The Offical TIF American Elections thread

[Hawks]

Is the lipstick on a pig comment used by McCain on youtube? I'd like to see it.

 

Yeah here it is. HE WAS REFERRING TO OBAMA'S USE OF IT EARLIER; WASN'T INSULTING BIDEN/OBAMA OR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS OBAMA WAS. HE WAS REFERRING TO OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE SOLUTION.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also:

 

Obama FTW! Even though I can't vote, Obama FTW! Also, we should call Obama and Binden Obama Bin Binden!

 

I seriously thought of Osama bin Laden first time I saw their campaign logo.

[Quoi_Tu]

Sure. First a bit about myself. I am in the middle class, and have a cronic disease, Type 1 Diabetes. So I am automatically against anything that involves more taxes on the middle class (to give to lower class- THIS IS CALLED SOCIALISM AND AMERICA IS A DEMOCRACY.) and any sort of universal health care system. This is due to (see Britian as an example) people in other countries with universal health care and my condition get much worse care. There are waiting lists of people for insulin pumps, whereas here in the US if your insurance will cover it (most will, and Medicare/Medicade will as well) you can get it much sooner than if you lived in those countries. Also a universal health care system is once again leaning toward socialism...

 

 

 

Just so you know:

 

A class of ideologies favoring an economic system in which all or most productive resources are the property of the government, in which the production and distribution of goods and services are administered primarily by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which any remaining private production and distribution (socialists differ on how much of this is tolerable) is heavily regulated by the government rather than by market processes. Both democratic and non-democratic socialists insist that the government they envision as running the economy must in principle be one that truly reflects the will of the masses of the population (or at least their "true" best interests), but of course they differ considerably in their ideas about what sorts of political institutions and practices are required to ensure this will be so. In practice, socialist economic principles may be combined with an extremely wide range of attitudes toward personal freedom, civil liberties, mass political participation, bureaucracy and political competition, ranging from Western European democratic socialism to the more authoritarian socialisms of many third world regimes to the totalitarian excesses of Soviet-style socialism or communism.

 

Source

 

 

 

It's a cool website and has a lot of information (as the name suggests) on political economy terms.

 

 

 

(and Obama said something else about the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick)

 

 

 

I believe Palin said that. CNN Article

[jackattack]

McCain has "suspended his campaign" and is asking Obama to do the same. He is also asking to "delay" the debates.

 

 

 

McCain is sweating like no tomorrow, and as he very much should be. Excuse me John, 3 days ago you said the economy was strong, and now you want to discuss a crisis?

 

 

 

If you can't juggle financial crisis and your campaign, how can you be President? Because a president never has to deal with foreign policy and economic issues at the same time?

 

 

 

Fuh pete's sake. If he can't handle both, he can't handle being president.

 

 

 

This is obviously nothing more than a political gamble, something McCain likes to take part in quite frequently it seems.

 

 

 

Also, what does "suspending" even mean? Are you closing your offices? Are your workers "off" temporarily?

 

 

 

I don't see why it is a bad thing that he decided to stop campaigning and actually try to do something. I think they should still debate because I doubt they will be doing anything Friday night but trying to pass the legislation instead of campaigning is a good thing.

[das1330]

 

They're both promising tax cuts, admittedly for different groups, which they can't afford because all the money's being spent on bailing the US banks out of the hole they're in.

 

 

 

I hate it when people show that they have no idea whatsoever how this bailout is to work - it is like a fed loan, costing the goverment little or nothing - the money is spawned in a computer somewhere; loaned to the banks to ensure liquidity and solvency and is then repaid to the government where it is destroyed to prevent inflation. Despite the big "700 BILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT" headlines the news has been using to sell papers, the actual total cost is minimal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is capitalism. You do alright for about a decade, then it goes up in smoke and you enter a recession. This bailout won't do anything except delay the inevitable, and neither will Obama or McCain since they'll largely stay in the Status Quo when it comes to the economic system.

 

 

 

So what do you recommend? Communism? Socialism? Both have been proven to be helplessly bad economic models by a laundry list of countries that have tried them. The economy ebbs and flows; it is slowing down right now, but still fundamentally working - there is no real problems with it other then investors got a bit too exited. In a year or two the economy will be working fine again, just as it was - the US government is doing a surprisingly good job of dampening the fall for the entire world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: On a more optimistic note, Obama is now around about where he was in the polls before the GOP Conference, and Palin's rather heartwarming, if incredibly annoying, speech.

 

 

 

What? They are polling even, or rather with Obama about 2 points ahead in a poll with a margin of error of 2 points.

 

 

 

 

 

This election, I'm rooting for Obama. McCain doesn't seem any different from George W. Bush, in my opinion, and McCain doesn't promote human rights. He has said clearly that he would oppose any legislation that would grant the right to gay marriage and any anti-hate crime laws that are inclusive of anything pertaining to the LGBT community. (An anti-hate crime law that is inclusive of homosexuals, bisexuals, and the transgender community would make it a punishable crime to commit any violence and discrimination against an LGBT. Some think it would "violate" freedom of speech -i.e. bashing gays due to "religious reasoning"- but really all this would do is give people who are sexual minorities a sound mind when they go to sleep every night or even a sound mind at work/school, and would make sure that all states and local governments actually prosecute a crime that was motivated by anti-LGBT hatred.

 

 

 

Why does it make a difference why the crime was committed? "Hate crime" laws are useless, as the things they make illegal are already illegal - if someone attacks you for being black, they still attacked you. Their motive should not make a difference.

[Deiophobus]

Hawkxs, it was Palin who said the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull was lipstick.

[Saru Inc]

They've not fed you lies, they've just given you an incredibly warped view of the world instead.

 

 

 

Firstly, you are aware socialism is an economic model, while democracy is a governmental model, aren't you? Unless you're saying I live in a totalitarian state, simply because I have the NHS.

 

 

 

Secondly, the "lipstick on a pig" comment was also used by McCain himself!

 

 

 

Finally, Obama supports taxing the upper classes more, not the middle classes. It's called progressive taxation, which has nothing to do with socialism. He supports the concept that the middle and lower classes should receive more state support, not simply be taxed more in the middle class' case.

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, Gw is correct. I got in so much trouble comparing Socialism\Communism to Democracy\ totalitarianism in AP EURO, instead, Hawk, compare them to Capitalism or Mercantilism.

 

 

 

And yea, Gw is alos correct in that, Democratic party used to be for the rich people, but long time ago, they switched sides, and now Democratic party in general is for the lower and middle class; while Republican is for the upper middle\high class.

 

 

 

However, I agree with Hawk in that is how universal medicare will be like. Ugh.

 

 

 

But GW, you do realize Capitalism is one of the most effective forms of the economy? Sure, it comes and goes, but so does everything in life.

 

 

 

Also, I just saw Bush's Presidential Address, and :anxious: I agreed with it.

 

 

 

And yes, Palin did use that comment first.

 

 

 

Also, I now have no doubt Obama will win the election, even though; what you guys have to remember is, people vote differently, when they're being polled by Newpapers, then when they're alone in a booth. But, although I agree with pretty much Palin has said, I see now she is out of her league. But I still want McCain to win, because I realllllyyyyyyyy do not want universal healthcare lol.

 

 

 

Edit: What I meant about my Biden comment, is its perfectly fine, he made a mistake, plenty of people would. I'm just sick of people waiting for McCain to slip up, and that Democrats make mistakes too. :P

[magekillr]

If Obama supported Universal Health Care, I more than likely would have picked him as my first choice for President.

 

 

 

Obama does not wish to bring Unviersal Health care...jesus christ people have such a twisted view. If Obama's form of health insurance was "universal" and covered everyone, then I'd pour a bunch of salt on a piece of paper, squeeze lemon juice on it, record myself eating it, and post it on here.

[Saru Inc]

If Obama supported Universal Health Care, I more than likely would have picked him as my first choice for President.

 

 

 

Obama does not wish to bring Unviersal Health care...jesus christ people have such a twisted view. If Obama's form of health insurance was "universal" and covered everyone, then I'd pour a bunch of salt on a piece of paper, squeeze lemon juice on it, record myself eating it, and post it on here.

 

 

 

 

 

Then what does he support?

[das1330]

 

Then what does he support?

 

 

 

A plan that, while impossibly expensive like in Europe, does not let the government run the health care industry so that it maintains it's high standards and does not descend into the horribly useless, expensive bureaucracy that anything run by the government always turns into.

[Saru Inc]

Magekillr, after thinking it over, I think I understand what you mean. And I used a poor choice of words. :P

 

 

 

But Snipersas, uhhhh what? As far as I know, the gov't would provide healthcare for al who could not afford? How is that not gov't controlled? Correct me if I'm wrong. :)

[das1330]

Magekillr, after thinking it over, I think I understand what you mean. And I used a poor choice of words. :P

 

 

 

But Snipersas, uhhhh what? As far as I know, the gov't would provide healthcare for al who could not afford? How is that not gov't controlled? Correct me if I'm wrong. :)

 

 

 

 

 

In Europe the health care industry is essentially a nationalized industry - that is the government owns all hospitals, pays the salaries of all doctors and pays for all drugs - all of which is paid for through brutal taxes. Because you have bureaucrats running things, things like wait times for medical treatments (sometimes extending to months) are common and the general quality of service is lower - when its not your money there is very little incentive to improve. Obama's plan basically requires every American to buy health insurance that can afford it, and have the government pay for insurance for those who don't. Its still very expensive, but a bit cheaper since the health care industry is still private so there is less waste (hospitals would still be owned by companies, doctors employed by businesses and drugs would still be bought through typical market channels)

[Saru Inc]

Magekillr, after thinking it over, I think I understand what you mean. And I used a poor choice of words. :P

 

 

 

But Snipersas, uhhhh what? As far as I know, the gov't would provide healthcare for al who could not afford? How is that not gov't controlled? Correct me if I'm wrong. :)

 

 

 

 

 

In Europe the health care industry is essentially a nationalized industry - that is the government owns all hospitals, pays the salaries of all doctors and pays for all drugs - all of which is paid for through brutal taxes. Because you have bureaucrats running things, things like wait times for medical treatments (sometimes extending to months) are common and the general quality of service is lower - when its not your money there is very little incentive to improve. Obama's plan basically requires every American to buy health insurance that can afford it, and have the government pay for insurance for those who don't. Its still very expensive, but a bit cheaper since the health care industry is still private so there is less waste (hospitals would still be owned by companies, doctors employed by businesses and drugs would still be bought through typical market channels)

 

 

 

Ohhh... Gotcha, thanks. :)

[magekillr]

Snipersas, I think you're eating American Ronald Reagan Propaganda about nationalized health care lol.

[Ginger_Warrior]

 

They're both promising tax cuts, admittedly for different groups, which they can't afford because all the money's being spent on bailing the US banks out of the hole they're in.

 

 

 

I hate it when people show that they have no idea whatsoever how this bailout is to work - it is like a fed loan, costing the goverment little or nothing - the money is spawned in a computer somewhere; loaned to the banks to ensure liquidity and solvency and is then repaid to the government where it is destroyed to prevent inflation. Despite the big "700 BILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT" headlines the news has been using to sell papers, the actual total cost is minimal.

 

Meant being the operative word there.

 

 

 

Shares are still falling in the western stock markets. There will be a recession anyway. It's delaying the inevitable, at the cost of possibly trillions to the US taxpayer. At least McCain can see capitalism for what it is - a greedy system which sows the seeds of its own destruction.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: On a more optimistic note, Obama is now around about where he was in the polls before the GOP Conference, and Palin's rather heartwarming, if incredibly annoying, speech.

 

 

 

What? They are polling even, or rather with Obama about 2 points ahead in a poll with a margin of error of 2 points.

 

No, Obama was about 5pts ahead with a 2pt error of margin.

 

 

 

Why does it make a difference why the crime was committed? "Hate crime" laws are useless, as the things they make illegal are already illegal - if someone attacks you for being black, they still attacked you. Their motive should not make a difference.

 

OK, well let's remove intent to supply laws with drugs. Let's remove anti-sexism laws for employment. Let's remove manslaughter - murder is murder is murder.

 

 

 

Seriously, you'd have to be pretty stupid to suggest motive has no bearing on a crime's severity.

 

 

 

In Europe the health care industry is essentially a nationalized industry - that is the government owns all hospitals, pays the salaries of all doctors and pays for all drugs - all of which is paid for through brutal taxes. Because you have bureaucrats running things, things like wait times for medical treatments (sometimes extending to months) are common and the general quality of service is lower - when its not your money there is very little incentive to improve. Obama's plan basically requires every American to buy health insurance that can afford it, and have the government pay for insurance for those who don't. Its still very expensive, but a bit cheaper since the health care industry is still private so there is less waste (hospitals would still be owned by companies, doctors employed by businesses and drugs would still be bought through typical market channels)

 

Well, you say that as though it's instantly a bad thing because it costs people money. Your system is hopelessly ineffective. You're the richest country in the world, yet you're ranked 72nd in the world for healthcare. Do you honestly see that as acceptable?

 

 

 

For the matter, Europe is not half as socialist as you would like to think, and fear. France, which is ranked top, only provides free treatment for chronic diseases. The NHS does not employ each and every doctor across the land, nor does it own every hospital and certainly does not pay for each and every drug. People are still free to pay for private health care if they so choose. Brutal taxes are not nearly as brutal when someone in a poor family suffers from a terminal illness, and receives no support because the rest of us can't be bothered to pay taxes to ensure everyone receives a decent level of care.

 

 

 

Perhaps this is coup de grace on this debate - the vast majority in the UK, including the rich, support the founding principles of the NHS.

[Saru Inc]

 

They're both promising tax cuts, admittedly for different groups, which they can't afford because all the money's being spent on bailing the US banks out of the hole they're in.

 

 

 

I hate it when people show that they have no idea whatsoever how this bailout is to work - it is like a fed loan, costing the goverment little or nothing - the money is spawned in a computer somewhere; loaned to the banks to ensure liquidity and solvency and is then repaid to the government where it is destroyed to prevent inflation. Despite the big "700 BILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT" headlines the news has been using to sell papers, the actual total cost is minimal.

 

Meant being the operative word there.

 

 

 

Shares are still falling in the western stock markets. There will be a recession anyway. It's delaying the inevitable, at the cost of possibly trillions to the US taxpayer. At least McCain can see capitalism for what it is - a greedy system which sows the seeds of its own destruction.

 

 

EDIT: On a more optimistic note, Obama is now around about where he was in the polls before the GOP Conference, and Palin's rather heartwarming, if incredibly annoying, speech.

 

 

 

What? They are polling even, or rather with Obama about 2 points ahead in a poll with a margin of error of 2 points.

 

No, Obama was about 5pts ahead with a 2pt error of margin.

 

 

 

Why does it make a difference why the crime was committed? "Hate crime" laws are useless, as the things they make illegal are already illegal - if someone attacks you for being black, they still attacked you. Their motive should not make a difference.

 

OK, well let's remove intent to supply laws with drugs. Let's remove anti-sexism laws for employment. Let's remove manslaughter - murder is murder is murder.

 

 

 

Seriously, you'd have to be pretty stupid to suggest motive has no bearing on a crime's severity.

 

 

 

In Europe the health care industry is essentially a nationalized industry - that is the government owns all hospitals, pays the salaries of all doctors and pays for all drugs - all of which is paid for through brutal taxes. Because you have bureaucrats running things, things like wait times for medical treatments (sometimes extending to months) are common and the general quality of service is lower - when its not your money there is very little incentive to improve. Obama's plan basically requires every American to buy health insurance that can afford it, and have the government pay for insurance for those who don't. Its still very expensive, but a bit cheaper since the health care industry is still private so there is less waste (hospitals would still be owned by companies, doctors employed by businesses and drugs would still be bought through typical market channels)

 

Well, you say that as though it's instantly a bad thing because it costs people money. Your system is hopelessly ineffective. You're the richest country in the world, yet you're ranked 72nd in the world for healthcare. Do you honestly see that as acceptable?

 

 

 

For the matter, Europe is not half as socialist as you would like to think, and fear. France, which is ranked top, only provides free treatment for chronic diseases. The NHS does not employ each and every doctor across the land, nor does it own every hospital and certainly does not pay for each and every drug. People are still free to pay for private health care if they so choose. Brutal taxes are not nearly as brutal when someone in a poor family suffers from a terminal illness, and receives no support because the rest of us can't be bothered to pay taxes to ensure everyone receives a decent level of care.

 

 

 

Perhaps this is coup de grace on this debate - the vast majority in the UK, including the rich, support the founding principles of the NHS.

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, I ask: What would you rather have if not Capitalism? Mercantilism? No. Communism? No. Democratic Capitalism is by far the best system the world has ever seen.

 

 

 

Btw, USA is already in a recession. ;)

 

 

 

Also, what people need to realize, is no matter who becomes president, we're too screwed up for either of them to fix in their one term.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Once again, I ask: What would you rather have if not Capitalism? Mercantilism? No. Communism? No. Democratic Capitalism is by far the best system the world has ever seen.

 

In what way? Where on Earth did this "Democratic Capitalism" come from? It seems to be a term coined overnight by a President who's desperate to give himself some credibility. Capitalism is most certainly not the most efficient form of economy.

 

 

 

I do not support the concept of splitting everything up to create competition on the notion that state-run companies are less efficient than privatised companies (which I don't necessarily agree with anyway), letting them do whatever they want so long as they're making us richer, and then whining every ten years because we didn't put regulation in place to ensure their greed didn't extend themselves and put all our financial stability into danger.

 

 

 

For the matter, Bush's recovery plan will do nothing for capitalism either. It's effectively socialism, buying up big banks and making the public the biggest shareholder. Only, there's one difference between Marxist socialism and this one - the state money here is going to the rich, the very people who irresponsibly led our economies and earned billions in bonuses for it.

 

 

 

If anything, it should be them paying for this recovery with the gross amount of bonuses they 'earned', not those of us who have to work to afford to pay a mortgage, or pay bills, or even put food on the table.

 

 

 

My preferred solution would be socialism, which contrary to snipersas' belief, has been tried successfully in many cases. Even those who champion capitalism have to look at this system and take a long hard think, because as it is, it's hopelessly unstable.

 

 

 

Btw, USA is already in a recession. ;)

 

No it's not. Its economy is shrinking, but it's not technical recession... yet.

[magekillr]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you America's possible next Vice President, and quite possibly the next President:

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Yx-RhHb4g

 

 

 

No wonder McCain is shielding her from the media; what an unintelligent and anti-woman woman.

 

 

 

COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

 

 

 

PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though.

 

arah Palin: My understanding is that Rick Davis recused himself from the dealings of the firm. I don't know how long ago, a year or two ago that he's not benefiting from that. And you know, I was - I would hope that's not the case.

 

 

 

Katie Couric: But he still has a stake in the company so isn't that a conflict of interest?

 

 

 

Palin: Again, my understanding is that he recused himself from the dealings with Freddie and Fannie, any lobbying efforts on his part there. And I would hope that's the case because, as John McCain has been saying, and as I've on a much more local level been also rallying against is the undue influence of lobbyists in public policy decisions being made.

 

 

 

 

 

I mean...she asked her a different question, and Palin gives the same answer verbatim.

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

 

 

edit: http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsN ... 3720080925

 

 

 

China's banks no longer lending US banks money?

[1_man_army]

I saw that clip this morning, she seemed so tongue-tied and just out of her depth. It's something I can see being exploited by the Democrats.

[Rebdragon]

Pack of liberal youngins >_>.

[Saru Inc]

Once again, I ask: What would you rather have if not Capitalism? Mercantilism? No. Communism? No. Democratic Capitalism is by far the best system the world has ever seen.

 

In what way? Where on Earth did this "Democratic Capitalism" come from? It seems to be a term coined overnight by a President who's desperate to give himself some credibility. Capitalism is most certainly not the most efficient form of economy.

 

 

 

I do not support the concept of splitting everything up to create competition on the notion that state-run companies are less efficient than privatised companies (which I don't necessarily agree with anyway), letting them do whatever they want so long as they're making us richer, and then whining every ten years because we didn't put regulation in place to ensure their greed didn't extend themselves and put all our financial stability into danger.

 

 

 

For the matter, Bush's recovery plan will do nothing for capitalism either. It's effectively socialism, buying up big banks and making the public the biggest shareholder. Only, there's one difference between Marxist socialism and this one - the state money here is going to the rich, the very people who irresponsibly led our economies and earned billions in bonuses for it.

 

 

 

If anything, it should be them paying for this recovery with the gross amount of bonuses they 'earned', not those of us who have to work to afford to pay a mortgage, or pay bills, or even put food on the table.

 

 

 

My preferred solution would be socialism, which contrary to snipersas' belief, has been tried successfully in many cases. Even those who champion capitalism have to look at this system and take a long hard think, because as it is, it's hopelessly unstable.

 

 

 

Btw, USA is already in a recession. ;)

 

No it's not. Its economy is shrinking, but it's not technical recession... yet.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, we've basically been in one, with the same effects.

 

 

 

Also, wtf, we've been a Democratic Capitalistic economy since the USA was USA. Maybe you should take US Hist. classes and not just google stuff. :(

[1_man_army]

Pack of liberal youngins >_>.

 

 

 

Was that directed at me or the thread generally? (I know it's a self-absorbed question but it is under my post).

 

 

 

Anyway, for the record I turned 21 in August so I'm an oldun' by tip.it's standards now.

[Quoi_Tu]

 

edit: http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsN ... 3720080925

 

 

 

China's banks no longer lending US banks money?

 

 

 

Most US banks don't need money; they're sitting on piles of it and that's the problem. Many banks are scared to anything with their money and are being very conservative with it. Many are buying T-bills that have .05% interest. The current plan is to essentially buy the bad assets (the ones that are worth practically nothing) off the banks, so that their net worth is higher and the banks have confidence to spend some of those piles of money. Of course, that is extremely simplified, but that's the gist of it.

[megakiller32]

Too bad people don't vote for McEnulty, i read his page, and he has some decent ideas imo.

 

There must be something about him I don't know and everybody else does, maybe he's a registered sex offender?

[Hawks]

in which the production and distribution of goods and services are administered primarily by the government rather than by private enterprise

 

 

 

Hmm... Sounds a lot like Obama's health care plan... :roll:

[magekillr]

in which the production and distribution of goods and services are administered primarily by the government rather than by private enterprise

 

 

 

Hmm... Sounds a lot like Obama's health care plan... :roll:

 

 

 

Except, there is still private enterprise primarily running the show. There's roughly 45 million uninsured at the moment. That means there's already roughly 255 million insured through private lenders and Medicare/Caid. He's not privatizing medicine (god I wish he would), and he's not getting rid of private insurers.

 

 

 

Anyway, even if he was a socialist, I'd only support him even more lol.