American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Rock Harders;415213]The warning about what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina, was just that, a warning, meaning that the wealthy in the USA should care about how the middle and working classes in the USA are treated in order to keep the current system in place and prevent a disastrous situation from happening as has happened in those places.[/QUOTE]If you'd like, I'd be happy to share with you some factual history and go through your lists and dispel you misconceptions regarding any similarities, other than coincidences, that you believe exit between any of them and the US. There are coincidences, scary ones but I doubt you see them.

Perhaps the most illuminating example is Venezuela. Let's start with the Saudi Venezuela period (roughly '74-'79 during the first Perez presidential term). Due to the oil crisis, one of Venezuela's plentiful natural resource (oil) shot up in value. Yes, this resulted in individuals related to the oil-patch making lots of money. You would then say that these rich bastards (probably all republicans) fucked the little guys and didn't share the wealth. Then low and behold, those rich fuckers bankrupted the country. So, oil prices soar, there is money flying out of their asses and the rich private sector caused the financial collapse of the nation. Those miserable sons of bitches.

But Venezuela's financial collapse of the 1980s resulted from failed leftist policies and actions in response to the popping of an asset bubble, in this case oil. Prior to oil prices falling out of the sky, the government believed that oil prices would never go down and therefore they could massively increase public spending without a care in the world. Out of control government spending and borrowing, in the face of declining revenues created a situation where the government couldn't meet its obligations. There was no way the government could pay for its massively-increased public spending nor its debt therefore it began devaluing its currency (I. E. Printing money) in order to pay its bills. This destroyed the wealth of its citizens (and everyone else holding Bolivars) , lowered the national standard of living and the middle class evaporated. Failed leftist economic policies further exacerbated the problem, opened the door for increased corruption and entrenched the nation in the beginning of what would be at least 30 years of shit.

So I ask you, how did the private sector force the government to massively increase public spending? Why did those rich bastards make oil prices crash? Why did the private sector break into the federal mint and print more money?

If you ask me, your example looks a lot more like an indictment Obama and the left rather than affluent members of the private sector.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415228]I know that "middle class" is a relative term.[/QUOTE]Stan. You got that right!

We all can be counted in some statistical category, such as middle class. However, the categories don't tell us much about how people live, how well they live and how they see their futures.

The conservative right uses personal income as the determinant of whether people are poor, middle class or rich. That selective definition distorts the debate. For example, in the US, if a man works two jobs and his wife works too and the kids work after school and the family still struggles to meet day-to-day expenses because everything costs so much, the fact that the family is "middle class" on the income charts is nice, but it doesn't tell the story of its quality of life.

Having a healthy income in a high cost country does not mean a person has a better quality of life than someone with a moderate income in a low cost country. Nor does it take into account differences in social benefits that are provided by government in country after country around the globe, paid for by taxes on citizens, taxes the people approve of, because of the positive impact of those benefits on their quality of life.

One way to measure where people fit in the US societal class structure might be to poll self-described "middle class" people who live elsewhere and to survey their perceptions. People in the developed countries in Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia could be surveyed as to whether they would want to pull up stakes and move to the "new" United States where every indicator shows the middle class is under siege, the safety net is being unravelled, discrimination against immigrants is rampant, random violence is not uncommon and political disagreements among its citizens are decidedly unpleasant. There is little doubt those polling results would be far different than they were a few decades back. Just like the US is far different than it was a few decades back.

The simplistic, foolish AP debates with many members using misleading numbers and dubious logic to buttress an ideological point of view go nowhere. The conservative mongers want to keep what money they have and not let government tax them to help the have nots. While, the liberals think a fair society is the whole point of having a society. They embrace the provision in the US Constitutional that calls on government to "promote the general welfare". Believe the have-nots in society, as well as the well off, fall within the term "general" and are comfortable with a "progressive" tax system that generates the needed revenues. And never the twain shall meet!

In the words of the Founding Fathers government's responsibility was to build a "more perfect union." as well as "promote the general welfare." Obama's policies since he took office are of a piece with those objectives and with the history of US economic progress. From the early days of the country's founding as debates swirled around Alexander Hamilton's call to create a national bank, up to and including Obama's first two years in office, the private sector has been dominant and the federal government has played a supportive role that has evolved as the society's needs have evolved. That evolution has resulted in elected government leaders, with the support of the citizenry, taking on critical programs that strengthened the economy and allowed the people to enjoy a better life, as well as to perform a policing function protecting against private sector actions that threaten the general welfare of the people.

Virtually every modern-era President, regardless of party, including Obama has operated within those parameters. To call Obama radical or a socialist or a communist is simply dishonest. And blatant dishonesty calls into question the motivations of the accusers.

WW, don't confuse them with facts, they wish to cherry pick the facts which suit them.

Never heard a word from WT69 or Esten regarding the history of healthcare, guess the fact Federal intervention is what F*ked up the system in the first place is not something they wish to hear.

When we had a three tier system, healthcare costs were so low they were a throw away benefit for the employer. Today I know of no employer who is not trying to reduce the costs by decreasing benefits or by cost shifting to the employee due to the sky rocketing cost of health insurnace. My firm is spending $140k this year on healthcare for my employees and when I started it was less than half that.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 415228]I would put it a bit differently:

The middle class actually exists in the United States. I haven't been to Cuba, so I can't say much about the country. But, as for the rest of the places listed, Argentina included, the middle class really doesn't exist. That's true of nearly all South America, with the exception of Brazil and Chile. I'm pretty sure Cuba lacks a middle class, as well, but can't speak from personal experience and don't want to draw WT's ire since I'm so provincial.

I know that "middle class" is a relative term (relative to upper and lower classes) but it is the one facet of Argentina that really stands out when you're there. There are folks who are undeniably rich, and there are folks who are undeniably living paycheck to paycheck. I would characterize the latter as "lower" or "working class" by American standards, regardless of income. There are very few people in between.

This is what "soak the rich" populist / socialist rhetoric really leads to when put into practice. You get a lot of words about standing up for the little guy, and making sure that everyone gets a slice of the pie. But, what really happens is that the middle class vanishes, or is never allowed to come into being, and you end up with two poles: the very rich and the very poor. The very rich then help support the corrupt administration and keep quiet about the wealth they are amassing. You see this in Russia, Venezuela and Argentina today. The very poor are dumb enough to believe that "soak the rich" strategies will change things and that those who bloviate this sort of rhetoric have their best interests at heart. Venezuela and Argentina are great examples of this today.

It's not the rich who suffer when the socialists / populists take over. It's the middle class, and those in the working class who might aspire to be middle class. [/QUOTE]Just a general view and opionion. Unless you you fall into the UPPER middle class category, you will find that most of the middle class are living from check to check. Consumerism is an addicton that american buisness have fostered on the american people that they will never be happy unless they possess a certain lifestyle. Just an example, people bought houses not only to live in and to channel their rent payments into a form of equity. However, most people (even fiscally conservatives) constantly use their equity line to pay for a richer life than they normally would have enjoy. See all those new cars in the employees' parking lot? I used to drive a 1984 Mercedes 300TD, a beautiful German car with air conditioning problems. Nobody wanted it when I try to give it away, how I wish I could have it here in Bangkok. They are given their due respect here. Unlike California mechanics, the mechanics here do not have any problem dealing with any airconditiong problems.

So often, when a household lose 1 job or both jobs, all hell break lose. Even when their incomes are in the 6 figures. Zero savings, credit card debt, obesity are all the hallmarks of American middle class. As claimed here in the forum, people along the poverty line in American still enjoys far more comforts and conveniences than in many developing countries, try telling them that they should be smiling and being positive. Half of them don't even know if Dallas is in the United States, let alone where Cambodia or Bangladash is. Misery is misery when you can't pay the bills, or when you have a beautiful car, but no money for gas or entertainment expenses.

Just a joke, there are 3 things in Cuba you enjoy for free. Sing, dance and fuck.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415233]Never heard a word from WT69 or Esten regarding the history of healthcare, guess the fact Federal intervention is what F*ked up the system in the first place is not something they wish to hear.[/QUOTE]I'll respond to it (below) if you'll respond to my points from 1/24:
- Did you mean "It starts with the poor" ?
- The progress of the poor and middle class, and explosion in debt, since Reagan.

[QUOTE]The Primary Tier was comprised of the individual physicians and small community clinics. They treated the everyday aches and pains and mishaps of our populace. This tier represented the most cost efficient setting for this type of treatment. The vast majority of care was delivered at this level.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Enter Medicare / Medicaid. In a few short years with the Federal Government determining what would be paid to provide medical care in both rural and urban settings (with no experience I might add regarding the cost of these services except fr0m the Ivory Tower physicians who had never practiced medicine only taught and theorized).

The Primary Tier was wiped out due to the payment set by the Fed for these services were less than the cost to provide the services. Now there were few if any small clinics and family doctors in the rural areas to provide medical care, they were not willing to starve to do so. [/QUOTE]My response to this is.... I have no idea WTF you are talking about.

When I go to the doctor (which is rarely), I don't go to a hospital. I go to a physician in a small office or clinic. As do most people. So how exactly did your Primary Tier get "wiped out"?

Furthermore, you just haven't made the case as to how much of our high health care costs are due to federal intervention vs. insurance company profits and other factors.

Surely you can do better.... or maybe not.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415220]The left attacks exceptionalism, individualism, advancement based upon merit, innovation and winning. Where is the fallacy of my argument.[/QUOTE]No fallacy, just a complete lie.

But that's often how conservatives frame their arguments.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders;415213]the USA is teetering on bankruptcy today because of the actions and decisions made by the neo-conservative administration in office from 2001-2009. [/QUOTE]Exactly. The Bush years were a textbook lesson in the failures of conservative ideology.

Awhile ago I said that a fundamental difference between left and right appears to be reason vs. emotion. It could also be said that these left vs. right debates are ones of reason vs. ideology.

And what I have noticed more and more is this: [i]reason is no match for rigid ideology[/i].

Like one who believes strongly in the unique truth of their religion, there is little that can sway someone who is governed by ideology. Even when presented with data and facts, an ideologue will find a way to defend their beliefs, even if it means ignoring or misrepresenting information that counters their beliefs. It is no coincidence that religion is on the right, there is a commonality in the mindset here, a strong influence of how one feels, vs. an objective reasoning of data and facts. This does not mean an idealogue never has valid points or good arguments, but rather that they have a barrier that hinders them from challenging their beliefs.

One answer to this is better education. When American History is taught in high school, they should have required sections on how America changed from Reagen to Bush. The facts will show how conservative positions on tax rates and free markets harmed the country under Reagan and Bush, while the best period was under Clinton.

Rock - I had a couple questions for you on PPACA I hope you will respond to. Is the reason you call the Health Care Law a "disgrace" due to it falling short of what it could have been (and what other countries have)? Or do you consider PPACA a net worsening rather than a net improvement compared to what we had before? And finally, if you support a public option why would you want repeal? Surely you realize we can transition to a public option more easily from PPACA than from starting over with a Republican-supported plan.

My Poll Is which Party do we believe In?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;415244]My Poll Is which Party do we believe In?[/QUOTE]To me both have equally scary factions and act solely to improve their power base. We just had a prime example in California where Jerry Brown has been lauded as being a visionary plan to address the problems in California. Only thing is, the article also pointed out that many of the ideas where the same as Arnold's and when he suggested them they were chastised as being complete crap. In other words, ideas are only good ideas when they come from the party you belong to. Which in my opinion is total horse shit. As far as I'm concerned the only reasonable voting strategy at this point is to vote out all incumbents and hope for complete stagnation of the system.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415242]One answer to this is better education. When American History is taught in high school, they should have required sections on how America changed from Reagen to Bush. The facts will show how conservative positions on tax rates and free markets harmed the country under Reagan and Bush, while the best period was under Clinton.

[/QUOTE]What constitutes the "best period" and how is that measured? Also, I would be curious on your take as to how long the regulatory and fiscal policies of a presidency take to affect the country. Days, weeks, months, years?

Sysco

[QUOTE=Esten; 415242]Even when presented with data and facts, an ideologue will find a way to defend their beliefs, even if it means ignoring or misrepresenting information that counters their beliefs.

One answer to this is better education. When American History is taught in high school, they should have required sections on how America changed from Reagen to Bush. The facts will show how conservative positions on tax rates and free markets harmed the country under Reagan and Bush, while the best period was under Clinton.

[/QUOTE]Esten, Are you doing what you accuse others of doing? I've pointed out data and facts until I'm blue in the face that show your ideology results in less wealth for the majority, not just less for the wealthy.

You could argue that Clinton, tempered by Republicans in Congress, did a better job than Bush. But he did this by taking what you would call "conservative positions" on spending, trade, and welfare reform. The one thing he did wrong was increase taxes.

Your beliefs about politicizing American history textbooks and American education are disturbing.

Esten, since you don't know WTF I'm talking about is my point exactly! You just don't do your home work you just bit*h about the 'poor' and the 'middle class'.

Pre 1964/1965 prior to the government's entry into the healthcare arena there was a 3 Tier system in place, what insurance forms there were, were very simple and physicians, clinics, and hospitals manpower was primarily devoted to patient care. Today due to government regulation via Medicare and Medicaid (which is adopted by all healthcare carriers for all their products so they are only following one set of rules) at least 20% of staff is devoted only to insurance billing and collection – driving up the cost of healthcare from the administrative end for this one function alone and this does not even begin to consider all regulatory and compliance filings with their associated adminisrative costs. These costs have nothing to do with patient care but represent one of the primary drivers of cost.

The first tier was by far the largest and it bore no resemblance to the 'doctor's office' or 'clinic' you are referring to today. The second tier were located primarily in medium sized to larger cities with the tertiary tier located only in major population centers and there was usually only one per city. Today Houston is a prime example of how screwed up the Fed has caused the system to become with 4 tertiary care centers within blocks of each other. Yes they have outlying clinics in the suburbs to funnel patients to the medical center.

The problem with the collapse of the three tier system is we are sending patients to the highest cost facilities (because that is pretty much all that is left) for mundane care which was delivered in a more efficient setting at a much lower cost prior to 1965. We are killing a fly with a sledgehammer and it is costing more each year.

If you take the time to go back and compare adjusted costs from before the Feds involvement in healthcare you will find every time the Fed gets involved in 'regulating' healthcare the cost goes up.

A cogent discussion of some of ObamaCare's problems:

[i]Democrats who are calling the House's decisively passed repeal of Obamacare theater are hallucinating.

Perhaps it was theatrical to include in the name of the repeal act "job killing," though that is what it is.

But I prefer melodrama to dishonesty. Calling Obamacare. Government mandates, subsidies, price controls, taxes and rationed care. The "Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care" act is the height of dishonesty.

The House repeal vote was important because the House is the legislative body closest to the people, and the people voted unequivocally last November to repudiate socialized medicine.

It is the beginning of responsible government to start representing what the American people want, and repeal is what Americans voted for.

Although repudiation of Obamacare was the most tangible message of the 2010 elections, there were other important messages.

Most Americans are sick of the socialist direction in which our great nation has been moving. They are sick of dishonesty and word games emanating from Washington and politicians. And they are sick of special interest groups in Washington sucking the oxygen out of all opportunities for good public policy.

Besides being bad health care policy, Obamacare has all the above characteristics. Duplicitous Washington accounting games that pretend to save money by spending it subsidizing all the nation's health care, taking what was already broken in the way we deliver health care. Most of it already being controlled by government and third-party payers. And giving us more of it rather than less, and accomplishing all this by working with the big health care special interests. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.

But what makes me most heartsick is to watch our great and free nation transformed into a second-rate welfare state.

Again, even before the "Affordable Health Care" act, our health care system was already largely taken over by government. [b]Ninety percent of our health care bills are paid by third parties, and between Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicare, well over half of American health care was already directly controlled by government. [/b]

What else do you have to know about what was wrong? Yet, Obamacare's answer was to give us more of all of it. [/i]

Rest of article here:

[url]http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/01/passing-obamacare-was-theater-and-repealing-reality-show[/url]

The boldfaced portion illustrates what few have been discussing about the healthcare system, and what Doppleganger has been pointing out.

When our health care system worked, many more folks were on a pay-as-you-go system, and the government was hardly involved at all.

As the government became more involved, the system became more perverted, more expensive, and more fu*ked up.

The Obama solution? Give 100% control to the government. They can fix it, just like they fixed medicare, medicaid, social security, the housing market, the banking system, the post office, and just like they've been fixing the health care system as they slowly assumed more and more control.

Brilliant.

[quote][QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415220]The left attacks exceptionalism, individualism, advancement based upon merit, innovation and winning. Where is the fallacy of my argument.[/QUOTE]No fallacy, just a complete lie.

But that's often how conservatives frame their arguments. [/quote]No, your's is the lie.

Liberals hate people who exhibit "[I]individualism, advancement based upon merit, innovation and winning[/I]", and that's why they are always devising schemes to punish those who dare to emulate these traits.

Of course, liberals never admit their bias in this regard, but the point is not to listen to what they say but to watch what they do, and what they do is continuously find way to punish achievers and reward laziness.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Esten;415242]And what I have noticed more and more is this: [i]reason is no match for rigid ideology[/i].[/QUOTE]Esten, you've just summarized your reaction to every argument that anyone has ever given you in this forum.