Why I hate both parties thread

[cincinnatus]

Put whatever you want that explains what's wrong with U.S. political parties.

Such as this...

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/he ... ut-co-pays

"Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control without charging co-pays or deductibles starting Aug. 1, the Obama administration announced Friday."

and the Repub response?

"Congressional Republicans slammed the decision as an assault on religious freedom.

"This ruling forces religious organizations to violate the fundamental tenets of their faith, or stop offering health insurance coverage to their employees," said the Republican Policy Committee. "Time will tell whether those institutions choose the former or the latter course — but neither option should be necessary, if the administration had not taken such an unbending approach to appease its liberal base."

WTF? That's the counter argument? That's the best those idiots can do? What about "why should employers or tax payers subsidize people who want to genuflect without consequences and have someone else pay so they don't have to be responsible for their lifestyle"?

"Birth control is not just basic health care for women, it is an economic concern," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. "This common sense decision means that millions of women, who would otherwise pay $15 to $50 a month, will have access to affordable birth control, helping them save hundreds of dollars each year."

So, the country already $16 trillion in the tank with an unemployment rate in the double-digits (real rate, not the fake one) can afford to cover birth control for women who don't want to drop $15 or $50 (in CO-PAYS...so already the insurer is picking up the majority of the tab) of their own cash to make sure they can get fucked and not get pregnant? Here's my response....you want affordable birth control? Tell your partner to wear a damn condom or pull the hell out! Trust me...that works every time.

[Enki]

The economic argument doesn't make sense at all because it's cheaper to fund birth control than unplanned and unwanted children.

The religious freedom argument at least it's clever. But it touches on the main reason I hate both parties:

Abortion dominating politics to the exclusion of all else. Pro-Choice/Pro-Life has lead to policies that have us oppressing and murdering millions of people overseas. Those people have no right to choice and no right to life.

[cincinnatus]

The economic argument doesn't make sense at all because it's cheaper to fund birth control than unplanned and unwanted children.

The religious freedom argument at least it's clever. But it touches on the main reason I hate both parties:

Abortion dominating politics to the exclusion of all else. Pro-Choice/Pro-Life has lead to policies that have us oppressing and murdering millions of people overseas. Those people have no right to choice and no right to life.

I guess we're just on different sides on this one (and keep in mind, I'm probably to the left of you on healthcare as I prefer a Nordic Euro model to ours). IMHO, the economic argument as you describe is a false-choice analogy logic fallacy. It is not a linear if A happens then B happens equation. There are many more possible outcomes if a woman doesn't get "free" birth control pills (paid by either taxpayers or an employer via a health insurance plan). More of a diagram of the input-output options of a processor than a straight line.

For instance, many of the women who would presumably request the pills via their insurance program don't suffer a lack of $ (because the policy is universal vice means-testing). So it's highly doubtful they'd hesitate to drop that $15-50 co-pay. Others may not care in the least because they don't use birth control pills because they're not in the habit of shagging everything that moves. Of course there are some who genuinely are strapped for money, but it still is not a linear argument that ipso-facto they have to get pregnant. They still have to make a choice to have unprotected sex or not (with the obvious exception of rape and maybe irresponsible alcoholic party girls, and excluding teenagers because that opens a giant argument beyond this one). If they make a wrong choice, why exactly is it the responsibility of the employer or taxpayer and not the woman and man who created the unplanned pregnancy? Are you arguing the Freakanomics argument that preventing unwanted/unplanned births lowers the crime rate?

[Nonc Hilaire]

The economic argument doesn't make sense at all because it's cheaper to fund birth control than unplanned and unwanted children.

The religious freedom argument at least it's clever. But it touches on the main reason I hate both parties:

Abortion dominating politics to the exclusion of all else. Pro-Choice/Pro-Life has lead to policies that have us oppressing and murdering millions of people overseas. Those people have no right to choice and no right to life.

Pro-choice/Pro=life politics is all about money and control on both sides. It is a distracting and highly emotional issue that has little to do with effecting actual change.

[Typhoon]

The economic argument doesn't make sense at all because it's cheaper to fund birth control than unplanned and unwanted children.

The religious freedom argument at least it's clever. But it touches on the main reason I hate both parties:

Abortion dominating politics to the exclusion of all else. Pro-Choice/Pro-Life has lead to policies that have us oppressing and murdering millions of people overseas. Those people have no right to choice and no right to life.

Pro-choice/Pro=life politics is all about money and control on both sides. It is a distracting and highly emotional issue that has little to do with effecting actual change.

Bingo.

Meanwhile ...

NYT | How U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work

WSJ | U.S. Loses High-Tech Jobs as R&D Shifts Toward Asia

The U.S. is rapidly losing high-technology jobs as American companies expand their research-and-development labs in China and elsewhere in Asia, the National Science Board said Tuesday.

Global, U.S.-based companies such as 3M Co., Caterpillar Inc. and General Electric Co. have spent billions of dollars in recent years to expand their overseas research labs. Such companies aim to tap a broader pool of scientific talent, tailor products to overseas markets and curry favor with foreign governments by doing more research abroad.

3M is expanding labs overseas "in preparation for a world where the West is no longer the dominant manufacturing power," Chief Executive George Buckley told investors last year. "Given the moribund interest in science in the U.S., this is strategically very important." R&D spending at 3M, which is based in St. Paul, Minn., typically is 5% to 6% of annual sales and among the highest in the corporate world.

In the six years through 2009, about 85% of the growth in R&D workers employed by U.S.-based multinational companies has been abroad, according to the National Science Board, a policy-making arm of the government's National Science Foundation. U.S. companies generally aren't closing labs at home but rather focusing expansion abroad. The overseas portion of their R&D employment grew to about 27% in 2009 from 16% in 2004, the report said.

Overall U.S. employment in high-technology manufacturing—which includes computers, communications, medical equipment, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and measuring devices—has decreased 28% since 2000 to about 1.8 million jobs, the report said. That partly is because of more-efficient manufacturing methods and the recession, but it also reflects the growing abilities of China and other Asian countries to make high-tech goods.

The trends are "troubling," said José-Marie Griffiths, chairman of the committee charged with producing the biennial report. The U.S. continues to do well globally in aerospace and pharmaceuticals, she said.

Total U.S. spending on R&D in 2009 was about $400 billion, the highest in the world, but Asia is catching up. The total for China, India, Japan and seven other Asian countries came to $399 billion. The European Union's total was about $300 billion.

It was the US postwar strength in R&D and manufacturing that lead to prosperity creating a larger pie for all to enjoy.

Legal and financial engineering, the current fashion, involves slicing up the existing pie to the benefit of those who have access to sharp knives.

If I was an American, I'd be fit to be tied regarding how both parties are either oblivious to these issues or actively aiding and abetting.

[Mr. Perfect]

Put whatever you want that explains what's wrong with U.S. political parties.

I'm ready for new parties.

[Enki]

Put whatever you want that explains what's wrong with U.S. political parties.

I'm ready for new parties.

Heh, if that's true, I think you and I would be in the same party when all is said and done.

[noddy]

the right carries its loony cultural conservatives with dark ages views on war and family, the left its loony economic illiterates with with equally dubious social engineering plans.

bugger the pandering to the base moderates are bad attitude... collect all the rino's and dino's under a proper centrist with a socially liberal but financially responsible framework ..

the problem being that moderates have a bad name because they stuff up and pander to both extremes when what they should be doing is telling both extremes to sod orf, the middle is bigger.

[Enki]

John Huntsman probably could dominate as a Democrat.

I know a cat who has WORKED FOR Obama who said if Huntsman got the nom, he'd probably vote for him.

John Huntsman would have had done really well against Obama. I'll probably vote for him when he runs for real in 2016.

[Simple Minded]

Love this thread...

Brother noddy for President..... of the world!!!!! Napster as VP or Unibanker!!!!

IMSMO, the problem with the two parties is they are too much alike. They both use the same information and hire the same experts.

The good part about representative government is that in good times it reflects the will of the people or zeitgeist. The bad part about representative government is that in bad times it reflects the will of the people or zeitgeist. Whether it is the Democrats, the Repubilicans, the Tea Party, or the OWS no one builds a big tent coalition without appealing to the lowest common denominator and the whack jobs. The guy at the OWS crapping on cop cars, and the guy at the Tea Party with the AR-15 on his shoulder are both welcomed as cannon fodder to gain power, and prove to be problems after gaining power.

"The state is the great fiction by which everyone trys to live at the expense of someone else." Bastiat

The irrational desire of many, if not most, for free lunches and square circles leads them to vote for those candidates who promise the greatest version of the impossible. In sales this is known as winning the liar's contest. The rational candidate wins only in rational times. The difference between rational and irrational zeitgeists is what percentage of the population determines the dominant ideology.

Then, of course there is the binary comparison: "Yes, I am a lying, corrupt SOB who has screwed things up, but the other guy is worse, and you're lucky I am currently running the show." Mental comparisons abound where none are appropriate nor accurate.

Kinda like the Superbowl, everyone knows the rules of football, and in the end the game will be won by either the NFL or the AFL. The guys on the field are only there temporarily.

[Enki]

Simple-Minded. I was thinking about the concept of 'Jesus Christ for President'. For everyone who is tired of voting for the lesser of two weevils. Get a large number of people to write in 'Jesus Christ' as he is such an exemplar for people on all sides. The right are highly Christian and the radical left see him as a badass revolutionary exemplifying their revolutionary ideals. If Jesus got like 5% of the vote, I wonder what people would think.

[Typhoon]

the right carries its loony cultural conservatives with dark ages views on war and family, the left its loony economic illiterates with with equally dubious social engineering plans.

bugger the pandering to the base moderates are bad attitude... collect all the rino's and dino's under a proper centrist with a socially liberal but financially responsible framework ..

the problem being that moderates have a bad name because they stuff up and pander to both extremes when what they should be doing is telling both extremes to sod orf, the middle is bigger.

Seconded.

[anderson]

the right carries its loony cultural conservatives with dark ages views on war and family, the left its loony economic illiterates with with equally dubious social engineering plans.

bugger the pandering to the base moderates are bad attitude... collect all the rino's and dino's under a proper centrist with a socially liberal but financially responsible framework ..

the problem being that moderates have a bad name because they stuff up and pander to both extremes when what they should be doing is telling both extremes to sod orf, the middle is bigger.

Seconded.

The emerging pragmatic libertarian center as an increasingly influential long term trendline in American politics.
The question? How to break the binary cages that currently hold and separate the two wings of this natural whole.

[Mr. Perfect]

The center has never struck me as particularly libertarian.

[Demon of Undoing]

The center has never struck me as particularly libertarian.

Agreed. Way, way too much acceptance of the nanny state.

[Mr. Perfect]

Yeah, you get to a certain age and the kids start to confuse you, with their understanding of topics. I recently happened on an interview with an adult performer, or stripper or something with a cross necklace. I worry sometimes.

[anderson]

Whatever you want to call it, there is something going on with the people where a message of "government, just leave people alone" is increasingly relevant as an organizing principle that resonates with a certain share of independents and a certain share of those that have typically alligned with one or the other of the two parties. These people don't all agree on exactly which areas government should leave people alone and where it should be active, but they generally agree with the general philosophy of minimizing the extent to which government gets in people's business.
If you could organize all these people under an internally consistent liberty platform, increasingly, you're getting close to a large enough group to form a governing coalition. The challenge is organizing these people who naturally should be cooperating for mutual interest toegether under one banner.

[Mr. Perfect]

Well I will take what I can get Anderson, don't get me wrong, but that people are doing that just a few years after they were all excited about Obama, well that is what makes the middle the middle. Always swinging this way and that. So my bets remain hedged.

[Demon of Undoing]

Agreed. I know what Anderson is talking about, but I think it's more a synthesis of American left and American right, not the middle. Then again, it's not that much of a synthesis yet,either.

The middle responds to the stories put out there. They aren't the ones invested in the issue, and they are the ones that don't mind being unaware of the details. Inevitable, but they aren't the droids we are after.

[cincinnatus]

Put whatever you want that explains what's wrong with U.S. political parties.

I'm ready for new parties.

I've really enjoyed your new incarnation...the brutal honesty about Gingrich...this admission...brings out the cool Mr. P.

[Zack Morris]

Nobody really wants libertarianism outside of a few Ayn Rand nerds on liberal college campuses. Urbanization and economic specialization render people very vulnerable and dependent and perhaps more importantly, ripe for organization.

[noddy]

i think all of you make excellent points and i dont disagree with much.

and thats just it, the middle is just a wishy washy, go with the flow, react to the moment short term exploitive beast with no principles .. simple mindeds description is pretty much saying that.

i just thought winning politics was winning a magority.. them same fools that wishy washied across to obama are the same fools that need to be wishy washied across to paul or johnson (or whoever) if that agenda is ever going to be anything beyond a minority viewpoint.

to do this i think the focus needs to be on authoritarianism/individualism rather than conservatism/progressive .. them be the angles that would wedge these "moderates".

besides, final solutions are just an outright daftness to my worldview, the other word for them is pogrom and even they dont work for long with human boundary pushing and contraryness.

[Ibrahim]

Nobody really wants libertarianism outside of a few Ayn Rand nerds on liberal college campuses. Urbanization and economic specialization render people very vulnerable and dependent and perhaps more importantly, ripe for organization.

This is true. The rhetoric that each party must engage in to whip up enthusiasm during elections bears no relationship to what they will actually do when elected, or what people really want them to do.

The level of individual autonomy that hardcore libertarians espouse has never existed in society, nor likely ever will. Come to think of it its never really formally dissected, the way anarchism was in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Rigorous examination showed anarchism to be largely utopian and impossible to implement, and I think the similarities between anarchism and libertarianism are many.

[Mr. Perfect]

Nobody really wants libertarianism outside of a few Ayn Rand nerds on liberal college campuses. Urbanization and economic specialization render people very vulnerable and dependent and perhaps more importantly, ripe for organization.

That doesn't bother me in any significant way. All I want is the poles in the country to move, between a Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, fighting in that area, I'm happy with that on the national level from here on out.

Just no more of this "public education needs more money/programs work if we try harder/social security-medicare is teh bEST/stimulus! aka waste = wealth/singlepayer/cap and trade/evil corporations!/foreigners hate us because we buy oil/guns cause crime and we are too successful/etcetcetc.

Enough of that horse$#!t.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

It's the people. "Justice exalteth a nation: but sin maketh nations miserable." (Proverbs 14:34)