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!
I won't bother with the rest of the post, but the last paragraph bears closer examination. "A debate about what governments are for" isn't necessary. Everyone knows what governments are for. Different political ideologies notwithstanding, they are a democratically-elected body that represents the interests of the people that they govern both at home and abroad in a fair, even-handed manner. The efficacy of upholding this ideal is what elections are for. The fact that all modern political ideologies are corrupt in some form or other, to varying degrees, is neither here nor there - the bullshit that tea-party nutters espouse about 'minimal government interference' is exposed in 30 seconds flat as childish stupidity that would harken 'civilisation' back to the stone age if it were ever implemented. There has to be 'some' system of government underpinned by an ideological backbone - be that socialism, liberalism, free-market capitalsm or any other democratic viewpoing.
As for the point about a third of post graduates finding politics too complex to understand - that doesn't surprise me. Most post-graduates I know would have trouble boiling an egg or painting a fence. Politics is NOT too complex to understand. I've had good political discourse with people that you would never class as 'intellectual'. The problem with politics is that people don't WANT to understand it and, sad to say, in the last 25 years they haven't HAD to understand it. There is NO alternative to capitalism in the UK, and hasn't been for fifteen years.
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!
I won't bother with the rest of the post, but the last paragraph bears closer examination. "A debate about what governments are for" isn't necessary. Everyone knows what governments are for. Different political ideologies notwithstanding, they are a democratically-elected body that represents the interests of the people that they govern both at home and abroad in a fair, even-handed manner. The efficacy of upholding this ideal is what elections are for. The fact that all modern political ideologies are corrupt in some form or other, to varying degrees, is neither here nor there - the bullshit that tea-party nutters espouse about 'minimal government interference' is exposed in 30 seconds flat as childish stupidity that would harken 'civilisation' back to the stone age if it were ever implemented. There has to be 'some' system of government underpinned by an ideological backbone - be that socialism, liberalism, free-market capitalsm or any other democratic viewpoing.
As for the point about a third of post graduates finding politics too complex to understand - that doesn't surprise me. Most post-graduates I know would have trouble boiling an egg or painting a fence. Politics is NOT too complex to understand. I've had good political discourse with people that you would never class as 'intellectual'. The problem with politics is that people don't WANT to understand it and, sad to say, in the last 25 years they haven't HAD to understand it. There is NO alternative to capitalism in the UK, and hasn't been for fifteen years.
LOL once I had stopped laughing and put my bum back on my seat I realised you are quite serious. I wasn’t sure whether to answer and take the thread away from the American election but then I thought OMG, I wonder what he does when his Mum goes out and he has to cook his own tea? IF “minimal government interference is exposed in thirty 30 seconds flat as childish stupidity that would harken (sic) ‘civilisation’ back to the Stone Age”, then the floor is yours; all you have to do is put down how and why. Never mind Confucius, Smith, Locke, Jefferson, Russell, Hayek, Freedman, never mind all them no nothings, you put ‘em right Son.
As for democratic elections, do they not require debate? Is “the fact that all modern political ideologies are corrupt” ok with you then? Does everyone know what government is for? Do we all agree what government is for? Do you think we live in a democracy? Why is it that only 65% of the people voted in the last election? Do you think we should sit on our laurels, in the belief that we have the fairest democracy in the world or should we be proactive about what it is and how it works? Should we negate the responsibility of upholding democracy or take it upon ourselves to ensure that legacy goes to our children?
Democracy is not the natural state of man, it did not just happen. If you look around the world you’ll see few true democracies, look back in history and you’ll see fewer still. Democracy is precious and fragile, it cannot exist without vigilance. I think we do need a debate, we need one because people are not happy, I’m not happy! I don’t like the way our press is run, I don’t like the fact that only 32% of people can vote for a party and it form a government. I don’t like parties (political ones) I don’t like the fact that they can take us into a war with reasons based on lies. I don’t like our House of Lords. I don’t like that they fiddled their expenses and got away with it. Ask anyone and they’ll tell you what they don’t like, the list will differ but they’ll have a list. Do you think we should just let them get on with it?
Thomas Jefferson that drafted this;
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another and assume the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator (being an atheist, I don’t like that bit) with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That when any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right and duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future seciurity.
You can find the rest of it here; you should read it, it is as brilliant a piece of text as I have ever read.
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?
I have no idea what you are going on about.
Yeah. You do. It's just that you seemingly have a dogmatic approach (shared by the Republicans and our own current govt) that everything should be sold off and run by the private sector.
This despite all the evidence to contrary that this is patently untrue. It was those same American banks that you hold out as being beacons of good management that led to the current mess we're in and required $b's to bail them out. Romney is on record as wanting to continue privatisation of public services like search and rescue operations for a topical example. You might feel comfortable with a profit driven organisation making decisions about your health care, education, social security provision, etc, etc but many, many others would rightly be concerned imo.
The Mormon newspaper of record, the Salt Lake City Tribune, from the heart of Mormon country and one of Romney's home states, has come out and ENDORSED OBAMA! New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an Independent and former Republican, has endorsed Obama. Bloomberg would not have come out with a late endorsement on Thursday unless he was sure that he was going to be on the winning side.
If you are a real Stato, and want the best site to follow the US election:
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?
I have no idea what you are going on about.
Yeah. You do. It's just that you seemingly have a dogmatic approach (shared by the Republicans and our own current govt) that everything should be sold off and run by the private sector.
This despite all the evidence to contrary that this is patently untrue. It was those same American banks that you hold out as being beacons of good management that led to the current mess we're in and required $b's to bail them out. Romney is on record as wanting to continue privatisation of public services like search and rescue operations for a topical example. You might feel comfortable with a profit driven organisation making decisions about your health care, education, social security provision, etc, etc but many, many others would rightly be concerned imo.
No, I had no idea what you were talking about, what is more I showed the post to someone else and they had no idea either. If you want to debate then do so in coherent manner that people can understand. I'm quite happy to debate with people but, you need to make yourself clear for that to happen, it would also be nice if you stick to what was said and not what you imagine was said.
For the record I was explaining the difference in viewpoint that exists in the different countries. I have a view and I am aware that that comes through strongly but the point of the post was not to extol one view over another merely to point out the misunderstandings that exist between them. I have not held anyone out as a bastion of good management nor have I above indicated that I wish anything to be sold off, I did say that I want a debate over the extent of government and your post just makes it clearer that that is very necessary.
If you have evidence that governments run businesses better than the private sector as you seem to suggest, then produce the "evidence" (that I have apparently ignored) and lets see it debated. I am quite happy with the NHS and have not advocated any system of health provision public or private, what I said was it is a socialist policy that moves private enterprise into public control and the American people see that as a removal of individual freedom.
@Loco you could always try showing it to a grown up?
I never said that "governments run businesses better than the private sector", patentely that would be beyond ridiculous, which is why you have tried to suggest I said it. Equally though there are sectors of our economy that should never be under private control imo (or as what often happens they end up under the control of foreign stated owned companies rather than our own state). You seem much happier with this and as it is definitely the way Romney thinks too. You wanted an example of a well run state owned company? Have a look at how well East Coast trains are doing now they are run by a state owned operator after the private sector company before it handed back the keys.
I could go on but you know what? It's Saturday night, I'm cheesed off as my team got hammered, I've got a curry on the go and I think I'd rather enjoy an evening with the missus watching Strictly than fruitlessly trying to have sensible discussion with you on the merits of big v small government as I'm not sure you're really prepared to listen to anyone elses views than your own.
Read some where that Obama's leading in polls in 19 of the 20 swing states. Would make it an absolute no contest if he wins that many. Will try and get a link
There were nine swing states, and I believe it is now down to seven. According to Nate Silver's blog in the New York Times, which is looked upon as the most complete statistical analysis of the Presidential and Senate races, Obama has an 83.7% chance of winning. He leads in most of the swing states and only needs a few of them, or Florida, to lock up the 271 Electoral College votes needed.
The New Yorker's eloquent endorsement of the President.
"The reelection of the first African-American President does not inspire the same level of communal pride. But the reelection of a President who has been progressive, competent, rational, decent, and, at times, visionary is a serious matter. The President has achieved a run of ambitious legislative, social, and foreign-policy successes that relieved a large measure of the human suffering and national shame inflicted by the Bush Administration. Obama has renewed the honor of the office he holds."
@Loco you could always try showing it to a grown up?
I never said that "governments run businesses better than the private sector", patentely that would be beyond ridiculous, which is why you have tried to suggest I said it. Equally though there are sectors of our economy that should never be under private control imo (or as what often happens they end up under the control of foreign stated owned companies rather than our own state). You seem much happier with this and as it is definitely the way Romney thinks too. You wanted an example of a well run state owned company? Have a look at how well East Coast trains are doing now they are run by a state owned operator after the private sector company before it handed back the keys.
I could go on but you know what? It's Saturday night, I'm cheesed off as my team got hammered, I've got a curry on the go and I think I'd rather enjoy an evening with the missus watching Strictly than fruitlessly trying to have sensible discussion with you on the merits of big v small government as I'm not sure you're really prepared to listen to anyone elses views than your own.
Very few people in the U.S. would argue that healthcare needs reform. The biggest problem that most people had with Obamacare initially, was the way it was jambed through congress. The bill itself was over 2000 pages, and was published less than a week before "The House" was due to vote on it. NOBODY had read the entire bill, and the speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi, said "You can read it after you've passed it". Since it passed, people are discovering the size of the new bureaucracy needed to administer the various programs, and asking "who within that bureaucracy is qualified to make decisions about the treatment of my condition?" Most people, regardless of their party affiliation are opposed to this huge increase in the size of the Federal bureaucracy. Then there's the constitutional argument. Is it constitutional to require citizens to buy a service? Amazingly, the real reason for the huge costs of healthcare were completely ignored in the bill. Doctors here practice "defensive medicine", because they are afraid of being sued. In this country you have to bear the cost of your defense of a suit, even if you win, so doctors send patients to every conceivable test for even minor ailments to "cover all their bases" and not get sued. Their insurance companies settle frivolous law-suits because it's cheaper than defending them. Doctors insurance companies charge them exhorbitant premiums as a result. It would be a simple fix, if you sue and lose you pay both lawyers. Obamacare doesn't address this at all, why? Because most lawmakers in Washington are lawyers. Obamacare therefore misses the whole point.
Romney seems to be a bit similar to Cameron in that he is pretending to be moderate or not saying too much at all about any of his policies. In government, him being in hoc to the tea party, he is likely to be quite right wing. I am concerned that he will start another war in the middle east.
I'm certainly not an expert in American politics but from what I can see I think it's pretty clear that Obama will win the election with a certain degree of comfort. I suspect that the legacy left by George Bush in terms of Republican credibility will do for Romney. Thank god I say.
The election really is a toss-up now. The left-leaning press thinks Obama's got it wrapped up, the right-leaning press thinks Romney has it. What is clear is that many will have voted against Obama no matter who was against him, such is the dislike and contempt for him. Several posters on here paint a picture of Romney as a warmonger, people over here don't see him in this way.
The election really is a toss-up now. The left-leaning press thinks Obama's got it wrapped up, the right-leaning press thinks Romney has it. What is clear is that many will have voted against Obama no matter who was against him, such is the dislike and contempt for him. Several posters on here paint a picture of Romney as a warmonger, people over here don't see him in this way.
Polls are suggesting that Obama is leading in all the swing states. It won't be that close, the networks profit a lot from saying it is close. Read an article that even conservatives are having second thoughts about romney, since he's changed his tune so many times they're not sure if hes a liberal or right wing conservative.
I'm certainly not an expert in American politics but from what I can see I think it's pretty clear that Obama will win the election with a certain degree of comfort. I suspect that the legacy left by George Bush in terms of Republican credibility will do for Romney. Thank god I say.
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.
Massive as it is I never spotted this. Do I even know what a socialist is? LOL I'll tell you what, if you think you can spot them better then me then tell me where they are and I'll pop em off
The election really is a toss-up now. The left-leaning press thinks Obama's got it wrapped up, the right-leaning press thinks Romney has it. What is clear is that many will have voted against Obama no matter who was against him, such is the dislike and contempt for him. Several posters on here paint a picture of Romney as a warmonger, people over here don't see him in this way.
I would disagree with that. A lot of people believe that Romney would be itching to go to war with Iran. He thinks we should still be at war in Iraq and isn't looking to leave Afghanistan.
What I would agree with is that there is more passion from the right are likely to be voting against Obama than for Romney. It is rare that you hear reasons why people will be voting for Romney; it is almost always why they are against Obama.
If you follow Nate Silver's mathematical analyses in the New York Times, the popular vote is likely to be close (Obama 50.6, Romney 48.5). But it is the Electoral College is where the election is decided, and Silver comes up with 307.2 for Obama to 230.8 for Romney - 271 is needed to be elected.
Obama's chances of winning the election are now at 86.3%, because of his statistic advantages in the swing states.
The election really is a toss-up now. The left-leaning press thinks Obama's got it wrapped up, the right-leaning press thinks Romney has it. What is clear is that many will have voted against Obama no matter who was against him, such is the dislike and contempt for him. Several posters on here paint a picture of Romney as a warmonger, people over here don't see him in this way.
It really isn't a toss up. The forthy right think the polls are biased and are calling it for Romney. Everytone else thinks Obama is a 4 to 1 favourite. Romney has a chance, but it's quite a slim one.
Comments
As for the point about a third of post graduates finding politics too complex to understand - that doesn't surprise me. Most post-graduates I know would have trouble boiling an egg or painting a fence. Politics is NOT too complex to understand. I've had good political discourse with people that you would never class as 'intellectual'. The problem with politics is that people don't WANT to understand it and, sad to say, in the last 25 years they haven't HAD to understand it. There is NO alternative to capitalism in the UK, and hasn't been for fifteen years.
As for democratic elections, do they not require debate? Is “the fact that all modern political ideologies are corrupt” ok with you then? Does everyone know what government is for? Do we all agree what government is for? Do you think we live in a democracy? Why is it that only 65% of the people voted in the last election? Do you think we should sit on our laurels, in the belief that we have the fairest democracy in the world or should we be proactive about what it is and how it works? Should we negate the responsibility of upholding democracy or take it upon ourselves to ensure that legacy goes to our children?
Democracy is not the natural state of man, it did not just happen. If you look around the world you’ll see few true democracies, look back in history and you’ll see fewer still. Democracy is precious and fragile, it cannot exist without vigilance. I think we do need a debate, we need one because people are not happy, I’m not happy! I don’t like the way our press is run, I don’t like the fact that only 32% of people can vote for a party and it form a government. I don’t like parties (political ones) I don’t like the fact that they can take us into a war with reasons based on lies. I don’t like our House of Lords. I don’t like that they fiddled their expenses and got away with it. Ask anyone and they’ll tell you what they don’t like, the list will differ but they’ll have a list. Do you think we should just let them get on with it?
Thomas Jefferson that drafted this;
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another and assume the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator (being an atheist, I don’t like that bit) with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That when any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right and duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future seciurity.
You can find the rest of it here; you should read it, it is as brilliant a piece of text as I have ever read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
This despite all the evidence to contrary that this is patently untrue. It was those same American banks that you hold out as being beacons of good management that led to the current mess we're in and required $b's to bail them out. Romney is on record as wanting to continue privatisation of public services like search and rescue operations for a topical example. You might feel comfortable with a profit driven organisation making decisions about your health care, education, social security provision, etc, etc but many, many others would rightly be concerned imo.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an Independent and former Republican, has endorsed Obama. Bloomberg would not have come out with a late endorsement on Thursday unless he was sure that he was going to be on the winning side.
If you are a real Stato, and want the best site to follow the US election:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/
For the record I was explaining the difference in viewpoint that exists in the different countries. I have a view and I am aware that that comes through strongly but the point of the post was not to extol one view over another merely to point out the misunderstandings that exist between them. I have not held anyone out as a bastion of good management nor have I above indicated that I wish anything to be sold off, I did say that I want a debate over the extent of government and your post just makes it clearer that that is very necessary.
If you have evidence that governments run businesses better than the private sector as you seem to suggest, then produce the "evidence" (that I have apparently ignored) and lets see it debated. I am quite happy with the NHS and have not advocated any system of health provision public or private, what I said was it is a socialist policy that moves private enterprise into public control and the American people see that as a removal of individual freedom.
I never said that "governments run businesses better than the private sector", patentely that would be beyond ridiculous, which is why you have tried to suggest I said it. Equally though there are sectors of our economy that should never be under private control imo (or as what often happens they end up under the control of foreign stated owned companies rather than our own state). You seem much happier with this and as it is definitely the way Romney thinks too. You wanted an example of a well run state owned company? Have a look at how well East Coast trains are doing now they are run by a state owned operator after the private sector company before it handed back the keys.
I could go on but you know what? It's Saturday night, I'm cheesed off as my team got hammered, I've got a curry on the go and I think I'd rather enjoy an evening with the missus watching Strictly than fruitlessly trying to have sensible discussion with you on the merits of big v small government as I'm not sure you're really prepared to listen to anyone elses views than your own.
According to Nate Silver's blog in the New York Times, which is looked upon as the most complete statistical analysis of the Presidential and Senate races, Obama has an 83.7% chance of winning. He leads in most of the swing states and only needs a few of them, or Florida, to lock up the 271 Electoral College votes needed.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/nov-2-for-romney-to-win-state-polls-must-be-statistically-biased/
J5 would NEVER vote republican!
"The reelection of the first African-American President does not inspire the same level of communal pride. But the reelection of a President who has been progressive, competent, rational, decent, and, at times, visionary is a serious matter. The President has achieved a run of ambitious legislative, social, and foreign-policy successes that relieved a large measure of the human suffering and national shame inflicted by the Bush Administration. Obama has renewed the honor of the office he holds."
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/10/29/121029taco_talk_editors#ixzz2BDk2RCXU
Obamacare therefore misses the whole point.
Donors not required to be identified?
What a system - Watergate all over again, if only there were journalists with the balls to go looking.
Several posters on here paint a picture of Romney as a warmonger, people over here don't see him in this way.
What I would agree with is that there is more passion from the right are likely to be voting against Obama than for Romney. It is rare that you hear reasons why people will be voting for Romney; it is almost always why they are against Obama.
If you follow Nate Silver's mathematical analyses in the New York Times, the popular vote is likely to be close (Obama 50.6, Romney 48.5). But it is the Electoral College is where the election is decided, and Silver comes up with 307.2 for Obama to 230.8 for Romney - 271 is needed to be elected.
Obama's chances of winning the election are now at 86.3%, because of his statistic advantages in the swing states.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/state-and-national-polls-come-into-better-alignment/