73 réponses à ce sujet

[uberman409]

Pshaw, North Korea FTW. We must bow down to Glorious Leader Kim Jong-Il.

[invert180]

Disclaimer: I'm Canadian, but I do enjoy U.S. politics. It's so entertaining to me.



@mrofni:



I'm a self-admitted Obama lover. I thought he was a breath of fresh air for U.S. politics. "Finally," I thought, "someone who isn't so involved in the corporatist-controlled system!" Unfortunately, it turns out even he ended up being "turned". I don't like his financial policies of bowing down to corporations. I don't like his lack of strength when it comes to pushing forward an affordable healthcare plan that covers all citizens. I don't like how he's become a politician who doesn't seem to know which side of the fence he should play on. So he ends up succumbing to even more terrible compromises with a party that refuses to help in any meaningful way. To his credit, however, he is doing a fantastic job with foreign policy. He alone has brought the image of the U.S. back up in the eyes of the world.



Regardless of all the problems that were thrown into his lap, he's still done a half-decent job of things. If you want a simple piece of evidence, just go look up some charts on the Department of Labor website. You'll notice a solid and continual decrease in the number of jobs lost per month, which (surprise!) just so happens to begin right after he enters office.



Honestly, I feel like he could have done a far better job if he wasn't so intent on being bi-partisan. All there seems to be is an endless stream of "No" votes to anything the Democrats bring up. Even that anti-rape bill by Al Franken, one of the most uncontroversial bills you could possibly create, was shot down by a massive number of Republicans. Seriously now, what do the Republicans want Obama to do? Continue with the policies of Bush? The very policies that brought on the economic collapse in the first place?



Basically, I'm just bewildered by what's happening south of the border.



@uberman409:



It's hard to give any credit whatsoever to a President who thinks starting two wars while not increasing taxes (or anything) to support said wars is a great idea. There was even a budget surplus when he entered office... which he tanks. Then he proceeds to increase the unemployment rate steadily throughout his presidency. (Though it does drop slightly in two of the eight years of his term... only to shoot way up in 2008.) Lets not even get started on the whole torture issues and foreign policy issues.



Look, you can resort to all the ad hominem attacks you want by calling me an idiot or a moron. But all I'm doing is pointing at facts. Numbers and statistics and events that don't change. It's up to you whether or not you want to believe the evidence.

[mrofni]

invert180 wrote...

Disclaimer: I'm Canadian, but I do enjoy U.S. politics. It's so entertaining to me.

@mrofni:

I'm a self-admitted Obama lover. I thought he was a breath of fresh air for U.S. politics. "Finally," I thought, "someone who isn't so involved in the corporatist-controlled system!" Unfortunately, it turns out even he ended up being "turned". I don't like his financial policies of bowing down to corporations. I don't like his lack of strength when it comes to pushing forward an affordable healthcare plan that covers all citizens. I don't like how he's become a politician who doesn't seem to know which side of the fence he should play on. So he ends up succumbing to even more terrible compromises with a party that refuses to help in any meaningful way. To his credit, however, he is doing a fantastic job with foreign policy. He alone has brought the image of the U.S. back up in the eyes of the world.

He was turned to corporations before he went into office. He was predominately supported by unions. He specifcially allowed one of his supporter unions, one that he worked for, SEIU help create his stimulus bill. There is also talk about unionizing airport security, which hadn't been before. He specifically had also been saying that he has been bipartisan, at least as it refers to health care, is a joke. The rebuplicans have offered several ideas that they simply rejected with no real explanation. Malpractice reform and opening insurance to be sold across state boundries to name a couple. Malpractice reform isn't in the bill because the Democratic party gets a large amount of funding from trial lawyers, while the Republican party doesn't. Trial lawyers would specifically lose money if malpractice reform was passed.

His foreign policy hasn't been that great. He looks nice to the rest of the world, but what use has "looking nice" got? It hasn't helped swayed the minds of the international community about destablizing countries such as Iran or North Korea.  They're still both developing nuclear weapons, full speed ahead. What little economic sanctions haven't worked, and he isn't able to get them to agree to major economic sanctions. He lets terrorists have civilian rights instead of major interrogation while simultaniously sending droids to kill terrorists without any rights. Talk about an inconsistency on policy.

Regardless of all the problems that were thrown into his lap, he's still done a half-decent job of things. If you want a simple piece of evidence, just go look up some charts on the Department of Labor website. You'll notice a solid and continual decrease in the number of jobs lost per month, which (surprise!) just so happens to begin right after he enters office.

Jobs have decreased their rate of loss. To be fair though, you can't really count the jobs until 3-6 months after he got in office. For him to specifically have an effect on jobs, his policies would need to have been in place for some time already, because many jobs take set up time. Economists all agree that a lot of job creation is psychological. Businesses need to feel that they have a stable economy to be able to create jobs. They need to feel thath way because if the economy isn't stable they will lose money off hiring more people when they shouldn't have. The Health Care Bill trying to go through congress has been bad for the economy. Every week something changes about it. Businesses have to worry about an unknown tax amount, different fees, as well as potential law changes that could require them to give health insurance to their employees. When such a big change can happen in a year, many companies are holding back on growing/expanding, simply because they don't know if they could maintain it once the bill comes out.

Honestly, I feel like he could have done a far better job if he wasn't so intent on being bi-partisan. All there seems to be is an endless stream of "No" votes to anything the Democrats bring up. Even that anti-rape bill by Al Franken, one of the most uncontroversial bills you could possibly create, was shot down by a massive number of Republicans. Seriously now, what do the Republicans want Obama to do? Continue with the policies of Bush? The very policies that brought on the economic collapse in the first place?

As I said before, he isn't being bi-partisan, at least when it comes to health care. He is being more bi-partisan on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not with the rest of the foreign affairs. If he was being bi-partisan, he could get health care passed. Keep the 70% of the bill everybody likes, make sure there are no business favors, and just pass that. He isn't doing that though. They are fighting to get all of their own party votes to be able to pass legislation they speficially want. Not everyone in their party fully agrees on some of the stuff they are doing. Its why the Public Option was eventually dropped from the bill. There was no chance it would pass with it. Additionally, not all of the economic crash was Bush's fault. At least the housing market crash wasn't. He specifically tried to get legislation passed to stop it. It was after 2006 when the Democratic party took majority of congress. The legislation didn't pass, and then the housing market crashed. Incredibly low interest rates on homes, which cannot be sustained. Eventually they have to raise the interest rate, and when that happens, people can't pay for their homes anymore. Unfortunately, this same scenario is going to repeat itself here if they don't get their act together and prevent it this time. I am not arguing that Bush was a good president, I just don't think everything was his fault. I honestly think he was a bad president, but I also think Obama is a bad president. They both have massively increased the debt, they both have lied to the American people, and they both granted out favors to people/groups/businesses that supported them.

[invert180]

mrofni wrote...

He was turned to corporations before he went into office. He was predominately supported by unions. He specifcially allowed one of his supporter unions, one that he worked for, SEIU help create his stimulus bill. There is also talk about unionizing airport security, which hadn't been before. He specifically had also been saying that he has been bipartisan, at least as it refers to health care, is a joke. The rebuplicans have offered several ideas that they simply rejected with no real explanation. Malpractice reform and opening insurance to be sold across state boundries to name a couple. Malpractice reform isn't in the bill because the Democratic party gets a large amount of funding from trial lawyers, while the Republican party doesn't. Trial lawyers would specifically lose money if malpractice reform was passed.

Primarily supported by unions? What? Where did you get that weird "fact" from? I'd be happy to look up a list of organizations that donated massive amounts of money to Obama in 2009, but I can tell you right now... they definitely weren't unions.



Unions have received absolutely nothing. Sure, there's been talk about this and that, but there was talk about a card check bill a few months ago too. Now that's gone. And it was, perhaps, the single most important issue to unions. Also, if you can point to anything on the ARRA that benefits unions specifically, please do so. Because "SEIU help create his stimulus bill" is so random that I've never even heard someone make that claim before. Where did you get that from?



Allowing insurance companies, who have spent the past decade increasing health insurance premiums two-fold, to sell insurance across state lines is not a good idea. All that would end up happening is these same companies will flock to the state with the most lax laws pertaining to health insurance, and say they're selling from there. Premiums shoot up again. And recission may become even worse. Plus a whole slew of other issues. It was one bad idea amongst a million other bad ideas.

His foreign policy hasn't been that great. He looks nice to the rest of the world, but what use has "looking nice" got? It hasn't helped swayed the minds of the international community about destablizing countries such as Iran or North Korea. They're still both developing nuclear weapons, full speed ahead. What little economic sanctions haven't worked, and he isn't able to get them to agree to major economic sanctions. He lets terrorists have civilian rights instead of major interrogation while simultaniously sending droids to kill terrorists without any rights. Talk about an inconsistency on policy.

What is it, exactly, that you want from Iran or North Korea? Do you want to start another war?



Also, you need to understand the basic difference between a prisoner vs. an armed combatant. I thought America was about being just, having laws and following them. That is what the country was founded upon, was it not? You're willing to throw all that out because a prisoner (who may or may not be guilty) may possibly receive a fair trial in the court of law?



But I suppose you don't want that. Laws and ethics, bah! Lets take all these prisoners and shoot them in the back of the head, yeehaw! Hey, I know someone who agrees with your point of view. I think you call them terrorists.

Jobs have decreased their rate of loss. To be fair though, you can't really count the jobs until 3-6 months after he got in office. For him to specifically have an effect on jobs, his policies would need to have been in place for some time already, because many jobs take set up time. Economists all agree that a lot of job creation is psychological. Businesses need to feel that they have a stable economy to be able to create jobs. They need to feel thath way because if the economy isn't stable they will lose money off hiring more people when they shouldn't have. The Health Care Bill trying to go through congress has been bad for the economy. Every week something changes about it. Businesses have to worry about an unknown tax amount, different fees, as well as potential law changes that could require them to give health insurance to their employees. When such a big change can happen in a year, many companies are holding back on growing/expanding, simply because they don't know if they could maintain it once the bill comes out.

Well, err... 3-6 months after he got into office, job losses have continued to steadily decline. Soooo... yeah.

As I said before, he isn't being bi-partisan, at least when it comes to health care. He is being more bi-partisan on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not with the rest of the foreign affairs. If he was being bi-partisan, he could get health care passed. Keep the 70% of the bill everybody likes, make sure there are no business favors, and just pass that. He isn't doing that though. They are fighting to get all of their own party votes to be able to pass legislation they speficially want. Not everyone in their party fully agrees on some of the stuff they are doing. Its why the Public Option was eventually dropped from the bill. There was no chance it would pass with it. Additionally, not all of the economic crash was Bush's fault. At least the housing market crash wasn't. He specifically tried to get legislation passed to stop it. It was after 2006 when the Democratic party took majority of congress. The legislation didn't pass, and then the housing market crashed. Incredibly low interest rates on homes, which cannot be sustained. Eventually they have to raise the interest rate, and when that happens, people can't pay for their homes anymore. Unfortunately, this same scenario is going to repeat itself here if they don't get their act together and prevent it this time. I am not arguing that Bush was a good president, I just don't think everything was his fault. I honestly think he was a bad president, but I also think Obama is a bad president. They both have massively increased the debt, they both have lied to the American people, and they both granted out favors to people/groups/businesses that supported them.

If Obama did not want to work in a bi-partisan manner and was unaffected by corporations, Americans would be living happily with a single-payer system right now. Bam, done. Get the entire party in line and force the bill through. Threaten the Blue Dogs with primaries if they don't play ball. Instead, the fight has devolved into a battle over an insurance company that is run by the government. An insurance company that would charge lower premiums due to lower administrative costs... which is currently 20% or 30% of the money you pay to health insurance companies. That drops to a maximum of 3% in a government-run insurance company.



On top of that, people won't be denied coverage. I'm still a fan of a single-payer system, but at least a public option makes sense to me. I suppose it aligns more with the U.S. political landscape as well. But even that option is now on the brink of death.



The Republicans are even vehemently against a completely watered-down public option. It would get zero votes. The compromises before that got zero votes. The compromises before the compromises before that got zero votes. It is utterly silly to consider bi-partisanship at this point, when all the Republicans do is say no to everything yet offer no alternatives. But hey, lets water-down the healthcare reform some more... maybe there'll be someone saying yes when there's absolutely nothing left of it.



Obama has been pandering to the right-wing for months upon months now. The belief that he isn't is, quite simply, factually false. Even hard left-wingers like myself are getting tired of it. Do you have any idea how happy people would be if he went and made the changes they want? He went on and on about change this, change that... but isn't strong enough to implement those changes. Still, even with all his faults, at least Obama has increased the debt out of necessity... not because he's an absolutely horrendous president who takes a thriving economy and a budget surplus and destroys them both.



I'm just glad I live in Canada.

[OPlatypusPrime]

invert180 wrote...

mrofni wrote...
He was turned to corporations before he went into office. He was predominately supported by unions. He specifcially allowed one of his supporter unions, one that he worked for, SEIU help create his stimulus bill. There is also talk about unionizing airport security, which hadn't been before. He specifically had also been saying that he has been bipartisan, at least as it refers to health care, is a joke. The rebuplicans have offered several ideas that they simply rejected with no real explanation. Malpractice reform and opening insurance to be sold across state boundries to name a couple. Malpractice reform isn't in the bill because the Democratic party gets a large amount of funding from trial lawyers, while the Republican party doesn't. Trial lawyers would specifically lose money if malpractice reform was passed.

Primarily supported by unions? What? Where did you get that weird "fact" from? I'd be happy to look up a list of organizations that donated massive amounts of money to Obama in 2009, but I can tell you right now... they definitely weren't unions.

Unions have received absolutely nothing. Sure, there's been talk about this and that, but there was talk about a card check bill a few months ago too. Now that's gone. And it was, perhaps, the single most important issue to unions. Also, if you can point to anything on the ARRA that benefits unions specifically, please do so. Because "SEIU help create his stimulus bill" is so random that I've never even heard someone make that claim before. Where did you get that from?

Allowing insurance companies, who have spent the past decade increasing health insurance premiums two-fold, to sell insurance across state lines is not a good idea. All that would end up happening is these same companies will flock to the state with the most lax laws pertaining to health insurance, and say they're selling from there. Premiums shoot up again. And recission may become even worse. Plus a whole slew of other issues. It was one bad idea amongst a million other bad ideas.

His foreign policy hasn't been that great. He looks nice to the rest of the world, but what use has "looking nice" got? It hasn't helped swayed the minds of the international community about destablizing countries such as Iran or North Korea. They're still both developing nuclear weapons, full speed ahead. What little economic sanctions haven't worked, and he isn't able to get them to agree to major economic sanctions. He lets terrorists have civilian rights instead of major interrogation while simultaniously sending droids to kill terrorists without any rights. Talk about an inconsistency on policy.

What is it, exactly, that you want from Iran or North Korea? Do you want to start another war?

Also, you need to understand the basic difference between a prisoner vs. an armed combatant. I thought America was about being just, having laws and following them. That is what the country was founded upon, was it not? You're willing to throw all that out because a prisoner (who may or may not be guilty) may possibly receive a fair trial in the court of law?

But I suppose you don't want that. Laws and ethics, bah! Lets take all these prisoners and shoot them in the back of the head, yeehaw! Hey, I know someone who agrees with your point of view. I think you call them terrorists.

Jobs have decreased their rate of loss. To be fair though, you can't really count the jobs until 3-6 months after he got in office. For him to specifically have an effect on jobs, his policies would need to have been in place for some time already, because many jobs take set up time. Economists all agree that a lot of job creation is psychological. Businesses need to feel that they have a stable economy to be able to create jobs. They need to feel thath way because if the economy isn't stable they will lose money off hiring more people when they shouldn't have. The Health Care Bill trying to go through congress has been bad for the economy. Every week something changes about it. Businesses have to worry about an unknown tax amount, different fees, as well as potential law changes that could require them to give health insurance to their employees. When such a big change can happen in a year, many companies are holding back on growing/expanding, simply because they don't know if they could maintain it once the bill comes out.

Well, err... 3-6 months after he got into office, job losses have continued to steadily decline. Soooo... yeah.

As I said before, he isn't being bi-partisan, at least when it comes to health care. He is being more bi-partisan on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not with the rest of the foreign affairs. If he was being bi-partisan, he could get health care passed. Keep the 70% of the bill everybody likes, make sure there are no business favors, and just pass that. He isn't doing that though. They are fighting to get all of their own party votes to be able to pass legislation they speficially want. Not everyone in their party fully agrees on some of the stuff they are doing. Its why the Public Option was eventually dropped from the bill. There was no chance it would pass with it. Additionally, not all of the economic crash was Bush's fault. At least the housing market crash wasn't. He specifically tried to get legislation passed to stop it. It was after 2006 when the Democratic party took majority of congress. The legislation didn't pass, and then the housing market crashed. Incredibly low interest rates on homes, which cannot be sustained. Eventually they have to raise the interest rate, and when that happens, people can't pay for their homes anymore. Unfortunately, this same scenario is going to repeat itself here if they don't get their act together and prevent it this time. I am not arguing that Bush was a good president, I just don't think everything was his fault. I honestly think he was a bad president, but I also think Obama is a bad president. They both have massively increased the debt, they both have lied to the American people, and they both granted out favors to people/groups/businesses that supported them.

If Obama did not want to work in a bi-partisan manner and was unaffected by corporations, Americans would be living happily with a single-payer system right now. Bam, done. Get the entire party in line and force the bill through. Threaten the Blue Dogs with primaries if they don't play ball. Instead, the fight has devolved into a battle over an insurance company that is run by the government. An insurance company that would charge lower premiums due to lower administrative costs... which is currently 20% or 30% of the money you pay to health insurance companies. That drops to a maximum of 3% in a government-run insurance company.

On top of that, people won't be denied coverage. I'm still a fan of a single-payer system, but at least a public option makes sense to me. I suppose it aligns more with the U.S. political landscape as well. But even that option is now on the brink of death.

The Republicans are even vehemently against a completely watered-down public option. It would get zero votes. The compromises before that got zero votes. The compromises before the compromises before that got zero votes. It is utterly silly to consider bi-partisanship at this point, when all the Republicans do is say no to everything yet offer no alternatives. But hey, lets water-down the healthcare reform some more... maybe there'll be someone saying yes when there's absolutely nothing left of it.

Obama has been pandering to the right-wing for months upon months now. The belief that he isn't is, quite simply, factually false. Even hard left-wingers like myself are getting tired of it. Do you have any idea how happy people would be if he went and made the changes they want? He went on and on about change this, change that... but isn't strong enough to implement those changes. Still, even with all his faults, at least Obama has increased the debt out of necessity... not because he's an absolutely horrendous president who takes a thriving economy and a budget surplus and destroys them both.

I'm just glad I live in Canada.

lol, your canadian

[CaptainProphesy]

uberman409 wrote...

invert180 wrote...

Anyone who thinks it should take only one year to repair a country that has been stomped on for eight years straight is out of their minds.

This thread has gone completely off-topic and politically heated discussions are generally discouraged on these forums, so I expect a lock-down incoming soon...!

Anyone who thinks that our previous president did nothing but stomp on the country for eight years, start to finish, has obviously forgotten what happens when a nation is really stomped on for close to a decade. What's speaking there is obvious political bias. Though Bush was not the greatest President to reign, he by far was not the worst, and to attribute such an economic recession to the actions of one man's presidency - which you insinuated in saying "stomped on for eight years" - is nothing short of complete and utter idiocy. You were either spoon-fed this nonsense without thought, or you don't have any ability to assess such a situation, but either way, to make that claim... moron. That's all.

It takes more than a decade of reckless actions on the part of more or less the entire people to cause the crapsack economy we're in now. Reckless actions stemming from what was essentially gambling akin to that which caused the Depression. This gambling was enabled in part by legislation made many years prior to Bush Jr., and as such, he cannot take the full weight of your scorn. The scorn should be directed at all of us who are citizens of the United States of America, some for the recklessness, some for enabling them through legislation, and some for sitting idly by while morons do whatever they want without fear of the risks that they're taking, because in the short term they have Federal insurance to handle it.

So no, it won't take a year to fix things. However, to blame it all on Bush as you did... absolutely preposterous.

And Trajan, you do no better by calling him a realist merely because he agrees with you.

Nicely said.

[CaptainProphesy]

Trajan60 wrote...

CaptainProphesy wrote...

ROFLMAO!!!! this statement coming from a fan of Obama's...hahahaha how
hypocritical!... can you say "Nanny State"... Obamma hasent done a damn
thing since in office (except spend us into OBLIVION)... it's been
almost a year! when will he and his followers take responsibility? yeah
thats what I thought!
And for your imformation she is Self
Employed as am I... WE ARE what has made this country GREAT... well up
until it's begun being torn down by socialist liberals! (no offence to
any other liberals out there ../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png)

I own
several properties, several vehicles and own a business and make very
good money!!!! yeah I'm a fan of being TAXED TO ALL HELL... I also own
several firearms, yeah I'm a fan at always being 
AT RISK OF LOSING THEM!... I am also an AMERICAN, yeah I'm a fan of
continuosly LOSING MY RIGHTS!

OH and dont think that you resorting to name calling has eluded me! typical!

Whoa, you must get tons of chicks. Let me get you that merit badge right away!

Also,  with the numerous grammatical errors in your post, your use of caps lock to emphasise certain words and your spamming of several exclamation points leads me to find it very hard to believe you own a business or have any amount of success. Cogency when putting thoughts on to paper or on to any digitized medium is a big indicator of intellect and your post reads like it was typed by a 9 year old.

If you're self employed then I'm the Queen of Antiva.

haha great way to argue your point son!

lets see.
 
actually yes, I used to get all the chicks... so thank you very much. Now that I'm married and have two children, dont care about it. (not exactley sure how that has anything to do with your original argument, but hey I wouldnt expect any less from you)

as far as my grammatical errors... ooohhh you got me! must be nice to be a genius like you... too bad that hasnt brought you anyting in life! ... oh and again not sure how that has anything to do with the original argument... but again, I wouldnt expect anything less.

and yes I am self employed... why becasue you have to skills or are too afraid to take a gamble to start your own business that means no else can?... oh thats right, your frame of thought is if YOU CANT DO IT... then no one ele should be able to, right?

... so I'm still waiting to hear the great things that Obama has done so far? wheres all his promises? how is he for the people?

So hopefully you can answer these questions for me... but I'm sure I'll just get schooled on my spelling and be called names.

typical

[Trajan60]

CaptainProphesy wrote...

actually yes, I used to get all the chicks... so thank you very much.

One thing I think everybody knows is that the dudes that brag about getting the chicks really end up getting dick. The ones that do are humble about it.

Keep up the lies though. It's comical at the very least.

Modifié par Trajan60, 10 janvier 2010 - 11:52 .

[CaptainProphesy]

Trajan60 wrote...

CaptainProphesy wrote...

actually yes, I used to get all the chicks... so thank you very much.

One thing I think everybody knows is that the dudes that brag about getting the chicks really end up getting dick. The ones that do are humble about it.

Keep up the lies though. It's comical at the very least.

So I take it your not going to answer my questions?
I mean all you seem to do is TRY to belittle... please change my  mind son!
You seem so adamant about Obama... I just want to know from YOU what is it that he has done? why do you feel compelled to defend him? I mean it shouldnt be hard for a genius like you right? after all by your own accord I'm an unsuccesful, uneducated loser.... so it shouldnt be that hard to change my mind.

[mrofni]

invert180 wrote...

Primarily supported by unions? What? Where did you get that weird "fact" from? I'd be happy to look up a list of organizations that donated massive amounts of money to Obama in 2009, but I can tell you right now... they definitely weren't unions.

Unions have received absolutely nothing. Sure, there's been talk about this and that, but there was talk about a card check bill a few months ago too. Now that's gone. And it was, perhaps, the single most important issue to unions. Also, if you can point to anything on the ARRA that benefits unions specifically, please do so. Because "SEIU help create his stimulus bill" is so random that I've never even heard someone make that claim before. Where did you get that from?

I was wrong about SEIU helping create the stimulus bill. The Apollo Alliance was who I was thinking of. SEIU is part of the Apollo Alliance. The Apollo Alliance is formed mainly of enviromental companies and organizations, labor unions, financial and legal services, and economic/social justice organizations. Also, as far as support goes monetary wise, the unions have overwhelmingly supported democrats over republicans. The stimulus bill also funded far more public sector jobs then private sector jobs. That sounds like it doesn't matter, but the public sector is far more unionized then the private sector. 36.8% to 7.6% on average. Additionally, more money was spent on jobs that tended to be more unionized in the private sector as well.

Link showing Harry Reid saying the Apollo Alliance was an important factor in helping develop and execute the  bill. On the Apollo Alliance site itself.
apolloalliance.org/feature-articles/at-last-federal-government-signs-up-for-clean-energy-economy/

Link showing list of endorsers for the Apollo Alliance.
apolloalliance.org/about/endorsers/

Link showing top donors to the poliltical parties.
www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Link showing union %'s for 2008, because 2009 hasn't been done yet, although it will be within the month.
www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

Links showing breakdown of money spending on the stimulus package. One from Glenn Beck (take the source for what it is) and another from the Washington Post.
www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/20639/
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html

Allowing insurance companies, who have spent the past decade increasing health insurance premiums two-fold, to sell insurance across state lines is not a good idea. All that would end up happening is these same companies will flock to the state with the most lax laws pertaining to health insurance, and say they're selling from there. Premiums shoot up again. And recission may become even worse. Plus a whole slew of other issues. It was one bad idea amongst a million other bad ideas.

That argument is flawed. Why would any insurance company move to a state that taxes them more? In the inverse, how does them moving to a state that taxes them less makes it cost more for people? How does having the options of buying policies from more Health Insurance companies increase price of those policies? If anything, the fact that a more expensive state's policies would have to compete against a cheaper state's policies would help lower the cost of insurance for people. Also, I don't think you realize how little money insurance companies actually make. Health care plans have a 3.4% profit margin. That is low compared to most industries.

Link showing profit margins of different business sectors profit margins.
biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html

What is it, exactly, that you want from Iran or North Korea? Do you want to start another war?

Also, you need to understand the basic difference between a prisoner vs. an armed combatant. I thought America was about being just, having laws and following them. That is what the country was founded upon, was it not? You're willing to throw all that out because a prisoner (who may or may not be guilty) may possibly receive a fair trial in the court of law?

But I suppose you don't want that. Laws and ethics, bah! Lets take all these prisoners and shoot them in the back of the head, yeehaw! Hey, I know someone who agrees with your point of view. I think you call them terrorists.

Against Iran, more support for the Iranian protesters. Working with Isreal and other countries about coming up with a plan that doesn't rely on China or Russia. They have shown that they don't care to show serious economic restrictions on Iran. If we can actually convince them, then I would be perfectly fine with that. However, we can't rely on them doing something they have shown they don't want to do. The same goes with North Korea. Eventaully, on the paths they currently have, they will achieve nuclear weapons, and they have shown themselves to be very unstable forces in the regions.

With the rights of terrorist groups. If Obama had the position that everyone deserves the same rights, no matter who they are, that is a position I can see. However, that isn't the position he has taken. He continually sends out drones to kill terrorists. The terrorists killed by drones effectively had those rights ignored without even showing immediate danger, which is required for self defense. They have had no rights, and there is even the possibilities of innocent bystanders to be caught when using drones. At the exact same time, he decides to treat terrorists that are caught with civil rights instead of military tribunal rights. He is fully willing to kill someone without giving them any rights while simultaneously giving caught terrorists with the same rights as a civilian? It doesn't make sense. If they have the rights of civilians, then killing them without a trial is murder.

Now, as far as the argument of whether they are military combatants or civilian terrorists, that is different. It entirely comes down to whether we are at war with them or not. They have certainly said they are at war with the U.S. Do they have the authority to declare war? I don't know. Bush said we are at war with terrorism, but is it truly a war? I think it entirely depends on that. If this is a war, then it is fully appropriate to prosecute them under military tribunals. It has been in our law for over a hundred years. However, if we are not at war, it is not appropriate to try them under military tribunals. If it is a war, drones might also be acceptable. However, if it is not a war, then drones are even worse then military tribunal.

Well, err... 3-6 months after he got into office, job losses have continued to steadily decline. Soooo... yeah.

Yep. However, we don't know if he is the cause still. He might be. We won't know until another year or 2. What I do know is that he has further increased the debt by continuing many of Bush's spending policies and by adding several of his own.

If Obama did not want to work in a bi-partisan manner and was unaffected by corporations, Americans would be living happily with a single-payer system right now. Bam, done. Get the entire party in line and force the bill through. Threaten the Blue Dogs with primaries if they don't play ball. Instead, the fight has devolved into a battle over an insurance company that is run by the government. An insurance company that would charge lower premiums due to lower administrative costs... which is currently 20% or 30% of the money you pay to health insurance companies. That drops to a maximum of 3% in a government-run insurance company.

On top of that, people won't be denied coverage. I'm still a fan of a single-payer system, but at least a public option makes sense to me. I suppose it aligns more with the U.S. political landscape as well. But even that option is now on the brink of death.

They wouldn't be living happily, but that is because the US doesn't have the foundation for single-payer system. Our tax laws need to be fixed first. Our governement has also never had a good track record for budgeting on a large scale.  Thats because our economic system is designed around capitalism. Unfortunately it has been moving away from that towards more Corporations in control for over the last 100 years. What we have is barely capitalism now. Monopolies and big Corporations are in control, and those are the antithesis of capitalism. Anyway, as I said before, the U.S. government isn't very effecient with their money. A good exmpale of this is Medicare, coincidentally. It is losing money, and is continually being a massive drain of money, more then it should be.

Link to report of Medicare debt.
www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662

The Republicans are even vehemently against a completely watered-down public option. It would get zero votes. The compromises before that got zero votes. The compromises before the compromises before that got zero votes. It is utterly silly to consider bi-partisanship at this point, when all the Republicans do is say no to everything yet offer no alternatives. But hey, lets water-down the healthcare reform some more... maybe there'll be someone saying yes when there's absolutely nothing left of it.

Obama has been pandering to the right-wing for months upon months now. The belief that he isn't is, quite simply, factually false. Even hard left-wingers like myself are getting tired of it. Do you have any idea how happy people would be if he went and made the changes they want? He went on and on about change this, change that... but isn't strong enough to implement those changes. Still, even with all his faults, at least Obama has increased the debt out of necessity... not because he's an absolutely horrendous president who takes a thriving economy and a budget surplus and destroys them both.

I'm just glad I live in Canada.

All you have done is blame Republicans. They have sure done their fair share of bad policies, but so have the Democrats. Both parties have been politcially corrupt and have put thier own interests over the people's. During Bush's administration, the Democrats filibustered many of the programs the Republicans wanted, then before that the Republicans did it to the Democrats, then before that the Democrats did it to the Republicans... See the drift? It has always been that way in U.S. history. Both sides have done it, and both sides will continue doing it. However, saying that a party should blackmail their members into voting for a bill they don't believe in is terrible. That is the problem of the system. Party politics. That the party is more important then the people. That a congress member has to vote with his party, even if he doesn't agree with them. Each congress member should vote what they believe is the best for their district and the American people. The Democratic party wants stuff for the Democratic party, and the Republican party wants stuff for the Republican party. I have had enough of it. Both parties have been willing to lie so easily. No liar should be in office. I don't know, maybe it is just obvious to me but LIARS CAN'T BE TRUSTED. The first and foremost concern should be getting liars out of office. 

[uberman409]

invert180 wrote...
@uberman409:

It's hard to give any credit whatsoever to a President who thinks starting two wars while not increasing taxes (or anything) to support said wars is a great idea. There was even a budget surplus when he entered office... which he tanks. Then he proceeds to increase the unemployment rate steadily throughout his presidency. (Though it does drop slightly in two of the eight years of his term... only to shoot way up in 2008.) Lets not even get started on the whole torture issues and foreign policy issues.

Look, you can resort to all the ad hominem attacks you want by calling me an idiot or a moron. But all I'm doing is pointing at facts. Numbers and statistics and events that don't change. It's up to you whether or not you want to believe the evidence.

If you're saying that Bush is responsible for the entire recession like the person I quoted did, then yes, you are a moron. There is no other explanation. HE may have been a terrible president, but to blame the entire recession on him when the issues that caused it were going on for over a decade -hey, longer than his tenure as president!- is the epitome of idiocy.

I don't give a rat's ass about what your numbers say he did, the fact remains that it was not him alone who caused the subprime mortgage ****storm, and you cannot contradict me when I say that to blame the entire issue on him "stomping" on America for 8 years is completely moronic. Everyday people who didn't have the brains to make smart decisions caused it.

I am right here, and you are wrong to contradict me. Bush may suck, but his suckage didn't force people to act like morons, and it doesn't give you the right to ignore the part that millions of people acting like morons played in this. There is no room for contradiction in fact, and that right there is fact.

Modifié par uberman409, 11 janvier 2010 - 04:14 .

[Godak]

Bush's deregulation was a major factor in the creation of the current economic conundrum. Sure, it wasn't Bush's choices that led to our scary divebomb, but he certainly wasn't doing much to help.

And let's be honest - Regulation exists for a reason...it isn't JUST to protect the little guys from the big guys...it's also there to protect the little guys from themselves. Bush was asking for a disaster, and the people of the good ole' USA didn't disappoint.

P.S. uberman,

Yes, the people of the United States share a heavy burden of failure with our 43rd president...The difference lies in the fact that Bush was the presiding president, therefore he is at fault. That's how US politics works: you blame the guy who was in office, and you praise the guy who was in office, regardless of them actually doing anything. This was the case with Carter and Reagan.

EDIT: On the whole "Liars shouldn't be in office!" bit (mrorfni, I believe). If that was some sort of rule, no one would ever be allowed in any political station EVER. We all lie, whether it is intentional or not.

Let me put it to you like this...I go into office after someone, and the situation is far worse than I could possibly imagine. I must put certain issues on hold. Tears ensue. Would you call me a "liar" for not being able to see into the future? Things change, and things don't happen the way we plan. Grow up, get used to it, and get over it.
 
Also, we try terrorists in civilian courts because they commited the crimes against us, civilians. That's how it works in US courts.

Modifié par Godak, 11 janvier 2010 - 04:43 .

[invert180]

@uberman409:
What Godak said.  And as Godak alludes to, what did Bush do to stymie the economy from going into a freefall?  A whole lot of nothing.

Also, keep it up with the ad hominem attacks.  classy.

@mrofni:

I was wrong about SEIU helping create the stimulus bill. The Apollo Alliance was who I was thinking of. SEIU is part of the Apollo Alliance. The Apollo Alliance is formed mainly of enviromental companies and organizations, labor unions, financial and legal services, and economic/social justice organizations. Also, as far as support goes monetary wise, the unions have overwhelmingly supported democrats over republicans. The stimulus bill also funded far more public sector jobs then private sector jobs. That sounds like it doesn't matter, but the public sector is far more unionized then the private sector. 36.8% to 7.6% on average. Additionally, more money was spent on jobs that tended to be more unionized in the private sector as well.

Link showing Harry Reid saying the Apollo Alliance was an important factor in helping develop and execute the  bill. On the Apollo Alliance site itself.
apolloalliance.org/feature-articles/at-last-federal-government-signs-up-for-clean-energy-economy/

Link showing list of endorsers for the Apollo Alliance.
apolloalliance.org/about/endorsers/

Link showing top donors to the poliltical parties.
www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Link showing union %'s for 2008, because 2009 hasn't been done yet, although it will be within the month.
www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

Links showing breakdown of money spending on the stimulus package. One from Glenn Beck (take the source for what it is) and another from the Washington Post.
www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/20639/
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html

You said: "He was predominately supported by unions."  "He" being Obama.  You've listed a ton of data that is completely irrelevant to your statement.

From the website you retrieved the donations from, here are the donations directly to Obama.  Not too surprising to see Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase on there.  Zero union donations though.  "He was predominately supported by unions" is bunk.

Harry Reid said: "The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them."  That's not even close to saying the Apollo Alliance played a key role in the creation of the stimulus bill.  "SEIU help create his stimulus bill" or "the Apollo Alliance was an important factor in helping develop and execute the  bill" is bunk.

Regardless, you are really reaching when you make such tenuous connections pertaining to the public sector being funded more than the private sector, hence the evil unions must have had a hand in this.  In Canada, and I assume in the US as well, the public sector hires more women than the private sector.  Does this mean feminist groups are primarily responsible for developing the stimulus bill?  Seems rather silly, does it not?

That argument is flawed. Why would any insurance company move to a state that taxes them more? In the inverse, how does them moving to a state that taxes them less makes it cost more for people? How does having the options of buying policies from more Health Insurance companies increase price of those policies? If anything, the fact that a more expensive state's policies would have to compete against a cheaper state's policies would help lower the cost of insurance for people. Also, I don't think you realize how little money insurance companies actually make. Health care plans have a 3.4% profit margin. That is low compared to most industries.

Link showing profit margins of different business sectors profit margins.
biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html

What?  I didn't say anything about moving to a state that taxes them more.  Where did you get that from?  The word "lax" means loose and flexible.

You are actually reading your own link wrong.  Do you know what that entire website is for?  It's not what you think it is...

Against Iran, more support for the Iranian protesters. Working with Isreal and other countries about coming up with a plan that doesn't rely on China or Russia. They have shown that they don't care to show serious economic restrictions on Iran. If we can actually convince them, then I would be perfectly fine with that. However, we can't rely on them doing something they have shown they don't want to do. The same goes with North Korea. Eventaully, on the paths they currently have, they will achieve nuclear weapons, and they have shown themselves to be very unstable forces in the regions.

With the rights of terrorist groups. If Obama had the position that everyone deserves the same rights, no matter who they are, that is a position I can see. However, that isn't the position he has taken. He continually sends out drones to kill terrorists. The terrorists killed by drones effectively had those rights ignored without even showing immediate danger, which is required for self defense. They have had no rights, and there is even the possibilities of innocent bystanders to be caught when using drones. At the exact same time, he decides to treat terrorists that are caught with civil rights instead of military tribunal rights. He is fully willing to kill someone without giving them any rights while simultaneously giving caught terrorists with the same rights as a civilian? It doesn't make sense. If they have the rights of civilians, then killing them without a trial is murder.

Now, as far as the argument of whether they are military combatants or civilian terrorists, that is different. It entirely comes down to whether we are at war with them or not. They have certainly said they are at war with the U.S. Do they have the authority to declare war? I don't know. Bush said we are at war with terrorism, but is it truly a war? I think it entirely depends on that. If this is a war, then it is fully appropriate to prosecute them under military tribunals. It has been in our law for over a hundred years. However, if we are not at war, it is not appropriate to try them under military tribunals. If it is a war, drones might also be acceptable. However, if it is not a war, then drones are even worse then military tribunal.

Support Iranian protesters how?

As much as I abhor the idea of anyone having the ability to destroy the entire planet a billion times over, I can understand some of these nation's reluctance to give up their nuclear programs.  You have to look at it from another nation's perspective.  Their "enemy" has a bigger gun and refuses to relinquish it.  That simply fuels their desire to boost their weaponry level to match.

It's rather hypocritical to run around telling everyone they're not allowed to carry the biggest gun while you're running around with the biggest gun.  All nations should be working towards nuclear disarmament at a far quicker pace.  There is no reason anybody should possess them in this day and age.  Who knows?  Maybe the first step in stopping nuclear programs in these countries is to agree to disarm oneself first.

You are still not understanding the prisoner vs. armed combatant divide.  One is armed and bent on killing the first thing they see.  The other is sitting in a prison cell, disarmed, and completely harmless.  You can guess at which is which.

If an individual is aiming a gun at you, of course you have the right to defend yourself.  But if a person has been disarmed and handcuffed, they become something else entirely.  We can get into another debate about human rights issues pertaining to prisoners, but that's a massive tangent. 

These individuals have committed a crime against the citizens of the United States (some directly on US soil).  Would it not be appropriate to try them for their crimes?  That's how your justice system works, doesn't it?  Theodore Kaczynski got a trial and sent to prison.  Timothy McVeigh got a trial and sent to prison.  Those two were considered terrorists.

And some of those individuals may just be released.  Yes, it could happen.  Why?  Because some of the people being detained indefinitely are completely and utterly innocent.  Holding individuals without charge is such an un-American thing to do.  The whole reason your nation was founded was to fight against the arbitrary application of law by someone in a position of power.

By the way, the "war on terror" phrase is subject to so much debate that it is an entire discussion all on it's own.

Yep. However, we don't know if he is the cause still. He might be. We won't know until another year or 2. What I do know is that he has further increased the debt by continuing many of Bush's spending policies and by adding several of his own.

Well then, perhaps my little blurb that started this entire discussion was right.

They wouldn't be living happily, but that is because the US doesn't have the foundation for single-payer system. Our tax laws need to be fixed first. Our governement has also never had a good track record for budgeting on a large scale.  Thats because our economic system is designed around capitalism. Unfortunately it has been moving away from that towards more Corporations in control for over the last 100 years. What we have is barely capitalism now. Monopolies and big Corporations are in control, and those are the antithesis of capitalism. Anyway, as I said before, the U.S. government isn't very effecient with their money. A good exmpale of this is Medicare, coincidentally. It is losing money, and is continually being a massive drain of money, more then it should be.

Link to report of Medicare debt.
www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662

I totally agree.  Anyone who thinks the US is a capitalist society is dead wrong.  It's a corporatist society.

Look, every other western nation in the world has a single-payer (read: universal healthcare) system.  It works.  Life expectancy is extended.  Keeps everyone healthy.  People love it.  But as I mentioned before, maybe a public option may work better in the US political landscape.  Yet even that isn't being given a chance.

I suppose you should do nothing and allow your health insurance premiums to continue rising.  Maybe it'll double again within a decade, just like this past decade.  Won't affect me here in Canada, where I don't have to worry about going bankrupt if I require hospitalization.

All you have done is blame Republicans. They have sure done their fair share of bad policies, but so have the Democrats. Both parties have been politcially corrupt and have put thier own interests over the people's. During Bush's administration, the Democrats filibustered many of the programs the Republicans wanted, then before that the Republicans did it to the Democrats, then before that the Democrats did it to the Republicans... See the drift? It has always been that way in U.S. history. Both sides have done it, and both sides will continue doing it. However, saying that a party should blackmail their members into voting for a bill they don't believe in is terrible. That is the problem of the system. Party politics. That the party is more important then the people. That a congress member has to vote with his party, even if he doesn't agree with them. Each congress member should vote what they believe is the best for their district and the American people. The Democratic party wants stuff for the Democratic party, and the Republican party wants stuff for the Republican party. I have had enough of it. Both parties have been willing to lie so easily. No liar should be in office. I don't know, maybe it is just obvious to me but LIARS CAN'T BE TRUSTED. The first and foremost concern should be getting liars out of office.

Yes, yes, everyone is bad.  Blah, blah, blah.  I've already gone on and on about how I don't like a ton of Obama's policies.  Sometimes there needs to be a radical shift in the way the system operates.  Right now your government is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the corporations.  I think there are now what?  Thirty lobbyists per congressman?  Allowing such free exchange of money from wealthy corporations to politicans is insanity.  That's the first thing that needs to be rectified.  Luckily, I think your current administration is heading in that direction.  Lobbyist spending and lobbyist numbers are down significantly.  In contrast, the Bush years saw a steady increase in both the number of lobbyists and the amount of spending.

So long as politicians are paid millions of dollars by these corporations, they'll continue to do as their told.  Constituents be damned.

[invert180]

OPlatypusPrime wrote...

lol, your canadian

Wouldn't want to be anything else.

[Mordaedil]

What is a president?

[mrofni]

invert180 wrote...

You said: "He was predominately supported by unions."  "He" being Obama.  You've listed a ton of data that is completely irrelevant to your statement.

From the website you retrieved the donations from, here are the donations directly to Obama.  Not too surprising to see Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase on there.  Zero union donations though.  "He was predominately supported by unions" is bunk.

I should have posted this, but I figured you would do a bit more research on the site as well, but I guess I was wrong. The site doesn't have any union support for any presidential candidate. Doesn't post any what-so-ever. I find it incredibly unlikely that no unions supported ANY presidential candidate, so it is more likely they simply didn't post any union support on presidential candidates. It really is a shame, because it would give people a lot more insight as to where unions have their loyalties lie.

Harry Reid said: "The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them."  That's not even close to saying the Apollo Alliance played a key role in the creation of the stimulus bill.  "SEIU help create his stimulus bill" or "the Apollo Alliance was an important factor in helping develop and execute the  bill" is bunk.

Let us look at the statement. From the article.

“This legislation is the first step in building a clean energy economy
that creates jobs and moves us closer to solving our enormous energy
and environmental challenges,” said Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada
Democrat and Senate Majority Leader. “We’ve talked about moving forward
on these ideas for decades. The Apollo Alliance has been an important
factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great
progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them.”

He specifically mentions legislation. The article is about the stimulus bill, or the "Recovery Bill" if you would prefer that name. Specifically mentions the Apollo Alliance helping them develop and execute a strategy. It is a pretty easy correlation to say he is talking about it in the context of the stimulus.

Regardless, you are really reaching when you make such tenuous connections pertaining to the public sector being funded more than the private sector, hence the evil unions must have had a hand in this.  In Canada, and I assume in the US as well, the public sector hires more women than the private sector.  Does this mean feminist groups are primarily responsible for developing the stimulus bill?  Seems rather silly, does it not?

Tenuous connections. It is a reasonable expectation that a company will support itself. By connection, it is reasonable that an alliance of organizations will support its organizations. So, if they helped in making the stimulus bill, is it unreasonable that they would want their organizations to reap as many benifits as possible?

What?  I didn't say anything about moving to a state that taxes them more.  Where did you get that from?  The word "lax" means loose and flexible.

You are actually reading your own link wrong.  Do you know what that entire website is for?  It's not what you think it is...

I guessed at your argument. You weren't exactly that clear about it. Also, I know Yahoo is a business. They have a large business/financial section of their site. It is used commonly accross the country as a source. If you believe the information is false, show me it is false.

Support Iranian protesters how?

As much as I abhor the idea of anyone having the ability to destroy the entire planet a billion times over, I can understand some of these nation's reluctance to give up their nuclear programs.  You have to look at it from another nation's perspective.  Their "enemy" has a bigger gun and refuses to relinquish it.  That simply fuels their desire to boost their weaponry level to match.

It's rather hypocritical to run around telling everyone they're not allowed to carry the biggest gun while you're running around with the biggest gun.  All nations should be working towards nuclear disarmament at a far quicker pace.  There is no reason anybody should possess them in this day and age.  Who knows?  Maybe the first step in stopping nuclear programs in these countries is to agree to disarm oneself first.

You are still not understanding the prisoner vs. armed combatant divide.  One is armed and bent on killing the first thing they see.  The other is sitting in a prison cell, disarmed, and completely harmless.  You can guess at which is which.

If an individual is aiming a gun at you, of course you have the right to defend yourself.  But if a person has been disarmed and handcuffed, they become something else entirely.  We can get into another debate about human rights issues pertaining to prisoners, but that's a massive tangent. 

These individuals have committed a crime against the citizens of the United States (some directly on US soil).  Would it not be appropriate to try them for their crimes?  That's how your justice system works, doesn't it?  Theodore Kaczynski got a trial and sent to prison.  Timothy McVeigh got a trial and sent to prison.  Those two were considered terrorists.

And some of those individuals may just be released.  Yes, it could happen.  Why?  Because some of the people being detained indefinitely are completely and utterly innocent.  Holding individuals without charge is such an un-American thing to do.  The whole reason your nation was founded was to fight against the arbitrary application of law by someone in a position of power.

By the way, the "war on terror" phrase is subject to so much debate that it is an entire discussion all on it's own.

I don't have time to post my ideas on the Iranian situation currently. I also will not respond on this until you respond on the issue of drones I had posted before. You seemingly have ignored it. I don't know if it was on purpose, but it is rather convenient.

I totally agree.  Anyone who thinks the US is a capitalist society is dead wrong.  It's a corporatist society.

Look, every other western nation in the world has a single-payer (read: universal healthcare) system.  It works.  Life expectancy is extended.  Keeps everyone healthy.  People love it.  But as I mentioned before, maybe a public option may work better in the US political landscape.  Yet even that isn't being given a chance.

I suppose you should do nothing and allow your health insurance premiums to continue rising.  Maybe it'll double again within a decade, just like this past decade.  Won't affect me here in Canada, where I don't have to worry about going bankrupt if I require hospitalization.

I personally beleive it would be better to go back to the capitalistic roots in the U.S. The U.S. was based on capitalism, even if it has moved away from it. It still has the foundation for a capitalism system. It would require a major change in the system to move towards socialism. The majority of Americans connect more with capitalism than with socialism as well. It would be a softer transition, and I believe would achieve the same results. It would also keep the U.S. as the dreamed "Land of the Free" and "Anyone can make it big." A capitalistic health care system hasn't been given a chance either. Just corporate.

Yes, yes, everyone is bad.  Blah, blah, blah.  I've already gone on and on about how I don't like a ton of Obama's policies.  Sometimes there needs to be a radical shift in the way the system operates.  Right now your government is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the corporations.  I think there are now what?  Thirty lobbyists per congressman?  Allowing such free exchange of money from wealthy corporations to politicans is insanity.  That's the first thing that needs to be rectified.  Luckily, I think your current administration is heading in that direction.  Lobbyist spending and lobbyist numbers are down significantly.  In contrast, the Bush years saw a steady increase in both the number of lobbyists and the amount of spending.

So long as politicians are paid millions of dollars by these corporations, they'll continue to do as their told.  Constituents be damned.

As I said, I think the transition back to capitalism would be better then to socialism. My key focus would be on getting rid of the corruption and bribery. Corruption is the biggest cause of any wrong doings in the world. I don't believe the current administratioin is heading away from that, becuase I have seen a lot of it already with them. I view Obama as a liar. He has primaily hired advirsors by who supported him most, and not who has the most experience. Some of the advisors don't have any experience in their field their advisory is in. If going towards a socialist system would get rid of the corruption, I would jump on it in a heartbeat. I don't think corruption has anything to do with what system it is in though.

[Godak]

My thoughts on going back to a "Free Market" system:



The free market has proven to be a fickle mistress. Yes, she occasionally pays up, but she often experiences periodical heart attacks and falls down several flights of stairs. As far as economic stability, a mixed economy is the way to go.

[invert180]

I should have posted this, but I figured you would do a bit more research on the site as well, but I guess I was wrong. The site doesn't have any union support for any presidential candidate. Doesn't post any what-so-ever. I find it incredibly unlikely that no unions supported ANY presidential candidate, so it is more likely they simply didn't post any union support on presidential candidates. It really is a shame, because it would give people a lot more insight as to where unions have their loyalties lie.

Wrong again.  Go ahead to the list you initially posted.  Click on any individual union, which brings you to their own page.  Then click on "See all recipients".  You get a page that shows you exactly who they're donating to and how much they donated.

Of course unions have donated to Obama.  That was never a point of contention.  However, the belief that you held about unions being his primary supporters was patently false.  He was never supported primarily by unions.  He was primarily supported by universities and investment banking companies.

Let us look at the statement. From the article.

“This legislation is the first step in building a clean energy economy
that creates jobs and moves us closer to solving our enormous energy
and environmental challenges,” said Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada
Democrat and Senate Majority Leader. “We’ve talked about moving forward
on these ideas for decades. The Apollo Alliance has been an important
factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great
progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them.”

He specifically mentions legislation. The article is about the stimulus bill, or the "Recovery Bill" if you would prefer that name. Specifically mentions the Apollo Alliance helping them develop and execute a strategy. It is a pretty easy correlation to say he is talking about it in the context of the stimulus.

I read all of that as: "My stimulus bill helps build the clean energy industry, which leads to job creation and helps solve our energy and environmental problems.  You, of the Apollo Alliance, have also worked hard in creating awareness of our energy problems.  Thanks."

The entire thing is so incredibly ambiguous.  At best, the Apollo Alliance had some say on what went into the bill.  But to say they were this huge important factor in developing the bill is bunk.

You and I can read into Reid's words all we want but the fact remains... the Apollo Alliance is an organization that merely supports energy independence and clean energy alternatives.  They're not there to push anything else.  Their endorsers (who come from such a huge variety of industries, as you've previously listed) are there because they care about what the group stands for.  Energy independence and clean energy alternatives, period.  Even what Reid says leads us to believe the entire focus was on clean energy, nothing more.

What you're doing is essentially making paranoid/delusional connections.  Connections that surmise some deep, underlying agenda that simply does not exist.  It's such a silly stretch that it isn't even worth discussing.

Tenuous connections. It is a reasonable expectation that a company will support itself. By connection, it is reasonable that an alliance of organizations will support its organizations. So, if they helped in making the stimulus bill, is it unreasonable that they would want their organizations to reap as many benifits as possible?

Your entire rant is predicated on the belief that the Apollo Alliance was one of the few key players in developing the bill.  Which you have personally surmised is the truth because you read an ambiguous quote by Harry Reid on an organization's website that tries to make themselves seem as powerful as possible.

Personally, I think the Apollo Alliance (hence, their evil union endorsers) being the #1 go-to for the government in developing the stimulus bill is extremely silly to believe.

I would imagine, with all the donations from large corporations and investment banking companies, government officials would be more interested in giving those guys more of what they want... not some silly organization that they can just give lip service to and leave.  But maybe that's too logical and not paranoid/delusional enough for some folks.

I guessed at your argument. You weren't exactly that clear about it. Also, I know Yahoo is a business. They have a large business/financial section of their site. It is used commonly accross the country as a source. If you believe the information is false, show me it is false.

Actually, I thought my argument was rather simple.

- Insurance allowed to be sold across borders.
- Insurance companies move to state with lax laws on selling insurance.
- Insurance companies claim they are selling from there, hence, may use the laws of that state.  This allows them to bypass the laws of other states.
- Nothing to stop premiums from going up.
- Nothing to stop recission/denial of coverage from going up.
- Things get far worse.

As for your Yahoo link... that website is for stocks.

I don't have time to post my ideas on the Iranian situation currently. I also will not respond on this until you respond on the issue of drones I had posted before. You seemingly have ignored it. I don't know if it was on purpose, but it is rather convenient.

I hate the fact that there are people being killed left and right.  I think that it's causing far more problems than it's solving.  But that's beside the point.

You're dredging up an issue that isn't there.  You've ignored the prisoner/armed combatant divide... and have done so for the second time, so I reiterated myself.  Perhaps when you see the difference between the two, we can continue this chain of thought.  I'll give it another go.

When you've captured a terrorist, what is it you want, exactly?  To hold them indefinitely?  To torture them?  To execute them?

Your justice system, the very founding principles of your country, demands that individuals who are suspected of breaking the law be tried in a court of law.  People rant and rave about the constitution and following it... yet, when it comes time to follow it, they conveniently ignore it because they're blinded by some sort of abstract hatred they cannot describe.

Why is it that the two terrorists I mentioned previously got tried and convicted?  If me, a Canadian, were to commit an act of terrorism against the US... I would expect that I be tried in a court of law in the US.  After all, if I commit a crime against citizens of the US on US soil, would it not be appropriate for me to be brought to court in the US?  Hell, for all you know, I could be innocent of the crimes I'm accused of.  That's what the courts are there for, to ensure you've caught the right person and that justice is met.

I always thought this was the most basic of basic things.  But no, you'd much prefer if matters were resolved medieval-style.  Just kill the guy or leave him in a dungeon.  Who cares about the law and the justice system, right?  Again, I know a few people who think the same thing.  I think you call them terrorists.

I personally beleive it would be better to go back to the capitalistic roots in the U.S. The U.S. was based on capitalism, even if it has moved away from it. It still has the foundation for a capitalism system. It would require a major change in the system to move towards socialism. The majority of Americans connect more with capitalism than with socialism as well. It would be a softer transition, and I believe would achieve the same results. It would also keep the U.S. as the dreamed "Land of the Free" and "Anyone can make it big." A capitalistic health care system hasn't been given a chance either. Just corporate.

Here's the thing though... capitalism was given a chance.  And it led you to exactly where you are now.  There has to be a point in time when you realize a completely free market society simply does not work, and that maybe moving towards a more "socialist" (I love how so many Americans demonize that word now--it's funny how well the propaganda machine works over there) system is better.  I would imagine you agree that there needs to be rules and regulations, yes?  There needs to be a balance.

There's no way you can say that a capitalistic healthcare system hasn't been given a chance.  It has been given a chance.  Relying on the inherent greed of companies to make bigger and bigger profits was folly, as their greed led them to band together so everyone can make a bigger profits.  And these are people's lives we're talking about.  You've developed an entire business model around who lives and who dies.  It's sheer insanity.

Though honestly, if anything, a public option would force a switch back towards capitalism.  Insurance companies now would be forced to compete with a government-run insurance company.  What's so bad about that?  Competition... that's capitalism for you.  And if the public option doesn't work, it'll merely destroy itself like any other business that sucks.  Then you can say, "See, it failed.  Our old system was better."  Why not give it a chance?

There are millions of people without healthcare, the general health of your country is poor, your life expectancy is super low compared to that of other nations, and people are going bankrupt because of healthcare fees.  If you don't see something seriously wrong with the system, I don't know what to say.  It needs to change.  And if you cannot come up with a viable alternative solution (and no, a super generalized "go back to capitalism" is not a viable alternative solution), then maybe it's time to try the public option.

As I said, I think the transition back to capitalism would be better then to socialism. My key focus would be on getting rid of the corruption and bribery. Corruption is the biggest cause of any wrong doings in the world. I don't believe the current administratioin is heading away from that, becuase I have seen a lot of it already with them. I view Obama as a liar. He has primaily hired advirsors by who supported him most, and not who has the most experience. Some of the advisors don't have any experience in their field their advisory is in. If going towards a socialist system would get rid of the corruption, I would jump on it in a heartbeat. I don't think corruption has anything to do with what system it is in though.

Wait, what are you saying here?  You think allowing the free exchange of money from lobbyists to politicians is the solution?  That would be the absolute capitalist approach, after all.

[Default137]

uberman409 wrote...

invert180 wrote...

Anyone who thinks it should take only one year to repair a country that has been stomped on for eight years straight is out of their minds.

This thread has gone completely off-topic and politically heated discussions are generally discouraged on these forums, so I expect a lock-down incoming soon...!

Anyone who thinks that our previous president did nothing but stomp on the country for eight years, start to finish, has obviously forgotten what happens when a nation is really stomped on for close to a decade. What's speaking there is obvious political bias. Though Bush was not the greatest President to reign, he by far was not the worst, and to attribute such an economic recession to the actions of one man's presidency - which you insinuated in saying "stomped on for eight years" - is nothing short of complete and utter idiocy. You were either spoon-fed this nonsense without thought, or you don't have any ability to assess such a situation, but either way, to make that claim... moron. That's all.

It takes more than a decade of reckless actions on the part of more or less the entire people to cause the crapsack economy we're in now. Reckless actions stemming from what was essentially gambling akin to that which caused the Depression. This gambling was enabled in part by legislation made many years prior to Bush Jr., and as such, he cannot take the full weight of your scorn. The scorn should be directed at all of us who are citizens of the United States of America, some for the recklessness, some for enabling them through legislation, and some for sitting idly by while morons do whatever they want without fear of the risks that they're taking, because in the short term they have Federal insurance to handle it.

So no, it won't take a year to fix things. However, to blame it all on Bush as you did... absolutely preposterous.

And Trajan, you do no better by calling him a realist merely because he agrees with you.

^^^^^^^^

Every President for the past 40+ years has had a hand in this mess, thats both Republicans and Democrats, and both sides are going to have to work together to fix it up again, if working with a Liberal or a Conservative is to hard for you, or you feel the need to slander other Americans because they might not agree with you, then possibly Politics is not the correct field for you to be passionate about, and you should go sit in a corner and cry.

And this goes for pretty much everyone in this thread really.

[atheelogos]

There is a show on this topic., so for those interested please check out this link and watch all five vids.

[OPlatypusPrime]

invert180 wrote...

OPlatypusPrime wrote...

lol, your canadian

Wouldn't want to be anything else.

do you have a pet moose?

[Mordaedil]

Methinks this topic has wandered from being about Wikipedia into politics.



Which are not to be discussed on these boards.

[atheelogos]

Mordaedil wrote...

Methinks this topic has wandered from being about Wikipedia into politics.

Which are not to be discussed on these boards.

I agree

[uberman409]

At first, I was like: =|



But then... I LOL'D! XD