US Presidential Election 2012

I really do wonder what Americans think they are payiing their elected officials to do? If they dont provide decent transport infrastucture, health care, housing and unemployment benefit, sickness benefits for the ill and permantly unable to work and state pensions then what are they doing exactly?

Keeping us free from the creeping menace of socialism, naturally.

{{{ I wish I had a better answer, Petty. I really do. }}}

A true American neo-conservative believes the only thing the American government should spend money on is national defense. It sounds like a spoof, but it's no exaggeration.

This might seem like a silly question- but what then do Americans think they are paying their taxes for?- it can't just be wars surely?!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:This might seem like a silly question- but what then do Americans think they are paying their taxes for?- it can't just be wars surely?!

Equal to the military budget are the Social Security budget and the Medicare/Medicaid budget. Together those 3 make up over 60% of the national budget.

Originally the thought had been to bring a basic public social safety net first to the elderly and handicapped then expand it gradually to cover everybody, rather than implementing it all at once. Intuitively it makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately it was never completed.

The threat to the insurance industry was clear, and they've fought back with both lobbying and PR efforts. Now Americans don't know what they want! Just look at how confused the polls are right now. The vast majority of voters favor the provisions of the new healthcare reform but oppose the reform itself, some because it feels like socialism as Eldo says (the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong), others because they would prefer a fully government-run system rather than mandatory private insurance (the compromise of appeasement to the insurance industry that allowed the bill to pass) .

This week's Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Healthcare Bill will be very interesting indeed!

Dave raises an interesting point by mentioning Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Those three programs are absolutely strangling the budget (along with defense spending) but they're all sacred cows. While the average American is appalled at the notion of socialism, or "European-style" welfare states, the closest thing America has to a welfare system is a political third rail (touch it and you die). Perhaps this is because they are heavily age-biased. Social security benefits are only made available to a person when they're in their 60s. Medicare is a government-funded health care program (sound familiar to anyone?) designed for the elderly and Medicaid is one for the poor, although Medicaid benefits are disproportionately received by the elderly.

The costs from these three programs far outweigh everything else in the non-military budget and the costs are only continuing to increase as more Baby Boomers retire. The problem is worsened because there are fewer people entering the workforce since the post-Boomer generations were smaller. (This is a problem that's effecting pretty much the entire First World to some extent.) This wouldn't be as much of a problem if Social Security functioned by putting away money from the current working generation and saving it for them until they retire. However, social security draws on the taxes of the current working generation to pay for the current retired generation. Hence the looming demographic crisis.

Relatively recently signs bearing variations of the slogan "get your government hands off my medicaid" became a minor Internet phenomenon because of the breathtaking ignorance and hypocrisy contained in such a simple slogan. Undoubtedly some of these signs are jokes from people who saw the original news reports and found them to be funny. And I have lolled at them too. But it would be funnier if there weren't so many people who really do believe some variety of this, albeit not in such an obviously stupid wording. The phrase "socialized medicine" needs to be eliminated from the English language, but if that's what Clinton's and Obama's health care reform proposals were, then Medicare and Medicaid are absolutely "socialized medicine" too. However, they haven't had the stigma of "socialist" attached to them. I suspect this is because the Republican Party, whose members are the originators of most socialist-related slurs, is stronger among older voters, and are therefore afraid to touch the Big Three social welfare programs.

They're never going to call them welfare programs though, because that's another toxic word. I think I've mentioned on this forum before how you get radically different survey results if you ask Americans if they support "welfare programs" or "programs for the poor". It's not that Americans are all heartless bastards, but rather that our political environment (and to some degree our entire culture) has been poisoned by an absurd phobia of all things "socialist" for decades. Politicians on the right exploit this fear for electoral gain even though their opponents on the "left" are already further right than nearly all mainstream parties in Western Europe. But even though most Democrats would appear uncomfortably extreme in the company of British Tories, they're still constantly terrified of being accused of socialism. So the entire spectrum continues to drift further right.

For most people, politics is just a confusing mess of buzzwords and tribalistic emotions. The criminally negligent news media in this country only encourages that for the sake of ratings. Both parties like to claim that they're lowering taxes, and their only real disagreement is on whether the rich or the poor should bear the greater burden (academic types like to call this progressive versus regressive taxation). The recurring theme is always about lowering taxes, however, because that's what people want to hear. So both parties like to pretend that they can end the deficit without significantly raising taxes. However, they can't cut any of the big programs throttling the budget either, because powerful special interests and the attack-dog media will slaughter anyone who wants to shrink the military, social security, or medicare/medicaid. So instead you see politicians ranting on and on about the evils of pork-barrel spending for local districts, or food stamps, or what have you.

Wanna know the dirty little secret of American politics? All of that amounts to jack. The budget will never be fixed without addressing SS/MM because the costs from those programs already dwarf everything else and the costs are only continuing to rise as the population as a whole gets older. Pork spending, which is a common target of vitriol (John McCain especially loved to talk about this) amounts for less than 1% of the federal budget. Politicians love to use retarded analogies to home life, talking about how if you're in debt, you stop spending so much. (If Americans really didn't do this the fiscal crisis wouldn't be as bad as it is/was, but that's another issue.) But instead of talking about the real issues, we get endless debate over "bridges to nowhere" or "beaver research" or whatever the latest strawman pork project the media has decided to string up is. Because the politicians can't go after the big money-guzzlers for fear of their jobs. The Tea Party learned this the hard way when a wave of political novices rode the populist wave into Congress back in 2010 by promising to roll back government spending and were shocked to find out that their constituents didn't actually want an end to social security or medicare. Outside of an extreme minority of libertarians and near-libertarians, nobody does.

America has a deficit because we spend more money than we have coming in. That's the definition of a deficit. Ideally, we'd like to fix both: spend less money AND have more coming in. Instead, our political system is making BOTH problems worse. Ordinary Americans demand that we cut taxes, so we have even less coming in. Those same ordinary Americans demand benefits from bloated, broken programs that are far past their expiration date or intended purpose. So we're spending even more. If we had a functional government-run health care program we'd be much better off, but instead we have a jury-rigged system of programs that were never supposed to be this big. It's an untenable situation. Both parties try to take a side and blame the other one for perpetuating the problem, but the reality is that they are both complicit in ignoring the real situation in favor of their little world of make-believe where there is actually a left/right divide in this country.

Petty asked what Americans think their tax dollars are being spent on. You're all probably sick of hearing me list the same few programs over and over, but they expect it to be spent on the military, on social security, and on medicare and medicaid. But (except for the military) you can't be too enthusiastic about it, because that means you're a socialist. And not everyone seems to fully grasp that the same government that takes your taxes actually pays for grandma's hospital bills too. I guess my point is, ordinary Americans themselves don't know what they want the government to do, because they don't have a clue how it works or what to expect of it. It'd be funny if these people didn't elect the President.

So that post turned into a bloated, angry rant (not unlike the American political system) and I'm also very tired and I don't know if it actually makes a lick of sense. Let me know if it's just a bunch of incoherent pissing and moaning when I wake up, but I'm going to bed now.

Eldorion wrote:It'd be funny if these people didn't elect the President.

I respectfully disagree. I think it's still funny

I would be interested to know what Americans think of the British Welfare State, do they think its all a bit too socialist?

That was a great post Eldo answeredmany questions I have (including strangely enough one which has been about since the early 80's when I watched Trading PLaces- now I get he fascination with Pork Markets!)

But I am still somehwat confused- the US seems to have the main social welfare programs Europeans tend to have- you have medical cover and you have medical help for pensioners- so how come everyone needs private medicine too?

Interesting question Mrs Figg- I would guess from a certain US persepctive we Europeans are just a bunch of commies. Let the Yanks speak!

Just to hop a little off topic (but not far) yesterday the Uk Govt went back on a schedulded fuel price hike of 3p and cancelled it- good news for drivers, bad news in that it leaves about a 500 million deficit in the governemnts spending plans.
But in what is painful at times TV the government sent a Treasury Minister onto Newsnight to explain why, their U-turn and the last minute nature of the decision- she is interiewed by the infamous Jeremy Paxman who tears her into little shreds and feeds the leftovers to his wolves. Shame on the Chancellor for leaving his Junior Minister to the Paxman teeth for a mauling.
Sadly it probably does not play outside the UK and I cant find it on youtube yet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18606060

That video actually did play for me (I think it's just iPlayer that's region-locked; BBC News seems to be worldwide) and it was alternately painful and hilarious. I feel a little bit bad for the Junior Minister who was obviously fed lines ahead of time but at the same time I have little sympathy for deliberate obfuscation.

I've not heard of this Jeremy Paxman before but he seems like a tough interviewer, something that is remarkably rare in the U.S. media. Did they go on to discuss anything about fuel prices or did she continue to stonewall at every turn?

Paxman is a legend in the UK. He helms the nightly BBC news program Newsnight.

Heres some classic Paxman- and the above interview in full.





He even got an appearence in the political satire (and utterly brilliant but extrememly sweary) The Thick of It.

Mrs Figg wrote:I would be interested to know what Americans think of the British Welfare State, do they think its all a bit too socialist?

In short: yes. A lot of Americans are under the impression that the British welfare state (especially it's health care system) is broken, along with the rest of the EU and Canada. That's what we're told by conservative politicians and media and a lot of people believe it. Europe in general is seen as tainted by socialism and a very bad model. It's a common attack to say that Obama or other Democratic politicians are trying to make America "like Europe" and it's often quite an effective piece of rhetoric.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:That was a great post Eldo answeredmany questions I have (including strangely enough one which has been about since the early 80's when I watched Trading PLaces- now I get he fascination with Pork Markets!)

But I am still somehwat confused- the US seems to have the main social welfare programs Europeans tend to have- you have medical cover and you have medical help for pensioners- so how come everyone needs private medicine too?

Interesting question Mrs Figg- I would guess from a certain US persepctive we Europeans are just a bunch of commies. Let the Yanks speak!

Thanks Petty. The thing about Medicare and Medicaid is that they cover only a portion of the population. If you're not old or extremely poor, you can't get anything. For the poor, this involves meeting certain pre-set criteria; if you're above that but still can't afford health care, you're out of luck. Also, Medicare offers a couple different options: for some people it just pays their private insurance bills. But that can't help anyone who is under the age of ~65 at all. There are other welfare programs as well, perhaps the best-known being food stamps, but they're all over-stretched and not able to provide a strong social safety net. Also, thanks to pressure from conservatives in both parties, there is a lifetime limit on how long someone can receive welfare, as a way of "encouraging" them to find work (example from NYT) Basically we have the shadow of a welfare state.

The NHS has never let me down. (it saved my life in fact when I was a kid and my appendix burst).
Yeah there are budget considerations, and all sorts of other areas that could do with improvement-its been anongoing project since its inception, and things go wrong from time to time- but overall not even right wing parties here would stand on a platform of removing it- it would be electoral suicide- surely that should tell the US people something about the value of a national health system?

(There's a line at the end of a 9th Doctor episode, set during WW2 (The Doctor Dances), in which the Doctor leaves at the end saying to the people "And don't forget the Welfare State" )
In the UK the Welfare State is generally considered one of our highest achievments as a civilisation.

People in the U.S. simply don't know that. All in all we're not the most educated about foreign countries, even our closest allies, and anyone trying to talk about the NHS from a British perspective is going to be drowned out by the conservative chorus screaming bloody murder about socialism and how horrible, inhumane, and inefficient it is. There are/were actual people who cast real votes who believed that the Obama health care plane would include "death panels" of bureaucrats who would decide if individuals were worthy of medical care or not. That should tell you something about the level of thought and discourse in American politics.

I'm watching the Paxman videos now and they're great. They also illustrate another major difference between the US and the UK. No mainstream American interviewer would ever dream of asking a government official "do you ever think you're incompetent?" It's simply not done. Interviewers are supposed to be nice and play softball so that they don't upset the powerful people they're talking to. Not doing so could lead to a loss in advertising dollars, along with a crucifixion from the rest of corporate lapdog media who turns on anyone who shows real journalistic grit. The way they jump over Jon Stewart (who hosts a comedy program) any time he asks tough questions is a good example of this.

I think you're being a little harsh, Eldo. When the healthcare debate was still fresh, polls were showing 77% of Americans favoring a "public option." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html

Aside from the socialist straw man, the big question in every thinking person's mind is how do you pay for this when the funding for existing Medicare/Medicade/Social Security is already a problem. The discussion then goes to whether it's acceptable to raise taxes, and if so on whom. Then things degenerate into partisan bickering and nothing gets done.

And of course the lobbyists for the insurance industry and private medical industry know this, and push the well-worn buttons whenever the prospect of change appears....

I see Obama's Healthcare survived the Supreme Court- I have to admit to quite enjoying watching Republicans squirming around trying to find a new way to attack it.
However my gut feeling is it wont last long if Obama loses the election- however if he gets another term and can roll it out, hopefully once Americans have a healthcare system (even one as poor as the watered down version he got through Congress) they wont want it repelled bu expanded.
However if the Republicans can block it, screw it up, make it impossible to deliver they might still screw it for all Americans.

Yes, Obama does still need to win the election, but I suspect this strengthens his position both by validating all the work he put into it and by further dividing the Republican message and possibly splitting their already lukewarm base.

The really interesting part is the Medicaid expansion, which can be used as a template for further expansion of public healthcare when voters are ready for that.

Somewhere in this thread there was a question of whether Americans would elect a self-professed atheist. I saw this recent poll on the Gallop and thought it interesting.

PRINCETON, NJ -- While more than nine in 10 Americans would vote for a presidential candidate who is black, a woman, Catholic, Hispanic, or Jewish, significantly smaller percentages would vote for one who is an atheist (54%) or Muslim (58%). Americans' willingness to vote for a Mormon (80%) or gay or lesbian (68%) candidate falls between these two extremes.

Question:Between now and the 2012 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be _____, would you vote for that person?

Any God is better than no God then to Americans!

I see the Republicans are going to have yet another go at getting rid of Obamacare.

GOP House leaders said Sunday they will forge ahead with efforts to repeal President Obama’s health care law, drawing criticism from Democratic lawmakers who said Americans want them to instead go forward with efforts to improve the economy.
“We’re going to do it one more time,” House Speaker John Boehner said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”- Fox ('comedy') News

Got to wonder how that will go down with the US popualtion given they should be really moving on and tackling economic issues rather than this- which is not going to get past a Democrat Senate this time anymore than it did any of the other times.

What it says to me is they are terrified, they know that like every other 1st world country with Health Care (almost all of them) once the people have it it will be very difficult to take it back off them. And if that happens all that lovely Medical Insurance Company money that funds Republican candidates will dry up like piss on a tin roof on a hot day.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Any God is better than no God then to Americans!

Still over half said they would. And for many of the rest, I think it has more to do with perceived intolerance than what people personally believe.

What it says to me is they are terrified, they know that like every other 1st world country with Health Care (almost all of them) once the people have it it will be very difficult to take it back off them. And if that happens all that lovely Medical Insurance Company money that funds Republican candidates will dry up like piss on a tin roof on a hot day.

I'm sure that's a lot of it. It's interesting to note that hospitals an healthcare facilities are starting to split ranks with the insurance companies. It seems that they've been having to pick up an increasing amount of the costs of uninsured and under-insured patients, so having the government step in is starting to look better and better.

I would greatly prefer it if Romney won, but I do not mind if Obama wins. I honestly believe he has done alright as President, something most people (especially Mormons) I know will not admit.

Can't say as I like Romney much- there is something abou tit him makes me think he would be out of his depth as President.
He doesn't seem savvy enough- like this thing about not releasing his taxes for the last few years- even if he has fiddled things better get it out there now, and in his own words, than have the press drip-drip dark rumours and hints about it from now till election day- thats basis political savvy, and Romney doesn't seem to have it. I think the Republican party would run him and he would just be a puppet President.

Dick Cheney: Picking Sarah Palin for VP Was 'A Mistake'
By Jonathan Karl | ABC OTUS News

Dick Cheney has some advice for Mitt Romney on choosing a running mate: Don't pick another Sarah Palin.

In his first interview since receiving a heart transplant in March, Cheney told ABC News, that John McCain's decision to pick Palin as his running mate in 2008 was "a mistake" - one that it is important from Romney not to repeat.

It's subject on which Cheney has some unique experience. He helped Presidents Gerald Ford and George W. Bush lead their vice presidential searches and, of course, served as vice president for eight years. He's also privately offered some advice to both Romney and Beth Myers, who is leading Romney's search for a runningmate, on the process.

Cheney would not comment on what he told Romney and Myers, but he was harsh in his assessment of McCain's decision to pick Palin.

"That one," Cheney said, "I don't think was well handled."

"The test to get on that small list has to be, 'Is this person capable of being president of the United States?'"

Cheney believes Sarah Palin failed that test.

"I like Governor Palin. I've met her. I know her. She - attractive candidate. But based on her background, she'd only been governor for, what, two years. I don't think she passed that test…of being ready to take over. And I think that was a mistake."

Picking Cheney for VP was at least as big a mistake! He may have been ready to take over, but we weren't