Since Bush won in 2000 the Republicans have gone ever further to the right, even Bush senior would no longer fit in the party and neither would Reagan. Both raised taxes and that is simply not allowed under Grover Norquist's Republican regime.
This is too true. And signing Grover Norquist's "No New Taxes" pledge boxes even moderate Republicans, what few that are left, into a corner. It is such a stupid pledge.
The main reason the U.S. economy tanked was George W. Bush cut taxes while dramatically increasing spending, especially on two wars that went unfunded (no new taxes to pay for them). You don't need to be an economist to know that you'll go broke if you spend more than you bring in. But there you have it, the Republican economic policy.
BTW, are people aware that Grover Norquist is a comedian? Not as in "he is a joke," but that he really is an actual standup comedian. It is a very strange world.
They call him a socialist because he is supporting Obama, who undoubtedly is. What Obama has done is take private business and turn it into a state enterprise that is socialism. Healthcare may be publicly owned and a certainty here, however the good folks of the USA believe in a private business model and being forced to pay for it, is seen the removal of personal choice and thus freedom.
We (in the UK) tend not to see it like that (generally) because we are so used to our nanny state looking after us, that nanny state removes our choice and removes our freedoms and what’s more it is creeping, weather we see it or not. We went through years of state roll back under Thatcher, to the point whereby it is unthinkable now that our government would start to produce steel, coal, cars etc. However look back just a few decades and that was what our government was doing. Socialism had taken a hold, we are still trying to remove its all pervasive tentacles even now.
Only recently a 'Liberal' member of our coalition government entered it into the business of banking, not by recovering a defunct but nonetheless necessary business by takeover but by announcing an entirely new enterprise lending money to businesses. When he announced this socialist enterprise the silence was deafening, no one asked why it is that government thinks it better able to run such an enterprise than those in the private sector. Even after the banking crash of recent years people surely cant believe that a politician is better placed to run a bank than a banker, or have we so readily forgotten the money for questions and expanses scandals.
Cutting taxes to increase tax revenues is a paradoxical but nonetheless proven tactic. Nigel Lawson did it in the eighties, it may seem an oxymoronic statement but, it has a proven track record of delivering both the benefit of a lighter tax burden and a fiscal boost. To call him a liar for saying so it just vitriolic, this is not our election can we not at least try and remain objective on this one?
A debate about what governments are for would be a good idea in this country, a root and branch Aristotlelian examination of all the alternatives. I read yesterday that a third of post graduates find politics too complex to understand. That is a devastating statistic for our democracy, if our brightest and most promising brains cant understand it then what hope the proletariat? This is despite the fact that most parties tend to over simplify the issues, or perhaps that is the cause. I find most peoples understanding of politics alarmingly simplistic, fed a diet of sound bites and emotive messages indulged by the ever compliant press ever willing to put the ‘right’ message across to gain better access to the machinery of government.
I read yesterday that a third of post graduates find politics too complex to understand. That is a devastating statistic for our democracy, if our brightest and most promising brains cant understand it then what hope the proletariat?
Says the man who yesterday couldn't distinguish between republicans and democrats : - )
I read yesterday that a third of post graduates find politics too complex to understand. That is a devastating statistic for our democracy, if our brightest and most promising brains cant understand it then what hope the proletariat?
Says the man who yesterday couldn't distinguish between republicans and democrats : - )
I never said I could not distinguish, I said I could not remember the labels, more than a slight difference.
What is this electoral college vote all about? i dont understand why that is more important than the popular vote? in fact i dont understand the difference between the two votes. can anyone explain? sorry if its obvious.
What is this electoral college vote all about? i dont understand why that is more important than the popular vote? in fact i dont understand the difference between the two votes. can anyone explain? sorry if its obvious.
It is odd to our eyes.
Each state has so many Electoral college votes. Who ever wins the vote in that state gets all of them.
So if a state has 10 college votes then the person with 60% of the actual vote ie the people putting a cross on the paper gets all ten. There aren't split 6 and 4 as would seem logical (to our eyes at least but then our system is complicated enough.)
So it is possible to win the election but have less actual individual votes across the country. I think Bush Jnr beat Al Gore in this way (and cheating in Florida but let's let that go)
They call him a socialist because he is supporting Obama, who undoubtedly is. What Obama has done is take private business and turn it into a state enterprise that is socialism. Healthcare may be publicly owned and a certainty here, however the good folks of the USA believe in a private business model and being forced to pay for it, is seen the removal of personal choice and thus freedom.
We (in the UK) tend not to see it like that (generally) because we are so used to our nanny state looking after us, that nanny state removes our choice and removes our freedoms and what’s more it is creeping, weather we see it or not. We went through years of state roll back under Thatcher, to the point whereby it is unthinkable now that our government would start to produce steel, coal, cars etc. However look back just a few decades and that was what our government was doing. Socialism had taken a hold, we are still trying to remove its all pervasive tentacles even now.
Only recently a 'Liberal' member of our coalition government entered it into the business of banking, not by recovering a defunct but nonetheless necessary business by takeover but by announcing an entirely new enterprise lending money to businesses. When he announced this socialist enterprise the silence was deafening, no one asked why it is that government thinks it better able to run such an enterprise than those in the private sector. Even after the banking crash of recent years people surely cant believe that a politician is better placed to run a bank than a banker, or have we so readily forgotten the money for questions and expanses scandals.
Cutting taxes to increase tax revenues is a paradoxical but nonetheless proven tactic. Nigel Lawson did it in the eighties, it may seem an oxymoronic statement but, it has a proven track record of delivering both the benefit of a lighter tax burden and a fiscal boost. To call him a liar for saying so it just vitriolic, this is not our election can we not at least try and remain objective on this one?
A debate about what governments are for would be a good idea in this country, a root and branch Aristotlelian examination of all the alternatives. I read yesterday that a third of post graduates find politics too complex to understand. That is a devastating statistic for our democracy, if our brightest and most promising brains cant understand it then what hope the proletariat? This is despite the fact that most parties tend to over simplify the issues, or perhaps that is the cause. I find most peoples understanding of politics alarmingly simplistic, fed a diet of sound bites and emotive messages indulged by the ever compliant press ever willing to put the ‘right’ message across to gain better access to the machinery of government.
Phew now I feel better!
Top post. If I was American I would have voted McCain at the last election if he wasn't so old. Would not have liked palin getting in the whitehouse no wayyy. Romney strikes me as another religious nut jobs. Would have loved Ron Paul as the republican candidate, that guy is a proper conservative.
What is this electoral college vote all about? i dont understand why that is more important than the popular vote? in fact i dont understand the difference between the two votes. can anyone explain? sorry if its obvious.
It is odd to our eyes.
Each state has so many Electoral college votes. Who ever wins the vote in that state gets all of them.
So if a state has 10 college votes then the person with 60% of the actual vote ie the people putting a cross on the paper gets all ten. There aren't split 6 and 4 as would seem logical (to our eyes at least but then our system is complicated enough.)
So it is possible to win the election but have less actual individual votes across the country. I think Bush Jnr beat Al Gore in this way (and cheating in Florida but let's let that go)
Thanks. I think i get it but it does seem odd. ahh so thats why these swing states are so important. Its just getting enough votes to push it into your favour to win all the votes. some states being more important than others cos they have more college votes in them. i guess the college votes are distributed by how populated the state is or is it just random?
What is this electoral college vote all about? i dont understand why that is more important than the popular vote? in fact i dont understand the difference between the two votes. can anyone explain? sorry if its obvious.
Not completely different from the UK electoral system. Each designated area votes one way or the other as a block, and it's who gets the most blocks.
In the UK that results in an MP, and the Party with the most MPs (generally) forms the government, irrespective of the popular vote. I think I'm right in saying there was an election in the early 70s where one party won the popular vote but lost the election on number of MPs?
In the US, each State returns a number of 'votes' for whoever their population vote for as a whole - the number of votes reflecting the States' population. That's why small but populus states in the east count for more than large but sparsely populated states in the mid-west. The candidate with the most 'state' votes is then the winner.
Basically - like us - it's all about who gets the most areas, not the most votes. Though usually this amount to the same thing.
What is this electoral college vote all about? i dont understand why that is more important than the popular vote? in fact i dont understand the difference between the two votes. can anyone explain? sorry if its obvious.
It is odd to our eyes.
Each state has so many Electoral college votes. Who ever wins the vote in that state gets all of them.
So if a state has 10 college votes then the person with 60% of the actual vote ie the people putting a cross on the paper gets all ten. There aren't split 6 and 4 as would seem logical (to our eyes at least but then our system is complicated enough.)
So it is possible to win the election but have less actual individual votes across the country. I think Bush Jnr beat Al Gore in this way (and cheating in Florida but let's let that go)
Bizarrely, the electors are not actually required to cast their votes for the candidate that the state voted for, although in practise they almost always do. Very strange!
We went through years of state roll back under Thatcher, to the point whereby it is unthinkable now that our government would start to produce steel, coal, cars etc. However look back just a few decades and that was what our government was doing.
You say that like is a bad thing! How dare our government have any assets. How dare it have any control over its energy supply, economic mix, banking sector, job creation, transport infrastructure or the health and wellbeing of its citizens. We are certainly reaping the benefits of the free market now aren't we?
They call him a socialist because he is supporting Obama, who undoubtedly is. What Obama has done is take private business and turn it into a state enterprise that is socialism. Healthcare may be publicly owned and a certainty here, however the good folks of the USA believe in a private business model and being forced to pay for it, is seen the removal of personal choice and thus freedom.
My understanding was Obama plans to provide state Healthcare insurance only - not nationalise your hospitals, etc? That's a big difference from the NHS, isn't it? Won't US citizens still have the "freedom" to chose where & how they receive their (Private enterprise) treatment?
I'm not calling you out - I genuinely had a different understanding of 'Obamacare' from what you seem to be describing, and would like to know the reality.
Thanks InCurbsWeTrusted and HenryIrving. feel confident enough to be able to explain it to a couple of people i know who also have problems understanding it.
Obama socialist? He's on the right of any of the UK parties. The point about the different attitudes to governments between the US and UK is a good one - seems the 'merkins want to do everything themselves, and the government keep out of it, whereas us Brits want everythig managed for us - healthcare, education, pensions etc. Prefer our way, but there you go!
They call him a socialist because he is supporting Obama, who undoubtedly is. What Obama has done is take private business and turn it into a state enterprise that is socialism. Healthcare may be publicly owned and a certainty here, however the good folks of the USA believe in a private business model and being forced to pay for it, is seen the removal of personal choice and thus freedom.
My understanding was Obama plans to provide state Healthcare insurance only - not nationalise your hospitals, etc? That's a big difference from the NHS, isn't it? Won't US citizens still have the "freedom" to chose where & how they receive their (Private enterprise) treatment?
I'm not calling you out - I genuinely had a different understanding of 'Obamacare' from what you seem to be describing, and would like to know the reality.
Interestingly, in 2010, the US government spent $4,000 per head of population on health care -- to cover only a proportion of the population, leaving the rest to fund themselves or go without cover.
In the same year, the UK government spent $3,500 per person to provide the NHS -- comprehensive from cradle to grave.
In fact in theory you could win these states and not get a vote in any of the other 39 and still win the election.
California New York Texas Florida Pennsylvania Illinois Ohio Michigan New Jersey North Carolina Georgia Virginia ****************************************
In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes.
I've got a mate in one of the swing states, and they get bombarded daily and are sick of it. A mate in Texas - which ain't goin nowhere but republican - says they've hardly heard a thing about this election!
In fact in theory you could win these states and not get a vote in any of the other 39 and still win the election.
California New York Texas Florida Pennsylvania Illinois Ohio Michigan New Jersey North Carolina Georgia Virginia ****************************************
In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes.
I'm still amazed to this day that Gore did not mount a proper legal challenge to that result. The amount of huge...irregularities (to use the polite term) was staggering. Not least being the 175,000 votes in Florida alone that failed to be counted. Or the systematic, and illegal, removal of 90,000 blacks (90% of whom are Democrat voters) from the electoral roll on the order of George Dubya's brother Jeb, who was the Governor of Florida.
Obama socialist? He's on the right of any of the UK parties. The point about the different attitudes to governments between the US and UK is a good one - seems the 'merkins want to do everything themselves, and the government keep out of it, whereas us Brits want everythig managed for us - healthcare, education, pensions etc. Prefer our way, but there you go!
Yet many republicans and big business constantly call for MORE government spending on defence, on infrastructure and tax incentives to stay in the US.
The calls to invade Iran etc mean more money for the arms companies but Obama is attacked by the right for saving the American car industry.
Obama socialist? He's on the right of any of the UK parties. The point about the different attitudes to governments between the US and UK is a good one - seems the 'merkins want to do everything themselves, and the government keep out of it, whereas us Brits want everythig managed for us - healthcare, education, pensions etc. Prefer our way, but there you go!
Yet many republicans and big business constantly call for MORE government spending on defence, on infrastructure and tax incentives to stay in the US.
The calls to invade Iran etc mean more money for the arms companies but Obama is attacked by the right for saving the American car industry.
Romney has infact said that Obama is forcing the car industry to go abroad, which has been refuted not by the Democrats but by Chrysler, who have also pointed out that jobs have increased under Obama, again opposite to what Mitt has claimed
They call him a socialist because he is supporting Obama, who undoubtedly is. What Obama has done is take private business and turn it into a state enterprise that is socialism. Healthcare may be publicly owned and a certainty here, however the good folks of the USA believe in a private business model and being forced to pay for it, is seen the removal of personal choice and thus freedom.
We (in the UK) tend not to see it like that (generally) because we are so used to our nanny state looking after us, that nanny state removes our choice and removes our freedoms and what’s more it is creeping, weather we see it or not. We went through years of state roll back under Thatcher, to the point whereby it is unthinkable now that our government would start to produce steel, coal, cars etc. However look back just a few decades and that was what our government was doing. Socialism had taken a hold, we are still trying to remove its all pervasive tentacles even now.
Only recently a 'Liberal' member of our coalition government entered it into the business of banking, not by recovering a defunct but nonetheless necessary business by takeover but by announcing an entirely new enterprise lending money to businesses. When he announced this socialist enterprise the silence was deafening, no one asked why it is that government thinks it better able to run such an enterprise than those in the private sector. Even after the banking crash of recent years people surely cant believe that a politician is better placed to run a bank than a banker, or have we so readily forgotten the money for questions and expanses scandals.
Cutting taxes to increase tax revenues is a paradoxical but nonetheless proven tactic. Nigel Lawson did it in the eighties, it may seem an oxymoronic statement but, it has a proven track record of delivering both the benefit of a lighter tax burden and a fiscal boost. To call him a liar for saying so it just vitriolic, this is not our election can we not at least try and remain objective on this one?
A debate about what governments are for would be a good idea in this country, a root and branch Aristotlelian examination of all the alternatives. I read yesterday that a third of post graduates find politics too complex to understand. That is a devastating statistic for our democracy, if our brightest and most promising brains cant understand it then what hope the proletariat? This is despite the fact that most parties tend to over simplify the issues, or perhaps that is the cause. I find most peoples understanding of politics alarmingly simplistic, fed a diet of sound bites and emotive messages indulged by the ever compliant press ever willing to put the ‘right’ message across to gain better access to the machinery of government.
Phew now I feel better!
Top post. If I was American I would have voted McCain at the last election if he wasn't so old. Would not have liked palin getting in the whitehouse no wayyy. Romney strikes me as another religious nut jobs. Would have loved Ron Paul as the republican candidate, that guy is a proper conservative.
Hilarious. John McCain? John McCain? This is the guy who made Sarah Palin his Vice Presidential candidate and you would have voted for that? You would have put a Wasilla Hockey Mom with a six year degree in Sports Journalism into the White House? A woman who quit mid-term as Governor of Alaska to work for Fox News for Christ's sake? Sorry, most proper, serious Conservatives - think Colin Powell and Peggy Noonan - could not bring themselves to vote for that.
They call him a socialist because he is supporting Obama, who undoubtedly is. What Obama has done is take private business and turn it into a state enterprise that is socialism. Healthcare may be publicly owned and a certainty here, however the good folks of the USA believe in a private business model and being forced to pay for it, is seen the removal of personal choice and thus freedom.
We (in the UK) tend not to see it like that (generally) because we are so used to our nanny state looking after us, that nanny state removes our choice and removes our freedoms and what’s more it is creeping, weather we see it or not. We went through years of state roll back under Thatcher, to the point whereby it is unthinkable now that our government would start to produce steel, coal, cars etc. However look back just a few decades and that was what our government was doing. Socialism had taken a hold, we are still trying to remove its all pervasive tentacles even now.
Only recently a 'Liberal' member of our coalition government entered it into the business of banking, not by recovering a defunct but nonetheless necessary business by takeover but by announcing an entirely new enterprise lending money to businesses. When he announced this socialist enterprise the silence was deafening, no one asked why it is that government thinks it better able to run such an enterprise than those in the private sector. Even after the banking crash of recent years people surely cant believe that a politician is better placed to run a bank than a banker, or have we so readily forgotten the money for questions and expanses scandals.
Cutting taxes to increase tax revenues is a paradoxical but nonetheless proven tactic. Nigel Lawson did it in the eighties, it may seem an oxymoronic statement but, it has a proven track record of delivering both the benefit of a lighter tax burden and a fiscal boost. To call him a liar for saying so it just vitriolic, this is not our election can we not at least try and remain objective on this one?
A debate about what governments are for would be a good idea in this country, a root and branch Aristotlelian examination of all the alternatives. I read yesterday that a third of post graduates find politics too complex to understand. That is a devastating statistic for our democracy, if our brightest and most promising brains cant understand it then what hope the proletariat? This is despite the fact that most parties tend to over simplify the issues, or perhaps that is the cause. I find most peoples understanding of politics alarmingly simplistic, fed a diet of sound bites and emotive messages indulged by the ever compliant press ever willing to put the ‘right’ message across to gain better access to the machinery of government.
Phew now I feel better!
Epic, epic, fail. As big a load of tripe and ill-informed nonsense as I have ever read on these pages.
Bill Maher responds to you far better than I ever could...
A socialist? A socialist? Do you even know what a socialist is? What socialism looks like? Socialist? Barack Obama is barely even a liberal. You could barely put a cigarette paper between Obama and David Cameron or Nicolas Sarkozy or Angela Merkel.
Did you read the quote from The Economist - they know a bit about free market economics over there - here's what they say.....
Far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending.
"Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further).
"At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises.
"Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises.
"Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more."
Bush senior called it "voodoo economics" and he was bang on the money.
As for health reform, how on earth is what Obama has done in any way Socialist? EVERYONE on the left wanted a single-payer system akin to the NHS or like Medicare here in Australia where a PUBLIC or GOVERNMENT option was available to everyone. Did he do that? NO.
Instead, realising that constructing a public system would take too long, Obama struck a deal with the PRIVATE insurance companies, saying that if he mandated private health insurance - thereby tipping millions of new customers into the system - then the private health insurers would have to meet him halfway and drop some of their outrageous practices such as denying cover because of pre-existing conditions etc. How is that socialist in any way whatsoever?
The Republicans hypocrisy is staggering, they called the Obama stimulus 'socialism' in public and then in private besieged the WH with requests for stimulus funding to hand out to the desperate businesses in their congressional districts - including Paul 'Ayn Rand' Ryan in Wisconsin - disgusting hypocrisy.
If Obama is a "Socialist" then why is he backed by billionaires like Michael Bloomberg, Eric Schmidt, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Jeffrey Katzenburg, Bernard Rappoport etc? Please explain this strange phenomenon of turkeys voting for Christmas. If he's a socialist then why did Wall Street fund him to the tune of over $1 billion in 2008?
Under the Obama presidency the richest 1% in the country have INCREASED their wealth substantially - how many socialist governments does that normally happen under? There is only one Socialist in the entire United States Congress, that's Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont.
Every time anyone remotely left-wing gains public prominence - most notably Dennis Kucinich in Ohio - the powers at the DNCC quickly makes sure they get challenged in a Primary by a nice corporate-friendly candidate and get put out on their backside.
The only reason Obama gets called a socialist is because the noise machine at Fox News stuck the label on him and all of the Sheeple on the right got in behind it and followed suit, despite it having no basis in fact whatsoever.
You can challenge Obama on any number of policy fronts but to call him a socialist is puerile, pathetic, juvenile nonsense which would be laughed out of any serious political conversation.
They call him a socialist because he is supporting Obama, who undoubtedly is. What Obama has done is take private business and turn it into a state enterprise that is socialism. Healthcare may be publicly owned and a certainty here, however the good folks of the USA believe in a private business model and being forced to pay for it, is seen the removal of personal choice and thus freedom.
My understanding was Obama plans to provide state Healthcare insurance only - not nationalise your hospitals, etc? That's a big difference from the NHS, isn't it? Won't US citizens still have the "freedom" to chose where & how they receive their (Private enterprise) treatment?
I'm not calling you out - I genuinely had a different understanding of 'Obamacare' from what you seem to be describing, and would like to know the reality.
You are right to a point, the largest part of Obama-care thus far is health insurance however, that is the end result of his bill and was not its starting point. Medicaid is the free at source public health service (although it is currently means tested and by no means comparable to our health service), that is also being extended as part of this bill. Further the bill is not seen as an end point, it is seen as a starting point. For a comprehensive answer you'd have to look for yourself, my interpretation is obviously coloured.
We went through years of state roll back under Thatcher, to the point whereby it is unthinkable now that our government would start to produce steel, coal, cars etc. However look back just a few decades and that was what our government was doing.
You say that like is a bad thing! How dare our government have any assets. How dare it have any control over its energy supply, economic mix, banking sector, job creation, transport infrastructure or the health and wellbeing of its citizens. We are certainly reaping the benefits of the free market now aren't we?
Comments
It is such a stupid pledge.
The main reason the U.S. economy tanked was George W. Bush cut taxes while dramatically increasing spending, especially on two wars that went unfunded (no new taxes to pay for them).
You don't need to be an economist to know that you'll go broke if you spend more than you bring in. But there you have it, the Republican economic policy.
BTW, are people aware that Grover Norquist is a comedian? Not as in "he is a joke," but that he really is an actual standup comedian.
It is a very strange world.
We (in the UK) tend not to see it like that (generally) because we are so used to our nanny state looking after us, that nanny state removes our choice and removes our freedoms and what’s more it is creeping, weather we see it or not. We went through years of state roll back under Thatcher, to the point whereby it is unthinkable now that our government would start to produce steel, coal, cars etc. However look back just a few decades and that was what our government was doing. Socialism had taken a hold, we are still trying to remove its all pervasive tentacles even now.
Only recently a 'Liberal' member of our coalition government entered it into the business of banking, not by recovering a defunct but nonetheless necessary business by takeover but by announcing an entirely new enterprise lending money to businesses. When he announced this socialist enterprise the silence was deafening, no one asked why it is that government thinks it better able to run such an enterprise than those in the private sector. Even after the banking crash of recent years people surely cant believe that a politician is better placed to run a bank than a banker, or have we so readily forgotten the money for questions and expanses scandals.
Cutting taxes to increase tax revenues is a paradoxical but nonetheless proven tactic. Nigel Lawson did it in the eighties, it may seem an oxymoronic statement but, it has a proven track record of delivering both the benefit of a lighter tax burden and a fiscal boost. To call him a liar for saying so it just vitriolic, this is not our election can we not at least try and remain objective on this one?
A debate about what governments are for would be a good idea in this country, a root and branch Aristotlelian examination of all the alternatives. I read yesterday that a third of post graduates find politics too complex to understand. That is a devastating statistic for our democracy, if our brightest and most promising brains cant understand it then what hope the proletariat? This is despite the fact that most parties tend to over simplify the issues, or perhaps that is the cause. I find most peoples understanding of politics alarmingly simplistic, fed a diet of sound bites and emotive messages indulged by the ever compliant press ever willing to put the ‘right’ message across to gain better access to the machinery of government.
Phew now I feel better!
It is odd to our eyes.
Each state has so many Electoral college votes. Who ever wins the vote in that state gets all of them.
So if a state has 10 college votes then the person with 60% of the actual vote ie the people putting a cross on the paper gets all ten. There aren't split 6 and 4 as would seem logical (to our eyes at least but then our system is complicated enough.)
So it is possible to win the election but have less actual individual votes across the country. I think Bush Jnr beat Al Gore in this way (and cheating in Florida but let's let that go)
ahh so thats why these swing states are so important. Its just getting enough votes to push it into your favour to win all the votes. some states being more important than others cos they have more college votes in them. i guess the college votes are distributed by how populated the state is or is it just random?
In the UK that results in an MP, and the Party with the most MPs (generally) forms the government, irrespective of the popular vote. I think I'm right in saying there was an election in the early 70s where one party won the popular vote but lost the election on number of MPs?
In the US, each State returns a number of 'votes' for whoever their population vote for as a whole - the number of votes reflecting the States' population. That's why small but populus states in the east count for more than large but sparsely populated states in the mid-west. The candidate with the most 'state' votes is then the winner.
Basically - like us - it's all about who gets the most areas, not the most votes. Though usually this amount to the same thing.
I'm not calling you out - I genuinely had a different understanding of 'Obamacare' from what you seem to be describing, and would like to know the reality.
Interestingly, in 2010, the US government spent $4,000 per head of population on health care -- to cover only a proportion of the population, leaving the rest to fund themselves or go without cover.
In the same year, the UK government spent $3,500 per person to provide the NHS -- comprehensive from cradle to grave.
California
New York
Texas
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Michigan
New Jersey
North Carolina
Georgia
Virginia
****************************************
In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes.
The calls to invade Iran etc mean more money for the arms companies but Obama is attacked by the right for saving the American car industry.
Bill Maher responds to you far better than I ever could...
A socialist? A socialist? Do you even know what a socialist is? What socialism looks like? Socialist? Barack Obama is barely even a liberal. You could barely put a cigarette paper between Obama and David Cameron or Nicolas Sarkozy or Angela Merkel.
Did you read the quote from The Economist - they know a bit about free market economics over there - here's what they say.....
Far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending.
"Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further).
"At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises.
"Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises.
"Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more."
Bush senior called it "voodoo economics" and he was bang on the money.
As for health reform, how on earth is what Obama has done in any way Socialist? EVERYONE on the left wanted a single-payer system akin to the NHS or like Medicare here in Australia where a PUBLIC or GOVERNMENT option was available to everyone. Did he do that? NO.
Instead, realising that constructing a public system would take too long, Obama struck a deal with the PRIVATE insurance companies, saying that if he mandated private health insurance - thereby tipping millions of new customers into the system - then the private health insurers would have to meet him halfway and drop some of their outrageous practices such as denying cover because of pre-existing conditions etc. How is that socialist in any way whatsoever?
The Republicans hypocrisy is staggering, they called the Obama stimulus 'socialism' in public and then in private besieged the WH with requests for stimulus funding to hand out to the desperate businesses in their congressional districts - including Paul 'Ayn Rand' Ryan in Wisconsin - disgusting hypocrisy.
If Obama is a "Socialist" then why is he backed by billionaires like Michael Bloomberg, Eric Schmidt, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Jeffrey Katzenburg, Bernard Rappoport etc? Please explain this strange phenomenon of turkeys voting for Christmas. If he's a socialist then why did Wall Street fund him to the tune of over $1 billion in 2008?
Under the Obama presidency the richest 1% in the country have INCREASED their wealth substantially - how many socialist governments does that normally happen under? There is only one Socialist in the entire United States Congress, that's Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont.
Every time anyone remotely left-wing gains public prominence - most notably Dennis Kucinich in Ohio - the powers at the DNCC quickly makes sure they get challenged in a Primary by a nice corporate-friendly candidate and get put out on their backside.
The only reason Obama gets called a socialist is because the noise machine at Fox News stuck the label on him and all of the Sheeple on the right got in behind it and followed suit, despite it having no basis in fact whatsoever.
You can challenge Obama on any number of policy fronts but to call him a socialist is puerile, pathetic, juvenile nonsense which would be laughed out of any serious political conversation.