• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 462 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
....so we have, recently released, the Kerry report, and a report on the relative efficiencies of national healthcare system...

....well the Kerry one isn't worth the paper its printed on yet is helping to put the US on the road to another costly war ...

...and the other report outlines another major money sucking US disaster...

" It's remarkable how low America places in health care efficiency: among the 48 countries included in the Bloomberg study, the U.S. ranks 46th, outpacing just Serbia and Brazil. Once that sinks in, try this one on for size: the U.S. ranks worse than China, Algeria, and Iran.

But the sheer numbers are really what's humbling about this list: the U.S. ranks second in health care cost per capita ($8,608), only to be outspent by Switzerland ($9,121) -- which, for the record, boasts a top-10 health care system in terms of efficiency. Furthermore, the U.S. is tops in terms of health care cost relative to GDP, with 17.2 percent of the country's wealth spent on medical care for every American.

In other words, the world's richest country spends more of its money on health care while getting less than almost every other nation in return. "

....and btw this largely private system may be the worst run most inefficient business operation the world will ever see...one third of the money spent on healthcare goes to administration ( read inefficient bureaucracy )...typically government run healthcare system administrative costs are 20% of that....and to put that number into perspective, those administrative costs are larger than the entire Pentagon budget...

Cheers
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,363
0
0
Obama hints at larger strategy to topple Assad in effort to win over Republicans
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/03/obama-strategy-assad-republicans-syria

Barack Obama portrayed his plans for US military action in Syria as part of a broader strategy to topple Bashar al-Assad, as tougher White House rhetoric began to win over sceptical Republicans in Congress on Tuesday.

While stressing that Washington's primary goal remained "limited and proportional" attacks, to degrade Syria's chemical weapons capabilities and deter their future use, the president hinted at a broader long-term mission that may ultimately bring about a change of regime.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
You are aware that Romney and Ryan proposed the same "red line", eh?

And that Romney wanted to put US troops in Syria?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80128.html
You are aware that Romney and Ryan proposed the same "red line", eh?
They didn't make the speech in public. They aren't in power. Had they made the speech public it would have been no less stupid.

Responding to what is already in the public domain is different than placing it there. Get it?

Hopefully that clears it up a little for you.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Remember me talking about a brilliant political move by Obama? Read the words you quoted again. Then watch and see what comes out the other end of this. Obama transferred the pickle. Now, the calculus has etched up a notch, and BO is in a win/win here because if they back him, he can talk about how right he was all along. If they don't, he has more political cover because he can't even get a policy to go play chickenhawk that Republicans support passed.

He really is better at this political game than Republicans, and it's funny to hear a Republican say it isn't a game for them. It's nothing but a political game for them. I can point you to the quotes if you'd like. BO is just better at it.
Ok, there's more here than just politics.

Obama transferred the pickle.
More like Obama not wanting to go down on a ship all by himself.

BO is in a win/win here because if they back him, he can talk about how right he was all along. If they don't, he has more political cover because he can't even get a policy to go play chickenhawk that Republicans support passed.
Exactly 100% backwards. He's in a lose/lose. If he gets congressional approval then he obligates himself to do something you claim he has no interest in doing. If he's denied congressional approval he will look even worse (politically) than Cameron does.

He's going to get approval. He's going to take action. The real question is if he has a plan and if he can execute the plan successfully. Given that he doesn't want to take the action in the first place (according to you and I agree with your assessment) that puts him in a crappy position just to save face.

He really is better at this political game than Republicans, and it's funny to hear a Republican say it isn't a game for them. It's nothing but a political game for them. I can point you to the quotes if you'd like. BO is just better at it
I'd agree with you nearly all of the time... politically he is better than his opponents, but he's **** the bed pretty bad this time.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
Funny how he didn't respond to my solutions.
Those aren't solutions. Wishful thinking perhaps, but not solutions.

To answer your question then: many things, none of which, however, include taking military action (yet again). The first thing would be to place a moratorium on the sinister arms trade, I know it’s big business, but working toward long term peace solutions begins here. Then I’d try to broker a deal with all the principle powers in the region, while willing to make many concessions and, at once, negotiate with Russia a more equitable share (partnership – along with China) in the industrial side of energy distribution. In short, give up power in exchange for more peace and security.

Of course at the same time I’d enact laws which force the oil and gas companies to invest in alternative and clean energy resources, etc. I realize this is political science fiction, but it seems to offer better solutions to current crisis than the bomber diplomacy with which we have currently been working that only increases anti-Americanism and is in untenable for any long term goals.


The first thing would be to place a moratorium on the sinister arms trade, I know it’s big business, but working toward long term peace solutions begins here.
And exactly what right would you have a POTUS to tell other sovereign nations they could not trade arms? Russia, France UK, Italy, China... yeah, they would all agree.

Then I’d try to broker a deal with all the principle powers in the region, while willing to make many concessions
Land for peace? Novel approach.

Of course at the same time I’d enact laws which force the oil and gas companies to invest in alternative and clean energy resources, etc.
Well, ok. Maybe just nationalize them. Much easier that way.

but it seems to offer better solutions to current crisis than the bomber diplomacy with which we have currently been working that only increases anti-Americanism and is in untenable for any long term goals
You think they are anti-American now? Just wait until we stop buying their oil.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
This is miles away the stupidest, most short-sighted and provincial thing said on this thread since the initial gun debates. Come on man.
You think we'd be more inclined or less inclined to kiss OPEC's ring if we aren't needing their oil production?

You think US policy towards terrorism/terrorists will be more aggressive or less aggressive if we are not particularly worried about oil container ships in the Persian Gulf?

More interested or less interested in nation building if oil's out of the equation?

More defensive of Israel or less?
 
Scott SoCal said:
You think we'd be more inclined or less inclined to kiss OPEC's ring if we aren't needing their oil production?

You think US policy towards terrorism/terrorists will be more aggressive or less aggressive if we are not particularly worried about oil container ships in the Persian Gulf?

More interested or less interested in nation building if oil's out of the equation?

More defensive of Israel or less?
Difficult to have a useful conversation with you when you pose the issues like that. Any read you do (outside the usual shrill news hawkers) will show that issues in the middle east are more interconnected that that. I believe Amster posted a chart.

Are we needing their oil production or do we need their reserve status to keep the dollar the default international standard? OPEC is not entirely the only game in town anymore and, as they've realized, we don't live in an age when they can just sit on their cash holdings indefinitely and they (Saudi say, Qatar has things more in hand--although they don't have much oil anyway so much as natural gas), can't just invest externally and retain power as a state.

Israel's vested interests and the usefulness of the state go a little beyond oil and stability in the region, I know that doesn't translate in California the way it does in Brooklyn. Historically, however it's usefulness as an ideological proxy state began breaking down back around the beginning of Bush junior's tenure.

Given the current military industrial complex and the corporate control of government it's fair to say that state building would be no less a priority if an actual peak oil worldwide were hit tomorrow.

I think that the production, maintenance, promotion, etc, of terror/security has little to do with the container ships passing through the gulf. Some, but it's not predicated on that. I think those are two of, if not the two, primary emotional conditions that the US (and some other states) has chosen to work with since the passing the Cold War.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
Difficult to have a useful conversation with you when you pose the issues like that. Any read you do (outside the usual shrill news hawkers) will show that issues in the middle east are more interconnected that that. I believe Amster posted a chart.

Are we needing their oil production or do we need their reserve status to keep the dollar the default international standard? OPEC is not entirely the only game in town anymore and, as they've realized, we don't live in an age when they can just sit on their cash holdings indefinitely and they (Saudi say, Qatar has things more in hand--although they don't have much oil anyway so much as natural gas), can't just invest externally and retain power as a state.

Israel's vested interests and the usefulness of the state go a little beyond oil and stability in the region, I know that doesn't translate in California the way it does in Brooklyn. Historically, however it's usefulness as an ideological proxy state began breaking down back around the beginning of Bush junior's tenure.

Given the current military industrial complex and the corporate control of government it's fair to say that state building would be no less a priority if an actual peak oil worldwide were hit tomorrow.

I think that the production, maintenance, promotion, etc, of terror/security has little to do with the container ships passing through the gulf. Some, but it's not predicated on that. I think those are two of, if not the two, primary emotional conditions that the US (and some other states) has chosen to work with since the passing the Cold War.
This is miles away the stupidest, most short-sighted and provincial thing said on this thread since the initial gun debates. Come on man.
Uh huh.....

So the Middle East has the lowest intra-regional trade in the world, those countries not autocracies are theocracies, Israel and Iraq notwithstanding. The UAE and Dubai are on their way but are you telling me that Saudi Arabia is going to challenge China in Solar Panels? Not gonna happen. You think middle eastern countries are going to embrace capitalism en masse? No. Without the West's oil revenues how does Saudi feed its people? Are they transitioning now? Again, solar panels? Is that going to replace oil revenues? Is the greater Middle East prepared to integrate politically?

Could it happen? I suppose its possible. Will it happen is a much bigger ask.

Who gets the blame for reversal of fortune? That would be the US.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,363
0
0
aphronesis said:
Difficult to have a useful conversation with you when you pose the issues like that. Any read you do (outside the usual shrill news hawkers) will show that issues in the middle east are more interconnected that that. I believe Amster posted a chart.

Are we needing their oil production or do we need their reserve status to keep the dollar the default international standard? OPEC is not entirely the only game in town anymore and, as they've realized, we don't live in an age when they can just sit on their cash holdings indefinitely and they (Saudi say, Qatar has things more in hand--although they don't have much oil anyway so much as natural gas), can't just invest externally and retain power as a state.

Israel's vested interests and the usefulness of the state go a little beyond oil and stability in the region, I know that doesn't translate in California the way it does in Brooklyn. Historically, however it's usefulness as an ideological proxy state began breaking down back around the beginning of Bush junior's tenure.

Given the current military industrial complex and the corporate control of government it's fair to say that state building would be no less a priority if an actual peak oil worldwide were hit tomorrow.

I think that the production, maintenance, promotion, etc, of terror/security has little to do with the container ships passing through the gulf. Some, but it's not predicated on that. I think those are two of, if not the two, primary emotional conditions that the US (and some other states) has chosen to work with since the passing the Cold War.
:)+++++++++++
 
Scott SoCal said:
Uh huh.....

So the Middle East has the lowest intra-regional trade in the world, those countries not autocracies are theocracies, Israel and Iraq notwithstanding. The UAE and Dubai are on their way but are you telling me that Saudi Arabia is going to challenge China in Solar Panels? Not gonna happen. You think middle eastern countries are going to embrace capitalism en masse? No. Without the West's oil revenues how does Saudi feed its people? Are they transitioning now? Again, solar panels? Is that going to replace oil revenues? Is the greater Middle East prepared to integrate politically?

Could it happen? I suppose its possible. Will it happen is a much bigger ask.

Who gets the blame for reversal of fortune? That would be the US.
Maybe some people and countries have better things to do than blame others. Numbers alone dictate they won't challenge China on solar panels. Anytime you're ready to drop the alarmist tones and get serious you let me know. Interrelations with host crop countries and workers are a bigger impediment to the Gulf states feeding their people--maximizing the outsourced growing--than a loss of US revenue.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
Maybe some people and countries have better things to do than blame others. Numbers alone dictate they won't challenge China on solar panels. Anytime you're ready to drop the alarmist tones and get serious you let me know. Interrelations with host crop countries and workers are a bigger impediment to the Gulf states feeding their people--maximizing the outsourced growing--than a loss of US revenue.
Well there's no such thing as impressing you. Alarmist tones? Yeah not so much.

You think we don't get the blame for a struggling Middle East that was once flush with cash? Okay.... Your world.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Well there's no such thing as impressing you. Alarmist tones? Yeah not so much.

You think we don't get the blame for a struggling Middle East that was once flush with cash? Okay.... Your world.
Depends which part of it. Sauds have a little more range than that. Which part are you talking about? Iran and Mossadeq? The peninsula before Ibn Saud rode in? Wait, I know, the pearl divers in Bahrain and Doha? They blame you and me? How about the Iranian women forced into prostitution in the Emirates? They angry about green politics?

If you were talking about Iraq and even Kuwait you might have a bit of a point, but you're not. Even the oppressed Shia in Saudi have more wherewithal than to just blame America for their shortfall. At least directly. Fomenting unrest here and propping up authoritarian repression there, sure. But the more moderate minded will recognize that you have to start dealing at some point
 
Scott SoCal said:
Those aren't solutions. Wishful thinking perhaps, but not solutions.







And exactly what right would you have a POTUS to tell other sovereign nations they could not trade arms? Russia, France UK, Italy, China... yeah, they would all agree.



Land for peace? Novel approach.



Well, ok. Maybe just nationalize them. Much easier that way.



You think they are anti-American now? Just wait until we stop buying their oil.
Mine was sarcasm of course.

Well if once upon a time we had let Mohammad Mosaddegh live, then perhaps we could have avoided some of this mess. While this is but one of the disastrous policies inflicted upon the region.

Mine is indeed wishful thinking, though yours has been a recipe for disaster for decades coming, but you won't admit this.

If there is anything insane about this entire drama it is this.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
Depends which part of it. Sauds have a little more range than that. Which part are you talking about? Iran and Mossadeq? The peninsula before Ibn Saud rode in? Wait, I know, the pearl divers in Bahrain and Doha? They blame you and me? How about the Iranian women forced into prostitution in the Emirates? They angry about green politics?

If you were talking about Iraq and even Kuwait you might have a bit of a point, but you're not. Even the oppressed Shia in Saudi have more wherewithal than to just blame America for their shortfall. At least directly. Fomenting unrest here and propping up authoritarian repression there, sure. But the more moderate minded will recognize that you have to start dealing at some point
Shockingly, we disagree. Hardly is this the stupidest, most short-sighted and provincial thing said on this thread since the initial gun debates. Thanks.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
Mine was sarcasm of course.

Well if once apon a time we had let Mohammad Mosaddegh live, then perhaps we could have avoided some of this mess. While this is but one of the disastrous policies inflicted upon the region.

Mine is indeed wishful thinking, though yours has been a recipe for disaster for decades coming, but you won't admit this.

If there is anything insane about this entire drama it is this.
And yet you whined for a response. Yeah, no sarcasm there. If only you were in charge... certainly you could persuade all parties to see the immense wisdom in your extremely well-rounded reasoning.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Shockingly, we disagree. Hardly is this the stupidest, most short-sighted and provincial thing said on this thread since the initial gun debates. Thanks.
Hmm, well considering "we" are hardly buying that much of their oil already, I guess that's why tensions are flaring.

Yes, shockingly we disagree. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that not only have you not been to the area, but that the bulk of any reading you do on it (aside from the usual rattle in the newspapers about what Obama "should do" and how this affects "us" as a nation), is written by white guys who if they have, rarely get out of the air conditioning and similarly don't concern themselves with anything other than how our actions there are going to benefit "us" and the degree to which "we" are going to experience backlash.

I'll call that possessively provincial on the worse side of things and aggressively non-objective at best. You take your pick.
 
Mar 10, 2009
284
0
0
rhubroma said:
Mine was sarcasm of course.

Well if once apon a time we had let Mohammad Mosaddegh live, then perhaps we could have avoided some of this mess. While this is but one of the disastrous policies inflicted upon the region.

Mine is indeed wishful thinking, though yours has been a recipe for disaster for decades coming, but you won't admit this.

If there is anything insane about this entire drama it is this.
When you say you wish "we had let Mohammad Mosaddegh live" I assume you mean the British Govenment...
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
Hmm, well considering "we" are hardly buying that much of their oil already, I guess that's why tensions are flaring.

Yes, shockingly we disagree. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that not only have you not been to the area, but that the bulk of any reading you do on it (aside from the usual rattle in the newspapers about what Obama "should do" and how this affects "us" as a nation), is written by white guys who if they have, rarely get out of the air conditioning and similarly don't concern themselves with anything other than how our actions there are going to benefit "us" and the degree to which "we" are going to experience backlash.

I'll call that possessively provincial on the worse side of things and aggressively non-objective at best. You take your pick.
Well now that was an extremely creative way to inject race into the discussion.

Maybe you can work a little homophobia in there as well.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Well now that was an extremely creative way to inject race into the discussion.

Maybe you can work a little homophobia in there as well.
I'm white Scott. What race did I inject in there. I was providing a prodessional character profile not an ethnic one. I do like though how the culture wars suit you when all else fails.

I'd think misogyny is a bigger problem for the region than homophobia.

Maybe you want to sleep a bit and get back to me on this.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
mikeNphilly said:
When you say you wish "we had let Mohammad Mosaddegh live" I assume you mean the British Govenment...
He means the British and US governments, acting on behalf of the forces of colonialist and imperialist reaction, as well as in the interests of western oil companies. Look up Operation Ajax (there's a coincidence) and see how deep and shameful US involvement was through the CIA.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
I'm white Scott. What race did I inject in there. I was providing a prodessional character profile not an ethnic one. I do like though how the culture wars suit you when all else fails.

I'd think misogyny is a bigger problem for the region than homophobia.

Maybe you want to sleep a bit and get back to me on this.

Ok. But, in general, women are not imprisoned or killed because they are women. But misogyny is certainly an issue.

But I understand why you have the need to be critical for the sake of being critical.
 
Scott SoCal said:
And yet you whined for a response. Yeah, no sarcasm there. If only you were in charge... certainly you could persuade all parties to see the immense wisdom in your extremely well-rounded reasoning.
No my sarcasm was predicated upon being conscious of the impossibility of what is necessary.

I've no ambition to be in charge, though my reasoning is quite well-rounded, whereas yours is hopelessly bogged down in the morass of "interests." And even if I were in charge, who would listen? What do you think, Scott, the world can continue to be made in our image and likeness forever? What a dreadful lot is the destiny of humanity under such impulses.

Many around the world had hoped that with Obama the United States would have accepted to become a "normal" Nation, powerful but normal, authoritative but normal: that is a Nation among Nations capable of looking at the other people of the world and perceive the variety and complexity that exists among them and even not considering the existence of the UN as merely a bureaucratic nuisance, but as a collegial domain, a political occasion - or at least a place in which when one is not granted mandates they can be simply overridden by the White House or Congress. The historical speech of Obama at Cairo in 2009 ("you can't impose democracy") had confirmed this hope.

Though evidently we hadn't understood correctly, because whoever governs the US feels struck, sooner or later, by a sort of Planetary Supervision, which authorizes him to intervene with arms (with the latest little Englishman in tow) to stabilize order or punish criminals (as in Syria). The results, however, are generally catastrophic under the political and humanitarian perspectives. The case of Iraq after Saddam is typical, a land of blood and chaos. Evidently there must be some pavlovian response which triggers the irresistible megalomania that simply comes with the job and invests whoever sits on that throne.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS