Thank You, America. - by Nicker
CCCToad on 7/11/2012 at 23:35
Quote Posted by blaydes99
I'm still trying to figure out why Hugo Chavez wanted Obama to be re-elected. Since Chavez hates the U.S. so much, I figure he at might like Obama because then he doesn't feel the typical U.S. pressure aimed at him as in the past.
Doubt that's it. I'm not familiar with our current relations with Chavez (news has been very quiet on that front), but given Obama's track record of an extremely aggressive foreign policy I doubt that is it. It's possible that Obama is hyper-focusing on the Middle East and ignoring Chavez for the time being.
blaydes99 on 7/11/2012 at 23:40
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Doubt that's it. I'm not familiar with our current relations with Chavez (news has been very quiet on that front), but given Obama's track record of an extremely aggressive foreign policy I doubt that is it. It's possible that Obama is hyper-focusing on the Middle East and ignoring Chavez for the time being.
Yeah, you're probably right. It seems like Chavez is happy when the U.S. lets him do his thing.
CCCToad on 8/11/2012 at 00:03
Quote Posted by blaydes99
Yeah, you're probably right. It seems like Chavez is happy when the U.S. lets him do his thing.
It still seems odd though. A lot of Obama's policies (both his foreign policy and domestic energy policies) seem as if they are designed to ensure OPEC's continued hegimony. Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would seriously undercut it, because then we would be unable to coerce them with the threat of a ground invasion. Chavez is also a threat to OPEC's energy hegemony so it is bizarre that Obama is not acting more aggressively against Chavez. Perhaps Iran is seen as the more pressing priority?
Pyrian on 8/11/2012 at 00:20
Quote Posted by heywood
Health care is
exactly the kind of thing that works with an insurance-based model. I suppose you could take routine care out of it, but everything else fits the insurance model perfectly. Even fully nationalized systems like the British NHS operate under the principles of insurance.
What exactly do you mean by an insurance model?
Insurance companies are naturally risk averse. In many cases this is a wonderful thing: a lot of "regulation" some companies work under have nothing to do with the government and everything to do with the requirements of their insurance policy. The problem with applying this sort of reasoning to health insurance is usually referred to as the "pre-existing condition" issue, although that's not necessarily the only case it comes up for, it's a very common one. "Insurance" is not meant to cover known costs, that's not an insurance model at all, once you require that pre-existing conditions be covered I think you're moving into the realm of socialized medicine.
blaydes99 on 8/11/2012 at 00:22
Quote Posted by CCCToad
It still seems odd though. A lot of Obama's policies (both his foreign policy and domestic energy policies) seem as if they are designed to ensure OPEC's continued hegimony. Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would seriously undercut it, because then we would be unable to coerce them with the threat of a ground invasion. Chavez is also a threat to OPEC's energy hegemony so it is bizarre that Obama is not acting more aggressively against Chavez. Perhaps Iran is seen as the more pressing priority?
Yes, I think many would agree with your theory, though perhaps this is because Obama and his staff feel that OPEC's dominance is "supposedly" waning with all the claims of oil and green energy here in the states (and abroad). Chavez is such a loose cannon that it's hard to say what to expect, but perhaps the international community will just let him fizzle out as long as he doesn't ruffle too many feathers
outside of Venezuela.
faetal on 8/11/2012 at 00:28
Quote Posted by Brethren
You misunderstood what I said. I'm not questioning the inequality in income, that's a much bigger topic with tons of possible questions and answers. I've never even heard of the Gini coefficient until now, but when I just looked it up on Wikipedia, about a third of the article discusses it's weaknesses and limitations, so that's not exactly iron clad either.
I was only arguing that there are opportunities out there. Whether people are taking advantage of them or not is a different story altogether, and that more directly factors into the income inequality issue.
It's not iron clad sure, which means there is wobble on precisely what it says about income inequality, but that doesn't make it worthless or mean that it says nothing, it just means that it might not track with 100% accuracy. The other 2 income inequality coefficients do different things and have different shortfalls, but they all seem to show an small variation of the same conclusion. The fact that Gini coefficient has trended upwards in most developed countries since the '70s, nowhere worse than the US, when global capitalism shifted up gears says something. The fact that Gini coefficient seems to correlate pretty closely to crime also, says something. It's not iron clad, but it is stronger than any individual or even group's personal view of whether or not there are equal opportunities to be had for ALL people. The trouble with the right wing mindset (which I'm not saying you have, I'm tying this back into the thread now) is that it is based on idealism and tends to ignore basic population dynamics. Sure there are opportunities and sure, they are open to all. But when the number of all is greater than the number of opportunities, what does the "only the strong survive" mindset do with that shortfall? These business leaders who are revered, tend to amass fortunes by e.g. slowing wage increases, off-shoring jobs, avoiding taxes, cutting employee benefits etc... Only the bottom line matters and you have the bizarre situation where the richest nation on earth has people working 3 jobs so they can afford the car to get to job 2, which they need so they can eat as well as pay rent. A country where the highest cause of personal insolvency is medical debt and where >80% of those insolvencies are people who bought insurance. The reason the rest of the world is cheering Obama winning isn't because of foreign policy, it's because it is nice to see the self-appointed leader of the free world acting slightly on the sane side. Obama is far from perfect, but Romney going in just would have looked like a turn for the worse.
june gloom on 8/11/2012 at 01:09
Quote Posted by CCCToad
accusation of playing the race card
Hahahaha,
no. Blaydes is an unabashed racist who's not afraid to show it. Calling him out on that is
not playing the race card. It's calling him out on his racism.
You're still the worst poster ever though.
blaydes99 on 8/11/2012 at 01:24
The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.
Nuth on 8/11/2012 at 01:28
Quote Posted by blaydes99
The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
Didn't Vaclav Havel or Lech Walesa say something similar to that?
blaydes99 on 8/11/2012 at 01:32
Quote Posted by Nuth
Didn't Vaclav Havel or Lech Walesa say something similar to that?
Could be. I unfortunately do not have the source to properly cite this quote but I'm interested in finding out.
