US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Coito ergo sum]

It's like that in Britain. People delude themselves.
They REALLY believe that they are going to be one of the 1%, any day now. And the US especially has this myth that people get rich through their own talents and hard work. That's the dream that the mugs aspire to.

They see the headline people like Bill Gates, but never see how the MAJORITY of the rich got their money. By inheriting it. And investing the inherited wealth so that the work of other people KEEPS them rich. In fact, a vast number of people in the world today are working their guts out, to provide more and more income for the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families. That's the downside of international capitalism.

Anyone who thinks otherwise, should watch this - a documentary about the one percent, made by the one percent.

Well, if one takes one's money and invests it, one is taking risk. Other people use that money to build businesses and buy property. When did this become a bad thing?

People do improve their lot in life through hard work. That's quite common. I won't say it makes them part of the "1%" but -- by definition -- the "top 1%" is always only the top 1% of the population. So, it's a definitional thing -- no matter what anyone does to improve the lot of the middle class, the 1% will always be the 1%. Even in a socialist country.

[Ian]

Sounds like you're stating facts. Please cite specific policies which constitute clear mishandlings of the economy.

"Clear" to whom? It's easy to make a clear case to someone who understand economics and is listening, impossible to convince a leftist market economics denier. For people in between it takes a lot of effort since I have to explain the relevant economics first. If you're willing to read some links I'll be happy to explain.

Well, I'm not a leftist market economics denier. I understand economics fairly well.

If you understand economics fairly well, you should understand how supply and demand curves interact, and how manipulation of the aggregate supply or demand curve underlies Keynesian economic theory. The next step is to understand why supply side Keynesian intervention is superior to demand side Keynesian intervention, which I explain here:

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/67326.html

Once you understand that, we can go on to specific policies. Feel free to ask questions if my writeup there isn't clear.

(Jeez, do you realize how arrogant you can sound?)

It was an interesting rehash of basic supply-side economics, though the reasoning on why it is superior to demand-side is more than a bit debatable and I'm sure you realize that. But, that's not the debate I was trying to have - I was asking for specific Obama policies which have hindered the economic recovery. That blog doesn't answer it, unless you mentioned it in order to contend that Obama has been attempting a wholesale return to pre-Reagan demand-side economics, in which case you really need to back up a position like that with some substantial facts rather than assumptions about what you fear his intentions are. IMO, his first term has been happy-time for capitalists, the stimulus included (also IMO, no President is even capable of wrenching the US significantly away from the private investment-focused Reaganomics model, Obama included, for quite a few more years - in the same manner that the New Deal was the basic economic model for administrations of both parties up until the early 1980s).

[maiforpeace]

Kind of aside but...

Despite being a registered Democrat I was solicited numerous times by local Republicans in the recent election, and just now Mitt Romney's campaign with a recorded phone message. What the fuck, do they think I'm going to suddenly start voting Republican? What are the chances of that happening?

[Ian]

Kind of aside but...

Despite being a registered Democrat I was solicited numerous times by local Republicans in the recent election, and just now Mitt Romney's campaign with a recorded phone message. What the fuck, do they think I'm going to suddenly start voting Republican? What are the chances of that happening?

I get those sometimes too. Some of the mailings have been most interesting. Campaign solicitation via outright fearmongering. I'm sure Democratic direct-mail campaigns are annoying too (though none of the ones showing up in my mailbox have been especially bad), but nobody does fear like conservatives.

[Warren Dew]

Kind of aside but...

Despite being a registered Democrat I was solicited numerous times by local Republicans in the recent election, and just now Mitt Romney's campaign with a recorded phone message. What the fuck, do they think I'm going to suddenly start voting Republican? What are the chances of that happening?

I get those sometimes too. Some of the mailings have been most interesting. Campaign solicitation via outright fearmongering. I'm sure Democratic direct-mail campaigns are annoying too (though none of the ones showing up in my mailbox have been especially bad), but nobody does fear like conservatives.

My mailings from Pelosi try to do fear, but seriously, Bush is no longer a threat to freedom, so she just looks silly.

The environmental mailings that do fearmongering might be successful with some, but most don't include proposals for solutions that could actually work.

[maiforpeace]

Kind of aside but...

Despite being a registered Democrat I was solicited numerous times by local Republicans in the recent election, and just now Mitt Romney's campaign with a recorded phone message. What the fuck, do they think I'm going to suddenly start voting Republican? What are the chances of that happening?

I get those sometimes too. Some of the mailings have been most interesting. Campaign solicitation via outright fearmongering. I'm sure Democratic direct-mail campaigns are annoying too (though none of the ones showing up in my mailbox have been especially bad), but nobody does fear like conservatives.

My mailings from Pelosi try to do fear, but seriously, Bush is no longer a threat to freedom, so she just looks silly.

The environmental mailings that do fearmongering might be successful with some, but most don't include proposals for solutions that could actually work.

I guess my point was that there must be a good enough percentage of people that do change their party affiliation when solicited, otherwise, why waste the time and money?

[Robert_S]

Kind of aside but...

Despite being a registered Democrat I was solicited numerous times by local Republicans in the recent election, and just now Mitt Romney's campaign with a recorded phone message. What the fuck, do they think I'm going to suddenly start voting Republican? What are the chances of that happening?

I get those sometimes too. Some of the mailings have been most interesting. Campaign solicitation via outright fearmongering. I'm sure Democratic direct-mail campaigns are annoying too (though none of the ones showing up in my mailbox have been especially bad), but nobody does fear like conservatives.

My mailings from Pelosi try to do fear, but seriously, Bush is no longer a threat to freedom, so she just looks silly.

The environmental mailings that do fearmongering might be successful with some, but most don't include proposals for solutions that could actually work.

I guess my point was that there must be a good enough percentage of people that do change their party affiliation when solicited, otherwise, why waste the time and money?

Spam 'em all!!! Let Gawd sort 'em out!!!

[trdsf]

Kind of aside but...

Despite being a registered Democrat I was solicited numerous times by local Republicans in the recent election, and just now Mitt Romney's campaign with a recorded phone message. What the fuck, do they think I'm going to suddenly start voting Republican? What are the chances of that happening?

I contacted the state party and told them that just because I wasn't going to vote Republican didn't mean I had to vote Democratic (or at all), and if they wanted my vote, they could bloody well leave my phone alone.

I don't get calls from the state organization anymore.

[Tyrannical]

Kind of aside but...

Despite being a registered Democrat I was solicited numerous times by local Republicans in the recent election, and just now Mitt Romney's campaign with a recorded phone message. What the fuck, do they think I'm going to suddenly start voting Republican? What are the chances of that happening?

Mittens isn't much different than Bill Clinton, except for the sexual harassment fetish. If people were to chose between Obama and Mittens, it should have been on a primary ballot

[Warren Dew]

Romney is pushing his health care plan. Basically it prevents insurers from avoiding their obligations by using the "preexisting conditions" excuse, but otherwise relies on the free market - exactly what's needed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

[Tyrannical]

Romney is pushing his health care plan. Basically it prevents insurers from avoiding their obligations by using the "preexisting conditions" excuse, but otherwise relies on the free market - exactly what's needed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Paul was amusingly not all that critical on Mitten's Mass care. He wouldn't do it, but States had the right to unlike the federal government.
If we get the politicians that we deserve, then we don't deserve Ron Paul

[trdsf]

Romney is pushing his health care plan. Basically it prevents insurers from avoiding their obligations by using the "preexisting conditions" excuse, but otherwise relies on the free market - exactly what's needed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

A free market solution is only a solution if you consider basic health care to be a privilege rather than a human right. In other words, it's really no solution at all, and just a way for companies to cherry-pick the customers who will cost them the least and fob off everyone else on already-overwhelmed public services.

Why not just make Medicare universal? When you both bring to bear the massive purchasing power of the US Government, and take the profit motive out of medical decision-making, then you have something that actually resembles a solution.

[Drewish]

Romney is pushing his health care plan. Basically it prevents insurers from avoiding their obligations by using the "preexisting conditions" excuse, but otherwise relies on the free market - exactly what's needed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

A free market solution is only a solution if you consider basic health care to be a privilege rather than a human right. In other words, it's really no solution at all, and just a way for companies to cherry-pick the customers who will cost them the least and fob off everyone else on already-overwhelmed public services.

Why not just make Medicare universal? When you both bring to bear the massive purchasing power of the US Government, and take the profit motive out of medical decision-making, then you have something that actually resembles a solution.

That's not true if you think the most efficient means of distributing health care is done via market system. If substandard universal care ends up with worse over all health outcomes then it's hardly better, even if universal. Ultimately you can not (or rather should not) define the standards of comparison by health care coverage, but instead by health outcomes.

[Robert_S]

Romney is pushing his health care plan. Basically it prevents insurers from avoiding their obligations by using the "preexisting conditions" excuse, but otherwise relies on the free market - exactly what's needed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

A free market solution is only a solution if you consider basic health care to be a privilege rather than a human right. In other words, it's really no solution at all, and just a way for companies to cherry-pick the customers who will cost them the least and fob off everyone else on already-overwhelmed public services.

Why not just make Medicare universal? When you both bring to bear the massive purchasing power of the US Government, and take the profit motive out of medical decision-making, then you have something that actually resembles a solution.

That's not true if you think the most efficient means of distributing health care is done via market system. If substandard universal care ends up with worse over all health outcomes then it's hardly better, even if universal. Ultimately you can not (or rather should not) define the standards of comparison by health care coverage, but instead by health outcomes.

And overall economic outcomes as well. We should also be looking at things like whether people being forced to choose between healthcare and college for their kids.

[Drewish]

And overall economic outcomes as well. We should also be looking at things like whether people being forced to choose between healthcare and college for their kids.

Yeah, it's tough because you can't really say what is 'better' without stating what you're measuring for. That's why framing the debate in terms of the goal being "everyone having health care coverage" means that universal healthcare is of course the best solution. But it's really not the best measurement. Unfortunately even understanding that point isn't something most people think about, so the debate (at least in the public realm) is more about framing the debate than real cost-benefit analysis.