The 2012 US Presidential Elections

[bhaexpress]

Obama isn't popular with lots of people in the states, if it hadn't been for OBL he may have been a one term president.

He may well still be but I hope not. He is just about the only American politician who seems to have any real idea of what goes on outside America. Most of them seen to be a total loss to understand why the rest of the world doesn't think America is the most perfect place on earth, and why the rest of the world isn't eternally grateful that America exists.

Mind you, the President is elected by Americans, a fair chunk of whom seem to have no inkling about what happens anywhere else in the world. For such a vast place it has a lot of very insular people.

Unlike previous clowns like Bush and Reagan Obama has a lot of respect across the World because as you say he does have some idea of what happens elsewhere. It's fairly typical of America to not be interested in this little fact as it's well know how insular they are. Why people are getting so upset about his health reforms when thirty five millions 'Fellow Americans' have no health care at all is totally beyond me.

 

[dingodan]

Why people are getting so upset about his health reforms when thirty five millions 'Fellow Americans' have no health care at all is totally beyond me.

Its not like the anti-obamacare crowd are saying boo to healthcare. What they dont want is what happens in this country. Granted we get emergency treatment with no questions about ability to pay, which is very good. But often if you are sick and need medications or treatment you will go to the government and say, "may I have these pills or this operation please?" The government will look at their spreadsheets and do a cost benefit analysis and decide whether you are worth treating. That is what they are against. Look at medicare or social security in the U.S. both of which are flat broke. The sad fact is that the government can't run shit, however noble their intentions. The last people I would want in charge of my healthcare is the Federal bureaucracy of the U.S. government. Obamacare intends to force people to have insurance, the benefactors of this policy will be the insurance companies, which I kind of feel is the intention. Its a medical industrial complex, to go along side the media industrial complex and the military industrial complex and so on.

 

[beorhthelm]

other than the fact that the US president is a powerful figure on the world stage, what does any of the above matter? the US policy on healthcare and social security matters about as much to us as Germany's or Brazil's policies on the same - f*** all.

 

[dingodan]

other than the fact that the US president is a powerful figure on the world stage, what does any of the above matter? the US policy on healthcare and social security matters about as much to us as Germany's or Brazil's policies on the same - f*** all.

Someone asked why alot of americans are against Obama's healthcare plan, as though they are against healthcare. But yes, I totally agree with you.

If only the U.S. would mind its own business. The U.S. President's concern should be the U.S., not policing the world and playing the ridiculously inflated role that they have been on the supposed "world stage".

This is why Ron Paul would be a refreshing change.

"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."

– Dr. Ron Paul

 

[sten_super]

Its not like the anti-obamacare crowd are saying boo to healthcare. What they dont want is what happens in this country. Granted we get emergency treatment with no questions about ability to pay, which is very good. But often if you are sick and need medications or treatment you will go to the government and say, "may I have these pills or this operation please?" The government will look at their spreadsheets and do a cost benefit analysis and decide whether you are worth treating. That is what they are against. Look at medicare or social security in the U.S. both of which are flat broke. The sad fact is that the government can't run shit, however noble their intentions. The last people I would want in charge of my healthcare is the Federal bureaucracy of the U.S. government. Obamacare intends to force people to have insurance, the benefactors of this policy will be the insurance companies, which I kind of feel is the intention. Its a medical industrial complex, to go along side the media industrial complex and the military industrial complex and so on.

That's not my reading of it. I'm not saying this is necessarily representative of all Republicans, but I remember hearing an interview with Matt Damon, who said he's sat down with a GOP strategist to try to work out where they differed in their view of healtcare. The answer was that Damon (a renowned Democrat) viewed access to healthcare as a right, whereas the GOP guy viewed it as a privilege.

To argue that the Republicans don't want it because they don't trust the government to run it well, when the alternative (the current situation) is 40 million people without healthcare insurance (with only an estimated 12% of those able to pay for their hospital bills in full; how much is that costing the tax payer?) seems a bit odd to me.

 

[dingodan]

That's not my reading of it. I'm not saying this is necessarily representative of all Republicans, but I remember hearing an interview with Matt Damon, who said he's sat down with a GOP strategist to try to work out where they differed in their view of healtcare. The answer was that Damon (a renowned Democrat) viewed access to healthcare as a right, whereas the GOP guy viewed it as a privilege.

To argue that the Republicans don't want it because they don't trust the government to run it well, when the alternative (the current situation) is 40 million people without healthcare insurance (with only an estimated 12% of those able to pay for their hospital bills in full; how much is that costing the tax payer?) seems a bit odd to me.

You are right, this is very much about whether or not you consider healthcare to be a right.

 

[sten_super]

You are right, this is very much about whether or not you consider healthcare to be a right.

<snip>

I've said this before, and no doubt I'll say it again, but
i) I'm at work, so even if I wanted to couldn't watch the videos
ii) Have absolutely no desire to watch 15 minutes worth of Youtube videos.

You may have a perfectly valid point (I've no idea) but your propensity for posting long-winded videos rather than explaining anything in a post that I can read in 30 seconds very much gives the impression that you don't understand the argument they are making.

I'm genuinely interested in your view but find it very hard to take you seriously when you are unable to make a point in writing.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I don't see how Obama can lose. He just needs to pick off the odd Muslim Terrorist Leader or Middle Eastern despot every couple of months and he should be home and hosed.

Nailing Gaddafi Duck will be worth 5% in the polls alone.

 

[sten_super]

Incidentally, I find the whole economic and political spectrum in the US to be skewed a hell of a lot more to the right than in this country (or anywhere else in Western Europe). I listen to a lot of US economics podcasts and some of the stuff that they say (not even taking a devil's advocate perspective but actually believing) I find genuinely frightening. One debate was between two economists who would position themselves as right wing even on a US scale, but I found it amazing that they were actually doubting the ability of government spending to bolster the economy in any way, shape or form. They used the classic example of the government paying a man to dig a whole and paying another to fill it in again. According to them this would do little other than create inflation (through the injection of money into the economy) they could not see that this would make an individual any better off and certainly had a firm belief that the multiplier effect from this was 0. I found the whole exchange bizarre in the extreme.

 

[Philzo-93]

as long as sara palin gets her clothes off, im a happy man either way

 

[dingodan]

I've said this before, and no doubt I'll say it again, but
i) I'm at work, so even if I wanted to couldn't watch the videos
ii) Have absolutely no desire to watch 15 minutes worth of Youtube videos.

You may have a perfectly valid point (I've no idea) but your propensity for posting long-winded videos rather than explaining anything in a post that I can read in 30 seconds very much gives the impression that you don't understand the argument they are making.

I'm genuinely interested in your view but find it very hard to take you seriously when you are unable to make a point in writing.

Point taken. I would still suggest giving these a listen if you get the chance because I think they put it better than I could.

Basically healthcare is not a right, it is a service. If you believe that people have a right to stuff to be given to them by the government, one has to ask the question, "where does the government get it?". The answer is that it takes it from someone else. You have a right to your life, your liberty and the fruits of your labour. If the government is going to take the fruits of your labour to give them to someone else, they are violating your rights in order to satisfy what they consider to be someone elses rights. This really boils down to a misunderstanding of what a right is. The provision of healthcare by the government is not the "protection of a right", it is the "divvying up of the loot". You can call it socialism or wellfare, but the important thing is that it undermines the principles of liberty.

Also once you accept the assumption that the government should take care of you from cradle to grave, you are really abandoning the notion of personal liberty, with which comes personal responsibility. I believe strongly that in the UK people lack a sense of personal responsibility, and in part I believe that this is down to the culture we have of depending on the government to take care of us. Dont have a job? the government will give you money. Drunk too much? The NHS will pump your stomach. Because people dont tend to suffer the consequences of their actions, they dont tend to take responsibility for them.

Like I said I can only explain this within the boundaries of my own understanding, which is limited. I do think its kind of a shame that you want to understand this viewpoint, but only if you can read it in 30 seconds. Frankly, as with most issues, its going to take abit more than that. You could say "ees complicated"

 

[dingodan]

Incidentally, I find the whole economic and political spectrum in the US to be skewed a hell of a lot more to the right than in this country (or anywhere else in Western Europe). I listen to a lot of US economics podcasts and some of the stuff that they say (not even taking a devil's advocate perspective but actually believing) I find genuinely frightening. One debate was between two economists who would position themselves as right wing even on a US scale, but I found it amazing that they were actually doubting the ability of government spending to bolster the economy in any way, shape or form. They used the classic example of the government paying a man to dig a whole and paying another to fill it in again. According to them this would do little other than create inflation (through the injection of money into the economy) they could not see that this would make an individual any better off and certainly had a firm belief that the multiplier effect from this was 0. I found the whole exchange bizarre in the extreme.

Forgive me but if I pay a man to dig a hole, and I pay another man to fill it...how have I created any wealth? I've put dollars in their hands, but I have created nothing of value.

If you think merely putting dollars in their hands is creating wealth, u misunderstand economics.

 

[beorhthelm]

If you think merely putting dollars in their hands is creating wealth, u misunderstand economics.

no, its about different view points of economics. one, used by most of the world, observes that labour is the fundation of value. the other, the austrian school, sees things differently with i dont know quite what to replace it.

 

[sten_super]

Point taken. I would still suggest giving these a listen if you get the chance because I think they put it better than I could.

Basically healthcare is not a right, it is a service. If you believe that people have a right to stuff to be given to them by the government, one has to ask the question, "where does the government get it?". The answer is that it takes it from someone else. You have a right to your life, your liberty and the fruits of your labour. If the government is going to take the fruits of your labour to give them to someone else, they are violating your rights in order to satisfy what they consider to be someone elses rights. This really boils down to a misunderstanding of what a right is. The provision of healthcare by the government is not the "protection of a right", it is the "divvying up of the loot". You can call it socialism or wellfare, but the important thing is that it undermines the principles of liberty.

Also once you accept the assumption that the government should take care of you from cradle to grave, you are really abandoning the notion of personal liberty, with which comes personal responsibility. I believe strongly that in the UK people lack a sense of personal responsibility, and in part I believe that this is down to the culture we have of depending on the government to take care of us. Dont have a job? the government will give you money. Drunk too much? The NHS will pump your stomach. Because people dont tend to suffer the consequences of their actions, they dont tend to take responsibility for them.

Like I said I can only explain this within the boundaries of my own understanding, which is limited. I do think its kind of a shame that you want to understand this viewpoint, but only if you can read it in 30 seconds. Frankly, as with most issues, its going to take abit more than that. You could say "ees complicated"

I think that you give a very good account of your viewpoint here, and explain yourself well. It certainly took me a lot less than 15 minutes to understand!

I agree that too much intervention from the state is a bad thing; the problem is where the line lies. It seems that you are espousing the values of a true free market; I would suggest that this can (and does) lead to radical income inequalities, to the stage where you whole parts of cities/countries become no-go zones (obvious some parts of some cities are already like this). Effectively you write off a proportion of the population and allow them to live in true poverty because they are unable (whether it is intentional or not) to support themselves/their families.

This might be the best outcome for a given individual (the person who earns money and does not have to contribute to the state), but is the gain that they have made as/more significant than the loss incurred to the person who is now receiving nothing from the government? Ruddy hell I sound like a socialist (I'm not), but my point is that income distribution can lead to societal gains; overall 'we' as a populace can be on average better off as a result of income redistribution. It's not necessarily very libertarian; but the neither is trapping some of the population in a poverty spiral, or being afraid to go out at night because crime is rife from the vagrant population. I know I'm being very extreme here but I truly believe this kind of thing could come to pass if you did away with any kind of income redistribution.

Forgive me but if I pay a man to dig a hole, and I pay another man to fill it...how have I created any wealth? I've put dollars in their hands, but I have created nothing of value.

If you think merely putting dollars in their hands is creating wealth, u misunderstand economics.

If you re-read my initial statement, I didn't say that it created wealth; I said it bolstered the economy. Using my example, you are giving two men a wage that would not otherwise have one; as well as removing externalities (such as saving them from a life of destitution), they are likely to go out and spend this money (on food and necessities amongst other things). Assuming that they wouldn't otherwise have bought these items (because they would not have had the income to do so) giving these men a wage has increased revenues (and product demand) for the company making these items, who may then need to hire someone to make the extra items that are being demanded; this person then spends money, etc. etc. this is the idea of the multiplier effect.

 

[thejackal]

Ron Paul will never win the GOP nomination, and the system will never allow an independent to get more than a tiny % of the votes, so don't hold your breath for RP2012, despite his refreshing policies. It's never gonna happen.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

The NRA rate Ron Paul an A candidate, that says a lot. He co-sponsored banning gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC.

At least Obama is open to some gun reforms.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Ron Paul will never win the GOP nomination, and the system will never allow an independent to get more than a tiny % of the votes, so don't hold your breath for RP2012, despite his refreshing policies. It's never gonna happen.

He's a wolf in sheeps clothing.

He might seem refreshing, but he's a Libertarian, which means he'll still covet the clandestine bullshit of the American Constitution.

 

[thejackal]

He's a wolf in sheeps clothing.

He might seem refreshing, but he's a Libertarian, which means he'll still covet the clandestine bullshit of the American Constitution.

Yes I agree, but then so was Obama.

 

[dingodan]

Ruddy hell I sound like a socialist (I'm not)

Thats just what I was thinking, are you sure you are not?

People in this country recieve wellfare because they cant look after themselves. The idea is to protect them from poverty, but it doesnt, it locks them into poverty. Its just government issued poverty so for some reason it seems more compassionate. In truth the compassionate thing to do would be to really help people get out of the system. I definately think we shouldnt just leave the vulnerable in the lurch, but we have a generation that has learned to be dependant. I think the role of government in our lives should be minimal, government should be incidental, we should almost forget that its there. What we have today is so far removed from that. We should heavily restrain government involvement in our lives because even its most noble intentions cause more harm than good.

As for income distribution, looking at the US over the past few decades they have plenty of wellfare programs. And the level of discrepancy between the top 2% and the bottom 95% is greater than it has ever been and is growing. So wellfare has not helped solve this. And all the while the free market gets blamed, when the US does not have, and has not had, a free market. It has a managed economy, what you could call Croney capitalism, or even corporatism. A system of special interests and lobbyists which tragically has tarnished free market ideas which essentially are just about economic liberty. I believe that productivity and prosperity come from liberty. And Liberty is one package, economic liberty and personal liberty are inseperable.

If you re-read my initial statement, I didn't say that it created wealth; I said it bolstered the economy. Using my example, you are giving two men a wage that would not otherwise have one; as well as removing externalities (such as saving them from a life of destitution), they are likely to go out and spend this money (on food and necessities amongst other things). Assuming that they wouldn't otherwise have bought these items (because they would not have had the income to do so) giving these men a wage has increased revenues (and product demand) for the company making these items, who may then need to hire someone to make the extra items that are being demanded; this person then spends money, etc. etc. this is the idea of the multiplier effect.

But where did u get the money that you gave them in the first place. This is why inflation was talked about, because when u add money to the money supply, without increasing the level of goods or services (real wealth/value) then all that happens is that you dilute the money supply and the value of the money goes down.

Imagine this micro economy. If bob and frank have £10 each and a glass of lemonade costs £5, they can each afford 2 glasses of lemonade. The price of the lemonade is based on the demand from bob and frank and the amount of lemonade available. If I give each of them another £10, in theory they can each have double the amount of lemonade. Unfortunately, while I have increased the amount of money in the economy, I have not increased the amount of lemonade. So they dont get any more lemonade than before. The price of lemonade just goes up to £10.

Trying to defy economic law is like trying to defy the laws of physics. Hey, listen, I want the dudes digging and filling the hole to have what they need, but to achieve that we have to start by not messing with the economy in this way. It might have a limited short term affect to just pump in money, but the long term is inflation, meaning that poorer people will pay higher prices. And there is a profound moral question here. As Ron Paul once said (I believe in 1988) "is it any more moral to dilute the value of the purchasing power of the money you hold in your wallet, than it is for the farmer to dilute the milk supply with water?"

I know you dont like YT vids, but if you get a chance you might enjoy this:

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Ron Paul will never win the GOP nomination, and the system will never allow an independent to get more than a tiny % of the votes, so don't hold your breath for RP2012, despite his refreshing policies. It's never gonna happen.

It’s a pity Mike Bloomberg decided not to stand as an Independent. He’s done an OK job as Mayor of New York and he has the money to fund a campaign.