OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[Jackdog]

Hurts to be caugh in a lie, huh.

What lie? The f*** off part? That wasn't a lie.

[Teal]

Nice edit.

No, it's a waste of time debating with someone like you. Drop it, already. You're acting like a punk teenager.

[Feanor]

This is the only country in the world were we have fat poor people.

[Feanor]

No, it's a waste of time debating with someone like you. Drop it, already. You're acting like a punk teenager.

I wasn't the one who wrote out a post swearing at another forum member multiple times and saying I want to be sent to the cell. Then edited it to say "Nevermind".

Who's the punk teenager again?

[matthewk]

That should really be the bigger issue, the increasing out-of-pocket costs for those insured, than the number of uninsureds.

What WCO stated is exactly my #1 concern. I went from having my employer covering all but a small deductable to paying $400 a month in premiums. That doesn't even count the ever growing deductables I face each year.

There has to be a way to reduce the cost of our health care. If that happens I bet we'd also solve a big chunk of the problem of people without insurance.

[RobVarak]

What I was doing was pointing out that taking either money or benefits from one person, even if it's $.01 or the slightest bit of choice, is a redistribution which is likely to meet justifiable resistance. Capitalism versus socialism isn't a "false" dichotomy, it's economic and political fact.

What about Obama's health care plan is "socialist" ?

First some specifics. From the Obama website:

National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

Before even getting into the federally-provided aspects of his plan, that is a dazzling and overreaching policy. Compelling private business to conduct itself in that manner is beyong mere regulation.

Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.

Notwithstanding the divine amibiguousness of the closing line, every employer that meets the criteria will be subsidizing the health care of people whom it doesn't employ. From each according to his means, ya know...

Now generally speaking his plan has two parts: The aforementioned National Health Insurance Exchange and the national health plan extension (which he analogizes to the FEHPB). Both of them consist of government regulating, subsidizing and enrolling... all of which costs big, big money. That money will not come solely from the pipedream sources listed on his site (efficiency, paperwork reduction etc.).

He is going to raise taxes to generate money for government to undertake a program to do all of the glorious things in his position paper. A program of that size and reach, implemented by the government is a large step toward socialism.

I'm not implying that he's a closet big-S Socialist and this is the first step of many etc. But I don't think it helps his advocates, or advocates of national health care reform in general, to obviously not call a spade a spade.

And if you think this is isn't worth doing or simply isn't feasible how do you justify that to yourself morally? I'm not attacking you, I'm just asking what your mental strategy is so maybe I can adopt it. It would make my life much easier.

I didn't say that it was or wasn't feasible or worthwhile. What I was trying to do was to demonstrate that there are, for lack of a better term, victims under every scenario. Unless there is some magic bean solution where the insurance companies can pay for all of their newly-imposed obligations without raising premiums on their existing clients, and the feds can implement their program without tax increases there will be a redistribution of wealth. Advocates of federalized health care should not claim, nor be awarded the moral high ground.

Now it may be societally appropriate, but levelling the playing field means cutting down some people. Now those people and their sacrifices may be nothing more than Trotsky's eggs, but that is scant consolation to the eggs themselves. [/quote]

[RobVarak]

That should really be the bigger issue, the increasing out-of-pocket costs for those insured, than the number of uninsureds.

The real impetus for the debate is not the uninsured, but rather the costs of insurance across the board. It's gotten to the point where it is affecting the growth of business and the efficiency of government at the state and Federal levels.

Somebody mark the date. Suddenly I feel like we're in our own version of that Bill Frist-Jim Carville Coke commercial.

[Jared]

I think that things have gotten a bit too heated lately with this thread...so I'm putting a temp lock on the thread. It will be re-opened sometime tomorrow.

[Jared]

Thread unlocked.

[wco81]

All this discussion about health care plans or continuing operations in Iraq overlooks a more basic problem which neither candidate has really attacked, i.e. the budget deficit:

The 2009 deficit will be in excess of $400 billion, which means it's not enough for a candidate to say that his new programs are paid for. McCain and Obama also have to tell us how they're going to tackle the deficit beast that George Bush failed to tame. Even if the next president scrapped Bush's tax cuts, ended the popular Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and returned defense spending to prewar levels, he would still have to pay off hundreds of billions from the interest on the Bush debt. That will (or at least should) put a cramp in any administration's style.

I believe Bush promised back in 2004 that the budget would be balanced around the time he left office. The budget problems didn't hurt him politically, so Obama and McCain may not see the point of campaigning on addressing the problem. Rather, they're promising things (more spending from Obama, more tax cuts from McCain) which would make the deficit worse.

So far, Barack Obama has not given a speech on the topic of fiscal restraint or budget balancing. He did give one on Social Security, but it was mostly designed to show that Hillary Clinton hadn't told the truth about what she would consider doing to fix it. And in that speech, Obama retreated from his fiscally honest position of considering a wider number of options for fixing the system.

McCain has said he would balance the budget by the end of his first term, but he's wobbling on that pledge, saying it's now just a goal. Overall, McCain talks more about fiscal responsibility than Obama. He has also done far more to tell voters uncomfortable truths. He's done that on immigration, job losses, and the war. But straighter talk only gets you so far: McCain talks regularly about cutting special earmark programs in the federal budget—as he did this Tuesday—but earmarks are just one sliver of the problem. McCain supports tax cuts that are poised to make the fiscal situation far worse than Obama's spending plans. McCain's team says they can pay for these tax cuts and balance the budget, but budget experts of all ideological persuasions are highly dubious. You can even imagine that the McCain of old, who spoke out against the Bush tax cuts, would call B.S. on his own plan.

To defend themselves, both campaigns point to the relative shortcomings of the other. McCain says Obama's spending plans will bloat the budget, and Obama says McCain's tax cuts will do the same. They're both right, but saying the-other-guy-is-worse-than–I-am is probably not the kind of stirring leadership that brings all those people to those Obama rallies. Nor is it why John McCain has gotten credit for political courage over the years.

http://www.slate.com/id/2193223/

[pk500]

All this discussion about health care plans or continuing operations in Iraq overlooks a more basic problem which neither candidate has really attacked, i.e. the budget deficit:

Extended operations in Iraq and the introduction of national health care will continue to increase the budget deficit. So maybe McCain (pro-Iraq occupation) and Obama (pro-national health care) have talked about it and didn't even know it.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

Things are getting a bit quiet in here.

These pesky Obama supporters who also love Che just keep popping up. I say again, can you imagine the shitstorm if this were a GOP supporter who had a picture of McCain and Pinochet. Of course it would never happen because right wingers like Pinochet didn't temper their murder and thievery with romance and trendy facial hair the way that Che and Fidel do.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... htm?csp=34

[JackB1]

I moved the Iran article to this thread:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/ ... index.html

I was talking to a military guy at work who told me if Bush starts another war, then he has the option to stay on as president after Jan. 09. Not sure how long... Anyone know if this could possibly be true?

[Teal]

I moved the Iran article to this thread:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/ ... index.html

I was talking to a military guy at work who told me if Bush starts another war, then he has the option to stay on as president after Jan. 09. Not sure how long... Anyone know if this could possibly be true?

Bush is in office now...not Clinton...

It's a bunch of conspiracy theory nuttiness. Ignore it.

[pk500]

I moved the Iran article to this thread:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/ ... index.html

I was talking to a military guy at work who told me if Bush starts another war, then he has the option to stay on as president after Jan. 09. Not sure how long... Anyone know if this could possibly be true?

I think your guy is full of sh*t. There's a two-term limit in the U.S. Constitution. Lyndon Johnson didn't get to stay on past 1968 just because he launched the Tet Offensive.

As for this being lunacy, Teal, I would doubt the story if Seymour Hersh didn't report it. Hersh is the premier investigative political reporter of this generation, and he was spot-on in a lot of his reporting leading up to the Iraq War. Hersh also was the guy who blew open the U.S. abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Take care,
PK

[JackB1]

I moved the Iran article to this thread:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/ ... index.html

I was talking to a military guy at work who told me if Bush starts another war, then he has the option to stay on as president after Jan. 09. Not sure how long... Anyone know if this could possibly be true?

Bush is in office now...not Clinton...

It's a bunch of conspiracy theory nuttiness. Ignore it.

I would think a soldier would know, but mauybe not? I have been researching this and how found 2 articles saying it's true and 2 saying it's not. Someone else said The Patriot Act has something about a President staying in office when war is declared.

[JRod]

I was talking to a military guy at work who told me if Bush starts another war, then he has the option to stay on as president after Jan. 09. Not sure how long... Anyone know if this could possibly be true?

There is no possibility of this. There is no provision any where that says that during wartime the current president can stay in. For this to happen we would have to tack on another amendment changing the 22th amendment.

You military guy is totally wrong. That statement almost makes me cringe in the lack of knowledge of basic american civics.

[Meant 22nd amendment]

[JackB1]

On another note....it's hard to believe it's been 7 years now and there are still no signs of a new building to replace the WTC:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ ... ex.html?hp

Here's how it looks today:

[JackB1]

There is no possibility of this. There is no provision any where that says that during wartime the current president can stay in. For this to happen we would have to tack on another amendment changing the 25th amendment.

You military guy is totally wrong. That statement almost makes me cringe in the lack of knowledge of basic american civics.

Seems like a lot of folks are confused. They are saying the President can declare "Marshal Law" and remain in office. Check these out:

http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=mod ... ode=thread

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 709AAFxxkC

http://soldierservant.wordpress.com/200 ... in-office/

http://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 544AAcMcAt

http://www.freepress.org/departments/di ... /2007/2722

[Jared]

Read up on martial law Jack...that's when the executive basically uses the army to circumvent the legislative branch and do whatever it wants. If that happened, there would be world chaos. And it would be completely and totally illegal under our Constitution to do this to remain in office.

[Teal]

I moved the Iran article to this thread:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/ ... index.html

I was talking to a military guy at work who told me if Bush starts another war, then he has the option to stay on as president after Jan. 09. Not sure how long... Anyone know if this could possibly be true?

I think your guy is full of sh*t. There's a two-term limit in the U.S. Constitution. Lyndon Johnson didn't get to stay on past 1968 just because he launched the Tet Offensive.

As for this being lunacy, Teal, I would doubt the story if Seymour Hersh didn't report it. Hersh is the premier investigative political reporter of this generation, and he was spot-on in a lot of his reporting leading up to the Iraq War. Hersh also was the guy who blew open the U.S. abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Take care,
PK

I was only talking about the military guy's assertion. Didn't even read the attached article.

[FatPitcher]

This will be the #1 election issue, which in my opinion will tilt things in McCain's favor: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_ ... nergy_poll. The Dems will blame it on the Republicans' not spending enough on alternative energy research and on destabilizing the middle east, and the Republicans will blame it on the Dems' preoccupation with global warming, opposition to new refineries/power plants/etc., and opposition to domestic drilling. The Republicans will win that debate handily as their approach will be seen as more immediate and pragmatic, while the Democrats will be seen as finger-pointing and pushing pie-in-the-sky proposals. Not that I personally want McCain as president, mind you. I'm just saying how it will turn out.

I'm glad that oil prices are so high, as it is time to start dealing with the energy issue seriously and nothing else will get people to care about it. I said on this site a few years ago that nuclear energy was poised to make a comeback, and that's even more inevitable now.

[Jackdog]

This will be the #1 election issue, which in my opinion will tilt things in McCain's favor: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_ ... nergy_poll. The Dems will blame it on the Republicans' not spending enough on alternative energy research and on destabilizing the middle east, and the Republicans will blame it on the Dems' preoccupation with global warming, opposition to new refineries/power plants/etc., and opposition to domestic drilling. The Republicans will win that debate handily as their approach will be seen as more immediate and pragmatic, while the Democrats will be seen as finger-pointing and pushing pie-in-the-sky proposals. Not that I personally want McCain as president, mind you. I'm just saying how it will turn out.

I'm glad that oil prices are so high, as it is time to start dealing with the energy issue seriously and nothing else will get people to care about it. I said on this site a few years ago that nuclear energy was poised to make a comeback, and that's even more inevitable now.

I agree,except for the part about oil prices. It's hurting too many people right now and it's going to get worse. I am all for alternative energy but at the moment our economy is going into the shitter while other countries are drilling like a young Ron Jeremy. China and Brazil are ready to begin drilling off the coast of Florida with the help of Cuba. China is building two coal plants a week and France has went nuclear.

I find it odd the Democrats want the Middle East suppliers of our oil to pump more of it yet they won't approve getting new domestic drilling started. They say it will take 5 to 10 years to see any of it and it won't make a difference now. I really plan on being alive then and I don't think our need for fossil fuel will be gone by that time. Based on that logic I am going to tell my 13 year old son to get a job today and forget about finishing high school and college becuse he won't reap the benefits of his education for at least another 10 years.

I really believe The House & the Senate can bring down the price of oil and raise the value of the dollar if they dared to approve drilling of ANWR and offshore drilling, increasing the coal industry, and approving nuclear power plants and new refineries.

Nancy Pelosi said if you elect a Democrat, we have a plan to lower gas prices. That's what she said. Since she got into office, since the Democrats took over control of congress, gas has gone through the roof. Well, where is this mysterious plan? What is their mysterious energy plan to lower gas prices? Here's what Harry Reid thinks.

REID: We talk about cost competitiveness but the one thing we've failed to talk about is those costs that you don't see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick. Air makes us sick. This global warming, it's ruining our country. It's ruining our world. We've got to stop using fossil fuel. We have, for generations, taken it out of the Earth, carbon out of the Earth and put it into the atmosphere. It's making us all sick.

What? life expectancy has gone up by 15 years? It's making us sick. Really? Truth is they have absolutely no intention of using coal. Again while China is building two coal plants a week.

They have absolutely no intention of using oil. Again,China and Brazil is getting ready to drill off the Florida Keys with the help of Cuba.

What are the US politicians really doing?

The Senate will vote this week on a bill that will raise energy prices, create a huge federal bureaucracy when we have too many as it is, and will lower carbon emissions over the next 25 years by half of what we've accomplished over the last six through free-market initiatives. Unreal.


Ray Kurzweil is the guy who Bill Gates says is the best futurist out there. This is the guy who said the Internet will be in every home,before the Internet was around. He said eventually your phone will be a computer, it will be a television screen, you'll be able to have music on it, it will be everything you could possibly imagine.All in your phone and it will fit in your pocket. This is in the early 1980s. Now here's what he says solar panels are going to be. Within five years we're going to be able to gather all of the energy we need from solar panels.

So the Bureau of Land Management quietly decided in May that development of solar plants in 119 million sun-soaked federally owned acres in the Western states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah would have to wait at least two years while bureaucrats sorted out their environmental impact. Now, for the life of me I don't understand it. There's no compromise on this.

The cleanest energy we could have is hydroelectric. Yet we can't build hydroelectric dams anymore. Why? The water turns turbines. It makes electricity. You want to talk about clean energy, there it is. The water is turning the turbine. I guess that could kill fish.

Why is it that they don't want coal. Why is it they don't want oil? Okay, global warming. Give us nuclear power. Can't. Bad. Too dangerous. Really? Again,France has nuclear power. 80% of their power comes from nuclear power. There hasn't been an accident in France. The only accident in America was Three Mile Island and nobody died from it. That was 29 years ago. The system worked. Wind-power, let's use wind-power. "No, no, you can't use wind-power. That will kill too many birds." It's mind numbing.

I'm willing to say I don't believe in global warming. I believe in the natural climate of Earth changing. It's done it before. I believe in natural climate change. That makes sense to me. I'm not willing to spend money tax dollars to buy carbon credits from countries on the other side of the planet. That's socialism. All under the guise of green. I don't think anyone should be willing to do that. And that seems to be what's coming. It has nothing to do with clean energy. Carbon Credits are similar to the sale of indulgences, proposed and practiced by the Catholic church hundreds of years ago. Basically, you can make up for your bad actions with good ones, like giving money to the church. Sounds reasonable, except that the church took advantage of people's emotions, and promised them things only God could deliver, all the while filling church coffers. Carbon Credits are a pretty good modern day parallel if you study the history and think about what's going on today.

On the other side we have John McCain, a guy who believes in global warming. Doesn't want to drill in ANWR. Why? Why did we buy Alaska? For the beauty that we never see? Is that what it was? Did we spend all that money buying Alaska because back in the 1950s we went, "Oh, let's just, let's just buy that land and preserve it so no one could ever see it or go up there or touch it. We can just make a nice habitat where the polar bears can eat baby seals." But I digress. On the other hand John approves of offshore drilling and building 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030. He said “The experience of nations across Europe and Asia has shown that nuclear energy is efficient. It is safe, it is proven, and it is essential to America’s energy future,” McCain said during his speech. “We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field.

DING! DING! He just got my vote.

[Brando70]

China is not drilling in the Gulf or offshore near Cuba. That was a false rumor started by the Vice President's office that Cheney has since recanted. China has a contract for onshore drilling in Cuba, but hasn't started doing any drilling work.

Saying that we're going to solve our energy problems by drilling for oil is like saying you can kick heroin by doing more heroin. We are getting closer to finding alternative energy sources that could greatly reduce and maybe even eventually replace oil. We have to get rid of the restrictions on sugar cane ethanol and also get over our aversion to nuclear power. The environmental impact of nuclear power is manageable and ultimately much cleaner than fossil fuel use.

This also brings up a point about McCain: could he be more of a flip-flopper? He has reversed practically every single major stance he's taken in the last eight years with the exception of his support for Iraq. He's reversed on offshore drilling, courting the Evangelical vote, the legality of abortion, the Bush tax cuts, and has even waffled on the immigration reform bill he co-sponsored. I understand that it's prudent to change your positions when presented with new information or new circumstances, but McCain appears so desperate to be president, it wouldn't surprise me if he was tapping out campaign slogans under bathroom stalls to court the men's restroom humper vote.

[wco81]

Americans support nuclear power as long as the plants and the waste aren't anywhere near them.

Explain this, the people who doubt human activities are causing global warming are now advocating nuclear because it's cleaner than carbon-based energy generation?

For the record, Bush 41 put a federal ban on offshore drilling and Bush 43 affirmed that ban, especially off the coast of FL. Presidents of both parties have deferred to governors of states on offshore drilling but it is technically a federal jurisdiction for any sites more than a few miles from the coast.

Crist of FL recently talked about lifting the ban but Arnold out here in CA said he's still against offshore drilling.

As for coal, most of our electricity is still generated by coal plants. Early in this decade, the administration talked up "clean coal" technologies. Yet there has not been a single plant built with carbon sequestration, because it adds at least hundreds of millions in cost to building a plant. There are no financial or regulatory incentives to bear those additional costs, so plant operators will continue to build "dirty" plants.

Of course, if you don't believe humans are contributing to global warming, "dirty" plants are fine.