Romney (in running as a candidate for the US Presidency) has been lambasting the economies of Europe as an example of the failure of socialism. He is doing this, of course, to hold Europe up as an example of a failed economic system so that he can implement a capitalistic based rescue plan to restore the US economy to its former glory. I suspect that Romney's assertions are incorrect. So for those who live in Europe, what is your reaction?

Romney's assertions that economies of Europe are failures seems incorrect for several reasons. One, the populations of many European countries, to my knowledge, are in decline; so there is limited need for economic growth. Two, the populations of many European countries may be growing older. Older people do not consume as much as younger people. The lack of consumption means less need for production (economic growth). Based on demographics there may simply be NO demand for "endless" consumption that requires unrestrained economic growth.

On health care, I have heard conflicting analysis on whether the European health system is better/worse than the US health system. But from the Romney perspective, if it is socialized, it must be bad by definition. But is it?

The US economy itself provides some perspective. Romney views "stagnant" European economic grow as a sign of failure. That would appear to be wrong based on the fact that the US economy itself failed. Under blame Bush the US economy was over-stimulated and we over-consumed. The bubble then burst. The US went into a recession. So I find it somewhat disingenuous for Romney to hold Europe out as an example of failure when the US economic system itself failed.

Your thoughts?

I can't see how anyone can vote for a person who's name is "Mitt" - I also believe there is another one called "Newt":rolleyes:

They have to be a joke surely? Is that their real names? How can you take someone with a name like that seriously?

As far as the UK is concerned, it got a passing mention on the BBC news the other day, other than that, most people (I suspect), have no idea or care what happens in the USA elections.

We were a bit surprised that the US, with it's well known dislike of couloured people actually voted in a tanned person last time. Mind you, his Mrs is a bit of a looker - maybe she'll do a turn.

It's obvious now, that the US is aching for a war now that Iraq and Afghanistan are quieter. That's why the US is rattling sabres at Iran - oil being the key factor yet again.

Col

Just some insite from your neighbour to the north - it seems strange that the leadership race is again based on failure rather then success. I would think that with the current economic status of USA the politicing would be directed at getting the wheels unstuck and perhaps out of the muck it is mired in, rather then pointing out who might be in the mud a little bit deeper.

Perhaos the administration could give Stephen Harper a call. We could lend you Jim Flaherty for a few weeks I suppose, to show how to balance the books. Probably could spare Leona Aglukkaq for a while to get the health care system actually caring about health rather then finances, seeing as the finances is also muddled up they would make a good team of advisers.

Just some insite from your neighbour to the north - it seems strange that the leadership race is again based on failure rather then success. I would think that with the current economic status of USA the politicing would be directed at getting the wheels unstuck and perhaps out of the muck it is mired in, rather then pointing out who might be in the mud a little bit deeper.

Perhaos the administration could give Stephen Harper a call. We could lend you Jim Flaherty for a few weeks I suppose, to show how to balance the books. Probably could spare Leona Aglukkaq for a while to get the health care system actually caring about health rather then finances, seeing as the finances is also muddled up they would make a good team of advisers.Short answer, I think that our elections are more about ego than actual commitment to run the country. Campaign "promises" are unfortunately empty rhetoric.

The slightly longer answer. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats have a clear ethical compass. Judge Napolitano of Freedom Watch (http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/index.html) considers them to be one party where one "wing" takes periodic orchestrated jabs at the "other side" to give the appearance of democracy in action.

I suspect that the November 2012 election will be another instance of the "lesser of two evils".

I knew his name would be a problem - I notice that Steve can't even spell it correctly in this thread's title.:rolleyes:

Oh, and Fifty - it's "insight" not "insite". I won't bore you with your other grammatical errors.

Col

Perhaps they should allow more then one party to make it a true democratic process rather then a couple of older law university frat boys and girls taking media shots at eachother's reputations.
Seems to be more like it is the 1%er's popularity contest rather then selecting an administration worthy of properly running a country. Of course there are many moments then not that Canada's elected officials fall very short of the mark.

Short answer, I think that our elections are more about ego than actual commitment to run the country. Campaign "promises" are unfortunately empty rhetoric.

The slightly longer answer. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats have a clear ethical compass. Judge Napolitano of Freedom Watch (http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/index.html) considers them to be one party where one "wing" takes periodic orchestrated jabs at the "other side" to give the appearance of democracy in action.

I suspect that the November 2012 election will be another instance of the "lesser of two evils".

I know who I'm voting for today in the Primary, Ron Paul. :D

I'm so sick of the same old corporate controlled rhetoric from the other candidates, Obama included. I was very surprised when Obama quashed SOPA. Did anyone see the responses he got for refusing to sign it into law if it passed a vote? Hollywood was "very disappointed" that someone they paid a lot of money to in the campaign would not sign that into law, regardless of the negative impact it would have had on ecommerce. If that doesn't speak volumes about the special interests of campaigns and politics, I don't know what does.

I like Ron Paul because he voted exactly the way he promised. He is a medical doctor and has served on the Banking Committee for many years. He is very outspoken about the very wealthy bankers and the private monolopy called the Federal Reserve Board. He understands health care and finance better than any other candidate.
That is why he won't be elected. Jimmy Carter was a Nuke Engineer. There were only a cople of higher educated Presidents elected before that. Americans perfer actors.
There is only a pretend Two Party system in the US. The bankers (and Federal Reserve) run the show for both parties. Ron Paul would also bring our troops home from occupying over 50 countries around the world. This is why the news media here basically censors his existence. The media is run by the same wealthy bankers.
While I would vote for Ron Paul (if somehow that was possible), outside of that I will vote for the most incompentent unpopular candidate that can do the least harm. At least I vote. Only a small percent of citizens here will vote because they understand that it really doesn't matter. Our political system is based on the model of the
world wrestling federation - while mildly entertaining - it is completely fake - but extremely profitable for those running it.

I was very surprised when Obama quashed SOPA. I was too. Obama did that for show. He saw a populist uprising and went with the wind. It's an election year, he needs to make false prostrations to get the votes. Once the uproar dies down, he will restore SOPA/PIPA as a "number one priority".

I know who I'm voting for today in the Primary, Ron Paul. :D You had better get the vote out for Ron. He'll need everyone.

... He understands health care and finance better than any other candidate. .... Ron Paul would also bring our troops home from occupying over 50 countries around the world. ... Ron clearly understands the separation of powers, federal/state responsibilities, and the limits of government concerning liberty.

The remaining Republican candidates, despite gratuitous references to smaller limited government, are really still big government types. Gingrich would have a pre-crime unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_%28film%29). Santorum would have National "family value" laws. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum seem ready to go to war. All they need is an excuse.

Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum want a big military, but they don't want to raise taxes. They also claim to want a balanced budget. They have yet to explain how they propose pay for the military and balance the budget. I suspect that will come out of entitlement programs, such as social security - but they will never admit to it.

Since I am at it. NO politician should ever promise or claim that they can create (private industry) jobs. They can't. This is particularly ridiculous with the Republican candidates. (http://srynas.blogspot.com/2012/01/romney-on-econonomy.html) The Republicans assert that they want the Government out of the private sector, that they want smaller government, and they don't want a Nanny State. So why do they insist that as President that they will do those very things they say they are against? Hypocrisy.

Before ending, I will reiterate, Obama's economic policies are nothing more than "Bread and Circuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses)". I suspect that tonight's State of the Union address will be nothing more than a simply list of largess to be thrown out to the electorate to "buy" votes.

Looks like I am subverting my own thread.

I was very surprised when Obama quashed SOPA. Another shocker, seems that Marco Rubio (http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/) was a supporter of SOPA/PIPA!!!

Senator Marco Rubio Dropping His Co-Sponsorship Of PIPA (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120118/07262317451/senator-marco-rubio-dropping-his-co-sponsorship-pipa.shtml)

SOPA and PIPA protest power: why Marco Rubio backed off piracy bill (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0119/SOPA-and-PIPA-protest-power-why-Marco-Rubio-backed-off-piracy-bill)

Any insight on this?

Another shocker, seems that Marco Rubio (http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/) was a supporter of SOPA/PIPA!!!

Senator Marco Rubio Dropping His Co-Sponsorship Of PIPA (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120118/07262317451/senator-marco-rubio-dropping-his-co-sponsorship-pipa.shtml)

SOPA and PIPA protest power: why Marco Rubio backed off piracy bill (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0119/SOPA-and-PIPA-protest-power-why-Marco-Rubio-backed-off-piracy-bill)

Any insight on this?

Yep, I've never liked Rubio. I sent him a letter about his decision to sponser PIPA. I like to think that my letter helped lead him to his decision to drop his support. ;)

That is why he won't be elected.

It's that kind of talk and attitude that will make sure he isn't elected. The way I see it, he has the largest following by young voters at the moment. Obama falls in second among young voters. There is no way any other Republican candidate has a chance of winning. We will either see Obama in for a second term or Ron Paul come into office. I don't see any other options.

If Ron Paul wins the primary, many far right Republicans will vote Obama just to keep their big government and corporate control, but the young voters have a pretty good chance of making up for that. A large amount of independents are Ron Paul supporters.

If anyone but Ron Paul wins the primary, I hope he runs independent. He will probably have the largest number of votes for a candidate not running Republican or Democrat in history. He would have a pretty good chance against two other candidates because the far right will vote for their guy and the far left will vote for their guy, leaving those in the middle. I think many of those votes will go in Paul's direction.

Most young voters will not support Newt or Mitt. It's out of the question.

On health care, I have heard conflicting analysis on whether the European health system is better/worse than the US health system. But from the Romney perspective, if it is socialized, it must be bad by definition. But is it?


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Sorry.

I think you have to go pretty far east through Europe and into China to find a health care system that's as exclusive if not as expensive and ineffective as what's on offer in the US. If you've got the money I'm sure you can have a real life Dr House at your beck and call with all the latest gadgets, but what happens if you're on minimum wage with no health insurance?

Give it a year or two of the Tories' meddling and ask me again if I've changed my mind about the ability of running health care as a for profit business rather than as a universally available service for those that need it. My suspicion is that I wont.

I've been familiar with Ron Paul for 20-25 years. His message has remained consistent throughout. In the caucuses 4 years ago, there were 3 of us that strongly supported him out of about 10-12 people in the precinct. The other 2 were young men in their 20's (I'm 50's), which speaks against a point made earlier that the young wouldn't support him.

I'll be surprised if he makes it, given that he is against the "big government" supported by both Dem's and Rep's, but I'll support him regardless. If he doesn't get the Rep nomination and runs independently, I'll vote for him. If that kind of support causes the Rep's to lose the election, so be it. I can't in good conscience vote for another "big government" candidate anyway. I'm tired of the "lesser of two evils" choices. It would be nice to have someone in government actually follow the Constitution that they swear to uphold.

I've been familiar with Ron Paul for 20-25 years. His message has remained consistent throughout. In the caucuses 4 years ago, there were 3 of us that strongly supported him out of about 10-12 people in the precinct. The other 2 were young men in their 20's (I'm 50's), which speaks against a point made earlier that the young wouldn't support him.

I'll be surprised if he makes it, given that he is against the "big government" supported by both Dem's and Rep's, but I'll support him regardless. If he doesn't get the Rep nomination and runs independently, I'll vote for him. If that kind of support causes the Rep's to lose the election, so be it. I can't in good conscience vote for another "big government" candidate anyway. I'm tired of the "lesser of two evils" choices. It would be nice to have someone in government actually follow the Constitution that they swear to uphold.

That's my position exactly! I changed my party affiliation last month to Republican just so I could vote for him in the Primary, which I did yesterday in early voting. If he runs in November, I will vote for him again. He is the ONLY choice I see myself voting for. I'm seeing much of the younger crowd lending support for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, many are not registered Republican, so cannot vote in the Primary in Florida.

In the general election in Nov 2012, a vote for a third party candidate (Ron Paul) is a vote for Obama.
In 1992, Ross Perot helped Bill Clinton victory.
In 2000, Ralph Nader helped George W. Bush victory.

Republicans are praying that Ron Paul will not run as a third party candidate.

My observation is this: USA is moving away from an 'opportunity' society to an 'entitlement' society. People will vote for the candidate who will promise them maximum entitlements.

I am reading that in countries like Greece and Italy, people do not pay taxes and underground economy is flourishing. Socialism is great for these people. Also, if you have connection to powerful people in Government, you got it made. I am thinking of moving to Greece, so I can have a good and easy life.

I've been familiar with Ron Paul for 20-25 years. His message has remained consistent throughout. In the caucuses 4 years ago, there were 3 of us that strongly supported him out of about 10-12 people in the precinct. The other 2 were young men in their 20's (I'm 50's), which speaks against a point made earlier that the young wouldn't support him.

I'll be surprised if he makes it, given that he is against the "big government" supported by both Dem's and Rep's, but I'll support him regardless. If he doesn't get the Rep nomination and runs independently, I'll vote for him. If that kind of support causes the Rep's to lose the election, so be it. I can't in good conscience vote for another "big government" candidate anyway. I'm tired of the "lesser of two evils" choices. It would be nice to have someone in government actually follow the Constitution that they swear to uphold. We need to have Ron Paul elected to pop-the-bubble of "big government". Obama made it clear last night, in the State of the Union Address, that the era of "big" government is alive and well.

My observation is this: USA is moving away from an 'opportunity' society to an 'entitlement' society. People will vote for the candidate who will promise them maximum entitlements. Exactly, that was the theme last night of Obama's State of the Union Address. "Bread and Circuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses)".

Once again he failed to adequately disclose how these "promises" would be paid for. We will have to wait for the release of the proposed budget. More deficit spending, I would surmise.

In the general election in Nov 2012, a vote for a third party candidate (Ron Paul) is a vote for Obama.


I disagree. I think the ideals people believe in has changed. I think people are waking up and seeing the errors of the two party system. I expect to see much more diverse voting.

I was very surprised when Obama quashed SOPA. Found it. Soon SOPA/PIPA II "It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/24/remarks-president-state-union-address)" <--From Obama's State of the Union Speech. The remark could also be in reference to an equally bad trade agreement that is being proposed; ACTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement). New Petition Asks White House To Submit ACTA To The Senate For Ratification (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/14071517529/new-petition-asks-white-house-to-submit-acta-to-senate-ratification.shtml). We had better hope that Ron Paul wins so that these onerous laws/agreements can be defeated.

My observation is this: USA is moving away from an 'opportunity' society to an 'entitlement' society. People will vote for the candidate who will promise them maximum entitlements.

I agree. To paraphrase a quote from 200+ years ago (Tytler or de Tocqueville, can't remember which), democracy can only survive until people discover they can vote themselves goodies. Given that almost 50% of US households now pay zero income tax, I'd say we're past that point and it's only a matter of time.

Of course, we're supposed to have a Republic, not a Democracy. ;)

I disagree. I think the ideals people believe in has changed. I think people are waking up and seeing the errors of the two party system. I expect to see much more diverse voting.
Let us be realistic. If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, he will get 10 to 15% of votes (my guess). Most of the votes will come from the Republicans. Mr. Obama will be eternally thankful to Ron Paul for his big help in his re-election (think of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader). This is not rocket science, just simple math.
In a debate, Ron Paul told the audience he is not considering a third party candidacy and received a big applause. Hope he keeps his word.

I agree. To paraphrase a quote from 200+ years ago (Tytler or de Tocqueville, can't remember which), democracy can only survive until people discover they can vote themselves goodies. Given that almost 50% of US households now pay zero income tax, I'd say we're past that point and it's only a matter of time.

Of course, we're supposed to have a Republic, not a Democracy. ;)

One important identifier of Socialism is that Government jobs become the most coveted jobs (please understand that I am not speaking against Government employees). Government jobs provide great job security and a guaranteed retirement pension. You do not have to worry about your job performance like in Private industry. In a Government job (especially in a regulatory agency), you are the boss over the people and businesses. Your approval signature on a document is your biggest asset.
Now in USA, I am seeing more and more people looking for Government jobs.
Look at Europe or Canada. Government jobs are the most coveted jobs.
Certainly Government has a role and they need good employees. When they become top heavy, taxes have to go up just to keep the show going.

Romney (in running as a candidate for the US Presidency) has been lambasting the economies of Europe as an example of the failure of socialism. He is doing this, of course, to hold Europe up as an example of a failed economic system so that he can implement a capitalistic based rescue plan to restore the US economy to its former glory. I suspect that Romney's assertions are incorrect. So for those who live in Europe, what is your reaction?


States in Europe are declared as financially weak by American rating companiers, whereas the failed American finance market still gets an A+ + America's always lived on dept and still its economy is considered as strong (there are other factors playing into this, I know) In Europe you get a smack when you reach a certain percentage. Of course, some people suffer here, but poor people in America aren't better off. Finger pointing has always been a good way to get attention.

On health care, I have heard conflicting analysis on whether the European health system is better/worse than the US health system. But from the Romney perspective, if it is socialized, it must be bad by definition. But is it?

Excuse me for a second. I have to go downstairs into my wine cellar (http://www.fashionforhome.co.uk/wine-racks) and have a hearty laugh. I'd be scared to get sick if I was in the US for a longer amount of time. Maybe European systems, which differ from country to country, wouldn't work on a large scale such as the whole of the USA. After all, there are a lot of people who think paying into a health insurance that's not just for them, but even those who can't afford to pay high fees is giving someone something they don't deserve.

That's not everyone, of course. Excuse me, because I watched that documentary by Michael Moore. I'd say Europe and South America were quite idealized and the USA was in extra bad light, but the fact of the matter is that those cases actually do exist. If you don't know what I'm rambling on about, go watch it: Sicko by Michael Moore.

Found it. Soon SOPA/PIPA II "It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/24/remarks-president-state-union-address)" <--From Obama's State of the Union Speech. The remark could also be in reference to an equally bad trade agreement that is being proposed; ACTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement). New Petition Asks White House To Submit ACTA To The Senate For Ratification (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/14071517529/new-petition-asks-white-house-to-submit-acta-to-senate-ratification.shtml). We had better hope that Ron Paul wins so that these onerous laws/agreements can be defeated.

Yes, and ACTA is even worse than SOPA and PIPA. It makes the ISPs responsible for all content that travels their servers and potentially criminalizes any usage of copyrighted material without proper authorization from the holder. On the surface, it doesn't sound that bad, but the potential misuse of this law is scary and the verbage used in the bill don't specifically limit what "usage" is. It almost supercedes fair use.

For example, you run a blog at home and wear a hat for your favorite sport team during one of your blog recordings. That logo on that hat, it's under copyright. Let's say the message you deliver in your blog doesn't necessarily match the message the sport team agrees with. If the company wills it, they can press charges. You have just violated ACTA and can be fined and sent to prison.

Or, you record your 3 year-old dancing to a popular song. In the background you have a sign that states you voted for Ron Paul. You post this video to youtube. The RIAA gets wind and doesn't agree with your views. They can then press charges against you, again resulting in fines and/or prison time.

It's becoming a battle between corporations and their customers. Who do you think will really win? We stopped SOPA and PIPA in one peaceful day of protesting online and making our message heard. This needs to happen more often. These politicians may make money off of these corporations to pass laws in their favor, but they only stay in office with our votes. If they lose office, the corporations have no use for them.

I disagree. I think the ideals people believe in has changed. I think people are waking up and seeing the errors of the two party system. I expect to see much more diverse voting.

My impression, and forgive me if I'm wrong, is that the US system is designed specifically for a two party set up. Ours was designed pretty much for a single party so it's not a criticism.

Despite having (until recentl) a third credible party in a system heavily designed to favour at most two parties we still managed to resoundly kick into touch a (compromise) plan to make our system marginally more representative than it is currently where a party gaining just 35% of the populate vote can gain a massive majority of MPs in the house of commons.

For years though both Labour and the Conservatives have campaigned on the basis that a Liberal vote is a wasted vote and I've seen similar tactics when it comes to any third party candidate in the US system.

Can the US system accomodate a third party (or independent) Presidential candidate let alone political party?

One health care solution would be to rob a bank - if you get away with it you can afford the medical bills and if you get caught the government will cover the expenses while you are incarcerated... if it is a cronic illness just make sure you dont have a good lawyer who is going to plea bargain you out of long term care by getting you a light sentence.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Sorry.

I think you have to go pretty far east through Europe and into China to find a health care system that's as exclusive if not as expensive and ineffective as what's on offer in the US. If you've got the money I'm sure you can have a real life Dr House at your beck and call with all the latest gadgets, but what happens if you're on minimum wage with no health insurance?

Give it a year or two of the Tories' meddling and ask me again if I've changed my mind about the ability of running health care as a for profit business rather than as a universally available service for those that need it. My suspicion is that I wont.

Let us be realistic. If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, he will get 10 to 15% of votes (my guess). Most of the votes will come from the Republicans. Mr. Obama will be eternally thankful to Ron Paul for his big help in his re-election (think of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader). This is not rocket science, just simple math.
In a debate, Ron Paul told the audience he is not considering a third party candidacy and received a big applause. Hope he keeps his word.

There have been many polls that show favor to Ron Paul or even tie Ron Paul vs Obama amongst Democratic voters. Among Independents, he wins most of them. If you want to talk numbers, look at the polls!

Let's not forget, he can still defeat Romney and win the Republican nomination. The fueds between Gingrich and Romney only cast negative light on Romney. The only two candidates that even CAN win the nomination are Romney and Paul, based on eligibility on delegates. Gingrich and Santorum are not on enough delegate ballots to win.

If Gingrich can defeat Romney in states where Ron Paul is more likely to lose, such as South Carolina, and can continue to do this, Ron Paul has a good chance of defeating him.

Like I say, don't count him out just yet!

And I would rather Obama stay in office than any of the other candidates if Ron Paul doesn't get it. The hypocricy in their actions is just too much for me to desire them leading this country. Santorum's strong desire to ban all abortions, regardless of health risks to the mother or cases of incest or rape is enough to make me sick. The hypocricy in that his wife would be dead if she didn't have an abortion in the 90s.

Romney's flip flop on his views throughout the last 20 years. He has changed his mind more than an indecisive alcoholic at an open bar.

Gingrich just doesn't do anything! He was horrible as speaker and he'll be even more horrible as President.

My impression, and forgive me if I'm wrong, is that the US system is designed specifically for a two party set up. Ours was designed pretty much for a single party so it's not a criticism.

Despite having (until recentl) a third credible party in a system heavily designed to favour at most two parties we still managed to resoundly kick into touch a (compromise) plan to make our system marginally more representative than it is currently where a party gaining just 35% of the populate vote can gain a massive majority of MPs in the house of commons.

For years though both Labour and the Conservatives have campaigned on the basis that a Liberal vote is a wasted vote and I've seen similar tactics when it comes to any third party candidate in the US system.

Can the US system accomodate a third party (or independent) Presidential candidate let alone political party?

Historically, this is true. Currently, we are seeing a slow shift where people are more inclined than ever to vote for someone outside the two major political parties, particularly in younger voters. Now, if only we can encourage more of these younger individuals to get out and vote, they have a very high chance of choosing the next President.

Yes, and ACTA is even worse than SOPA and PIPA. It makes the ISPs responsible for all content that travels their servers and potentially criminalizes any usage of copyrighted material without proper authorization from the holder. On the surface, it doesn't sound that bad, but the potential misuse of this law is scary and the verbage used in the bill don't specifically limit what "usage" is. It almost supercedes fair use.One of the fall-outs of ACTA is that it will be used as an excuse to bring forth legislation, such a SOPA/PIPA, as an excuse to bring US laws into compliance with supposed "international standards". Unstated of course, is that it is the US disingenuously pushing for this law. Another criticism of this questionable trade agreement is that the US Trade Representative is surreptitiously "making law", which is supposed to be the responsibility of the legislative branch.

That's not everyone, of course. Excuse me, because I watched that documentary by Michael Moore. I'd say Europe and South America were quite idealized and the USA was in extra bad light, but the fact of the matter is that those cases actually do exist. If you don't know what I'm rambling on about, go watch it: Sicko by Michael Moore.Moore's movies may be biased, but they do give an opportunity to see a different perspective.

One of the reasons for my post, was that Forbes Magazine had an article concerning expatriate retirement. Inside that article was an interview with a woman who said that she had retired to France because the medical services were cheaper and better than in the US. Because, this article was not meant to be a review concerning the quality of US health, the writer may not have been concerned with the "fall-out". This type of indirect evidence makes me wonder where the truth lies concerning the supposed superiority of the US health care system.

One of the fall-outs of ACTA is that it will be used as an excuse to bring forth legislation, such a SOPA/PIPA, as an excuse to bring US laws into compliance with supposed "international standards". Unstated of course, is that it is the US disingenuously pushing for this law. Another criticism of this questionable trade agreement is that the US Trade Representative is surreptitiously "making law", which is supposed to be the responsibility of the legislative branch.

Agreed. It's definitely a bill to keep an eye on. It may be necessary to drive another peaceful protest to convince politicians we don't need it.

One of the fall-outs of ACTA is that it will be used as an excuse to bring forth legislation, such a SOPA/PIPA, as an excuse to bring US laws into compliance with supposed "international standards". Unstated of course, is that it is the US disingenuously pushing for this law. Another criticism of this questionable trade agreement is that the US Trade Representative is surreptitiously "making law", which is supposed to be the responsibility of the legislative branch.

This sounds really bad. Have to read up on that. And what "International standard"? Actually, I've been to Germany last year for a couple of months. I couldn't use youtube most of the time because all the Music was copyrighted by GEMA(German Music Production Company) or Sony, etc. They apply the copyright laws pretty strictly. Sure, I have no problem buying the music I like. It's only fair. What happens when it's about the brand name on someone's hat, though? (Vassago mentioned that) That's just going too far.

This type of indirect evidence makes me wonder where the truth lies concerning the supposed superiority of the US health care system.

I'd say the "superiority of the US health system" doesn't exist. ;)
It's just what everyone is used to. Many people cite their right to choose whether they want health care or not. But some just can't afford it, even when they have two or three jobs.

And what "International standard"? From Wikipedia "The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement)" (emphasis added).

Here is the game plan. Suppose (hypothetical example only for purposes of illustration) that copyright in the US is for 14 years. The proposed agreement, under the urging of the US Trade Representative (USTR), proposes a copyright period of 28 years. He then convinces (intimidates) all the other countries to go along with that, and they - including the US (only the President actually) - agree to this new 28 year period for copyright and sign the so-called "trade agreement". Twenty-eight (28) years now becomes the "international standard" that all countries have agreed to. The RIAA and the MPPA, plus the other content creators then go before Congress and whine that US copyright law has to be changed from 14 years to 28 years since it is not in "compliance" with international standards.

Stop ACTA (http://www.stopacta.info/about): writes "At a time when important debates are taking place on the need to adapt copyright to the digital age, this treaty would bypass democratic processes in order to enforce a fundamentally irrelevant regulatory regime." (emphasis added)

US, EU, Canada, Japan, Australia & Others To Sign ACTA This Weekend, Despite Legal Concerns (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/10504716112/us-eu-canada-japan-australia-others-to-sign-acta-this-weekend-despite-legal-concerns.shtml) (September 27, 2011). Mike Masnick wrote: "President Obama, via the USTR, is ignoring the Senate's oversight concerning treaties, by pretending ACTA is not a treaty, but rather an "executive agreement. ... But even if this is considered "an executive agreement," the President does not have the authority to sign an executive agreement concerning intellectual property issues. ... This is a clear end-run around Congress, and seems likely to be unconstitutional." On January 25, 2012 there was a follow-up article that delves deeper into the Constitutional concerns: New Petition Asks White House To Submit ACTA To The Senate For Ratification (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/14071517529/new-petition-asks-white-house-to-submit-acta-to-senate-ratification.shtml).

From Wikipedia "The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement)" (emphasis added).

Here is the game plan. Suppose (hypothetical example only for purposes of illustration) that copyright in the US is for 14 years. The proposed agreement, under the urging of the US Trade Representative (USTR), proposes a copyright period of 28 years. He then convinces (intimidates) all the other countries to go along with that, and they - including the US (only the President actually) - agree to this new 28 year period for copyright and sign the so-called "trade agreement". Twenty-eight (28) years now becomes the "international standard" that all countries have agreed to. The RIAA and the MPPA, plus the other content creators then go before Congress and whine that US copyright law has to be changed from 14 years to 28 years since it is not in "compliance" with international standards.

Stop ACTA (http://www.stopacta.info/about): writes "At a time when important debates are taking place on the need to adapt copyright to the digital age, this treaty would bypass democratic processes in order to enforce a fundamentally irrelevant regulatory regime." (emphasis added)

US, EU, Canada, Japan, Australia & Others To Sign ACTA This Weekend, Despite Legal Concerns (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/10504716112/us-eu-canada-japan-australia-others-to-sign-acta-this-weekend-despite-legal-concerns.shtml) (September 27, 2011). Mike Masnick wrote: "President Obama, via the USTR, is ignoring the Senate's oversight concerning treaties, by pretending ACTA is not a treaty, but rather an "executive agreement. ... But even if this is considered "an executive agreement," the President does not have the authority to sign an executive agreement concerning intellectual property issues. ... This is a clear end-run around Congress, and seems likely to be unconstitutional." On January 25, 2012 there was a follow-up article that delves deeper into the Constitutional concerns: New Petition Asks White House To Submit ACTA To The Senate For Ratification (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/14071517529/new-petition-asks-white-house-to-submit-acta-to-senate-ratification.shtml).

Current copyright laws as of 1989 protect the copyright of a person for a person's lifetime plus at least 70 years and up to 120 years. The standard used to be around 20 to 25 years if I'm not mistaken. It's already grown to an astronomically ridiculous amount of time.

Also, Obama signed ACTA yesterday. It seems they are insisting it doesn't need Congressional approval since it's considered a "treaty" rather than a law. Many politicians are already arguing over whether this is the case. We'll see what comes out of it.

For everyone in other countries, I urge you to insist your leaders to not sign this agreement.

Current copyright laws as of 1989 protect the copyright of a person for a person's lifetime plus at least 70 years and up to 120 years. The standard used to be around 20 to 25 years if I'm not mistaken. It's already grown to an astronomically ridiculous amount of time.You are correct. Its complicated, I just want to use a simple hypothetical example even though it was not "accurate". Wikipedia review: Copyright Term Extension Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act)

It'll be interesting what you Americans vote in as the next president.

The last one was an illiterate warmongering murdering freak who only wanted to feather his (and his father's nest) with his underhand contract dealings - all that at the cost of many thousands of US soldiers' lives.

The current one can string words together but is a bit too tanned for republicans in the deep south.

Of the current ones, old Newt wants to spend billions setting up a base on the moon complete with McDonalds no doubt. Not sure about Mitt, but he can't get in with such a daft name.

Maybe it's time to vote in a woofter, now that'll set the fur flying. Nice pink curtains at the white house maybe? How about a female? (not Palin)

I can't really see anyone normal being voted in - it's not the US way, it seems the US loves to be the laughing stock of the world.

Col

It'll be interesting what you Americans vote in as the next president.

The last one was an illiterate warmongering murdering freak who only wanted to feather his (and his father's nest) with his underhand contract dealings - all that at the cost of many thousands of US soldiers' lives.

The current one can string words together but is a bit too tanned for republicans in the deep south.

Of the current ones, old Newt wants to spend billions setting up a base on the moon complete with McDonalds no doubt. Not sure about Mitt, but he can't get in with such a daft name.

Maybe it's time to vote in a woofter, now that'll set the fur flying. Nice pink curtains at the white house maybe? How about a female? (not Palin)

I can't really see anyone normal being voted in - it's not the US way, it seems the US loves to be the laughing stock of the world.

Col

Unfortunately you're right. Too many people are bought my corporate "sponsors" for our votes to really count. Plus, when you factor in the fact that most of the really closed-minded morons are the older crowd and the fact that most younger people (35 and under) still do not vote, it's going to be hard to actually see this change. I'm sure you see the same issue with the older crowd over there (over 50). They get these ideas in their head and absolutely refuse to believe anything else might be the truth.

Ron Paul still got my vote. He's the only one who actually seems to care about defending the Constitution. Mitt doesn't seem like a terrible choice if push comes to shove. As stated though, I will do everything in my power to prevent Newt from gaining the job if he wins the Primary. He can't be trusted. Santorum is just a hypocrite. I'm glad he's out of the race, but that only helps Newt.

What's a "woofter?" Is that a proper term for something or just UK slang?

If Palin ever got voted in, I would move to Canada. Even Mexico would be more appealing at that point.

The U.S. Presidential election is different from the elections in other countries. Here, any one can run as a candidate in the primaries. The party does not pick the candidate. In other countries (parliamentary system), the party decides who the candidate is. Each system has advantages and disadvantages. The U.S. system gives power to the individual, not the party.

Already several candidates have dropped out. Only four candidates are now competing to become the Republican nominee. Mr. Obama is the candidate for the Democratic party (unopposed). This is a long vetting process. Sometimes it gets very ugly. We have to live with it. Too much negative campaigning.

I do not believe for a minute that elections in other countries are nice and clean. Most countries (including Europe) have far more messy election processes (corruption, back-room deals, nepotism, aristocracy etc.) than the United States.

I do not believe for a minute that elections in other countries are nice and clean. Most countries (including Europe) have far more messy election processes (corruption, back-room deals, nepotism, aristocracy etc.) than the United States.

Because the Corporate controlled answer to politics in the US is much better. :rolleyes:

I do not believe for a minute that elections in other countries are nice and clean. Most countries (including Europe) have far more messy election processes (corruption, back-room deals, nepotism, aristocracy etc.) than the United States.

There is alot of intimidation in many dictatorial type countries - like Korea, Zimbabwe and many African ones.

In Europe, the Italians are run by the mafia, the Greeks are also known for corruption, I think Spain is more or less ok apart from being intimidated by ETA, the UK is more or less ok, in the UK though, all our lot seem the same and most main politicians are multi-millionaires who have no idea of what happens at ground level. That's why they are cutting hospital care, people are left to lie in their own excrement, care-homes are akin to Auchwitz with some people being beaten and not fed or watered.

A woofter is another name for a poof - I believe you refer to them as faggots - although we tend to eat faggots with mashed potato, peas and gravy. We also smoke fags.

Col

There is alot of intimidation in many dictatorial type countries - like Korea, Zimbabwe and many African ones.

In Europe, the Italians are run by the mafia, the Greeks are also known for corruption, I think Spain is more or less ok apart from being intimidated by ETA, the UK is more or less ok, in the UK though, all our lot seem the same and most main politicians are multi-millionaires who have no idea of what happens at ground level. That's why they are cutting hospital care, people are left to lie in their own excrement, care-homes are akin to Auchwitz with some people being beaten and not fed or watered.

A woofter is another name for a poof - I believe you refer to them as faggots - although we tend to eat faggots with mashed potato, peas and gravy. We also smoke fags.

Col

"Faggot" is actually more of a deragatory name here. Gay or homosexual is preferred. I'm not sure why the former is insulting.

I was aware of the "faggot" and the "fag" usage in the UK. It's amazing how much can differ between countries, especially with slang terms.

The U.S. system gives power to the individual, not the party.


That is an interesting way of looking at things. I've always thought that the US system forced an individual to join one of the parties. Being elected as president as an independent or 3rd party candidate is virtually impossible.

That is an interesting way of looking at things. I've always thought that the US system forced an individual to join one of the parties. Being elected as president as an independent or 3rd party candidate is virtually impossible.
Because the American people want to keep the two party system which served them well (not perfect by any stretch of imagination). Ron Paul is now running in the Republican primaries. He is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He attracts many younger people and many who are not happy with the establishment (both Republican and Democrat). Today, I read that Donald Trump is looking to become a third party candidate in the general election (I hope NOT).
I believe the two party system served us well. In many countries with Parliamentary system, the parties split and sometimes create regional parties. If Regional party "A" is popular in Virginia and regional party "B" is popular in Maryland, they start treating each other like unfriendly nations (a possibility). Such situations have happened in many countries.
Sure, in USA, Corporate money sometimes influence the outcome of elections. Many people conveniently forget the influence and activism of labor unions and the corrupt press. In 2008 Democratic primaries, the Mainstream press openly supported Mr. Obama against Mrs. Clinton because they knew Obama is on the far left of the Democratic party. Mr. Obama is certainly counting on the press to support him against the Republican candidate in 2012. The Mainstream media loves Socialism.
BTW, many newspapers in the USA are close to bankruptcy and I am sure they are counting on Mr. Obama for a bail out in 2013.

Because the American people want to keep the two party system which served them well (not perfect by any stretch of imagination). Ron Paul is now running in the Republican primaries. He is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He attracts many younger people and many who are not happy with the establishment (both Republican and Democrat). Today, I read that Donald Trump is looking to become a third party candidate in the general election (I hope NOT).
I believe the two party system served us well. In many countries with Parliamentary system, the parties split and sometimes create regional parties. If Regional party "A" is popular in Virginia and regional party "B" is popular in Maryland, they start treating each other like unfriendly nations (a possibility). Such situations have happened in many countries.
Sure, in USA, Corporate money sometimes influence the outcome of elections. Many people conveniently forget the influence and activism of labor unions and the corrupt press. In 2008 Democratic primaries, the Mainstream press openly supported Mr. Obama against Mrs. Clinton because they knew Obama is on the far left of the Democratic party. Mr. Obama is certainly counting on the press to support him against the Republican candidate in 2012. The Mainstream media loves Socialism.
BTW, many newspapers in the USA are close to bankruptcy and I am sure they are counting on Mr. Obama for a bail out in 2013.

Bush started the bailouts and Obama kept them going. Both parties are going to be the downfall of the US.

Every form of government in a perfect society has a very high chance of success and prosperity, be it democracy, monarchy, socialism, communism, whatever. If when the influences of the government turn to greed and power and thier interests become influenced by outside parties that the government begins it's decline. I truly believe that our government is in this decline. Without immediate intervention by the people, voting someone in that is not a corporate puppet that will cut down the inflated size of our federal government, I'm afraid we will continue this rapid decline. I can promise you that Newt, Mitt, or Obama will all still work in the interests of the people who pay rather than the people who voted. It's a shame, really.

Because the American people want to keep the two party system which served them well (not perfect by any stretch of imagination).


I don't get that same feeling. Most people I speak to about our political system recognize that it is far from perfect, but feel powerless to change it.


Ron Paul is now running in the Republican primaries. He is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He attracts many younger people and many who are not happy with the establishment (both Republican and Democrat). Today, I read that Donald Trump is looking to become a third party candidate in the general election (I hope NOT).


I agree with you about Ron Paul, but I would think that supports the fact that individuals have to join one of the two parties to have any chance of winning. Ron Paul should be running as a Libertarian, but he would have no chance of winning if he did so, therefore he chose the Republican party.


I believe the two party system served us well. In many countries with Parliamentary system, the parties split and sometimes create regional parties. If Regional party "A" is popular in Virginia and regional party "B" is popular in Maryland, they start treating each other like unfriendly nations (a possibility). Such situations have happened in many countries.


I would disagree strongly. From my own perspective, the parliamentary system seems designed to force compromise. Various parties form alliances or blocs with one another in order to get things done. In doing so, they agree on certain issues and then compromise on others. It seems to facilitate middle-of-the-road thinking, which is what ~70% of our country supports.

Also, not to pick threads, but when you say "such situations have happened in many countries", could you provide examples (links preferably)? Often times it seems that people feel that things are one way or another, and thus make assumptions based on their feelings.


Sure, in USA, Corporate money sometimes influence the outcome of elections. Many people conveniently forget the influence and activism of labor unions and the corrupt press.


I grimaced at the word "sometimes". I may be overly sensitive on this issue, but I think special interest money is everywhere in our political system and elections. I think Citizens United was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in my life time.

Also, I don't think that people forget the influence and activism of labor unions, its just that people that tend to agree with labor unions don't see their involvement as a problem. To them, labor unions represent the "working man(woman)", where as corporations represent the 1% (to use a popular term).

As far as the term "corrupt press", I've found that people on the right seem to think that Fox News is "Fair and Balanced" while believing that MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc, are "the liberal media". The people on the left are the exact opposite. As such "corrupt press" tends to be a very subjective term based on who is using it.


In 2008 Democratic primaries, the Mainstream press openly supported Mr. Obama against Mrs. Clinton because they knew Obama is on the far left of the Democratic party.


I followed the 2008 primaries and ensuing general election very closely, and I do not recall an overly slanted media for Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton. There was a lot of hype given to Mr. Obama as if he won he would become the first African American president, and many were incredibly excited about that.

However, I also recall a lot of press coverage for Mrs. Clinton, specifically the PUMA (Party Unity My A**) movement.

As far as Mr. Obama being on the "far left" of the Democratic party, I would once again completely disagree. A lot of press coverage in left-leaning media outlets has highlighted how Mr. Obama has caved in over and over to the Republican minority. I don't think he has really done anything that would qualify to label him as "socialist" (compare him to an actual socialist, for example).


Without immediate intervention by the people, voting someone in that is not a corporate puppet that will cut down the inflated size of our federal government, I'm afraid we will continue this rapid decline. I can promise you that Newt, Mitt, or Obama will all still work in the interests of the people who pay rather than the people who voted. It's a shame, really.


I would agree, but would question what you define as "inflated size of our federal government". I think almost everyone can agree that we need to work on the debt as a number 1 priority. Anywhere we can cut programs and expenditure that do not have a vital purpose or good return on investment is a good start.

However, we still rank terribly compared to the rest of the civilized world in healthcare and education. I don't see anyway of addressing those two issues without increasing the size of the federal government.

And, I would posit, most Americans aren't concerned about "big government", that is more of a talking point. The programs that eat up most of our revenue as a country are the same programs that most people tend to support (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc).

People just know they want less government intrusion in their life, and they want to pay less in taxes. But, they also want a lot of services from the government, so it becomes a sticky situation.


Lastly, as we're discussing our election system, I had an idea a while back. I wouldn't be surprised if someone else had thought of this in the past, so I won't claim it is 100% unique, however:


Many Americans seem to think that more than 2 parties would be a good idea,
Voter turnout is low because people think their vote doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things,
Few people want to "waste" their vote on a 3rd party candidate.
Assuming the above is true, what would seem to be an ideal system would be one where each voter receives a First Choice vote and a Second Choice vote. You cast your First Choice vote for the person you actually want to win. If the person you cast your First Choice vote for does not win, your Second Choice vote kicks in.

For example, an individual could cast their First Choice vote for a 3rd party candidate, and their Second Choice vote for Democrat or Repub.

If the 3rd party candidate received enough votes to win, then great. If not, no one wasted their vote as their Second Choice vote kicks in. Every voter still only gets 1 vote, so no one is given an unfair advantage.

It would seem to allow voters to break out of the "lesser of two evils" we all seem to complain about.

Bush started the bailouts and Obama kept them going. Both parties are going to be the downfall of the US.

Every form of government in a perfect society has a very high chance of success and prosperity, be it democracy, monarchy, socialism, communism, whatever. If when the influences of the government turn to greed and power and thier interests become influenced by outside parties that the government begins it's decline. I truly believe that our government is in this decline. Without immediate intervention by the people, voting someone in that is not a corporate puppet that will cut down the inflated size of our federal government, I'm afraid we will continue this rapid decline. I can promise you that Newt, Mitt, or Obama will all still work in the interests of the people who pay rather than the people who voted. It's a shame, really.Quite True.

Please forgive my grammar and spelling errors above. I am American, after all. ;)

America has an aging population. Thousands are retiring every day (called Baby Boomers). Some retirees are rich, but many are struggling financially due to Federal Reserve policies. Federal Reserve (or FED) is keeping interest rates very low. Now the average 5 Year CD (certificate of Deposit) interest rate is around 1.5 percent. Consequently, many seniors are spending their money (and depleting assets) to maintain their standard of living. An interest rate of 4 to 5 percent would have been a big blessing for them.

The seniors are not experts in Stock/bond investments and they are afraid to take risks at their age.

We also see that sometimes the rich gets richer through smart investments. The old rules of wealth creation have changed lately with information economy and use of internet. Knowledge is power now.

America has an aging population. Thousands are retiring every day (called Baby Boomers). Some retirees are rich, but many are struggling financially due to Federal Reserve policies. Federal Reserve (or FED) is keeping interest rates very low. Now the average 5 Year CD (certificate of Deposit) interest rate is around 1.5 percent. Consequently, many seniors are spending their money (and depleting assets) to maintain their standard of living. An interest rate of 4 to 5 percent would have been a big blessing for them.

The seniors are not experts in Stock/bond investments and they are afraid to take risks at their age.

We also see that sometimes the rich gets richer through smart investments. The old rules of wealth creation have changed lately with information economy and use of internet. Knowledge is power now.

Yet, the overwhelming majority of the population is still in the 18-35 range and can heavily influence the election, or outright win it if more people in this age range voted. This is the message I keep trying to spread to my peers. If you don't like the way the country is right now, get out and vote, and stop allowing the older generation to control your government through voting. They are the ones that consistently vote for people out of touch with the 21st century because they are also out of touch. (Not everyone, obviously, but a huge majority are)

If you want a higher percentage of people to vote you have to remove that right from everyone for a few years. Until it is lost people will take it for granted and be complacent that everything is alright. You will be wasting your time and energy trying to talk someone into using this very valuable right, most know they have it but will say 'meh' or feel it is pointless.

Yet, the overwhelming majority of the population is still in the 18-35 range and can heavily influence the election, or outright win it if more people in this age range voted. This is the message I keep trying to spread to my peers. If you don't like the way the country is right now, get out and vote, and stop allowing the older generation to control your government through voting. They are the ones that consistently vote for people out of touch with the 21st century because they are also out of touch. (Not everyone, obviously, but a huge majority are)

Yet, the overwhelming majority of the population is still in the 18-35 range and can heavily influence the election, or outright win it if more people in this age range voted. This is the message I keep trying to spread to my peers. If you don't like the way the country is right now, get out and vote, and stop allowing the older generation to control your government through voting. They are the ones that consistently vote for people out of touch with the 21st century because they are also out of touch. (Not everyone, obviously, but a huge majority are)
I agree with Vassago.

As far as Mr. Obama being on the "far left" of the Democratic party, I would once again completely disagree. A lot of press coverage in left-leaning media outlets has highlighted how Mr. Obama has caved in over and over to the Republican minority. I don't think he has really done anything that would qualify to label him as "socialist" (compare him to an actual socialist, for example).


I think there's a flaw in your logic. You wouldn't classify a president based on what they were able to get through congress, you'd classify them based on their beliefs. If Ron Paul were to get elected and 3 years later hadn't been able to get any real "Libertarian" legislation passed, would you say he wasn't a Libertarian (or label of your choice)?


However, we still rank terribly compared to the rest of the civilized world in healthcare and education. I don't see anyway of addressing those two issues without increasing the size of the federal government.


Your conclusion is based on what I would call a flawed premise: that more federal government will help. In my view, we'd be better off with less federal government (perhaps more local). All the federal government is good at is creating bloat and waste.

the overwhelming majority of the population is still in the 18-35 range

I'm curious what you mean by this, as it certainly isn't accurate from a numerical perspective. The two largest groups by percentage are the 35-39 and 40-44 groups (Google population pyramid).

If you want a higher percentage of people to vote you have to remove that right from everyone for a few years. Until it is lost people will take it for granted and be complacent that everything is alright. You will be wasting your time and energy trying to talk someone into using this very valuable right, most know they have it but will say 'meh' or feel it is pointless.

That's your opinion. From my personal experience, I've had very good success in talking people into why they should vote, even if their views are not my own. I've made voters out of quite a few of my friends and colleagues.

Bush started the bailouts and Obama kept them going. Both parties are going to be the downfall of the US.

Every form of government in a perfect society has a very high chance of success and prosperity, be it democracy, monarchy, socialism, communism, whatever. If when the influences of the government turn to greed and power and thier interests become influenced by outside parties that the government begins it's decline. I truly believe that our government is in this decline. Without immediate intervention by the people, voting someone in that is not a corporate puppet that will cut down the inflated size of our federal government, I'm afraid we will continue this rapid decline. I can promise you that Newt, Mitt, or Obama will all still work in the interests of the people who pay rather than the people who voted. It's a shame, really.
Let me put in my two cents in this discussion.
Communism is wealth redistribution by government using force. Lenin and Stalin "liquidated" the rich of that time. The new rich were the politicians and the military. The communist system of Government in USSR collapsed in the 1990's because the economic system collapsed. In the Communist system, there will be no private enterprise allowed.
Socialism is also wealth redistribution by Government using policy decisions (tax, subsidies, entitlements, licenses, quotas, permits, regulations etc.). Usually socialism allows some private enterprise under the strict control of the Government. Profits will be regulated. The politicians are smart to understand wealth is created by private enterprise. The private businesses also provide a rich source of income for politicians (bribes, kickbacks, campaign contributions etc.). The best jobs in a socialist country are Government jobs (high salary, pension, job security etc.). Usually corruption is rampant. The bureaucracy will be hard to deal with for the average citizen. Many socialist countries are now allowing more private enterprises (after seeing what happened to USSR).
So, it is a fallacy to assume every form of Government is good at the beginning.

I think there's a flaw in your logic. You wouldn't classify a president based on what they were able to get through congress, you'd classify them based on their beliefs. If Ron Paul were to get elected and 3 years later hadn't been able to get any real "Libertarian" legislation passed, would you say he wasn't a Libertarian (or label of your choice)?



Your conclusion is based on what I would call a flawed premise: that more federal government will help. In my view, we'd be better off with less federal government (perhaps more local). All the federal government is good at is creating bloat and waste.



I'm curious what you mean by this, as it certainly isn't accurate from a numerical perspective. The two largest groups by percentage are the 35-39 and 40-44 groups (Google population pyramid).

Good response (which I was not capable of). Thanks Pbaldy.

Let me put in my two cents in this discussion.
Communism is wealth redistribution by government using force. Lenin and Stalin "liquidated" the rich of that time. The new rich were the politicians and the military. The communist system of Government in USSR collapsed in the 1990's because the economic system collapsed. In the Communist system, there will be no private enterprise allowed.
Socialism is also wealth redistribution by Government using policy decisions (tax, subsidies, entitlements, licenses, quotas, permits, regulations etc.). Usually socialism allows some private enterprise under the strict control of the Government. Profits will be regulated. The politicians are smart to understand wealth is created by private enterprise. The private businesses also provide a rich source of income for politicians (bribes, kickbacks, campaign contributions etc.). The best jobs in a socialist country are Government jobs (high salary, pension, job security etc.). Usually corruption is rampant. The bureaucracy will be hard to deal with for the average citizen. Many socialist countries are now allowing more private enterprises (after seeing what happened to USSR).
So, it is a fallacy to assume every form of Government is good at the beginning.

I disagree. Using real world examples of a general ideal is impossible because there are too many outside factors to consider. USSR had major success and growth for nearly a century, only failing because of political instability, not really related to the ideal of a socialistic society.

As I said, the IDEAL is sound, but only if the players involved are in agreement. It can succeed and be highly effective for all involved. It would never happen in the US because not everyone would be on board, including me. It would fail.

Finally :), a Washington Post opinion piece by Martin Klingst that underscores my concerns over dubious Europe bashing. The GOP’s ‘Europe’ is a land of make-believe (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-europe-is-a-land-of-make-believe/2012/02/01/gIQA46m1nQ_story.html)"

Mr. Klingst writes: "Lately it seems that not a day goes by without a Republican presidential candidate portraying Europe as a socialist nightmare. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum paint a picture of the Old World as unfree, strangulated by bureaucratic and inefficient welfare systems, and unable to reform and modernize. To these Republicans, Europe seems to be the antipode to everything America is meant to be. ...

... My problem as a European living in the United States is that it is not Joe the Plumber who is bashing Europe but three longtime politicians who want to be president — people who should know better. ...

... But framing Europe simply as inflexible and outdated, or backward and socialistic, is shortsightedand wrong. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum should know as well as anyone that the globe is no longer flat."

We unfortunately have to seriously question what those running for office say. To be fair and balanced; Obama falsely claims to be "reducing the national debt" while actually continuing deficit spending that increase the national debt.

Your conclusion is based on what I would call a flawed premise: that more federal government will help. In my view, we'd be better off with less federal government (perhaps more local).


I wouldn't be opposed to some non-federal system that manages our issues (healthcare and education in particular), its just that such a system does not exist in our world to my knowledge. A federal-type model does exist, and is wildly successful in several other countries.


All the federal government is good at is creating bloat and waste.


I would disagree strongly. If there were no federal government mandates, there would still be schools in the south teaching creationisim. Segregation would likely still exisit. Not to mention the millions of people that have been helped by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Certainly we can work on the costs of the domestic programs, but their value and popularity should make it clear that they are not simply "bloat and waste".

I would disagree strongly. If there were no federal government mandates, there would still be schools in the south teaching creationisim. Segregation would likely still exisit. Not to mention the millions of people that have been helped by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Certainly we can work on the costs of the domestic programs, but their value and popularity should make it clear that they are not simply "bloat and waste".

Agreed. I'm sick of the argument that federal assistance programs are abused. Of course it's abused, we get it! But the statistics prove they are not nearly as abused as opponents make them out to be.

Florida recently passed a law that you must submit to a monthly drug test to recieve welfare. The law stated that if you passed your drug test, you would be reimbursed for the costs of the drug test. After the law went into effect, this is what we saw:

96% passed the drug test. 2% refused to take it. 2% failed. The average drug test costs around $30. So basically, to save the money that 4% of all people would have recieved on welfare, we would have paid for drug tests for 96% of welfare recipients to continue to recieve welfare... monthly! Does this sound like it was a good plan? Not in the least. I'd must rather 10 people recieve welfare that are abusing it than 1 person not recieve it that truly needs it. This is my view on the situation, but obviously, the numbers that opponents try to boast are largely hyped.

A federal judge barred the law after seeing the results. It should never have been signed to begin with. It was just a greedy way for our corrupt governor, Rick Scott, to make more money on the taxpayer's dime. I'm just glad we don't have State taxes.

96% passed the drug test. 2% refused to take it. 2% failed. The average drug test costs around $30. So basically, to save the money that 4% of all people would have recieved on welfare, we would have paid for drug tests for 96% of welfare recipients to continue to recieve welfare... monthly! Does this sound like it was a good plan? Not in the least.


If it is the same law I am thinking of, its even worse than that. Those that failed their drug tests were allowed to name another individual to receive the government assistance for them.

I'm very liberal on a lot of issues, but on welfare and certain other forms of entitlements, I tend to be more conservative. I don't think that anyone should get a free ride. Placing more restrictions on who can receive government assistance is fine in my view, assuming it serves a purpose and doesn't cost more than what it saves (as in your example).

However, it seems with hardline conservatives there is a line in the sand on welfare and other forms of government assistance. There can't even be a rational conversation with some of them.

I read an article on CNN recently about this very topic, and a few individuals were suggesting that for a woman to receive government assistance she should have to agree to measures that would prevent her from getting pregnant (I believe the example was an IUD). While I understand the frustation that some have over individuals living on welfare and continually having more children, requiring them not to have children seems incredibly draconian.

If it is the same law I am thinking of, its even worse than that. Those that failed their drug tests were allowed to name another individual to receive the government assistance for them.

I'm very liberal on a lot of issues, but on welfare and certain other forms of entitlements, I tend to be more conservative. I don't think that anyone should get a free ride. Placing more restrictions on who can receive government assistance is fine in my view, assuming it serves a purpose and doesn't cost more than what it saves (as in your example).

However, it seems with hardline conservatives there is a line in the sand on welfare and other forms of government assistance. There can't even be a rational conversation with some of them.

I read an article on CNN recently about this very topic, and a few individuals were suggesting that for a woman to receive government assistance she should have to agree to measures that would prevent her from getting pregnant (I believe the example was an IUD). While I understand the frustation that some have over individuals living on welfare and continually having more children, requiring them not to have children seems incredibly draconian.

Even worse than that, would there be criminal prosection for those who didn't follow the rule? What if they had more children? Would they go to jail? Would the kids be placed in foster care, costing the taxpayers money anyway? How can you enforce a rule like that?

I'm more concerned about the corporate giants getting richer while not passing the wealth onto the people who put them there. It's getting worse as well. I could care less if some single mother is taking advantage of wealthfare when I'm not even seeing money I have earned on my paycheck. My annual raise this year was a mere 2%. That will barely, if at all, cover the increase in gas prices this year, essentially meaning I am making less money this year for more work, including helping to gain a huge portfolio that probably went to the higher ups new yacht. We're already seeing record gas prices where I live.

Where's the balance?

I'm more concerned about the corporate giants getting richer while not passing the wealth onto the people who put them there. It's getting worse as well. I could care less if some single mother is taking advantage of wealthfare when I'm not even seeing money I have earned on my paycheck. My annual raise this year was a mere 2%. That will barely, if at all, cover the increase in gas prices this year, essentially meaning I am making less money this year for more work, including helping to gain a huge portfolio that probably went to the higher ups new yacht. We're already seeing record gas prices where I live.

Where's the balance?

Is the great USA finally waking up to the real world? I doubt it.

Petrol prices in the UK are $9.54 per gallon (I filled up today) and many industries and public sector workers are facing yet another year of 0% pay rises - it's now the "norm" here.

A packet of 20 decent fags costs around $10

So how much is a gallon of petrol where you live?

What is "wealthfare"?

Col

Is the great USA finally waking up to the real world? I doubt it.

I doubt it as well. Most people here are still pretty ignorant of the rest of the world, thanks to censorship by our government and the media.

Petrol prices in the UK are $9.54 per gallon (I filled up today) and many industries and public sector workers are facing yet another year of 0% pay rises - it's now the "norm" here.

At least driving isn't quite as required there. With your country being smaller than my state by total land size, that should help. I wish my country would embrace other forms of transportation. It would be great to have trains in the same abundance as Japan.


A packet of 20 decent fags costs around $10

Depending on where you live here, it's about the same price. In New York, you'll pay more, in Florida, you'll pay less.


So how much is a gallon of petrol where you live?


It's about $3.70 on average around here.


What is "wealthfare"?

Col

My phone likes to misspell words for me while I was in a rush.

Petrol prices in the UK are $9.54 per gallon (I filled up today) and many industries and public sector workers are facing yet another year of 0% pay rises - it's now the "norm" here.


So how much is a gallon of petrol where you live?

US$3.55 yesterday. The differential in the price of petrol/gasoline/fuel is due to your tax structure. We pay about the same amount for the actual product. You have much higher taxes levied on that product, so you pay more. If you're bothered by the price you pay, talk to your politicians.

US$3.55 yesterday. The differential in the price of petrol/gasoline/fuel is due to your tax structure. We pay about the same amount for the actual product. You have much higher taxes levied on that product, so you pay more. If you're bothered by the price you pay, talk to your politicians.

Being as your petrol is over 50% cheaper than ours (yes most of it is tax) obviously your government doesn't yet need the tax revenue so I can't really see that you have any economic problems in the USA.

Back on topic, I see old Mitty is a mormon - how does belonging to a weird religious cult affect the way voters think? Is having such a religious freak going to help or hinder the USA?

Col

Back on topic...

Actually, that's going off topic. Given that the topic is "Romeny (sic) on the "failed" Socialist Countries of Europe", the discussion of "socialist" big-government spending and the resulting high levels of taxation/borrowing is on topic. Religion in politics is a different topic.

Evidently, news stories question Romney's assertions are increasingly surfacing. It's unfortunate that Romney has to denigrate Europe in his quest to oust Obama from the White House. There is also a bit of deceit on the part of Romney. He lambasted Obama for apologizing for America's actions; yet Romney is going out of his way to unnecessarily vilify Europe for self-serving political reasons. Like Obama, Romney may have to apologize for his words should he win. Romney should be more focused on exposing Obama's many failures.

Washington Post Article: "Europeans shrug off Mitt Romney’s criticism" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/europeans-shrug-off-romneys-criticism/2012/01/14/gIQAPHEL5P_story.html)

The Post writes: "As a result, Romney’s assertion that President Obama wants to “turn America into a European-style entitlement society” has stirred much irony but little ire in Europe. Such caricatures are familiar to most Europeans, analysts said, even as European countries try to trim spending to address a deepening financial crisis."

Christian Science Monitor article: Is Mitt Romney's Europe-bashing well placed?" (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2012/0111/"Is-Mitt-Romney-s-Europe-bashing-well-placed)

The Christian Science Monitor wrote: "In three withering references at the end of a fiery 10-minute speech last night, the GOP front-runner depicted “Europe” as weak, socialist, an object of pity and, compared with the shining American model, lacking inspiration."

-----

Since posting, I was greeted (this morning) with the following opinion piece in the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson: "The GOP scrambles for a bogeyman (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-scrambles-for-a-bogeyman/2012/02/07/gIQAyrZwzQ_story.html?hpid=z3)".

Mr. Meyerson wrote: "Of late, a favorite Republican theme is that President Obama is a European socialist. “I am for the Constitution,” Newt Gingrich recently proclaimed, while Obama “is for European socialism.” Not to be outdone, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has suggested that the choice between Obama and himself is one between “a European-style welfare state” or “a free land.”"

The ONLY candidate that really has a chance to win on the Republican card against Obama is Paul, IMO. Romney might have a slight chance. The other two, forget it. Most voters do not want an over-religious zealot in office. Romney is the closest moderate next to Paul.

Paul has the best chance because of his middle area attitude toward policy. He's also the only one that consistently votes based on the right thing to do, regardless of his own personal beliefs. He also predicted the economic mess we are in long before any other politician started to take notice. I trust him more than the others.

But mark my words, I and many many of the people who read my commentary on the election, will be voting Obama if Paul is not running. We would rather see him in office than 4 years of any other candidate but Paul.

Paul has the best chance because of his middle area attitude toward policy. He's also the only one that consistently votes based on the right thing to do, regardless of his own personal beliefs. He also predicted the economic mess we are in long before any other politician started to take notice. I trust him more than the others.Paul is the only one that offers real change and restoration of civil liberties. Romney, like Obama, will continue the trend toward diminishing civil liberties in that name of this or that "war". Unless Paul wins, look for SOPA/PIPA and ACTA to immediately resurface on November 7, 2012 as proposed legislation.

What is now happening in Greece? Why people are on the street? What is the need for all these austerity measures? Can't they provide cradle to grave support by Government? Wealth redistribution not working in Greece? I cannot believe that. Is Germany so selfish they will not give their credit card to Greece?

Margaret Thatcher said it best. The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

What is now happening in Greece? Why people are on the street? What is the need for all these austerity measures? Can't they provide cradle to grave support by Government? Wealth redistribution not working in Greece? I cannot believe that. Is Germany so selfish they will not give their credit card to Greece?


Greece's problems are many and varied, and your simplifying it down to "socialism" is dishonest at best. Americans who rail against socialism generally don't understand what socialism actually is.

There are some other EU countries that could be considered "socialist", using the same definititon. These countries have far better education systems than the US does and higher levels of healthy individuals.

There is a ton of money spent in the US each year to convince Americans that Europeans are unhappy individuals, paying massive taxes and getting nothing for their money. This message is pushed by those that benefit from keeping things the way they are here.

The truth is far from that. Europeans look at the US as being the backwords ones. They don't understand how we can have a country where an individual can't afford to go to school. Or someone could have gone bankrupt due to medical bills.

So, if you're going to point at Greece and claim "socialism doesn't work", then you really should try to be a little bit honest and include examples of countries where similiar systems are working.

Lastly, its really entertaining how this completely breaks down on age lines. If I had to guess, I would say you're 50+. It seems most older Americans view things a certain way, and regardless if that way is accurate or can be backed up with facts, they take pride in sticking to that point of view.

Europe is not perfect, but as far as education and healthcare, it is superior to the US in most ways.

Any country (including USA) that follows the pathway of Greece will sooner or later end up like Greece. What is happening?

Massive debt that they cannot repay.
Massive underground economy
Massive tax evasion
Massive entitlement programs (cradle to grave)
Massive Government employment (high salary + benefits + early retirement + life long pension)

I was reading an article in a newspaper about Greece. The Government doctors (may be some) are only treating rich folks who pay cash for the services. In addition to his Government salary, the Dr. gets tax free money.
In many countries, the great education system is geared for getting a Govt job. A paycheck is guaranteed regardless of productivity. They get into wealth redistribution, not wealth creation.

The question is whether other countries in EU join the ranks of Greece (hope not).

Every country has financial issues unless it has significant natural resources. Politicians are willing to give more and more to the people in exchange for votes.
Yes, I am 60+ in age. I am an immigrant to USA. I am a US citizen. I could see this pattern developing (or already here) in USA.

It is hard to argue with any politician who promises everything the people want to hear. They also win elections. The reality sinks in later. Then, it may be too late.

Any country (including USA) that follows the pathway of Greece will sooner or later end up like Greece. What is happening?


Ok, agreed. But what is "the pathway of Greece". Basically what you're saying is "If you do exactly what Greece did, you'll end up like Greece." There's no real way to argue against that. I would say that's a much less biased statement than saying "Greece = socialism = failure".


In many countries, the great education system is geared for getting a Govt job. A paycheck is guaranteed regardless of productivity. They get into wealth redistribution, not wealth creation.


That seems far too general a statement and is not backed up by any evidence. According to a gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/141785/gov-employment-ranges-ohio.aspx) in 2010: "Federal, state, or local government employs 17% of U.S. workers nationally." If the EU's education systems gear their learners towards public sector jobs, what % would you expect to find as public sector workers? 30%? 40%?

That was my point. Socialist governments can work, just like any other form of government. It's when greed and power become a factor that the types of governments fail.