Jurgen the German
Willie Hall
Surely Labour have more in common with the democrats than Conservatives do.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Mitt Romney the next new leader of the free world!!!
- Thread starter Notmegov
- Start date
Surely Labour have more in common with the democrats than Conservatives do.
papaspur
Kasey Keller
What I don't think you realize is that when you do your fact-checking on right-wing web sites, they're just going to feed you what you want to hear. This goes back to what O'Reilly surprisingly said about talking heads getting paid to say whichever views their producers want them to. There is no true journalistic conviction anymore, they're all mercenaries. Of course, I found it ironic coming from his own mouth when he's one of the top dogs at Fox News.
Obama isn't a dictator. Just because he's president doesn't mean he "runs" things. There is a system of checks and balances, which ultimately proved to be a bricky system, but I can't blame the founding fathers for partisan politics.
Did Democrats have control of the House and Senate until 2010? Yes, but did Republicans know how to use a filibuster? A single senator could anonymously halt proceedings, forcing not a simple majority of at least 51 votes, but instead requiring 66 votes to pass the motion.
- So in your list of facts and figures, you failed to actually report on the deficit. I will let you do your own fact-searching here to show me how Obama doubled the deficit. Unless you just want to believe me when I say that the deficit has actually decreased under Obama.
- National debt is correct. As much as Republicans like to paint Democrats as the big-spenders, many Republicans fail to realize how "democratic" Bush was with his spending. And much of this spending was essentially done on borrowed money, namely both wars, the expansion of medicare, and his tax cuts for the wealthy.
Speaking of these tax cuts, which Obama WANTED to let expire in 2010 when they were originally meant to, how did that policy work out under Bush? Unemployment went up under Bush. Why the fudge do I keep hearing about these tax cuts for the wealthy creating jobs? This isn't ancient history, this is from the past decade, although in this day and age, ten years is more like the equivalent of 20-30 since many Americans have the attention spans of dogs in heat.
Lowering taxes is a hand-out, whether you want to call it that or not. I understand that the right will claim they want to decrease spending, but the fact that raising taxes is completely off the table seems irresponsible and unrealistic. In fact, defense spending is one of the most wasteful in our budget, yet despite that, Ryan kept claiming that the defense budget has gone down under Obama. Again, when we have a tax cut, we have to PAY FOR IT. That is a loss in revenue and we can't keep cutting and cutting it. - Food stamps. Let me ask you, if after one of the worst recessions in our country I told you that the amount of people using food stamps was the same as pre-recession, would that be surprising? Food stamps are supposed to be a safety net program, so wouldn't it stand to reason that after an economic crisis, more people would fall into that safety net? Or are you trying to say that Obama is being driven in his limo throwing food stamps out his windows in poor neighborhoods?
I would expect this number to go up no matter who the president is, and the fact that the right making this a partisan issue is easy proof that they're not interested in fixing what's wrong, but instead are interested in making the current president look as bricky as possible so that he doesn't get re-elected. This obstructionism top to bottom, and also explains the fact that congress tried to repeal Obamacare 34 times. Is that really who you want in congress? - Where the hell are you getting 8.3%? You're not one of those conspiracy theorists who think that the numbers were cooked, are you? It's 7.8%, but hey, I see how our president has actually made Republicans seem so GHod damn unpatriotic.
- Median household income. This one's easy. Remember that time the housing market bubble popped? That happened under Bush. You're just describing the tail-end of that crash. By the way, I agree with conservatives when they blame Clinton for weakening regulation before Bush took office.
- As leeds already alluded to, the notion that the president is able to control gas prices simply proves that the right is clutching at straws.
With that said, Obama hasn't been perfect, but he's been far from a fudge-up.
Skinhead in a Suit
John Scales
=D>
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Do you know anything about the situation he walked into?
thfcsteff
George Hunt
(Takes a deep breath)...that is largely because
a) he walked into a brick pile created by the, ahem, policies of George W Bush.
b) he has continually been knocked back, vetoed and compromised by the Republicans who also have the House.
Can I ask, do you enjoy the Daily Mail?
thfcsteff
George Hunt
An equally ridiculous statement. Given that the republicans have the house and the democrats don't even have enough of a majority in the senate to end stupid fillibusting flimflam, of course he's going to have found it tough to make the headway he has in recovering the astounding elements of the US economy/lifestyle which were lost during the Bush era.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Excellent post.
Obama hasn't done a particularly good job, but its unlikely that much would have been different under a Republican president. They might have cut more spending but they would also have cut taxes. Chances are the deficit and debt would be worse as it has been under every Republican President back to Nixon.
The amazing thing is that Ryan is considered the expert on the budget. He claims they can afford a 20% tax cut without making any specific calims, pointing vagues at efficiencies and trickle down (which worked so well on the budget under Reagan). If he had a seriously plan he would be able to lay out something specific, or several scenarios that could be debated, not just hand wave and say Congress can work out the cuts.
On the proposal to abolish Medicare for under-55s (not phrased that way), there is no mention as to how vouchers would reduce health care costs. If they have a voucher scheme that works so well, they should replace the whole of Medicare with them, as why would you keep an unnecessarily expensive system if you have a better plan.
Leeds Spur
Banned
Nope.
Tories are probably to the left of Dems.......not all Dems believe in universal healthcare! They have no welfare state to speak of. They are very tough on Defence, as are all Americans.
Basically Labour = Lefty Pinko Commy Bastards are far as all Americans are concerned. The American political system is a whole shift to the right from the UK and Europe.
jts1882
Dean Richards
I think you exaggerate the difference a bit, although the US is well to the right of Europe and the rest of the democratic world.
I'd say the Tories bridge the traditional Republicans (a Bush senior type) and right of the Democrats. The problem is that the traditional republicans (free trade, free market, moderately conservative on moral issues) have disappeared. Romney might have been one - possibly was in Massachusetts - but the modern Republicans suit his plutocratic tendencies. Thatcher would have been at home in the Republican Party of her time, although would have been a moderate there, rather than the right wing firebrand at home. Cameron would probably be more at home in the right of the Democrat Party; he's much closer to a Clinton than Romney, let alone the loonies.
Despite the reverence they claim for Reagan, I don't think Reagan would be at home in the modern Republican Party. He was pragmatist, he was able to get things done, working with the Democrats. He wanted smaller government but wanted that government to work. The modern Republicans are purely destructive and obstructive in their policies, which are either purely ideological or pay-offs to their backers..
The other oddity was that back in Reagan's time the southern Democrats were very right wing, some still felt conflicted about the abolition of slavery (Thurmond, Bird). They got the support of the same religious people who back the Tea Party now. So curiously this switch has moved the Democrats to the left (or narrowed their range) and the Republicans to the right (by replacing the pragmatists).
Leeds Spur
Banned
Yeah I agree with that.......conservatives on both sides of teh pond are similar.
But as a Tory voter I have NO similarity to Tea Party nut jobs that inhabit a large % of teh Republican base.
I am a socially liberal conservative, I believe in the legalisation of all drugs for instance. But I have free trade, free market, small government INSTINCTS.
That said, I believe that the state should provide a safety net and I believe that free healthcare is a human right in a wealthy nation.
But as a Tory voter I have NO similarity to Tea Party nut jobs that inhabit a large % of teh Republican base.
I am a socially liberal conservative, I believe in the legalisation of all drugs for instance. But I have free trade, free market, small government INSTINCTS.
That said, I believe that the state should provide a safety net and I believe that free healthcare is a human right in a wealthy nation.
Richie
Naybet
Sound somewhat like a libertarian.
Richie
Naybet
Obama held the house for half his term. He wasted that time and only has himself to blame
jts1882
Dean Richards
Yes, he wasted it trying to get bi-partisan agreement with the Republicans. He should have used his first 100 days to ram stuff through like Newt did.
They'd probably be calling it his Contract with Kenya.
papaspur
Kasey Keller
Just curious, but are the conservatives in Europe mostly religious and socially conservative, or just conservative when it comes to how to run government? Our problem is that we have a) lots of religious folk and b) lots of guns.
As for health-care, I think Obama wanted a single-payer system like the UK and Canada have, but of course what we ended up with is Romney's health care plan from Massachusetts. Single-payer would probably be cheaper for us, but the right
People are so concerned about cutting government, but private insurers are the real bloat, and it's not like they're actually providing anything. A lot of the money paid to insurance is simply to cover its own administrative running costs. I guess if you get fudged privately, conservatives don't care because that's the free market at work.
Leeds Spur
Banned
Obamacare says hello.
Leeds Spur
Banned
All UK politics is secular....if you start talking about GHod you'd be ridiculed and unelectable.
Most conservatives are fiscal hawks and believe in free enterprise, the power of the individual etc. But they also thing free healthcare and education is a right and there should be a safety net. The older generation might be socially conservative but not those under 40 i'd say.
WookieD
Didier Zokora
I was going to post something similar. I'd most certainly vote Democrat if I was in the US. And whilst the entire political landscape is right of centre over there, it does prove that you can be empathic of your fellow man whilst still promoting the ideals of self improvement, which has absolutely nothing in common with Labour in any way shape or form.
Leeds Spur
Banned
If you'd asked me a year ago I would have identified myself as such.
But I do believe that we need regulation to stop the worst excesses of man and we need government to level the playing field for all so people have a fair shot at achieving something in their lives, and not just because they are born into the right family.
Ron Paul talks immense amounts of sense, but I wouldn't be comfortable with the market dictating EVERYTHING about our lives.......which is what he advocates.
So maybe Libertarian with a conscience!
papaspur
Kasey Keller
He did get healthcare through, but I think you're right in the sense that people wanted Obama to focus solely on the economy. What I would argue is that health care is supposed to tackle our spending problem, but over the long-term.
And that's what our present political quagmire has resulted in: caring only about the present and leaving a mountain to climb for future generations. This is why I think this upcoming election will have significant consequences. And honestly, if you think Romney is the person that will somehow "save us" like he's Mormon Jesus, you really should read up on his Bain record and his methods for extracting companies for every penny they were worth, often after overloading them with debt.
jts1882
Dean Richards
A mix but the religious are religious in an Anglican way, not the American way. Blair was the first PM in a long time with a stated religious conviction (perhaps why he got on with Bush) and even his spin doctor famously sad "we don't do religion". Politicians outside Northern Ireland don't make an issue of their religion. Gordon Brown was a religious man but never let in interfere with his politics. His moral outlook was informed by his religious background and affected his political beliefs but didn't dictate them. Cameron is Church of England but not stidently so.
Most British conservatives are socially conservative but its more being conservative in the classic resistance to change rather than dictated by religion. In other parts of Europe its generally similar although the Catholic Church has a stronger influence in some places, notably Poland and Ireland, Italy (but cf Berlusconi) and possibly Bavaria.