Politics

[chicago51]

The wonders of capitalism were on display yesterday in Vatican City:

That is pretty neat.

 

[connor_in]

I got one. Which nationally know candidate won by an even smaller margain than Obama and said in a press conference immediately following the election, "I have banked some political capital and now I intend to spend it.

I do not deny this. However, you guys were the ones telling us all Obama and the D's do is compromise over and over again, bending over backwards, giving away the farm to get anything passed. So, this is not a "well your side does it too" argument, and therefore the comment is tangential to the argument.

Square miles do not vote, people do.

Once again...not the point. Do you want to change the Constitution to make the House a national vote? If not, then what is the point of bringing up that any party got more votes nationally than another party. The way voting stands right now is based on districts. The fact that some districts have slight majorities for one party and others are 70-80% towards one party is not the fault of the voting system it is the fault of the D people choosing to live in areas already inhabited by tons of D's. So, if not want to change the Constitution, then tell the D's to move to areas that are slightly R and change the balance. My line about the fact that greater areas of the country voted R than D for the House, was simply a factually true line to point out that just because a detail is true does not mean it is pertinent (like the D's got more popular vote for House members).

I agree with the last bolded point, and although I believe it is unfortunate I think it should happen anyway. Gerrymandering is stacking the deck, and stacking the deck is cheating ... there is no getting around that and both sides do it.

Responded in Bold

 

[chicago51]

The Political Compass - Test

This is pretty cool if you want figure out exactly were you are politically.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

It's easy to do a hit and run swipe at a post. Explain why it is laughable? There is nothing factually inaccuarate in the post. So, I'd be interested in knowing why it is laughable from the guy who almost daily advocates in his posts for dividing the country into two, which I find laughable at best.

Nothing inaccurate in the post? Wow...revisionist history at best. I'll get to that post later when I'm not at work. That pile deserves a big shovel.

You're darn right I advocate for two countries, and you laugh it off because it would scare most progressives. Where would they find all these new revenues to pay for a centrally planned nanny state?!

I thought you and others the left would be in favor. Those knuckle dragging conservatives wouldn't be in your way anymore to "move forward", and conservatives wouldn't feel like they're being dragged into a leftist hellhole for decades to come. I don't see this happening, if ever, for many years down the road, but we would no doubt see who would be in trouble and who would be doing just fine.

I'll give you an anology that is sports related: Hypothetically, as of June 1, University of Texas (or any other huge D1 school) football and basketball will no longer exist. They are off the grid and off the books. All other sports programs and teams will "move forward" in the NCAA, but must generate their own revenue, operate on their own budget, and can no longer rely on football and basketball to pay for an entire athletic department. Good luck.

 

[chicago51]

Nothing inaccurate in the post? Wow...revisionist history at best. I'll get to that post later when I'm not at work. That pile deserves a big shovel.

You're darn right I advocate for two countries, and you laugh it off because it would scare most progressives. Where would they find all these new revenues to pay for a centrally planned nanny state?!

I thought you and others the left would be in favor. Those knuckle dragging conservatives wouldn't be in your way anymore to "move forward", and conservatives wouldn't feel like they're being dragged into a leftist hellhole for decades to come. I don't see this happening, if ever, for many years down the road, but we would no doubt see who would be in trouble and who would be doing just fine.

I'll give you an anology that is sports related: Hypothetically, as of June 1, University of Texas (or any other huge D1 school) football and basketball will no longer exist. They are off the grid and off the books. All other sports programs and teams will "move forward" in the NCAA, but must generate their own revenue, operate on their own budget, and can no longer rely on football and basketball to pay for an entire athletic department. Good luck.

I don't agree with everything you posted but I will say single payor health care sounds pretty good.

 

[chicago51]

Washington Post

 

[Black Irish]

Don't look now but you just made the case we got a revenue problem in this country.

If so, it isn't all the fault of the 1% taking advantage of loopholes and offshore bank havens by the account that Ndaccountant laid out. It looks like the middle class has been getting some breaks as well.

 

[potownhero]

What happen to this Republican party?

This is the 1956 Republican Party platform, wanted to highlight some things. Some things are very simular to today others not so much.

Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1956
...
.

What happened to the good Democrats?

If JFK were alive today and running for President, it's highly likely that he would have to be a Republican. Not only would today's hard-left Democrat party likely reject him as a candidate, but most of his views are allied with today's Republicans.

Here's why:

- JFK promoted the single largest post-WW2 tax cut: 1.9% of national income. That's larger than any Reagan or Bush tax cut, and only 0.1% smaller than ALL Bush tax cuts combined.


- JFK believed in free markets and globalization. As he said in his 1963 Frankfurt address:
"Trade expansion will help us all. The experience of the Common Market--like the experience of the German Zollverein--shows an increased rise in business activity and general prosperity resulting for all participants in such trade agreements, with no member profiting at the expense of another. As they say on my own Cape Cod, a rising tide lifts all the boats. "


- JFK believed in the projection of American and Western power to defend 'freedom'. Again from his 1963 Frankfurt address:
"The United States will risk its cities to defend yours because we need your freedom to protect ours. Hundreds of thousands of our soldiers serve with yours on this continent, as tangible evidence of that pledge. Those who would doubt our pledge or deny this indivisibility--those who would separate Europe from America or split one ally from another--would only give aid and comfort to the men who make themselves our adversaries and welcome any Western disarray."


- JFK believed in a large nuclear deterrent (same address):
"These conventional forces are essential, and they are backed by the sanction of thousands of the most modern weapons here on European soil and thousands more, only minutes away, in posts around the world. Together our nations have developed for the forward defense of free Europe a deterrent far surpassing the present or prospective force of any hostile power."

 

[potownhero]

I don't agree with everything you posted but I will say single payor health care sounds pretty good.

Single payer is short-sighted.

Poorer quality
Shortages
Inefficiencies
Fewer medical advances

Sounds great? You should get your hearing checked out.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Sounds great? You should get your hearing checked out.

You're going to have to wait in line for a month before that though.

 

[chicago51]

Single payer is short-sighted.

Poorer quality
Shortages
Inefficiencies
Fewer medical advances

Sounds great? You should get your hearing checked out.

You have evidence to back this up? Last time I checked developed nations with single payer are living longer than we do in the United States sounds like they must doing something right.

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I assume this will be another hit and run attack. Why don't you impress me and actually give some actual numbers that suggest our health care is in fact better than single payer nations.

 

[GoIrish41]

If so, it isn't all the fault of the 1% taking advantage of loopholes and offshore bank havens by the account that Ndaccountant laid out. It looks like the middle class has been getting some breaks as well.

Don't look now but I completely agree with you. The rich shouldn't be the only ones to get heavier taxes, but after the last 30 years they certainly deserved to go first. I'm ready for the days that my taxes go up too.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

You have evidence to back this up? Last time I checked developed nations with single payer are living longer than we do in the United States sounds like they must doing something right.

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I assume this will be another hit and run attack. Why don't you impress me and actually give some actual numbers that suggest our health care is in fact better than single payer nations.

So much more factors into life expectancy rating than the health care system.

 

[chicago51]

If so, it isn't all the fault of the 1% taking advantage of loopholes and offshore bank havens by the account that Ndaccountant laid out. It looks like the middle class has been getting some breaks as well.

I think every group other than the truly poor should pay income tax according to the percentage of wealth their class has. If the 1 percent have 42 percent of the wealth their taxes should be 42 percent. If the 10-20 percent own say 28 percent of the wealth they should pay 28 percent. Just my idea. Not sure it would work

 

[chicago51]

So much more factors into life expectancy rating than the health care system.

Our obsesity, high sociecomic inequality are factors but if you think our system is better I would love see some sort indicator that proves your point. You criticize life expectancy as not being a perfect indicator well then I challenge you to find some indicator that our health care system is superior to single payer nations.

U.S. ranks 42nd in life expectancy - Health - Health care | NBC News

The richest nation on earth should be able to have the best or at least one of the best health care systems in the world.

Our health care system is a joke and I am going to likely be a part of it for the next 35 to 40 years. I am kind of sad about that but I think we got the capability of improving it. Our physicians and other care givers are on par but our patient access and affordibility is crap.

 

[GoIrish41]

Are you guys serious, do you honestly believe this?? I guess it maks it easy when you actually kid yourself into feeling it's that cut and dry.

If republicans do it they are liberal, so it counts for us, if dems do it well, they are dems, it counts for us... conservatives /repbs get credt for nothing except killing babies and hating blacks... conservatives don't want to see an end to waste and fruad and have the gov. out of their lives,... they just use that excuse to hide the fact that they hate how black people can vote....

I hve trouble finding any respect poltically for those who even half way plays with or buys into this BS... I would say it's all lies, and has nothing to do with bringing us to common ground and fixing things...all it is a pawn in the play for power, period. In fact garbage like this is why half of the libs in this thread are on my ingore list as I get tired of reading how bad conservative leaders are at name calling while anyone not of the left is painted a Nazi... just sad to see this game being played by you. Honestly insulting.

Your camios on this thread just to offer the suggestion that you have any political wisdom are tiresome. You obviously lean to the right as you only seem to make your negative comments in response to people who make posts supporting the left. If you are going to enter the fray, specifically answer the post that you are responding to. Tell us why any of the statements made in the original post are incorrect. It is anti-intellectual to make a point without some compelling agrument as to why you feel the way you do. Nobody gives a crap about which ideas you have any respect for. What I think is BS is your opinion with no attempt to demonstrate that anything that you say is more than your bias garbage.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Our obsesity, high sociecomic inequality are factors but if you think our system is better I would love see some sort indicator that proves your point. You criticize life expectancy as not being a perfect indicator well then I challenge to find some indicator that our health care system is superior to single payer nations.

U.S. ranks 42nd in life expectancy - Health - Health care | NBC News

The richest nation on earth should be able to have the best or at least one of the best health care systems in the world.

Our health care system is a joke and I am going to likely be a part of it for the next 35 to 40 years. I am kind of sad about that but I think we got the capability of improving it. Our physicians and other care givers are on par but our access and affordibility is crap.

Is it at all possible that Americans have both the best health care and the worst lifestyles?

Our obesity is outrageous, but even worse than that is our steady diet of poison. Even our population who don't look unhealthy on a BMI scale are eating a diet of processed carbohydrates full of dehydrogenated bullshit. It's killing us. You literally can't buy some foods outside the US that everybody eats here. It's gross. Then factor in how our population drives everywhere and ends up severely lacking in exercise comparisons too.

The insane thing is that you have the audacity to blame it solely on lack of government intervention. "We need single-payer!" Can it. First show me some things that the government does really well before we consider that bold step.

I look at our food system and I see a government that fully embraces corporatism. There are 2.1 million farms and 320 million people...and five corporations control the whole thing. Not only that, they get the US taxpayers to subsidize the **** out of corn and we put it in everything so that these corporations can make value-added products and rake in the profit. We don't have a government that can ever settle the Farm Bill, let alone realize that we should be subsidizing the healthiest foods instead.

I look at our military-industrial complex and see a government that is horribly corrupt, overpaying certain corporations for everyday items. Hello...$500 hammers in Iraq? I see those corporations lobby for military spending that we don't need (looking at you, F-35), and how they alter national policies just like the Farm Bill to fit their needs.

I look at banking...jesus ****ing christ.

Look literally anywhere and you'll see the government screw it up. It's time that you people realize that government is the mechanism through which corporations steal the marketplace. And you want to put the government in charge of health care because you see some Europeans with a nice system for their country that is anywhere from 1/4 to 1/50 the size of us...and using the breakthroughs out D&R gives them for basically free.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Revisiting the whole automation thing, I didn't know these existed:

You don't need an imagination to see where this will be going.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Is it at all possible that Americans have both the best health care and the worst lifestyles?

Our obesity is outrageous, but even worse than that is our steady diet of poison. Even our population who don't look unhealthy on a BMI scale are eating a diet of processed carbohydrates full of dehydrogenated bullshit. It's killing us. You literally can't buy some foods outside the US that everybody eats here. It's gross. Then factor in how our population drives everywhere and ends up severely lacking in exercise comparisons too.

The insane thing is that you have the audacity to blame it solely on lack of government intervention. "We need single-payer!" Can it. First show me some things that the government does really well before we consider that bold step.

I look at our food system and I see a government that fully embraces corporatism. There are 2.1 million farms and 320 million people...and five corporations control the whole thing. Not only that, they get the US taxpayers to subsidize the **** out of corn and we put it in everything so that these corporations can make value-added products and rake in the profit. We don't have a government that can ever settle the Farm Bill, let alone realize that we should be subsidizing the healthiest foods instead.

I look at our military-industrial complex and see a government that is horribly corrupt, overpaying certain corporations for everyday items. Hello...$500 hammers in Iraq? I see those corporations lobby for military spending that we don't need (looking at you, F-35), and how they alter national policies just like the Farm Bill to fit their needs.

I look at banking...jesus ****ing christ.

Look literally anywhere and you'll see the government screw it up. It's time that you people realize that government is the mechanism through which corporations steal the marketplace. And you want to put the government in charge of health care because you see some Europeans with a nice system for their country that is anywhere from 1/4 to 1/50 the size of us...and using the breakthroughs out D&R gives them for basically free.

Big reps.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Sorry we offend you.

I'll start at the top and sift through this pile.

Women's suffrage: I studied Alice Paul in college and while she might have been labeled a liberal in leading the cause, take a look at the Senate votes: The Ayes included 36 (82%) Republicans and 20 (54%) Democrats. The Nays comprised 8 (18%) Republicans and 17 (46%) Democrats. It was ratified by sufficient states in 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment

African Americans/ Civil Rights Act of 1964: first numers are in favor, second are against

Senate: 77–19 Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%) Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)
House: 333–85 Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%) Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)

Social Security: The government decided to plan your retirement for you. Some people take out more than they put in, this program will not exist in 20 years, and is one of our biggest financial strains.

Segregation in schools: Brown v Board of Education was passd by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1954. No idea how "liberals" get to claim this as a victory only for themselves. Go tell Herman Cain that.

Voting Rights Act: See above.

Medicare: Ironically, dying a slow death because it's unsustainable.

Clean Air Act: Give me a break. As if 1) Democrats want clean air and Republicans want more pollution and 2) Democrats can do anything in the world to creat more clean air.

Clean Water Act: Same as above.

Not only is Lawrence O'Donnell and most of MSLSD full of $hit, it shows you didn't do your homework. You follow all these leftists on blogs and twitter and take every word they spew out as Gospel.

 

[chicago51]

Is it at all possible that Americans have both the best health care and the worst lifestyles?

Our obesity is outrageous, but even worse than that is our steady diet of poison. Even our population who don't look unhealthy on a BMI scale are eating a diet of processed carbohydrates full of dehydrogenated bullshit. It's killing us. You literally can't buy some foods outside the US that everybody eats here. It's gross. Then factor in how our population drives everywhere and ends up severely lacking in exercise comparisons too.

The insane thing is that you have the audacity to blame it solely on lack of government intervention. "We need single-payer!" Can it. First show me some things that the government does really well before we consider that bold step.

I look at our food system and I see a government that fully embraces corporatism. There are 2.1 million farms and 320 million people...and five corporations control the whole thing. Not only that, they get the US taxpayers to subsidize the **** out of corn and we put it in everything so that these corporations can make value-added products and rake in the profit. We don't have a government that can ever settle the Farm Bill, let alone realize that we should be subsidizing the healthiest foods instead.

I look at our military-industrial complex and see a government that is horribly corrupt, overpaying certain corporations for everyday items. Hello...$500 hammers in Iraq? I see those corporations lobby for military spending that we don't need (looking at you, F-35), and how they alter national policies just like the Farm Bill to fit their needs.

I look at banking...jesus ****ing christ.

Look literally anywhere and you'll see the government screw it up. It's time that you people realize that government is the mechanism through which corporations steal the marketplace. And you want to put the government in charge of health care because you see some Europeans with a nice system for their country that is anywhere from 1/4 to 1/50 the size of us...and using the breakthroughs out D&R gives them for basically free.

I don't disagree about all the lifestyle issues you mentioned. It is a shame that the House and Senate can't agree on a Farm Bill. I though the Farm Bill the Senate passed last time around was a step in the right direction. Must agriculture subsidies are a huge waste that we don't need, and as you mentioned we subsidized the wrong things.

Let me ask if the US government is too big will single payer work at the state level? I'm curious because Vermont is going to try it I believe. There is a provision in Obamacare that allows states to opt out of Obamacare if they can guarantee all their citizens health insurance. From what I understand Obamacare lets you do this in 2016 but Vermont I believe on tract to have this implemented around that time.

The Vermont governor campaigned on this and won. I believe they are going to use Blue Cross or someone else to do the adminstrative work but it will be a single payer, and I think you can pay extra if you wanted more options in your plan. Vermont be will a test subject for the nation. I expect more blue states to consider this it goes well, if it doesn't well a lot of people I know will be telling me I told you so.

Vermont could be first in line for single payer - Joanne Kenen - POLITICO.com

Obamacare is radical? Vermont thinks even bigger, with single-payer plan. - CSMonitor.com

 

[chicago51]

I'll start at the top and sift through this pile.

Women's suffrage: I studied Alice Paul in college and while she might have been labeled a liberal in leading the cause, take a look at the Senate votes: The Ayes included 36 (82%) Republicans and 20 (54%) Democrats. The Nays comprised 8 (18%) Republicans and 17 (46%) Democrats. It was ratified by sufficient states in 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment

African Americans/ Civil Rights Act of 1964: first numers are in favor, second are against

Senate: 77–19 Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%) Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)
House: 333–85 Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%) Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)

Social Security: The government decided to plan your retirement for you. Some people take out more than they put in, this program will not exist in 20 years, and is one of our biggest financial strains.

Segregation in schools: Brown v Board of Education was passd by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1954. No idea how "liberals" get to claim this as a victory only for themselves. Go tell Herman Cain that.

Voting Rights Act: See above.

Medicare: Ironically, dying a slow death because it's unsustainable.

Clean Air Act: Give me a break. As if 1) Democrats want clean air and Republicans want more pollution and 2) Democrats can do anything in the world to creat more clean air.

Clean Water Act: Same as above.

Not only is Lawrence O'Donnell and most of MSLSD full of $hit, it shows you didn't do your homework. You follow all these leftists on blogs and twitter and take every word they spew out as Gospel.

Most of Ds that voted no were conservative southern Democrats that voted against things like Civil Rights Act.

Nevertheless "conservatives" did have a large in many cases equally large hand and in passing some of the measures.

So I going apologize for making that post. Believe it or not I can admit when I am wrong the evidence shows me I am. So apologize for that post.

 

[chicago51]

I don't disagree about all the lifestyle issues you mentioned. It is a shame that the House and Senate can't agree on a Farm Bill. I thought the Farm Bill the Senate passed last time around was a step in the right direction but didn't get brought up for a vote in the House. Must agriculture subsidies are a huge waste that we don't even need, and as you mentioned we subsidized the wrong things.

Let me ask if the US government is too big will single payer work at the state level? I'm curious because Vermont is going to try it I believe. There is a provision in Obamacare that allows states to opt out of Obamacare if they can guarantee all their citizens health insurance. From what I understand Obamacare lets you do this in 2016 but Vermont I believe on tract to have this implemented around that time.

The Vermont governor campaigned on this and won. I believe they are going to use Blue Cross or someone else to do the adminstrative work but it will be a single payer, and I think you can pay extra if you wanted more options in your plan. Vermont be will a test subject for the nation. I expect more blue states to consider this it goes well, if it doesn't well a lot of people I know will be telling me I told you so.

Vermont could be first in line for single payer - Joanne Kenen - POLITICO.com

Obamacare is radical? Vermont thinks even bigger, with single-payer plan. - CSMonitor.com

Wanted to add last world healt report in 2010 the United States was ranked 37th. If you take away the cost factor and just look at performance the United States was 15th. So the evidence against a single payer system just isn't there, as single payer nations out performed the US despite spending less on health care.

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

So I do look forward to see how Vermont's single payer works. If you think the federal government is too big and wasteful then maybe single payer is something that would work better at the state level possibly with federal block grant funding.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

That report doesn't tell me anything. What is the ranking based on? My guess is it's all based on "coverage" instead of "quality."

Socialied medicine is a disaster in every way possible. Americans are against it now and will hate it even more as it becomes effective and $hit starts hitting the fan, not only with costs but doctor shortages.

 

[irishpat183]

That report doesn't tell me anything. What is the ranking based on? My guess is it's all based on "coverage" instead of "quality."

Socialied medicine is a disaster in every way possible. Americans are against it now and will hate it even more as it becomes effective and $hit starts hitting the fan, not only with costs but doctor shortages.

And ask Dr's what they think about it....

They're gonna love when people see the Dr for every papercut and stubbed toe.


And it was NEVER about quality of care of coverage, Polish...It was about CONTROL of 1/5th of our economy.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

It's funny how people use the higher European longevity to make their case any time they want the U.S. to be more like Europe.

-Europe lives longer, and has less obesity! We should be less obese!

-Europe lives longer and has more mass transit! We should have mass transit!

-Europe lives longer and drinks more wine! We should drink more wine!

-Europe lives longer and has less fast food! We should have less fast food!

-Europe lives longer and has socialized medicine! We should have socialized medicine!

-Europe lives longer and has fewer guns! We should have fewer guns!

Isn't this all a bit old?

 

[chicago51]

That report doesn't tell me anything. What is the ranking based on? My guess is it's all based on "coverage" instead of "quality."

Socialied medicine is a disaster in every way possible. Americans are against it now and will hate it even more as it becomes effective and $hit starts hitting the fan, not only with costs but doctor shortages.

Hope you read my apology post on the O'Donnel graphic.

Okay you say the report stinks. I am not seeing anything out there though goes the other and says that we have the best health care system.

When we all were debating guns for every pro control study there was a pro gun ownership study that said offered contradictory evidence. In that case all we can do is agree to this disagree.

We can agree to disagree again but right now I think some of you are grassping at straws. All you are offering is abstract thoughts.

Social medicine is a disaster okay; how is it a disaster?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Hope you read my apology post on the O'Donnel graphic.

Okay you say the report stinks. I am not seeing anything out there though goes the other and says that we have the best health care system.

When we all were debating guns for every pro control study there was a pro gun ownership study that said offered contradictory evidence. In that case all we can do is agree to this disagree.

We can agree to disagree again but right now I think some of you are grassping at straws. All you are offering is abstract thoughts.

Social medicine is a disaster okay; how is it a disaster?

I say the report is based on "number of people covered", not the quality of health care. Two different stories.

1) Obamacare is a power grab, and nothing more. As IrishPat noted, 1/5 of our economy. Add to that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM/ Chrysler, public education, media...what doesn't the fed gov control?

As our old buddy George Carlin said, "People will be a lot better off when they realize government doesn't give a f*ck about them. All they're concerned about is growing and expanding their power." So the idiots in Washington pass this $hitty system on to the little people they are "helping", but they sure as hell aren't going to be on that plan. Socialism is for the "people", not the socialist.

2) It's financially unsustainable, and the more that comes out about it, the worse it gets. It's like Medicaid (financially) times 25. Disaster, and getting the "rich" to pay more in taxes won't help. This isn't from Fox News. It's from the CBO.

3) Majority of doctors are against it and it is going to cause a massive shortage. Coverage might go up on paper, but in reality quality will suffer.

4) It's Obama's landmark "achievement", spreading the wealth as best he can. "The cornerstone of the communist state is socialized medicine." --- Vladimir Lenin

4)

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

If Vermont wants to go ahead with single payer, by all means go for it. I don't give a rip. States have flexibility to do what they want in that sense.

Just don't go begging/ demanding DC for a bailout after you've bankrupted yourself. Same with California. And Illinois. And New York.

 

[chicago51]

This came out pretty recently.

Health care spending is transferred out of ICU