Re: US Presidential Election 2012

by Mirabella Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:07 am

Republicans... Sad

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:06 am

Interesting piece from the BBC on how Europe has become a dirty word in the Republican debates.

'Iain Murray, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a right-wing Washington DC think-tank, says: "I don't think what Obama is doing is socialist.
"Rather, it's more EU-style social democracy; a government with a large, central welfare state, powerful government departments, large, state-supported, but not state-owned, commercial entities, and tax rates appropriate to pay for it.
"Americans call it socialism because they don't really understand socialism, never having experienced socialism. They experienced progressivism, which is subtly different."'

They also provide this comparitive chart of welfare and health between major Euro countries and the US.

US Presidential Election 2012 - Page 7 Comp

US Presidential Election 2012 - Page 7 Comp

Strange that from a UK persepective the US has appaling Health cover for its people at a cost twice that of GDP than the UK and is higher than any of th emajor euro countries who all have free health care in one form or another. How I am not sure- surely not having a health serivce can't cost more than having one?! scratch

by David H Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:20 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote: Europe has become a dirty word in the Republican debates.

Nothing new here. Europe has been a dirty word in political rhetoric since before the Revolution. The Republicans just like to go back to founding principles.

Strange that from a UK persepective the US has appaling Health cover for its people at a cost twice that of GDP than the UK and is higher than any of th emajor euro countries who all have free health care in one form or another. How I am not sure- surely not having a health serivce can't cost more than having one?!

No mystery here either. Of course our broken system is less efficient than your working one. Rolling Eyes

Through the first half of the 20th century we were in the vanguard on health care. Our Social Security, Welfare, and Federal Heathcare, and University research programs are just remnants of those days. The insurance companies filled the gaps, which were expected to get smaller and smaller as time went by. Hospitals were considered charitable institutions, and nobody had yet dreamed of the phrase "healthcare industry".

But it all took a wrong turn in the 60's and 70's. You saw insurance companies putting up giant chrome and glass skyscrapers and building sports stadiums. Insurance premiums skyrocketed as the companies diversified and tried to woo investment capital. Malpractice suits with multimillion dollar settlements became common, which in turn drove up the cost of malpractice insurance to heathcare providers. Meanwhile Kaiser Permanente and others brought modern management to heathcare and made it a true industry, which in time became more interested in profits than quality of service, becoming a major sector of the economy. And of course now the healthcare and insurance industries support one of the largest lobbying interests in Washington DC. They insure that their friends in DC get good jobs when they decide to leave public service, and they do their best to insure that their detractors don't get re-elected.

All this cost money of course. So of course we pay more than you do. But just look at how much we're getting for it! Extremely Crabbit

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:35 pm

It does slightly amaze me in the age of the internet when Americans can compare their health service to those of the rest of the industrialised worlds and see its shocking that they appear not to notice.

by David H Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:59 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:It does slightly amaze me in the age of the internet when Americans can compare their health service to those of the rest of the industrialised worlds and see its shocking that they appear not to notice.

I'm not sure what your sources of information are, but I'd think the internet would be able to show you how many Americans DO notice. You're not listening to a Rupert Murdock news source now, are you? Twisted Evil

The truth is almost everybody knows there needs to be major change. They just can't agree on which change. And that's where political rhetoric can divide and conquer.

And the other factor is fear. In a shipwreck, those who've managed to make it into a lifeboat may know it's not the best place to be, but they can be very hesitant to leave it all the same.

by Eldorion Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:41 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:It does slightly amaze me in the age of the internet when Americans can compare their health service to those of the rest of the industrialised worlds and see its shocking that they appear not to notice.

David H does a good job of explaining the American health care system but I wanted to address this. Remember the conversation about American exceptionalism recently? There are a lot of ways that belief system is drilled into Americans from a very early age, the most notable probably being schools, the media, and some (mostly conservative) churches. It's also reinforced every election season as politicians up the rhetoric about how great America is in order to court voters. (They also talk about how American needs to regain greatness, but when the contradiction is pointed out they have no answer). Unfortunately the Internet is just as effective a tool for reinforcing these beliefs as it is for dispelling them.

The end result is that a lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction against adopting policies that have been successful in other countries because that would admit that America's previous policies were not the best. Combine that with lingering anti-Communist fears that are very effective at shutting off people's critical thinking skills and the "stay the course" mentality that keeps everything from the War on Terror to the War on Drugs going no matter how wasteful and ineffective they are and you have a recipe for preserving the health care status quo more or less intact. The lobbying money and political influence wielded by the health care industry is just the icing on the cake.

by David H Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:37 pm

Eldo, I think you and I agee substantially on all points, and the dogma of American exceptionalism certainly does play into it. Where we may differ slightly is in perspective. From were I sit, whenever you see a "stay the course" policy you don't have to dig deeply to find a group of people making billions of dollars.

The Cold War gave us the Military Industrial Complex and all the porkbarrel gov't contracts that kept congressmen in power for decades.

The War on Drugs came at a convenient time with the break-up of the USSR when it was hard to justify an ever-expanding military. (I also have a friend who was once in a place to know such things who swears that we were trying to stabilize the cocaine prices to help some of our Latin American strong men friends Shocked

You can take or leave that one).

Besides justifying further increases to the military budget and huge expenditures to NGO"s such as Haliburton,The War on Terror may have had something to do with American oil interests Embarassed

The healthcare lobby my not be quite as big as the military lobby, but without them we would have certainly had major healthcare reform under Clinton. Hilary put a lot of effort into that and there was a lot of support at most levels and on both sides of the isle, but the lobby effectively shut it down.

Eldorion wrote:
Combine that with lingering anti-Communist fears that are very effective at shutting off people's critical thinking skills and the "stay the course" mentality that keeps everything from the War on Terror to the War on Drugs going no matter how wasteful and ineffective they are and you have a recipe for preserving the health care status quo more or less intact. The lobbying money and political influence wielded by the health care industry is just the icing on the cake.

by leelee Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:36 pm

David H wrote:Eldo, I think you and I agee substantially on all points, and the dogma of American exceptionalism certainly does play into it. Where we may differ slightly is in perspective. From were I sit, whenever you see a "stay the course" policy you don't have to dig deeply to find a group of people making billions of dollars.

The Cold War gave us the Military Industrial Complex and all the porkbarrel gov't contracts that kept congressmen in power for decades.

The War on Drugs came at a convenient time with the break-up of the USSR when it was hard to justify an ever-expanding military. (I also have a friend who was once in a place to know such things who swears that we were trying to stabilize the cocaine prices to help some of our Latin American strong men friends You can take or leave that one).

Besides justifying further increases to the military budget and huge expenditures to NGO"s such as Haliburton,The War on Terror may have had something to do with American oil interests

The healthcare lobby my not be quite as big as the military lobby, but without them we would have certainly had major healthcare reform under Clinton. Hilary put a lot of effort into that and there was a lot of support at most levels and on both sides of the isle, but the lobby effectively shut it down.

Eldorion wrote:
Combine that with lingering anti-Communist fears that are very effective at shutting off people's critical thinking skills and the "stay the course" mentality that keeps everything from the War on Terror to the War on Drugs going no matter how wasteful and ineffective they are and you have a recipe for preserving the health care status quo more or less intact. The lobbying money and political influence wielded by the health care industry is just the icing on the cake.

I believe it David having had to attend too many closed meetings of politicians and take notes as a news reporter, then bury the reports as directed by the owners of the papers, my real role was merely to get the facts and file them so the powers that be could refer to them when denying categorically these things should the people become restless and testy. And, having watched some footage, a lot of footage of the Reagan Era and Olliver North, I clearly see that he who holds the money, and the guns can pretty much sway whatever they feel like and will do so until "we the people' the American people that we Canadians respect and emulate to a degree, til all of them stand up and say no like they did to Britain and then do something about it. It would have to be all encompassing and drastic.
Whatever any one else says I have always thought of the United States as being that big brother who lets any Tom Dick or Harry with a story into the arms of Lady Liberty and always runs here there and everywhere trying to protect all and ends up being terribly shocked when all the hucksters and gangsters and smoke and mirror folk have taken over while the good guys worked and sweated and gave their all, even for those very bad guys.
You are all protocol and we Canadians, while being perhaps softer spoken and polite like our gracious Queen and all that , we are rather clan like when things happen and tend to go off on a tangent alone. Take our former Prime Minister Chretian, he was harassed by a heckler, so instead of waiting for the secret service to grab the person, he himself grabbed him, got him in a head lock and er... did him a little damage. Or his wife sometime later, one of the guards seems to have fallen asleep or whatever, an intruder had entered the home and meant to do evil. She merely grabbed a kitchen knife and chased after him. Embarassed

Or another prime minister who irritated a crowd so they did the practical thing, hurled tomotoes by the bucket at him, the ones that were not good for the farmer's market anyway. Nothing was done about it. Your country just seems to take so much abuse, often from the very folk homegrown or imported that you bend over backwards to help. The answer is not a presidential election unless that candidate has a fleet of good people, that can't or won't be bought or pressured into something that only helps those sharks out there that could care less if America falls.

by David H Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:38 am

leelee wrote:Take our former Prime Minister Chretian, he was harassed by a heckler, so instead of waiting for the secret service to grab the person, he himself grabbed him, got him in a head lock and er... did him a little damage. Or his wife sometime later, one of the guards seems to have fallen asleep or whatever, an intruder had entered the home and meant to do evil. She merely grabbed a kitchen knife and chased after him.

That's leadership! Laughing

by halfwise Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:11 am

Despite all America's screwed up problems, immigrants keep pouring in. In the last few decades they have been pouring into Europe too, I wonder how the rates compare? May have to go research that.

While enjoying Amsterdam once I asked one quite liberal Dutch friend why, if things seemed so pleasant and orderly in Europe, why did Europeans keep coming to America and staying?

He didn't have to think very long: he said in Europe nearly all the business niches are filled, but in America new ones keep opening up. I'm not sure there's a clear reason why this is so. It could be the very liberal bankruptcy laws in America, in which failure is actually protected. It's surely not our political system. Lower taxes may have something to do with it as well.

I don't believe the Republican knee-jerk mantra that lower taxes will produce more government revenue, but it's not a completely pea-brained idea, it's just a question of where the bliss point lies. I'm inclined to believe the balanced budget during the Clinton era signals that was the right tax level, though much of the balance came from cutting the defense budget. If we can cut our defense and stay close to the tax rate we have now (a little lower than during the Clinton years except for the rich) we may be okay. But the rich man loopholes need to be closed.

As far as the current crop of candidates go, I still enjoy having a president who actually thinks things through for a change, even if the domestic accomplishments are close to nil. Obama is a refreshing pragmatist.

If Romney would act the way he used to as governor of massachusetts instead of kow-towing to the wacko right I think I could tolerate him. I know business likes him, and though I'm not really on the side of business I recognize that half of a strong economy is state of mind....money is a mental construct, because most of it is credit.

by The Archet Bugle Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:27 am

BUGLE MAKES NO COMMENT

by **Orwell** Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:30 am

halfwise wrote:If Romney would act the way he used to as governor of massachusetts instead of kow-towing to the wacko right I think I could tolerate him. I know business likes him, and though I'm not really on the side of business I recognize that half of a strong economy is state of mind....money is a mental construct, because most of it is credit.

For some reason you made me think of 'growth'. As I perceive it, 'perpetual' growth will lead inevitably to a "dead barren polluted planet'. Not alarmism, just a willingness to look at cause and effect globally. Making more money means more consumption (in it's broadest terms). At the base level, every human being wants it good, but if every human on the planet gets it good, it can only be short lived.

Space-voyaging ships may be our only long term answer. Once we're done with this planet, we'll have to go somewhere else to survive as a species. The up side is that we might find God out there somewhere, who knows? That can't be bad, can it? I hope it's Illuvatar

by David H Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:35 am

You know, Orwell, as much as it pains me to admit it, I can't disagree with anything you say. Sad

As a farmer I have about 200 acres I try to keep in a sustainable balance, so I'm very much aware of how unbalanced most of developed society is. A dense population like a city will never be able to produce all its own water, food, fuel, energy, etc. (Even labor is being outsourced now Mad

) That means that it has to acquire its resources and wealth by exploiting some other area's "surplus" wealth, often over the objections of the residents of the other area. That's why we fight wars.

It's almost a definition of "civilization", and every politician since the Roman Empire has known that that's what's expected of him/her. As a farmer I'm complicit by producing more food than can be used locally in return for exploited wealth from all corners of the globe (not easy to find, BTW

) That's normal economics.

I think everybody who's looked at the development of outer space understands that the world is getting smaller and more developed year by year, and soon there won't be enough underdeveloped land (or people) in the world for the growing developed world to exploit. For that there's no easy answer.

Especially for the atheists.

by **Orwell** Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:01 am

I would like to build a space-voyager, possibly a space-liner*. Are you good with your hands, David, because I'm having trouble putting one togethe? Especially on a mere acre of land with gumtree timber which is utter crap to work with when constructing a spacecraft I've found. Mad

You seem to have more space than I have, that might be a start. If you grow cattle, we could make it out of bones and hide. Ethically sound, unless you're a vegetarian. If you're a vegetarian, it may have to be carrots, which will be marginally more diffficult, methinks, though I'm no an engineer. Very Happy

*We could call it the "Ruby Slipper". It could slip serenely through the galaxy. Cool. Cool

by David H Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:09 am

Orwell wrote:
*We could call it the "Ruby Slipper".

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:28 am

Especially for the atheists.- David

I reckon the christians will have the hardest time when the world is devoid of resources- at least the atheist can die smug saying 'I told you so' whilst the Christians will still be on their knees and will die thinking 'it's all going to be all right because the Bilbe says God made the earth for man so we must be all right!'

by David H Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:11 am

I'm not sure I see how dying smug is all that superior to dying hopeful. scratch

But I was just speaking to who had the easiest answers, since most major religions have these down pat.
If you'd like to provide an easy answer to "the end of the world as we know it" from an atheistic perspective I'd be more than happy to consider it.

If it's truly easy I'll even edit my post. Wink

by **Orwell** Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:16 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I reckon the christians will have the hardest time when the world is devoid of resources- at least the atheist can die smug saying 'I told you so' whilst the Christians will still be on their knees and will die thinking 'it's all going to be all right because the Bilbe says God made the earth for man so we must be all right!'

Small comfort, Petty, but a better way to go than they'll have. Very Happy

Without false expectation. I hope I'll be there at the end and be able to ask, "Hey! Where's your Messiah now?" Then I'll have a lovely eternal sleep after that, free of care, and even better, free of Religious folk. Nirvana. flower

by David H Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:24 am

Wait, I thought we were building a spaceship and leaving Petty with the dead Christians. Are you just mad a me because I didn't like that stupid name?

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:26 am

Science. Easy enough? Very Happy

ok to give a bit more detail- the production of of food and medicines by creation from the atomic level up, self built artficially to provide greater levels of what humans need but contained in smaller amounts of produce- there is also a possible need in the future for some form of population control such as China has but so far at least nature has a tendency to wipe out a lot of humans every so often and balance the numbers (the world population has continued to rise but not by anything like the dire predictions made in the 60's and 70's- one of the factors in this was the appearence and subsequent global death toll from AIDS- an example of nature coming up with something we cant yet deal with and so naturally curbing our numbers).
Science should also be able to provide the energy sources needed- there are many new ways in development of generating power and we will only get better at this stuff.
Farming needs to be organised, like all resource management, globally by a central body- dividing the planet up into bits, calling them countires then acting like one does not effect the other is an idea which is under heavy erosion. It is immently sensible when trying to protect, organise and manage things like global resources that it be dealt with at a global scale not an individual country one.
And there is also the long term possibility of expansion into space- if the moon does have water on it then perhaps it is possible to look one day to the Star Trek future of a colony up there and a Lake Armstrong! But more likely in the short term is the exploiting of resources from nearby planets via robots- of which the Mars Rover is the zx81 of its day.

So there you go, a bunch of ideas that could save humanity, and all from science. The Christians can claim its all unnatural and against God if they like and rely on waiting on Him to come down with his angels in the final days and good luck to them- I would rather put my trust in science which has provided us with an uncountable amount of useful things where as God is like the ultimate politicians- its hardship today on the never delivered promise of good things tomorrow. And as they have since the begining Christians will die waiting.

Orwell if I am there when it happens (I hope not) I hope to be with some religous folk, and whilst they spend their last minute praying to be saved by their magical friend I think I'll be taking huge amounts of drink, drugs and prostitutes! Very Happy

by Kafria Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:35 am

Why this assumtion that christians expect the earth to be our only home? A bit small scale thinking to me. God made the earth for man, to do that he had to create the whole universe. So naturally - the whole universe is for man! Very Happy

by David H Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:42 am

Frankly you disappoint me Petty. I'd been hoping you'd propose a solution based on Scottish thrift. That would be a much more likely solution to my mind, since the problem is fundamentally based on human greed.

For me, faith in science or nature is hard to distinguish from any other faith. I've explored most of them and they're remarkably similar.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:47 am

And is the whole universe Kafria, like the earth (according to the bible) there for man to exploit and do with as he pleases?
If there is other life out there (a very distinct possibility) is that sort of thinking not going to lead to some very serious problems if we ever meet?
What if their God says the universe is there for them to exploit? (And if our planet is anything to go by we've had thousands of Gods come and go in our short time on this planet so they might have them too)

David science is not a faith. I have never seen it as such, for me its a hammer, or a saw- its a tool to be used to make stuff and along the way, to make something, you first have to understand it. Much better than religion.

Scottish thrift would sadly not work- much of humanities problems comes from trying to pretend we are not like we really are- truth is I want my central heating, my pc and internet, my films and tv and the convience of buying food from all over the world in one big shop (even whlst I hypocritically lament the loss of the high stret and small retailers)- humans are like that, we are better off accepting that we dont want to have less we want more, and the only way that is even vaguely possible is through scientific advance, not prayer. And all the prayer in the world won't help us one bit- how many prayers said since man began I wonder? Billions upon billions- and yet human nature has yet to alter one degree.

by **Orwell** Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:55 am

David H wrote:Wait, I thought we were building a spaceship and leaving Petty with the dead Christians. Are you just mad a me because I didn't like that stupid name?

I didnt know you didn't like my name? Shocked

Orwell McOdo! What's wrong with it? Mad

Btw, so you liked the Carrot Plan (Plan A) then? That's GREEEAT! Very Happy

As to standing with Petty laughing at those pathetic Christians, that's Plan B, put in place just in case - for some unforseen reason - Plan A doesn't come to fruition. Nod

by **Orwell** Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:59 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:So there you go, a bunch of ideas that could save humanity, and all from science. The Christians can claim its all unnatural and against God if they like and rely on waiting on Him to come down with his angels in the final days and good luck to them- I would rather put my trust in science which has provided us with an uncountable amount of useful things where as God is like the ultimate politicians- its hardship today on the never delivered promise of good things tomorrow. And as they have since the begining Christians will die waiting.

Ideas are fine. Getting all humans to be as selfless as to agree to and abide by them is the tricky bit. I guess there could be a first time for everything. Very Happy

I'm adjusting Plan B to include protitutes btw.