American Presidential Elections

[Goose 0]

Hawk, can I suggest you become an Anarchist or that you go live in a forest as a hermit or wildman? You don't seem to like anything anyones government does much.

[IconOfEvi 0]

Oh boy...make my day. Forgot I had these resources.

 

Honest Journalism from the Daily Heil! God I hate men like this.

 

Swift Boat man from 2004 turns on McCain!

 

I really do thank the Vietnam Veterans Against McCain for providing all I ever needed to know about this scum of the Earth. Forgot I had them in my bookmarks list.

 

Again, and you guys ask why I don't want to vote for the President.

Edited September 3, 2008 by IconOfEvi

[flyby 0]

By using the money we flush into Iraq?

 

Actually because we are capitalist, we can afford to go liberate a country and still grow our economy. second quarter for 2008 our GDP rose 3.3%

 

 

eeeuuhhh... Time to start being a bit more critical on the numbers they shove under your nose.

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/57

 

wich results in this graph :

http://www.shadowstats.com/charts_republish#gdp

 

the altering and manipulation of data started with the Clintons and has increased with the Bush administration.

 

This also makes you wonder what GDP stands for, as it is for a large part based upon "fabricated money"

http://www.prudentbear.com/images/stories/...08/g081408h.gif

 

http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/comme...ry?art_id=10098

 

 

And as I often argued with our friend Accele, go look up the major flaws in GDP reporting. I've discussed this extensively before, no need to do it all over again...

 

The 3% GDP "increase" is nothing more then the inflation that is currently raging accross the USA.

If inflation is (according official stats) 5%+ and the GDP is boosted as " a fantastic" 3% growth, it actually means you're 2% in reverse...

If you don not understand the correct meaning of numbers, you can be fooled so easily...

 

Another thing that makes me laugh is how "positive econimal news" is brought when syaing the anual deficit has again fallen.

The majority of people then mistakingly believe the debt has been decreased, BUT "anual deficit" actually means how much money you're loosing on an anual basis.

HOW the HELL can you be positive about going into the reds deeper and deeper? who cares you're falling less fast.. you're still falling !!!

 

Riding on statisitcs to tell a political story can be sooo misleading...

 

You know, I really wonder what it takes for die hard Republicans to see the ship is taking water and that it is time to plug the holes and start hosing, instead of dancing and partying....

 

Fact is, wheter it will be Obama or Macain, they're going to have a rough time preventing an economcial catastrophy, comparable to what Japan went through...

[Windows V 0]

Flyby, every time I read your posts on politics, I get more depressed.

 

Maybe it's time to move?

[killakanz 0]

Well, economically speaking, Europe's future isn't much more brighter than the US. It's brighter, but not much.

[hawk10314 0]

I don't look in a dictionary to understand government. I look in a history book.

Capitalist take advantage of opportunity to provide a service for others while being competitive with other services. By doing this your business is on the line if you don't keep an eye out on the other business. You compete to have low prices and thrive to out do them in terms of what you are providing. I don't understand how in ANY way this can be a bad thing as what you make it sound like. To say that capitalism is based on profit you are 100% right. But how is the profit made? You bring in a profit based off the success of your business. If you provide a shitty service to people at a costly price people wont buy from you anymore they will go somewhere else. You lose money you get less profit.

 

There are people who are not greedy, look at bill gates, a good example on a massive scale but there are tons of smaller examples. He donated what? 3 billion? to charity? And to say that people should share and not care about money is just fooling yourself. Socialism looks good on paper but when it comes down to it its still about you and what you make of yourself.

 

And if Europe's economy is looking to go into the drain why should we want to vote to become more like it?

Edited September 3, 2008 by hawk10314

[killakanz 0]

I don't look in a dictionary to understand government. I look in a history book.

 

I advise you to check a dictionary before you point and cry communism again. History has a habit of getting these political ideologies twisted.

 

Capitalist take advantage of opportunity to provide a service for others while being competitive with other services. By doing this your business is on the line if you don't keep an eye out on the other business. You compete to have low prices and thrive to out do them in terms of what you are providing. I don't understand how in ANY way this can be a bad thing as what you make it sound like. To say that capitalism is based on profit you are 100% right. But how is the profit made? You bring in a profit based off the success of your business. If you provide a shitty service to people at a costly price people wont buy from you anymore they will go somewhere else. You lose money you get less profit.

 

Businesses don't compete to have the lowest prices. Competition forces them to lower prices. It's called a 'price war' and you can see examples of it everywhere. One company starts lowering prices to attract more customers and raise it's profit margin. It's rival does the same to win back lost custom, and the price war begins with both side gradually lowering. The aim would then be to sustain low profit margins for longer than your opponent to make them go bust, thus scoring monopoly, which can range to any size from local scale (ie, a village) up to global. Do you honestly think the price would remain low when such contests end? Of course not. A monopoly can literally name their prices. That's why the governments try their very best to prevent any business from scoring above regional monopoly status. Yes, businesses would have to provide good service to keep customers happy so they keep coming back, but when there's nowhere else for the customers to go, do you think the business would bother with maintaining high service quality? Considering the added costs of high service quality, I doubt it. I wouldn't get into this argument with me, I studied HND Business admin so I know what I'm on about.

 

There are people who are not greedy, look at bill gates, a good example on a massive scale but there are tons of smaller examples. He donated what? 3 billion? to charity? And to say that people should share and not care about money is just fooling yourself. Socialism looks good on paper but when it comes down to it its still about you and what you make of yourself.

 

And how many more billions does he have in his pocket again? Chances are he donated it because he really can't think of anything else to spend it on. I agree there are people who are not greedy, but I wouldn't include CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies in that list.

 

And if Europe's economy is looking to go into the drain why should we want to vote to become more like it?

 

Because, believe it or not, US inflation and US banks going bust has knock on effects. Thank you.

[Count von Phoib 0]

The fact that the last 4 posts, in a topic about US Presidential elections, don't contain the names of Obama or McCain makes me sad. Can we please get a bit more back on topic?

 

Also, hawk10314, yellowcake doesn't make a nuclear bomb. Far from it, actually. :P

[flyby 0]

I do wonder why Republicans oppose a global healthcare system?

Because it would increase taxe rates?

Pffff, we're living proof that tax rates do not kill you (we're ranking 2nd in the world, as far as tax pressure goes), on condition you get something of value in return...

Increased taxes do put a strain on the economy, i will not argue that, but the stress is fractional compared to the benefits you get from global social security.

 

America is the only developped Western country that is seriously lacking in the social engineering area...

Why on one side be so technological advanced and socially backwards at the same time?

The wrong priorities maybe?

The money spend on Iraq would have been more then enough to pay the reform in your healthcare system, but Repuclicans thought differently as their priority lays in personal gain and not in the public interest.

 

From European perspective it is uncomprehensive why someone would oppose global healthcare. We've been through the captialist economy period, some 100 years ago. So we do know what the pro and cons are from the system. Infact, socialism has grown out of the shortcommings of pure capitalism, and a large portion of the current amercian population originates from ppl fleeing the pure capitalist evironement...So excuse my scepticism and not worshipping Capitalism in its pure form...

What you need is a hybride form, that takes the advantages of both systems and tries to merge them.

 

Another thing that bothers me since long is the huge polarisation in some countries (USA, UK, France,...)

The politcal battle is always between 2 groups only, with the winner taking it all. This leads to a mlnd set uncompatible with compromise and diplomacy.

The USA usually tops this list by the agressivness and slander practices during the election period.

 

We , Euro's, look at it, baffled, staring with disbelieve....

I'm perplexed that the majority of the media time is spend, not to promote political agenda's and ideas, but is spend on "kicking the adversary between the legs"...

There seems to be no moral code what so ever, anything goes, as long it discredits the other party.

Let's see if it will be any different this time...

[Korona 0]

Tax and spend isn't always a bad idea. Government projects that invest in industry for example are really good for a country, much better than letting private companies do it. Even people who think they are die-hard pro-entreprenur supporters like Hawk appears to be will actually support this position.

 

If you move the discussion off health and onto roads for example, governments build a good transport network because the "top down" approach allows for an integrated network, if you leave things to private enterprise you get a patchwork. Investment here is good for a country because the transport network boosts industry.

 

However the idea that a government can do things better than private enterprise extends to other areas. For example with law enforcement. There have been private militias and so on but the law enforcement is done better by the state. I'm not talking about ultimate power, you can have an elected executive who employs a private company for security, but the reason why Securi-corp isn't the one putting police onto the streets is because the state does it better.

Same goes for a military, mercanry groups have been used throughout history but they are a nightmare, pretty much worthless next to a professional army since fighting for personal gain doesn't work if you are genuinly at risk of dying. Ultimatly there are principals that go beyond greed, and it is when these principals need defending that we look to the state rather than private companies.

 

Thus, there are two reasons for a state run heath system that are compelling to me. Firstly there is the idea that you invest in people's heath. A sickly population is a bad thing. Imagine a world without any kind of medicine, it would be a nightmare. This is the reality for people below the poverty line that just cannot afford health insurance. At the very least, a fit and healthy workforce is good for industry.

More importantly it is also ethical. Allowing people to get ill from preventable illnesses is inhumane. Irrespective of the economics, helping people on the basis of their need rather than on the basis of their wealth is an ethically sound position. People WILL fall through the cracks of a corporate-led system, to safeguard universal access to heathcare you need a state-run system.

 

I think that ultimatly, universal healthcare is about doing what is ethical, not about efficiency. Something lost on many Americans.

[Korona 0]

Where did everyone go???

[usafirewarrior 0]

Giving health care to everyone is not as easy as you think it is...It's not just an issue of ethics or money ...We don't have nearly enough doctors, nurses, or general staff to even think about it let alone enough medical facility's.

 

 

[Opals25 0]

Giving health care to everyone is not as easy as you think it is...It's not just an issue of ethics or money ...We don't have nearly enough doctors, nurses, or general staff to even think about it let alone enough medical facility's.

 

site sources.

[IconOfEvi 0]

Oh God no, please don't say that. As was assuming we we're operating under the guise here that we are stating what we have seen, thus no need to cite.

 

Citing would be too much work. Srsly, I just started university again.

[Count von Phoib 0]

Giving health care to everyone is not as easy as you think it is...It's not just an issue of ethics or money ...We don't have nearly enough doctors, nurses, or general staff to even think about it let alone enough medical facility's.

It's not like you would have 300 million people in the hospital 24/7.

[Opals25 0]

Oh God no, please don't say that. As was assuming we we're operating under the guise here that we are stating what we have seen, thus no need to cite.

 

Citing would be too much work. Srsly, I just started university again.

 

What? What? You want to have a debate on the future of our nation, and you don't want people to provide logical backups to their arguments? What the hell is that? I mean, in all seriousness, I've heard a lot of arguments against NHS but never that and I really do want to know where this information is coming from.

[Korona 0]

@ usafirewarrior, dude the UK had the shit bombed out of it in WW2, and yet still still managed to set up the NHS two years later. Saying that you don't have enough resources to go around is an awful arguement. If there is a lack then you need to do something about it, not stare at it and wring your hands.

[killakanz 0]

Oh God no, please don't say that. As was assuming we we're operating under the guise here that we are stating what we have seen, thus no need to cite.

 

Citing would be too much work. Srsly, I just started university again.

 

How not? There seems to be plenty coming out of the middle east these days.

[usafirewarrior 0]

Just ignore whatever i said ...i wasn't thinking when i typed it.

[flyby 0]

And if Europe's economy is looking to go into the drain why should we want to vote to become more like it?

 

Because yours is already doing worse?

 

Basically, there is about 1 year delay in economic tendencies between the USA and Europe.

The downward trend in Europe is only following the nosedive that happened in the USA.

This means we stall later, but at the same moment the economic re-launch also trails with a year.

 

The difference between statistics is that in the USA it is a monopoly owned by 1 party, where as the statistics in Europe are verified by several layers of different political minded people.

As a result, European numbers are generally more accurate as they're not manipulated to fit a political agenda.

Oh, I'm not the only one noticing the blatant statistic manipulation on GDP by the US: http://www.europac.net/externalframeset.as...me&id=13906

 

Due to the higher taxes in Europe, you get a more stable economic curve:

When it is going well economically in the world, the USA usually does better then Europe because it is less hindered by taxes and regulation.

But, when things go down the drain, the redistribution of wealth (taxes) helps to dampen the downward effect.

European citizens have a flatter wealth curve, compared to Americans.

That is the basic purpose of taxes: redistribution of wealth so that the differences are smaller between low and high incomes.

 

Post WWII European economy is generally less dynamic then the American or Asian one, but it is also less prone to fluctuations.

It is a political choice that has been made: be a high flyer, with the risk of having a very rough landing, or settle with a more modest height, knowing that if things go bad, you can touch down without too much damage done to your population....

 

Maybe the USA would need to go much further into misery to realize it has to take different choices. That instead of a few happy rich, you need more content poor people.

As we say here, better to have 1 bird in your hands, then ten up in the air...

And that basically summarizes the European economical attitude...

 

For the long due need to have global healthcare, I'd vote Obama, if I were American. But then again, politically, Americans always do the opposite of what Europeans would do.

I hope Obama, but I fear it could well be McCain instead. After all, Americans are very rightwing minded. There is no wenter or left...

[IconOfEvi 0]

Did anyone hear the soundclip of Obama slipping up and saying "my Muslim faith" on This Week With George Stephanopolous? My opinion, a Freudian slip. I'd honestly just wish he'd just admit he was a Muslim or whatever. I'd respect him more for it if he did. Frankly, his desperate adulation that he is a Christian sounds so empty. And if anything, judging by the church he went to, and the ideology he followed, that brand of Christianity is les horribelle.

[Korona 0]

It's better than the brand of Christianity that thinks faith is incompatible with evolution, or abortion.

 

If you look at the wider context, it doesn't look like a Freudian slip.

[Windows V 0]

Wait - so is Obama a Muslim, or isn't he? Not that it should matter, but the fact that I keep hearing conflicting accounts makes me all the more curious....

[Opals25 0]

Did anyone hear the soundclip of Obama slipping up and saying "my Muslim faith" on This Week With George Stephanopolous? My opinion, a Freudian slip. I'd honestly just wish he'd just admit he was a Muslim or whatever. I'd respect him more for it if he did. Frankly, his desperate adulation that he is a Christian sounds so empty. And if anything, judging by the church he went to, and the ideology he followed, that brand of Christianity is les horribelle.

 

Just because he attended a Muslim faithed school for a few years as a child doesn't make him a Muslim. I attended a Catholic school for four years as a child too, and I'm a rampant fucking Atheist now. It doesn't mean shit.

[killakanz 0]

When I have kids I will never send them to a religious oriented school. The very idea disgusts me.