Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler I have to ask...of Americans (at my own risk)

This will hopefully NOT start a flame war, but this is something that I find infuriating as an observer of U.S. politics.

So I caught a few minutes of the Republican "debate" on Monday, and the one thing that just screams at me is how hopelessly out of touch all of these clowns are with the American people. Not that Democrats are much better--they're certainly as corrupt, if not more so--but do these folks realize the GARBAGE that comes out of their mouths?

Politics in the US is really sad. The politicians seem to worry about themselves and those that are paying them to enact laws that benefit them, rarely about what is good for the citizens of this country.

one thing that i can't get over is the fact that G. W. Bush got elected illegally (the first time, i think) and then he put in motion what he said he was: "a war president" (Irak), using any means possible to get to his end.

how about a president who said on TV: "i'm not a crook".

dismay, dismay dismay, and sad sad sad.

and then, a president gets into serious trouble because he had "illicit" sex. What a farce!
(as long as one does not get caught, it's all right)

i remember reading the official inquiry (the Warren Commission) about John F. Kennedy's assassination; it was full of holes and contradictions; smoke in your eyes...
The U.S.A is the most powerful country on earth, and power comes with corruption; more power, more corruption; most of it we don't even see or hear about.

when i was a teen and young adult, i seriously thought about going to live in the U.S.A.; not in America, in the U.S.A.
:-S

i live in Canada, America; it may be cold sometimes, but very nice to live in, and PET was never assassinated. :-D

(Admin, if this is not suitable for a cooler, just send it to the drain)

My question for you is, what makes you think the US is any different than any other country with regards to politicians? Or are you really so naive to believe your country, or any politically governed country of your choosing has a morally astute collection of politician?

But having said that, it's been a long time since I actually voted FOR someone. I don't think I'm alone either. Most folks I know vote for a candidate just to vote against the other.

I suppose my issue is that the U.S. politicians can't even FAKE caring about the American people anymore. The country has a structural deficit, somewhere around 20% un-or-underemployment, and the solutions are to cut back on health care for the poor and eliminate capital gains taxes?

There are parts of the great U.S. cities (Detroit, Baltimore, Philly) that are literally shabbier than cities in the developing world, yet America is spending billions trying to develop one of the poorest, most backwards and corrupt countries in the world.

It's as disheartening as it is infuriating.

Just guessing that most will not reply due to BIG BROTHER watching. This is not a free country.

You've been listening to liberal rhetoric too much. There is always the truth somewhere, you just have to look a little harder. Try and study all the points of view before casting judgment.

I do not participate in these threads. I will participate no further.

No, Frank; you didn't have to ask, and the topic is totally unsuited for an audio forum.

By no means would I ever think Canadian politicians are saintly...patronage, pork and self-promotion are the rule without a doubt (I've had plenty of run-ins with them at work). BUT, in general you can rarely accuse them of blatant contempt for the Average Joe. I only see this in the U.S.

I have to agree.

Fair enough. Consider it dropped.

TATBO party. (Throw all the basterds out)

Well I don't. Not that I really care about the subject but if I recall, not too long ago there was a thread about how the US captured and assassinated Bin Laden and how everybody should celebrate the great US accomplishment that lasted about 15 pages. Even though I disagreed with most of the posts, it didn't bother me that it was posted and nobody seemed to mind that this subject was not audio related and was not appropriate for an audio forum.

I agree too.

Political topics just get people fired up a lot of the time. There are so many STRONG feelings about it. I can't think of any US president that hasn't had some sort of issue since I was old enough to be aware of politics, our current debt ridden president included... Of course I love the people that say "Well, if you don't like it, why don't get leave?" as if that is such an easy subject, and where would we leave to? Canada? Too cold for my wife. Mexico? Too many drug/gang crap there. Europe? They are full of their issues too.

I just think that since the US is full of probably the most connected, give it to me now people, that so many of us have run amok and share all of our misfortunes and debacles with the rest of the world.

It is the American dream after all: Get to the top and it doesn't matter who you have to climb over, step on, and destroy to get there... Once there, fight to save yourself like no other.

Sad.

I agree to disagree.

Political thread derailment # 1:

Cat I really like your new avatar. It kind of celebrates the industrial revolution.

Derailment # 2:

Da Broons are da NHL champs. All 4 major league teams win titles within a 6 year period. A first!

I suppose it would be way sweeter for me if I actually cared, huh?

I love when fans use the word "we," as if they had something to do with the outcome. Maroons.

do speakers break in?

Only thieves break in.

Speakers break out.

I found I really came alive after my 3000th post. My highs are much clearer now and my posts have a much broader soundstage.

I forget. Was it your woofer or your tweeter that was tweaked by eating Twinkies?

Your veils were lifted?

(laugh icon here) (laugh icon here) (laugh icon here)!!!

Yes, I like it too. It reminds me of one of my favorite Charlie Chaplin films, Modern Times.

Time to lay off the doughnuts...

Need to get this thread back on track...

Republicans suck and Democrats are even worse.

I thought the idea was that the Republicans and Democrats cancel each other out and the real decisions are made by small-town municipal governments.

That always seemed like a pretty good idea to me.

And a chicken in every pot.

Pot for every chick.

There.

That's my contribution to the Political Thread.

I so wish that were the case.

Ditto, but Panem et Circenses and 401k's prevail.

Thanks, Dean!

seconded

Cool take! 'cept for the "special interests" from our friends at Tandy Corporation.

Had to share this:

Lennon was a closet Republican

Perhaps supporting evidence:

John Lennon Slams Socialism & Presidential Hero Worship

Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money to give away.

MT

How true. You have to wonder what the government will do when there isn't any money left to hand out?

You mean like North Korea?

If you've helped someone altruistically, then you're acknowledging that the statement is false.

A truly informed person wouldn't paint all socialism with the same brush.

Yeah, but if you only have one brush...

...grad a role of painters tape...

... paint a line. Capitalists on the left, socialists on the right?

Something is incongruous there ....

Uh, what they always do...borrow it from China or just print more.

You said it; but only a very small percentage is printed. It's actually created out of thin air at interest from the Fed.

Wait, that sounds like our current system....Wasn't this a criticism of socialism?

Socialism and the Fed both need to go.

Any country who's citizens pay tax could be considered socialist.

What socialism? In America or Venezuela? To outside observers, there is not a shred of evidence that America is in danger of becoming a socialist country. If anything, it's become less socialist since Obama was elected.

The healthcare bill? The largest increase in government size and spending ever?

How could anyone interpret the US as becoming less socialist???

/boggle

Is universal healthcare a bad thing?

I think the proper question is, "Is anything run by the United States government, as opposed to the private sector, a good thing?"

From having more experience with healthcare than most, I can confidently say that I wouldn't be where I am today without our system.

Empiricism changes peoples minds quite swiftly (not referring to mine).

Private sector = corporate greed, not care.

Fixed .

The health care bill mandates that Americans who don't have insurance must buy it from private companies. The "government-run" public option never made it into the bill.

The U.S. is (thankfully) moving away from the notion that all peoples of the world are in need of democratic institutions and human rights, and it is the duty of the U.S. to lead the way.

Charter school/voucher programs are expanding

Union bargaining rights have been scaled back dramatically (think Wisconsin)

The 2001 tax cuts for high-income earners were extended, despite high unemployment and deficit figures

This is socialism?

I'm not against having a saftey net for people that can't or would have a very hard time providing for themselves. I have 3 nieces/nephews with Autism and I know their family would have a hard time without some assistance.

I just don't want or think we need to have the Government mandate so many things for all people. No system is without it's flaws but I personally feel Big Government/Socialism breeds laziness and stifles progress.

Also I always get a big kick out of the "corporate greed" label. Of coarse it exists! I don't know any company that is out to not make a profit. The free market (when it's actually a free market and not heavily regulated) corrects most of these issues and it's appropriate to have a limited Government presence to monitor the rest. The problem I have with Big Government is that it creates an atmosphere that leads to the worse kind of corp greed issues. The recent bailout is a great example. Talk about teaching bad behavior... the big banks now know that the gov won't allow them to fail. So what incentive do they have to do the right thing in the future?

Also our current healthcare system may not be completely controlled by the Government but it's NOT a free market. It's so heavily regulated and restricted that costs are high and the care is low. There is no doubt it needs to be fixed but turning it completely over to the Federal Government won't make it any better.

First of all, mandating anything is a characteristic of socialism, not capitalism. As I've stated above, the current system is not a free market and this mandate further establishes that fact. Second this lays the ground work for more policies that would lead to a takeover by the Federal Government of the healthcare system.



I think you're actually completely wrong here. This is one area Obama has not reversed Bush doctrine, but rather expanded on it. Escalations in Afghanistan/Pakistan, Libya, etc.



These changes would be coming from the state/local sector, not because of the Fed. I think this types of changes are badly needed too.



Again, state and local action here. Unions are bad enough but Government Unions are the worse. Even FDR spoke about how collective bargining should never be allowed to occur. I've read articles about how these changes in Wisconsin have already reversed school districts from running in the red to having a surplus at the same time enhancing the students experience by allowing smaller class room sizes.



Obama is completely flipping on this one. He's on a crusade for massive tax hikes now. Even thou history repeatedly shows that tax cuts usually create tax revenues and hikes do the reverse.



At the Fed level it sure is.

With regards to health care, there are a few points that need to be made here. The lesser point is that there is no evidence that the health care bill lays the groundwork for a "government takeover", whatever that means. Even in Canada, health care is not government-run. It's the financing of health care that's government-run; outside of hospitals, the delivery is predominantly private (doctors, physiotherapists, pharmacies, etc).

The more important point is that it's not regulations that keep health care from being free-market. It's the nature of health care, which does not in any way obey the rules of supply and demand. First, on a population basis, poor people have far more health problems than the affluent, which is a reversal of the usual pattern of demand in capitalism. Second, and along those lines, there is no way to predict based on someone's resources, what health problems they may develop and what kind of health care they need. Third, health care as practiced now enables suppliers to generate their own demand: the physician determines what tests you need, what treatment you need, and how much follow-up you need. Fourth, is there any good/service with a more inelastic demand than health?

With regards to the "massive tax increases", the Bush tax cuts were ushered in under the rationale that the surpluses at the end of the 90s represented money that needed to be given back to taxpayers. Setting aside any arguments about fairness or duty (because they tend to lead nowhere), the country has massive deficits due to the costs of wars, the economic downturn, and the automatic safety net i.e. unemployment benefits. By that reasoning, there are no surplus dollars to return to the taxpayer. As to Obama flip-flopping, he's a politician; liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian...they all lie for a living (something I'm confident we can all agree on).

Facts cannot be ignored. The US spends far more money as percentage of GDP on healthcare then any of the industrialized countries in the world. It is also the only one of these countries without some sort of universal system AND has the lowest lifespan and among the highest in infant mortality rates.

Looking at the obesity rates in the US compared to these other countries also clearly negates the notion that a universal system breeds laziness. Of course, the healthcare industry wouldn't want Americans to know the real facts. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying making sure of that.

You all paint such a dismal picture of the corporate world. And while I can't completely argue that point I would point out that the U.S. Federal Government is the worlds largest corporation. And don't try to tell me it's different because we can vote change. 99% of the time only the people willing to play the politics game get elected and they don't bring about any change worthwhile. Plus there are thousands of (worthless) bureaucrats in various Federal offices that remain thru all elections. That is what leads to the worse kind of inefficiency possible. It's why people like me are for letting nearly everything work itself out in the free market rather than have our hard earned money taxed away for things we rarely agree with or believe in.

Evidence? Stating something does not make it true.

As far as unions go, without the union movement we would not have the working conditions we do now. Just look at the working conditions of your average industrial worked in the lat 1800s and early 1900s. While I am no fan of the '70s style auto unions, to paint the whole union movement with the same brush shows a lack of understanding of the history of industrialization and the union movement.

You should be concerned about a concentration of power by any group: government, private enterprise, unions. Indeed, your founding fathers were very concerned about this in regards to government and attempted to create a constitution that would prevent such power concentration in government.

First Cam, and now, I totally agree with Fred.

JP, JP! What's happening to me?

Hmm. Better tinker with the meds. Double up on the red one and stop the blue one.

Unions began to improve working conditions and present certain working standards(hours, age, workload, safety ect). At some point they got that all confused with extortion. I don't feel that anyone hired by the tax payers should be allowed to strike.

Worked brilliantly! You are a genius!

Now I don't care at all about anything that's happening to me.

You should do this for a living.

Yes, unions certainly had a positive effect on the British automobile industry. Oh, wait, no ... they killed it. Sorry.

Yes, but unions certainly had a positive effect on the American automobile industry. Oh, wait, no ... they're trying to kill it.

The trade union paradigm is class warfare between the working class and the bourgeoisie. Shoddy build quality by British auto workers were acts of resistance to greedy capitalists. How do you think that worked out in the end?

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, labor unions worked for safer conditions, reduced hours and higher wages and benefits. Those functions are now satisfied by the US government.

Now, organized labor competes with non-union labor and attempts to squeeze the latter out of the marketplace.

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend. MT

exactly

I'm finding less and less to enjoy at this site.

Stay away from political posts and set users who piss you off on ignore. You'll be happier.