Democratic National Convention

Amerika

joseph brand wrote: »

You found no fault with Biden's speech? Praise indeed, coming from yourself.

Actually, I'd use a baseball term to best describe it... "No Hits, No Runs, No Errors."

Duck Soup

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... Sarah Palin never said that. Care to call Kerry a liar?

Actually, she did say that.

"They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Denerick

Duck Soup wrote: »

Actually, she did say that.

Lets not forget all the international incidents she had to deal with as governor, such as when Putin ordered Russian war planes into American aerospace without American consent. She really was the kind of iron lady that America needed at its darkest hour.

Amerika

"They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Your quote is what Sarah Palin actually said. But that’s not what John Kerry was intending. You and John Kerry seem to have a problem differentiating between Sarah Palin and SNL’s Tina Fey. It's okay though, Palin Derangement Syndrome is a hard psychological disorder to overcome.

And Sarah Palin also isn't running in 2012 LOL.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

And Sarah Palin also isn't running in 2012 LOL.

She probably realised that if she were in any other country, she'd be a hairdresser or classroom assistant for very young children. Not presidential material.

southsiderosie

Interesting analysis from The Atlantic on what Bill Clinton wrote (the speech distributed to journalists ahead of time) versus what he actually said.

Otacon

southsiderosie wrote: »

Interesting analysis from The Atlantic on what Bill Clinton wrote (the speech distributed to journalists ahead of time) versus what he actually said.

That link didn't work for me but this one did.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/what-bill-clinton-said-vs-what-he-wrote/56562/

A good read BTW.

jank

Anyone finding this election an utter bore and totally predictable?
Two well oiled party machines just going at it. The Democrats seem to have their **** together more so and Obama should win but tbh it wont change much in reality.
It is funny who fore some reason everyone in Ireland loves the democrats and hates the GOP without actually knowing much about anything about American politics.

Overheal

My favorite bits:

And so here’s what I want to say to you, and here’s what I want the people at home to think about. When times are tough, and people are frustrated and angry and hurting and uncertain, the politics of constant conflict may be good. But what is good politics does not necessarily work in the real world. What works in the real world is cooperation. What works in the real world is cooperation, business and government, foundations and universities. Ask the mayors who are here. Los Angeles is getting green and Chicago is getting an infrastructure bank because Republicans and Democrats are working together to get it. They didn’t check their brains at the door. They didn’t stop disagreeing, but their purpose was to get something done. Now, why is this true? Why does cooperation work better than constant conflict? Because nobody's right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day. And every one of us — every one of us and every one of them, we’re compelled to spend our fleeting lives between those two extremes, knowing we’re never going to be right all the time and hoping we’re right more than twice a day.

Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. They think government is always the enemy, they’re always right, and compromise is weakness. Just in the last couple of elections, they defeated two distinguished Republican senators because they dared to cooperate with Democrats on issues important to the future of the country, even national security. They beat a Republican congressman with almost a hundred percent voting record on every conservative score, because he said he realized he did not have to hate the president to disagree with him. Boy, that was a nonstarter, and they threw him out. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lugar)

In Tampa — in Tampa — did y’all watch their convention? I did. In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's re-election was actually pretty simple pretty snappy: we left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in. Now — (cheers, applause) — but they did it well. They looked good; the sounded good. They convinced me that they all love their families and their children and were grateful they’d been born in America and all that — really, I’m not being — they did. And this is important, they convinced me they were honorable people who believed what they said and they’re going to keep every commitment they’ve made. We just got to make sure the American people know what those commitments are.
Because In order to look like an acceptable, reasonable, moderate alternative to President Obama, they just didn’t say very much about the ideas they have offered over the last two years. They couldn’t because they want to go back to the same old policies that got us into trouble in the first place: They want to cut taxes for high-income Americans even more than President Bush did; They want to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts; They want to actually to increase defense spending over a decade $2 trillion more than the Pentagon has requested without saying what they'll spend it on; And they want to make enormous cuts in the rest of the budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor children As another president once said- there they go again.

Now Are we where we want to be today? No. Is the president satisfied? Of course not. But Are we better off than we were when he took office, And listen to this. Listen to this. Everybody — when President Barack Obama took office, the economy was in free fall, It had just shrunk 9 full percent of GDP. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Are we doing better than that today? The answer is yes.

I had the same thing happen in 1994 and early 95. We could see that the policies were working, that the economy was growing but most people didn't feel it yet. Thankfully, By 1996, the economy was roaring, everybody felt it, and we were halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States. But — wait, wait. The difference this time is purely in the circumstances. President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. Listen to me, now. No president- no president, not me not any of my predecessors, no one could have repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.

Well, since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. So What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42

So let’s get back to the story. In 2010, as the president's recovery program kicked in, the job losses stopped and things began to turn around.
The Recovery Act saved and created millions of jobs and cut taxes — let me say this again — cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. And, In the last 29 months our economy has produced about 4.5 and one-half million private sector jobs. We could have done better, But last year, the Republicans blocked the president's jobs plan costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here's another jobs score: President Obama plus 4.5 and one-half million, congressional Republicans zero.
During this period — during this period, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama- That’s the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s. And I’ll tell you something else. The auto industry restructuring worked. It saved more than a million jobs, and not just at GM, Chrysler and their dealerships, but in auto parts manufacturing all over the country. That's why even the auto-makers that who weren't part of the deal supported it. They needed to save the those parts suppliers too. Like I said, we're all in this together.
So what’s happened? there are 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than on the day the companies were restructured. So — now, we all know that Gov. Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. So here's another jobs score: Are you listening in Michigan and Ohio and across the country? Here’s another job score: Obama 250,000, Romney, zero.

Theres plenty more good in that speech. Solid arguments about adjustments to medicare, the budget, taxes, etc. that I'm sure I'll call on when the need arises.

Denerick

jank wrote: »

Anyone finding this election an utter bore and totally predictable?
Two well oiled party machines just going at it. The Democrats seem to have their **** together more so and Obama should win but tbh it wont change much in reality.
It is funny who fore some reason everyone in Ireland loves the democrats and hates the GOP without actually knowing much about anything about American politics.

Its simple really. JFK was a democrat.

But more broadly, they are frightened of the Republican party and its tea party wing (The American Taliban) moreso than they sympathise with the democrats.

Overheal

Republican party and its tea party wing (The American Taliban)

Granted they're basically a whingey extremist group within the party, but..

Denerick

Overheal wrote: »

Granted they're basically a whingey extremist group within the party, but..

*Inability to handle dissent.

*Are contemptuous of mainstream newsources, believe there is a liberal conspiracy attempting to monopolise information (Fox news is the single biggest news show, but anyway)

*A raw, ideological hatred of all peoples of opposing viewpoints.

*hysterical rhetoric.

*No such thing as grey areas or compromise.

*Weird religious fervour and fundamentalism (Although the libertarian wing isn't like this, granted)

The only difference at the moment is that they aren't really killing people, yet.

Amerika

I couldn’t read southsiderosie’s link. I thought it was "The Atlantic" at first, so I looked it up. Another look at the conventions… seems they weren’t impressed with either and considered them hopless.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/convention-wrap-hopeless/262098/

KyussBishop

I don't think there's much love for the Democrats really, it's basically been a continuation (and expansion) of Bush's policies for the most part, but with more well managed PR.

Both parties are so hopelessly captured and in bed with corporate interests, that they are just two sides of the same coin at this point; the only difference with the Republican party is they are catering more heavily to traditionalist/religious groups as part of their base, and have always catered more heavily to corporate interests, so their policies are that little bit more extreme.

The range of 'acceptable' political discourse in the US is so very narrow, that it rarely moves beyond "partisan issue of the week/month"; it's going to take a significant (and focused, Occupy is too ad-hoc) political movement to unseat that inertia, and there's little sign of that coming anytime in the next decade, in my opinion.


As far as social politics go, things seem to be slowly inching forward to a progressive future, but as far as economics goes (which should be called political economics, or just 'politics', because it really is inseparable from politics), the entire profession and political discourse surrounding it is still mired in the shítter.

That's the big thing that needs to change, and there aren't really many solid and coherent voices on that front; certainly not enough that reach a widespread audience (the relative unattractiveness of economics as a topic as well, doesn't help).

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

*Inability to handle dissent.

*Are contemptuous of mainstream newsources, believe there is a liberal conspiracy attempting to monopolise information (Fox news is the single biggest news show, but anyway)

*A raw, ideological hatred of all peoples of opposing viewpoints.

*hysterical rhetoric.

*No such thing as grey areas or compromise.

*Weird religious fervour and fundamentalism (Although the libertarian wing isn't like this, granted)

The only difference at the moment is that they aren't really killing people, yet.

I realize it must be true because you say so... but why is it I just don’t feel that way?

- - - - - -

Edited to try and fend off yet another Tea Party argument.

I’ll try and get across the Tea Party from my perspective. The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that calls awareness to any issue that challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our nation.

There are three segments to the Tea Party. 1. The smallest is a group of activists who run their own candidates whom espouse their core beliefs. 2. Then there is a slightly larger group than the first, who are also politically active, but who do not run their own candidates. Instead they work with both parties and actively support the candidates who most closely espouse their core ideals. 3. Finally there is the very large segment of the Tea Party who are not politically active (which I fall into). Instead of being politically active, they look at the Tea Party’s core principles (Pro-domestic employment is indispensable; A strong military is essential; Special interests must be eliminated; Gun ownership is a constitutional right; Government is currently too large and must be downsized; The national budget must be balanced; Deficit spending must end; Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal; Reducing personal income taxes is a must; Reducing business income taxes is mandatory; Political offices must be available to average citizens; Intrusive government must be stopped; English as our core language is required; Illegal aliens are here illegally; and Traditional family values are encouraged), and see which candidate most fits those principles (and is electable) and we vote for them. I hope that helps

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

I couldn’t read southsiderosie’s link. I thought it was "The Atlantic" at first, so I looked it up. Another look at the conventions… seems they weren’t impressed with either and considered them hopless.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/convention-wrap-hopeless/262098/

Hm, it is the Atlantic Wire - I am not sure why the link isn't working? It works for me.

southsiderosie

jank wrote: »

Anyone finding this election an utter bore and totally predictable?
Two well oiled party machines just going at it. The Democrats seem to have their **** together more so and Obama should win but tbh it wont change much in reality.
It is funny who fore some reason everyone in Ireland loves the democrats and hates the GOP without actually knowing much about anything about American politics.

Until the 1980s, the Democrats have always been the party of Irish-Americans, especially in large urban areas: Tammany Hall in New York, the Daley machine in Chicago, the Fitzgeralds in Boston, etc.

Overheal

Limbaugh on the rayjo telling porkies. Playing a clip of the president saying were less dependent now on foreign oil than we have been in 20 years. Rush response: but we aren't drilling more offshore and we didn't green light keystone.

Ok, rush, but does that refute whether or not were less dependent on foreign oil? Asking.

There are other ways to become less dependent. Like reducing consumption. New mpg ratings reduce how much gas people need to commute. It's not all about oil production.

matthew8

Anyone here see the god and jerusalem fiasco/snafu/gaffe at the convention? Absolutely hilarious, moment of the conventions. Felt for the guy speaking though.

K4t

jank wrote: »

It is funny who fore some reason everyone in Ireland loves the democrats and hates the GOP without actually knowing much about anything about American politics.

You don't have to have an in dept knowledge of US politics to know that the Democratic party is by far the lesser of two evils and has been over the last fifty years.

Conas

jank wrote: »

Anyone finding this election an utter bore and totally predictable?
Two well oiled party machines just going at it. The Democrats seem to have their **** together more so and Obama should win but tbh it wont change much in reality.
It is funny who fore some reason everyone in Ireland loves the democrats and hates the GOP without actually knowing much about anything about American politics.

I think the Democrats are much better in goverment, and to honest they give America a much better image around the world than the Republicans. The Bush era did severe damage to America's image to be honest. Those 8 years were a complete farce, and if it wasn't for his brother in Florida who stole him the election in 2000 he would never have been elected. The last true Republican left in the US was Ron Paul, and look at the way he was treated by his party. Mitt Romney will get in and we'll get more wars, oil stealing, prisoner torture, and all that crap back over again, and Americans will be back living in fear because their goverment will tell them how dangerous and bad the world is blah blah blah blah........

The only people that like the Republicans are brain washed crazy Americans, chicken-hawks, the 1%, and FOX News.

Long live the memory of JFK. America's last true president. End the Federal Reserve. End the Wars, and give American's back their freedom.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

Anyone here see the god and jerusalem fiasco/snafu/gaffe at the convention? Absolutely hilarious, moment of the conventions. Felt for the guy speaking though.

Jon Stewart picked it up. The whole situation was just - odd, to say the least.

jank

Denerick wrote: »

The only difference at the moment is that they aren't really killing people, yet.

Sorry but that is typical leftish bull**** and scaremongering.

Denerick

jank wrote: »

Sorry but that is typical leftish bull**** and scaremongering.

Think what you like, but the tea party terrify me. Its almost an Orwellian thing; they have their own 'facts', their own sets of 'truths' and 'untruths', a passionate dislike of, you know, reality.

jank

Conas wrote: »

Long live the memory of JFK. America's last true president. End the Federal Reserve. End the Wars, and give American's back their freedom.

LOL, you do know that JFK escalated the Vietnam war and ordered the bay of pigs? Typical irish revisionism when it comes to JFK and really an insight into the typical love in the average Irish person has when to comes to the democrats.

jank

Denerick wrote: »

Think what you like, but the tea party terrify me. Its almost an Orwellian thing; they have their own 'facts', their own sets of 'truths' and 'untruths', a passionate dislike of, you know, reality.

Are they planning to kill people who disagree with them like the Taliban?

The Tea Party as just a bunch of people letting off steam and a reaction in some ways to the government deficit. If they start planting bombs and killing people in the thousands then I will start to get "worried".

Denerick

jank wrote: »

Are they planning to kill people who disagree with them like the Taliban?

The Tea Party as just a bunch of people letting off steam and a reaction in some ways to the government deficit. If they start planting bombs and killing people in the thousands then I will start to get "worried".

Words kill people just as efficiently as guns do. Give it time.

jank

Denerick wrote: »

Words kill people just as efficiently as guns do. Give it time.

WHAT.THE.****?

Denerick

jank wrote: »

WHAT.THE.****?

OK, I'm not really suggesting that the tea party will launch an armed revolution to overthrow the federal goverment (Though I suppose its always possible), so you can turn your caps locks off. But hysterical rhetoric in a nation where a ridiculous number of people own guns is a timebomb.

Conas

jank wrote: »

LOL, you do know that JFK escalated the Vietnam war and ordered the bay of pigs? Typical irish revisionism when it comes to JFK and really an insight into the typical love in the average Irish person has when to comes to the democrats.

He did not, President Johnston increased the troops from 16,000 to 550,000. FACT!

JFK signed NSAM 263 on October the 11th 1963 to withdraw 1,000 of the 16,000 troops still there. JFK spent most of his time being lied to by the CIA and Military leaders during his years as President, that's why he sacked members of the CIA after they lied to him over the Bay of Pigs operation. Vietnam would never have happened if JFK was President.

Then Robert Kennedy based his whole Presidential Election campaign on withdrawing troops from Vietnam in 1968, and he met the same faith of his brother. Powerful people want wars to happen. The Kennedy's were never going to give it to them. Anyone that thinks differently have their head buried in the clouds.

I love the Democrats over the Republicans, because the world is more stable when their in power. Liz Cheney was on Fox News last night, and all she talked about was how effective torture was in keeping Americans save, and talked about how she loved waterboarding, then she went on saying how dangerous Iran was blah, blah, blah. I think sick, twisted, and evil people like that should stay away from politics, because all they want is trouble and chaos, so her Daddy and his friends at Haliburton can make billions in war profits. They want Iran now, because it has more oil than Iraq.

As Jesse Ventura once said on Larry King "Give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney, and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murder".

G.K.

Conas wrote: »

He did not, President Johnston increased the troops from 16,000 to 550,000. FACT!

JFK signed NSAM 263 on October the 11th 1963 to withdraw 1,000 of the 16,000 troops still there. JFK spent most of his time being lied to by the CIA and Military leaders during his years as President, that's why he sacked members of the CIA after they lied to him over the Bay of Pigs operation. Vietnam would never have happened if JFK was President.

Kennedy was the one who increased the military advisors (And at this stage they were advisors, not troops, nominally at least) to 16,000 in the first place.

I studied the Vietnam War this last year. It's clear that consensus does not exist. The viewpoint of many is that Kennedy wouldn't have taken all the troops out of Vietnam.

poeticseraphim

Denerick wrote: »

Think what you like, but the tea party terrify me. Its almost an Orwellian thing; they have their own 'facts', their own sets of 'truths' and 'untruths', a passionate dislike of, you know, reality.

The Teaparty is not real...it is a media construct.


It is a manufactured media play by lobbyists.

They represent no real social group.

It is something liberals use to bash genuine conservative middle America and something lobbiests use to paint fake 'grass roots outrage'.

They are pops used by three conservative groups in the US who are going down at the mo and don't like militay cuts.

The Democrats do things like this too.

The teapartiers do not actually represent any socio-economic group.

One of these groups is Americans for prosperity...Paul Ryan is connected to them...they are a free market goup

There was an oil drilling in the house of representitives that resulted in the foming of a group called freedom works or something ...A man called Dick Armey is one leader


The Teaparty is a font to make it look like a bottom up movement.


I mean the Dems have lobbys too and drag 'grassroots' imagery into it too but this group is just louder.

They will disappear after the election i suspect.

They all do it.

Unfortunately they are painting America in a very racist light but it is fake it is not real Americcan society.

Conseravatives in America are not racist twats....they are just conservative ...it's just because America is so big it would be hard fo there to be any grassroots movement that would make a difference on politics or the mainstream media anyway not without big money.

Both conservitive and democrat Americans are sort of just stuck with a huge mainstream media that ignores both of them and huge money that tries to infultrate both parties.

Normal republican card carrying Americans are not presented by them ...

But i think it is suiting the Dems to point to the GOP as raging radicals

And fair enough the GOP has moved to the right..

But the media spins it all for entertainment and puts the cranks on for show.

That is my take on it anyway...i am not saying i know much as i think from Ireland it is probably hard to discern.

The GOP has radicalized and moved to the right sure..BUT NOT THAT MUCH

jank

Denerick wrote: »

OK, I'm not really suggesting that the tea party will launch an armed revolution to overthrow the federal goverment (Though I suppose its always possible), so you can turn your caps locks off. But hysterical rhetoric in a nation where a ridiculous number of people own guns is a timebomb.

It has always been thus. Are you forgetting the 90's. Oklahoma bombing, Waco and many other any government militia groups?

There is just as much hysterical rantings coming from the left about this "threat" to the country about the tea party movement. I see you are one of them.

Fr Tod Umptious

Conas wrote: »

I think the Democrats are much better in goverment, and to honest they give America a much better image around the world than the Republicans. The Bush era did severe damage to America's image to be honest. Those 8 years were a complete farce, and if it wasn't for his brother in Florida who stole him the election in 2000 he would never have been elected. The last true Republican left in the US was Ron Paul, and look at the way he was treated by his party. Mitt Romney will get in and we'll get more wars, oil stealing, prisoner torture, and all that crap back over again, and Americans will be back living in fear because their goverment will tell them how dangerous and bad the world is blah blah blah blah........

The only people that like the Republicans are brain washed crazy Americans, chicken-hawks, the 1%, and FOX News.

Long live the memory of JFK. America's last true president. End the Federal Reserve. End the Wars, and give American's back their freedom.

What a whole lot of people in Ireland do not realise is that an US election is not about 'America's image around the world'
It about matters that matter to Americans, the domestic economy, security, education, etc etc.
So even though Obama may have a 'rock star' persona in Europe, it's matter noting when it come to what US voters are concerned with.

Oh and by the way even though Obama is a Noble Peace Prize winner he has still managed to oversee drone strikes against countries like Yemen and Pakistan

Amerika

"And I will — I will never turn Medicare into a voucher."

"No American should ever have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies. They should retire with the care and the dignity they have earned. Yes, we will reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul, but we’ll do it by reducing the cost of health care, not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more. And we will keep the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it, not by turning it over to Wall Street."

That was President Obama at the DNC Convention.

The VERY NEXT DAY, Obama's Human Services Department announced they are launching a pilot program that would shift up to 2 million seniors out of the federal Medicare program and into private health insurance plans overseen by the states.

ONE DAY PROMISE? It must be a new record even for this President. I bet almost no one has heard about this from the mainstream media. :rolleyes:

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

That was President Obama at the DNC Convention.

The VERY NEXT DAY, Obama's Human Services Department announced they are launching a pilot program that would shift up to 2 million seniors out of the federal Medicare program and into private health insurance plans overseen by the states.

ONE DAY PROMISE? It must be a new record even for this President. I bet almost no one has heard about this from the mainstream media. :rolleyes:

Can you give a source on this, I'd be interested in reading more about it.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

Can you give a source on this, I'd be interested in reading more about it.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/obama-more-flexible-on-medicare-than-rhetoric-suggests-20120908

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

That was President Obama at the DNC Convention.

The VERY NEXT DAY, Obama's Human Services Department announced they are launching a pilot program that would shift up to 2 million seniors out of the federal Medicare program and into private health insurance plans overseen by the states.

ONE DAY PROMISE? It must be a new record even for this President. I bet almost no one has heard about this from the mainstream media. :rolleyes:

Amerika wrote: »

http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/obama-more-flexible-on-medicare-than-rhetoric-suggests-20120908

It would be nice if you didn't misrepresent what is actually going on here.

According to the article that you posted here, the seniors in question are the ones that are old enough to qualify for Medicare, but poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Medicare is administered by the federal government, while Medicaid is administered by states (who are reimbursed in part by the federal government). Because these 'dual eligibility' patients are a logistical nightmare, the states have petitioned the federal government to roll them into private managed care plans through Medicaid in order to save money (Medicaid is extremely expensive). The insurers in question already provide services on the Medicare side.

Shifting Medicaid patients into private insurance hasn't always worked, but it is notable that two of the states requesting permission for this policy, Tennessee and Massachusetts, are two of the states that have really tried to ensure that poor people get health insurance. Certainly in Massachusetts' case, the impetus behind the private insurer scheme is that they would rather try to cut costs first before having to cut benefits.

The bottom line is, rolling Medicare patients into privately managed plans isn't the same as a voucher, nor it is forcing individuals to pick up the tab - the states are still doing that. The Obama administration is trying to give the states some leeway to experiment with how they administer very expensive health care programs - something that conservatives are usually howling for.

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

It would be nice if you didn't misrepresent what is actually going on here.

According to the article that you posted here, the seniors in question are the ones that are old enough to qualify for Medicare, but poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Medicare is administered by the federal government, while Medicaid is administered by states (who are reimbursed in part by the federal government). Because these 'dual eligibility' patients are a logistical nightmare, the states have petitioned the federal government to roll them into private managed care plans through Medicaid in order to save money (Medicaid is extremely expensive). The insurers in question already provide services on the Medicare side.

Shifting Medicaid patients into private insurance hasn't always worked, but it is notable that two of the states requesting permission for this policy, Tennessee and Massachusetts, are two of the states that have really tried to ensure that poor people get health insurance. Certainly in Massachusetts' case, the impetus behind the private insurer scheme is that they would rather try to cut costs first before having to cut benefits.

The bottom line is, rolling Medicare patients into privately managed plans isn't the same as a voucher, nor it is forcing individuals to pick up the tab - the states are still doing that. The Obama administration is trying to give the states some leeway to experiment with how they administer very expensive health care programs - something that conservatives are usually howling for.

Yeah it's not exactly the same as a voucher. Just semantics?

Will they be shifting people out of some Medicare benefits or not? If not please explain why not. Be sure to read Senator John D. Rockefeller’s letter to the HHS (clickable in my original link) and particularly the part entitled "Guarantee that dual eligibles retain all the rights and the same access to care as all other Medicare beneficiaries."

And I like what the Obama HHS is doing with this by the way. Maybe he could have lauded this as a bipartisan approach in his convention speech instead of demonizing insurance companies and Wall Street for trying to take away ones Medicare at the hands of evil republicans.

joseph brand

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What a whole lot of people in Ireland do not realise is that an US election is not about 'America's image around the world'
It about matters that matter to Americans, the domestic economy, security, education, etc etc.
So even though Obama may have a 'rock star' persona in Europe, it's matter noting when it come to what US voters are concerned with.

Oh and by the way even though Obama is a Noble Peace Prize winner he has still managed to oversee drone strikes against countries like Yemen and Pakistan

Drone strikes don't put as many US soldiers' lives at risk as say, oh I don't know, invading Iraq or Iran.

This point should be important to US civilians and soldiers.

America's image is far better since Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al left. To think that the US shouldn't care about how the rest of the world views them is silly.

I'm skeptical of a man in the White House who signed up to be a Mormon for a billion years, christened a dead man, hides his taxes, made money off vulnerable companies (layoffs), is a birther and talks like a ventriloquist's dummy.

He couldn't even carry on that tradition his father started concerning tax returns.

The Irish people favour Obama. Considering we've no personal bias/ allegiance to either party, it says a lot about Romney. I suppose life- long Reps will vote for Romney, just because he's not a Dem.

Didn't Clinton say something about how he'd never learned to hate the right as much as the Tea Party had learned to hate Obama, their President?

The world is watching the US election and most people following it support Obama. Even Putin doesn't trust Romney. Putin's no fool. He's an A-hole but he's no dummy.

Fr Tod Umptious

joseph brand wrote: »

Drone strikes don't put as many US soldiers' lives at risk as say, oh I don't know, invading Iraq or Iran.

This point should be important to US civilians and soldiers.

America's image is far better since Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al left. To think that the US shouldn't care about how the rest of the world views them is silly.

I'm skeptical of a man in the White House who signed up to be a Mormon for a billion years, christened a dead man, hides his taxes, made money off vulnerable companies (layoffs), is a birther and talks like a ventriloquist's dummy.

He couldn't even carry on that tradition his father started concerning tax returns.

The Irish people favour Obama. Considering we've no personal bias/ allegiance to either party, it says a lot about Romney. I suppose life- long Reps will vote for Romney, just because he's not a Dem.

Didn't Clinton say something about how he'd never learned to hate the right as much as the Tea Party had learned to hate Obama, their President?

The world is watching the US election and most people following it support Obama. Even Putin doesn't trust Romney. Putin's no fool. He's an A-hole but he's no dummy.

But how American's are viewed overseas is not high on the US electorate list of reason for voting for one over the other.

And the big question for people overseas who were so anti Bush is why do they choose to ignore the drone strikes that Obama carries out, and how on earth could he be give a Nobel Peace prize

I see Desmond Tutu is calling for Bush and Blair to be charged for war crimes, should he not be asking for Obamam to be too ?

Memnoch

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But how American's are viewed overseas is not high on the US electorate list of reason for voting for one over the other.

And the big question for people overseas who were so anti Bush is why do they choose to ignore the drone strikes that Obama carries out, and how on earth could he be give a Nobel Peace prize

I see Desmond Tutu is calling for Bush and Blair to be charged for war crimes, should he not be asking for Obamam to be too ?

I agree that Obama's drone strikes are really unforgivable, especially when they label every male over the age of 15 within the strike radius as automatically a terrorist.

So it really gets my goat when GOP'ers try to label Obama as some kind of far leftie. His economic policies are centre right, his foreign policy firmly right though not far right and his social policies centrist to centre left.

Fr Tod Umptious

Memnoch wrote: »

I agree that Obama's drone strikes are really unforgivable, especially when they label every male over the age of 15 within the strike radius as automatically a terrorist.

So it really gets my goat when GOP'ers try to label Obama as some kind of far leftie. His economic policies are centre right, his foreign policy firmly right though not far right and his social policies centrist to centre left.

Interesting take on it.

What gets on my goat is how the media this side of the world ignore it and laud him as some sort of a real good guy.

Duck Soup

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But how American's are viewed overseas is not high on the US electorate list of reason for voting for one over the other.

And the big question for people overseas who were so anti Bush is why do they choose to ignore the drone strikes that Obama carries out, and how on earth could he be give a Nobel Peace prize

I see Desmond Tutu is calling for Bush and Blair to be charged for war crimes, should he not be asking for Obamam to be too ?

How Americans are viewed overseas may not be high on the US electors' list of reasons to favour a candidate, but national security and the people in the military definitely are. Drone strikes raise a host of issues - international legality, civilian casualties and diplomatic effects amongst them - but they take out targets without putting American lives on the line.

For the first time in 40 years, Republicans are on the defensive on foreign policy. Both Ryan and Romney seem light on familiarity with it. Note as well that the final presidential debate - the last before the election - will be on foreign policy.

joseph brand

Are Republicans unhappy that Obama didn't cease all military activity overseas (Middle East)? I thought that American Conservatives would have lauded the drone strikes, since they carried on from the policies of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld with the added bonus of less US casualties. I can't see the christian right having much sympathy for muslims in Yemen. If anyone should be complaining it should perhaps be the supporters of Obama. I just think it will take time for him to reign in their troops serving abroad in the ME.

Does anyone have a graph or figures for the number of US soldier fatalities under Bush vs Obama? I found one graph here:

I understand that American voters will vote on important issues like the economy, but foreign policy must be up there too. The Vietnam War is a black mark on US history, that doesn't require repeating. Heading off to fight in the desert (Iran) and get blown to bits, shot in the face, have limbs blown off and survive or die, would put the economy, gay marriage and freedom of religion into perspective for the unwilling soldiers and their families.

We've seen how accomplished Romney is, on his recent 'trip' to London. He has the diplomatic skills of a football hooligan and a severe lack of integrity (Bain).

“Mitt Romney wondered aloud whether London was ready for the Olympics, and I think it’s clear that voters in this country wonder aloud whether Mitt Romney is ready for the world, and I think the world is not yet ready for Mitt Romney,” Gibbs said. “Literally to go overseas, stand in the country of our strongest ally, and on Olympics that they’ve been preparing for years for, and question whether or not they’re ready does make you wonder whether or not he’s ready to be commander-in-chief…I’m happy David Cameron had the last word, because I thought it was embarrassing for our country.”

This overseas trip to the capital of their closest ally should have been a breeze but he made a mess of it. Not exactly inspiring.

Oregano_State

One thing that seems to come up again and again when it comes to American voters is how out of touch they are with the outside world.

It was said here a few posts back that most Americans don't care what the world thinks about their choice of president or what that says about them as a people and as a country. This is completely true as far as I can see.

In their schools, they rarely if ever learn about other countries, unless it specifically relates to how that country affected American history. World geography is an almost completely untouched subject.

Their media isn't much better tbh.

I really don't know why it has come to be this way, maybe it's because we're a much smaller country that is naturally more dependent on our ties with our neighbours, but surely the developed world's opinion of how your country is doing should be at least a minor concern?

joseph brand

Oregano_State wrote: »

One thing that seems to come up again and again when it comes to American voters is how out of touch they are with the outside world.

It was said here a few posts back that most Americans don't care what the world thinks about their choice of president or what that says about them as a people and as a country. This is completely true as far as I can see.

In their schools, they rarely if ever learn about other countries, unless it specifically relates to how that country affected American history. World geography is an almost completely untouched subject.

Their media isn't much better tbh.

I really don't know why it has come to be this way, maybe it's because we're a much smaller country that is naturally more dependent on our ties with our neighbours, but surely the developed world's opinion of how your country is doing should be at least a minor concern?

From my own understanding, the US believes that because it is so self sufficient and such a big country it doesn't need to know about the rest of the world. They watch all their own movies (Hollywood) and when it comes to sports, they are very insular. We watch the World Cup, they have the 'World' Series.

I met plenty of Americans who didn't know where Ireland was.

One typical encounter, while I lived in NH, went something like this:

American: "Yo wassup?"
Me: "What's the story?"
American:" Where y'all from?"
Me: "We're from Ireland."
American: "Cool, where's that?"
Me: "Eh, it's in Europe"
American: "Where's that?"
Me: "You know where England is?"
American: "No?"
Me: "It's across the Atlantic. . . ah don't worry about it, catch you later."

Young, uneducated and religious Americans make good soldiers. Especially if they're poor. Just ask missionary Romney and AWOL Bush.

Oregano_State

I had similar experiences when I was there as well. Not quite as bad as that one, but along the same lines.

One fella wondered why my English was so good.

My girlfriend is American, and even though she's been in Ireland for almost 3 years now, her knowlege of world geography is pretty poor, and she is actually interested in the rest of the world.


The whole attidude over there is so insular it's ridiculous. I'd stop short of saying it's some sort of conspiracy to keep the population ignorant though. World news is there if you look for it. But you do have to look for it.

matthew8

In fairness hardly anyone in America feels the need to go outside of the place, so it's natural that they wouldn't be too interested. Besides, the place is fking huge, tons of geography to go through in the States alone. I hear people complaining about their lack of knowledge of Europe, but really the misinformation spread about America over here is ridiculous.

Denerick

matthew8 wrote: »

the misinformation spread about America over here is ridiculous.

Such as?

I understand that Americans live in a vast country, but I'd wager that more Europeans could tell you what state Los Angeles is in that Americans could say what country Berlin is in.