Current or modern politics in the United States

[richardoe]

I don't know about the USA but here in Britain the state old age pension is funded from general government funding. The government doesn't have a fund marked "old age pensions" sitting in its coffers, in fact at anyone time theres only two weeks worth of pension money available.

[9876543210]

richardoe,

Originally Posted by richardoe

I don't know about the USA but here in Britain the state old age pension is funded from general government funding. The government doesn't have a fund marked "old age pensions" sitting in its coffers, in fact at anyone time theres only two weeks worth of pension money available.

Again, an area I'm not real comfortable with but its my understanding the US keeps its Social Security funds segregated. And there is enough money in those accounts to go quite far out into the future. I'm pretty sure I heard recently the Social Security trust fund is liguid until sometime in the 2040's.

Of course, the Republicons will tell you thats untrue and that its due to destruct next month (or maybe the month after that; hard to tell with those idiots).

The main problem the trust fund has is politicians (from both sides) raiding the fund for whatever they need. I've heard the fund now is mainly packed with IOU's.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by savage560

Right about a few things there.But I believe monikers like the ones you give of "conservative", "liberal" really are subjective & painted too broad a brush.If you think I'm not liberal enough for Britain,well I believe that your NHC sys. should be implemented here,so is that too conservative on that ground for you? [snip]

A lot of issues here go beyond the scope of liberal or conservative too,they are the issues of common sense & rational laws.Like when ,I think a Brit, & maybe a few Americans too, told me that Latinos who live anywhere ,in this hemisphere?, I presume, have the right to invade our country,illegally, & they have more of a "right" to be here than I,a natural born law abiding citizen (well most of the time)of the US!That IMO is not an issue of liberal vs. conservative but one of common sense & law.If that would be advocated WW,we'd have no countries, & chaos would ensue.

I was confronted by a few who stated this, & that in Texas here,for instance,it was erroniously mentioned, that the US took this area illegally by war with Mexico.Nothing is further from the truth.Texas had seceeded from Mexico & formed its own country,that latter elected to join the US.There were a large amount of ethnic Mexicans there at that time that joined this revolt, side by side fighting with ex American citizens,who lived there then,that lead to a formation of a new country.Conversely there were some Europeans living there ,mostly Irish who fought to retain Mexican rule, maybe felt a sort of identity with their Catholic brethren?Thats not lib. vs cons. but fact vs a non truth. [snip]

Now in the South,well admiting the ACW is over may have to be their first baby step.Then realizing we are not still living in the 19th century can be a second.

One should point out that you are generalising about the South just a tad. I am aware that it is known for being a deeply conservative region, but you make it seem a bit like Deliverence or Southern Comfort and this is a slightly exaggerated view. I met two young ladies from the South of the United States in 2008 and found both of them to be very intelligent and friendly, good natured people. They certainly held conservative political views (conservative as I would understand the term, as opposed to neo-liberal) but I didn't find anything offensive or unreasonable in their thinking. One of them was from Texas and we would certainly have disagreed had we discussed gun control, but so what? She didn't have two heads or anything. The other young lady was extremely pretty; she also had that Southern accent as well, which is just ridiculously sexy. She also was a card-carrying Republican and a genuinely charming and good natured person, which is not a contradiction in terms.

I have to accept that you don't like the South very much, but other views of this region and of its population are possible. Cut them some slack, Savage; as someone (was it you, 9876543210?) has already pointed out, the demographics of places such as Texas are changing and the younger generation is nothing like as socially conservative as the older generation, who in the very nature of things will be turning up their toes over the next 10-25years. Unless they adjust to this change, the Republican Party will find itself out in the cold, even in its traditional heartlands.

As you very rightly point out, most people are not liberal or conservative in all areas, but mostly liberal or mostly conservative with a mixture of views and positions. In your case:

• You support a single-payer universal healthcare model. In the USA this tends to place you as a liberal, and indeed most Democrats would disagree with this idea, at least for now. But in Britain we have had this since 1948 and the concept is almost unanimously supported, on the right as well as the left. There are fierce disputes about how it should be organised, but very few politicians would dare to challenge the idea of a National Health Service. So there's nothing in anything you say about healthcare which most British conservatives would be troubled by at all.
• I have the impression that you are inclined to be protectionist and to oppose free trade agreements. This has always been a traditonal strand of thinking in British conservatism; if you had been born and raised in the UK you would almost certainly have become a "Little Englander"; Baroness Thatcher was one of these. I don't see you as likely to have been pro-European Union or in favour of Britain adopting the Euro as her currency. As an American poster, you have consistently argued in favour of American economic policy being controlled within America and designed to further the interests of Americans. In the UK, people with these basic guiding principles rarely vote Labour or Liberal Democrat.
• You have firm views on immigration control; this is definitely a conservative staple in the UK. Labour talked about controlling immigration but under their government the Home Office virtually abandoned border controls. When unionised British engineering and construction workers organised a picket and demonstration outside an oil refinery in Lincolnshire in 2009 to protest that hundreds of workers were being brought in from Italy to do jobs for which British workers with the correct skills and experience were not even being allowed to apply, the Labour government dismissed the protests as "zenophobia" (read racists and bigots) and only changed their tune when the media coverage revealed that the company, French petroleum company Total Sarl, were advertising their vacancies in Italy and concealing them from local Job Centres, to make sure British workers were not able to apply. What I took away from this story was that the Labour Party were not interested in listening, until the story became an embarrassment; left to themselves they had no intention of standing up for Brtish workers. This is a good example of neo-liberalism, which is the heir of 1960s-70s corporatism, when idiots used to say things like "What's good for Big Business is good for the Country!" Big Business is Monsanto, Union Carbide and BP and people such as they.

Obviously they were taking advantage of an opportunity to grandstand, but it was the British Conservative Party which took sides with the British workers in this dispute.

That was not enough for Conservative leader David Cameron. "There are legitimate questions to be asked of this company," he told reporters in Davos. "If it is disqualifying British workers from applying for jobs, then that is illegal. But the prime minister should never have used that slogan. [The slogan was "British jobs for British workers."] On the one hand he lectures everyone about globalisation and on the other he borrows this slogan from the BNP. He has been taking people for fools and has been found out.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...e-oil-refinery

• You have supported the principle of a contributory healthcare model. The ACA is strongly rooted in the contributory principle: nothing is for nothing. The UK healthcare system is free at the point of supply and paid for out of taxation. There is something to be said for the principle of contributions; when a service is provided for free people value it less than they do if they have to help to pay for it. It is a hard truth that the better you treat people, the worse they behave. But your support for the ACA contributory principle would certainly be seen as conservative over here.

What you say about the history of Texas is interesting but I think many historians argue that the United States had its fingerprints all over Sam Houston's rebellion against Mexico, motivated partly by the wish of many Texans to own slaves, contrary to the laws of Mexco. I think at least some of the Europeans who sided with Mexico thought themselves honour bound to defend Mexico because they signed up to be Mexican citizens, not American citizens. If your new country gave you land and the means of life when you had nothing, that means you have a debt to pay when your new country is being attacked by its neighbour. The Mexicans definitely thought Uncle Sam was stealing their territory and told the United States that if it annexed Texas, regarded by Mexico as a rebel province, Mexico would declare war. This was the reason for the 1848 Mexican-American War. I agree with the analysis that the USA illegally seized Mexican territory in a war of bare faced thievery; but that happened a long time ago. It is a fact that Texas is part of the USA now and talk of how this happened is of academic interest only.

[9876543210]

scoundrel,

Originally Posted by scoundrel

One should point out that you are generalising about the South just a tad. I am aware that it is known for being a deeply conservative region, but you make it seem a bit like Deliverence or Southern Comfort and this is a slightly exaggerated view.

Gonna have to back up Savage a little bit here. Most of the south today is worlds away from what it was in the 1800s. But there are areas (virtually always rural) where, when you get there, you'd swear they're still fighting the Civil War.

Haven't been there in quite a while but spent a year traveling around the south in the very early 80s and really couldn't believe some of the places I found myself in. Places I remember being especially active with this philosophy would be most of the state of South Carolina, northern Florida, eastern Tennessee, and most all of Alabama and Mississippi.

A brief story about the south. I had a few days off so I decided to visit the city/battlefield of Vicksburg, Mississippi. For those that don't know, Vicksburg may have been the most important battle of the western campaign in the Civil War. Anyway, spent most of the day checking out the battlefield and museums and decided to head west to get to the next town I needed to be at.

Some miles west of Vicksburg I saw a sign for hams so, knowing my grandfather loved this style of southern ham, I stopped in to pick one up. When I stepped out of that car it was like stepping back in time 100 years. I was on an old plantation mainly populated by blacks with virtually no education. They were very nice to me, especially when they saw my "Yankee" license plates. I talked with several that had never been farther away from the plantation then the town about 5 miles down the road.

I had a really good time talking with them. Bought the ham and had them send it to him up here and then had to go. After I left and I'm driving down the road I just couldn't shake the feeling I'd just had some kind of Twilight Series moment.

There are places down there that are just really, really different.

I met two young ladies from the South of the United States in 2008 and found both of them to be very intelligent and friendly, good natured people. They certainly held conservative political views (conservative as I would understand the term, as opposed to neo-liberal) but I didn't find anything offensive or unreasonable in their thinking. One of them was from Texas and we would certainly have disagreed had we discussed gun control, but so what? She didn't have two heads or anything. The other young lady was extremely pretty; she also had that Southern accent as well, which is just ridiculously sexy.

Did you meet them in London? If so, then, more than likely, they were from urban areas of the South. I will definitely agree that those accents, and this coyness some of them have, is really sexy.

I have to accept that you don't like the South very much, but other views of this region and of its population are possible. Cut them some slack, Savage; as someone (was it you, 9876543210?) has already pointed out, the demographics of places such as Texas are changing....

I don't think that was me.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I think many former natural republicans, who would once have supported Nixon-Ford (let alone Eisenhower), had they been old enough, are now "fiscally conservative Democrats". What do you think?

Well, that's me . . . I cast my first vote for George H.W. Bush, also voted for Senator Mac Matthias. I would vote for similar Republicans, if they were around. I certainly liked Mitt Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts . . . I was less enthused by the Presidential candidate of the same name.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Never mind about individuals; as a general philosophical point this is interesting. I happen to think that the USA is the most conservative of all the world's true democracies; it is your left who are an endangered species. In the UK, you yourself (Savage too) would be considered conservatives. But in the sense you mean, it is noticeable that your political boundaries have changed. I think many former natural republicans, who would once have supported Nixon-Ford (let alone Eisenhower), had they been old enough, are now "fiscally conservative Democrats". What do you think?

I think I've already posted once about how many of the initial colonists and immigrants to what became the US were fundamentalist religious looney-toons who came here because they felt the religious wars of the Renaissance weren't going far enough. Given that early influence it is going to take more than a short few hundred years for many of their descendants to re-connect with reality. Its those descendants that skew American politics so far towards "conservative".

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

One should point out that you are generalising about the South just a tad. I am aware that it is known for being a deeply conservative region, but you make it seem a bit like Deliverence or Southern Comfort and this is a slightly exaggerated view. I met two young ladies from the South of the United States in 2008 and found both of them to be very intelligent and friendly, good natured people.

Regarding the "character" of the American South, is there any part of the UK that could inspire a movie like Deliverance? During a road trip a few years back I visited Charleston, SC. They have a naval military museum there with one of the larger collections of decommissioned USN ships. They still celebrate the attack on Fort Sumter and are proud of starting the Civil War. Frankly I couldn't avoid the feeling that if they thought they could get away with it they'd secede again as fast as they could. One of the more common bumper stickers in that museum's gift shop was one that says "Confederate by choice, Union by force" with an armed cartoon hill-billy. The major cities in the south are more cosmopolitan than the rest of the area but they have a lot less political influence than is true in the rest of the country.

As for the nature of the two ladies you meet, I'd say there is strong "selection bias". The kind of religious, bigoted, conservatives the area is known for would not be caught dead outside the US unless they are in the military and actively fighting the locals.

[9876543210]

DTravel,

Me thinks you are right on the money with that last post!


Found these two articles of interest. I think Rachel pointed me to the first:

Repbulicons! Such men of moral character? NOT!

27 Republicon Senators who voted to avert the debt limit fiasco have now had another vote to say, NO! We didn't mean it! We want our vote back! We want to go over the cliff!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...e-debt-ceiling

Jeez, with backbones like that these guys really should be jellyfish. Makes me wonder whats going to happen in February when we do this all over again.

And ya gotta love this headline:

House GOPer: Many Republicans Don't Live In 'Political Reality'

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...itical-reality

Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA) thinks that many Republicans in Congress do not live in a "political reality."
Rigell, a moderate Republican, opposed shutting down the government over an attempt to defund Obamacare and told The Hill in an interview published Tuesday that forcing a government shutdown "over a deep matter of principle" did not make sense.

I was wrong! I admit it! There is at least one Republican with at least a modicum of common sense. About as rare as dodo birds nowadays.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by DTravel

I think I've already posted once about how many of the initial colonists and immigrants to what became the US were fundamentalist religious looney-toons who came here because they felt the religious wars of the Renaissance weren't going far enough. Given that early influence it is going to take more than a short few hundred years for many of their descendants to re-connect with reality. Its those descendants that skew American politics so far towards "conservative".

Migh it also be a matter of American folk memory? America is a frontier nation by heritage, built in relatively recent times, and through struggle and hard work. I read The Litte House on the Prairie etc etc. Government was both remote and untrustworthy, and indivduals looked after themselves, and neighbours looked after each other and elected their own peace officers. In the USA I think the spirit of self-reliance is strong; this is one of the USA's greatest strengths. It is a natural conservative trait. Your poliitical life will always tend to reflect the disposition of the voters. You might well end up with a universal single payer healthcare service:

America will always do the right thing...after she has exhausted all the alternatives first ~ Winston Churchill.

But I suspect it will never be quite like the British one and that may not be a bad thing either. Our model has serious faults too and you might very well end up creating something better. Certainly, we are insufficiently defended against freeloaders, health-tourists and abuse of the system. I have a suspicion that any American system would give a great deal of thought to who should and who shouldn't be allowed to benefit.

[9876543210]

I find it really hard to describe this Tennessee Republicon tea bagging Congressman as anything other than hypocritical scum.

Meet Congressman Stephen Fincher, a god botherer if there ever was one. He's just full of all kinds of neat sayings straight out of the bible. And his favorite thing to do right now? Get rid of food stamps.

From Forbes (a very left wing magazine):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...arm-subsidies/

Appearing this past weekend at a gathering at a Memphis Holiday Inn, Fincher explained his position on food stamps by stating, “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity is to take care of each other, but not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country.”

The Congressman’s remarks come on the heels of his taking the biblical route when responding to Representative Juan Vargas’ (D-Calif.) somewhat different take on the teachings of Jesus. During a recent House Agriculture Committee debate over the Farm Bill (which contains the food stamp budget), Vargas, citing the Book of Matthew, noted, “[Jesus] says how you treat the least among us, the least of our brothers, that’s how you treat him.”

Vargas also noted that Jesus directly mentions the importance of feeding the hungry.

Not to be outdone by a Godless Democrat, Congressman Fincher responded with his own Bible quote taken from the Book of Thessalonians—“The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

OK, so the Congressman doesn't like people that aren't at least millionaire's and wants to starve the poor, thats just typical Republican.

The really interesting part is that this same Congressman is:

the second largest recipient of farm subsidies in the United States Congress—which might explain why Mr. Fincher would like to decimate the food stamp budget in order to do the Lord’s work when “supporting a proposal to expand crop insurance by $9 billion over the next 10 years.”

So, the guy is very happy to cut the $139 per month which the average Food Stamp recipient gets every month. But, he then supports a $9 billion increase in crop insurance? Why is that?

Turns out, according to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group:

USDA data collected in EWG’s (Environmental Working Group) 2013 farm subsidy database update — going live tomorrow –shows that Fincher collected a staggering $3.48 million in “our” money from 1999 to 2012. In 2012 alone, the congressman was cut a government check for a $70,000 direct payment. Direct payments are issued automatically, regardless of need, and go predominantly to the largest, most profitable farm operations in the country.

Ironic, isn't it? A typical Republicon tea bagger. The guy receives $3.48 million from the taxpayer in about 13 years but he then has the balls to complain about people that receive $139 per month??? Lets see, who's costing more here? A little math should help.

First, 13 years x 12 months = 156 months
Then $ 3,480,000 / 156 = $22,307.69 per month.

And Republicons and tea baggers wonder why people dislike them so much?