The General American Politics Thread

[Patticus]

I can't believe the choice came down to pseudo-socialist creep Mitt Romney. He's still better than Obama the Destroyer, but not by much.

Mitt Romney is not in any sense of the word a "socialist," not even a pseudo one. Neither is Obama by the way; both are right-wing politicians as far as global standards go, and both are confirmed capitalists.

And what exactly is Obama destroying? Because it's not America.

[TheGerkuman]

The whole world sucks but America sucks less

[Citation Needed]

Seriously, the US isn't that far from being authoritarian in nature, though it'll never restrict the markets or the obvious civil liberties. (By obvious, I mean stuff like Habeas Corpus or the Amendments to the Bill of Rights)

[Mono]

Seriously, SpikySprinter it seems that you have no clue on what socialism is about.

edit: and what would you have done about our health care? Leave it alone, killing thousands of people a year? The health care bill is capitalist: it MAKES you get health care or pay a price. SO SOCIALIST!

We're no single-payer country, but the reform is a step in the right direction. Nothing "socialist" about it.

edit2: Also socialism isn't a bad thing, what with most of the world using some form of it.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Mono

[Patticus]

Romney supported Socialized Medicine; the condition of waiting more than five months for an organ transplant that other people paid for. Obama nurtured himself throughout his college years with Marxist literature. I don't care what global standards say. The whole world sucks but America sucks less, so why should those standards be followed?

He supported socialized medicine only when it suited him to do so. He has flip-flopped on the issue at least twice now; supporting, disowning, endorsing, then later revoking that endorsement. A man of principles would have stuck to his guns and not disowned it, even if it meant voting for Obamacare and losing support to any of the other idiots in the running for the GOP nomination.

What evidence do you have to show that Obama actively nurtured himself with Marxist literature back then, and still abides by its tenets in office? Let's see some proof. Solid, incontrovertible proof that doesn't come from right-wing demagogues like Beck, Limbaugh et al.

And you need to care about global standards for things like this, because if you go about calling Mitt or Obama a socialist, marxist etc and you ignore the fact that by global standards they are anything but those things, you only show yourself up as not knowing the meanings of those words.

Not if Obama has anything to say about it. What's most evident is that he's destroying the greatest healthcare system the world has ever seen. He's destroying our border states by refusing to enforce - and punishing those who do enforce - FEDERAL immigration laws. He's destroying the American private sector through his constant bailouts, lobbying, and labor regulations.

Hopefully the Republicans won't run such a dumbass campaign this year. McCain and Palin were... ugh.

America's healthcare system is anything but the greatest in the world, so destroying it would be a blessing. No system that prioritizes money over patient care, which kicks patients out of beds so others can occupy them just to get more moolah rolling in, which can justify denying care because a person hasn't enough money, is worth maintaining. It's despicable. Since when was money more important than lives, and the much-vaunted "pursuit of happiness" in your constitution (or was it your declarashun o' indiependance?)?

A recently published study by the Commonwealth Fund, comparing seven wealthy countries' healthcare systems, has found that the Netherlands offers the best overall quality of care, followed by New Zealand and the UK (oooh, socialized care scoring above profit-first care, how controversial! ). The UK and the Netherlands countries score first or second place in many of the study's categories. The US came dead last in most categories, including in the overall scores. And despite coming dead last on almost every front in this study of wealthy nations' healthcare systems, the US still manages to spend more per capita than the next country on healthcare. You're paying more for less, and you're afraid of systems that give you more for less. And it's frightening that you consider that a good thing.

But maybe you could just write it off as being part of a liberal conspiracy, eh?

As for the border states guff, the US' immigration system is among the toughest, most convoluted of its kind anywhere on the planet. I should know, I'm negotiating it right now! So I can hardly blame people for trying to get around it rather than jump through its many expensive hoops. Anyway, I'm not too knowledgeable on that subject so I'll let others take the reins on that.

Since when was Obama destroying the private sector through bailouts, lobbying, and labor regulations? As far as I can tell, he saved GM with that money and the private sector is doing considerably better in this country than in the UK, where Conservative policies of deep cuts have been enacted and now threaten to tip the place into a triple-dip recession.

I should hope that Obama's dead set against lobbyists (I don't know what his stance is there actually, anyone else know?), and I'd rather have heavy regulation on labor than none; the less it's regulated, the more people in low wage jobs are treated like slaves, animals, inhuman objects to be used up and tossed aside. That already happens in the corporate world right now, Walmart does it to my wife five days a week, so I'd rather that didn't spread, and in fact was reduced through heavier regulation geared towards fair and equitable treatment for every worker in every state.

... And I'm done. For now.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Patticus

[Patticus]

The Commonwealth Fund. Yeah, that totally sounds like a non-socialist organization.

It's an independent, private U.S. foundation, which counts many highly respected medical, academic, economic and other professionals in its ranks. It isn't evil, or bad.

[VO.SUPER]

This is basically my opinion of healthcare.

Some of us don't want to watch a 9 minute video. Can you explain yourself in text?

Edited August 9, 2012 by VisionaryBlur

[Patticus]

Basically, having socialized medicine takes away freedoms that are extremely important to me.

It doesn't take away anything. In both Canada and the UK, countries with socialized healthcare, if you can afford to do so, you can still pay for it by going private, and you can buy medical insurance from a large number of providers.

I myself went private when getting braces; it cost me the better part of £2,500. I could've got them on the NHS if I'd asked early enough, but I was over 18 so it wasn't covered. It was a good experience, but then again, so were all my experiences with the NHS.

What if I don't want to pay for my own healthcare? Too bad. What if I want to pay top dollar for the best healthcare? Too bad. Good healthcare for most people>bad healthcare for all people

Socialized healthcare doesn't preclude anyone from paying for their own care, if they have the funds to do so. It doesn't mean "bad healthcare for most people"; everyone gets the same standard of care, which should be pretty good. Well-off people can still buy all their healthcare privately, as they always have done. What it does is provide the whole of the people, every citizen, with a basic (hopefully) high standard of care, while allowing people with more money to go their own way; it takes away monetary incentives and puts care at the heart of everything the service does and is. It turns hospitals from medical corporations seeking to suck as much money from you as possible into places of healing.

In the UK it's paid for through National Insurance; everybody in a job paying over a certain amount per annum pays into the collective money pot a negligible sum, which adds up to a lot of money. It's not a perfect system, but we'd rather that than an American commercialized alternative. I can't say anything I've seen or heard here in the US since I moved over has done anything to sway me on that.

[Autosaver]

Spiky, you need to stop watching Fox News for your information.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

I would rather put my life in the hands of the people than those of the government.

This bill was forced down the throats of an unwilling American public. The voice of the majority was completely ignored, and the bill was passed using the most underhanded tactics in American politics.

How do you know who the majority was, and how do you know they are unwilling?

[Patticus]

I would rather put my life in the hands of the people than those of the government.

When you put your life in the hands of the NHS, as I and other members of my family have, you are putting it in the hands of the doctors and nurses and all the other medical staff who are taking care of you, just like with for-profit healthcare. The difference is that the hospital isn't looking at you with $ signs in its cartoon eyes, and nobody's going to have a heart attack as a result of a medical bill.

This bill was forced down the throats of an unwilling American public. The voice of the majority was completely ignored, and the bill was passed using the most underhanded tactics in American politics.

If it ever was forced, I'd argue that the bill had to be forced. The voice of the majority was a voice which had little real knowledge or understanding of what this "Obamacare" really was. A largely ignorant public should never be allowed to vote on things it doesn't understand.

Just look at the American public; a recent study indicated that around only 2% watch any kind of news at all, and a lot of that is going to be via Fox (Fox might've been another 2%, not sure); most of what the other 96-98% hear about this is going to be wildly inaccurate propaganda and misinformation spread by right-wing nuts regurgitating the spiel of Fox and GOP representatives (with a direct vested interest (or indirect via pharma lobbyists) in maintaining the status quo). They aren't going to know the truth of what it'll do for them that way, all they'll know is what they've been told, which is by and large negative and filled with lies (death panels, anyone?). Now, I'm not saying they're all going to buy it, of course they're not, there are many smart Americans out there who can and will make an effort to understand things like this... but there are at least as many, if not more, who will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

When the American people are allowed to see and experience the benefits of the full Affordable Care Act package when everything comes into force in 2013-14, a lot of people are hopefully going to realize that they've been misled by Fox and their GOP representatives for years.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Patticus

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

You'd think that in the Digital Age where people can look up information they seek that they would actually DO THE FUCKING RESEARCH over what they're talking about.

Honestly SpikySprinter, I think you need to grow up because we're not in the freaking Cold War anymore. And considering there are Countries with socialist policies that are doing very well, and support America, I think you would do well to learn what Socialism is. It isn't hard to do a search on Wikipedia to learn the definition.

Edited August 10, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Tornado]

Just gonna touch on a few things:

Romney supported Socialized Medicine

Romneycare and Obamacare are about as socialist as states legally requiring car insurance.

That is to say, they are far more corporatist than socialist.

He's destroying the American private sector through his constant bailouts, lobbying, and labor regulations.

Pretty sure he was just following Bush's lead on that little bit. Government Motors may be Obama's thing, but handing GM and Chrysler 50 billion dollars to piss away in 6 months before going bankrupt anyway was Bush's plan.

This bill was forced down the throats of an unwilling American public. The voice of the majority was completely ignored, and the bill was passed using the most underhanded tactics in American politics.

Yes, it quite certainly was. But that's not particularly something that Obama invented, is it?

Edited August 10, 2012 by Gilda

[turbojet]

I am just in a really bad mood so I'll erase this post.

Edited August 10, 2012 by turbojet

[-Robin-]

Concerning the Commonwealth Fund data, could the United States's lower rankings have to do with the fact that the country's population is literally multiples of the populations of the other six countries?

I would imagine that the "best overall quality care" would be objectively lower for a country whose population exceeds the the populations of the next six countries combined, and so has much, much more people to worry about.

I'm confronting Obamacare with slight optimism as well, but to use data like that as a basis for welcoming Obamacare, I'm not too sure about.

Unless the study acknowledged this, and I'm just too blind to notice it, in which case,

Edited August 10, 2012 by Bobbyjosh

[Patticus]

Concerning the Commonwealth Fund data, could the United States's lower rankings have to do with the fact that the country's population is literally multiples of the populations of the other six countries?

I would imagine that the "best overall quality care" would be objectively lower for a country whose population exceeds the the populations of the next six countries combined, and so has much, much more people to worry about.

If population was a factor, wouldn't America's larger populace result in the people paying less overall for care? More people paying, more money going into the system, lower nationwide costs etc? Yet the data indicates the opposite; that Americans are paying twice as much for their care, but the quality, efficiency and general fairness are just plain substandard when compared to the other countries surveyed.

The report uses data from nationally representative patient and physician surveys in seven countries in 2007, 2008, and 2009; if the American data wasn't representative, if it was inadequate somehow, I don't imagine that they would've used it, and they might then have conducted further surveys across the country to forge a representative dataset to use in the study. It's available here, by the way.

An interesting snippet from the report regarding equity:

"The lower the performance score for equity, the lower the performance on other measures. This suggests that, when a country fails to meet the needs of the most vulnerable, it also fails to meet the needs of the average citizen."

A not unreasonable suggestion. America is the only country of those seven examined to have a healthcare system which doesn't automatically cover all of its citizens, which instantly makes it less fair. How can it match or surpass those health systems it is competing with, when it is by default the less equitable?

[Kevin]

While we'll on the subject of healthcare, I'd like to point to two blog entries I recently came across:

The first one is a very recent one. The person who made this entry was a die-hard Conservative who moved to Canada for a short time and detailed her experience with their system.

Here's an older one that was during during the height of the debate over Obama's healthcare bill. This was made by an American who was living in the UK at the time detailing her experience with the NHS.

What's the common theme between these two entries? Both people's experience were the exact opposite of everything they were told about Canada's and the UK's systems respectfully. So opposite that it was enough to get the person in the first entry I linked to, a die-hard Conservative at the time to change her opinion of Canada's system and that's saying a lot.

[Patticus]

Ah yes, I've seen that first blog, totally forgot about it though. Thanks for bringing it back up!

It supports my point that the people absolutely need to experience the full weight of the Affordable Care Act's provisions in 2014 and any reforms that come after (and I hope they will be many). When they do, the majority opinion will turn around completely, as people will see how they've been misled and lied to, and it will eventually become impossible to repeal it. That's why the Republicans are so desperate to repeal it now, and why they've had so many votes on it - they know they won't be able to get away with it after it all comes into effect. And hell, maybe a few red states will become blue states in the process, because many current Republican states also happen to be the poorest states in the union, whose people stand to benefit the most from healthcare reform, and whose GOP governors happen also to be dead set against implementing key provisions of the act. Hopefully the people will vote them out of office when they see how other states are benefiting from things their own leaders are too chickenshit scared to even try.

More on the Harry Reid tax return stuff: He's claiming that his source is a Republican.

Now, I've stopped taking the man seriously since I read everything that was posted about him earlier on in here, but it is interesting how so many others continue to listen to him. I mean, do they not know who he is?

[Tornado]

Now, I've stopped taking the man seriously since I read everything that was posted about him earlier on in here, but it is interesting how so many others continue to listen to him.

He's the head of several Senate sub-committees, he's been the Domecrat Party's Senate leader/2IC for the past 10 years, and he's probably the 2IC for the Democrat Party as a whole in terms of go-to influence (behind Nancy Pelosi). People have to listen to him because, as reprehensible as he is, he's basically in charge.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Gilda

[Emmett L. Brown]

I've missed Spikysprinter. Hey, let's have him explain the difference between socialism and communism; that's gotta be priceless.

Thanks for those links, Kevin. I have to admit I was both surprised and disturbed by the first one. I knew the lack of health care was bad, but I never thought it'd be so crippling that people would actually refrain from going to the hospital after a car accident or a burn injury.

[-Robin-]

CNN, NBC, USA Today, and other sites are stating that Romney will be choosing Paul Ryan as his VP pick at a rally on the U.S.S. Wisconsin tomorrow.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Bobbyjosh

[Patticus]

CNN, NBC, USA Today, and other sites are stating that Romney will be choosing Paul Ryan as his VP pick at a rally on the U.S.S. Wisconsin tomorrow.

Yup, and this means that the Obama/Biden campaign team can at long last link Paul Ryan's controversial financial plans for the country - including an overhaul of Medicare - to Romney himself. It could really do some damage if the plans are as unpopular as the Dems are hoping they'll be.

Edit: Dick Cheney: "I worship the ground that Paul Ryan walks on"

http://content.usato.../1#.UCZnkp1lR1F

Oh boy. With an endorsement from Cheney himself, that seals it: the man is pure evil.

Good logic there. Hah.

[Patticus]

Mitt Romney is attempting, somewhat cack-handedly, to close the debate regarding his tax returns.

US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he never paid less than 13% in taxes over the past 10 years, seeking to end public debate about his personal finances.

"I think the most recent year is 13.6% or something like that," he said.

In January, Mr Romney released his 2010 tax return, but has so far refused to show records from earlier years.

Democrats have questioned whether the former private equity high-flier has something to hide about his wealth.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has accused Mr Romney of not paying taxes in some years - a claim denied by the Republican.

Mr Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, has an estimated net worth of about $250m (£159m).

The 2010 tax returned showed that he had paid nearly 14% in taxes - mostly on capital gains from investments.

The top tax rate for wages in America is 35%, but taxes on capital gains are lower.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-19291802

I don't think that's going to end the debate or the speculation at all, frankly, and the fact that Romney sees nothing wrong with paying such low tax rates is at once astonishing and fully expected; he's campaigning for the hearts and minds of Americans and should be offering a more palatable view on the matter, something along the lines of, "I wish that the tax code let me pay more, but it doesn't, so I can't," but he doesn't really seem to give a shit that he pays a lesser percentage of his earnings in tax than a teacher earning far less than he has does. And that is expected. Sad, but expected.

Also in the news, apparently Mr. Obama offered Mr. Romney a compromise deal; show us five years' worth of tax returns in exchange for the democrat campaign ending its questions on that front. Romney has declined the offer. A poor move. Now the speculation will continue, Harry Reid's calls will become ever more incessant, and the tax returns will probably end up spilling out close to the election in a manner that is unflattering at best for the Republican candidate.

Oh and Romney's VP pick, Paul Ryan, apparently loves Rage Against The Machine... which is probably just a ploy to win over young people. It's just a shame, then, that Rage's own Tom Morello's having none of it:

By Tom Morello

August 16, 2012 6:44 PM ET

Last week, Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, the Republican architect of Congress's radical right-wing budget plan, as his running mate. Ryan has previously cited Rage Against the Machine as one of his favorite bands. Rage guitarist Tom Morello responds in this exclusive op-ed.

Paul Ryan's love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn't understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn't understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.

Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage.

I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!

Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.

You see, the super rich must rationalize having more than they could ever spend while millions of children in the U.S. go to bed hungry every night. So, when they look themselves in the mirror, they convince themselves that "Those people are undeserving. They're . . . lesser." Some of these guys on the extreme right are more cynical than Paul Ryan, but he seems to really believe in this stuff. This unbridled rage against those who have the least is a cornerstone of the Romney-Ryan ticket.

But Rage's music affects people in different ways. Some tune out what the band stands for and concentrate on the moshing and throwing elbows in the pit. For others, Rage has changed their minds and their lives. Many activists around the world, including organizers of the global occupy movement, were radicalized by Rage Against the Machine and work tirelessly for a more humane and just planet. Perhaps Paul Ryan was moshing when he should have been listening.

My hope is that maybe Paul Ryan is a mole. Maybe Rage did plant some sensible ideas in this extreme fringe right wing nut job. Maybe if elected, he'll pardon Leonard Peltier. Maybe he'll throw U.S. military support behind the Zapatistas. Maybe he'll fill Guantanamo Bay with the corporate criminals that are funding his campaign – and then torture them with Rage music 24/7. That's one possibility. But I'm not betting on it.

http://www.rollingst...6#ixzz23oU6yWk1

I'm going to have to listen to some Rage. If this article is anything to go by, I really like their politics.

[Nepenthe]

It's not as if asking for tax returns is some unprecedented question of his character like the birth certificate hoo-hah (it's a question of his character all right, just not unprecedented). Everyone has released tax returns. Everyone. Even people who were never elected have released the damn things. Again, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too by trying to spin this narrative about the poor, victimized "job creators" being taxed too much to function without really wanting to shine a light on his own borderline-immoral tax habits and subsequently those of the rich as a whole. The simple truth is they're not paying these higher tax rates due to loopholes in the system, in addition to receiving the tax cuts that the middle class gets on their brackets of income as well. Romney sure as hell hasn't paid his fair share. And it frustrates me that anyone well below his status would vote for this man and his sorry excuse of a VP.

[Solkia]

I thought this thread could use some comic relief.

[Patticus]

Did Mittens Romney break the law during his overseas gaffe-a-thon?

Is Romney ineligible to become the next President of the United States of America? It’s a very real possibility, especially since he threw a few fundraisers during his disastrous little overseas meet n’ greet a few weeks ago. These fundraisers were extremely private, with no journalists present (with a single exception, who did not have access to the donors), no filming or photography allowed, no diligence done, and no donor IDs checked. If money changed hands at these rich shin-digs (which is quite probable, being fundraisers and all), Romney could be in a lot of trouble.

But why? Let’s ask the Supreme Court and their 9-0 decision in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission:

Huh. Very interesting, Supreme Court, thank you.

Romney, already having to evade the demands of the American people to see his tax returns, will now have to prove that he hasn’t accepted foreign money to fund his campaign. Considering no records were apparently kept, that could prove difficult. If he has taken foreign money, then he is ineligible for the CoChief position, but very eligible for a cozy jail cell in some white-collar prison.

As Veterans Today points out:

“Romney has raised millions in foreign cash at fundraising event across Israel and London, those that we know of so far. One table alone gave him a million in cash. None was from American citizens. Fewer than 10% of Romney’s contributors in Israel are estimated to be “dual citizens.” Others may have just flown the money in.”

So what do you think? Is Romney in trouble? Or will he bury this just like he did his tax returns?

http://www.addicting...e-disqualified/

It looks incredibly suspicious now that the press was banned from at least a couple of his overseas "fundraisers." I mean, it was odd at the time, as it was breaking pre-established protocols, but now it just looks like a cover for taking illegal donations from wealthy foreign investors, perhaps involved in industries that would benefit from a RR victory; arms, oil etc. Does the man think that the law doesn't apply to him, that he can get money from whomever he wants with no repercussions?

If there is a real likelihood that Mitt illegally accepted foreign donations, there needs to be a full inquiry into it, a CIA/FBI/IRS investigation or some such.

Also, Mitt may have committed voter fraud, if this is accurate:

Of course, that would be a difficult claim to substantiate in a court of law without Romney's tax returns, which could prove beyond all doubt where his primary residency was during this period.