating for mainstream Republicans. During a second term of Obama, they would no doubt continue to frame the debates.
When the leaders of the Green Party and the Tea Party have been selected, their names will be included on this chart.
whembly wrote:@labmouse42... goober'ed up the parsing... 2nd attempt
Denny is a nutter, they come in all shape and sizes (just like the extreme righties!)
Obama is a "leftist" (left to the classical liberals).
Understandable how the parsing works out.
I am still not sold on Obama being hard left of center. He's slightly left of center, but not hard left. Lets take a lot at his political goals/current policies.
Foreign Policy * Obama has oversaw the end of one war.
* Obama has oversaw the killing of Bin Laden
* Obama has prevented another quagmire in Libya while helping locals to kill Gaddafi
He seems pretty moderate on this. I think Regan would have been proud.
Economy Policy * On April 20, 2007, Obama introduced a bill in the Senate (Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act - S. 1181) requiring public companies to give shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on executive compensation, popularly called "Say on pay."
* Obama favored the increase in the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25, and he voted to end the filibuster against a bill to accomplish that. He favored raising it to $9.50 an hour by 2011, and then indexing it for inflation afterwards.
* Obama wants 5,000 failing schools to close, and then reopen with new principals and teachers
* In his New Energy For America plan, Obama proposes to reduce overall U.S. oil consumption by at least 35%, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030 in order to offset imports from OPEC nations. And by 2011 the United States was said to be "awash with domestic oil and increasingly divorced and less reliant on foreign imports
He's a bit left of center on this. Obama pushes for the little guy and wants the rich to pay more in taxes. If he was hard left he would have cut the military budget greatly.
Social Policy * Obama has expressed support of bans on some late-term abortions, provided they include exemptions for the mental and physical health of the mother.
* Obama voted for a $100 million education initiative to reduce teen pregnancy and provide contraceptives to young people
* Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage
* On June 25, 2008, Obama condemned United States Supreme Court decision Kennedy v. Louisiana, which outlawed the death penalty for a child rapist when the victim was not killed. He said that states have the right to consider capital punishment, but cited concern about the possibility of unfairness in some sentences
* Obama announced that he favors measures that respect Second Amendment rights, while at the same time keeping guns away from children and criminals. He further stated that he supports banning private transfers of firearms at gun shows (referred to as "closing the gun show loophole"), "making guns in this country childproof", and permanently reinstating the expired Assault Weapons Ban
He's slightly to the left on this. Working to reduce teen pregnancy, pushing for death penalty are not 'hard left' views.
If you like, I can provide 'hard left' views on each of those categories. It would help to illustrate how Obama is not 'hard left' or even 'very left'.
Can you provide examples of moderates that have policy decisions that are 'right' of Obama?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Here's the problem... the moderates are REALLY short in supply. I'd have to check (no proof yet)... but Liberman I would think it's to the right of Obama.
Moderate Republicans, yes. Democrats have not changed that much. Go to that NPR article about the increased shift to the right by Republicans over the past ~10 years or so. If you don't trust NPR, then look at it from other sources. It's no big secret that the Republican base has been shifting hard right. By contrast, the Democrats which have stayed about the same appear to be much more left in comparison now. If the left was shifting hard left, we would be having discussions of legalizing pot, reduced military spending, and free college for all youth.
While he officially considers himself a member of the Democratic party, Lieberman has been accused of being more conservative than many Republicans and a political maverick since he often stands up to his party on issues on which he disagrees with them. He lost the Democratic Party nomination in the 2006 election to a more partisanly pure candidate, so he ran as an independent candidate to retain his senate seat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman
If you read his actions, Liberman was in the wrong party. (IMHO so is Ron Paul, but that's another discussion)
ps - good discussion, I'm really enjoying it.
AustonT wrote:I'm shy of 30. I also don't watch loads of television, never did. The Internet has somewhat addressed my relative ignorance of what goes on in television. But I can't say I'm particularly plugged in especially to notice a debate between Biden and Palin or *shudder* Cheney and Edwards on Cspan8.
Watch them on youtube. You don't need a TV, just the same tool your using to read this forum.
No fething way?!
Hey guys we can watch clips of important events on YouTube now!
Really guy...really?
labmouse42 wrote:
whembly wrote:Palin is "Hollywood" and we weren't ready for a female VP (and I voted for McCain!).
I would strongly advise against voicing that opinion in a public forum in person.
Such a comment is fine over the interwebs where people cannot find you, but that's a sexist comment. If you say something like that to your boss, co-worker, teacher, etc there may be repercussions. For example, if I made a comment like that to my co-worker I would get written up or fired.
BS, capital B capital S bull gak. It's absolutely true. If anything the Democrat electorate told the rest of us they could stomach a black man before a white woman in the 2008 primary. The Republican establishment tossed Palin out to see what would happen if they made the Dems look sexist...and somehow that backfired by finding the most batgak crazy woman they could put on the ticket. In their defense maybe they didn't know she was insane.
By the throne... Obama is so far left field, he's not in the stadium.
Come again? I mean I don't agree at the attempt to portray Obama as a moderate or a centrist, but he's not exactly an extreme lefty either. At his very worst he lands somewhere between Ike and FDR.
@labmouse42 (got loads of stuff saved somewhere gotta find 'em... these are old)
From his BIO, Barack Obama came into politics from the precincts of the Harringtonian left wing. He was a member in Chicago of the socialist New Party, which grew out of the activism of the Democratic Socialists of America.
[T]hrough Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."
The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member.
Aren't we seeing a pattern here? One interaction with one old communist isn't particularly troubling. A handful of sporadic interactions with a handful of radical left-wingers may not be particularly troubling. But a lifelong pattern of extended associations and alliances with scores of fringe, America-hating radicals is very, very troubling indeed.
Just to be clear:
None of these facts, by itself, tells you that much about Barack Obama. A reasonable person should, however, be able to look at this motley crew of left-wing communists and America-haters, realize that Barack Obama's rolodex is a veritableWho's Who of American Socialism, be very, very disturbed by that fact and ask some very probing questions about WHO Barack Obama is, WHAT he believes, and WHY this gang of radical America-haters considers Barack Obama such a good friend.
These are all signs of socialist ideologues and programs favored by Barack Obama who had hoped that the US would be more similar to social-democratic welfare states of Europe.
So... Mr. Obama... no thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:
whembly wrote:@labmouse42... goober'ed up the parsing... 2nd attempt
Denny is a nutter, they come in all shape and sizes (just like the extreme righties!)
Obama is a "leftist" (left to the classical liberals).
Understandable how the parsing works out.
I am still not sold on Obama being hard left of center. He's slightly left of center, but not hard left. Lets take a lot at his political goals/current policies.
Foreign Policy * Obama has oversaw the end of one war.
* Obama has oversaw the killing of Bin Laden
* Obama has prevented another quagmire in Libya while helping locals to kill Gaddafi
He seems pretty moderate on this. I think Regan would have been proud.
Spoiler:
Economy Policy * On April 20, 2007, Obama introduced a bill in the Senate (Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act - S. 1181) requiring public companies to give shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on executive compensation, popularly called "Say on pay."
* Obama favored the increase in the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25, and he voted to end the filibuster against a bill to accomplish that. He favored raising it to $9.50 an hour by 2011, and then indexing it for inflation afterwards.
* Obama wants 5,000 failing schools to close, and then reopen with new principals and teachers
* In his New Energy For America plan, Obama proposes to reduce overall U.S. oil consumption by at least 35%, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030 in order to offset imports from OPEC nations. And by 2011 the United States was said to be "awash with domestic oil and increasingly divorced and less reliant on foreign imports
He's a bit left of center on this. Obama pushes for the little guy and wants the rich to pay more in taxes. If he was hard left he would have cut the military budget greatly.
Social Policy * Obama has expressed support of bans on some late-term abortions, provided they include exemptions for the mental and physical health of the mother.
* Obama voted for a $100 million education initiative to reduce teen pregnancy and provide contraceptives to young people
* Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage
* On June 25, 2008, Obama condemned United States Supreme Court decision Kennedy v. Louisiana, which outlawed the death penalty for a child rapist when the victim was not killed. He said that states have the right to consider capital punishment, but cited concern about the possibility of unfairness in some sentences
* Obama announced that he favors measures that respect Second Amendment rights, while at the same time keeping guns away from children and criminals. He further stated that he supports banning private transfers of firearms at gun shows (referred to as "closing the gun show loophole"), "making guns in this country childproof", and permanently reinstating the expired Assault Weapons Ban
He's slightly to the left on this. Working to reduce teen pregnancy, pushing for death penalty are not 'hard left' views.
If you like, I can provide 'hard left' views on each of those categories. It would help to illustrate how Obama is not 'hard left' or even 'very left'.
Can you provide examples of moderates that have policy decisions that are 'right' of Obama?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Here's the problem... the moderates are REALLY short in supply. I'd have to check (no proof yet)... but Liberman I would think it's to the right of Obama.
Moderate Republicans, yes. Democrats have not changed that much. Go to that NPR article about the increased shift to the right by Republicans over the past ~10 years or so. If you don't trust NPR, then look at it from other sources. It's no big secret that the Republican base has been shifting hard right. By contrast, the Democrats which have stayed about the same appear to be much more left in comparison now. If the left was shifting hard left, we would be having discussions of legalizing pot, reduced military spending, and free college for all youth.
While he officially considers himself a member of the Democratic party, Lieberman has been accused of being more conservative than many Republicans and a political maverick since he often stands up to his party on issues on which he disagrees with them. He lost the Democratic Party nomination in the 2006 election to a more partisanly pure candidate, so he ran as an independent candidate to retain his senate seat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman
If you read his actions, Liberman was in the wrong party. (IMHO so is Ron Paul, but that's another discussion)
ps - good discussion, I'm really enjoying it.
By the throne... Obama is so far left field, he's not in the stadium.
Come again? I mean I don't agree at the attempt to portray Obama as a moderate or a centrist, but he's not exactly an extreme lefty either. At his very worst he lands somewhere between Ike and FDR.
Half of the dems are far left (obama included)... and likewise, the righty are getting more extreme.
See this site on senate voting history:
http://voteview.com/Clinton_and_Obama.htm Look at the bottom chart, you'll see both parties drifting away from each other. That's why we're seeing more severe ideological "debates" than ever before.
whembly wrote:t's not just that Barack Obama's father was a Marxist economist or that his mother Stanley came from radical far-left roots. [and other such trash vomited out in this thread like that old "obama doesn't salute" rumor]
This is such a blatant set of lies and misrepresentations that I have to wonder on your mental connection with reality if you honestly believe this gak.
whembly wrote:t's not just that Barack Obama's father was a Marxist economist or that his mother Stanley came from radical far-left roots.
[and other such trash vomited out in this thread like that old "obama doesn't salute" rumor]
This is such a blatant, idiotic, and imbecilic set of lies and misrepresentations that I have to wonder on your mental connection with reality if you honestly believe this gak.
Every single one of them are outright lies...???
You must believe there's a vast-rightwing agenda control all those writers from different sources...
AustonT wrote:No fething way?!
Hey guys we can watch clips of important events on YouTube now!
Really guy...really?
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
You did not know that the VP debates were televised. I was giving you an honest friendly suggestion and you respond with sarcasm.
What are you trying to accomplish?
AustonT wrote:BS, capital B capital S bull gak. It's absolutely true. If anything the Democrat electorate told the rest of us they could stomach a black man before a white woman in the 2008 primary.
That's a very short-sighted view of the 2008 primary.
Our earlier assertion stil holds: that Ron Paul may yet emerge as the last person left standing at the Republican convention.
Political compass has really lost track of reality.
It's called hope. Scant, self deluded grasping hope maybe, but hope.
That said the Poli Compass chart revealed a pretty solid truth, we don't have a two party system in this country any more. Democrat and republican are mirrors of each other and both are continuously pushing for more and bigger government to solidify and expand their personal power bases. It's the Big Government party and who ever wins we lose.
By the throne... Obama is so far left field, he's not in the stadium.
You breathe Fox News, don't you? Obama is right of center from the last two democratic presidents outside of his stance on gay marriage. On almost every single stance and position he publicly holds and has acted on he's right of Clinton.
whembly wrote:From his BIO, Barack Obama came into politics from the precincts of the Harringtonian left wing. He was a member in Chicago of the socialist New Party, which grew out of the activism of the Democratic Socialists of America.
I posted a list of policies, not background. Where someone comes from does not dictate their current actions.
If you look at what Obama has done since hes been in office and what policies he runs on they are not extreme.
Edit : As someone mentioned, Romneys dad could be viewed as a hippie.
whembly wrote:t's not just that Barack Obama's father was a Marxist economist or that his mother Stanley came from radical far-left roots. [and other such trash vomited out in this thread like that old "obama doesn't salute" rumor]
This is such a blatant, idiotic, and imbecilic set of lies and misrepresentations that I have to wonder on your mental connection with reality if you honestly believe this gak.
Every single one of them are outright lies...???
You must believe there's a vast-rightwing agenda control all those writers from different sources...
Dang Rupert! Where's my check! *shakes fist*
Romneys father was a Mexican national with views that would be considered radically left by modern American standards. I guess Romney's a socialist too huh? Mormonism was a highly sexist religion until the mid 70s. Guess Romneys a sexist.
AustonT wrote:BS, capital B capital S bull gak. It's absolutely true. If anything the Democrat electorate told the rest of us they could stomach a black man before a white woman in the 2008 primary.
That's a very short-sighted view of the 2008 primary.
The long sighted view is that Hilary has been more popular than Obama; her acceptance of a position within Obama's cabinet has at the same time given herself more credentials for a future presidential bid and absolved herself of the current president's failings (perceived and real) through keeping a long distance relationship (in the public eye) from him and his politics through her constant globe trotting and side projects.
whembly wrote:t's not just that Barack Obama's father was a Marxist economist or that his mother Stanley came from radical far-left roots. [and other such trash vomited out in this thread like that old "obama doesn't salute" rumor]
This is such a blatant, idiotic, and imbecilic set of lies and misrepresentations that I have to wonder on your mental connection with reality if you honestly believe this gak.
Every single one of them are outright lies...???
You must believe there's a vast-rightwing agenda control all those writers from different sources...
Dang Rupert! Where's my check! *shakes fist*
Romneys father was a Cuban national with views that would be considered radically left by modern American standards. I guess Romney's a socialist too huh?
For FoxNews "standards," it should be.
I could just see the talking points if Romney wasn't Republican:
How can we elect a person president who is so radically leftist not only in nature but in origin? He sat on his father's knee and in his home for decades, being exposed to the Marxist teachings of left leaning radicals who wanted to give away free homes to undeserving nonworking Americans and immigrants at the cost of honest tax-paying citizens? Further, isn't it odd that the Romney family is descended from radical polygamous Mormons who ran away from the United States government? What kind of man would be such a president whose family not only is a long lineage of class warfarists and rebels, but also has the audacity to impose upon the people of his own state a mandate stating they must buy healthcare? What about their rights and freedoms? Where does the Constitution state that people must be forced to buy healthcare, huh Mr. Romney....if that is even your real name....
My missus drips about wanting to go back to the US at some point, the more of this I read the more I am convinced she will just wrap and stay here.. family and friends be damned.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:That said the Poli Compass chart revealed a pretty solid truth, we don't have a two party system in this country any more. Democrat and republican are mirrors of each other and both are continuously pushing for more and bigger government to solidify and expand their personal power bases. It's the Big Government party and who ever wins we lose.
There are some major differences between the candidates in policy, but they are very close when compared to other countries in the world.
AustonT wrote:There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence.
/doublestandard
Do they even televise VP debates, or have them anymore? If so hopefully Biden is more articulate than Rep. Wasserman. Which shouldn't be hard.
You didn't get the memo? Biden gets a pass on all statements by the MSM, because, despite being read from a teleprompter, 1) he's just speaking off the cuff; 2) He's just getting carried away; 3) There goes Joe again.
AustonT wrote:There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence. /doublestandard Do they even televise VP debates, or have them anymore? If so hopefully Biden is more articulate than Rep. Wasserman. Which shouldn't be hard.
You didn't get the memo? Biden gets a pass on all statements by the MSM, because, despite being read from a teleprompter, 1) he's just speaking off the cuff; 2) He's just getting carried away; 3) There goes Joe again.
There's a difference between a gaffe that could be construed as having racial tones (wasn't racist) or idiotic (he's an idiot) and a submitted and a supported budget proposal that the presidential candidate supports which would tear the American economy to shreds. There are differences between things you guys. Ants aren't telephones. You don't have to equivocate everything all the time ever because it's fun or because thinking is fething hard.
Our earlier assertion stil holds: that Ron Paul may yet emerge as the last person left standing at the Republican convention.
Political compass has really lost track of reality.
It's called hope. Scant, self deluded grasping hope maybe, but hope.
That said the Poli Compass chart revealed a pretty solid truth, we don't have a two party system in this country any more. Democrat and republican are mirrors of each other and both are continuously pushing for more and bigger government to solidify and expand their personal power bases. It's the Big Government party and who ever wins we lose.
There's certain truth to that... but historically the parties are drifting further apart, see the last graph on this page:
http://voteview.com/Clinton_and_Obama.htm
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
By the throne... Obama is so far left field, he's not in the stadium.
You breathe Fox News, don't you? Obama is right of center from the last two democratic presidents outside of his stance on gay marriage. On almost every single stance and position he publicly holds and has acted on he's right of Clinton.
Fair enough...
But, I consider Clinton (Hilary that is) as leftist as well.
Edit... don't watch that much news... I'd rather watch sports.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:
whembly wrote:From his BIO, Barack Obama came into politics from the precincts of the Harringtonian left wing. He was a member in Chicago of the socialist New Party, which grew out of the activism of the Democratic Socialists of America.
I posted a list of policies, not background. Where someone comes from does not dictate their current actions.
If you look at what Obama has done since hes been in office and what policies he runs on they are not extreme.
Edit : As someone mentioned, Romneys dad could be viewed as a hippie.
We'll need to dig deeper, because it's systemic of the whole Democratic party.
Republican party has the same sort of problem to... (when I get home, I'll tell ya why)
AustonT wrote:There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence.
/doublestandard
Do they even televise VP debates, or have them anymore? If so hopefully Biden is more articulate than Rep. Wasserman. Which shouldn't be hard.
You didn't get the memo? Biden gets a pass on all statements by the MSM, because, despite being read from a teleprompter, 1) he's just speaking off the cuff; 2) He's just getting carried away; 3) There goes Joe again.
There's a difference between a gaffe that could be construed as having racial tones (wasn't racist) or idiotic (he's an idiot) and a submitted and supported budget proposal that the presidential candidate supports which would tear the American economy to shreds. There are differences between things you guys. Ants aren't telephones. You don't have to equivocate everything all the time ever because it's fun or because thinking is fething hard.
Nope. I don'[t buy that, at all. When has Biden been called on any of his statements by anyone other than Fox?
Someone seemed to left out where it was at, the history of the city. and what race half the general population of the city it is. Also the racial half of the audience. Some words and phrases have a lot of power. "Put you all in shackles" is right up there with using the "November" word in general public.
My missus drips about wanting to go back to the US at some point, the more of this I read the more I am convinced she will just wrap and stay here.. family and friends be damned.
AustonT wrote:There's a thread(this one) ELEVEN pages long about how dangerous and scary Paul Ryan and HIS ideas are and how that makes Mitt's ticket also dangerous and scary. But Joe Biden being a racist, or a moron, or both is of no consequence. /doublestandard Do they even televise VP debates, or have them anymore? If so hopefully Biden is more articulate than Rep. Wasserman. Which shouldn't be hard.
You didn't get the memo? Biden gets a pass on all statements by the MSM, because, despite being read from a teleprompter, 1) he's just speaking off the cuff; 2) He's just getting carried away; 3) There goes Joe again.
There's a difference between a gaffe that could be construed as having racial tones (wasn't racist) or idiotic (he's an idiot) and a submitted and supported budget proposal that the presidential candidate supports which would tear the American economy to shreds. There are differences between things you guys. Ants aren't telephones. You don't have to equivocate everything all the time ever because it's fun or because thinking is fething hard.
Nope. I don'[t buy that, at all. When has Biden been called on any of his statements by anyone other than Fox?
I listened to the racism story on the BBC and NPR seperately yesterday.
Then everybody worrying about stocking up for the coming collapse of the economy in the US. best start preparing. I remember...you only need 2K calories perday to survive. Over 3k calories if active shooting looters and raiders.
He said "unchain wall street!... he's going to out you back in chains!"
Its not like he didn't do it on purpose, I reckon he probably thought it was pretty funny.
It wasn't, but its hardly a gaffe. I also don't think its even remotely a big deal.
Saying that using those words makes you a racist for example, is clearly absurd.
Was it two or four years ago that one party called a female candidate's idea "like putting lipstick on a pig," only to have only to have said female candidate's campaign claim the other called her a pig?
"Gotcha" politics is the name of the game at the moment. Candidates try to win a day or a week instead of an election. Having said that, I do understand that perception is often reality...if you're perceived to be winning, you often win because you suppress turnout for the other side and attract more of those sad people who vote based on who they think will win.
Still, is the whole system absurd? Absolutely. The previous posters are correct that Obama is hardly a far left politician in a global sense, just like Romney isn't exactly a fascist. But both sides will go on and on about how deadly dangerous the other side's policies are (and recently bizarrely even refuse to work together), even though they're only fractionally different.
What has Obama really done for the middle class? I mean, I can point to a laundry list of items that show the GOP aren't the friends of the middle class, but what have the Dems actually done to address the growing disparity between the rich and the middle class besides words?
I would probably need to save a couple million for retirement to be able to equal my parents' standard of living in retirement, just because they had things called pensions. And I'd have to do that using IRAs and 401Ks -- the latter a failed experiment if I've ever seen one -- while my generation (X) bears the heaviest burden of paying for the Baby Boomers' entitlements. That's the largest generation in history pushing through the system, and a generation known for its selfishness, so I hardly see them as willing to take one for the team in their golden years.
So while I think (getting back on topic) Ryan's proposal isn't the answer and is more of a talking point than anything else, it at least takes a HARD LOOK at real issues we'll face in the future, something that neither party seems especially keen on doing. I give him credit for at least trying to start a conversation. And that's why some Dems were talking with Ryan. THEY would like to have their "Jerry McGuire" moment too, they're just scared to do so for fear of losing their jobs.
Seems to me that's a real problem for a modern democratic republic. What happens when the voters become almost completely self-interested and allergic to the truth? Politicians should be in the business of dealing with reality; instead, their role now is to create artificial realities and insulate us from problems.
Can't raise taxes because people will b*tch. Can't cut budgets because people will b*tch. So let's do neither. And there you go.
d-usa wrote:I am really glad Obama invented the teleprompter.
okay... that's pretty funny.
In regards to Biden's gaffe recently... I didn't think it was a gaffe per se. But, he does says some funny stuff.
We need some levity here... the best gaffes is in sports... particularly the Cardinals' beloved broadcaster Mike Shannon... I dub these, Shannonisms:
Broadcasting from New York under a full moon:
"I wish you folks back in St. Louis could see this moon."
Referring to Japanese pitching sensation Hideo Nomo:
"He's is the biggest thing to hit Japan since they dropped that bomb on Nagashima!"
Referring to a questionable ruling by the official scorer:
"Well, no one’s perfect. Only one guy was ever perfect, Jack, and they nailed him to a tree!"
Referrinng to ex-Cardinals outfielder Bernard Gilkey:
"Gilkey was originally born in University City."
"He's faster than a chicken being chased by Ronald McDonald!"
Referring to Mike Schmidt:
"...the longtime, and soon-to-be, Hall-of-Famer."
Referring to a Home Run by Ted Simmons:
"Well, that's the bread on Simmons's butter."
Broadcasting the day before Easter:
"I just want to tell everyone Happy Easter and Happy Hanukkah."
When the Cubs' Derrick Lee took 2nd base late in the game without a throw from the Cardinals' catcher:
"Lee runs into second...they'll just let him go. They call that runner's indifference...or something like that. Hah. "
Urging Scott Rolen to take a pitch on 3-0:
"You don't kick that dog as he's sleeping on the porch, you don't step on his tail, you just walk on by. If you step on his tail, he might jump up and bite you on the ankle or the kneecap."
Talking about a road game in Montreal:
"This game is moving along pretty quick, it must have something to do with the exchange rate."
Referring to a young fan who was hit with a foul ball:
"And that youngster will leave the stadium with a souvenir today. Not a ball, but a nice looking bruise."
After closer Jason Isringhausen lost his command of the strike zone:
"Izzy's like a wild hare in March, running all over the lot!"
Referring to the Busch Stadium organist:
"Ernie Hayes is up there playing with his organ.”
After a batter leading off the ninth inning with his team down by three took a mighty swing but missed:
"He was trying to hit a three run homer with the bases empty. To my knowledge, no one in the history of the game has ever done that. But it could happen someday. You never know in this world of baseball."
After ex-Cardinals outfielder Brian Jordan was hit by a pitch for the fourth time on one road trip:
"Jordan must feel like a Ouija Board."
Referring to former manager Whitey Herzog:
"The key thing is, he has that photogenic mind."
While Mike and Joe were discussing unflattering photographs of players that had been flashed on the screen at another ballpark, Mike's take on the quality of the photo selection:
"Some of those guys look like the picture was taken while they were seeing their first UFO."
After several seconds of laughter, Joe adds:
"As opposed to their second or third."
The TV lights were on in the press box and the umpire stopped the game until they were turned off:
“The reason you can’t do that is the light will get in the fielder’s eyes and they’ll get hit right between the coconuts.”
CLASSIC SHANNON:
"Ole Abner has done it again."
"A hit up the middle right now would be like a nice ham sandwich and a cold, frosty one."
"Well, he did everything right to get ready for the throw, but if ya ain't got the hose, the water just won't come out."
"It's raining so hard I thought it was going to stop."
"I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it."
"He's madder than a pig caught under a barnyard gate."
"He ran to second faster than a cat in Chinatown."
"Well, folks, this game began as a tiny worm and is blossoming into a large cobra."
"Brad Penny...they should have named him half-a-dollar. Whoa he's big! Heh heh heh."
"It's raining like a Chinese fire drill!"
"Don't bite your head off to spite your nose."
"We owe you a station break, this one's for the folks listening in Paris...Tennessee. You thought I was going to say Paris... Kentucky! No such luck. Heh Heh Heh."
"A couple of strips of bacon at breakfast and he’d a busted that ball out of here."
"Like Spring makes the rain come, so does the edge of the plate grow."
"You know, these professional hitters make it look easy, sometimes they just stick the bat out and spank the baby!"
"Boy, a cold frosty Budweiser would be great about now. (Long pause) Ahhhhh."
"One run in this ballpark (Wrigley) is like a grain of salt in the Sahara Desert."
"Jeff Bagwell finally drove in a run after 75 at-bats without one. That's like crossing the Sahara.....Backwards!"
"GRAAAND SLAAAAAM! Nope nope nope, it's gonna be caught at the warning track."
"He’s bringing the ball up there 95 mph or better. It’s powder river. You like fastballs…munch on this."
"Everyone’s on a pitch count now, you people down on the farms don’t let major league baseball on your place or they will have the cows on a pitch count."
"So Taguchi, who wears number 99, unless you stand him upside down and then it’s 66."
"Well that’s the life of a reliever. It’s either a mountain or a valley, there’s no in-between. You either get all of the glory or all of the goat hair."
"Acevedo tried to sneak that pitch past Pujols on the inside corner. That’s like trying to sneak the sun past the rooster."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:
Wait till after Nov...then we'll calm down.
Then everybody worrying about stocking up for the coming collapse of the economy in the US. best start preparing. I remember...you only need 2K calories perday to survive. Over 3k calories if active shooting looters and raiders.
How many calories would I need dealing with Zombies
d-usa wrote:I am really glad Obama invented the teleprompter.
Me too, he really should never speak at all without one. Because he sings...and sounds like a robot without it.
With it he is without a doubt one of the best speech makers in the world, that man could convince you down is up and the sky is made of blueberry juice. I don't care for his politics but man can he work a crowd.
whembly wrote:t's not just that Barack Obama's father was a Marxist economist or that his mother Stanley came from radical far-left roots. [and other such trash vomited out in this thread like that old "obama doesn't salute" rumor]
This is such a blatant, idiotic, and imbecilic set of lies and misrepresentations that I have to wonder on your mental connection with reality if you honestly believe this gak.
Every single one of them are outright lies...???
Lies and misrepresentations, as I said (in case you didn't read, which is apparently the case).
For example, only a single source indicates that Davis was an early influence on Obama, trying to capitalize ont he fact that there was a "Frank" character in Obama's memoir (even though Frank and derivative names are quite common). And despite that, the "influence" that Obama described was listening to "Frank" tell him about how bad things were during the era of Jim Crow laws.
The claim that his father is a "marxist economist" is unsubstantiated. Even if it is true, to quote Obama: "I only remember my father for one month my whole life, when I was 10." And the things he does remember? Basketball, Jazz, and his father absence in his life making Obama want to be a better father than him.
Obama's previous pastor (he has since gone to a different church due to disagreeing with Mr. Wright, not that you care) was no more an "America-Hater" than many of the extremist conservative evangelist preachers, whom constantly say that America is damned by God because we don't all follow his particular brand of evangelistic preaching. Or perhaps you have forgotten that many of these same pastors were claiming that the September 11th. 2001 attacks were caused by God's wrath against "the gay" or "them liberals"? I don't expect you to remember, but I certainly do. Tell me then, if evangelists are "america-haters" like you would claim, then why the hell should we want Paul Ryan, a rather public and vitriolic evangelist who attempts to enforce his evangelism on others through law, as VP?
Ayers made both public and private apologies for his participation in the 1969 Chicago riots, and condemned the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. Not exactly an unrepentant terrorist. Even ignoring that, Obama has long since denounced Ayers and Dohrm's actions. Are you going to vomit out the idiotic nonsense about Republican claims-- without any proof or evidence, including lying about how they hired someone (who stated that they were not in fact hired) to try to prove it-- that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama's memoirs, as well?
Why Palmer (who is accused of being a communist propagandist without proof, for some reason) is mentioned, I don't know. She supported Hillary, not Obama, and in fact she ran against Obama personally when he was running for state senate office. Hardly the setup for a "political mentor", and even if they were, obviously they soured quite a bit.
The "New Party" was not a radical socialist party . They were a party who advocated Electoral Fusion, and were basically a single-issue party. Attempting to conflate the New Party with the Peoples' Party is disingenuous, especially since the latter dissolved 88 years before the former ever formed. Obama, however, wasn't a part of the party. They endorsed him for his state senate run.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is not a "radical-left" organization. ACORN itself is a non-partisan organization, but it has a legally separate political action arm that endorses causes and candidates such as Obama. The political action arm is a lobbyist group, but ACORN itself is most well known for its voter registration drives, its push for education reform, its philanthropy in the wake of natural disasters, and attacking predatory lending practices. Hardly radical left. The legally separate lobby group typically, though not always, supports Democrat candidates, but again, that doesn't define it as radical-left.
So all in all, it's just a bunch of idiocy. The sort of stupidity in the article you posted is nothing more than shameful scaremongering by pathetic, desperate talking heads.
d-usa wrote:I am really glad Obama invented the teleprompter.
Me too, he really should never speak at all without one. Because he sings...and sounds like a robot without it.
With it he is without a doubt one of the best speech makers in the world, that man could convince you down is up and the sky is made of blueberry juice. I don't care for his politics but man can he work a crowd.
Giving credit when it's due... Obama is good, if not better than Clinton during a campaign.... and good ol' BIll rocked it out.
d-usa wrote:I am really glad Obama invented the teleprompter.
Me too, he really should never speak at all without one. Because he sings...and sounds like a robot without it.
With it he is without a doubt one of the best speech makers in the world, that man could convince you down is up and the sky is made of blueberry juice. I don't care for his politics but man can he work a crowd.
My problem with the whole teleprompter thing is that is just pretends that every President before him made up every speech on the spot. They all rehearsed their speeches, practiced them, and had a copy of their speech on the podium when they spoke. Nothing has changed except the technology and the result that we can see the speech now instead of not being able to see the paper.
AustonT wrote:No fething way?!
Hey guys we can watch clips of important events on YouTube now!
Really guy...really?
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
You did not know that the VP debates were televised. I was giving you an honest friendly suggestion and you respond with sarcasm.
What are you trying to accomplish?
Something like 40 minutes and 5 posts before this I also said:
AustonT wrote:I'm shy of 30. I also don't watch loads of television, never did. The Internet has somewhat addressed my relative ignorance of what goes on in television. But I can't say I'm particularly plugged in especially to notice a debate between Biden and Palin or *shudder* Cheney and Edwards on Cspan8.
AustonT wrote:BS, capital B capital S bull gak. It's absolutely true. If anything the Democrat electorate told the rest of us they could stomach a black man before a white woman in the 2008 primary.
That's a very short-sighted view of the 2008 primary.
Then everybody worrying about stocking up for the coming collapse of the economy in the US. best start preparing. I remember...you only need 2K calories perday to survive. Over 3k calories if active shooting looters and raiders.
I am sure that even as the states are being called for one candidate or another, CNNBCBSFOX will already be talking about "what this means for the 2014 mid-term elections". It never stops.
Our earlier assertion stil holds: that Ron Paul may yet emerge as the last person left standing at the Republican convention.
Political compass has really lost track of reality.
It's called hope. Scant, self deluded grasping hope maybe, but hope.
That said the Poli Compass chart revealed a pretty solid truth, we don't have a two party system in this country any more. Democrat and republican are mirrors of each other and both are continuously pushing for more and bigger government to solidify and expand their personal power bases. It's the Big Government party and who ever wins we lose.
So they're hoping that a politically right wing, highly conservative states right activist that lies to people telling them that he's actually a libertarian to get votes will be elected?
Paul isn't really terribly right wing, the gay marriage thing alone is enough to get him kicked to leftist land with the modern Republican party it seems.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Paul isn't really terribly right wing, the gay marriage thing alone is enough to get him kicked to leftist land with the modern Republican party it seems.
Naw... he's a righty... but the wimminz loooove him...
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Paul isn't really terribly right wing, the gay marriage thing alone is enough to get him kicked to leftist land with the modern Republican party it seems.
Naw... he's a righty... but the wimminz loooove him...
Paul isn't really terribly right wing, the gay marriage thing alone is enough to get him kicked to leftist land with the modern Republican party it seems.
Naw... he's a righty... but the wimminz loooove him...
AustonT wrote:ORLY, give me the long sighted version.
Honestly its not worth the discussion.
Here is the thing. No amount of conversation is going to move you from your mindset. When I debate people in forums like this its to change the mind of the moderates reading the thread.
The thing is, moderates don't think that "the Democrat electorate told the rest of us they could stomach a black man before a white woman in the 2008 primary" The people that believe such a thing represent a small percentage.
In regards to your other comments. I was polite, your responses were sarcastic and hostile. Welcome to my ignore list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Paul isn't really terribly right wing, the gay marriage thing alone is enough to get him kicked to leftist land with the modern Republican party it seems.
Ron Paul is libertarian. He also believes that heroin should be legal.
Hes at the bottom right of this graph. In comparison, Romney is at the top right of this graph.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Paul isn't really terribly right wing
... let's see, opposes gay marriage, wants to ban ALL abortions even when it endangers the mother, wants to cut down on many forms of social safety net except for the military and privatize the rest, is extremely evangelistic, speaks out nonsense about "small government" and cutting the deficit despite the fact that he will do nothing of the sort...
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Paul isn't really terribly right wing
... let's see, opposes gay marriage, wants to ban ALL abortions even when it endangers the mother, wants to cut down on many forms of social safety net except for the military and privatize the rest, is extremely evangelistic, speaks out nonsense about "small government" and cutting the deficit despite the fact that he will do nothing of the sort...
Sounds right wing to me.
You do know he's talking about Rand Paul... right? That crazy uncle? or... am I misunderstanding here?
Commentary Magazine wrote:Among public figures who claim to bear the mark of Rand’s influence are Clarence Thomas, Oliver Stone, Cal Ripken, Jr., and Hillary Clinton. In his youth Alan Greenspan was an acolyte who contributed essays to her collections of Objectivist thought
Chicago Sun-Times wrote:Greenspan's flawed memoir reveals a closet Democrat; Greenspan does not conceal contempt for both Bushes.
Yes and yes. and I suppose you can add Oliver Stone, he's supposed to be some kind of leftist.
Hillary Clinton read Rand in college, like many high achieving young women. Greenspan supported massive deregulation of the finance sector. Let me know when you're back from Mars.
One of us cited respected sources the other one is basically just giving his opinion. Especially in the case of Greenspan. The CST isn't exactly well known for its conservative bias.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Paul isn't really terribly right wing
... let's see, opposes gay marriage, wants to ban ALL abortions even when it endangers the mother, wants to cut down on many forms of social safety net except for the military and privatize the rest, is extremely evangelistic, speaks out nonsense about "small government" and cutting the deficit despite the fact that he will do nothing of the sort...
Sounds right wing to me.
You do know he's talking about Rand Paul... right? That crazy uncle? or... am I misunderstanding here?
I think he was talking about Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a very interesting political figure. While some of his ideas are out there (legalizing heroin, going back to the gold standard), I think he would make a very good president.
During the 2008 debates, he was the only person on the stage who understood was 'blowback' in foreign policy terms. Rudy Giuliani got really pissed at Ron Paul for stating "We caused 911 by supporting Afghanistan the 80s and then pulling out after the Russians were defeated" during that debate. Giuliani refused to believe or understand what 'blowback' is.
I am what most people consider left of center, yet I would vote for Ron Paul over Obama any day of the week.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Paul isn't really terribly right wing
... let's see, opposes gay marriage, wants to ban ALL abortions even when it endangers the mother, wants to cut down on many forms of social safety net except for the military and privatize the rest, is extremely evangelistic, speaks out nonsense about "small government" and cutting the deficit despite the fact that he will do nothing of the sort...
Sounds right wing to me.
You do know he's talking about Rand Paul... right? That crazy uncle? or... am I misunderstanding here?
I think he was talking about Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a very interesting political figure. While some of his ideas are out there (legalizing heroin, going back to the gold standard), I think he would make a very good president.
During the 2008 debates, he was the only person on the stage who understood was 'blowback' in foreign policy terms. Rudy Giuliani got really pissed at Ron Paul for stating "We caused 911 by supporting Afghanistan the 80s and then pulling out after the Russians were defeated" during that debate. Giuliani refused to believe or understand what 'blowback' is.
I am what most people consider left of center, yet I would vote for Ron Paul over Obama any day of the week.
Ron Paul. see... we can't keep it straight!
I'd vote for Ron too... but, he'll never get enough votes.
AustonT wrote:One of us cited respected sources the other one is basically just giving his opinion. Especially in the case of Greenspan. The CST isn't exactly well known for its conservative bias.
Wow really? Commentary, the neocon flagship organ, recycling that often-repeated chestnut about Hillary Clinton having read Ayn Rand before is tantamount to calling her a Randian? (Protip: Young women often mistake Rand for a feminist.) Can you find any source of Hillary Clinton herself claiming Randian ideas? Or even an argument as to how her policy positions are Randian? And Alan Greenspan is well known for encouraging massive deregulation in favor of markets working themselves out. Can you possibly spin that as a leftist position? Since when does having contempt for a Bush make you a closet Democrat? If that's the case, then I suppose 99% of all Republicans were "closet Democrats" in 1991 and 2007? The source of a comment does not make it any less ridiculous.
Amy Goodman wrote:Paul Ryan has become a Tea Party favorite for pushing a controversial budget and economic vision, marked by deep cutbacks to the social safety net coupled with lower tax rates. Ryan has also proposed cutting food stamps for as many as 10 million Americans, cutting funds for programs likes Meals on Wheels, eliminating Pell Grants for more than a million students. On the tax front, Ryan has proposed a plan to slash taxes for the wealthiest Americans while raising taxes on some of the poor. The New York Times reports, by one statistical count, Ryan is the most conservative vice-presidential nominee in more than a hundred years.
Heather McGhee wrote: ... essentially, in 2050, there would be virtually no more federal government, outside of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense. No more. It’s Grover Norquist’s vision for shrinking the size of our federal government down to the size where you could drown it in a bathtub. So, no more Federal Aviation, no more investments in transportation, roads, consumer protection—essentially, eliminating the federal government. The idea that we would have that at the top of our presidential ticket is quite astonishing.
murdog wrote:Anyone care to comment on this? Is it accurate?
Amy Goodman wrote:Paul Ryan has become a Tea Party favorite for pushing a controversial budget and economic vision, marked by deep cutbacks to the social safety net coupled with lower tax rates. Ryan has also proposed cutting food stamps for as many as 10 million Americans, cutting funds for programs likes Meals on Wheels, eliminating Pell Grants for more than a million students. On the tax front, Ryan has proposed a plan to slash taxes for the wealthiest Americans while raising taxes on some of the poor. The New York Times reports, by one statistical count, Ryan is the most conservative vice-presidential nominee in more than a hundred years.
Heather McGhee wrote: ... essentially, in 2050, there would be virtually no more federal government, outside of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense. No more. It’s Grover Norquist’s vision for shrinking the size of our federal government down to the size where you could drown it in a bathtub. So, no more Federal Aviation, no more investments in transportation, roads, consumer protection—essentially, eliminating the federal government. The idea that we would have that at the top of our presidential ticket is quite astonishing.
whembly wrote:They're all politians... they all "flip-flop"... I never understand why there's so much angst about this. People change their mind all the time.
Speaking of Ron Paul -- he has not "flip-flop"d over issues. The man stands up for what he believes in.
whembly wrote:They're all politians... they all "flip-flop"... I never understand why there's so much angst about this. People change their mind all the time.
Speaking of Ron Paul -- he has not "flip-flop"d over issues. The man stands up for what he believes in.
Eh... more than most polititians that's probably true.
I know he wasn't consistent with his "states' rights" position.
Speaking of Ron Paul -- he has not "flip-flop"d over issues. The man stands up for what he believes in.
I lost confidence in him when he said Iran should be allowed nukes.....
It fits his libertarian policy. Ron Paul thinks if we don't go sticking our fingers in Iran's pie they wont bother us, even if they have nukes.
The problem, of course, is that we have a history of already having stuck our fingers in Iran's pie.
If your nation was surrounded by 80 military bases of a traditionally unfriendly foreign power you'd probably want nukes too right? Honestly all having nukes does for Iran is enter them in to the bigger M.A.D equation. Say Iran gets nukes with a couple mid-range ICBMs, sure they have them but are they actually in any way useful? They could attack Israel, and get nuked out of existence by everyone else, attack the US/West and get nuked out of existence by everyone else, or if they get attacked they can nuke themselves out of existence.
It's kinda like going in to a bar where it's understood that fist and knife fights are okay, but if you pull a gun, everyone else in the bar with a gun will immediately shoot you no matter what side they might have been rooting for originally.
I personally admire Ron Paul's ability to distinguish from his personal beliefs and policy, as we just learned about his stance on gay marriage, RP is a big fan of traditional marriage himself, but has said over and over again that marriage is a spiritual matter between private citizens and not the affair of the government. "I don't like it, but it's not my business" which sums up a lot of libertarian policies when you think about it.
Edit: and serious applause for Paul's speeches on blowback! Between the book Charlie Wilson's War, a couple others on that time period and some of the Ron Paul material on US interference with the middle east in the 80s it seems pretty clear to me that we definitely stuck our foot in the hornet's nest long before the Gulf War.
Amy Goodman wrote:Paul Ryan has become a Tea Party favorite for pushing a controversial budget and economic vision, marked by deep cutbacks to the social safety net coupled with lower tax rates. Ryan has also proposed cutting food stamps for as many as 10 million Americans, cutting funds for programs likes Meals on Wheels, eliminating Pell Grants for more than a million students. On the tax front, Ryan has proposed a plan to slash taxes for the wealthiest Americans while raising taxes on some of the poor.
Up to this point, it's all pretty correct.
I don't know or care much aout how conservative he is, though it is certainly true that he is very much a neocon anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:
whembly wrote:They're all politians... they all "flip-flop"... I never understand why there's so much angst about this. People change their mind all the time.
Speaking of Ron Paul -- he has not "flip-flop"d over issues. The man stands up for what he believes in.
He's flip-flopped around gay marriage.
He supports denying gay marriage when it benefits him to look more conservative, and says that he thinks government should get out of marriage when it benefits him to look more libertarian.
Edit: and serious applause for Paul's speeches on blowback! Between the book Charlie Wilson's War, a couple others on that time period and some of the Ron Paul material on US interference with the middle east in the 80s it seems pretty clear to me that we definitely stuck our foot in the hornet's nest long before the Gulf War.
As much as he got right he also got wrong. He made many, many different and often times contradictory predictions on U.S. foreign policy. To consider him an oracle on such topics is a bit disingenuous. It's easy to be selective with what he was saying 30 years on and act like he knew what was going down, but by that same token the united states went through two periods of economic and plural prosperity during that time period and violence in the world has dropped year over year for half a century.
Who knows if he was actually right or if his policies would have just made things even worse. Hindsight is only 20/20 when you can actually see behind you.
d-usa wrote:I am really glad Obama invented the teleprompter.
okay... that's pretty funny.
In regards to Biden's gaffe recently... I didn't think it was a gaffe per se. But, he does says some funny stuff.
We need some levity here... the best gaffes is in sports... particularly the Cardinals' beloved broadcaster Mike Shannon... I dub these, Shannonisms:
Broadcasting from New York under a full moon:
"I wish you folks back in St. Louis could see this moon."
Referring to Japanese pitching sensation Hideo Nomo:
"He's is the biggest thing to hit Japan since they dropped that bomb on Nagashima!"
Referring to a questionable ruling by the official scorer:
"Well, no one’s perfect. Only one guy was ever perfect, Jack, and they nailed him to a tree!"
Referrinng to ex-Cardinals outfielder Bernard Gilkey:
"Gilkey was originally born in University City."
"He's faster than a chicken being chased by Ronald McDonald!"
Referring to Mike Schmidt:
"...the longtime, and soon-to-be, Hall-of-Famer."
Referring to a Home Run by Ted Simmons:
"Well, that's the bread on Simmons's butter."
Broadcasting the day before Easter:
"I just want to tell everyone Happy Easter and Happy Hanukkah."
When the Cubs' Derrick Lee took 2nd base late in the game without a throw from the Cardinals' catcher:
"Lee runs into second...they'll just let him go. They call that runner's indifference...or something like that. Hah. "
Urging Scott Rolen to take a pitch on 3-0:
"You don't kick that dog as he's sleeping on the porch, you don't step on his tail, you just walk on by. If you step on his tail, he might jump up and bite you on the ankle or the kneecap."
Talking about a road game in Montreal:
"This game is moving along pretty quick, it must have something to do with the exchange rate."
Referring to a young fan who was hit with a foul ball:
"And that youngster will leave the stadium with a souvenir today. Not a ball, but a nice looking bruise."
After closer Jason Isringhausen lost his command of the strike zone:
"Izzy's like a wild hare in March, running all over the lot!"
Referring to the Busch Stadium organist:
"Ernie Hayes is up there playing with his organ.”
After a batter leading off the ninth inning with his team down by three took a mighty swing but missed:
"He was trying to hit a three run homer with the bases empty. To my knowledge, no one in the history of the game has ever done that. But it could happen someday. You never know in this world of baseball."
After ex-Cardinals outfielder Brian Jordan was hit by a pitch for the fourth time on one road trip:
"Jordan must feel like a Ouija Board."
Referring to former manager Whitey Herzog:
"The key thing is, he has that photogenic mind."
While Mike and Joe were discussing unflattering photographs of players that had been flashed on the screen at another ballpark, Mike's take on the quality of the photo selection:
"Some of those guys look like the picture was taken while they were seeing their first UFO."
After several seconds of laughter, Joe adds:
"As opposed to their second or third."
The TV lights were on in the press box and the umpire stopped the game until they were turned off:
“The reason you can’t do that is the light will get in the fielder’s eyes and they’ll get hit right between the coconuts.”
CLASSIC SHANNON:
"Ole Abner has done it again."
"A hit up the middle right now would be like a nice ham sandwich and a cold, frosty one."
"Well, he did everything right to get ready for the throw, but if ya ain't got the hose, the water just won't come out."
"It's raining so hard I thought it was going to stop."
"I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it."
"He's madder than a pig caught under a barnyard gate."
"He ran to second faster than a cat in Chinatown."
"Well, folks, this game began as a tiny worm and is blossoming into a large cobra."
"Brad Penny...they should have named him half-a-dollar. Whoa he's big! Heh heh heh."
"It's raining like a Chinese fire drill!"
"Don't bite your head off to spite your nose."
"We owe you a station break, this one's for the folks listening in Paris...Tennessee. You thought I was going to say Paris... Kentucky! No such luck. Heh Heh Heh."
"A couple of strips of bacon at breakfast and he’d a busted that ball out of here."
"Like Spring makes the rain come, so does the edge of the plate grow."
"You know, these professional hitters make it look easy, sometimes they just stick the bat out and spank the baby!"
"Boy, a cold frosty Budweiser would be great about now. (Long pause) Ahhhhh."
"One run in this ballpark (Wrigley) is like a grain of salt in the Sahara Desert."
"Jeff Bagwell finally drove in a run after 75 at-bats without one. That's like crossing the Sahara.....Backwards!"
"GRAAAND SLAAAAAM! Nope nope nope, it's gonna be caught at the warning track."
"He’s bringing the ball up there 95 mph or better. It’s powder river. You like fastballs…munch on this."
"Everyone’s on a pitch count now, you people down on the farms don’t let major league baseball on your place or they will have the cows on a pitch count."
"So Taguchi, who wears number 99, unless you stand him upside down and then it’s 66."
"Well that’s the life of a reliever. It’s either a mountain or a valley, there’s no in-between. You either get all of the glory or all of the goat hair."
"Acevedo tried to sneak that pitch past Pujols on the inside corner. That’s like trying to sneak the sun past the rooster."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:
Wait till after Nov...then we'll calm down.
Then everybody worrying about stocking up for the coming collapse of the economy in the US. best start preparing. I remember...you only need 2K calories perday to survive. Over 3k calories if active shooting looters and raiders.
How many calories would I need dealing with Zombies
I mostly tend to ignore the long-winded quotes you give from conservative political spambots. They almost never have anything of substance or value tot hem.
Edit: and serious applause for Paul's speeches on blowback! Between the book Charlie Wilson's War, a couple others on that time period and some of the Ron Paul material on US interference with the middle east in the 80s it seems pretty clear to me that we definitely stuck our foot in the hornet's nest long before the Gulf War.
As much as he got right he also got wrong. He made many, many different and often times contradictory predictions on U.S. foreign policy. To consider him an oracle on such topics is a bit disingenuous. It's easy to be selective with what he was saying 30 years on and act like he knew what was going down, but by that same token the united states went through two periods of economic and plural prosperity during that time period and violence in the world has dropped year over year for half a century.
Who knows if he was actually right or if his policies would have just made things even worse. Hindsight is only 20/20 when you can actually see behind you.
I hardly consider him an Oracle, or think he's got the right answer 100% of the time, he could very well be wrong in many cases. That said I think he's got a clearer view of the picture in the middle east then most do at present.
After all, one can hold a personal view but believe that it should not be enforced by law.
For example, I hold the personal view that homophobic views are disgusting and hateful and that those who spout them should be ignored, but that doesn't mean I want curtail freedom of speech.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Personal views /= policy you desire implemented
ShumaGorath wrote:
Edit: and serious applause for Paul's speeches on blowback! Between the book Charlie Wilson's War, a couple others on that time period and some of the Ron Paul material on US interference with the middle east in the 80s it seems pretty clear to me that we definitely stuck our foot in the hornet's nest long before the Gulf War.
As much as he got right he also got wrong. He made many, many different and often times contradictory predictions on U.S. foreign policy. To consider him an oracle on such topics is a bit disingenuous. It's easy to be selective with what he was saying 30 years on and act like he knew what was going down, but by that same token the united states went through two periods of economic and plural prosperity during that time period and violence in the world has dropped year over year for half a century.
Who knows if he was actually right or if his policies would have just made things even worse. Hindsight is only 20/20 when you can actually see behind you.
I hardly consider him an Oracle, or think he's got the right answer 100% of the time, he could very well be wrong in many cases. That said I think he's got a clearer view of the picture in the middle east then most do at present.
Not given the kinds of things he's spouting off these days. He said AQ hit us because of the gulf war. That doesn't really line up with anything we know about history or AQ. The dudes a xenophobe, a lot of what he says sounds nice at face value but then when you look at the reasons he puts forth for his views they're plainly wrong. He was pretty up in his game once, but he's been in politics for half a century. He's gotten old and these days he's out of touch with the regional realities of the mideast and north africa.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Not really, no.
After all, one can hold a personal view but believe that it should not be enforced by law.
For example, I hold the personal view that homophobic views are disgusting and hateful and that those who spout them should be ignored, but that doesn't mean I want curtail freedom of speech.
A personal view that gay marriage should be legal and supporting it's illegality is cognitive dissonance. Believing that it's immoral but that the legality of equality trumps moralism isn't. The first is a political and personal stance counter acting eachother, the second is a consistent personal view that expresses a logically flowing political view. You can't have a personal view be in confrontation with a political view without it being dissonant, you can only have a personal view that would lead via nuance to a counter acting political view because of consistent logic. Unfortunately your personal view in that case becomes consistent with your political one and thus doesn't fall under personal views =/policy.
I seem to remember sitting through more then a few intelligence briefs on AQ and that some of the "justifications" for their attacks involved continued US intervention in the middle east including the Gulf War/US Occupation of Saudi Arabia during the run up to said war.
So by your reckoning Shuma if I hold the personal view that abortion is abhorrent and if you're going to screw you should be ready to deal with the consequences (rape, medical, etc excluded) but I hold the political view that it's none of my business what anyone else does with their own body and vote pro-choice I'm being dissonant? Or am I misunderstanding the concept slightly?
I seem to remember sitting through more then a few intelligence briefs on AQ and that some of the "justifications" for their attacks involved continued US intervention in the middle east including the Gulf War/US Occupation of Saudi Arabia during the run up to said war.
Yeah, there are legitimate concerns about basing in SA as the proximity to holy locales is an oft stated concern of AQ, but that became a contentious issue after the gulf war and not a reaction to the war itself. The occupation of saudi arabian territories continued for 13 years after the gulf war. Given that a large majority of Kuwaits population is Sunni and Saddams Baath party was Shiite dominated (and an enemy of the groups that formed AQ in the 80s) their anger at the gulf war operations was at best quiet and meaningless. We assumed an awful lot of things for the first few years post 9/11. A lot of it was wrong.
So by your reckoning Shuma if I hold the personal view that abortion is abhorrent and if you're going to screw you should be ready to deal with the consequences (rape, medical, etc excluded) but I hold the political view that it's none of my business what anyone else does with their own body and vote pro-choice I'm being dissonant?
No, because your personal view is that its none of your business. Your political view is the one you advocate, the personal one is the culmination of competing interests. A man who votes to ban gay marriage because he's peer pressured into it is cognitively dissonant.
@labmouse42: look at this:
http://voteview.com/Clinton_and_Obama.htm This was done during the Democratic Primary '08. You'll see that Obama and H. Clinton has very similar voting records in the Senate. You'll see here that most Congressional Democrats are pulling hard to the left (just as the Republican to the right).
Especially look at the last graph (cant figure out how to insert that gif here).... see the trend? Both parties are pulling away from each other... and this is in '08! I'd bet a case a beer that it's even MORE profound now.
1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems.
REALLY liberal - - socialism
2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so for twenty-three straight months, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.
REALLY liberal - - government is the answer to all your ailments.
3. Passed Wall Street Reform: Signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The new law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, requires derivatives to be sold on clearinghouses and exchanges, mandates that large banks provide “living wills” to avoid chaotic bankruptcies, limits their ability to trade with customers’ money for their own profit, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (now headed by Richard Cordray) to crack down on abusive lending products and companies.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention (but, to be fair, he didn't really champion this, he just "signed it").
4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011.
I wanted to leave when its the right time. I don't have a strong opinion as I don't have all the fact. The only thing that made me leery was that there were reports from Commanders on the ground protesting this withdrawl.
5. Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan: From a peak of 101,000 troops in June 2011, U.S. forces are now down to 91,000, with 23,000 slated to leave by the end of summer 2012. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the combat mission there will be over by next year.
Same as #4.
6. Eliminated Osama bin laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered.
It's an accomplishment in that he didn't get in the way... but, I ain't saying more.
7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry: In 2009, injected $62 billion in federal money (on top of $13.4 billion in loans from the Bush administration) into ailing GM and Chrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. Since bottoming out in 2009, the auto industry has added more than 100,000 jobs. In 2011, the Big Three automakers all gained market share for the first time in two decades. The government expects to lose $16 billion of its investment, less if the price of the GM stock it still owns increases.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention. Heavily favored unions.
Do you know the company Delphi Automotive PLC? They're subsideriary of GM... guess what Delphi Don't have? Right... they're a non-union establishment. So... guess what happened to those 20K non-union's Delphi worker's pension? Poof... gone. Guess where the $$$ went to? It went to Union's pension. (I got more info... just ask).
See a trend here?
8. Recapitalized Banks: In the midst of financial crisis, approved controversial Treasury Department plan to lure private capital into the country’s largest banks via “stress tests” of their balance sheets and a public-private fund to buy their “toxic” assets. Got banks back on their feet at essentially zero cost to the government.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention. What I highlighted... requires suspension of belief. o.O
9. Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Ended 1990s-era restriction and formalized new policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time.
Classical Liberal (or libitarian). I have no problem with this.
10. Toppled Moammar Gaddafi: In March 2011, joined a coalition of European and Arab governments in military action, including air power and naval blockade, against Gaddafi regime to defend Libyan civilians and support rebel troops. Gaddafi’s forty-two-year rule ended when the dictator was overthrown and killed by rebels on October 20, 2011. No American lives were lost.
TBH... I don't remember any leadership from Obama on this... (need to do some research on this)
11. Told Mubarak to Go: On February 1, 2011, publicly called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to accept reform or step down, thus weakening the dictator’s position and putting America on the right side of the Arab Spring. Mubarak ended thirty-year rule when overthrown on February 11.
TBH... I don't remember any leadership from Obama on this... (need to do some research on this) Wasn't he on his way out anyway??
12. Reversed Bush Torture Policies: Two days after taking office, nullified Bush-era rulings that had allowed detainees in U.S. custody to undergo certain “enhanced” interrogation techniques considered inhumane under the Geneva Conventions. Also released the secret Bush legal rulings supporting the use of these techniques.
Moderate - - and quite frankly, this is another topic that deserves its own thread.
13. Improved America’s Image Abroad: With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years. From 2008 to 2011, favorable opinion toward the United States rose in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent.
Liberal/Leftist seems to care about this. I really don't fething care what other nations think of us... and frankly, for those that don't like us, why are we sending aid/grants (looking at you Egypt).
14. Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program, Expanded Pell Grant Spending: As part of the 2010 health care reform bill, signed measure ending the wasteful decades-old practice of subsidizing banks to provide college loans. Starting July 2010 all students began getting their federal student loans directly from the federal government. Treasury will save $67 billion over ten years, $36 billion of which will go to expanding Pell Grants to lower-income students.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention.
15. Created Race to the Top: With funds from stimulus, started $4.35 billion program of competitive grants to encourage and reward states for education reform.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention. "I'm from the government... all your educations belong to us" Don't get me started on this...
16. Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards: Released new fuel efficiency standards in 2011 that will nearly double the fuel economy for cars and trucks by 2025.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention.
17. Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis: To keep world economy out of recession in 2009 and 2010, helped secure from G-20 nations more than $500 billion for the IMF to provide lines of credit and other support to emerging market countries, which kept them liquid and avoided crises with their currencies.
Not sure what to think here... need moar research.
18. Passed Mini Stimuli: To help families hurt by the recession and spur the economy as stimulus spending declined, signed series of measures (July 22, 2010; December 17, 2010; December 23, 2011) to extend unemployment insurance and cut payroll taxes.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention.
19. Began Asia “Pivot”: In 2011, reoriented American military and diplomatic priorities and focus from the Middle East and Europe to the Asian-Pacific region. Executed multipronged strategy of positively engaging China while reasserting U.S. leadership in the region by increasing American military presence and crafting new commercial, diplomatic, and military alliances with neighboring countries made uncomfortable by recent Chinese behavior.
What happened here? Legit question...
20. Increased Support for Veterans: With so many soldiers coming home from Iraq and Iran with serious physical and mental health problems, yet facing long waits for services, increased 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs budget by 16 percent and 2011 budget by 10 percent. Also signed new GI bill offering $78 billion in tuition assistance over a decade, and provided multiple tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans.
Moderate - - Have no prob with this... shoot, if theres ANY group on U.S.of A. that needs attention, it's the veterans.
21. Tightened Sanctions on Iran: In effort to deter Iran’s nuclear program, signed Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (2010) to punish firms and individuals who aid Iran’s petroleum sector. In late 2011 and early 2012, coordinated with other major Western powers to impose sanctions aimed at Iran’s banks and with Japan, South Korea, and China to shift their oil purchases away from Iran.
Moderate - - no complaints here...
22. Created Conditions to Begin Closing Dirtiest Power Plants: New EPA restrictions on mercury and toxic pollution, issued in December 2011, likely to lead to the closing of between sixty-eight and 231 of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants. Estimated cost to utilities: at least $11 billion by 2016. Estimated health benefits: $59 billion to $140 billion. Will also significantly reduce carbon emissions and, with other regulations, comprises what’s been called Obama’s “stealth climate policy.”
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention. Job destroyer dept. My bro works in the engineer/oil industry... it's fething nuts.
23. Passed Credit Card Reforms: Signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (2009), which prohibits credit card companies from raising rates without advance notification, mandates a grace period on interest rate increases, and strictly limits overdraft and other fees.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention. (not necessarily a bad thing tho)
24. Eliminated Catch-22 in Pay Equality Laws: Signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, giving women who are paid less than men for the same work the right to sue their employers after they find out about the discrimination, even if that discrimination happened years ago. Under previous law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the statute of limitations on such suits ran out 180 days after the alleged discrimination occurred, even if the victims never knew about it.
Moderate - - not sure what to think of this... this look good, but whenever Mr. Govenment is involved I'm worried that we're on the perverbial slippery slope.
25. Protected Two Liberal Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court: Nominated and obtained confirmation for Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic and third woman to serve, in 2009; and Elena Kagan, the fourth woman to serve, in 2010. They replaced David Souter and John Paul Stevens, respectively.
REALLY liberal
26. Improved Food Safety System: In 2011, signed FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which boosts the Food and Drug Administration’s budget by $1.4 billion and expands its regulatory responsibilities to include increasing number of food inspections, issuing direct food recalls, and reviewing the current food safety practices of countries importing products into America.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention.
27. Achieved New START Treaty: Signed with Russia (2010) and won ratification in Congress (2011) of treaty that limits each country to 1,550 strategic warheads (down from 2,200) and 700 launchers (down from more than 1,400), and reestablished and strengthened a monitoring and transparency program that had lapsed in 2009, through which each country can monitor the other.
REALLY liberal - - Isn't this the one where we gave up on building a radar installation in Europe?
28. Expanded National Service: Signed Serve America Act in 2009, which authorized a tripling of the size of AmeriCorps. Program grew 13 percent to 85,000 members across the country by 2012, when new House GOP majority refused to appropriate more funds for further expansion.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention.
29. Expanded Wilderness and Watershed Protection: Signed Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (2009), which designated more than 2 million acres as wilderness, created thousands of miles of recreational and historic trails, and protected more than 1,000 miles of rivers.
REALLY liberal - - I don't mind these kinds of things, but it's more regulation...
30. Gave the FDA Power to Regulate Tobacco: Signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (2009). Nine years in the making and long resisted by the tobacco industry, the law mandates that tobacco manufacturers disclose all ingredients, obtain FDA approval for new tobacco products, and expand the size and prominence of cigarette warning labels, and bans the sale of misleadingly labeled “light” cigarette brands and tobacco sponsorship of entertainment events.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention.
31. Pushed Federal Agencies to Be Green Leaders: Issued executive order in 2009 requiring all federal agencies to make plans to soften their environmental impacts by 2020. Goals include 30 percent reduction in fleet gasoline use, 26 percent boost in water efficiency, and sustainability requirements for 95 percent of all federal contracts. Because federal government is the country’s single biggest purchaser of goods and services, likely to have ripple effects throughout the economy for years to come.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention.
32. Passed Fair Sentencing Act: Signed 2010 legislation that reduces sentencing disparity between crack versus powder cocaine possessionfrom100 to1 to 18 to1.
What??
33. Trimmed and Reoriented Missile Defense: Cut the Reagan-era “Star Wars” missile defense budget, saving $1.4 billion in 2010, and canceled plans to station antiballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic in favor of sea-based defense plan focused on Iran and North Korea.
Not sure what to think... I think this was an honest attempt to recalibrate the forces towards current threats (rogue state). I might've done things differently, but I wouldn't know where it would fall in the political spectrum.
34. Began Post-Post-9/11 Military Builddown: After winning agreement from congressional Republicans and Democrats in summer 2011 budget deal to reduce projected defense spending by $450 billion, proposed new DoD budget this year with cuts of that size and a new national defense strategy that would shrink ground forces from 570,000 to 490,000 over the next ten years while increasing programs in intelligence gathering and cyberwarfare.
REALLY liberal - - Big Military... BAD.
35. Let Space Shuttle Die and Killed Planned Moon Mission: Allowed the expensive ($1 billion per launch), badly designed, dangerous shuttle program to make its final launch on July 8, 2011. Cut off funding for even more bloated and problem-plagued Bush-era Constellation program to build moon base in favor of support for private-sector low-earth orbit ventures, research on new rocket technologies for long-distance manned flight missions, and unmanned space exploration, including the largest interplanetary rover ever launched, which will investigate Mars’s potential to support life.
???
36. Invested Heavily in Renewable Technology: As part of the 2009 stimulus, invested $90 billion, more than any previous administration, in research on smart grids, energy efficiency, electric cars, renewable electricity generation, cleaner coal, and biofuels.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention. Solyndra anyone?
37. Crafting Next-Generation School Tests: Devoted $330 million in stimulus money to pay two consortia of states and universities to create competing versions of new K-12 student performance tests based on latest psychometric research. New tests could transform the learning environment in vast majority of public school classrooms beginning in 2014.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention. No... just... No.
38. Cracked Down on Bad For-Profit Colleges: In effort to fight predatory practices of some for-profit colleges, Department of Education issued “gainful employment” regulations in 2011 cutting off commercially focused schools from federal student aid funding if more than 35 percent of former students aren’t paying off their loans and/or if the average former student spends more than 12 percent of his or her total earnings servicing student loans.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention. Really bad way to tackle this problem...
39. Improved School Nutrition: In coordination with Michelle Obama, signed Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010 mandating $4.5 billion spending boost and higher nutritional and health standards for school lunches. New rules based on the law, released in January, double the amount of fruits and vegetables and require only whole grains in food served to students.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention.
40. Expanded Hate Crimes Protections: Signed Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009), which expands existing hate crime protections to include crimes based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender, or disability, in addition to race, color, religion, or national origin.
REALLY liberal - - gah... Hate Crimes... I hate that.
41. Avoided Scandal: As of November 2011, served longer than any president in decades without a scandal, as measured by the appearance of the word “scandal” (or lack thereof) on the front page of the Washington Post.
Uh... really? o.O I can think of plenty of "scandals".
42. Brokered Agreement for Speedy Compensation to Victims of Gulf Oil Spill: Though lacking statutory power to compel British Petroleum to act, used moral authority of his office to convince oil company to agree in 2010 to a $20 billion fund to compensate victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; $6.5 billion already paid out without lawsuits. By comparison, it took nearly two decades for plaintiffs in the Exxon Valdez Alaska oil spill case to receive $1.3 billion.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention.
43. Created Recovery.gov: Web site run by independent board of inspectors general looking for fraud and abuse in stimulus spending, provides public with detailed information on every contract funded by $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Thanks partly to this transparency, board has uncovered very little fraud, and Web site has become national model: “The stimulus has done more to promote transparency at almost all levels of government than any piece of legislation in recent memory,” reports Governing magazine.
REALLY liberal - -Wait... what?
44. Pushed Broadband Coverage: Proposed and obtained in 2011 Federal Communications Commission approval for a shift of $8 billion in subsidies away from landlines and toward broadband Internet for lower-income rural families.
Dunno enought to have an opinion.
45. Expanded Health Coverage for Children: Signed 2009 Children’s Health Insurance Authorization Act, which allows the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to cover health care for 4 million more children, paid for by a tax increase on tobacco products.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention. Really... a tax on ciggies to fund CHIP? This is an illusion... there's no trust fund or "bank account" for CHIP programs. They all come from the state's general funds. Next time someone complains about your smoking... just say " but, it's for the childrens".
46. Recognized the Dangers of Carbon Dioxide: In 2009, EPA declared carbon dioxide a pollutant, allowing the agency to regulate its production.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention.
47. Expanded Stem Cell Research: In 2009, eliminated the Bush-era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, which shows promise in treating spinal injuries, among many other areas.
REALLY liberal - - more government intervention. Misleading too... (adult stem cells show far more promise).
48. Provided Payment to Wronged Minority Farmers: In 2009, signed Claims Resolution Act, which provided $4.6 billion in funding for a legal settlement with black and Native American farmers who the government cheated out of loans and natural resource royalties in years past.
Not sure if this was legit... first time I've seen this (not necessarily in this case, but this can be an example of "social justice" that Obama expouses).
49. Helped South Sudan Declare Independence: Helped South Sudan Declare Independence: Appointed two envoys to Sudan and personally attended a special UN meeting on the area. Through U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, helped negotiate a peaceful split in 2011.
don't know enough to comment (I thought they're still fighting a civil war here?)
50. Killed the F-22: In 2009, ended further purchases of Lockheed Martin single-seat, twin-engine, fighter aircraft, which cost $358 million apiece. Though the military had 187 built, the plane has never flown a single combat mission. Eliminating it saved $4 billion.
REALLY liberal - - Big Military... bad whembly, bad! (honestly, I'm actually okay with this, but wished he kept the $$$ within the DoD for other things, like more Strykers )
So... in MY OPINION... I do not consider him anywhere near "a moderate".
Melissia wrote:I mostly tend to ignore the long-winded quotes you give from conservative political spambots. They almost never have anything of substance or value tot hem.
conservative political spambots?
Um... okay.
I do regret one thing posting that long-winded quotes: That's on the First Lady... I think she's a classy lady and deserves respect.
As for the other stuff... I was mere pointing out that yes I question his character based on his repeated past associations. TBH... I never really thought about 'em during '08 election cycle as I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt (okay, I can give him a hard time being a Chicagoan... down with Bears/Cubs/Soxs/Hawks!!! ).
ShumaGorath wrote:Just to pick out one piece of nonsense (out of many), how the hell is credit card reform which was passed unanimously by both parties REALLY LIBERAL?
Righty - Can market pressure fix this?
To be honest, I have no idea of regular market pressure could've done what that ACT was intended.
Except that didn't happen and you're just structuring the world to suit your ill conceived and poorly supported views rather than using the world as the basis for them.
Righty - Can market pressure fix this?
To be honest, I have no idea of regular market pressure could've done what that ACT was intended.
Except that didn't happen and you're just structuring the world to suit your ill conceived and poorly supported views rather than using the world as the basis for them.
? What didn't happen? The unintended consequences?
Righty - Can market pressure fix this? To be honest, I have no idea of regular market pressure could've done what that ACT was intended.
Except that didn't happen and you're just structuring the world to suit your ill conceived and poorly supported views rather than using the world as the basis for them.
? What didn't happen? The unintended consequences?
The righty view on market pressure. It was a clear case of exploitative business practices and the right rallied behind reform. Political ideologies aren't intrinsically extremist like you seem to think. If they were the right would be trying to destroy government, but it isn't an anarchist movement and the left isn't trying to control what color shirts we wear.
Righty - Can market pressure fix this?
To be honest, I have no idea of regular market pressure could've done what that ACT was intended.
Except that didn't happen and you're just structuring the world to suit your ill conceived and poorly supported views rather than using the world as the basis for them.
? What didn't happen? The unintended consequences?
The righty view on market pressure. It was a clear case of exploitative business practices and the right rallied behind reform. Political ideologies aren't intrinsically extremist like you seem to think. If they were the right would be trying to destroy government, but it isn't an anarchist movement and the left isn't trying to control what color shirts we wear.
You're right... they're not.
In regards to the CC reform I don't really have a problem... but it's still intervention in the market place and invariably unfortunate thingscan happen.
I disagree on part of your statement.... there are those (lefty and righties)who do want to peverbally "control" what color shirts we wear. It's all about CONTROL. Shouldn't we be at least be cautious to any gov expansion/intervention?
Righty - Can market pressure fix this? To be honest, I have no idea of regular market pressure could've done what that ACT was intended.
Except that didn't happen and you're just structuring the world to suit your ill conceived and poorly supported views rather than using the world as the basis for them.
? What didn't happen? The unintended consequences?
The righty view on market pressure. It was a clear case of exploitative business practices and the right rallied behind reform. Political ideologies aren't intrinsically extremist like you seem to think. If they were the right would be trying to destroy government, but it isn't an anarchist movement and the left isn't trying to control what color shirts we wear.
You're right... they're not.
In regards to the CC reform I don't really have a problem... but it's still intervention in the market place and invariably unfortunate thingscan happen.
I disagree on part of your statement.... there are those (lefty and righties)who do want to peverbally "control" what color shirts we wear. It's all about CONTROL. Shouldn't we be at least be cautious to any gov expansion/intervention?
I like to keep my political views sane. I've seen and experienced enough paranoia for now, thank you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:DO what the Drazi do. Have two colors. One red and one blue. Fight it out
Now, I am admittedly no expert on Objectivism, but doesn't Rand advocate unfettered capitalism, survival of the fittest, and "not sacrificing yourself for any man nor asking any man to sacrifice for you"? And wouldn't voting for a 700 billion dollar bailout with taxpayer money... sort of completely go against that? Cuz that's what this guy did, no?
Melissia wrote:That depends on the Obama campaign's ability to articulate how Ryan's cuts will hurt the middle class and such.
Not really. Because those cuts aren't going to happen if Romney gets elected, because Ryan is just the VP candidate.
The challenge is articulate how Ryan's cuts would hurt the middle class (fairly easy), and then use Ryan's selection as VP to articulate how Ryan's policy are reflective of the overal GOP and Romney (fairly hard).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:I'm shy of 30. I also don't watch loads of television, never did. The Internet has somewhat addressed my relative ignorance of what goes on in television. But I can't say I'm particularly plugged in especially to notice a debate between Biden and Palin or *shudder* Cheney and Edwards on Cspan8.
To catch you up then
2008 Biden beat Palin, but not by as much as you'd think. She basically ran off a series of very lame catch phrases (say it ain't so, Jo) and played this silly game where if she had no idea what the question was asking she'd just ignore it and list some standard republican talking points. Because the debate format is rubbish, neither Biden or the moderators picked her up on this.
2004 Cheney monstered Edwards. Edwards was a lightweight nitwit who confused southern charm for actual policy knowledge, whereas whether you love him or hate him, Cheney is a heavyweight.
2000 was a horrendous snooze fest. Cheney repeated all the 'compassionate conservative' comments of Bush circa 2000, and no-one believed a word of it, but strangely no-noe realised they were complete lies either. Meanwhile Lieberman continued the Gore strategy of listing a dry series of facts giving the accomplishments of the Clinton presidency in the hope of appealing to the impartial intellectual observer. No-one on Earth remembers the debate, and I include Gore and Cheney in that.
whembly wrote:His bill doesn't go FAR enough. Did you know that overall government spending still goes up with his plan? Just not at the higher rate that the Obama/Democrate's plan.
Only if you look at it in raw dollars, and not relative to GDP. You shouldn't ever just look at the raw dollars. Hell, even per capita would make more sense.
Oh, and you didn't comment on leaving out the impact on aggregate demand.
Yeah... can't argue that. I'd just think Rubio is a better strategic pick to win the WH.
Possibly. There is a reasonable chance Rubio said no, though.
No... don't tell me what I'm "supposed" to believe in... that kind of thinking is the path to socialism and eventually communism (the most destructive economic policies in history). The Risk takers and those who work hard striving for excellence are the driving force in a healthy robust economy. Government's jobs is to provide a stable framework. Excessive government intervention puts a damper on that. The real question is... when is it enough?
"The risk takers are the driving force" thing is standard Republican line... and the philosophy underpinning that is that when they succeed jobs and opportunities are created for the middle and working classes. Like I said 'a rising tide lifts all ships'.
Which is what shared prosperity is. It means the wealth that's created is on some level shared. Everyone wants that. So freaking out when a democrat says is just politics by the stupid, for the stupid.
I just don't think its a given to go from the first to the second. You might be right, and Ryan might overshadow the actual Presidential candidate and in that case it'll be pretty easy, but at the end of the day despite the fuss right now he's still just the VP candidate.
Exactly, he's just the VP. And note I think it's far from a given, I think it's a really difficult thing to achieve, and suspect Obama will be unlikely to achieve it (and if he does it's probably only because Romney utterly fails to put any kind of vision forward, in which case Romney's campaign has even bigger problems).
That said, this is the first sign of Romney having to make a choice to shore up support among a traditional Republican voting bloc, and it's never good when you have to start doing that.
Yup... current entitlement will be on the conversation now... at some point, we'll elect enough adults to address this.
Hopefully the present mood in congress will pass, and hopefully at some point enough people will get sick of partisan games and instinctively look to politicians who talk to them like adults. Hopefully.
You say bankruptcy is a "bad thing". In a healthy economic society, bankruptcy is a GOOD thing. It's a reset button. So... according to this statistics:
It's a good thing compared to be trapped in debt forever. But it's a terrible thing compared being given a manageable bill and then carrying on in your life while still owning your own house and car.
http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/BankruptcyStatistics.aspx From March '11 to March '12 there were over 1.3 million bankruptcies filed. Out of that, based on a recent Harvard studies (I have issues with this study, but lets roll with it), about 40% of those were due to medical expenses. So, during this time period about 520K people filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses.
So... yes, we can make it work.
I have absolutely no fething clue what so ever how 520 thousand people declaring bankruptcy because they got sick can be considered 'making it work'. That's a terrible stat that should shock people into action.
The politicians says the underline... in the real world... the standard of care will go down.
It isn't politicians, its the CBO. The difference is very important.
Nor will the standard of care go down. It can't. There's no provision there at all to reduce the standard of care. If the measures in place don't save that much money, what happens is that the savings end up being less.
Nope... it's LOADED with special interests. Big Pharma got goodies (and in the end, they still got shafted)
Oh yeah, there's plenty in there for special interests (the private insurers made the mistake of fighting the bill rather than sending their own lobbyists, which is why they were the only group to get screwed). Which is why this needs to be the first step of many, in which future steps are addressed in a bi-partisan manner without heavy political grandstanding, thereby reducing the potential impact of special interest groups.
Right... and Democrates were serious all along polishing their halos... gotcha.
It's lazy to just assume because I acknowledge the Republicans were particularly odious on this issue that I think the Democrats are angels. They're not, they're just a political party bought and paid for major corporate interests, who do just enough to keep progressives voting for them every two years.
But seriously, the Republican opposition to HCR was overtly political from the get go. The memos were made public. It is no secret.
It is socialism (not verbatim, but the direction).
Not really, no.
To be fair, there are some good stuff in HCR bill. I think the problem was they tried to fix it "all at once", and in order to get it passed, you had to satisfy all the special interest groups to squeak it by and what's left is a bloated BAD law with a few redeeming stuff.
The problem is that there's so much political capital spent to just raise healthcare that any legislation is likely to be a once in a generation type affair, so it does produce a bill with a lot of mess in it.
It'd be nice if you could produce a working committee aimed at a constant series of minor, bi-partisan reforms to modernise the US healthcare system, but that's just not going to happen.
Yeah, the extremism on both sides are at fault. But let me just say this... I'm not quite sure how I feel about it, but isn't a better (long term) if one party controls only one branch? IE, Republican Congress vs. Democrate WH? It seems that we go all ape-gak crazy when one party controls both branch of government.
I think the better option, honestly, is to take power away from the hardliners of the two parties who hate any idea of crossing the floor. It wasn't that long ago that the US was remarkable for the freedom with which members would cross the floor to vote for or against a bill.
In our Wesminster system party loyalty is strictly enforced and daring to cross the floor to vote against your party is a big deal, but that's part and parcel of our system, and there are checks and balances elsewhere in the system. Your government is set up differently, and works best when people are free to vote as they believe, not as the party dictates they must.
Yeah... it's the stereotyping that is getting outta hand... (I know I fall into that trap).
It's more that people are actually becoming the stereotype. They're own politics are changing to conform to those of the parties. Which is just plain weird, really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Right... everything here is MORE expensive. Just the way it is... So how that segues into foreigner's travel cost... that interesting 'cuz now with that, travel expenses is even more spendy for ya'll.
Not at all. In fact your country is incredibly cheap. My wife and I lived like kings over there, ate at top notch restaurants and did everything we wanted, because it was all so cheap to what stuff costs here. But that doesn't apply to health care, which is crazy expensive.
Oh, and kudos on having an awesome country. The US is an amazing place.
And also, credit to you for how you've conducted yourself in this debate. You most certainly don't owe me a drink. In fact if form is anything to go by, I'll be buying you on before long
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HudsonD wrote:You do realize Obama is considered "right wing" in most western democracies ?
Which is the funny thing. The guy is so popular in the rest of the world, but at the same time he's so far right by our standards he'd be unelectable.
And yet in the US where he's basically smack bang in the middle of things half the country is pretending he's a socialist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Ayn Rand
Paul Ryan
Ron Paul
Rand Paul
Good thing they all believe the same things!
Ha! How did I never notice that. I mean, I knew Rand Paul was named after Ayn Rand, but adding in Paul Ryan just makes it nutty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:
whembly wrote:They're all politians... they all "flip-flop"... I never understand why there's so much angst about this. People change their mind all the time.
Speaking of Ron Paul -- he has not "flip-flop"d over issues. The man stands up for what he believes in.
Except abortion. He used to be woman's choice, no he thinks life is more important than freedom. And he's changed his mind on Israel like a dozen times. And he used to accept the scientific consensus on global warming, but now he thinks there is considerable doubt.
Which, to be fair, is pretty consistent for a politician. It's just that I'm not too sure believing the same stuff now and in 1980 is really that decent a measure of a person. Things have happened, new information has come in. As Keyne's famously said 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?'
Raul insistance on needing a gold standard, and hyper inflation being just around the corner, a call he hasn't let up on despite being wrong for three decades, is a classic example. Inflation throughout has remained under control. And yet he keeps bleating on about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Edit: and serious applause for Paul's speeches on blowback! Between the book Charlie Wilson's War, a couple others on that time period and some of the Ron Paul material on US interference with the middle east in the 80s it seems pretty clear to me that we definitely stuck our foot in the hornet's nest long before the Gulf War.
The issue in Afghanistan was not in funding the mujahadeen. The issue was that once the Russians withdrew the US lost interest, and couldn't find the small change to develop schools and infrastructure. In the wake of this hardliners (and not the people the US had supported) took over.
Afghanistan, and George Crills' book, and the movie they made of it, all make the point that the failing was in not supporting Afghanistan post-Soviet invasion. None claim that helping the Afghanis against a brutal invader was a bad idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I hardly consider him an Oracle, or think he's got the right answer 100% of the time, he could very well be wrong in many cases. That said I think he's got a clearer view of the picture in the middle east then most do at present.
Isolationism is an old and very popular idea in the USA, and Paul is hardly brave for beating the drum so loudly over it. But it's a dangerous, simplistic view of history.
Afterall, it took considerable political skill from Roosevelt and a couple of incredibly bone headed moves from the Germans for Roosevelt to win the political fight with the isolationists and begin to sell war resources to the UK and France.
Now, I'm not saying the current state of US shenanigans around the world is better, but that there is an option somewhere between 'feth around with governments because their politics are bad for our businesses and sometimes just because we're bored' and 'never leave the USA ever'. Some kind of approach that puts a balance between the rights of people, the safety of US soldiers, and the practicalities of the theatre?
whembly wrote:@labmouse42: look at this:
http://voteview.com/Clinton_and_Obama.htm This was done during the Democratic Primary '08. You'll see that Obama and H. Clinton has very similar voting records in the Senate. You'll see here that most Congressional Democrats are pulling hard to the left (just as the Republican to the right).
Especially look at the last graph (cant figure out how to insert that gif here).... see the trend? Both parties are pulling away from each other... and this is in '08! I'd bet a case a beer that it's even MORE profound now.
Whembly, that's an excellent article. It gives a prime example of the hard shift of the right by the Republican Party. We also see a shift by the Democratic party, but its not as great.
90th Congress Democratic Party -0.264
110th Congress Democratic Party -0.370
This is a total shift of -1.06 points.
90th Congress Republican Party 0.246
110th Congress Republican Party 0.473
This is a total shift of 2.27 points.
Over the course of 40 years, according to this study, the Republican party shifted over twice as much as the Democratic party.
Spoiler:
This study was done in 2007, and the Republican party has shifted even more right with the rise of the tea party. If the article that you linked continued to the current day, I would expect us to see a even more dramatic shift in both directions, and therefore I would never bet a case of beer on it.
I don't repeat Democratic talking points, or post spam from political blogs / emails.
I could even be convinced to vote conservative if we had any running. We don't. We have mostly neocons running, but the conservatives have been attacked as "RINO" over the recent years. Since the Democrats have mostly dropped the gun control issue and are effectively a moderate right wing liberal party (hell, they're basically the Republican party from the 90s, but with less conservative social views), there's really no reason for me to vote Republican.
This is an example of how awful moderates are in this country.
The Republicans have gone insane. Totally off the rails. Now whenever anyone points it out they are painted as equally partisan as the Republicans, which in turn helps make the insanity they are spewing legitimate.
I imagine if Melissia and I were to talk about a lot of issues I'd end up yelling things about how they are enablers of the bourgeois class and that Melissia is waging class warefare against the heroic proletariat, but on the whole Melissia is fine and has been intellectually honest.
whembly wrote:His bill doesn't go FAR enough. Did you know that overall government spending still goes up with his plan? Just not at the higher rate that the Obama/Democrate's plan.
Only if you look at it in raw dollars, and not relative to GDP. You shouldn't ever just look at the raw dollars. Hell, even per capita would make more sense.
Oh, and you didn't comment on leaving out the impact on aggregate demand.
Okay, you got me there... from a macro-economic standpoint, government spending could (not always) have a positive impact. What I'm trying to articulate is that all to often "government intervention" is the go-to tool to attempt to address these concerns.
Yeah... can't argue that. I'd just think Rubio is a better strategic pick to win the WH.
Possibly. There is a reasonable chance Rubio said no, though.
True... I hadn't thought about it much since that was speculated.
No... don't tell me what I'm "supposed" to believe in... that kind of thinking is the path to socialism and eventually communism (the most destructive economic policies in history). The Risk takers and those who work hard striving for excellence are the driving force in a healthy robust economy. Government's jobs is to provide a stable framework. Excessive government intervention puts a damper on that. The real question is... when is it enough?
"The risk takers are the driving force" thing is standard Republican line... and the philosophy underpinning that is that when they succeed jobs and opportunities are created for the middle and working classes. Like I said 'a rising tide lifts all ships'.
Which is what shared prosperity is. It means the wealth that's created is on some level shared. Everyone wants that. So freaking out when a democrat says is just politics by the stupid, for the stupid.
Right... but it's all about "context". If a plain jane/joe politician said this, it wouldn't be on anyone's radar. But coming from someone who "coined" the following phrases (and I'm paraphrasing):
"... you didn't build that..."
"...we have the spread the wealth around"
"...etc..."
And let me pre-empt anyone. I don't hate Obama... I don't think he's "working to destroy America"... he truly believes in these kind of things and he's been consistent (I'm not being snarky... in a politician, that's admirable).
...snip
Yup... current entitlement will be on the conversation now... at some point, we'll elect enough adults to address this.
Hopefully the present mood in congress will pass, and hopefully at some point enough people will get sick of partisan games and instinctively look to politicians who talk to them like adults. Hopefully.
I think we're getting there.
You say bankruptcy is a "bad thing". In a healthy economic society, bankruptcy is a GOOD thing. It's a reset button. So... according to this statistics:
It's a good thing compared to be trapped in debt forever. But it's a terrible thing compared being given a manageable bill and then carrying on in your life while still owning your own house and car.
http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/BankruptcyStatistics.aspx From March '11 to March '12 there were over 1.3 million bankruptcies filed. Out of that, based on a recent Harvard studies (I have issues with this study, but lets roll with it), about 40% of those were due to medical expenses. So, during this time period about 520K people filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses.
So... yes, we can make it work.
I have absolutely no fething clue what so ever how 520 thousand people declaring bankruptcy because they got sick can be considered 'making it work'. That's a terrible stat that should shock people into action.
That's the disconnect I have with you.. we don't have universal healthcare. Basic healthcare isn't a "right" (whether is should be, that's a different discussion) It's a service oriented industry. This is what we have (the ACA bill doesn't really change that... might mitigate it... ).
So... through combination of bad luck, poor planning, and/or gak hits the fan... yes, medical bills can bankrupt you. At least you have a mechanism to discharge the debt.
If we didn't have that mechanism, then yes, you'd have an argument as it'll be no different that indentured slavery.
Keep in mind, if that Harvard study is right (not sure if it's been peer reviewed yet)... the 0.0017% of the population had to file for bankruptcy due to these bills.
The politicians says the underline... in the real world... the standard of care will go down.
It isn't politicians, its the CBO. The difference is very important.
Nor will the standard of care go down. It can't. There's no provision there at all to reduce the standard of care. If the measures in place don't save that much money, what happens is that the savings end up being less.
CBO can only look at the numbers and ASSUME that the same access will be available in the future as it is today.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Nope... it's LOADED with special interests. Big Pharma got goodies (and in the end, they still got shafted)
Oh yeah, there's plenty in there for special interests (the private insurers made the mistake of fighting the bill rather than sending their own lobbyists, which is why they were the only group to get screwed). Which is why this needs to be the first step of many, in which future steps are addressed in a bi-partisan manner without heavy political grandstanding, thereby reducing the potential impact of special interest groups.
Yup...agreed.
Right... and Democrates were serious all along polishing their halos... gotcha.
It's lazy to just assume because I acknowledge the Republicans were particularly odious on this issue that I think the Democrats are angels. They're not, they're just a political party bought and paid for major corporate interests, who do just enough to keep progressives voting for them every two years.
But seriously, the Republican opposition to HCR was overtly political from the get go. The memos were made public. It is no secret.
With other issues... I'd agree with you. See that website I posted previous showing how pull parties are pulling away from each other. But with respect to the HCR bill.
WE. DONT. WANT. IT. Not in it's current iteration...
In Missouri, we passed a non-binding resolution two years ago rejecting the current HCR bill. It passed with 71% approval... that is unheard of on a single-issue platform.
http://kcur.org/post/proposition-c-passes
It is socialism (not verbatim, but the direction).
Not really, no.
Okay... lazy on my part. Its "Top-down" government intervention.
To be fair, there are some good stuff in HCR bill. I think the problem was they tried to fix it "all at once", and in order to get it passed, you had to satisfy all the special interest groups to squeak it by and what's left is a bloated BAD law with a few redeeming stuff.
The problem is that there's so much political capital spent to just raise healthcare that any legislation is likely to be a once in a generation type affair, so it does produce a bill with a lot of mess in it.
It'd be nice if you could produce a working committee aimed at a constant series of minor, bi-partisan reforms to modernise the US healthcare system, but that's just not going to happen.
I agree!
Yeah, the extremism on both sides are at fault. But let me just say this... I'm not quite sure how I feel about it, but isn't a better (long term) if one party controls only one branch? IE, Republican Congress vs. Democrate WH? It seems that we go all ape-gak crazy when one party controls both branch of government.
I think the better option, honestly, is to take power away from the hardliners of the two parties who hate any idea of crossing the floor. It wasn't that long ago that the US was remarkable for the freedom with which members would cross the floor to vote for or against a bill.
In our Wesminster system party loyalty is strictly enforced and daring to cross the floor to vote against your party is a big deal, but that's part and parcel of our system, and there are checks and balances elsewhere in the system. Your government is set up differently, and works best when people are free to vote as they believe, not as the party dictates they must.
Interesting about your system...
We vote every 2 years for Rep and 4 for Senator/Prez... ultimately, the responsibility falls on the voters... and most voters don't take the time to research.
Yeah... it's the stereotyping that is getting outta hand... (I know I fall into that trap).
It's more that people are actually becoming the stereotype. They're own politics are changing to conform to those of the parties. Which is just plain weird, really.
Absolutely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Right... everything here is MORE expensive. Just the way it is... So how that segues into foreigner's travel cost... that interesting 'cuz now with that, travel expenses is even more spendy for ya'll.
Not at all. In fact your country is incredibly cheap. My wife and I lived like kings over there, ate at top notch restaurants and did everything we wanted, because it was all so cheap to what stuff costs here. But that doesn't apply to health care, which is crazy expensive.
Oh, and kudos on having an awesome country. The US is an amazing place.
And also, credit to you for how you've conducted yourself in this debate. You most certainly don't owe me a drink. In fact if form is anything to go by, I'll be buying you on before long
Huh... interesting. And THANKS! I need to travel more... I'm just an ignorant mid-westerner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HudsonD wrote:You do realize Obama is considered "right wing" in most western democracies ?
Which is the funny thing. The guy is so popular in the rest of the world, but at the same time he's so far right by our standards he'd be unelectable.
And yet in the US where he's basically smack bang in the middle of things half the country is pretending he's a socialist.
I find this interesting observation... makes me wonder what happens on the other side of the pond... needless to say, I need to get out more.
[quote=whemblyHopefully the present mood in congress will pass, and hopefully at some point enough people will get sick of partisan games and instinctively look to politicians who talk to them like adults. Hopefully.
I think we're getting there.
I would be interested in seeing some evidence.
Most campaigns are working very hard to "depress" the overall vote. This means Moderates are less likely to vote and extremists more likely to vote. I mean, look at our election participation numbers, and you can see that this strategy is working all to well.
As a result, we are not going to see moderation in politics, it is only going to become more extreme.
Easy E wrote:[quote=whemblyHopefully the present mood in congress will pass, and hopefully at some point enough people will get sick of partisan games and instinctively look to politicians who talk to them like adults. Hopefully.
I think we're getting there.
I would be interested in seeing some evidence.
Most campaigns are working very hard to "depress" the overall vote. This means Moderates are less likely to vote and extremists more likely to vote. I mean, look at our election participation numbers, and you can see that this strategy is working all to well.
As a result, we are not going to see moderation in politics, it is only going to become more extreme.
Maybe it's an illusion because of the access to all this information in addition to traditional media, it just seems that more people are engaged in this political process than ever before.
But, I suspect we won't know for sure until after the '12 election.
Easy E wrote:
Most campaigns are working very hard to "depress" the overall vote. This means Moderates are less likely to vote and extremists more likely to vote. I mean, look at our election participation numbers, and you can see that this strategy is working all to well.
Actually voter participation, at least in Presidential elections, has been steadily rising since 1996. You have to remember that, in the modern er (basically FDR forward) the highest turnout was ~63% in 1960. As such, a better argument might be that efforts to drum up extremism have resulted in more people being willing to make an effort to vote.
Interestingly, the highest in recorded history was 1876, with ~82% turnout. Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden despite losing the popular vote by 4 points.
whembly wrote:CBO can only look at the numbers and ASSUME that the same access will be available in the future as it is today.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Please cite the source for your silliness. As a national average, the Canadian standard of health care is far superior to that of the US. Source.
And I am really disappointed to see that I have to come back here and remind you of this. You have a very short memory, it seems.
Then be disappointed. Wiki is not the end-all-be-all with these kinds of discussion.
And "far superior"?? What a way to start a pissing match.
All I said was basically in socialized medicine, eventually, government price control are needed to rein in cost (that's what US does for Medicaid patients).
Oh... if you keep bringing up wiki, then the same page has this to say about it's criticism:
The WHO rankings have been subject to much criticism concerning their methodology, scientificity, and usefulness. Dr Richard G. Fessler called the rankings "misleading" and said that tens of thousands of foreigners travel to the United States every year for care. In addition, he claims that the United States leads the world in survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer. He also noted that the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior".[3] Dr Philip Musgrove wrote that the rankings are meaningless because they oversimplify: "numbers confer a spurious precision".[4]
Journalist John Stossel notes that the use of life expectancy figures is misleading and the life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise. When controlled for these facts, Stossel claims that American life expectancy is actually one of the highest in the world.[5] A publication by the Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.[6] Stossel also criticizes the ranking for favoring socialized healthcare, noting that "a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[5]
Glen Whitman claims that "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[7] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care. The rankings assume literacy rate is indicative of healthcare, but ignore many factors, such as tobacco use, nutrition, and luck. Regarding the distribution factors, Whitman says "neither measures healthcare performance" since a "healthcare system [can be] characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone." If healthcare improves for one group, but remains the same for the rest of the population, that would mean an increase in inequality, despite there being an improvement in quality.[8] Dr Fessler echoed these sentiments.[3]
Yes, because we measure quality of healthcare, education, and other public services in how well a society delivers them to everyone and not just the wealthy.
You are arguing that North Korea has amazing healthcare and education.
TheHammer wrote:Yes, because we measure quality of healthcare, education, and other public services in how well a society delivers them to everyone and not just the wealthy.
I'm only calling their methodology in question here.
You are arguing that North Korea has amazing healthcare and education.
Wait... what?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:
You are arguing that North Korea has amazing healthcare and education.
The general popluace of NK "ensure" their Great Leader/Dear Leader/Young Leader....what ever leader to have the best
TheHammer wrote:Yes, because we measure quality of healthcare, education, and other public services in how well a society delivers them to everyone and not just the wealthy.
I'm only calling their methodology in question here.
Whembly, you and I have already had this exact same conversation like four days ago. I'll remind you how that went, sent you seem to have already forgotten:
azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:Was there someone you know who was denied coverage?
My argument is that your health care system overall is crappy because it offers the best treatment to some people, and outright denies treatment to many others.
You argument is that your health care system is awesome because it gives the best treatment to some people.
You see, all those stats you quoted have the qualifier "who received treatment", which means those numbers do not reflect all the people that were denied coverage. What you have done is the equivalent of claiming that Sports Team X is the greatest ever because they have 200 wins, ignoring the fact that Sports Team X has an overall W-L-D record of 200-3000-50.
Like I said once already: health care is not the Olympics. You do not get to say you have the best health care because one guy got really great treatment. Doing so is like saying Americans are the greatest swimmers on earth because Michael Phelps is an outboard motor. We both know that it doesn't work that way, and that is why the WHO ranked the US #37 with a really crummy bullet: because they took into account the millions of Americans who are denied health care for economic reasons, whereas your skewed stats do not.
Anyway, I'll leave Shuma to take over from there if you need to discuss this one further. I'm off for now.
So, yeah... we don't get everything on a silver platter like your universal healthcare can provide, but we can make it work with what we have.
I'm willing to accept this as your surrender.
This certainly doesn't sound like someone describing the "best health care in the world". Keep in mind, this entire debate sprun forth from you claiming that the USA has the best health care system in the world; however your own story and quoted statement indicates that even you do not believe this beyond hollow jingoism. So like I said: I accept your surrender, and I hope it has led to some introspection on your decisions regarding health care.
I have enjoyed our debate, but I believe I am done now.
Good night, and good luck.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And Whembly:
If you want to call into question a methodology, then you have to make a specific allegation. That is how peer review works. That is, your claims of calling something into question are automatically invalidated unless you have a specific question to call that methodology on. You can't just cast unfounded doubt.
So please, tell me: what are your doubts about that study? How about the source I cited? Sure, it's a wiki, but it's also a wiki with cited sources. I felt you might appreciate the concise version that the wiki presents, rather than several hundred pages of statistical journals to read.
If you want to call into question a methodology, then you have to make a specific allegation. That is how peer review works. That is, your claims of calling something into question are automatically invalidated unless you have a specific question to call that methodology on. You can't just cast unfounded doubt.
So please, tell me: what are your doubts about that study? How about the source I cited? Sure, it's a wiki, but it's also a wiki with cited sources. I felt you might appreciate the concise version that the wiki presents, rather than several hundred pages of statistical journals to read.
In short:
For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.
So, when we say "the best"... what are we really asking?
(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats. That's what I was articulating before you jumped on me again...
If you want to call into question a methodology, then you have to make a specific allegation. That is how peer review works. That is, your claims of calling something into question are automatically invalidated unless you have a specific question to call that methodology on. You can't just cast unfounded doubt.
So please, tell me: what are your doubts about that study? How about the source I cited? Sure, it's a wiki, but it's also a wiki with cited sources. I felt you might appreciate the concise version that the wiki presents, rather than several hundred pages of statistical journals to read.
In short:
For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.
So, when we say "the best"... what are we really asking?
(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats. That's what I was articulating before you jumped on me again...
This word, "articulating"... contrary to what you may think, its definition is not "parrot conservative talking points". You're currently one step away from citing Truthers and Alex Jones. Please cite peer-reviewed sources, or do not cite anyhting at all. I cannot stress this enough.
In fact, I will repeat it for you in its simplest terms: Please stop parading non-peer-reviewed conservative zines as though they are scientific studies. If you cannot tell the difference, then you should remove yourself from this conversation.
Pacific Research is a right-wing think-tank formed during the Carter administration, and is not a peer-reviewed academic source, and the American Spectator is a conservative magazine, also not subject to academic standards or peer review. What I am trying to get at, is that you are currently trying to back up your claims with unfounded claims and individual editorials, and not proper studies. And I am not willing to get into an argument that is essentially "yuh-huh!" vs. "nuh-uh!".
The CBS news article you linked quotes two different people: a health-care policy professor at a university, who claims that our cherised Canadian health care system is very good, and a lobbyist group for the privatization of health care, and feth whatever those guys think; they represent a collective of private insurance companies. In Canada they perpectually walk a thin line between being politely ignored and getting curbstomped. And if you look at the points put forward in that article, it states a problem is that our single-payer system is costing too much; and this could be interpreted as meaning the price should be more heavily regulated. Currently out hospitals are run as for-profit services, which are paid by the government. One excellent solution to this is to simply regulate the price of health care further than it is now, and continue with a single-payer system.
The David Gratzer piece, just like your silly little right-wing propaganda pieces, has no sources to cite for his statements. It is purely anecdotal and merely an editorial piece. If is no more relevant to this discussion than would be your own opinion posted on a Tumblr blog, and its only draw is its demagoguery.
I would be very happy to continue this debate with you, but before that happens, you must first learn the difference between peer-reviewed academic sources, and non-reviewed magazine articles. I'm sorry if this sounds condescending; I prefer to think of it as being magnanimous. Because I am better than a handful of Tea Party pamphlets and empty propaganda. I would like to think that you are too, but lately you have not been demonstrating this.
If you want to call into question a methodology, then you have to make a specific allegation. That is how peer review works. That is, your claims of calling something into question are automatically invalidated unless you have a specific question to call that methodology on. You can't just cast unfounded doubt.
So please, tell me: what are your doubts about that study? How about the source I cited? Sure, it's a wiki, but it's also a wiki with cited sources. I felt you might appreciate the concise version that the wiki presents, rather than several hundred pages of statistical journals to read.
In short:
For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.
So, when we say "the best"... what are we really asking?
(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats. That's what I was articulating before you jumped on me again...
This word, "articulating"... contrary to what you may think, its definition is not "parrot conservative talking points". You're currently one step away from citing Truthers and Alex Jones. Please cite peer-reviewed sources, or do not cite anyhting at all. I cannot stress this enough.
In fact, I will repeat it for you in its simplest terms: Please stop parading non-peer-reviewed conservative zines as though they are scientific studies. If you cannot tell the difference, then you should remove yourself from this conversation.
Pacific Research is a right-wing think-tank formed during the Carter administration, and is not a peer-reviewed academic source, and the American Spectator is a conservative magazine, also not subject to academic standards or peer review. What I am trying to get at, is that you are currently trying to back up your claims with unfounded claims and individual editorials, and not proper studies. And I am not willing to get into an argument that is essentially "yuh-huh!" vs. "nuh-uh!".
The CBS news article you linked quotes two different people: a health-care policy professor at a university, who claims that our cherised Canadian health care system is very good, and a lobbyist group for the privatization of health care, and feth whatever those guys think; they represent a collective of private insurance companies. In Canada they perpectually walk a thin line between being politely ignored and getting curbstomped. And if you look at the points put forward in that article, it states a problem is that our single-payer system is costing too much; and this could be interpreted as meaning the price should be more heavily regulated. Currently out hospitals are run as for-profit services, which are paid by the government. One excellent solution to this is to simply regulate the price of health care further than it is now, and continue with a single-payer system.
The David Gratzer piece, just like your silly little right-wing propaganda pieces, has no sources to cite for his statements. It is purely anecdotal and merely an editorial piece. If is no more relevant to this discussion than would be your own opinion posted on a Tumblr blog, and its only draw is its demagoguery.
I would be very happy to continue this debate with you, but before that happens, you must first learn the difference between peer-reviewed academic sources, and non-reviewed magazine articles. I'm sorry if this sounds condescending; I prefer to think of it as being magnanimous. Because I am better than a handful of Tea Party pamphlets and empty propaganda. I would like to think that you are too, but lately you have not been demonstrating this.
Wow... touched a nerve there didn't i?... that was epic.
Let me direct you the criticism section of that same wiki page as it mirrors my objection:
Spoiler:
Criticism
The WHO rankings have been subject to much criticism concerning their methodology, scientificity, and usefulness. Dr Richard G. Fessler called the rankings "misleading" and said that tens of thousands of foreigners travel to the United States every year for care. In addition, he claims that the United States leads the world in survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer. He also noted that the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior".[3] Dr Philip Musgrove wrote that the rankings are meaningless because they oversimplify: "numbers confer a spurious precision".[4]
Journalist John Stossel notes that the use of life expectancy figures is misleading and the life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise. When controlled for these facts, Stossel claims that American life expectancy is actually one of the highest in the world.[5] A publication by the Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.[6] Stossel also criticizes the ranking for favoring socialized healthcare, noting that "a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[5]
However, another study on the effects of firearms on life expectancy by Jean Lemaire [7] of the Wharton School concluded that only 0.28 years of the 2.29 life expectancy gap between the US (76.9 years) and the other 33 richest countries (79.19 years) can be attributed to firearm deaths. The author also points out that this conclusion does not calculate for a substitution effect. Some successful firearm suicides might have used other means in the absence of firearms. Though other methods of suicide are not as effective as firearms, they cannot be expected to have been zero. Therefore, simply adjusting a life expectancy calculation by subtracting all suicides due to firearms will tend to overstate average life expectancy.
Glen Whitman claims that "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[8] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care. The rankings assume literacy rate is indicative of healthcare, but ignore many factors, such as tobacco use, nutrition, and luck. Regarding the distribution factors, Whitman says "neither measures healthcare performance" since a "healthcare system [can be] characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone." If healthcare improves for one group, but remains the same for the rest of the population, that would mean an increase in inequality, despite there being an improvement in quality.[9] Dr Fessler echoed these sentiments.[3]
So you say "One excellent solution to this is to simply regulate the price of health care further than it is now, and continue with a single-payer system. "... my retort would be: "It's your system... have at it. When you regulate cost, standard of care will drop because the incentive to PROVIDE for those services would drop.".
I just disagree with the WHO ranking because of the methodolgy they used (particulary the "access" and "fairness" portion).... am I not allowed to have an opinion?
You keep pining for me to "find" peer-reviewed analysis supporting my opinion as if its your shield against a possibility that I *may* be right. Or, you simply want me to prove to you that I was able to reverse engineer the WHO study, pick it apart and write up my own desertation to be peer'ed review.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:I'm just gonna post left talking points to balance out this thread a bit:
whembly wrote:
I just disagree with the WHO ranking because of the methodolgy they used (particulary the "access" and "fairness" portion).... am I not allowed to have an opinion?
You're allowed your opinions. You're not allowed your own facts.
whembly wrote:
I just disagree with the WHO ranking because of the methodolgy they used (particulary the "access" and "fairness" portion).... am I not allowed to have an opinion?
You're allowed your opinions. You're not allowed your own facts.
As an American physician, I have seen the "US Ranks 37th World Health Systems" information tossed around quite a bit to justify some of the proposed legislation in Washington. Prior to reading the report, I assumed the WHO was looking at life expectancy, infant mortality rates, cancer survival rates, pre-term delivery rates, myocardial infarction survival rates, and maternal mortality rates. Silly me. All of the following information is taken from the WHO's press release. My thoughts are in italics.
The WHO rankings actually look at 5 indicators:
1) Overall level of population health
2) Health inequalities (or disparities) within the population
3) Overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts)
4) Distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system)
5) The distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)
More interestingly: "In designing the framework for health system performance, WHO broke new methodological ground, employing a technique not previously used for health systems. It compares each country’s system to what the experts estimate to be the upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country." In other words, the rankings are biased by the expectations of the experts. (Does this sound like the global warming crowd to anyone else?)
In medicine, we strive to provide care based upon objective criteria: is treatment A more successful than treatment B? If A is more effective, do the costs/side effects override the increased effectiveness? We determine the most successful treatments by clinical studies, preferrably randomized, double blinded controlled clinical trials, so that the inherent biases of the investigators cannot affect patient care. It appears the WHO did not take the same approach. In fact, at least one of the indicators utilized to achieve the rankings simply focuses on the disparity between the healthiest and least healthy members of the population. A homogenously poor and/or unhealthy populace would actually score higher than the U.S. where the health of a healthy octogenarian who has exercised daily for 50 years would be compared to that of a meth addict. The WHO explicitly stated "It is not sufficient to protect or improve the average health of the population, if - at the same time - inequality worsens or remains high because the gain accrues disproportionately to those already enjoying better health."
Like it or not, we do have disparities in the U.S. We have a very inhomogenous population compared to most of the countries in the WHO report; we have disparities in incomes. We also have opportunities that aren't available in many of the countries that were looked at.
If someone wants to talk health care reform, wonderful. We should always strive to improve. Just please don't use the WHO report to tell me that the U.S. health system is abysmal.
He also noted that the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior".[3]
This is not an acceptable criticism, because he is complaining that he will always lose because his system is fundamentally inferior. This is no more a valid criticism than would be claiming that the rankings are unfair because they don't ignore all the people that can't afford health care. You do see that, don't you?
whembly wrote:
Journalist John Stossel notes that the use of life expectancy figures is misleading and the life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise. When controlled for these facts, Stossel claims that American life expectancy is actually one of the highest in the world.[5] A publication by the Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.[6] Stossel also criticizes the ranking for favoring socialized healthcare, noting that "a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[5]
There's the Pacific Research Institute, who are not peer reviewed and therefore only express an opinion, not facts. And this is also a reiteration of the same invalid criticism from the previous quote.
whembly wrote:
However, another study on the effects of firearms on life expectancy by Jean Lemaire [7] of the Wharton School concluded that only 0.28 years of the 2.29 life expectancy gap between the US (76.9 years) and the other 33 richest countries (79.19 years) can be attributed to firearm deaths. The author also points out that this conclusion does not calculate for a substitution effect. Some successful firearm suicides might have used other means in the absence of firearms. Though other methods of suicide are not as effective as firearms, they cannot be expected to have been zero. Therefore, simply adjusting a life expectancy calculation by subtracting all suicides due to firearms will tend to overstate average life expectancy.
Sounds like this quote is actually invalidating the criticism that firearm deaths are skewing the results.
whembly wrote:
Glen Whitman claims that "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[8] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care. The rankings assume literacy rate is indicative of healthcare, but ignore many factors, such as tobacco use, nutrition, and luck. Regarding the distribution factors, Whitman says "neither measures healthcare performance" since a "healthcare system [can be] characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone." If healthcare improves for one group, but remains the same for the rest of the population, that would mean an increase in inequality, despite there being an improvement in quality.[9] Dr Fessler echoed these sentiments.[3]
Luck? So what, American are unluckier than everyone else in the world? Try again, ...American Spectator!? Again? Again you're citing a non-reviewed conservative magazine? I've asked you to stop quoting editorial magazines as factual. Why are you incapable of doing this?
whembly wrote:You keep pining for me to "find" peer-reviewed analysis supporting my opinion as if its your shield against a possibility that I *may* be right. Or, you simply want me to prove to you that I was able to reverse engineer the WHO study, pick it apart and write up my own desertation to be peer'ed review.
No, I keep pining for you to find peer-reviewed analysis supporting your opinion because otherwise you are jus wasting my time. For every editorial magazine you cite, I can cite some dumb kid's blog post, and we can continue to waste each other's time. I'm trying to get you to engage in a debate centered around FACTS, not OPINIONS. I've heard your opinion already, so repeating with without bolstering its credibility is not substantiating it.
Hit a nerve? not really. But I truly dislike having to repeat myself, particularly when I'm trying to teach you how to debate like a rational person, and not like Glenn Beck. So here's the deal: if you want to claim something is fact, rather than opinion, then find a source to back it up that is not merely an editorial opinion itself. That's all I'm asking. That way, I don't have to waste my time reading through pages of "nuh-uh!" responses. I recognize that I'm never going to change your opinion. But I do hope that I can at least teach you the different between opinion and fact.
Idiotic nonsense that have long since been disproven.
TBH... I'm all over the map...
That first linky, you're right, that wasn't what the fig was about.
The second one was definately spin in a sense that he "refused" to put his hand over his heart. He wasn't being a rebel or anything, just wasn't observing custom, which is standing attention during the national anthem. A VET pointed that out to me... otherwise, I wouldn't have noticed it at the time. He's was running for prez for feth sakes! It's bad optic.
But, I didn't really care about that...
I had issues with his association with Ayers and Rev Wright.
Just like I'd have issues if he was a Cubs fan, but thankfully, he's a White Sox fan... so, that's cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @azeael the cat.
I'm done trying to convey where I'm coming from. Sorry man.
With that Physician above and this...
In 2000, when the report was issued, WHO was run by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former prime minister of Norway and a socialist. She doesn’t think the results of a health system alone are important. Rather, she wants to know if the system is “fair.” In introducing the WHO report she wrote that while the goal of a health system “is to improve and protect health,” it also has “other intrinsic goals [that] are concerned with fairness in the way people pay for health care.” She is clear about the ideological factors she thinks are important: “Where health and responsiveness are concerned, achieving a high average level is not good enough: the goals of a health system must also include reducing inequalities, in ways that improve the situation of the worst-off. In this report attainment in relation to these goals provides the basis for measuring the performance of health systems.”
True to her ideological roots, Brundtland prefers socialized medicine over private care. Drawing her first conclusion about what makes a good medical system, she declares: “Ultimate responsibility for the performance of a country’s health system lies with government. The careful and responsible management of the well-being of the population—stewardship—is the very essence of good government. The health of people is always a national priority: government responsibility for it is continuous and permanent.”
Those are red flags man...
Can't you see that some of us neanderthals may consider that there's bias with this?
whembly wrote:
I just disagree with the WHO ranking because of the methodolgy they used (particulary the "access" and "fairness" portion).... am I not allowed to have an opinion?
You're allowed your opinions. You're not allowed your own facts.
Did you even read the criticism section? (SNIP)
Ah, my bad, sorry, I had assumed you could differenciate between opinions and facts. I stand corrected !
Seriously, learn the differences, it might come handy one day.
whembly wrote:I'm done trying to convey where I'm coming from. Sorry man.
No, you misunderstand. I know exactly where you're coming from: baseless ideology.
And that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm not going to try to sway you from yours; I know better than that. Nobody ever changes their mind on the Internet.
I just want you to stop confusing opinion with fact.
Paul Ryan says his office mishandled constituent requests for stimulus funding, which is why he claimed to have never requested stimulus funds even as the documents told a different story.
The GOP’s new vice presidential candidate has said repeatedly that he has never asked for stimulus funds, but recent reports indicate he has written letters on behalf of local businesses seeking them.
The Boston Globe reported Tuesday that Ryan had sought stimulus funds for local energy conservation groups from the Department of Energy in late 2009, and a 2010 Wall Street Journal report indicated he sought funds for another local group from the Labor Department.
Even Thursday, Ryan continued to insist he never sought stimulus funds.
“No, I never asked for stimulus,” Ryan said in a local TV interview in Cincinnati Thursday.
In a statement provided to The Fix by the Romney campaign, Ryan says his congressional office should have treated the requests as policy work rather than standard constituent service. But he said the buck stops with him.
“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled,” Ryan said. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that.”
Ryan has said he didn’t request stimulus money for a while. During a 2010 interview with a Boston radio station, he offered a similarly firm statement, according to a Globe report today.
“No, I’m not gonna vote [against] something, then write letters to the government to send us money,” Ryan said at the time. “I did not request any stimulus money.”
Ryan wrote a series of letters between October and December of 2009 on behalf of the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp. and the Energy Center of Wisconsin, as the Globe reported this week.
The Wall Street Journal in 2010 reported that Ryan had also sought funds from the Department of Labor on behalf of a local group and asked his office to square that with his anti-stimulus rhetoric.
“If Congressman Ryan is asked to help a Wisconsin entity applying for existing federal grant funds, he does not believe flawed policy should get in the way of doing his job,” his office said at the time.
whembly wrote:I'm done trying to convey where I'm coming from. Sorry man.
No, you misunderstand. I know exactly where you're coming from: baseless ideology.
And that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm not going to try to sway you from yours; I know better than that. Nobody ever changes their mind on the Internet.
I just want you to stop confusing opinion with fact.
I'm just pointing out that the WHO chartisn't fact as the methodolgy used has really high subjective weighting factors:
Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy
----Overall or average : 25%
----Distribution or equality : 25% <---subjective
Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
----Overall or average : 12.5%
----Distribution or equality : 12.5% <---subjective
Fair financial contribution : 25% This here I have the biggest issue. How is "fairness" defined?
Look... I don't object to the premise that there are issues with our system and we can have an honest debate about it. I just objected to that chart shoved in my face as if it's end-all be-all end of discussion thingamagig.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HudsonD wrote:
whembly wrote:
HudsonD wrote:
whembly wrote:
I just disagree with the WHO ranking because of the methodolgy they used (particulary the "access" and "fairness" portion).... am I not allowed to have an opinion?
You're allowed your opinions. You're not allowed your own facts.
Did you even read the criticism section? (SNIP)
Ah, my bad, sorry, I had assumed you could differenciate between opinions and facts. I stand corrected !
Seriously, learn the differences, it might come handy one day.
So... whenever a big impressive organization release some findings and put out a big one page summary on what it means, you'll "take their word on it"?
Learn the different between raw data and interpretation...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:Paul Ryan is now having some problems in the spotlight as people are digging in his past.
Paul Ryan says his office mishandled constituent requests for stimulus funding, which is why he claimed to have never requested stimulus funds even as the documents told a different story.
The GOP’s new vice presidential candidate has said repeatedly that he has never asked for stimulus funds, but recent reports indicate he has written letters on behalf of local businesses seeking them.
The Boston Globe reported Tuesday that Ryan had sought stimulus funds for local energy conservation groups from the Department of Energy in late 2009, and a 2010 Wall Street Journal report indicated he sought funds for another local group from the Labor Department.
Even Thursday, Ryan continued to insist he never sought stimulus funds.
“No, I never asked for stimulus,” Ryan said in a local TV interview in Cincinnati Thursday.
In a statement provided to The Fix by the Romney campaign, Ryan says his congressional office should have treated the requests as policy work rather than standard constituent service. But he said the buck stops with him.
“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled,” Ryan said. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that.”
Ryan has said he didn’t request stimulus money for a while. During a 2010 interview with a Boston radio station, he offered a similarly firm statement, according to a Globe report today.
“No, I’m not gonna vote [against] something, then write letters to the government to send us money,” Ryan said at the time. “I did not request any stimulus money.”
Ryan wrote a series of letters between October and December of 2009 on behalf of the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp. and the Energy Center of Wisconsin, as the Globe reported this week.
The Wall Street Journal in 2010 reported that Ryan had also sought funds from the Department of Labor on behalf of a local group and asked his office to square that with his anti-stimulus rhetoric.
“If Congressman Ryan is asked to help a Wisconsin entity applying for existing federal grant funds, he does not believe flawed policy should get in the way of doing his job,” his office said at the time.
Interesting... you don't see that very often... a politician's mea culpa.
FWIW, I didn't like the whole stimulus snafu as is was a panicked reflex...
Whenever a politician thinks that they can get away with it by offering a quick and quiet apology and then moving on changing nothing about how they act, they'll be glad to give an apology an then ignore you.
Melissia wrote:Whenever a politician thinks that they can get away with it by offering a quick and quiet apology and then moving on changing nothing about how they act, they'll be glad to give an apology an then ignore you.
Yeah... that's true... but, it's all too often that they'd just dig in.
whembly wrote:Interesting... you don't see that very often... a politician's mea culpa.
FWIW, I didn't like the whole stimulus snafu as is was a panicked reflex...
Paul Ryan may be a guy with a lot of integrity. He might be a real honest, good human being. He is probably doing what he really thinks is best -- most people do. Even George Bush was doing what he thought he was right. Heck, I would argue that even Dick Cheney did what he thought was best for the country.
People like the character Cersei Lannister are the rarity and not the norm.
Just because I don't agree with Paul Ryans fiscal policy does not mean I hate him. Many people seem to blur disagreeing with someone's policy to hate of the actual person.
I loved that game! I was the king in that game!
*throws down gauntlet*
I'll challenge anyone to any StreetFighter series (I'm partial to Super Street Fighter II Turbo).
That obama picture by himself is screaming for more memes... like 'powah, in the palm of my hands...'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Interesting... you don't see that very often... a politician's mea culpa.
FWIW, I didn't like the whole stimulus snafu as is was a panicked reflex...
Paul Ryan may be a guy with a lot of integrity. He might be a real honest, good human being. He is probably doing what he really thinks is best -- most people do. Even George Bush was doing what he thought he was right. Heck, I would argue that even Dick Cheney did what he thought was best for the country.
People like the character Cersei Lannister are the rarity and not the norm.
Just because I don't agree with Paul Ryans fiscal policy does not mean I hate him. Many people seem to blur disagreeing with someone's policy to hate of the actual person.
whembly wrote:(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats.
Which is better than outright denial of ALL medical care except for the most dire of emergency service to a large - and, for the past several years, swiftly growing - segment of the population.
Besides, those who have the money can always BUY extra care at need. I don't see that part ever changing in America. There will always be 'for profit' medical institutions that will cater to those who don't want to wait. The rest of us would be delighted to NOT go bankrupt each and every time we hit a major medical issue.
Besides, providing health care for the poor will keep them from waiting until their condition gets so bad they have to go to the emergency room and make use of the single most expensive part of the American health care system... which by law the hospital MUST provide regardless of how - or even if - they can pay for it. Getting them care early means fewer severe issues, which saves EVERYONE money in the long run.
Or did you actually believe the hospitals just eat that cost intead of passing it on as 'administrative overhead' to the customers that actually pay their bills?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:Paul Ryan is now having some problems in the spotlight as people are digging in his past.
Paul Ryan says his office mishandled constituent requests for stimulus funding, which is why he claimed to have never requested stimulus funds even as the documents told a different story.
The GOP’s new vice presidential candidate has said repeatedly that he has never asked for stimulus funds, but recent reports indicate he has written letters on behalf of local businesses seeking them.
The Boston Globe reported Tuesday that Ryan had sought stimulus funds for local energy conservation groups from the Department of Energy in late 2009, and a 2010 Wall Street Journal report indicated he sought funds for another local group from the Labor Department.
Even Thursday, Ryan continued to insist he never sought stimulus funds.
“No, I never asked for stimulus,” Ryan said in a local TV interview in Cincinnati Thursday.
In a statement provided to The Fix by the Romney campaign, Ryan says his congressional office should have treated the requests as policy work rather than standard constituent service. But he said the buck stops with him.
“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled,” Ryan said. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that.”
Ryan has said he didn’t request stimulus money for a while. During a 2010 interview with a Boston radio station, he offered a similarly firm statement, according to a Globe report today.
“No, I’m not gonna vote [against] something, then write letters to the government to send us money,” Ryan said at the time. “I did not request any stimulus money.”
Ryan wrote a series of letters between October and December of 2009 on behalf of the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp. and the Energy Center of Wisconsin, as the Globe reported this week.
The Wall Street Journal in 2010 reported that Ryan had also sought funds from the Department of Labor on behalf of a local group and asked his office to square that with his anti-stimulus rhetoric.
“If Congressman Ryan is asked to help a Wisconsin entity applying for existing federal grant funds, he does not believe flawed policy should get in the way of doing his job,” his office said at the time.
Lovely. Ryan doesn't believe in the goverment helping indviduals in need... but he sure wants the government to give handouts to corporations!
whembly wrote:(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats.
Which is better than outright denial of ALL medical care except for the most dire of emergency service to a large - and, for the past several years, swiftly growing - segment of the population.
You're still not seeing the bigger picture. When de facto rationing occurs in this hypothetical world, the standard of care would decrease. And it's debatable they'd be preferable.
Besides, those who have the money can always BUY extra care at need. I don't see that part ever changing in America. There will always be 'for profit' medical institutions that will cater to those who don't want to wait. The rest of us would be delighted to NOT go bankrupt each and every time we hit a major medical issue.
True dat... just don't believe that socialize medicine (or, technically a "single-payer" system like Canada has) is the way to go in order to increase access to care for poor folks.
Besides, providing health care for the poor will keep them from waiting until their condition gets so bad they have to go to the emergency room and make use of the single most expensive part of the American health care system... which by law the hospital MUST provide regardless of how - or even if - they can pay for it. Getting them care early means fewer severe issues, which saves EVERYONE money in the long run.
You're right... because everyone goes to the path of least resistent. It's too EASY to use the ED for simple cold and such... kind of a "catch-22" situation.
Let's switch gears... remember in my previous posts that there were some good stuff (a few) the new ACA act? This acts compels healthcare professional to do something thats never really been institutionalized. I know most Hospital/PhysicianGroup Systems will continue to do this even IF the ACA act is repealed...
That is, each visit to your primary care physician/specialist/hospitalist will be "managed" by a "case manager". What this person does is that if your doctor prescribed you medications/lab tests/mri/whatever test... then that case manager attempts to make sure that you did go to the followup appointments. And if the patient comes back later for the same problem and if the institution cannot proved that the case manager did their job, then medicare won't reimburse the Dr... and private insurance has indicated that they'll require this too.
Or did you actually believe the hospitals just eat that cost intead of passing it on as 'administrative overhead' to the customers that actually pay their bills?
Careful... there... here's the kicker. Most large Hospital System do not get any reimbursement for approx 50% (this will obviously vary) of the people walking in through the doors.
Yes, some of the cost do get shifted over to those who can pay for their insurance. Most hospitals also get $$$ from trust/foundations that are enormous. Some hospitals are also teaching locations that can get education fundings. And, on and on...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote:Paul Ryan is now having some problems in the spotlight as people are digging in his past.
Paul Ryan says his office mishandled constituent requests for stimulus funding, which is why he claimed to have never requested stimulus funds even as the documents told a different story.
The GOP’s new vice presidential candidate has said repeatedly that he has never asked for stimulus funds, but recent reports indicate he has written letters on behalf of local businesses seeking them.
The Boston Globe reported Tuesday that Ryan had sought stimulus funds for local energy conservation groups from the Department of Energy in late 2009, and a 2010 Wall Street Journal report indicated he sought funds for another local group from the Labor Department.
Even Thursday, Ryan continued to insist he never sought stimulus funds.
“No, I never asked for stimulus,” Ryan said in a local TV interview in Cincinnati Thursday.
In a statement provided to The Fix by the Romney campaign, Ryan says his congressional office should have treated the requests as policy work rather than standard constituent service. But he said the buck stops with him.
“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled,” Ryan said. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that.”
Ryan has said he didn’t request stimulus money for a while. During a 2010 interview with a Boston radio station, he offered a similarly firm statement, according to a Globe report today.
“No, I’m not gonna vote [against] something, then write letters to the government to send us money,” Ryan said at the time. “I did not request any stimulus money.”
Ryan wrote a series of letters between October and December of 2009 on behalf of the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp. and the Energy Center of Wisconsin, as the Globe reported this week.
The Wall Street Journal in 2010 reported that Ryan had also sought funds from the Department of Labor on behalf of a local group and asked his office to square that with his anti-stimulus rhetoric.
“If Congressman Ryan is asked to help a Wisconsin entity applying for existing federal grant funds, he does not believe flawed policy should get in the way of doing his job,” his office said at the time.
Lovely.Ryan doesn't believe in the goverment helping indviduals in need... but he sure wants the government to give handouts to corporations!
whembly wrote:(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats.
+
whembly wrote:Let's switch gears... remember in my previous posts that there were some good stuff (a few) the new ACA act? This acts compels healthcare professional to do something thats never really been institutionalized. I know most Hospital/PhysicianGroup Systems will continue to do this even IF the ACA act is repealed...
That is, each visit to your primary care physician/specialist/hospitalist will be "managed" by a "case manager". What this person does is that if your doctor prescribed you medications/lab tests/mri/whatever test... then that case manager attempts to make sure that you did go to the followup appointments. And if the patient comes back later for the same problem and if the institution cannot proved that the case manager did their job, then medicare won't reimburse the Dr... and private insurance has indicated that they'll require this too.
All these people talking about having their care rationed and managed. Good thing we don't have to worry about private companies deciding when we need to go to the doctor, what medicines we need, and how soon we need to get kicked out of the hospital because they want to ration our care. Would be horrible if people are all up in arms about some hypothetical scenario about government rationing of care only to find out that insurance companies are doing that already.
whembly wrote:(I stole this quote) To put it succinctly: Total Government-run health care, that is socialized medicine, inevitably leads to therationing of care: first the de facto rationing of long wait lists for needed care, following inevitably by outright government rationing, implemented by government bureaucrats.
+
whembly wrote:Let's switch gears... remember in my previous posts that there were some good stuff (a few) the new ACA act? This acts compels healthcare professional to do something thats never really been institutionalized. I know most Hospital/PhysicianGroup Systems will continue to do this even IF the ACA act is repealed...
That is, each visit to your primary care physician/specialist/hospitalist will be "managed" by a "case manager". What this person does is that if your doctor prescribed you medications/lab tests/mri/whatever test... then that case manager attempts to make sure that you did go to the followup appointments. And if the patient comes back later for the same problem and if the institution cannot proved that the case manager did their job, then medicare won't reimburse the Dr... and private insurance has indicated that they'll require this too.
= Cognitive dissonance.
true... can't argue against that...
But, it's the participants in the market that will continue to drive this if ACA is repealed. So while I hate the ACA act as a whole, that doesn't mean there some good stuff in there that we'd like to try.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:All these people talking about having their care rationed and managed. Good thing we don't have to worry about private companies deciding when we need to go to the doctor, what medicines we need, and how soon we need to get kicked out of the hospital because they want to ration our care. Would be horrible if people are all up in arms about some hypothetical scenario about government rationing of care only to find out that insurance companies are doing that already.
/sarcasm
There... fixed it for ya
So... what's the real issue then?
Is healthcare a right... as in, is it the same sort of right similar our Bill of Rights? If so, then let's get started, call the Constitution Convention and amend the consitution. That way, this unequivocally empowers the government take over/manage the healthcare industry. Only then, you can have equal-care for everyone.
The vast majority of Americans would receive equal or better care for a lower cost under a single payer or socialist system. If I look at it from a purely capitalistic perspective absent of any moral obligation to care for those that can't care for themselves, then it is directly beneficial to me for the US to have single payer system.
youbedead wrote:The vast majority of Americans would receive equal or better care for a lower cost under a single payer or socialist system. If I look at it from a purely capitalistic perspective absent of any moral obligation to care for those that can't care for themselves, then it is directly beneficial to me for the US to have single payer system.
Okay... riddle me this then...
Where are the majority of the advances in medicine? In clinical research? In new technique/treatement?
youbedead wrote:The vast majority of Americans would receive equal or better care for a lower cost under a single payer or socialist system. If I look at it from a purely capitalistic perspective absent of any moral obligation to care for those that can't care for themselves, then it is directly beneficial to me for the US to have single payer system.
Okay... riddle me this then...
Where are the majority of the advances in medicine? In clinical research? In new technique/treatement?
It depends what you're talking about, currently 12 out of the top 20 bio-medical corporations are located in the US, however the china, india and brazil are expected to meet or surpass the US rate of medical innovation primarily due to a rise in funding and education in those countries coupled with the inverse here. (one of the things I didn't like about the affordable care act is the increased tax on medical devices) If you include stem cell research then for obvious reasons the US has very little research, I believe the UK is viewed as a current world leader. However despite the fact that the discoveries are often made here the US market is generally far behind the European market for when we see those innovations implemented, often 5-10 years behind.
Here's a decent summary of the PwC survey on medical innovation
Where are the majority of the advances in medicine? In clinical research? In new technique/treatement?
The cost of medical research has relatively little to do with the cost of medical care. Sort of like how the cost of academic research has relatively little to do with the cost of higher education.
Where are the majority of the advances in medicine? In clinical research? In new technique/treatement?
Are not technology advances usually discovered through government funded research -- being in the form of research grants, military research, etc?
In the US a large number of advances are actually made through private bio-medical corporations, though if you want pure science then you will usually have to do it with gov money as their not much money in it
Romney: "[O]ur campaign would be helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues and that attacks based upon business or family or taxes or things of that nature, this is just a diversion," Romney said. He added, "I would love to have a setting where we only talk about issues." source
Translation: I deserve to be president because I'm a business leader, but since it turns out that I'm the guy that drives your business into the ground in pursuit of my personal yearly bonus, I don't think my business track record should be something we discuss.
Romney: "Our campaign would be helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues and that attacks based upon business or family or taxes or things of that nature, this is just a diversion,"
Good fething God, let Ryan take the interviews. Being ambushed by Chuck Todd is like being ambushed by a coffee.
azazel the cat wrote: Romney: "Our campaign would be helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues and that attacks based upon business or family or taxes or things of that nature, this is just a diversion,"
Good fething God, let Ryan take the interviews. Being ambushed by Chuck Todd is like being ambushed by a coffee.
I don't see how you can support someone who is so clueless and out of touch that his only chance of not being found out is to hide him from scrutiny.
...huh. Something is weird with the quote function...
d-usa wrote: All these people talking about having their care rationed and managed. Good thing we don't have to worry about private companies deciding when we need to go to the doctor, what medicines we need, and how soon we need to get kicked out of the hospital because they want to ration our care. Would be horrible if people are all up in arms about some hypothetical scenario about government rationing of care only to find out that insurance companies are doing that already.
As a former memeber of the Insurance industry, I endorse this message.
whembly wrote: Okay, you got me there... from a macro-economic standpoint, government spending could (not always) have a positive impact. What I'm trying to articulate is that all to often "government intervention" is the go-to tool to attempt to address these concerns.
I'm not sure there's much of a debate to be had here. I mean, right now there's little doubt that government spending would grow GDP given the present state of the economy. And while it is true that such spending is only a short term solution, a cyclical downturn in the economy is only a short term problem.
And all of that aside, no matter what stage of economic activity you are when you set a Federal Budget you need to factor in the impact of spending changes on total tax revenue. Ryan didn't, and that leaves his budget as something of a Fisher Price budget.
It's still a more substantive declaration of his political ideas than most any other congressman has managed to produce, mind you, which says a lot about the state of modern politics.
True... I hadn't thought about it much since that was speculated.
And to be fair I'm speculating as well. I have no idea if Rubio was offered it.
Right... but it's all about "context". If a plain jane/joe politician said this, it wouldn't be on anyone's radar. But coming from someone who "coined" the following phrases (and I'm paraphrasing):
"... you didn't build that..."
"...we have the spread the wealth around"
"...etc..."
And let me pre-empt anyone. I don't hate Obama... I don't think he's "working to destroy America"... he truly believes in these kind of things and he's been consistent (I'm not being snarky... in a politician, that's admirable).
Sure, but it has to be recognised each of the above lines has been grossly misrepresented by Romney and his team. That isn't a dig at Romney, as every campaign distorts stuff said by the other side. But it does mean none of the above should used to draw an honest description of Obama's political positions.
I think we're getting there.
I admire your optimism.
That's the disconnect I have with you.. we don't have universal healthcare. Basic healthcare isn't a "right" (whether is should be, that's a different discussion) It's a service oriented industry. This is what we have (the ACA bill doesn't really change that... might mitigate it... ).
So... through combination of bad luck, poor planning, and/or gak hits the fan... yes, medical bills can bankrupt you. At least you have a mechanism to discharge the debt.
If we didn't have that mechanism, then yes, you'd have an argument as it'll be no different that indentured slavery.
You're honestly okay with a system where a person can lose everything they had because they got sick and they either didn't have insurance or their insurance wasn't enough for that problem?
Keep in mind, if that Harvard study is right (not sure if it's been peer reviewed yet)... the 0.0017% of the population had to file for bankruptcy due to these bills.
Exactly how many hundreds of thousands of people does it have to be before its a problem?
CBO can only look at the numbers and ASSUME that the same access will be available in the future as it is today.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Not when those price controls are geared towards paying less for drugs and identifying treatments that aren't needed.
Did you know Ryan's budget has the same measures in it? Exactly the same price controls, point for point. Yet Romney and Ryan are out there claiming Obama's price controls will hurt them. Its bizarre.
With other issues... I'd agree with you. See that website I posted previous showing how pull parties are pulling away from each other. But with respect to the HCR bill.
WE. DONT. WANT. IT. Not in it's current iteration...
In Missouri, we passed a non-binding resolution two years ago rejecting the current HCR bill. It passed with 71% approval... that is unheard of on a single-issue platform.
http://kcur.org/post/proposition-c-passes
And yet if you poll the general population on each part of the bill a majority supports each part. But if you ask about HCR they sink it.
I don't just blame Republicans for how they attacked this thing. The Democrats showed a unique combination of incompetence and cowardice that only they can deliver. In the end HCR is unpopular because no-one ever really stood up and argued for it. Obama and a core of Democrats threw it at their party, made it their issue, and then they all stuffed around among themselves until they were backed into a position where they'd be more politically hurt by passing the bill than they would be dropping it.
Throughout no-one actually stood in front of the public and argued for the strong points in the bill.
Interesting about your system...
We vote every 2 years for Rep and 4 for Senator/Prez... ultimately, the responsibility falls on the voters... and most voters don't take the time to research.
We vote every 3 years for our Federal Government (although possibly earlier, as there are no fixed terms, if a government feels it cannot function under the present set up, or feels there is political advantage in an early election they can dissolve parliament and go to election).
It's weird, because we focus on our leaders as much as you do, but we don't actually vote for them. We just vote for our local member, and they all get individually elected same as your House of Reps guys. And then whoever leads the party that has a majority in that house (we call it the Lower House) becomes Prime Minister, which is broadly the same as your Prime Minister.
The weird bit is that because all the focus is on the leaders, people are often entirely unaware of who their local member is. Even though that's the only person they actually voted for.
Huh... interesting. And THANKS! I need to travel more... I'm just an ignorant mid-westerner.
Travel is always good, though having been to America I admit I understand a lot more why you guys don't travel that much, there is a hell of a lot to see there.
And thank YOU for this discussion.
Thanks. I don't know if you'd know who biccat was, as he was probably before your time, but this has been loads more fun than talking to that guy
It's a play off of the Ryan Gosling hey girl meme, which works well because Paul Ryan has voted against women's reproductive rights, health care, equal pay, and a host of other issues.
whembly wrote: Okay, you got me there... from a macro-economic standpoint, government spending could (not always) have a positive impact. What I'm trying to articulate is that all to often "government intervention" is the go-to tool to attempt to address these concerns.
I'm not sure there's much of a debate to be had here. I mean, right now there's little doubt that government spending would grow GDP given the present state of the economy. And while it is true that such spending is only a short term solution, a cyclical downturn in the economy is only a short term problem.
And all of that aside, no matter what stage of economic activity you are when you set a Federal Budget you need to factor in the impact of spending changes on total tax revenue. Ryan didn't, and that leaves his budget as something of a Fisher Price budget.
It's still a more substantive declaration of his political ideas than most any other congressman has managed to produce, mind you, which says a lot about the state of modern politics.
I guess I was excited about even having a defined "budget"... that way, we can have an honest discussion about it, rather than just passing "continuing resolutions" all the time. At least we have an idea of what he intends to engage Congress with. Remember, they'll pick it apart and add crap to it, just like any other bill. The merits of his plan is fair game, but I can pretty much guarantee you that what you see will NOT be the one Romeny will sign.
True... I hadn't thought about it much since that was speculated.
And to be fair I'm speculating as well. I have no idea if Rubio was offered it.
Wouldn't surprise me either way.
Right... but it's all about "context". If a plain jane/joe politician said this, it wouldn't be on anyone's radar. But coming from someone who "coined" the following phrases (and I'm paraphrasing):
"... you didn't build that..."
"...we have the spread the wealth around"
"...etc..."
And let me pre-empt anyone. I don't hate Obama... I don't think he's "working to destroy America"... he truly believes in these kind of things and he's been consistent (I'm not being snarky... in a politician, that's admirable).
Sure, but it has to be recognised each of the above lines has been grossly misrepresented by Romney and his team. That isn't a dig at Romney, as every campaign distorts stuff said by the other side. But it does mean none of the above should used to draw an honest description of Obama's political positions.
True... it's gutter politics... and the sad thing is... it works. Just look at the Atkins snafu.
I think we're getting there.
I admire your optimism.
I have to be sometimes... we Missourians are cynical by nature. We are the "Show Me" state (that's our motto).
That's the disconnect I have with you.. we don't have universal healthcare. Basic healthcare isn't a "right" (whether is should be, that's a different discussion) It's a service oriented industry. This is what we have (the ACA bill doesn't really change that... might mitigate it... ).
So... through combination of bad luck, poor planning, and/or gak hits the fan... yes, medical bills can bankrupt you. At least you have a mechanism to discharge the debt.
If we didn't have that mechanism, then yes, you'd have an argument as it'll be no different that indentured slavery.
You're honestly okay with a system where a person can lose everything they had because they got sick and they either didn't have insurance or their insurance wasn't enough for that problem?
You can't plan ahead for these kind of things. That's why you *could* file for bankruptcy when the feth hits the fan.
Keep in mind, if that Harvard study is right (not sure if it's been peer reviewed yet)... the 0.0017% of the population had to file for bankruptcy due to these bills.
Exactly how many hundreds of thousands of people does it have to be before its a problem?
It's a problem... bankruptcy is a tool that we all can use to get us back on our feet. I should know, I'm halfway done with mine.
CBO can only look at the numbers and ASSUME that the same access will be available in the future as it is today.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Not when those price controls are geared towards paying less for drugs and identifying treatments that aren't needed.
Did you know Ryan's budget has the same measures in it? Exactly the same price controls, point for point. Yet Romney and Ryan are out there claiming Obama's price controls will hurt them. Its bizarre.
Hmmmm... I've read both and I didn't get the same sense that they were the same mechanism. I've got some re-reading to do.
With other issues... I'd agree with you. See that website I posted previous showing how pull parties are pulling away from each other. But with respect to the HCR bill.
WE. DONT. WANT. IT. Not in it's current iteration...
In Missouri, we passed a non-binding resolution two years ago rejecting the current HCR bill. It passed with 71% approval... that is unheard of on a single-issue platform.
http://kcur.org/post/proposition-c-passes
And yet if you poll the general population on each part of the bill a majority supports each part. But if you ask about HCR they sink it.
I don't just blame Republicans for how they attacked this thing. The Democrats showed a unique combination of incompetence and cowardice that only they can deliver. In the end HCR is unpopular because no-one ever really stood up and argued for it. Obama and a core of Democrats threw it at their party, made it their issue, and then they all stuffed around among themselves until they were backed into a position where they'd be more politically hurt by passing the bill than they would be dropping it.
Throughout no-one actually stood in front of the public and argued for the strong points in the bill.
I agree with your assessment here. A better approach is to look at one piece of the puzzle and address there, instead of the whole package that no one really knows what to do.
Do you know that this bill is so complicated that HealthCare organizations had to hire more legal counsels to navigate this? It's asinine.
Interesting about your system...
We vote every 2 years for Rep and 4 for Senator/Prez... ultimately, the responsibility falls on the voters... and most voters don't take the time to research.
We vote every 3 years for our Federal Government (although possibly earlier, as there are no fixed terms, if a government feels it cannot function under the present set up, or feels there is political advantage in an early election they can dissolve parliament and go to election).
It's weird, because we focus on our leaders as much as you do, but we don't actually vote for them. We just vote for our local member, and they all get individually elected same as your House of Reps guys. And then whoever leads the party that has a majority in that house (we call it the Lower House) becomes Prime Minister, which is broadly the same as your Prime Minister.
The weird bit is that because all the focus is on the leaders, people are often entirely unaware of who their local member is. Even though that's the only person they actually voted for.
Interesting... at least we voted for the Prez.
Huh... interesting. And THANKS! I need to travel more... I'm just an ignorant mid-westerner.
Travel is always good, though having been to America I admit I understand a lot more why you guys don't travel that much, there is a hell of a lot to see there.
Heh... I've been to Paris, France and St. Thomas UVI... that's the extent of my "travels" outside of USA.
Denver, CO is cool city as my folks live in the mountains somewhere .
My Dad lived in Alaska for years... that place is surreal.
I would LOVE, LOVE to visit Australia and New Zealand (I'm a Tolkien nerd).
And thank YOU for this discussion.
Thanks. I don't know if you'd know who biccat was, as he was probably before your time, but this has been loads more fun than talking to that guy
He's around Dakka...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Question about Paul Ryan. Can someone give me the background on the "Hey Girl" part of the meme?
I'm guessing that he looks at dudes with those same puppy dog eyes and then feels shameful about it and so he overcompensates by putting on the ultra-conservative dog and pony show sthick...
Barring that, I'd bet money there is a waitress or hooker in some nowhere town that aborted his child and is living well off the "shut up and go away" money he payed her.
I'm guessing that he looks at dudes with those same puppy dog eyes and then feels shameful about it and so he overcompensates by putting on the ultra-conservative dog and pony show sthick...
Barring that, I'd bet money their is a waitress or hooker in some nowhere town that aborted his child and is living well off the "shut up and dissapear" money he payed her.
He is a time bomb ticking...
OR and here's a twist. He could just be a really nice guy who smiles a lot because he's happy. He even smiles at Wasserman while he grinds her face in her own inability to win any argument about anything ever. Then they made her the DNC chair...
But I digress. That twist though: it's in your knickers.
I think I'd put Ryan ahead of Romney in the all-unimportant "who would you rather have a beer with" category. I doubt I'd have much in common with Ryan, but it'd probably be a pleasant enough conversation, if a little dull. He'd probably have a Miller, and I wouldn't remember much of what we talked about, although I wouldn't walk away disliking the guy.
If Mitt even drinks, I imagine that it would be some kind of odd choice. Like a Zima or something. Our conversation would be halting and awkward, and I'd be the one to get up and leave early. Really not feeling it from him.
I don't get the warm fuzzies from Obama either, but he'd probably pick a solid Goose Island brew, and be engaging enough when talking sports. As long as he doesn't slip into semi-surly lecturing professorial mode, he'd be fine.
Biden would be the most fun to have a beer with by a wide margin. He's that crazy uncle who tells you all the funny stories. Delaware guy that he is, he'd probably pick something from Dogfish Head with a highish alcohol content and start buying rounds. All the laughing and carrying on would attract a small crowd at the bar. The more I think about this, the more Biden wins in a rout.
Yeah, I can see that being true. Obama is intense compared to the others, so you'd have to really hope to catch him in a relaxed state to have a good beer with him. But Biden... does anyone really take him seriously anymore? Not even democrats seem to at this point...
Which is funny, because Biden is a pretty subversive and astute politicain. I think he just plays up the old, crazy Uncle thing for the people; but he is porbably a pretty smooth background operator.
gorgon wrote: I think I'd put Ryan ahead of Romney in the all-unimportant "who would you rather have a beer with" category. I doubt I'd have much in common with Ryan, but it'd probably be a pleasant enough conversation, if a little dull. He'd probably have a Miller, and I wouldn't remember much of what we talked about, although I wouldn't walk away disliking the guy.
Well, seeing as Romney can't have a beer Ryan wins by process of elimination.
I don't get the warm fuzzies from Obama either, but he'd probably pick a solid Goose Island brew, and be engaging enough when talking sports. As long as he doesn't slip into semi-surly lecturing professorial mode, he'd be fine.
I've actually met him a couple times in a semi-private setting*. He's a nice guy, and reminds me of several people I went to college with (Mind, I went to college with lots of future academics.), but I can definitely see how others might be put off by him.
*He used to play basketball at the health club I managed.
Biden would be the most fun to have a beer with by a wide margin. He's that crazy uncle who tells you all the funny stories. Delaware guy that he is, he'd probably pick something from Dogfish Head with a highish alcohol content and start buying rounds. All the laughing and carrying on would attract a small crowd at the bar. The more I think about this, the more Biden wins in a rout.
Biden doesn't drink, though he would still be a fun guy to be around.
I thought Mormons couldn't drink alcohol That's one black mark against Romney! /sarcasm
Biden seems like a fun guy to hang out with... even though I have no idea what he really stands for. But, you gotta admit, you can't be where he's at if you weren't good with people.
And what's with that pinkie?
Disclaimer: My g'pa does this... and he's is about as manly, old school, alpha dude you can get.
gorgon wrote: I think I'd put Ryan ahead of Romney in the all-unimportant "who would you rather have a beer with" category. I doubt I'd have much in common with Ryan, but it'd probably be a pleasant enough conversation, if a little dull. He'd probably have a Miller, and I wouldn't remember much of what we talked about, although I wouldn't walk away disliking the guy.
Well, seeing as Romney can't have a beer Ryan wins by process of elimination.
Well, it's a hypothetical. He could still have an O'Douls, if that's still around. Besides, there are plenty of Muslims who drink and plenty of Catholics who get it on for reasons other than procreation.
Biden would be the most fun to have a beer with by a wide margin. He's that crazy uncle who tells you all the funny stories. Delaware guy that he is, he'd probably pick something from Dogfish Head with a highish alcohol content and start buying rounds. All the laughing and carrying on would attract a small crowd at the bar. The more I think about this, the more Biden wins in a rout.
Biden doesn't drink, though he would still be a fun guy to be around.
And I believe I know why, now that I think about it for a second. Bad comment on my part. Carry on.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Okay... I've proven you wrong multiple times... and I've asked you numerous times... I will ask you once again:
Please stop claiming that Canadian health care cuts services. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence beyond anecdotal right-wing op-ed pieces (hereafter to be referred to as "fabricated bs').
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Okay... I've proven you wrong multiple times... and I've asked you numerous times... I will ask you once again:
Please stop claiming that Canadian health care cuts services. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence beyond anecdotal right-wing op-ed pieces (hereafter to be referred to as "fabricated bs').
You're missing my point man. I've already provided them in that other thread.
Anytime any government needs to control cost (one way is price control), services are impacted. That's all I'm saying.... meaning that, you may have to wait, or get that service elsewere, or pay higher co-pay, etc...
You can't just cut re-imbursement and expect the institution to NOT respond to it.
Besides... wrong thread, I'm done discussing this here.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Okay... I've proven you wrong multiple times... and I've asked you numerous times... I will ask you once again:
Please stop claiming that Canadian health care cuts services. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence beyond anecdotal right-wing op-ed pieces (hereafter to be referred to as "fabricated bs').
You're missing my point man. I've already provided them in that other thread.
Anytime any government needs to control cost (one way is price control), services are impacted. That's all I'm saying.... meaning that, you may have to wait, or get that service elsewere, or pay higher co-pay, etc...
You can't just cut re-imbursement and expect the institution to NOT respond to it.
Besides... wrong thread, I'm done discussing this here.
Ya don't seem to get it. You have not cited ANYTHING of value. Every single citation you have made (I know 'cause I read 'em) has been little more than "Joe-The-GOP's-Submissive's Blog"
In Canada, we do not curb the health care costs. It is by far the biggest chunk of our federal budget, every single year, and we are fine with that.
I don't care where you discuss it, but when you do please refrain from intentionally repeating falsehoods.
Once more, with feeling: Canada does not ration healthcare.
SHould have kept it on the photochop thread.....now the perception is the Romney/Ryan Green Elephant Chapter is the savior of mankind.....actually the US.....
Does anyone else see any similarities between Sarah Palin ( arguably one of the hottest female politicians ever) with Ryan (who is apparently very hot to the female voters)?
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does anyone else see any similarities between Sarah Palin ( arguably one of the hottest female politicians ever) with Ryan (who is apparently very hot to the female voters)?
I mean sex sells but come own GOP
Sarah Palin isn't unattractive per se, but "hot" is a vast overstatement.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does anyone else see any similarities between Sarah Palin ( arguably one of the hottest female politicians ever) with Ryan (who is apparently very hot to the female voters)?
I mean sex sells but come own GOP
Sarah Palin isn't unattractive per se, but "hot" is a vast overstatement.
I dont think shes anything special but name me a hotter female politician in american history. or the rest of the world for the matter. I mean i dont remember too many pornos being made for Indira Gandhi.
When price controls are introduced, services will get cut. Numerous examples with Canadian and NHS of this.
Okay... I've proven you wrong multiple times... and I've asked you numerous times... I will ask you once again:
Please stop claiming that Canadian health care cuts services. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence beyond anecdotal right-wing op-ed pieces (hereafter to be referred to as "fabricated bs').
You're missing my point man. I've already provided them in that other thread.
Anytime any government needs to control cost (one way is price control), services are impacted. That's all I'm saying.... meaning that, you may have to wait, or get that service elsewere, or pay higher co-pay, etc...
You can't just cut re-imbursement and expect the institution to NOT respond to it.
Besides... wrong thread, I'm done discussing this here.
Ya don't seem to get it. You have not cited ANYTHING of value. Every single citation you have made (I know 'cause I read 'em) has been little more than "Joe-The-GOP's-Submissive's Blog"
In Canada, we do not curb the health care costs. It is by far the biggest chunk of our federal budget, every single year, and we are fine with that.
I don't care where you discuss it, but when you do please refrain from intentionally repeating falsehoods.
Once more, with feeling: Canada does not ration healthcare.
Do you not understand what the word "rationing" even mean?
In this thread, I'm NOT arguing if the Canadian single payor is superior/lacking to US system... so, stop jumping down my throat in this... jeez... take a chill pill... m'kay?
EVERY healthcare system ration care!!! Rationing for some reason is a dirty word in politics, but it's ALWAYS been there.
Rationing is no more rare in a for-profit system than it is in a publicly-funded one... the only difference is the method of rationing we choose to use. The Canadian solution is to provide services up to a certain level with some barriers to access, such as waiting times(ps, what's up with the refugee cuts, which is another form of rationing). The American solution is to curtail the number of people who are able to access any level of care.
The Canadian model are notorious for long wait times compared to those in the US. But generally, this model covers the majority of health care needs.
The American model are notorious for knocking people of rolls, access for the poor, insurance won't cover certain pre-existing condition, etc... but, this system ensures that everyone who can get care gets it quickly and to the extent they want/can pay for.
These solutions have different effects, and for reasons of both on ethical and personal/economic outcomes, the Canadian model is often argued as superior. Conversely, due to the for-profit system in the American model, we are consistently pushing the technological/medical advances.
So both systems have great qualities as well as some worts... there IS no perfect system.
So... here's an olive branch...
If you want to discuss this further... start up another thread.
This is about Romney/Ryan and in the spirit of this thread:
Just googling her name made me laugh at some of the pictures. Yep def hotter. I could bring up scale as the vast majority of people have never heard of her, but again I was proven wrong here lol.
Still would feth Palin though. But ill never like blondes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ah I dunno still would feth Warren too. For some reason. Dont act like you dont have guilty thoughts.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does anyone else see any similarities between Sarah Palin ( arguably one of the hottest female politicians ever) with Ryan (who is apparently very hot to the female voters)?
I mean sex sells but come own GOP
Not really, no. While I'm no fan of Ryan's, combining the words "intelligent" and "Paul Ryan" don't make me break out in fits of hysterical laughter the way I do when doing the same with ""Sarah Palin."
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does anyone else see any similarities between Sarah Palin ( arguably one of the hottest female politicians ever) with Ryan (who is apparently very hot to the female voters)?
I mean sex sells but come own GOP
Not really, no. While I'm no fan of Ryan's, combining the words "intelligent" and "Paul Ryan" don't make me break out in fits of hysterical laughter the way I do when doing the same with ""Sarah Palin."
On paper there is very little difference between them. And that is what counts (or what is once again scary in this case)...
did he say this w/o the teleprompter again?
