The Republican Party's political suicide

by Shirina Sun Dec 11, 2011 5:38 pm

First topic message reminder :

As I'm sure many here know, Texas governor Rick Perry is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. Fortunately he has fallen to subterranean levels as far as approval rates are concerned, but the Republicans as a whole are going to feel the sting of this political advertisement aired by Governor Perry. It's enough to make you blink and ask, "Did he really say that?" You might have to watch it more than once to verify that, yes, he really DID say that. Take a look:

It's not often that someone can squeeze in so many inaccurate statements into a 30 second soundbite, but Rick Perry managed to give it a good go. Let's start.

He begins by saying, "I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian." The implication here is that, despite Christians being the overwhelming majority in America, Christians are ashamed of their religion. Or, more accurately, that non-Christians are making Christians feel ashamed of being one. The evangelical and fundamentalist brand of Christianity are always looking for excuses to claim they are being persecuted since that is one of the tenants of their faith. Few things on earth are as noble as suffering in defense of Christ and Christianity, but it's pretty damned difficult to suffer and be persecuted when you're an 85% majority and pretty much call all of the shots (how many non-Christian presidents have there been?). As a result, whenever Christians don't get their own way (which is rare), they whine, stomp, and boohoo into their beers; more importantly, they scream of being persecuted against. "See, God? Look at me! I'm suffering for you! Are you watching this?" Rick Perry is grandstanding for the Christians, and it is thoroughly distasteful.

Moving on, he says, "You don't have to be in a pew every Sunday to know there is something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

There has always been a paradox with Republicans: They love our troops but hate gays. So how do they feel about gay troops? The question then becomes: Do they hate gays more than they love the troops? Rick Perry answers that question. For MOST people, regardless of political ideology, the fact that a person is a member of the armed forces putting themselves in harms way comes first. That is paramount. Whether they are gay, Christian, Muslim, straight, or whatever else they may be comes in at a very distant second. This is being perceived as an attack on the troops, for it matters more to Perry that a soldier is gay than it does a gay being a soldier. Iraqi insurgents and roadside IEDs do not inquire about their victims' sexual orientation before pulling the trigger or exploding, and the majority of Americans know that. If his message had been about gay marriage, he may have had more traction, but focusing on gays in the military, well, he blew it.

The second part is just absolute nonsense. Children can't openly celebrate Christmas? When did that happen? Republicans using fear and hyperbole to terrify the population into voting for them is nothing new, but these days they are well past hyperbole and into baldfaced lies. Some corporations (not the government) may be telling their employees to wish customers "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" but that's a long, LONG ways from kids having to open their presents in a secret room in the basement because Christmas can't be celebrated openly. If Perry is waiting for an American version of Anne Frank's Diary where a young girl is caught celebrating Christmas by Obama's gestapo, he better settle in for a very long wait, indeed.

The third part is just another lie. Kids can pray in school. There are no laws or rules saying they can't. What the Republicans want, however, is a teacher-led sermon and children chanting their prayers in unison as part of the daily school routine. There are no pulpits in a public school classroom, and there's a reason for that. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing any particular religion, and Christians are obviously not hoping for generic prayers ("Which God are we praying to, teacher?") or prayers to non-Christian gods. Gee, I wonder what's left?

Next, he says, "As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion and I'll fight against liberal attacks on our Christian heritage."

First of all, there is no war on religion. This is Perry's third baldfaced lie uttered in a 30 second advertisement. There has not been one single piece of legislation - not a single one - out of Obama's office that can even be construed as a "war" on religion. No, Obama not mentioning God during his Thanksgiving speech doesn't count. It's amazing how a candidate for president can have the temerity to boldly proclaim something so utterly untrue on national television, but there it is. Anything to stir up Christians who are already looking for liberal persecution under every rock and behind every tree. What they should be looking for is truth and honesty from their leaders.

Finally, he concludes with, "Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again."

Every nation on the planet with the same degree of religiosity as America is essentially a Third World cesspool. America is an aberration, a statistical anomaly, for it would seem America is strong despite our faith, not because of it.

by Stox 16 Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:34 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
If I know about you well enough to disagree with you, that's better than Romney to me.
Shirina wrote:
Hello, Rock:

I have to strongly disagree with your logic here.

Do you remember that old game show "Let's Make A Deal?" Imagine if you were on the show and had to choose between two doors. Behind Door #1 you KNOW for a fact is a pile of horse manure. You have no idea what's behind Door #2. It could be horse manure, but it could be a new car or a dream vacation. Now, which one of those doors would you pick? Your logic suggests that you would rather pick the horse manure because at least you know you'd be getting it rather than risk getting something much better.

Or ... better the guarantee of garbage than the chance of treasure.

The analogy breaks down with these two assumptions: (1) the assumption that Rick Santorum is hiding something behind his door; (2) the assumption that the contents behind his door are horse manure.

Two truths: Money doesn’t grow on trees, and money doesn’t fall out of the sky. Everything that we don’t have costs money, and thus provisions to provide what we don’t have involve figuring out how to pay for those things.

My mouthy health insurance hit is six hundred dollars ($600.00) per month, seven thousand two hundred dollars ($7,200.00) per year, with significant co-pays at both medical facilities (clinics, etc.) and pharmacies. If I had no out-of-pocket costs, that’s a whole slew of money I could have invested elsewhere.

Slightly left field, you’ve not seen me complain about the health care itself because that part is just fine. I’ve no complaints whatsoever about the quality of care I receive.

NHS, according to those who’ve responded to my requests for information thereof, cost Brits nothing out of pocket, but they pay at the “FICA” line, similar to how we pay for social security, so NHS is not free. Canadian universal heath care, according to a patient lady at the Ontario tax agency with whom I spoke a few weeks ago, cost at the “FICA” line and “at the pump” via the “Harmonized Tax”, similar to our sales tax, of thirteen percent (13%), a significant portion of which goes to fund universal health care. By comparison, people in Virginia Beach complain about paying ten percent (10%) at the pump, so they routinely bebop across Va. Beach city limit lines and shop in Norfolk, where the sales tax is maybe two percent lower. Once again, Canadian universal health care isn’t free.

Another thing the Ontario tax lady told me is that Ontarians have no choice in the “FINA” line; the money comes out before the remainder gets into their hands. There is no choice.

Rick Santorum addresses these issues straight out. He’s hiding nothing behind any doors. I know that you disagree with him, but it’s not over horse manure, it’s over funding universal health care. I hear the protests before I send this and you read this, because you don’t mention the money issue, but the money issue is there the moment you mention universal health care, because it’s not free in the UK, it’s not free in Canada, and it would not be free in the US.

How much are you willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump? How much am I willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump? How willing are some Americans to have no choice, as Ontarians have no choice, in the “FICA” line? These are money issues, and Santorum doesn’t duck them.

Romney, on the other hand, ducks all of them. He criticizes Obama but does not state where he stands. That’s all I need to know about Romney, as it was all I needed to know about Bachmann, a lady whose expertise in one area I respect but who negates this respect by having only one response to all questions: “Obama.”

I can and do respect people with whom I vehemently disagree as long as they are straight up about what they believe and why the believe. I find Santorum to be in this category.

I would like the honor of voting against Rick Santorum in November. It would be an honor because I would know where he stands, where I agree with him, and where I disagree with him. I would have a choice, and given current circumstances, I would not choose him while respecting the man I did not choose.

In stark contrast, given Romney’s duplicitous non-answers to straight out questions, I doubt that my current deep disrespect for Romney will change anytime soon. That disrespect started for me with his non-answer to a direct question I first saw on YouTube in 2007, when he tap-danced around a question regarding his religion’s historic stance on Black Folks. I’ve posted the YouTube video on this forum before.

Rock here is the UK Spending on the NHS

HISTORY OF NHS SPENDING

At the beginning of the 20th century, government spent about 0.5 percent of GDP on health. But spending began to increase in 1909 after passage of the National Insurance Act, reaching 1.14 percent of GDP in 1921.
Health spending increased steadily in the 1920s and 1930s reaching 1.91 percent of GDP at the start of World War II. Spending kept steady during the war and then increased briskly after the war, reaching 3.07 percent just before the National Health Service was set up in 1948.
Costs rose sharply in the early years of the NHS, reaching 3.6 percent of GDP by 1950 and then dropping to 3.0 percent of GDP by 1955. Spending increased steadily after the mid 1950s, running at about 3.5 percent of GDP in the early 1960s and increasing to 4.0 percent of GDP by 1970 and peaking at 4.98 percent of GDP in 1975.
Health spending declined in the late 1970s, down to 4.7 percent of GDP in 1979 and increased thereafter, reaching 5.64 percent of GDP in 1983 before beginning a decline to 5.16 percent in 1988. Then spending jolted upwards, reaching 6.31 percent of GDP by 1993 before a steep decline to 4.91 percent of GDP in 1998.

Spending began increasing sharply after 1999, and is expected to reach a planned expenditures of 8.43 percent of GDP in 2010.
HM Treasury 2012

Its the best thing we ever did..when we set up the NHS..its a free service for all...its also great value for money...

The National Health Service or NHS is the publicly funded healthcare system in England. It is both the largest and oldest single-payer healthcare system in the world. It is able to function in the way that it does because it is primarily funded through the general taxation system, in a similar fashion to the funding model for fire departments, police departments, and primary schools. The system provides healthcare to anyone normally legally resident in England, and also any other part of the United Kingdom (should a person from another UK area be travelling in England, for example), with almost all services free at the point of use for all such people.

The idea of the NHS being free at the point of use is contained in its core principles from the original NHS set-up, which are non-negotiable at their root but have variously been open to some interpretation over the years. In practice, "free at the point of use" normally means that anyone legitimately fully registered with the system (i.e. in possession of an NHS number), including UK citizens and legal immigrants, can access the full breadth of critical and non-critical medical care without any out-of-pocket payment of any kind. Some specific NHS services are fee-for-service: since 1948, patients have been charged for services associated with eye tests, dental care, prescriptions, and aspects of long-term care. However, these charges are often lower than equivalent services provided by a private health care provider.

In addition to the range of medical services available to legal residents and citizens of the UK, the NHS also provides free emergency care to those within UK borders, regardless of their legal status or national origin. People of questionable legal status or a different national origin who do not have the legal right to be in the UK long-term — including legitimate travellers and tourists from abroad — are not entitled to the full NHS, but are entitled to emergency care in an accident and emergency department without having to pay.

The NHS has further agreed a formal constitution which sets out the legal rights and responsibilities of the NHS, its staff, and users of the service and makes additional non-binding pledges regarding many key aspects of its operations

The English NHS is controlled by the UK government through the Department of Health (DH), which takes political responsibility for the service. Parliament has devolved management locally to ten Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs), which oversee all NHS operations, particularly the Primary Care Trusts, in their areas. These are coterminous with the nine Government Office Regions for the most part, with the South East region split into South East Coast and South Central SHAs.
There are a number of types of regional NHS trust:
NHS primary care trusts (PCTs), administer primary care and public health. On 1 October 2006 the number of PCTs was reduced from 303 to 152 in an attempt to bring services closer together and cut costs. PCTs oversee 29,000 GPs and 18,000 NHS dentists. In addition, they commission services from other NHS Trusts and from the private and voluntary sectors, provide primary care in their locations, and oversee such matters as primary and secondary prevention, vaccination administration and control of epidemics. PCTs control 80 per cent of the total NHS budget
NHS hospital trusts and NHS foundation trusts administer hospitals, treatment centres and specialist care in around 1,600 NHS hospitals (some trusts run between 2 and 8 different hospital sites)

NHS ambulance services trusts
NHS care trusts, providing both health and social care services
NHS mental health services trusts, specialising in managing and treating mental illness, including by the use of involuntary commitment powers
Some services are provided at a national level:
www.nhs.uk is the primary public-facing NHS website, providing comprehensive official information on services, treatments, conditions, healthy living and current health topics
NHS Direct provides telephone and email support services
NHS special health authorities provide various types of services

by Guest Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:34 am

Stox 16 wrote:
Spending… is expected to reach a planned expenditures of 8.43 percent of GDP in 2010.

That’s a significant investment, particularly as GDP is a far greater number than total tax revenue. I suspect the percentage of tax revenue spent on NHS is significantly higher than 8.43 percent.

Stox 16 wrote:
It is both the largest and oldest single-payer healthcare system in the world. It is able to function in the way that it does because it is primarily funded through the general taxation system, in a similar fashion to the funding model for fire departments, police departments, and primary schools.

… its a free service for all..

… with almost all services free at the point of use for all [users]…

… its also great value for money…

It’s not a free service for all. As your documentation shows, legal residents and citizens of the UK, most of whom I suspect pay some sort of income tax, pay for this service.

Free at the point of origin is more accurate. I’ve experienced that on but one extended occasion, when the comprehensive health care service chosen by my employer, under some circumstances provided free-at-the-point-of-origin comprehensive services to those who, like me, were within the parameters of those circumstances,

Value, or bang-for-buck, is both objective and, in a republic co-owned by We the People thereof, subjective.

Left field for a moment, a republic is any country in which (10 ownership and power belong ultimately to the people, (2) exercise of that power is via a democracy, and (3) the democracy is a representative democracy. Thus, the United Kingdom, defined as a constitutional monarchy, is in fact (de facto) a republic, regardless of its title (“Kingdom) and its definition, while the People’s Republic of China is not a republic, regardless of its title.

Since the UK is a de facto republic, its citizens have an inherent right to weigh in on the value received from, or bang-for-buck of, the NHS. Since you weigh in by who you vote for, and who you vote for comprises the House of Commons, which is the seat of power in the UK, I assume that, since Commons has never acted to dismantle NHS, most UK citizens feel that the NHS is a great value.

Transfer all of that to the US, which does not have an NHS, and you can se where an Obama-Santorum debate could center upon a substantive issue, whether a US version of NHS would be of sufficient value to invest eight plus percent of US GDP therein. Then it would be up to We the People of the US to weigh in on this issue via our votes in November.

That’s a far better scenario than an Obama-Romney debate, wherein I believe Romney’s inherent dishonesty (my opinion) would prelude a debate on substantive topics.

By the way, my minimum yearly health care expenditure is in double figures, the core of which is the $7,200.00 yearly hit from health care insurance, so I could easily support eight plus percent of US GDP going to a US version of NHS>

Stox 16 wrote:
The idea of the NHS being free at the point of use is contained in its core principles from the original NHS set-up, which are non-negotiable at their root…

I like that.

Stox 16 wrote:
In practice, "free at the point of use" normally means that anyone legitimately fully registered with the system (i.e. in possession of an NHS number), including UK citizens and legal immigrants, can access the full breadth of critical and non-critical medical care without any out-of-pocket payment of any kind.

I like that also. I’ve been a tax-paying citizen for quite awhile, so I would be included.

Stox 16 wrote:
… the NHS also provides free emergency care to those within UK borders, regardless of their legal status or national origin. People of questionable legal status or a different national origin who do not have the legal right to be in the UK long-term — including legitimate travellers and tourists from abroad — are not entitled to the full NHS, but are entitled to emergency care in an accident and emergency department without having to pay.

I’m going to try and arrange it so that all of my future emergencies occur within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland!

by Shirina Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:19 pm

(1) the assumption that Rick Santorum is hiding something behind his door

You're taking my analogy too literally here.

(2) the assumption that the contents behind his door are horse manure.

I don't think it's much of an assumption.

How much are you willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump?

I don't think anyone above the age of 12 actually thinks NHS is literally free. Of course we pay in one way or the other. Regardless, NHS is still far and away the better system, which is why every other 1st, 2nd, and even some 3rd world nations use it. Our system is barbaric.

With NHS, your financial situation does not determine whether you receive health care. Rich or poor, employed or unemployed, you receive health care. End of story. You don't have to quake in your boots wondering how your diabetic child is going to receive care if you lose your job; you don't have to worry about whether your insurance covers a kidney transplant, you don't have to worry about NHS cancelling you just because you're costing more money than you're worth. When you go to the doctor's office, you don't see signs on the counter reading, "We require payment in full before services are rendered." If you're disabled, you don't have to hire a LAWYER and fight a costly legal battle to get benefits, and then lose half those benefits as part of the lawyer's commission!

And, the rising cost of health insurance is far outstripping the rising cost of NHS taxes in Europe. How many Brits here ever saw their NHS tax shoot up 40% in one singular increase?

If that weren't enough, how much you pay into NHS depends on your ability to pay. It's not a set amount like it is here, an amount so high that it is literally stifling the economy and bankrupting private citizens. Even businesses are beginning to find themselves unable to offer employees reasonable health care plans. The bottom line is that our system is keeping Americans poor, and its keeping hundreds of billions of dollars out of the general economy - every month!

Our system is all about greed, not health care. What's worse, NOT having NHS has created a sort of "moral imperative" fostered by the right-wing elitists and their deluded followers: If you don't have the $15,000 per year it costs the average family to maintain health insurance, then you don't deserve to live."

But that's not even my major gripe with Santorum. I don't expect ANY Republican to really endorse NHS (one reason why I won't vote for them). What I cannot stand about Santorum is his primitive, superstitious, Bronze Age mentality. We may as well elect an African witch-doctor to the presidency. I'm sick of America being an embarrassment with our candidates talking stupidity about how the cause of our problems stem from supernatural forces such as the rampaging antics of a demon-lord. How does one stop a rampaging demon-lord, I wonder? What measures can the government take to combat Satan? Is Santorum going to sign an executive order that reads, "Cease now, demon, and return to the abyss from whence you came! The power of Christ compels you!"? At what point do we start shaking rattles or consult chicken entrails to decide what direction to take America?

And if that were not enough - and believe me it IS enough - Santorum is being stupid about his views on contraception and prenatal testing. The political analysts are already stating that the GOP is going to lose the female vote - and women actually vote in larger numbers then men. I mean, we all get that conservatives are against abortion, but Santorum wants to ban any medical practice that MIGHT lead to an abortion such as prenatal testing. Thousands of babies used to die every year when the mother's immune system perceived the baby as a parasite; with prenatal testing and a bit of medication, that can now be prevented. But oh no, idiot Santorum doesn't like prenatal testing because it might lead to women getting abortions! So does Santorum actually think he's doing unborn children a favor by saving some of them from abortion while dooming others to being killed by their mothers' own immune systems? This guy is so focused on preventing abortion that he's literally killing babies to do so! Now how much sense does THAT make?

The assumption of horse manure is a pretty obvious - and extremely safe - assumption.

by astra Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:06 pm

Thousands of babies used to die every year when the mother's immune system perceived the baby as a parasite; with prenatal testing and a bit of medication, that can now be prevented.

Shirina

I first heard that expression on an episode of House - you know, the medical prog with Hugh Lawrie. My impression was "what a thing to say" I did not have to look far to find out how true this statement was!

by Shirina Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:10 pm

Hey astra,

Yeah, I used to watch "House" too ... but the show became too frightening for me. Since my health is not the greatest at the moment, every time House started making diagnoses, I was absolutely *convinced* that I had the same horrible nasty disease, then I would lay awake that night fretting over all the "what ifs." So I had to stop watching it. LOL! How pathetic, right?

by astra Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:29 pm

How pathetic, right?

Not at all dear heart!

I think the term is "Subliminal indoctrination" is very real and recognised in some unethical regimes as a method of public, population, crowd control.

Apparently not everyone is suseptible to this, and it is best to stay away from books, subjects and programmes that make you uncomfortable.

I (in a class room) was told by a consultant psychiatrist that the human body will not hurt itself, and you are probably following that ethic, albeit unconsciously.

by Guest Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:57 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
(2) the assumption that the contents behind his door are horse manure.

Shirina wrote:
I don't think it's much of an assumption.

I do.

RockOnBrother wrote:
How much are you willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump?

Shirina wrote:
I don't think anyone above the age of 12 actually thinks NHS is literally free. Of course we pay in one way or the other. Regardless, NHS is still far and away the better system, which is why every other 1st, 2nd, and even some 3rd world nations use it. Our system is barbaric.

With NHS, your financial situation does not determine whether you receive health care. Rich or poor, employed or unemployed, you receive health care. End of story. You don't have to quake in your boots wondering how your diabetic child is going to receive care if you lose your job; you don't have to worry about whether your insurance covers a kidney transplant, you don't have to worry about NHS cancelling you just because you're costing more money than you're worth. When you go to the doctor's office, you don't see signs on the counter reading, "We require payment in full before services are rendered." If you're disabled, you don't have to hire a LAWYER and fight a costly legal battle to get benefits, and then lose half those benefits as part of the lawyer's commission!

And, the rising cost of health insurance is far outstripping the rising cost of NHS taxes in Europe. How many Brits here ever saw their NHS tax shoot up 40% in one singular increase?

If that weren't enough, how much you pay into NHS depends on your ability to pay. It's not a set amount like it is here, an amount so high that it is literally stifling the economy and bankrupting private citizens. Even businesses are beginning to find themselves unable to offer employees reasonable health care plans. The bottom line is that our system is keeping Americans poor, and its keeping hundreds of billions of dollars out of the general economy - every month!

I agree. I told the Ontarian tax agency lady that I would gladly trade her thirteen percent (which would jack the price of my Super Big Gulp Diet Dew refill up from $0.96 to $1.01) for my ten thousand plus dollar per year hit. I mean, a buck oh one every now and then versus five figures?

by Guest Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:58 pm

I don’t watch House, and I don’t watch Criminal Minds. I don’t like nightmares.

by Mkitty Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:10 pm

"2012 or Never" (GOPocalypse)

Republicans are worried this election could be their last chance to stop history. This is fear talking. But not paranoia.

http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-chait-2012-3/

"Of the various expressions of right-wing hysteria that have flowered over the past three years—goldbuggery, birtherism, death panels at home and imaginary apology tours by President Obama abroad—perhaps the strain that has taken deepest root within mainstream Republican circles is the terror that the achievements of the Obama administration may be irreversible, and that the time remaining to stop permanent nightfall is dwindling away. "

Shows how the Republican Party may disappear due to demographics.

by Shirina Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:08 am

Santorum is being stupid again. Here's his latest quote:

This past weekend, Santorum derided the president for his college-affordability initiatives. "Obama says he wants everyone to go to college, what a snob," the Republican presidential candidate boasted.

So now going to college is equivalent to snobbery. Great. Now we have a presidential candidate who wants Americans to remain uneducated, I suppose. Never mind the job market being so tight that you need a college degree to bag groceries these days. Oh, not because these low-end jobs require one, but people are so desperate for jobs that even college grads are applying to bag groceries, deliver pizza, or work in a call center. When you have a stack of resumes with college backgrounds, those without college, well, their resume will end up in the trash. Thus the need for college.

Of course, Santorum ... I don't know. What else can I say? His words speak volumes without any commentary from me. This guy would make George W. Bush look like Abraham Lincoln if he was ever elected. I don't think I could stomach being led by this piece of gutter trash. I didn't even dislike Bush as much as I do Santorum.

Oh yeah, and here's the link.

by Scarecrow Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:44 pm

Shirina wrote:
Is there no-one prepared to take on Fox Gnus which I believe is a Murdoch tentacle.
Interestingly, Canada passed a law some time ago stating that news programs are prohibited from lying or delivering false reports. Subsequently, Fox News has been banned in Canada.

Unfortunately, America is not nearly so prudent.

Fox News is offered throughout Canada on these services: Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV.

The law referenced only applies to Canadian broadcasters using Canadian airwaves. Basically, it was put in place to ban the CBC (government subsidized) and Canadian broadcasters (using Canadian frequencies) from political ads, infomercials, phony health shows, etc. designed to look like news but selling stuff. Talk shows and discussion groups are not considered news programs. So... this law only affects the CBC and those broadcasting over regular air waves -- it does not affect any US station (they don't broadcast over Canadian air waves), nor any satellite, cable, or internet delivery -- i.e. about 95% of broadcasting is exempt.

by Shirina Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:47 pm

Fox News is offered throughout Canada on these services:

Well I should clarify - the network Fox wanted to open in Canada would have been called Sun News or Fox North.

by astra Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:35 pm

Shirina,

Just been listening to BBC Radio in the car, and cannot believe what I am hearing!

It is of the Bail out President Obama allowed to GM. The person being interviewed, was saying that GM should have been LEFT to falter!
This would put Thousands on the job market in America, and would do no good for Vauxhall in UK, or George Opel in Germany!
( "It was not in the companies' (GM) intrest to allow it to continue and would have been better to fail. This would have allowed NEW COMPANIES to fill in the spaces left by GM! ) (and no doubt have given shed loads of $ to Conservatives, just for breathing)

As here, the conservatives only want long queues of unemployed for cheap labour.

Without the help, the present situation could NOT have arisen -

"General Motors Co is in advanced discussions to buy a small stake in French automaker PSA Peugeot Citroen as part of their proposed strategic alliance in Europe and elsewhere, sources familiar with the situation said on Monday.

Under the terms being discussed, GM would likely buy a stake of less than 5 percent in Peugeot, the sources said.

Any purchase by GM would be "purely symbolic" to cement the"

>>> LINK <<<

Does GM have a market in Brazil? I have no idea, but Puegeot took their Coventry (Ryton) plant to Brazil, lock stock and barrel. Citroen not so long ago placed production of their 2CV variant to Brazil also.

OK Brazil is not a forward moving modern productive country is it?

by Shirina Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:08 pm

Hello, astra:

Really, what is underlying the negativity toward the auto industry's bail-out is a right-wing hatred of Obama. It's really that simple. They seem to believe that Obama is perfectly imperfect meaning any decision he makes, no matter what, is always the wrong one. Under those circumstances, he can never do anything right. I remember many conservatives were quite content to see Obama fail even though his failure would be devastating to the nation. In other words, they were willing to throw America - and its people - under the bus just to see Obama fail. This sentiment still exists both among right-wing politicians and the average rank-and-file right-wing citizen.

Obama is not the first president to practice standard Keynesian economics by spending his way out of a recession. Reagan did the exact same thing but on a smaller scale - and Reagan, of course, is the patron saint of conservatism. Try to point out the many similarities between Obama and Reagan and you will most likely get some hissing and spitting among American conservatives. Even this soon after the bail-outs, we're starting to see it bear fruit, and that makes conservatives extremely angry. The worst thing that can happen is for Obama's efforts to prove successful - at least in the eyes of the Republicans. That will only make defeating Obama in this year's election all the more difficult.

So yeah, you're going to get people like the guy on BBC claiming we should have let GM fail. But what he's REALLY saying is: "We should have let Obama fail." That way Republicans could point to the long unemployment queues, the empty factories, the faltering economy and say, "See how inept he is? You should elect a Republican instead!" As I said before, Obama to them is perfectly imperfect. Bailing out GM was the wrong move, but if he HADN'T bailed out GM, you can bet your bottom pound that the same guy on BBC would be saying, "Obama should have bailed them out!" Whatever he does, they're against in the hopes that he does fail - and then the GOP can say, "See? We told you so!"

Except Obama is not failing and the economy has seen marked improvements. Hiring is still sluggish but that's not Obama's fault. The ball is in the private sector's court now. If they want a lower unemployment figure, they need to start hiring. But they won't. Now that Obama is not failing, the GOP can only say, "Well, if he had done things differently, maybe things would be even better!"

Yeah, maybe, but all they can do is speculate. Obama has facts, not murky images in a crystal ball. So they can yammer about bailing out GM if they want to. The facts speak for themselves.

by Stox 16 Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:19 am

Shirina wrote:Hello, astra:

Really, what is underlying the negativity toward the auto industry's bail-out is a right-wing hatred of Obama. It's really that simple. They seem to believe that Obama is perfectly imperfect meaning any decision he makes, no matter what, is always the wrong one. Under those circumstances, he can never do anything right. I remember many conservatives were quite content to see Obama fail even though his failure would be devastating to the nation. In other words, they were willing to throw America - and its people - under the bus just to see Obama fail. This sentiment still exists both among right-wing politicians and the average rank-and-file right-wing citizen.

Obama is not the first president to practice standard Keynesian economics by spending his way out of a recession. Reagan did the exact same thing but on a smaller scale - and Reagan, of course, is the patron saint of conservatism. Try to point out the many similarities between Obama and Reagan and you will most likely get some hissing and spitting among American conservatives. Even this soon after the bail-outs, we're starting to see it bear fruit, and that makes conservatives extremely angry. The worst thing that can happen is for Obama's efforts to prove successful - at least in the eyes of the Republicans. That will only make defeating Obama in this year's election all the more difficult.

So yeah, you're going to get people like the guy on BBC claiming we should have let GM fail. But what he's REALLY saying is: "We should have let Obama fail." That way Republicans could point to the long unemployment queues, the empty factories, the faltering economy and say, "See how inept he is? You should elect a Republican instead!" As I said before, Obama to them is perfectly imperfect. Bailing out GM was the wrong move, but if he HADN'T bailed out GM, you can bet your bottom pound that the same guy on BBC would be saying, "Obama should have bailed them out!" Whatever he does, they're against in the hopes that he does fail - and then the GOP can say, "See? We told you so!"

Except Obama is not failing and the economy has seen marked improvements. Hiring is still sluggish but that's not Obama's fault. The ball is in the private sector's court now. If they want a lower unemployment figure, they need to start hiring. But they won't. Now that Obama is not failing, the GOP can only say, "Well, if he had done things differently, maybe things would be even better!"

Yeah, maybe, but all they can do is speculate. Obama has facts, not murky images in a crystal ball. So they can yammer about bailing out GM if they want to. The facts speak for themselves.

US ECOMOMY IN 2012

Last updated: February 3, 2012
It was welcome news, but January’s surprisingly strong report of 243,000 more jobs won’t be sustained. Unemployment will end 2012 about where it was last month — 8.3%.

Job creation will average about 175,000 a month in the coming year, only a little faster than the workforce will grow. We expect private employers to create a net of about 2.28 million jobs in 2012, while federal, state and local governments cut about 180,000 positions.

Paradoxically, unemployment will tick up a bit in the next few months as the speedup in job creation lures discouraged workers back into the job market. Then it will fall a few tenths of a percent by year-end.

The labour market faces some high hurdles. Overseas growth is slowing in Asia, and Europe is sliding into a recession. In the U.S., housing demand remains weak, reflected in a gain of only 21,000 construction jobs net last month. And revenue-strapped local governments continue to lay off workers while businesses are slowing down their purchasing of new equipment after a tax credit has ended. As a result, gross domestic product will grow only about 2.3% in 2012, well short of the 4% or more that is typical in a recovery.

Growth also remains fragile and vulnerable to shocks, like last year’s earthquake in Japan and the political and economic paralysis in UK and Europe and the United States over controlling government debt, both factors that have dampened the recovery.

January’s gains were widespread. The private sector in total added 257,000 jobs while governments cut 14,000. Most notable was an increase of 50,000 in manufacturing due largely to making cars and other durable goods. A good sign of continued strength is the jump in car sales last month. That will give U.S. and foreign carmakers a reason to keep production high and to plan more hiring.

One down note: Hourly earnings ticked higher but continue to lag inflation, rising 1.9% over the past 12 months. Sluggish pay gains will put a crimp in consumer spending and delay the economy from reaching its potential. In fact, if January’s job growth number were matched every month going forward, it would be about 2019 when the U.S. returned to what is considered full employment — a 6% jobless rate.
Last updated: January 26, 2012
Solid growth in business investment in 2011 will slow in 2012, as businesses show some caution in committing to putting money down on big-ticket items.

This spending by business — which comprises investment in buildings, equipment and software — will grow by 6% in 2012, after expanding by 8% in 2011. That’s not bad in an average year, but it's a disappointing pace after the steep fall of the Great Recession, which slashed such investment by 19%. Even after a 17% gain in 2010, business investment is still running behind the level reached in 2007.

Business spending of 6% in 2012 won't spur much hiring – growth of 10% a year or more will be needed. We expect the economy will add about 150,000 jobs a month in 2012, short of the 200,000 or so needed to sustainably lower the unemployment rate.
Some factors point to an improving business environment in 2012.

The recent infusion of capital into the European banking system eases concerns about a global financial crisis. And Congress seems to be moving toward a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut, which would remove a cloud over consumer spending.

Orders for durable goods — those lasting three years or more — surged at the end of 2011 and finished up 10% for the year. The rise of 4.1% in November and 3% in December will continue at a somewhat slower pace in 2012, but one promising sign for overall economic growth is that buyers of durable goods are adding to their inventories, a signal that they see stronger demand ahead.

by **Ivan** Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:47 am

Groucho Marx (a staunch Democrat) could have had the modern-day GOP in mind when he sang this:-

by Guest Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:08 pm

BBC NEWS US & CANADA
11 April 2012 Last updated at 11:26 ET

Newt Gingrich's $500 cheque bounces for Utah primary

A $500 (£314) cheque issued by the cash-strapped campaign of Republican candidate Newt Gingrich bounced, it has emerged.

Utah election officials say the cheque bounced on 27 March. The fee must be paid by 20 April if Mr Gingrich is to qualify for the ballot.

Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17680254

by wyouser Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:04 pm

would that the entire electorate in this country rise up and proclaim to BOTH parties in Congress that most wonderful of British quotes: You have sat here far too long for any good you have been doing. Let us have done with you and be gone! ( I may not have that exactly verbatum)

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:01 pm

The worst thing that could happen right now, would be for Obama's supporters to think they don't need to do any more.

The actual Election Campaign has just begun.

by Guest Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:03 pm

ABC News
Apr 26, 2012 5:41pm

Biden Rebuffs Romney on Iran: Obama ‘Has a Big Stick’

“President Obama understands what Gov. Romney apparently doesn’t: It is possible — it’s indeed necessary — for America to be strong and smart — and smart — at the same time,” Biden said.

Full article and video: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/biden-rebuffs-romney-on-iran-obama-has-a-big-stick/

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:50 pm

Obama has got the US Economy moving in the right direction.

For many people, there's no need to ask any other questions.

by Sponsored content

The Republican Party's political suicide

The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide

Re: The Republican Party's political suicide