Jump to content

Photo

Nobody Wants to Say That Sarah Palin Is Qualified to Be President


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#61 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,681 posts

Posted 21 October 2010 - 04:36 PM

how is bush a better president than obama?



1) Stimulus bill has been a complete waste

2) Obamacare is/will be a complete failure. Will only raise premiums (some insurance companies have already started) and was shoved down our throats.

3) Said he was against war on terror or at least scaling back. Yeah we pulled out of Iraq, but he increased troop counts in Afghanistan so that nullifies that. Plus Osama is in Pakistan, where we should be focusing on.

To me they are basically almost the same and there are many reasons why neither were really good presidents. History will be (already starting to) be kinder to Bush rather than Obama. Polls have shown that even Obamas staunchiest supporters are starting to grow tired of him. I really do not think Obama wants to worst for our country. When right-wing nuts say he wants to destroy America, it is just nutcase talk and the likes and should be ignored. Same goes to far left-wingers who mocked Bush all throughout his term and to this day call him a moron (yeah he sucked as a public speaker, so what? He at least didn't use the teleprompter for every single stupid speech like Obama).

If the Republican party want to hand Obama a 2nd term, they might as well nominate Palin. I read a study that says in every single election, the vote is won by statistically about a percentage smaller than 10% of voters who are usually undecided until election day. That study is somewhere on the net and it is a good read, but the point is that Palin will no way win those undecided. She is too extreme for their vote. This is where Clinton exceled at, and that was finding the middle-of-the-road Americans. Clinton overall was a decent president, but there were a few instances aside from the scandal that I am not too fond of. For every president I can bitch at least something about them. Honestly, lately when I go and vote I try to either go 3rd party as I have no confidence in either Republicans or Democrats. The only republican I respect right now is our governor, but that is another arguement. There are Democrats I respect too, but they are few and far between (Cuomo running for gov of ny for example).

Overall, our political system sucks is my point lol. Hate that we have to choose between the lesser of 2 evils in order to even get our vote count is in this 2-party, winner take all elections. In Europe at least, if you are 3rd party you can actually win seats in Parliament. That is more true democracy than what we have here.
  • 0

#62 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,541 posts

Posted 21 October 2010 - 04:48 PM

Overall, our political system sucks is my point lol. Hate that we have to choose between the lesser of 2 evils in order to even get our vote count is in this 2-party, winner take all elections. In Europe at least, if you are 3rd party you can actually win seats in Parliament. That is more true democracy than what we have here.


I don't think a multi-party system will solve the problems you speak of, and really I'd venture a guess that the end result is more or less the same as it is in Europe. While 99% of Congress is either a D or an R, you still have the same deal making and coalitions between more extreme and moderate ends of the political spectrum. Basically, we could have a multi-party system (as an aside I hate calling it a "system", but that's a semantic point), and Maxine Waters (or someone like her) would still be the Congresswoman from her district, it would just might be under a different party moniker.

You can't really draw the executive branch into the equation since only one guy is ultimately filling the position. In France, which has a presidency, it's more or less a two horse race, although there are exceptions.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#63 ungar

ungar

    Prospect

  • Suspended
  • Pip
  • 94 posts

Posted 21 October 2010 - 05:08 PM

1) Stimulus bill has been a complete waste


Actually, the bailouts started with Bush.

You have absolutely zero affirmative evidence that a "certificate of live birth" won't work. You posted link to the DMV website that generically says "birth certificate". Again you completely ignore the link I provided that says there is no difference between the two.


I happen to know that the article is paraphrasing the State Of Hawaii's position on this. But wait, Hawaii has taken the extraordinary step of sealing Obama's birth record. Sorry, but Hawaii has zero credibility on this, especially since it's new policy contravenes the standards of 49 states!
This new policy is a change brought on by the Obama controversy, of which Hawaii has taken the side of Obama, and not the American people who have a right to know.

I told you to prove this yourself by phoning or walking into your County Court Clerks office and asking if they will accept a short form in lieu of an actual long form BC for a passport.

Difference Between Birth Certificate and Certificate of Live Birth
By Meredith Fagioli, eHow Contributor
updated: January 9, 2010
I want to do this! What's This?

Whether you're applying for a driver's license or trying to obtain a passport for travel, there are certain documents that you must possess. A birth certificate, which is certified by the Office of Vital Statistics, is typically one of them, but don't confuse it with a certificate of live birth, which was the document submitted by the hospital.

Birth Certificate
1. The birth certificate, or long form, is the result of the original certificate of live birth prepared by the hospital in which the baby was born. It includes the baby's name, the names of the parents, the doctors names, the name of the hospital, the sex and date of birth. The information on the long form is taken and entered into a database that produces a certification of live birth, which is what can be produced if the original birth certificate is lost.
Certificate of Live Birth
2. The certificate of live birth is the original document that is completed by the hospital staff after the baby was born alive. It contains the names of the parents, their education and race, medical and health information about the pregnancy and the delivery, and also the information on the newborn, such as the Apgar score. The certificate of live birth, which is certified by a hospital attendant, is then sent to the Office of Vital Statistics to produce the birth certificate.
Souvenir Birth Certificate
3. Many people think that the birth certificates issued by the hospital with the baby's footprints on them is the official birth certificate, but it is not. It is strictly a souvenir that cannot be used for proving age or citizenship.
Adoptive Birth Certificate
4. Adoption procedures seal the original birth certificate and issue a certification of birth that lists the adoptive parents' names and the adoptive child's name. It does not list other information such as doctor's names or hospital names.
Office of Vital Statistics
5. The Office of Vital Statistics can help you replace a lost birth certificate. Each state has its own office where you can get the necessary paperwork to fill out and mail, along with a fee, in order to obtain a copy of your birth certificate, which is called the certification of live birth.


I just want to say to Daniel that I've been patient with you because I know 9/11 upsets your subconscious on many levels. But you sir, are a mongoloid.

Edited by ungar, 21 October 2010 - 05:11 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
FREE ScottStevens4!

#64 H.E. Pennypacker

H.E. Pennypacker

    Albany Devil

  • Suspended
  • PipPip
  • 176 posts

Posted 21 October 2010 - 07:00 PM

1) Stimulus bill has been a complete waste

2) Obamacare is/will be a complete failure. Will only raise premiums (some insurance companies have already started) and was shoved down our throats.

3) Said he was against war on terror or at least scaling back. Yeah we pulled out of Iraq, but he increased troop counts in Afghanistan so that nullifies that. Plus Osama is in Pakistan, where we should be focusing on.

To me they are basically almost the same and there are many reasons why neither were really good presidents. History will be (already starting to) be kinder to Bush rather than Obama. Polls have shown that even Obamas staunchiest supporters are starting to grow tired of him. I really do not think Obama wants to worst for our country. When right-wing nuts say he wants to destroy America, it is just nutcase talk and the likes and should be ignored. Same goes to far left-wingers who mocked Bush all throughout his term and to this day call him a moron (yeah he sucked as a public speaker, so what? He at least didn't use the teleprompter for every single stupid speech like Obama).

If the Republican party want to hand Obama a 2nd term, they might as well nominate Palin. I read a study that says in every single election, the vote is won by statistically about a percentage smaller than 10% of voters who are usually undecided until election day. That study is somewhere on the net and it is a good read, but the point is that Palin will no way win those undecided. She is too extreme for their vote. This is where Clinton exceled at, and that was finding the middle-of-the-road Americans. Clinton overall was a decent president, but there were a few instances aside from the scandal that I am not too fond of. For every president I can bitch at least something about them. Honestly, lately when I go and vote I try to either go 3rd party as I have no confidence in either Republicans or Democrats. The only republican I respect right now is our governor, but that is another arguement. There are Democrats I respect too, but they are few and far between (Cuomo running for gov of ny for example).

Overall, our political system sucks is my point lol. Hate that we have to choose between the lesser of 2 evils in order to even get our vote count is in this 2-party, winner take all elections. In Europe at least, if you are 3rd party you can actually win seats in Parliament. That is more true democracy than what we have here.



1. The stimulus bill has not been a complete waste but it could of been done better. But do you know why it wasn't? The Republicans refused to make it all about infrastructure which would of created a lot more jobs and were thoroughly against making it larger. Instead they forced Obama hand by threatening a filibuster so America got a watered down bill. Even with the watered down bill it saved a lot of jobs and created a pretty decent number totaling between 2.5 to 3.5 million according to the council of economic advisors.

Proof it working on a very local level

http://finance.yahoo...ved-by-stimulus

2. I by no means want to harp on the Republicans and I do agree with you that Obamacare was lacking. However, that was the Republicans fault once again they refused to have the single payer system which every Western Democracy has. All of them have better health care systems than the United States. Obamacare did accomplish two very important things it eliminated being denied health care coverage due to a pre existing condition and you can no longer have your healthcare canceled for any reason bar fraud of course.

3. He never said he was against the "War on Terror" in fact i challenge you to find a quote where he says that specifically. He has always said that Iraq was the bad war and Afghanistan was the war of necessity. As for the surge in Afghanistan which Obama was against but his generals were not in fact they wanted a bigger number of forces numbering 40,000 as we saw in Iraq. Obama took the middle ground of 20,000 to placate the joint chiefs. Hard to say how this will all play out but i have to give credit to Obama in this regard he is in favor of a rapprochement between the Karzai government and the Taliban which will help bring some kind of stability despite the tremendous amount of election fraud.

One final point on your Pakistan comment which is where Al Qaeda has been since 2002. Obama had more predator drone strikes in Pakistan in his first year as President than Bush had during his two terms.

I really want to watch the Devils game but if you think Obama is some massive leftist you are completely misguided. He has taken the middle ground it's why so many democrats are upset with him. I regret not voting for Hillary because he has been too bi-partisan in my eyes.
  • 0
Posted Image

#65 ungar

ungar

    Prospect

  • Suspended
  • Pip
  • 94 posts

Posted 21 October 2010 - 07:19 PM

The only jobs the stimulus created were short term construction jobs, or government jobs by adding new positions.
This is not a real stimulus, and the taxpayer is liable for these gargantuan expenditures.
  • 0
Posted Image
FREE ScottStevens4!

#66 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,771 posts

Posted 21 October 2010 - 07:42 PM

I don't think a multi-party system will solve the problems you speak of, and really I'd venture a guess that the end result is more or less the same as it is in Europe. While 99% of Congress is either a D or an R, you still have the same deal making and coalitions between more extreme and moderate ends of the political spectrum. Basically, we could have a multi-party system (as an aside I hate calling it a "system", but that's a semantic point), and Maxine Waters (or someone like her) would still be the Congresswoman from her district, it would just might be under a different party moniker.

You can't really draw the executive branch into the equation since only one guy is ultimately filling the position. In France, which has a presidency, it's more or less a two horse race, although there are exceptions.

Even though we disagree most of the time, I like reading your posts because you usually make good points and do it in a civil manner.

Anyway, I think you said on here that you aren't voting this year because you don't care for any of the candidates. A lot of people have the same dilemma. If the current system wasn't so restrictive on third parties and independents, we would all have more choices and that indifference wouldn't happen as often.

It may be true that we'd have some of the same people in office just under a different name, but it's also true that if third parties and independents didn't start at a disadvantage from the time they decide to run, we could have better candidates in office, and the ones who aren't beholden to unions and corporations would be able to pass legislation with the will of the public in mind. That's what democracy should be in my opinion.

Not to mention, giving the Democrats and Republicans more competition would force them to be better at representing their constituents because they would no longer be able to say, "At least we aren't as bad as the other guys," which is pretty much what the Democrats are doing now. In addition, people whose views aren't currently represented would actually have a say. Suppose you're conservative when it comes to economy issues but liberal when it comes to social issues--it would be a lot easier to find a candidate that represents your point of view if we had more choices.

My two cents.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#67 ungar

ungar

    Prospect

  • Suspended
  • Pip
  • 94 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 02:57 AM

Even though we disagree most of the time, I like reading your posts because you usually make good points and do it in a civil manner.


You mean when Daniel is not busy trolling for me, right?

Edited by ungar, 22 October 2010 - 02:57 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
FREE ScottStevens4!

#68 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,681 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 07:43 AM

1. The stimulus bill has not been a complete waste but it could of been done better. But do you know why it wasn't? The Republicans refused to make it all about infrastructure which would of created a lot more jobs and were thoroughly against making it larger. Instead they forced Obama hand by threatening a filibuster so America got a watered down bill. Even with the watered down bill it saved a lot of jobs and created a pretty decent number totaling between 2.5 to 3.5 million according to the council of economic advisors.

Proof it working on a very local level

http://finance.yahoo...ved-by-stimulus

2. I by no means want to harp on the Republicans and I do agree with you that Obamacare was lacking. However, that was the Republicans fault once again they refused to have the single payer system which every Western Democracy has. All of them have better health care systems than the United States. Obamacare did accomplish two very important things it eliminated being denied health care coverage due to a pre existing condition and you can no longer have your healthcare canceled for any reason bar fraud of course.

3. He never said he was against the "War on Terror" in fact i challenge you to find a quote where he says that specifically. He has always said that Iraq was the bad war and Afghanistan was the war of necessity. As for the surge in Afghanistan which Obama was against but his generals were not in fact they wanted a bigger number of forces numbering 40,000 as we saw in Iraq. Obama took the middle ground of 20,000 to placate the joint chiefs. Hard to say how this will all play out but i have to give credit to Obama in this regard he is in favor of a rapprochement between the Karzai government and the Taliban which will help bring some kind of stability despite the tremendous amount of election fraud.

One final point on your Pakistan comment which is where Al Qaeda has been since 2002. Obama had more predator drone strikes in Pakistan in his first year as President than Bush had during his two terms.

I really want to watch the Devils game but if you think Obama is some massive leftist you are completely misguided. He has taken the middle ground it's why so many democrats are upset with him. I regret not voting for Hillary because he has been too bi-partisan in my eyes.



That is one town out of many where the stimulus has utterly failed. Also, when will the tab come due for this? Yes, Bush started the bailouts, but not to the level of Obama. In fact, I do not have the time to look up exactly which article(s) I read it in, but many economic experts believe that if Obama would have just left the economy alone and not passed the stimulus, then the economy would heal its self. Remember, it was not Roosevelt and his New Deal programs that got us out of the Great Depression, it was WWII. Yet, lefty people love to give Roosevelt credit. The only successful long-term programs from it were the TVA and SS.

Obama gave out more predator strikes than Bush, I will give you that. But every time Bush ordered a strike, he was accussed of committing unfair war-tactics and war-crimes. Obama seems to be given a pass by the media and international community.

Also the statement that every other westernized health-care system is better than ours is bogus. Socialists and liberals love to point out that it is free. Not really, their income taxes hover around 50% for everyone, so it is not really free. Also, since the healthcare is paid for by the state and not privitized, going into medicine is not as lucrative in other countries as it is here. That leads to a brain-drain and on the whole, America has the best and most innovative doctors. (Why do you think half of your doctors and the ones in the phone book are foreign? If it was so great over there, they would have stayed.) Also, it is very hard to get experimental treatment and medication in those countries as they have stricter controls on what the govertment pays out. That coupled with even more red tape (do you trust this government or any other government to do things correctly and in a timely matter?) often leads to delays in getting treatment, and the cutting of services if the govt deems too too sick to give treatment to. At best, this is the same here, but instead of insurance companies determining your fate, it is the government. Honestly, I'd take the insurance companies as I see them as the lesser of 2 evils.

I know you are heavily democrat and that is fine. I just wish people would open their eyes a little wider and see that no one party is completely correct. However because of the media from both sides of the spectrum, the silent middle-of-the-road majority are slowly losing faith and losing their voice.
  • 0

#69 H.E. Pennypacker

H.E. Pennypacker

    Albany Devil

  • Suspended
  • PipPip
  • 176 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 10:31 AM

That is one town out of many where the stimulus has utterly failed. Also, when will the tab come due for this? Yes, Bush started the bailouts, but not to the level of Obama. In fact, I do not have the time to look up exactly which article(s) I read it in, but many economic experts believe that if Obama would have just left the economy alone and not passed the stimulus, then the economy would heal its self. Remember, it was not Roosevelt and his New Deal programs that got us out of the Great Depression, it was WWII. Yet, lefty people love to give Roosevelt credit. The only successful long-term programs from it were the TVA and SS.

Obama gave out more predator strikes than Bush, I will give you that. But every time Bush ordered a strike, he was accussed of committing unfair war-tactics and war-crimes. Obama seems to be given a pass by the media and international community.

Also the statement that every other westernized health-care system is better than ours is bogus. Socialists and liberals love to point out that it is free. Not really, their income taxes hover around 50% for everyone, so it is not really free. Also, since the healthcare is paid for by the state and not privitized, going into medicine is not as lucrative in other countries as it is here. That leads to a brain-drain and on the whole, America has the best and most innovative doctors. (Why do you think half of your doctors and the ones in the phone book are foreign? If it was so great over there, they would have stayed.) Also, it is very hard to get experimental treatment and medication in those countries as they have stricter controls on what the govertment pays out. That coupled with even more red tape (do you trust this government or any other government to do things correctly and in a timely matter?) often leads to delays in getting treatment, and the cutting of services if the govt deems too too sick to give treatment to. At best, this is the same here, but instead of insurance companies determining your fate, it is the government. Honestly, I'd take the insurance companies as I see them as the lesser of 2 evils.

I know you are heavily democrat and that is fine. I just wish people would open their eyes a little wider and see that no one party is completely correct. However because of the media from both sides of the spectrum, the silent middle-of-the-road majority are slowly losing faith and losing their voice.


I guess you didn't read the article because there is a lot of data to back up my evidence and not much if not any to back up yours. But lets get back to the larger issue at hand which is the stimulus you can't deny that it saved jobs and you also can't deny that it could of been done a lot better. Republicans refused to let it be about infrastructure which hurt the overall recovery. You bring up the fact that, World War II got us out of the great depression rather than the New Deal Programs, and that some unknown and unnamed economist would of preferred us not to do anything. Pray-tell, why did every country in the G20 put forth their own stimulus plan I guess they were all wrong and some guy whose name you don't even know was right.

By the way the New Deal Program you are looking for is the CCC not the SS which was in Nazi germany.

Whether or not Obama is criticized less than Bush was not the issue. You made up some outright fallacies and got called on them and i quote

"Said he was against war on terror or at least scaling back. Yeah we pulled out of Iraq, but he increased troop counts in Afghanistan so that nullifies that. Plus Osama is in Pakistan, where we should be focusing on."


Onto your final point about health care here is a list from the WTO

You'll find that every Western European country is ahead of the United States which makes total sense. But here are some countries that don't Colombia, Morocco, Dominica, Costa Rica, Cyprus, and Chile.

http://www.who.int/h...nfo/paper30.pdf

I'm well aware about the tax issue and frankly that doesn't bother me and I am someone that is going to fall in a tax bracket that is going to be penalized more than most. But I believe health care is a right not a privilege which is where you and I differ. You go through all the Republican talking points about delays, red tapes, and the rest but it is utter nonsense. Go to any country in Western Europe and ask them if they'd rather have their current health care system or what we have and they will all say their current system.

I'd also like to address your brain drain comment how do countries like France, Italy, Norway, Oman, Malta, and Andorra maintain such good medical coverage if there is an alleged brain drain. It's because it is frankly overblown have you ever taken a look at an NHS directory in Britain and see how many foreign doctors work in the British Health Care system? All your points are 'rubbish'. As for innovative doctors and care you should see how much of that originates from PUBLICLY funded Universities.
  • 0
Posted Image

#70 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,541 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 11:47 AM

I guess you didn't read the article because there is a lot of data to back up my evidence and not much if not any to back up yours. But lets get back to the larger issue at hand which is the stimulus you can't deny that it saved jobs and you also can't deny that it could of been done a lot better. Republicans refused to let it be about infrastructure which hurt the overall recovery. You bring up the fact that, World War II got us out of the great depression rather than the New Deal Programs, and that some unknown and unnamed economist would of preferred us not to do anything. Pray-tell, why did every country in the G20 put forth their own stimulus plan I guess they were all wrong and some guy whose name you don't even know was right.

By the way the New Deal Program you are looking for is the CCC not the SS which was in Nazi germany.

Whether or not Obama is criticized less than Bush was not the issue. You made up some outright fallacies and got called on them and i quote

"Said he was against war on terror or at least scaling back. Yeah we pulled out of Iraq, but he increased troop counts in Afghanistan so that nullifies that. Plus Osama is in Pakistan, where we should be focusing on."


Onto your final point about health care here is a list from the WTO

You'll find that every Western European country is ahead of the United States which makes total sense. But here are some countries that don't Colombia, Morocco, Dominica, Costa Rica, Cyprus, and Chile.

http://www.who.int/h...nfo/paper30.pdf

I'm well aware about the tax issue and frankly that doesn't bother me and I am someone that is going to fall in a tax bracket that is going to be penalized more than most. But I believe health care is a right not a privilege which is where you and I differ. You go through all the Republican talking points about delays, red tapes, and the rest but it is utter nonsense. Go to any country in Western Europe and ask them if they'd rather have their current health care system or what we have and they will all say their current system.

I'd also like to address your brain drain comment how do countries like France, Italy, Norway, Oman, Malta, and Andorra maintain such good medical coverage if there is an alleged brain drain. It's because it is frankly overblown have you ever taken a look at an NHS directory in Britain and see how many foreign doctors work in the British Health Care system? All your points are 'rubbish'. As for innovative doctors and care you should see how much of that originates from PUBLICLY funded Universities.


With respect to whether the stimulus "saved jobs", despite what any economist says, no one can really know. (A friend once told me that economics is the only field where two people who have the exact opposite viewpoints can win a Nobel Prize within a few years of one another). Obviously, there are some people who were working on government funded projects that had jobs because of the stimulus. Whether the extra debt the country had to incur to dole out those jobs, and whether the projects, on whole, were little more than bridges to nowhere and the like hasn't been answered. Also, you'll find differences of opinion with respect to whether there was a real multiplier effect from the stimulus (i.e. whether the boost in GDP that supposedly resulted from the stimulus was larger than the amount of money that went into it).

We've been over the healthcare debate here ad nauseum. I'll just say that, when you're comparing industrial nations, there really is no measure you can use to say whose healthcare system is better than someone elses. For example, you can look at life expectancy, but it can't objectively take into account whether, as a cultural matter, people in some countries live heathier life styles than others. Also, some countries do better at providing certain medical care than others. In Europe and Canada, you're probably better off when it comes to routine stuff. If you need bypass surgery, a reconstructed knee, or cancer treatment (statiscally cancer outcomes in the US than are better than they are in Canada), you're better off in the US. Really, it all comes down to tradeoffs. In the end healthcare is a tremendously expensive product that we now expect someone else to pay for (whether it's an insurance company or the government). Whether one formula is better than another, really comes down to what your values are.

Edited by Daniel, 22 October 2010 - 11:47 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#71 ungar

ungar

    Prospect

  • Suspended
  • Pip
  • 94 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 11:48 AM

...lets get back to the larger issue at hand which is the stimulus you can't deny that it saved jobs...


It did not save jobs, it created new government contracts that gave short term projects to contractors, and it grew the government by adding more government positions that are a liability on the taxpayer. There was no stimulus, just a load of debt heaped on the American people.
  • 0
Posted Image
FREE ScottStevens4!

#72 H.E. Pennypacker

H.E. Pennypacker

    Albany Devil

  • Suspended
  • PipPip
  • 176 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 12:15 PM

It did not save jobs, it created new government contracts that gave short term projects to contractors, and it grew the government by adding more government positions that are a liability on the taxpayer. There was no stimulus, just a load of debt heaped on the American people.



tell that to all the police and teachers nationwide.
  • 0
Posted Image

#73 H.E. Pennypacker

H.E. Pennypacker

    Albany Devil

  • Suspended
  • PipPip
  • 176 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 12:17 PM

With respect to whether the stimulus "saved jobs", despite what any economist says, no one can really know. (A friend once told me that economics is the only field where two people who have the exact opposite viewpoints can win a Nobel Prize within a few years of one another). Obviously, there are some people who were working on government funded projects that had jobs because of the stimulus. Whether the extra debt the country had to incur to dole out those jobs, and whether the projects, on whole, were little more than bridges to nowhere and the like hasn't been answered. Also, you'll find differences of opinion with respect to whether there was a real multiplier effect from the stimulus (i.e. whether the boost in GDP that supposedly resulted from the stimulus was larger than the amount of money that went into it).

We've been over the healthcare debate here ad nauseum. I'll just say that, when you're comparing industrial nations, there really is no measure you can use to say whose healthcare system is better than someone elses. For example, you can look at life expectancy, but it can't objectively take into account whether, as a cultural matter, people in some countries live heathier life styles than others. Also, some countries do better at providing certain medical care than others. In Europe and Canada, you're probably better off when it comes to routine stuff. If you need bypass surgery, a reconstructed knee, or cancer treatment (statiscally cancer outcomes in the US than are better than they are in Canada), you're better off in the US. Really, it all comes down to tradeoffs. In the end healthcare is a tremendously expensive product that we now expect someone else to pay for (whether it's an insurance company or the government). Whether one formula is better than another, really comes down to what your values are.


I'm pretty sure this is thats why the WTO releases stuff like this.
  • 0
Posted Image

#74 ungar

ungar

    Prospect

  • Suspended
  • Pip
  • 94 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 12:23 PM

tell that to all the police and teachers nationwide.


You think that the taxpayer should bailout states that have also played the game of deficit spending year after year?
The so called $50B, is just a band-aid loan, it's not solving the problem.
  • 0
Posted Image
FREE ScottStevens4!

#75 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,681 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 12:33 PM

I guess you didn't read the article because there is a lot of data to back up my evidence and not much if not any to back up yours. But lets get back to the larger issue at hand which is the stimulus you can't deny that it saved jobs and you also can't deny that it could of been done a lot better. Republicans refused to let it be about infrastructure which hurt the overall recovery. You bring up the fact that, World War II got us out of the great depression rather than the New Deal Programs, and that some unknown and unnamed economist would of preferred us not to do anything. Pray-tell, why did every country in the G20 put forth their own stimulus plan I guess they were all wrong and some guy whose name you don't even know was right.

By the way the New Deal Program you are looking for is the CCC not the SS which was in Nazi germany.

Whether or not Obama is criticized less than Bush was not the issue. You made up some outright fallacies and got called on them and i quote

"Said he was against war on terror or at least scaling back. Yeah we pulled out of Iraq, but he increased troop counts in Afghanistan so that nullifies that. Plus Osama is in Pakistan, where we should be focusing on."


Onto your final point about health care here is a list from the WTO

You'll find that every Western European country is ahead of the United States which makes total sense. But here are some countries that don't Colombia, Morocco, Dominica, Costa Rica, Cyprus, and Chile.

http://www.who.int/h...nfo/paper30.pdf

I'm well aware about the tax issue and frankly that doesn't bother me and I am someone that is going to fall in a tax bracket that is going to be penalized more than most. But I believe health care is a right not a privilege which is where you and I differ. You go through all the Republican talking points about delays, red tapes, and the rest but it is utter nonsense. Go to any country in Western Europe and ask them if they'd rather have their current health care system or what we have and they will all say their current system.

I'd also like to address your brain drain comment how do countries like France, Italy, Norway, Oman, Malta, and Andorra maintain such good medical coverage if there is an alleged brain drain. It's because it is frankly overblown have you ever taken a look at an NHS directory in Britain and see how many foreign doctors work in the British Health Care system? All your points are 'rubbish'. As for innovative doctors and care you should see how much of that originates from PUBLICLY funded Universities.



SS= Social Security. I know the SS from Nazi Germany, but clearly I was not talking about them.
The CCC was only partially successful. It only provided short-term relief, but in the grand picture barely made a dent.



I do not have the time to pull up articles as I mostly go on this site from work. Are you pulling these up and searching while at work? However, the WTO is a branch of the UN. Not exactly my favorite organization (they once put Lybia a member and put it as the head of the Security council one year), but that is another topic.

Daniel is completely right, when it comes to routine things, western europe is prob a little ahead of us. But if you get into something major like a life-threatening disease, it is better to be over here. Yes there is a brain drain as doctors, like every human, follow the money. It is proven fact that doctors get paid much better over here than in most other westernized countries with socialized healthcare

How was I incorrect about Obama's War on Terror? For the longest time and even to this day, him and his staff including our AG refuse to use the word terrorist to desribe any attacks. He bowed to increased pressure to send troops to Afghanistan. He was going to send 20,000 but ended up deciding on 30,000.


Your arguements are in turn come from left-leaning sources and your blind rage at Republicans shows through. Yeah I know healthcare should be a right and not a priveledge, but there has not been any system invented yet that can do that without either taxing the hell out of people or introducing a massive amount of red tape. Those WHO stats mean nothing as they come from an organization that continues to bash the US as if we are the worst country in the world.

Again, I am no fan of the Republican party myself. However, I do notice that when I argue against republican viewpoints, they tend to be a little more civil and understanding of a different viewpoint. Every time I talk to a democrat, the first they do is accuse me of being a bible-thumping (havent been to church in many years), pro-lifer (i am pro-choice) who likes to hunt (I find hunting for sport to be cruel) and collect guns (I have none and do not have any desire for one) and watches Fox News (haven't watched that or CNN or MSNBC in years).
  • 0

#76 ungar

ungar

    Prospect

  • Suspended
  • Pip
  • 94 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 02:10 PM

Daniel is completely right, when it comes to routine things, western europe is prob a little ahead of us.


The European Union is certainly stronger both economically, and militarily, for uniting into a superpower.
But each state has it's own healthcare policies, and many of them are having huge problems that will only get worse.
A lot the economic pressure caused by "social democracies"(moving towards fascism in the EU) has been masked by their central banks as the US economy is being sabotaged by The Federal Reserve, and IMF.
Europe will have to come to grips with this soon, and the solution will be war!

Edited by ungar, 22 October 2010 - 02:11 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
FREE ScottStevens4!

#77 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,681 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 02:45 PM

The European Union is certainly stronger both economically, and militarily, for uniting into a superpower.
But each state has it's own healthcare policies, and many of them are having huge problems that will only get worse.
A lot the economic pressure caused by "social democracies"(moving towards fascism in the EU) has been masked by their central banks as the US economy is being sabotaged by The Federal Reserve, and IMF.
Europe will have to come to grips with this soon, and the solution will be war!



lol don't get me started on the Federal Reserve. This is one of the main reasons why I think Wilson was one of the worst Presidents ever.
  • 0

#78 ungar

ungar

    Prospect

  • Suspended
  • Pip
  • 94 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 03:06 PM

lol don't get me started on the Federal Reserve. This is one of the main reasons why I think Wilson was one of the worst Presidents ever.


Money Masters: The History Of The Federal Reserve

http://video.google....84583209015812#

Edited by ungar, 22 October 2010 - 03:07 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
FREE ScottStevens4!

#79 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,541 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 04:42 PM

The European Union is certainly stronger both economically, and militarily, for uniting into a superpower.


Huh? The US military dwarfs all of the militaries of the EU countries combined. Plus while there is an entity that's generally referred to as the EU Army it is incapable of projecting military power signficantly further beyond it's borders.

It is also not a superpower in any sense of the word.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#80 ungar

ungar

    Prospect

  • Suspended
  • Pip
  • 94 posts

Posted 22 October 2010 - 05:13 PM


  • 0
Posted Image
FREE ScottStevens4!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users