Thoughtforfood said:
**** yeah. Followed this with glee on the Times' homepage at work all day. Watching Obama call the house GOP out on all their obstructionist, politically motivated posturing was tonic.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
- Status
**** yeah. Followed this with glee on the Times' homepage at work all day. Watching Obama call the house GOP out on all their obstructionist, politically motivated posturing was tonic.
ravens said:
Interesting analysis, yours, of the state of US healthcare...sounds as if the poor have great coverage.
In the US system having "more direct hand in their care" is applicable only to those who can afford it. Everybody else hasn't any "say" at all. Whereas the insurance industry often allows profit margins to determine who gets treatment, and what kind. So it is they, not the paying customer, that play the protagonists role.
I'm still trying to figure out why in socialized (and civilized) continental Europe, apart from the general tics that come with any mass-social terrain, people do not (as they do in America) die in the emergency room because without any coverage. And how somehow, if such a system would be implimented in America, it would be a devious thing. Also because the government always finds copious public funds to supply the military and now the financial banks of Wall Street, but somehow can't manage to foot the bill to give its own people medical treatment.
In any case, as far as the man's brains go it is well known that anyone with an "intellectual" mind is in America an enemy of the common people. Evidently because his thoughts are too sophisticated for the everyday Joe, and thus removed from his daily troubles. Consequently it is much better to reduce all political rhetoric to the lowest common denominator, to conform to the rather crude level (like at the football stadiums) of critical judgment of the American people. Better off shooting low than aiming high, which is insulting to simple folk and would only encourage citizens to a more rifined way of thinking thus making them less maliable before the interests of powerful and wealthy for whom critical thought and an informed democracy is lethal. It's a perfect way to promote ignorance, that which is truly placing democracy today in peril (if it has not already become transformed simply into masked plutocracy).
In regards to his hubris. Funny whenever I see a conservative play an iron fist, something natural to his character as one being ideologically alligned with the powerful after whose interests he governs, he is regarded (by other conservatives) as someone with "balls." Yet when it is a liberal who tries to be strong, though because ideologically alligned by his nature with governing in the collective interests, he is immediatly branded (by consevatives) as an arrogant radical and enemy of the state (because agianst their interests, which by nature take in little account, if at all, of collective society). And of course to pursue any change in the political-social-economic situation of conservative America, in favor of the less well-off and struggling classes, is to be in the eyes of all republicans (and unfortunately many so-called "centrist" democrats) anathema and the fruit of perverse and anti-patriotic initiatives of a radical ideologue.
Yet when the neocon Republicans held power their agenda to reinforce the no rules at Wall Street because one mustn't touch the "liberty" of the financial block to earn bucks without measure, but which caused the economic disaster that has seen the public being called to foot the recovery bill; misinform the American people and the world to justify a war in Iraq to "export democracy" that was ideological from the getty-up to control the oil; and limit citizens privacy in the so-called war against terror, which it was able to do by using fear as political leverage. All this, no, this is not the fruit of some wicked ideological sentiment backed by undisclosed interests, but the pure patrotism of a divinely chosen political class that has been called to save America from all the evil intentions of those who would dare attack the interests of the world's last superpower at the threshhold of the New American Century. And from the socialists from within, like Obama, naturally...
Thanks, Ravens, now it is all perfectly clear and makes total sense.
But then my objectivity thought kicks in and I realize that somehow it makes perfect sense only to the conservative mindset, which is neither objective nor rational, when looking after its own interests and never anyone else's.More Security and Stability
If You Have Health Insurance, the Obama Plan:
* Ends discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
* Limits premium discrimination based on gender and age.
* Prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most.
* Caps out-of-pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick.
* Eliminates extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money.
* Protects Medicare for seniors.
* Eliminates the “donut-hole” gap in coverage for prescription drugs.
Quality, Affordable Choices
If You Don’t Have Insurance, the Obama Plan:
* Creates a new insurance marketplace — the Exchange — that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.
* Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance.
* Provides small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees.
* Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.
* Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national “high risk” pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created.
Reins in the Cost of Health Care
For All Americans, the Obama Plan:
* Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront.
* Requires additional cuts if savings are not realized.
* Implements a number of delivery system reforms that begin to rein in health care costs and align incentives for hospitals, physicians, and others to improve quality.
* Creates an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system.
* Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine.
* Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform.
If You Have Health Insurance, the Obama Plan:
* Ends discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
* Limits premium discrimination based on gender and age.
* Prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most.
* Caps out-of-pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick.
* Eliminates extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money.
* Protects Medicare for seniors.
* Eliminates the “donut-hole” gap in coverage for prescription drugs.
Quality, Affordable Choices
If You Don’t Have Insurance, the Obama Plan:
* Creates a new insurance marketplace — the Exchange — that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.
* Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance.
* Provides small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees.
* Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.
* Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national “high risk” pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created.
Reins in the Cost of Health Care
For All Americans, the Obama Plan:
* Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront.
* Requires additional cuts if savings are not realized.
* Implements a number of delivery system reforms that begin to rein in health care costs and align incentives for hospitals, physicians, and others to improve quality.
* Creates an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system.
* Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine.
* Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform.
ravens said:
If you watched the speech and that is what you came away with, then I think your bias is ruling your perception. He showed balls by standing up to the criticism directly. He took questions and directly answered them. That isn't arrogance, that is humility considering that he was quick to admit his wrongs when he felt they were genuine. He is far from being a radical and I said all along that he seemed like a pragmatist with a liberal basis of belief. That is the case. I think that is precisely what we need in a Democratic president because there are many conservative ideas on the economy that are valid and useful. He is never going to accept your complete economic theory because he is more liberal. However, it should be noted that on a world scale of political thought, almost everyone in the US is a liberal, some are just more conservative than others.
As I have stated before, the US has used a mixed economic system for over 100 years to create the greatest wealth for the greatest number in the history of the world. Mr Obama is a market capitalist who believes that some command/socialist functions are necessary. He is nowhere near being as far left on that as FDR, Kennedy, or Johnson. That was his point to the Republicans about pretending he is a Bolshevik. He just isn't. Its one of the reason the actual Bolshevik's on the left have abandoned him already.
Just because right winged media says he is something, does not mean that they understand the terms they are using. Again, I would bet 90% of people who listen to Rush have no idea that they believe in many of the "socialist" principles incorporated into our economy because they don't understand "socialism" as being anything but a scary boogeyman. In reality, command functions are quite useful in many instances, and Obama has no desire to see a full government take-over of our entire economy. To suggest he does is to overlook reality.
I watched parts of the debate as well. A remarkably civil, but still substantive discussion on the issues, instead of charging each other like drunken Liverpool v. Man united supporters. Trying to limit the use of those partisan one liners and age old chants that either party has.
These debates are also much more interesting than those scripted sessions in congress, when politicians read their monologues to which the opponents respond with more boring monologued support frm their own perspective. There is no real interaction, no real debate. You might as well have seen two 5 minute adds from either party and call it a discussion.
Couldn't (part of) the solution to Citizen's United v FEC and the political debate in general lie in a restriction to run negative adds? No one is allowed to mention the opponent anymore, so with all the time that becomes available, politicians have to focus not only who they are, what they stand for and what they want to do, but also start providing info on how they want to achieve it.
just a thought.
These debates are also much more interesting than those scripted sessions in congress, when politicians read their monologues to which the opponents respond with more boring monologued support frm their own perspective. There is no real interaction, no real debate. You might as well have seen two 5 minute adds from either party and call it a discussion.
Couldn't (part of) the solution to Citizen's United v FEC and the political debate in general lie in a restriction to run negative adds? No one is allowed to mention the opponent anymore, so with all the time that becomes available, politicians have to focus not only who they are, what they stand for and what they want to do, but also start providing info on how they want to achieve it.
just a thought.
Bala Verde said:
You know, you can look at statistics like infant mortality and bend them to fit your argument. If you refuse to look at the entire picture then you will continue to make the argument you make and it will be no less valid in the future than it is now.
Comparing the 1980's and the 1990's.
Uh, I guess the GOPhers actully did an ok job at job creation. How can that be?
Interesting info on job/job creation/unemployment during Presidential terms going back to the WWII era.
http://usbudget.blogspot.com/2008/09/job-growth-under-bush-and-prior_22.html
I'll give Obama a lot of credit for standing up to the opposition and defending his positions. To a large extent I do not believe there is not very much Obama and conservatives will agree on, but talking to each other can't be a bad thing.
From yesterday's amazing meeting:
[Obama] argued that his health care plan was “pretty centrist” actually. “But if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me,” Mr. Obama said.
I'm so glad he was finally able to address this socialist bogeyman business face-to-face. Another great example of how this kind of political dogma crumbles if everyone in the room doesn't just agree and repeat:
“Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy?” [Jeb Hensarling, R TX] asked.
Mr. Obama called the question “an example of how it’s very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we’re going to do because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.”
There was another instance where Obama brought up the fact that during eight years of a GOP administration and 6 years of complete control in Washington, they had created a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (and something Obama didn't mention [but should have] is that Bush's medicare prescription thing costed more than either healthcare bill while doing far, far less. Where were these criticisms then?). But now they're all worried about not spending too much? Politics.
Quotes from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&hp
[Obama] argued that his health care plan was “pretty centrist” actually. “But if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me,” Mr. Obama said.
I'm so glad he was finally able to address this socialist bogeyman business face-to-face. Another great example of how this kind of political dogma crumbles if everyone in the room doesn't just agree and repeat:
“Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy?” [Jeb Hensarling, R TX] asked.
Mr. Obama called the question “an example of how it’s very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we’re going to do because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.”
There was another instance where Obama brought up the fact that during eight years of a GOP administration and 6 years of complete control in Washington, they had created a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (and something Obama didn't mention [but should have] is that Bush's medicare prescription thing costed more than either healthcare bill while doing far, far less. Where were these criticisms then?). But now they're all worried about not spending too much? Politics.
Quotes from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&hp
Scott SoCal said:
Wow. You are right. There is more growth under Repulicans--growth in the public debt.
Damn, BroDeal. Why are the Republicans going on and on about the debt of a single year presidency????? That is amazing.
Scott SoCal said:
Certainly an interesting analysis. The conclusion (based on full business cycles) was:
So that means:
1) either party is as capable of running the US economy, therewith destroying the myth that business is always better off under GOPhers
2) Bush was a total idiot and he seriously damaged the economy the Dems and the Repubs before him helped build.
It's probably Harvard's fault, because they never should have accepted him. According to his teacher:
So cut the guy in office some slack, maybe even give him the benefit of the doubt. History demonstrates that Dems have never destroyed the economy, and it'll be hard for anyone to match the damage the guy before him did.
President George W. Bush didn't have the intellectual capacity to sit as Chief Executive of his country. It will take decades for this Republic to recover from his ineptness.
President Obama's progress in his first year in office was made with baby steps, stumbles, and a few falls. At least he had the good sense to learn how to walk before he started running--for anything.
President Obama's progress in his first year in office was made with baby steps, stumbles, and a few falls. At least he had the good sense to learn how to walk before he started running--for anything.
Hugh Januss said:We were in a discussion of the New Deal, and he called Franklin Roosevelt's policies 'socialism.' He denounced labor unions, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Medicare, Social Security, you name it. He denounced the civil rights movement as socialism. To him, socialism and communism were the same thing. And when challenged to explain his prejudice, he could not defend his argument, either ideologically, polemically or academically source
I think we found out where ravens gets his ideology.
wtf are you babbling about?
Those good ol' Republicans. Civil rights are socialism. No wonder they have a difficult time getting anyone who is more than an off shade of pale to vote for them.
BroDeal said:
Everybody under 30 regardless of color voted for Obama. Everybody over 60 voted straight GOP. Looks likes it's playing out just like the results,nobody was honed in on 30-60.
BroDeal said:
Civil Rights act didn't pass until the 60's, long after FDR was dead. In other words, in 16 years of FDR, segregation existed. But I am sure that is somehow not his fault. It passed in the 60's with greater Republican support (as a proportion of congress) than Democrats, so I don't get your revisionist history (or lying or stupidity,) whichever you prefer. Sounds like you ought to be castigating the Democrats on that score.
I am not a Repub and find their dem-light approach to be the reason they were thrown out of congress and marginalized until Americans got a good taste of what a far left congress AND president at the same time meant for their freedom. We're probably headed back to at least Repub control of house and near split in senate at this year's mid terms.
That was what my post of about 13 hours ago was pertaining to. And we managed, what, about 10 posts with not a word by me before the flaming resumed. So I dunno, guess it just is gonna be that way. No skin off my nose. It's just too easy to get you guys so hacked off you can't even think before posting. I tried to post a very civil post and look at the thanks I get!
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I'm gonna eat some worms! Funny to me.
fatandfast said:
Looks like the buying demographics of Oldsmobile near the end. GM found than the average buyer age kept going up. The last, desperate attempt to revive the brand was to advertise, "It's not your father's Oldsmobile." Perhaps the Republicans could try something similar. I am envisioning a tag line like, "Republicans: Not just old white male bigots anymore."
BroDeal said:
Okay, that is freaking HILARIOUS!!
Anyway, I guess the recession was all Obama's fault, but the recovery will be the result of Republican obstructionism...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ck-to-enjoy-strongest-quarter-since-2003.html
Export is being doubled in 5 years huh... Now we know how:
a $6.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan
I wonder how much China's reprisal will amount to...
a $6.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan
I wonder how much China's reprisal will amount to...
Hugh Januss said:
I spent 5 seconds on the response. I don't think my hr or bp changed whatsoever. I get more annoyed trying to log in.
Oncearunner8
BANNED
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram