Should we treat the US Democrat/Republican parties as equally corrupt/depraved/etc

[Mr Skeptic]

Perhaps the media simply isn't paying as much attention to Democrat hypocrisy as they are to Republican hypocrisy. Fox News might be trying, but no one here is going to consider them a reliable source, and they do have less reporters than the army of media with a slight liberal slant.

[jryan]

Oh those saintly liberals, all peace and love and tolerance!

 

Not to mention that the racial and sexual epithets have not been corroborated by the video, and the video shows that the "spitting" incident was accidental.

 

Here is the video.

 

The blogger sees more than there is in the video... or fails to understand the difference between purposeful spitting and spray.

[ParanoiA]

I just think they've sunk to a new low and it's damaging to the country. How or why that came about is a different matter entirely. It certainly doesn't excuse their behaviour.

 

No, there is nothing new about this low you're seeing with the TV friendly salesmen that make up congress. The only thing new I'm seeing is this sudden expectation from yourself and a select few others that republicans should be democrats. Hypocrisy charges notwithstanding, the libertarians and conservatives are pleased with the republican performance. I hope they keep being the blockade for the socialistic ideas generated on the democrat side.

 

Claiming "Republicans don't want to improve the country" is begging the question, Bascule. We must first assume that the Democrat bill was good for the country before we can accept the accusation. Not everyone assumes it is a good bill.

 

It's not a good bill. It is an atrocity. Most of the factors that actually spike costs are not addressed at all, and would be far less contentious and far more effective, and the one really bad idea that spikes costs, middlemen, is invested in indefinitely. The scope of absolute stupidity is astounding.

 

The democrats have been using fear to fool people into thinking we need massive government control over the health industry. This has rubbed me wrong from day one. Not that it's totally ok to have people running around sick without funds to manage it, but it's also not the crisis we want to make believe it is. Americans have a high standard of living, so much so that I think we've lost touch and perspective. I had a hunch, so I followed it. Preliminarily, I find this enlightening:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

 

1 United States[4] $13,399,859 6/30/2009 $43,646 30-July-09 94%

2 United Kingdom[5] $9,191,104 12/22/2009 $150,673 November 2009 365.44%

3 Germany $5,208,000 6/30/2009 $63,350 30-Jun-07 185.2%

4 France $5,021,000 6/30/2009 $76,718 1 January 2010 227.35%

5 Spain $2,478,000 9/30/2008 $49,619 30 June 2007 est. 150.65%

6 Luxembourg $1,994,000 6/30/2009 $3,970,514 2010 est. 4,973.68%

7 Ireland $1,841,000 6/30/2007 $448,032 30-Jun-08 960.86%

8 Japan $1,492,000 6/30/2007 $4,528 30-Jun-07 34.93%

9 Switzerland $1,340,000 6/30/2007 $17,452 30-Jun-07 44.195%

10 Belgium $1,313,000 6/30/2007 $126,202 30-Jun-07 348.74%

11 Italy $1,060,000 2008(est.) $18,235 30-Jun-08 58.21%

12 Australia $826,400 12/31/2007 $38,798 30-Jun-07 106.91%

13 Canada $962,632 01/12/2010 $23,325 01-Jul-09 59.69%

14 Austria $752,500 6/30/2007 $90,289 30-Jun-07 233.70%

 

I know that's difficult to read, so maybe following the link would be best. Notice how the US tops the list. The great united states. The superpower of the world. The symbol of economic freedom and success. The "richest" (?) country in the world with arguably the highest standard of living - and yet we have borrowed more money to fix our "crises" than anyone else. Why do the people of the superpower of the world need to borrow so much damn money? For crying out loud, how much do these people need?

 

Of course, I'm not blind. I'm actually impressed with the percentage of GDP - but only as compared to other countries. There are countries doing much worse, and countries doing much better.

 

So why does the US top the list of external debt? Well that's a can of worms discussion right there that would never be resovled, I'm sure. But I believe it ultimately leads back to our spoiled nature. We see crisis where most other countries see status quo. I suspect that we've been so rich and doing so well for so long, we now have an unrealistic expectation on our standard of living, which isn't actually bad in my opinion, except that it's to the point now where it's unhealthy.

 

We're borrowing and borrowing to deal with perceived crises, using the drama of the crises to justify irresponsible debt creation. This is the fear we've bought into, from both parties. The democrats are just the ones in charge at the moment.

 

There are opportunities to cut costs in healthcare and therefore expand accessibility - but neither party was interested in dealing with them. And the democrats have bought wholesale into the middle man solution - even dope smokers know that middle men drive up costs.

[Sisyphus]

 

The democrats have been using fear to fool people into thinking we need massive government control over the health industry.

 

I don't know about that. Using dissatisfaction with our current crappy system to imply need for their specific changes, yes. But it's Republicans that have made most of the public debate just fear mongering, with "death panels" etc. Which is perfectly natural - You can't really promote irrational fear of the status quo, but you can of change.

[ParanoiA]

I don't know about that. Using dissatisfaction with our current crappy system to imply need for their specific changes, yes. But it's Republicans that have made most of the public debate just fear mongering, with "death panels" etc. Which is perfectly natural - You can't really promote irrational fear of the status quo, but you can of change.

 

But it's those specific changes that are extremely suspicious. Insurance? Seriously? We, the weirdo right, keep pointing out this terrible broken down product of insurance and most don't even attempt to defend but rather just point to some anecdotal example of a cancer patient being denied coverage after paying in for 15 years.

 

That's not the level of fear the republicans have been using, but it's still fear created by a single example. When republicans do this, they are accused of ignoring rigorous data in favor of their personal experience and bias. Why is it ok for Obama to do this in a speech and get a standing ovation?

 

Health Insurance isn't insurance anymore. It's that simple. There is no measured risk here. They cover everything. No one seems willing to face and deal with that problem. This is pooling, not insurance. And we don't need insurance companies to provide a pooling service - the profit is way to high for managing a freaking pooled monetary account. They are going to enjoy a lot of money, for the short term, and then could get choked out of existence competing against a government that doesn't need to turn a profit - depending on the mood of that government.

 

And none of this cuts any costs, particularly when considering the rise in demand once people get covered by this joke of a fix. So these specific changes are better for people who aren't covered - and that's absolutely it. Nothing else. That's what we had to have ramrodded through the congress? That's why we need to go into even so much more debt, at such a hideous economic time, and risk the same exploding cost miscalculation that happened when medicare was passed?

 

No, grown men and women are pretending like they're cutting costs and fixing something with mandated insurance coverage, and I find that extremely suspicious because it's so extremely stupid.

[jryan]

More important in that chart of external debt, ParanoiA, is the percent of GDP for the individual countries. Look at the UK, and all the other Social Democracies that Obama and the Democrats seek to emulate. They are drowning in debt.

 

The elephant in the room there is that the entire world could not afford to float us that much credit. That amount of credit almost doesn't exist... and in practical terms does not. The GDP of the entire planet was $57.5 trillion in 2009, if we ran UK social programs (debt equal to 365% of GDP) we would need to borrow $51 trillion.

 

And that isn't even counting internal debts to Social Security and Medicare which total $107 trillion at the moment, and since they are internal debt are also pinned to our inflation... so we can monetize ourselves out of those obligations.

 

But hey, 16 million people now are forced to buy health care they didn't want and the other 15 million are saved a visit from a social worker to sort out their medical expenses. Fiscal catastrophe is a small price to pay for such wanted and unwanted conveniences!

[ParanoiA]

More important in that chart of external debt, ParanoiA, is the percent of GDP for the individual countries. Look at the UK, and all the other Social Democracies that Obama and the Democrats seek to emulate. They are drowning in debt.

 

The elephant in the room there is that the entire world could not afford to float us that much credit. That amount of credit almost doesn't exist... and in practical terms does not. The GDP of the entire planet was $57.5 trillion in 2009, if we ran UK social programs (debt equal to 365% of GDP) we would need to borrow $51 trillion.

 

And that isn't even counting internal debts to Social Security and Medicare which total $107 trillion at the moment, and since they are internal debt are also pinned to our inflation... so we can monetize ourselves out of those obligations.

 

 

And do you notice how childish it is? I know credit happy people like that - we have a country full of them - and their charge-anything-and-everything psychology appears to have spilled over into our government. It's as if the government is being run by the poor in our country - the people that rationalize short term gains with ever more long term consequences.

 

And this SAME behavior is the theme we saw in the financial "crisis". It started when loans defaulted - when people couldn't keep up with their promises they made when extended credit by people that wanted to loan them multipe times their responsible value.

 

This ridiculous amount of credit and debt is just so terribly immature. I'm beginning to wonder if credit isn't the devil. Lord knows, I have zero outstanding loans right now. My goal is to never borrow another dime. I have more money than I've ever had. My account hasn't gone negative ever since I paid off my last loan. I just don't have the persistent money problems that I've experienced my entire life. I have serious money in savings now - I've never had that.

 

I grew up. And it's been terrific for our family. We have 3 old cars, all paid for. No, we don't have the latest and greatest laptops, and we don't have brand new autos in the garage, and we haven't fooled ourselves into believing we need credit cards - spending money to spend money in a different way - but we do have thousands in savings, and a checking account that we don't even need to monitor anymore, there's always plenty leftover. In my 38 years of life, I've never done so well. And not one dime in credit.

 

I'm no longer poor. I had to ditch credit to get here.

[jryan]

By the way, this also leads right back to the ignored wisdom of the US founding fathers. By the US Constitution, the most readily acceptable way to create and regulate a health care system is at the state level. What we have almost working in the EU is essentially state level socialized medicine.

 

Of course, Massachusetts tried their damnedest to recreate European style social program, and have earned top honors as most debt ridden state in the union.

 

And that state's health plan was the model for Obamacare.

 

We're screwed.

[Sisyphus]

And do you notice how childish it is? I know credit happy people like that - we have a country full of them - and their charge-anything-and-everything psychology appears to have spilled over into our government. It's as if the government is being run by the poor in our country - the people that rationalize short term gains with ever more long term consequences.

 

And this SAME behavior is the theme we saw in the financial "crisis". It started when loans defaulted - when people couldn't keep up with their promises they made when extended credit by people that wanted to loan them multipe times their responsible value.

 

This ridiculous amount of credit and debt is just so terribly immature. I'm beginning to wonder if credit isn't the devil. Lord knows, I have zero outstanding loans right now. My goal is to never borrow another dime. I have more money than I've ever had. My account hasn't gone negative ever since I paid off my last loan. I just don't have the persistent money problems that I've experienced my entire life. I have serious money in savings now - I've never had that.

 

I grew up. And it's been terrific for our family. We have 3 old cars, all paid for. No, we don't have the latest and greatest laptops, and we don't have brand new autos in the garage, and we haven't fooled ourselves into believing we need credit cards - spending money to spend money in a different way - but we do have thousands in savings, and a checking account that we don't even need to monitor anymore, there's always plenty leftover. In my 38 years of life, I've never done so well. And not one dime in credit.

 

I'm no longer poor. I had to ditch credit to get here.

 

I don't think credit is the problem, per se. Credit makes capitalism possible. The problem is credit without a clear plan and secure means for paying it off. Which basically comes down to the same thing: only buying what you can afford, and not treating a credit line like it's the same thing as money.

[ecoli]

I don't think credit is the problem, per se. Credit makes capitalism possible. The problem is credit without a clear plan and secure means for paying it off. Which basically comes down to the same thing: only buying what you can afford, and not treating a credit line like it's the same thing as money.

 

Today, the national debt is assumed to represent the later type of debt.

 

However, I think proponents of the bill might say that healthcare bill will wind up saving us money. (I don't think this is right, but neither are they ignorant of the debt problem)

[jryan]

They aren't ignorant of the debt, they just believe in drinking yourself sober.

 

That isn't to say that the previous president was a spend thrift, either... but the current administration seems hell bent on making him appear that way.

[swansont]

Of course, Massachusetts tried their damnedest to recreate European style social program, and have earned top honors as most debt ridden state in the union.

 

Great, now all you have to do is link the two.

 

BTW, the second-most debt-ridden state in that link is Alaska. I believe that their recent administration was headed by a republican of some national prominence. And AFAIK they can't blame their debt on social programs, and they make a lot of money taxing the oil they pump out of the ground. So, does the distinction of having a lot of debt really mean anything in this context?

[Phi for All]

Not to mention that the racial and sexual epithets have not been corroborated by the video, and the video shows that the "spitting" incident was accidental.

 

Here is the video.

 

The blogger sees more than there is in the video... or fails to understand the difference between purposeful spitting and spray.

What I saw was a man who probably accidentally spit in another man's face while screaming at him through cupped hands, and when confronted about it he continued to scream and offered no apology or explanation for spitting. To my sense of decency, that makes it no different than spitting intentionally.

[ParanoiA]

I don't think credit is the problem, per se. Credit makes capitalism possible. The problem is credit without a clear plan and secure means for paying it off. Which basically comes down to the same thing: only buying what you can afford, and not treating a credit line like it's the same thing as money.

 

Of course, you're right. I do agree with that. And I do not believe the credit/financial crisis was an example of people using credit as you describe. It's using it like money. And that's what our government is doing.

 

The other elephant in the room to me, is how we can expect to have a period of "no need for credit" so that it gets paid back. I realize it doesn't work exactly like that, like it does in our private lives, but we can't keep borrowing money like that. So, are we really, seriously, under the impression that we're not going to rationalize even more spending in the coming years? We're suddenly just going to snap out of it, and stop it with the exploding spending, that no one is going to insist that we meet the demand of some crisis, using drama to circumvent responsibility?

 

That's the question I have for those that use credit like this. What makes you think that today's exigencies, that you used to rationalize an exploding credit line, are limited to today only? In terms of government, since when does the congress just stay home for a few years while we pay things off?

 

It's extremely childish to disregard the future like that. That's what immature, debt ridden poor folks do everyday.

[swansont]

Claiming "Republicans don't want to improve the country" is begging the question, Bascule. We must first assume that the Democrat bill was good for the country before we can accept the accusation. Not everyone assumes it is a good bill.

 

Sorry, I can't find where that quote appears. Can you provide a link to the post?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The other elephant in the room to me, is how we can expect to have a period of "no need for credit" so that it gets paid back.

 

We had a period like this, about nine years ago.

[Sisyphus]

Oh, I agree with that. I don't think a deficit some years is fundamentally bad, but it has to be balanced with surpluses. And surplus means elected politicians have to be willing to cut spending and raise taxes even when they don't have to. And of course both of those things are wildly unpopular, and neither party wants to do either. And because our leaders are essentially short term managers for long term projects, that means that somebody gets to save the day, and somebody has to be the bad guy. And nobody is willing to be the bad guy.

 

And when, miraculously, somebody is willing to be the bad guy and create a surplus, the sob stories and the tax activists start up. "It's your money! Demand it back!"

[Pangloss]

What I saw was a man who probably accidentally spit in another man's face while screaming at him through cupped hands, and when confronted about it he continued to scream and offered no apology or explanation for spitting. To my sense of decency, that makes it no different than spitting intentionally.

 

I see your point but I can't really agree with that. If you engage someone in a conversation there's a certain assumption of risk of... shall we say accidental droolage. Doesn't really seem like the same thing as a surprise, intentional spitting on a passer-by.

[swansont]

I see your point but I can't really agree with that. If you engage someone in a conversation there's a certain assumption of risk of... shall we say accidental droolage. Doesn't really seem like the same thing as a surprise, intentional spitting on a passer-by.

 

Especially if it's the magic loogie launched by Keith Hernandez.

[jryan]

Sorry, I can't find where that quote appears. Can you provide a link to the post?

 

It was the assertion by Bascule in post #55, but his full non-paraphrased quote is:

 

"They (Republicans) care more about winning political victories against the Democrats than they do about improving the country"

 

Which is not true at all. They believe that stopping the Health Care bill is better for the country and are acting accordingly. Likewise, they had their own health care reform ideas, but rare was the moment that the Democrats even feigned interest during the process.

[bascule]

They believe that stopping the Health Care bill is better for the country and are acting accordingly

 

They believed the healthcare bill was "armageddon". Right. Because the government providing healthcare is the same thing as the epic battle at the end of the world.

[Mr Skeptic]

Please answer the healthcare portion of this in the other thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=552957#post553277

 

But it's those specific changes that are extremely suspicious. Insurance? Seriously? We, the weirdo right, keep pointing out this terrible broken down product of insurance and most don't even attempt to defend but rather just point to some anecdotal example of a cancer patient being denied coverage after paying in for 15 years.

 

But also, Republicans seem to have been using every procedural abuse possible in order to pass the bill, rather than compromising.* In all, a single Republican vote in the house (Anh Cao, R LA-2, whose vote wasn't even necessary), with every single other Republican opposed. They forced the Democrats to compromise among themselves.

 

The Democrats did a stellar job compromising among themselves: they achieved a 95% agreement of 89% agreement necessary in the Senate, and achieved a 85% out of 85% agreement necessary in the House.

 

Take a while to let that sink in. To amend the Constitution requires only 75% agreement. It is hard to get such high levels of agreement. Having this sort of agreement necessary means that any very small group of legislators in the party could block the bill, so that the bill may need to have special concessions just for them, if everyone else wants it to pass.

 

Now, the above is only valid if a significant number of Republicans were willing to vote against things they believed in simply to attempt to kill the bill (possibly due to pressure from the rest of their party). Had every single Republican been willing to compromise if offered something to win their vote, rather than simply opposing the bill, the agreement level that would have to be reached would have been a much nicer 51%. The Republicans have fully betrayed their constituents in this: they failed to kill the bill, and they failed to compromise for a better bill.

 

Note that it was squarely the responsibility of the Republicans to play the compromise game since the Democrats could (and did) do it all by themselves. Having Republicans willing to compromise would have afforded the legislature much much more flexibility in the bill, and, assuming the Republicans are representing their constituents, a much more satisfactory bill for the people. Instead they forced the Democrats to do what they had to do to reach agreement among themselves.

 

Think of it this way: compromise is like if your toe had gangrene and you have to amputate it. If instead you stubbornly refused, you have to amputate your whole leg instead. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two unwanted options and make the best of a bad situation. I think the Republicans failed to do this, and failed the American people and especially their constituents.

 

 

* From what I hear. I know the Republicans did suggest a few bills, but the Democrats did not accept this. I don't know whether Democrats chose their own bill because they liked it more or because it was their bill, but I think it was for both those reasons individually. Compromise is not offering an option worse than the other side can achieve by themselves -- it is offering them a better option.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[Phi for All]

I see your point but I can't really agree with that. If you engage someone in a conversation there's a certain assumption of risk of... shall we say accidental droolage. Doesn't really seem like the same thing as a surprise, intentional spitting on a passer-by.

And if you are walking on a sidewalk with other pedestrians there's a certain assumption of risk of... shall we say accidental trippage, but if you accidentally trip someone and they confront you about it, isn't it expected that you apologize and explain that it was accidental? Would you really just keep walking exactly the same and ignore the confrontation?

 

Without a quick, "Sorry it happened, didn't do it on purpose", it sort of makes it look intentional, doesn't it?

[Mr Skeptic]

Oh, here is a list of some of the amendments that the Republicans proposed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-mcdonald/other-gop-amendments-adde_b_512653.html

 

Read it and laugh. Here's a few:

# ban the eating and/or smelling of ones own farts, that this Congressional body assumes you find to be delicious.

 

# prohibit the potential future election of a zombie or cyborg Hitler.

 

# prohibit the handout of free, loaded guns to unbalanced, repeat sex offender nazis with terrific aim.

 

I see they take compromising very seriously.

 

The Republicans suggested 10 times more amendments than did the Democrats:

http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/

Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans.

...

Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans.

The link also contains a partial list of the amendments suggested (437/788, and description only).

Edited March 26, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[ParanoiA]

Those are just ridiculous. Well, except the zombie or cyborg Hitler one, we must be forward thinking here.

 

But I don't understand this:

 

GOP Senators proposed some creative amendments to tack onto the Health Care Reform bill in an effort to derail the momentum of its passage. These amendments included prohibiting the coverage of Viagra for child molesters as well as the funding of the activist group ACORN. The idea is that by voting NAY on these amendments, ultimately in support of the Health Care Reform bill, Democratic senators are somehow defending ACORN or child molestation.

 

I guess I don't get that. You can't vote Yea for an amendment and still pass the HC bill? Can't they vote Nay on banning smelling your own farts and Yea to deny child molesters access to Viagra and pass the HC Bill?

 

I did find it kind of humorous watching CSPAN Sunday night as all this went down. I think I saw a republican argue with Jesse Jackson Jr on parliamentary procedure over a 10 second slot of time for about 15 minutes...fascinating.

[swansont]

It was the assertion by Bascule in post #55, but his full non-paraphrased quote is:

 

"They (Republicans) care more about winning political victories against the Democrats than they do about improving the country"

 

Which is not true at all. They believe that stopping the Health Care bill is better for the country and are acting accordingly. Likewise, they had their own health care reform ideas, but rare was the moment that the Democrats even feigned interest during the process.

 

Something in quotes, attributed to an individual, is supposed to be an actual quote. Not a paraphrase. bascule did not say "Republicans don't want to improve the country." He didn't imply it, either. His TPM link lists several examples of Republicans voting for a measure when Bush was in office, and voting against it under Obama. Those items would seem to support the idea that they were more interested in political victories.