You mean like Richard Muller who quite famously denounced anthropogenic global warming only to come to the same conclusion by his own means? Yeah, that opinion piece by him opens with "Call me a converted skeptic."
Except that he was never really a skeptic. He merely disagreed with a specific part of a specific study, namely the hockey stick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller#Climate_change).
"He went on to state "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions."
That quote doesn't sound like a skeptic's mind at work. It merely sounds like someone who already believes in AGW who is trying to ensure his peers aren't using junk science. It's certainly respectable, but it's a stretch to call it skepticism. Heck, this quote of his is from 2003:
Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.
If the man was a "skeptic", he certainly had strong leanings.
In fact, I don't think you can point to a functioning market driven health-care delivery system any where the in world that you would wish on the US to emulate.
Has it been tried? Off the top of my head, I don't know of any systems that allow consumer choice/mobility that are government-hands-off. As counterpoint, can you give me a nonfunctional healthcare market where consumer freedom exists? (i.e. the US isn't a free market).
The features of most of market-based health care is that, free from distortions, you have a huge population who receive no or little care, or substandard care, a few people who receive amazing care, and a whole bunch of people going bankrupt trying to afford decent care.
I don't think that's true. Take the existing system for instance. Since government has effectively mandated that no one can receive any kind of healthcare (not even a simple preventative visit) without insurance, you have no one willing to offer a competitive (non "negotiated") rate unless you have insurance. In a system free from distortions, you'd have doctors saying "an hour of my time is worth $X", the same we do with electrical contractors, or plumbers, or any other trade. You could shop around and find a better deal, or you could go with someone you trust, or you could go with someone with an exceptionally high markup that just happens to be best in their trade. Instead of these relatively set prices, you have some kind of ridiculous circle jerk of consumer, doctors, insurance companies, and government, where no one actually knows the price until some jackass in an office somewhere throws darts at a price dartboard. You have to keep in mind that MOST healthcare we receive is not "last minute, emergency, life-saving" -- it's typically known ahead of time and planned. Therefore, in MOST cases, we should be able to shop around (with insurance covering the truly unpredictable life events).
The bill has many small but promising steps to control costs, namely, standardization of plans to allow comparison on an apples to apples basis
But that's exactly why it doesn't control costs. It lumps "healthcare" into "health insurance". The only option it gives consumers is choice of insurance plans, if that. And if someone doesn't offer you exactly the package tailored to your needs, tough luck, because that's all that is available. And it also continues to leave us at the mercy of the insurance companies's whims.
Additionally, the Administration and Democrats allowed several working groups to work behind closed doors for *months* to try to come up with plans. And in the end, the Republicans on those groups could not deliver a single vote, no matter what the proposal was.
they stubbornly refused to accept any Republican input unless it was in line with their ideology
This simply untrue.
Then why does it look that way? Snowe alienated her base from the start -- she had no particular love for political grandstanding or walking the political line. Yet Obama (and the Dems) refused to work even with her. They were more focused on cramming as much stuff into the bill as possible and getting it passed as quickly as possible to score political points (funnily enough, the exact same way the stimulus bill went down: http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/house_final_stimulus/index.htm).
The truth is that they wasted an entire Congress that they could have been improving the bill,
I totally agree an entire Congress was wasted, but that Congress was wasted on some asinine belief by Democrats that they had some kind of "mandate" from the people to ignore Republican input at all costs. Hell, even Obama himself multiple times said "they tried it their way, and their way didn't work"/"we're driving the car now, they can sit in the back and come along for the ride". These are not the kind of remarks from a person looking for bipartisan solutions...
Let's just be clear for a minute. The tax hike is happening on January 1st, unless new legislation is passed. So your characterization is wrong. What Pres. Obama wants is to pass new legislation keeping the existing tax code for those up to 250k, and then for those over, letting the rates revert to Clinton-era levels
By definition, " letting the rates revert to Clinton-era levels" is a tax hike. Only dogmatic stubborness would keep you from agreeing with that. Or is a tax hike really a "tax refund adjustment"? Please don't try to turn this into a terminology spat. When all the dust is settled (all old legislation expired, all new legislation passed), are their taxes going up? Ifso, it's a hike.
In the last 7 days, the leadership has for the first time started to float ballons that "revenue is on the table" - meaning more revenue via changes to the tax code.
This was pitched in earlier negotiations as well, in the first "grand bargain" in fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 . "Or, to put it another way, Boehner was proposing to increase the governmentâ(TM)s haul by the same amount you would get if you reversed Bushâ(TM)s tax cuts for the most affluent Americans, but he was proposing to do it by lowering rates and elim
Exactly. Medicare and Medicaid have done a far better job containing costs than the private insurance market, which have almost uniformly failed to contain costs. Medicare and Medicaid simply have price controls.
You don't control costs by arbitrarily setting prices. You control costs by inducing competition (something the government has eliminated from the healthcare market in spectacular fashion).
he ACA sets about to change that, and over time, it has an ok chance of succeeding - by gradually controlling prices via the IPAB, by paying for services that are only proven to be effective, and by limiting payments for procedures that are not medically sound,
The free market does those things automatically if consumers are given transparency and choice.
In the opposition to this bill, there was almost no discussion of the merits of the policy, or the problems. It was almost entirely lies. No basis in fact, or reality. This is the "death panels" stuff. This is the group saying things like "this is a government takeover of the US healthcare system", when in fact, it is quite literally, the furthest possible option from it. The response to these types of distortions is, and I think rightly should be, to call them lies, and to question the motives of people who are making it up.
That's only true if you focus your attention on the sensationalized loudest and stupidest. Like the Democrats claiming "Bush is trying to destroy your Social Security!" when he pitched a privatization option. The Republicans had lots of good ideas in committee. They just didn't mesh with the Democrat's plans -- and since those jackasses assumed they had a "mandate from the people", they stubbornly refused to accept any Republican input unless it was in line with their ideology. Obama is continuing to do it right now by insisting on a 250k+ income tax hike when he could easily get a similar effect by compromising with the Republicans on tax reform, loopholes, and deduction limits. Trust me, discussion happens and Republicans aren't idiots. And regarding "motives", you think the Democrats don't have aspirations of political office in mind when they make their political choices? Hint: you don't win votes by telling people you're going to take away their shiny toys.
And to bring it back this conversation, like in the auto-industry, Papa John's is basically now admitting that in the past, they were pricing their Pizza's 10 to 14 cents too low to cover their true operating costs, that they were receiving this as an ongoing, unseen, not often discussed tax on those of us in the health care system that are appropriately paying for funding the care delivered to their workers.
Except you're viewing the issue from the wrong angle. The companies offering the fantastic benefits packages are pricing their product too high. It's not a company's job or responsibility to provide benefits or healthcare -- it's a perk to their employees and an expense on the books. There was a time a long long time ago when healthcare wasn't even TIED to employment (the way it should be). If people want to provide healthcare for all, do it through government, not by forcing insane margins onto companies. Because when it comes down to it, there may very well be a business without the kind of profit "buffer" Papa John's has that can't survive a hike in margins. And that company will go out of business. Companies should be sleak and streamlined. They shouldn't be in the business of social expenditure.
The US has been very unwilling to curtail CO2 emissions in any significant way. China has been attempting to do so. (Not consistently, but they've been trying.)
Could you explain and give examples of racism that is okay because it's "anti-white"?
The first two that come to mind? "Quotas", be it at jobs or colleges (or any other form of "affirmative action" such as minority scholarships or financial aid preference). Or the acceptance of white slurs (cracker, whitey, what-have-you) and racist jokes about whites in common parlance. There are others for certain, but it's very clear no one cries any tears for the (assumed) "rich white [boy or girl]". In general, racism is acceptable as long as it is benefiting a minority (or not offensive to a minority). This carries over to the other majority vs minority cases as well. Sexism against men is okay, but not against women. Ageism against young people is okay, but not against old people.
Aren't you also misstating the problem? The biggest runaway cost in the budget is social spending, and the Republicans seem to be the only ones willing to broach that topic. And in regards to the "last balanced budget", it's important to note that it also came under boom times AND a Republican congress.
And this makes them far more dangerous than you're willing to acknowledge. What do you think the Santorum/Robertsen types would do if they managed to make abortion and same-sex marriage illegal? They would ban the music you listen to, the video games you play, and then they would go after the way you dress, which church you go to, the group you congregate with etc. Once thugs have gained power, they seek more power. Doesn't this totally remind you of the taliban?...
Sensationalist rubbish. Akin to Republicans claiming Democrats are going to make all firearms illegals and disarm the populace -- or akin to claims of socialism and death panels. Namely, of equal likelihood.
Wrong. Nice right-wing inflammatory rhetoric. This is about the right to make your own medical choices without government interference.
Just because you've chosen to define life at some arbitrary point doesn't give your opinion more value than the other guy that chose to define life at a different arbitrary point. Seeing as how scientists can't even agree on the subject, I'd say you're both wrong. Both sides are ignorant in the abortion debate because NEITHER is willing to put themselves in the other person's shoes when debating the topic.
hiring - the Democrate tell you how much you have to pay and in general what you and another person can agree to.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Wanna cite some facts for your blanket objections? Because last I heard, things like minimum wage laws and hard limits on profit margins for drug companies are exactly what the OP was describing.
heath care - the Democrats tell you what kinds of health care you need to pay for
Wrong. This about making health care companies provide you what you paid for. This is about prohibiting local monopolies.
The "pre-existing condition" portion of the legislation is a very small piece of the entire bill. The bill itself practically establishes a monopoly by leaving in place the existing system and forcing people to buy healthcare. Now you can no longer participate in healthcare without insurance.
You could easily cut the air conditioning bills dramatically just by insulating. Houses in the US are just crap. Even worse than England, unbelievable as that may seem.
Sorry, that would be an effective and wise use of taxpayers dollars. In the US, we're more about pissing it away on wasteful crap like failing energy companies and tax cuts.
First off, Obama did what he could with a Republican party that wanted nothing more than for him to lose his second term. Dont believe me? They even said this.
We have something now called the internet, and despite the large amount of false data out there, the real data (and recordings) remain.
Funny that, and you can't even get your own facts straight.
We are smart, educated, and intelligent, something the Republican Party has feared for years.
Spoken like a teenager who "knows it all." It's a good thing you figured everything out. I was worried for a bit because we had some difficult problems out there.
Yet Romney failed, and they were at the same position in the polls.
That was crazy early in the race, and ignores the debate bump. Ron Paul would have fared just as well if not better (because Obama wouldn't have the "you're a corporate raider" card to play -- in fact, he'd have very little ammunition against Ron Paul except for going after some of his kookier ideas like the gold standard).
For him to be equal in the polls that means he was losing in other categories.
Not true -- it simply means he was an unknown to many. Keep in mind, Ron Paul never got the kind of mainstream media spread that all the other candidates got. Even in debates, he was rarely ever given speaking time. If he was put center-stage into the public light where people could actually see him and hear him, his polling numbers would have increased.
Ok, this is completely backwards. Romney was the economic candidate because he had the business pedigree. That's why the Republicans held their nose and chose him.
Kind of. Republicans allowed him to take the spot because he was a stooge for rich people, a "safe" choice, and somehow they believed could reach across the aisle (given his governorship in Massachusetts). They didn't want a maverick like Ron Paul to rock the boat -- they wanted a career politician that was as dirty as they were. Also, Romney's pitch was more about job creation, not deficit control.
He advocated an isolationist foreign policy, a return to the gold standard, and the legalization of drugs
Ya, not sure how all that would have went down. Though I feel like the isolationist view would have actually been a boon for swaying the anti-defense-spending Dems. And the drug legalization as well would have captured a number of younger Democrats. His base would have been voting for him no matter what if he got the nod. The gold standard stuff I can't speak for, but his harsh criticism of the Fed and push for an audit of the Federal Reserve would have been a huge hit in the populace. They can't stand what went down with the banks, and he really could have taken Obama to task for that.
Only running the gauntlet would tell you how this played out.
Certainly true. I would have loved to have seen that race.
The fight to make a imbalanced treament of women 'equal' is only sexist if you pretend the problem it solves is not sexist. It solves a problem caused by sexism and enforces equality.
Insufficient data exists to prove sexism. Men are eight times more likely to play hard ball and negotiate salaries in job negotiations, for instance. For all you know, THAT is the reason for the discrepancy. The fact is that we don't know and you've simply assumed sexism -- because that's what people in this country do when something displeases them: they look for someone to blame who isn't themselves. I can see you're not a scientist, because you know nothing of the burden of proof, nor the difference between correlation and causation.
First of all, the poll had him 50% to 45% losing to Obama.
No it didn't -- it was 48% to 46%, in favor of Obama.. And no I can't be certain of it, but considering how strongly Romney fared, I have a great degree of confidence. Ron Paul had Romney licked in practically every category Romney failed to materialize voters (such as the youth vote, the moderates/independents, and across-the-aisle support). Moreover, there's the fact that the deficit/economy was the public's #1 concern and that was Ron Paul's whole spiel (whereas for Romney it was more of an afterthought). Also Ron Paul had nothing to fear of the "flipflop" accusations, because he's rock solid. And he's far more personable than Romney -- hell, everyone loves a doctor. All these facts together summed up with the closeness of the existing race...I'm fairly certain Ron Paul would have taken it.
The costs of intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is in the $3-4 trillion range, roughly similar to the financial intervention that arguably save the world from a second Great Depression
Well you can't just lump the Pakistan war in with Bush's wars and attribute the total cost to Bush. And if you follow the link to the page where they calculate those figures, it's a bit disingenuous with the caluclations. "Interest on Pentagon War Appropriations", for instance -- am I allowed to use "Interest on Social Security/Medicare" when calculating the total cost of those programs? And attributing expansions in the Pentagon non-war base budget as war costs? Really?
Bush's wars probably cost a sum total of 2, maybe 3 trillion. And that's over a 10 year period (or like 200-300 billion a year). Compare that to the 700 billion stimulus or the 700 billion TARP or the ~2 trillion we spend in social services every year. Ultimately, the wars, although costly, were not the primary driver of our deficit. Hell, even the Bush tax cuts were more of a cost sink than the wars.
Right now is the time to borrow money to build infrastructure
That would have been a fantastic idea 4 years ago -- now we've already pissed away all that money on things like payroll tax cuts and bank bailouts. We don't have a few more trillion to toss around on infrastructure. It's funny how they give Romney such a hard time for advocating tax cuts when that's exactly what Obama has brought to the table for the past 4 years.
He also had a lead in favorability: http://www.dailypaul.com/248818/attention-rnc-delegates-ron-paul-beats-obama-and-romney-with-58-favorability-in-national-poll
He also had a lead among independents: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/09/cbs-poll-independents-prefer-ron-paul-vs-obama/
If the Republicans didn't coup him into nonexistence, he would have beat Obama.
I totally agree that the man can't identify with middle class America. But "flip flopper" is actually a good thing. Romney clearly had to shift alot of his beliefs during the primary to make himself more palatable to his base. It's a shame the system works this way, but it does. For me, actions speak louder than words though -- his ability to work together with Democrats in Massachusetts is a _huge_ selling point for him. Obama has failed to connect with the other side at all. I'm tired of the "unwilling to compromise/do nothing" government. We're never going to get solidarity with Obama -- he's too ideological, too polarizing. He's all but declared war on corporate America at this point, both in policy as well as speech. Whereas Romney would have been more an an unknown, I expect more would have gotten accomplished.
Obama is terrible with economics -- just terrible. It's hard to get much worse. I mean, for someone who claims to support the middle class and the poor, was he just not aware that Obamacare was a massive tax on that exact segment of society? The people without insurance are primarily the poor -- so now they have to get insurance (incurring a massive expense) or pay a tax fee. And that's not even accounting for the impact Obamacare will have on business (thus leading to less jobs...). Altruism aside, that law was a major blunder from an economic standpoint. The stimulus was similar -- the vast majority of that money went towards tax cuts and tax credits, rather than shovel ready infrastructure projects. Obama just doesn't get it.
One fought for equal pay for women, the other fought against it.
That's one way to see it. Another way is that one man fought for special treatment sexism while the other wanted equal treatment for everyone. Potato, potahto.
In life, it shouldn't be. In government, it most certainly should be. Money drives this country. It pays for all the sweet social programs that people so desperately need. To some extent it drives the job production that grows the country. Hell, ask Zimbabwe how rampant inflation has affected their country. Not saying it's going to be like that here, but ignoring the deficit could be very very painful to everyone in lots of different aspects of your life. When we don't have the money to pay for SS or Medicare, for instance, because we ignored the problem for too long -- that kind of thing will hit the country like a Mach truck.
You don't need to be racist to agree with Romney's policies.
you don't have to be, but it sure helps.
An interesting view, considering the voting demographic turnout:
93% of the African American vote went to Obama
73% of the Latino vote went to Obama
59% of the White vote went to Romney
Slashdot Mirror
Except that he was never really a skeptic. He merely disagreed with a specific part of a specific study, namely the hockey stick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller#Climate_change).
"He went on to state "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions."
That quote doesn't sound like a skeptic's mind at work. It merely sounds like someone who already believes in AGW who is trying to ensure his peers aren't using junk science. It's certainly respectable, but it's a stretch to call it skepticism. Heck, this quote of his is from 2003:
Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.
If the man was a "skeptic", he certainly had strong leanings.
Has it been tried? Off the top of my head, I don't know of any systems that allow consumer choice/mobility that are government-hands-off. As counterpoint, can you give me a nonfunctional healthcare market where consumer freedom exists? (i.e. the US isn't a free market).
I don't think that's true. Take the existing system for instance. Since government has effectively mandated that no one can receive any kind of healthcare (not even a simple preventative visit) without insurance, you have no one willing to offer a competitive (non "negotiated") rate unless you have insurance. In a system free from distortions, you'd have doctors saying "an hour of my time is worth $X", the same we do with electrical contractors, or plumbers, or any other trade. You could shop around and find a better deal, or you could go with someone you trust, or you could go with someone with an exceptionally high markup that just happens to be best in their trade. Instead of these relatively set prices, you have some kind of ridiculous circle jerk of consumer, doctors, insurance companies, and government, where no one actually knows the price until some jackass in an office somewhere throws darts at a price dartboard. You have to keep in mind that MOST healthcare we receive is not "last minute, emergency, life-saving" -- it's typically known ahead of time and planned. Therefore, in MOST cases, we should be able to shop around (with insurance covering the truly unpredictable life events).
But that's exactly why it doesn't control costs. It lumps "healthcare" into "health insurance". The only option it gives consumers is choice of insurance plans, if that. And if someone doesn't offer you exactly the package tailored to your needs, tough luck, because that's all that is available. And it also continues to leave us at the mercy of the insurance companies's whims.
Not true. Olympia Snowe voted yea on the initial committee: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/senate-finance-committee-approves-health-care-bill/story?id=8817603
She also seemed genuinely interested in working in a bipartisan fashion to reform healthcare (to the chagrin of Republican leadership). But after jam packing it with 1000 pages of nonpartisan goodies, they couldn't even hold her support: http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1209/Sen_Olympia_Snowe_to_POTUS_Give_us_more_time_on_Health_Care.html
Then why does it look that way? Snowe alienated her base from the start -- she had no particular love for political grandstanding or walking the political line. Yet Obama (and the Dems) refused to work even with her. They were more focused on cramming as much stuff into the bill as possible and getting it passed as quickly as possible to score political points (funnily enough, the exact same way the stimulus bill went down: http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/house_final_stimulus/index.htm).
I totally agree an entire Congress was wasted, but that Congress was wasted on some asinine belief by Democrats that they had some kind of "mandate" from the people to ignore Republican input at all costs. Hell, even Obama himself multiple times said "they tried it their way, and their way didn't work"/"we're driving the car now, they can sit in the back and come along for the ride". These are not the kind of remarks from a person looking for bipartisan solutions...
By definition, " letting the rates revert to Clinton-era levels" is a tax hike. Only dogmatic stubborness would keep you from agreeing with that. Or is a tax hike really a "tax refund adjustment"? Please don't try to turn this into a terminology spat. When all the dust is settled (all old legislation expired, all new legislation passed), are their taxes going up? Ifso, it's a hike.
This was pitched in earlier negotiations as well, in the first "grand bargain" in fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
. "Or, to put it another way, Boehner was proposing to increase the governmentâ(TM)s haul by the same amount you would get if you reversed Bushâ(TM)s tax cuts for the most affluent Americans, but he was proposing to do it by lowering rates and elim
The hell they have -- the total cost of Medicare is skyrocketing! And the only reason they're "price controlling" at all is because they pretty tell the hospitals "fuck what it actually costs, this is what I'm going to pay you". And then stuff like this happens: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-05/doctor-shortage-looms-as-teaching-hospitals-fight-for-funding.html
You don't control costs by arbitrarily setting prices. You control costs by inducing competition (something the government has eliminated from the healthcare market in spectacular fashion).
The free market does those things automatically if consumers are given transparency and choice.
That's only true if you focus your attention on the sensationalized loudest and stupidest. Like the Democrats claiming "Bush is trying to destroy your Social Security!" when he pitched a privatization option. The Republicans had lots of good ideas in committee. They just didn't mesh with the Democrat's plans -- and since those jackasses assumed they had a "mandate from the people", they stubbornly refused to accept any Republican input unless it was in line with their ideology. Obama is continuing to do it right now by insisting on a 250k+ income tax hike when he could easily get a similar effect by compromising with the Republicans on tax reform, loopholes, and deduction limits. Trust me, discussion happens and Republicans aren't idiots. And regarding "motives", you think the Democrats don't have aspirations of political office in mind when they make their political choices? Hint: you don't win votes by telling people you're going to take away their shiny toys.
Except you're viewing the issue from the wrong angle. The companies offering the fantastic benefits packages are pricing their product too high. It's not a company's job or responsibility to provide benefits or healthcare -- it's a perk to their employees and an expense on the books. There was a time a long long time ago when healthcare wasn't even TIED to employment (the way it should be). If people want to provide healthcare for all, do it through government, not by forcing insane margins onto companies. Because when it comes down to it, there may very well be a business without the kind of profit "buffer" Papa John's has that can't survive a hike in margins. And that company will go out of business. Companies should be sleak and streamlined. They shouldn't be in the business of social expenditure.
Their emissions are going through the roof whereas America's are declining. How is that "beating America"?
That's funny, considering the fact that in the past 10 years China's emissions have doubled whereas the US emissions have declined. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CO2REPORT2012.pdf
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/c02-emissions-hit-new-record-on-china-surge-20121114-29b7x.html
http://rightweather.net/2012/10/the-united-states-declining-role-in-co2-emissions/
I'd say the US efforts at curtailing CO2 emissions have been more effective.
The first two that come to mind? "Quotas", be it at jobs or colleges (or any other form of "affirmative action" such as minority scholarships or financial aid preference). Or the acceptance of white slurs (cracker, whitey, what-have-you) and racist jokes about whites in common parlance. There are others for certain, but it's very clear no one cries any tears for the (assumed) "rich white [boy or girl]". In general, racism is acceptable as long as it is benefiting a minority (or not offensive to a minority). This carries over to the other majority vs minority cases as well. Sexism against men is okay, but not against women. Ageism against young people is okay, but not against old people.
"Human beings will never fly either" -some guy in the year 1012
I'm sure they can adjust some variables to make it fit back into their model. There is a consensus after all.
Aren't you also misstating the problem? The biggest runaway cost in the budget is social spending, and the Republicans seem to be the only ones willing to broach that topic. And in regards to the "last balanced budget", it's important to note that it also came under boom times AND a Republican congress.
Sensationalist rubbish. Akin to Republicans claiming Democrats are going to make all firearms illegals and disarm the populace -- or akin to claims of socialism and death panels. Namely, of equal likelihood.
Just because you've chosen to define life at some arbitrary point doesn't give your opinion more value than the other guy that chose to define life at a different arbitrary point. Seeing as how scientists can't even agree on the subject, I'd say you're both wrong. Both sides are ignorant in the abortion debate because NEITHER is willing to put themselves in the other person's shoes when debating the topic.
Wanna cite some facts for your blanket objections? Because last I heard, things like minimum wage laws and hard limits on profit margins for drug companies are exactly what the OP was describing.
The "pre-existing condition" portion of the legislation is a very small piece of the entire bill. The bill itself practically establishes a monopoly by leaving in place the existing system and forcing people to buy healthcare. Now you can no longer participate in healthcare without insurance.
Sorry, that would be an effective and wise use of taxpayers dollars. In the US, we're more about pissing it away on wasteful crap like failing energy companies and tax cuts.
You might want to get away from your liberal blogs from time to time: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
Totally, like this nut who thinks Guam is going to flip over and capsize: http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0410/Georgia_Dem_Guam_crowded_might_capsize.html
Funny that, and you can't even get your own facts straight.
Spoken like a teenager who "knows it all." It's a good thing you figured everything out. I was worried for a bit because we had some difficult problems out there.
That was crazy early in the race, and ignores the debate bump. Ron Paul would have fared just as well if not better (because Obama wouldn't have the "you're a corporate raider" card to play -- in fact, he'd have very little ammunition against Ron Paul except for going after some of his kookier ideas like the gold standard).
Not true -- it simply means he was an unknown to many. Keep in mind, Ron Paul never got the kind of mainstream media spread that all the other candidates got. Even in debates, he was rarely ever given speaking time. If he was put center-stage into the public light where people could actually see him and hear him, his polling numbers would have increased.
Kind of. Republicans allowed him to take the spot because he was a stooge for rich people, a "safe" choice, and somehow they believed could reach across the aisle (given his governorship in Massachusetts). They didn't want a maverick like Ron Paul to rock the boat -- they wanted a career politician that was as dirty as they were. Also, Romney's pitch was more about job creation, not deficit control.
Ya, not sure how all that would have went down. Though I feel like the isolationist view would have actually been a boon for swaying the anti-defense-spending Dems. And the drug legalization as well would have captured a number of younger Democrats. His base would have been voting for him no matter what if he got the nod. The gold standard stuff I can't speak for, but his harsh criticism of the Fed and push for an audit of the Federal Reserve would have been a huge hit in the populace. They can't stand what went down with the banks, and he really could have taken Obama to task for that.
Certainly true. I would have loved to have seen that race.
Insufficient data exists to prove sexism. Men are eight times more likely to play hard ball and negotiate salaries in job negotiations, for instance. For all you know, THAT is the reason for the discrepancy. The fact is that we don't know and you've simply assumed sexism -- because that's what people in this country do when something displeases them: they look for someone to blame who isn't themselves. I can see you're not a scientist, because you know nothing of the burden of proof, nor the difference between correlation and causation.
No it didn't -- it was 48% to 46%, in favor of Obama.. And no I can't be certain of it, but considering how strongly Romney fared, I have a great degree of confidence. Ron Paul had Romney licked in practically every category Romney failed to materialize voters (such as the youth vote, the moderates/independents, and across-the-aisle support). Moreover, there's the fact that the deficit/economy was the public's #1 concern and that was Ron Paul's whole spiel (whereas for Romney it was more of an afterthought). Also Ron Paul had nothing to fear of the "flipflop" accusations, because he's rock solid. And he's far more personable than Romney -- hell, everyone loves a doctor. All these facts together summed up with the closeness of the existing race...I'm fairly certain Ron Paul would have taken it.
Well you can't just lump the Pakistan war in with Bush's wars and attribute the total cost to Bush. And if you follow the link to the page where they calculate those figures, it's a bit disingenuous with the caluclations. "Interest on Pentagon War Appropriations", for instance -- am I allowed to use "Interest on Social Security/Medicare" when calculating the total cost of those programs? And attributing expansions in the Pentagon non-war base budget as war costs? Really?
Bush's wars probably cost a sum total of 2, maybe 3 trillion. And that's over a 10 year period (or like 200-300 billion a year). Compare that to the 700 billion stimulus or the 700 billion TARP or the ~2 trillion we spend in social services every year. Ultimately, the wars, although costly, were not the primary driver of our deficit. Hell, even the Bush tax cuts were more of a cost sink than the wars.
That would have been a fantastic idea 4 years ago -- now we've already pissed away all that money on things like payroll tax cuts and bank bailouts. We don't have a few more trillion to toss around on infrastructure. It's funny how they give Romney such a hard time for advocating tax cuts when that's exactly what Obama has brought to the table for the past 4 years.
I can show you an equal:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/cnn-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-paul-in-november-showdowns/
He also had a lead in favorability:
http://www.dailypaul.com/248818/attention-rnc-delegates-ron-paul-beats-obama-and-romney-with-58-favorability-in-national-poll
He also had a lead among independents:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/09/cbs-poll-independents-prefer-ron-paul-vs-obama/
If the Republicans didn't coup him into nonexistence, he would have beat Obama.
Nope, GDP growth has been declining since 2010: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp+growth+chart#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&ifdim=region&tstart=1226034000000&tend=1320642000000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
You do realize that this crisis hit different segments of the world at different periods of time, right? China's "crisis", for instance, is just starting. And you're also wrong that we're recovering faster than the rest of the world: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp+growth+chart#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&idim=region:ECA:LAC:EAP&ifdim=region&tstart=1226034000000&tend=1320642000000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
I totally agree that the man can't identify with middle class America. But "flip flopper" is actually a good thing. Romney clearly had to shift alot of his beliefs during the primary to make himself more palatable to his base. It's a shame the system works this way, but it does. For me, actions speak louder than words though -- his ability to work together with Democrats in Massachusetts is a _huge_ selling point for him. Obama has failed to connect with the other side at all. I'm tired of the "unwilling to compromise/do nothing" government. We're never going to get solidarity with Obama -- he's too ideological, too polarizing. He's all but declared war on corporate America at this point, both in policy as well as speech. Whereas Romney would have been more an an unknown, I expect more would have gotten accomplished.
Obama is terrible with economics -- just terrible. It's hard to get much worse. I mean, for someone who claims to support the middle class and the poor, was he just not aware that Obamacare was a massive tax on that exact segment of society? The people without insurance are primarily the poor -- so now they have to get insurance (incurring a massive expense) or pay a tax fee. And that's not even accounting for the impact Obamacare will have on business (thus leading to less jobs...). Altruism aside, that law was a major blunder from an economic standpoint. The stimulus was similar -- the vast majority of that money went towards tax cuts and tax credits, rather than shovel ready infrastructure projects. Obama just doesn't get it.
That's one way to see it. Another way is that one man fought for special treatment sexism while the other wanted equal treatment for everyone. Potato, potahto.
In life, it shouldn't be. In government, it most certainly should be. Money drives this country. It pays for all the sweet social programs that people so desperately need. To some extent it drives the job production that grows the country. Hell, ask Zimbabwe how rampant inflation has affected their country. Not saying it's going to be like that here, but ignoring the deficit could be very very painful to everyone in lots of different aspects of your life. When we don't have the money to pay for SS or Medicare, for instance, because we ignored the problem for too long -- that kind of thing will hit the country like a Mach truck.
An interesting view, considering the voting demographic turnout:
93% of the African American vote went to Obama
73% of the Latino vote went to Obama
59% of the White vote went to Romney
Clearly the white people are the racist ones...