Romeny on the "failed" Socialist Countries of Europe (1 Viewer)

[pbaldy]

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.

 

[Jacob Mathai]

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.

 

[Jacob Mathai]

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.

 

[greenear]

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 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.

 

[Vassago]

Found it. Soon SOPA/PIPA II "It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated." <--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. New Petition Asks White House To Submit ACTA To The Senate For Ratification. 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.

 

[tehNellie]

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?

 

[Fifty2One]

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.

 

[Vassago]

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 ra** 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.

 

[Vassago]

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.

 

[Steve R.]

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.

 

[Steve R.]

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.

 

[Vassago]

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.

 

[greenear]

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.

 

[Steve R.]

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." (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: 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 (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.

 

[Vassago]

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." (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: 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 (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.

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.

 

[Vassago]

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.

 

[Vassago]

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

 

[Steve R.]

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

 

[ColinEssex]

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

 

[Vassago]

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.