Election 2012

[ReaPsTA]

Private companies are pushed by profit, not competition.  A private company will gladly collect profit with the absence of competition and will often do the barest minimum in order to make profit.

Look at what you just said:

"A private company... with the absence of competition... will often do the barest minimum in order to make profit."

Profit doesn't push companies.  It makes them lazy.

A government, generally, has to keep a large percentage of its constituents happy

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I know you added in the Citizens United thing, but that was still so preposterous.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Since there isn't a separate thread for it (surprisingly), here is my take on the 'ACA is a tax and you should hate Obama' argument:

The GOP has successfully convinced it's base that 'taxes are bad, mmkay?'. This is important because these people are essentially clueless about how government actually works. When it came to light that the ACA is unconstitutional under the Commerce clause, but constitutional as a tax, the GOP was quick to say that Obama just wants to tax middle-class Americans. A few things were left out, however.

Assuming that you already have private health insurance (which will still exist), you should not have to pay anything in addition to the premiums you already pay. Rather, you would pay additional tax for the government to provide you medical coverage (NOTE: I haven't read the entire bill, so if this is inaccurate I do not know).

Mitt Romney said something on Face the Nation a few weeks ago that made me LOL. Bob Schieffer essentially asked, if he is going to lower taxes across the board, how is he going to get the revenue needed for the Government to provide the services it does. His answer?:

(paraphrasing)

"We're just taking this one step at a time"

What I got from this is that Romney has no idea how to make money for the country. The surefire way to do so is to levy taxes, which we already do. However, since all his base wants to hear is 'lower taxes', they end up rooting for him.

If I'm rambling, I apologize, but I promise this has a point.

Taxes are a necessary evil. Taxes already pay for a lot of services at the state and federal level. Police officers, the Army, public schools, among many other things. With the state of the economy, the absolute WORST possible thing to do is to put a lot of these services in the hands of the private sector. If public schools ceased to exist, you'd bet your ass many kids wouldn't attend formal schools. And if I have to pay an additional amount in taxes to have my health (ie, my GENERAL WELFARE) covered for by the government, I'd gladly pay.

Romney, if elected (and if tax cuts are further enacted), will likely find himself in the same boots as one George HW Bush. Eventually we'd need money and there's only gonna be one place to gather it.

What I fear is that these uneducated fools in the USA who swallow BS like candy are gonna be the ones who decide the election.

[The King in Crimson]

Private companies are pushed by profit, not competition.  A private company will gladly collect profit with the absence of competition and will often do the barest minimum in order to make profit.

Look at what you just said:

"A private company... with the absence of competition... will often do the barest minimum in order to make profit."

Profit doesn't push companies.  It makes them lazy.

Sorry about that, I just misunderstood your comment.

A government, generally, has to keep a large percentage of its constituents happy

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I know you added in the Citizens United thing, but that was still so preposterous.

So, tell me, what's preferable to government then?

[jammindude]

Um....excuse me.   Are you the Judean People's Front?


 

[j]

There are some good provisions in this bill, such as some of the limitations placed on private insurance companies.  But as a whole it's a joke, as it fails to address ANY of the core problems with healthcare in this country.  Unfortunately, it would seem that there's nobody involved with a real understanding of the system's inherent flaws, but also nobody cares, because it's all just a partisan shitfest anyway.

With regard to who will be affected by the mandate, a large portion is the subset of the population not poor enough to be on Medicaid, but still poor enough that they would have considered carrying private insurance to be financially "debilitating" for any number of reasons.  The majority of people who make little enough annually that paying the penalty would actually be preferable to paying an insurance premium probably qualify for Medicaid anyway.

As for the discussion of taxes themselves, I don't think any reasonable person argues against taxation in principle.  But both parties--everyone--should be appalled and outraged at the way this government spends and allocates funds.  First show me that you can utilize my money responsibly and effectively, then we can talk about taxing the Christ out of me (to be clear, I'm speaking generally, not referring to the particular "tax" associated with this bill).

-J

[Rathma]

first world problems

Not sure if serious.

Bro I can guarantee you that a large portion of the world's population would love to be forced to live in the US. First world problems.

[Rathma]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djI1whGuksg

[Super Dude]

Private companies are pushed by profit, not competition.  A private company will gladly collect profit with the absence of competition and will often do the barest minimum in order to make profit.

Look at what you just said:

"A private company... with the absence of competition... will often do the barest minimum in order to make profit."

Profit doesn't push companies.  It makes them lazy.

Competition still doesn't push companies to improve in any way. It just pushes them to dial the number of their local lobby group.

[ReaPsTA]

So, tell me, what's preferable to government then?

I've got no alternative.  But let's not have any illusions about what government and its purpose are.

Bro I can guarantee you that a large portion of the world's population would love to be forced to live in the US. First world problems.

The bolded part is true.  But "first world problems" is used to refer to something like "I dropped my cellphone and I can't get warranty."  When potential voters are cheering the notion of letting people die at a presidential debate, you might as well be at some kind of Soviet political rally.

Competition still doesn't push companies to improve in any way. It just pushes them to dial the number of their local lobby group.

Not that this doesn't happen, but why are you being so silly?

[skydivingninja]

Competition still doesn't push companies to improve in any way. It just pushes them to dial the number of their local lobby group.

I know this happens all the time, and I think Citizens United and the like should be reversed, but it really grinds my gears when people like you believe a company's first alternative is to lobby the government.  What would Coke do if Pepsi came out with some new super-popular Pepsi variety?  Petition Congress to make it illegal?  Nope, they'd push Coke more and make a new variety to compete with it, and try and make that product better, or rely on Coke's incredible popularity and bank on people switching over just because they know and like most other Coke products.  Marketing (it works, bitches)!  Yeah you hear about a lot of companies lobbying Congress, but most of them just try to compete in the marketplace and make a better product/provide a better service.  Especially small businesses.

[ohgar]

Yeah but the Coca-Cola Company provides absolutely nothing of value to society so I'm not sure what your point is here.

[rumborak]

Both private companies and government have their specific way of having to compete. Both happen by voting of the public, one with money, the other with the threat of firing.

rumborak

[Rathma]

When potential voters are cheering the notion of letting people die at a presidential debate, you might as well be at some kind of Soviet political rally.

Letting people die? What are you referring to?

[Shine]

Yeah but the Coca-Cola Company provides absolutely nothing of value to society so I'm not sure what your point is here.

Yes they do. If Coke had no value, no one would spend value to obtain it, that's just the way trade works. People like the way Coke tastes, so they pay for it. They find having a 12 pack of coke is worth more to them than the money that was in their pockets.

[Rathma]

economic value ≠ value to society

[jammindude]

economic value ≠ value to society

Think that might be a relative opinion.   *I* personally agree with you.   But it's shocking to think what would happen to our society if all Coke products disappeared tomorrow.   You know that old saying "Any civilization is three meals away from revolution"?   As sad as I am to admit it...I honestly believe that the same is true of certain "brands" that people feel they can't live without. 

If you remove something, and it causes anarchy (or close to it) then it is of value to *that* society.    Now...what a particular society holds to be valuable...speaks volumes about that society.

[The King in Crimson]

So, tell me, what's preferable to government then?

I've got no alternative.  But let's not have any illusions about what government and its purpose are.

I don't think the illusions are limited to my side of the fence on this issue.

[The King in Crimson]

economic value ≠ value to society

Think that might be a relative opinion.   *I* personally agree with you.   But it's shocking to think what would happen to our society if all Coke products disappeared tomorrow.   You know that old saying "Any civilization is three meals away from revolution"?   As sad as I am to admit it...I honestly believe that the same is true of certain "brands" that people feel they can't live without. 

If you remove something, and it causes anarchy (or close to it) then it is of value to *that* society.    Now...what a particular society holds to be valuable...speaks volumes about that society.

If coke disappeared tomorrow, we'd find something else shitty to drink.  If all soft drinks disappeared?  Yeah, maybe there'd be some problems, but I honestly think that no matter how foolish and ignorant we are, we'd find a way to cope... peacefully.  Maybe that's a bit of optimistic naivety (sp?), but I really think the loss of soft drinks wouldn't be such a detrimental blow to our society.

Cars or the internet otoh?  Those are fulcrums of modern society.  Without those, we'd have some serious issues functioning.  But coke or pepsi?  They offer nothing to society other than calories, diabetes and tooth decay.

[El Barto]

On a different election topic, apparently Romney is accusing Obama to not think the US is exceptional enough. Apart from the ridiculousness of the topic (IMHO declaring yourself to be exceptional is just plain a arrogant; let others judge you), I was thinking, can Obama do anything but lose in this matter? He is presiding over an inexorable shift of global power towards Asia. How do you tell people that the days of being the only superpower in town are over?

rumborak

CNN is doing a series on that.

We're No. 1! We're No. 1! We're ... uh ... not?
As I've often said, we're slipping in plenty of areas.  Where we really were tops was in individual freedoms, and over the last decade or so, those have been shot all to hell.  Measured on the basis of proximity to a McDonalds and a Blockbuster, we certainly are the planet's utopia.  In most other ways, we're hurtling towards abject failure with the demise of the last remaining exceptional virtue.. 

[kirksnosehair]

^and some of us wonder why we rub 3/4 of the world the wrong way 

[Super Dude]

Competition still doesn't push companies to improve in any way. It just pushes them to dial the number of their local lobby group.

I know this happens all the time, and I think Citizens United and the like should be reversed, but it really grinds my gears when people like you believe a company's first alternative is to lobby the government.  What would Coke do if Pepsi came out with some new super-popular Pepsi variety?  Petition Congress to make it illegal?  Nope, they'd push Coke more and make a new variety to compete with it, and try and make that product better, or rely on Coke's incredible popularity and bank on people switching over just because they know and like most other Coke products.  Marketing (it works, bitches)!  Yeah you hear about a lot of companies lobbying Congress, but most of them just try to compete in the marketplace and make a better product/provide a better service.  Especially small businesses.

Not that I mean to split hairs, but aren't Coke and Pepsi actually owned by the same conglomerate anyway?

And yeah, okay, I get your point. I meant more in the sense that we deal with in the realm of politics everyday: insurance companies on health, oil and energy companies on environmental issues, things like that. Instead of responding to changing times as it were, they simply lobby the government to make sure their industry remains relevant and profitable.

[rumborak]

Not that I mean to split hairs, but aren't Coke and Pepsi actually owned by the same conglomerate anyway?

Nah, they're separate. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola Company.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

Not that I mean to split hairs, but aren't Coke and Pepsi actually owned by the same conglomerate anyway?

Nah, they're separate. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola Company.

rumborak

This.  Where did that come from?

[Super Dude]

I dunno, I thought I remembered hearing something to that effect.

[j]

And yeah, okay, I get your point. I meant more in the sense that we deal with in the realm of politics everyday: insurance companies on health, oil and energy companies on environmental issues, things like that. Instead of responding to changing times as it were, they simply lobby the government to make sure their industry remains relevant and profitable.

This may be because the government has (or should have) a vested interest in those particular industries because of their natures.  I.e. the health of its citizens, the global and domestic oil market, and the protection of the environment.  Also there are agencies and entire wings of government dedicated to some of these things.  Beyond the contained economic effects, what does Uncle Sam care about Pepsi and Coke competing?

-J

[Super Dude]

Oh, I forgot a big one: agricultural corporations. Food subsidies and the historic sugar lobbies (I have no idea if this is still even a thing), y'know.

[jsem]

On a different election topic, apparently Romney is accusing Obama to not think the US is exceptional enough. Apart from the ridiculousness of the topic (IMHO declaring yourself to be exceptional is just plain a arrogant; let others judge you), I was thinking, can Obama do anything but lose in this matter? He is presiding over an inexorable shift of global power towards Asia. How do you tell people that the days of being the only superpower in town are over?

rumborak

CNN is doing a series on that.

We're No. 1! We're No. 1! We're ... uh ... not?
As I've often said, we're slipping in plenty of areas.  Where we really were tops was in individual freedoms, and over the last decade or so, those have been shot all to hell.  Measured on the basis of proximity to a McDonalds and a Blockbuster, we certainly are the planet's utopia.  In most other ways, we're hurtling towards abject failure with the demise of the last remaining exceptional virtue.. 

Lol. Excellent article.

[rumborak]

Texas GOP calls for abstinence only sex ed and corporal punishment:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/06/27/texas-republican-party-2012-platform-education_n_1632097.html?fb_action_ids=10150926697415698%2C10150926692350698&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline

[kirksnosehair]

Brilliant!  Let's teach our children to solve problems with an act of violence!


Oh, and.... this


Idiots 

[rumborak]

Your facts are so liberal.

rumborak

[ReaPsTA]

The sex education issue confuses me.  Isn't there a balance between abstinence-only education and having the school nurse give out condoms?

EDIT:  If all else fails, we could have teachers do this (REALLY NSFW):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmIGXO1TFWw

It scares kids away from wanting to have sex and is educational.

[kirksnosehair]

When it comes to birth control, especially among teenagers, The FACTS (I know those things scare some folks) are clear on Abstinence Only Sex Education.  It's an abject failure.  I am all for a balanced approach.  Teach kids that abstinence is the best, most effective method of preventing birth, because, well, that's a fact.   See, we like facts.  But you also need to teach them that IF they have sex, using a condom, while not 100% effective, is still a very good way of preventing birth.  This is also a fact.


Don't even get me started on corporal punishment. 

[ReaPsTA]

I actually don't mind the idea of corporal punishment in society.  Jail is the dumbest idea ever.  It's expensive, and prisoners have a habit of becoming bitter and picking up bad habits because they live around other criminals.  Corporal punishment is quick and sends the message.

But schools should have no part of this.  It creates a not-so-underlying adversarial relationship between the kids and the school.

[Sigz]

Texas GOP calls for abstinence only sex ed and corporal punishment:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/06/27/texas-republican-party-2012-platform-education_n_1632097.html?fb_action_ids=10150926697415698%2C10150926692350698&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline

The position causing the most controversy, however, is the statement that they oppose the teaching of "higher order thinking skills" -- a curriculum which strives to encourage critical thinking -- arguing that it might challenge "student's fixed beliefs" and undermine "parental authority."

ಠ_ಠ

[ReaPsTA]

The position causing the most controversy, however, is the statement that they oppose the teaching of "higher order thinking skills" -- a curriculum which strives to encourage critical thinking -- arguing that it might challenge "student's fixed beliefs" and undermine "parental authority."

In fairness, this could be a trap.  Just because you name a class "higher order thinking skills" doesn't mean it actually teaches any.