USA Politics

Well, 'everyone gets a vote', so everyone thinks they know what is going on.  Unfortunately, this country is so large, and the population so diverse, not everyone can have enough understanding to debate with any degree of knowledge.
 
There are a couple of points that I thought were interesting in this debate.

1.  Obama says that he will stay firm on his commitment of no new taxes for the middle class.  I'd like to see how he can pull this off. 
2.  There have been accusations that Obama is coddling special interest groups in order to help fight the interest groups that are against him on the proposed reform.  Stay tuned.  I've only noticed this from one source and it may not be reliable.
3.  Obama may go straight to the Senate if he does not get enough support.  At this point Obama will not say whether or not he has enough support from either the Dems or Reps.
 
The following is not about American politics, rather Canadian.  However, this is still relevant here.  The Ontario government is proposing to pass a bill that would have a power to oversee the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons when the College rules over disciplinary hearings concerning its own members.  Americans are complaining that the government will ruin their medicine, well, our government is going one step further.  No longer are problems blamed only on business, now doctors take the blame as well.  Apparently, our government thinks it can run The College better than the members who are educated in this field.  As always there is public support.  The rationale is that the government will step in whenever it feels appropriate to meet the needs of Ontarians.  One more unnecessary, over-paid bureaucracy is not what the province needs, not now during tough economic times or ever.

This reason I post this here is simple.  Given the Big Gov't momentum south of the border, our own government thinks now is the best and easiest time to ride the coattails, exploit the fear happening down south and pass such a law into legislation.

Province pushes for legal whip over doctors.
Certain Americans want to be able to provide a free-market system to the drug market.  However, Obama apparently made a deal with PhRMA not to open the doors to trade with the new healthcare overhaul bill.  (This has traditionally been the territory of FDA, so it is nothing new).  Folks, there are two sad things as a result of this.  First, the American citizen is getting gipped.  Second, free-market will take the fall for this highly regulatory practice.  Business as usual.  Read the full story below.  Be sure to check out the price differences between Canada and USA.  However, there is hope for the American consumer yet.  If a certain North Dakota senator has his way, "Big PhRMA" will have no choice but to compete on a fair level in a free(r) market. 

U.S. senator makes push for Canadian prescription drugs.

Genghis Khan said:
2.  There have been accusations that Obama is coddling special interest groups in order to help fight the interest groups that are against him on the proposed reform.  Stay tuned.  I've only noticed this from one source and it may not be reliable.
Click to expand...

Looks like I was right about this.  ;)
 
Read about how a key military figure was fired because he "came out".  He was needed for his various skills, including his Arabic language skills.  This discrimination in the milliary really is stupid and unjust.

More details here.

October 10, 2009
Christine Simmons
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says he will end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy.

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they don’t disclose their sexual orientation or act on it.

Obama said America cannot afford to cut from the military’s ranks people with needed skills for fighting. He made the comments to thousands of gays and lesbians at a fundraising dinner Saturday night for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay-rights group.

Since Obama took office in January, some advocates have complained Obama has not followed through on promises to push top gay rights issues.
 
Not sure if USA politics isn't kind of a broad topic for all the crap that goes on here in the US -- but here's an item today in the newswires which completely filled me with my usual disgust at the senselessness and ignorance of what passes for rational thought in the US:  :nuts2:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091023/ap_ ... VzYmVsaWVm


So now apparently global warming can be pushed to non-existence because some yahoos over here decide it doesn't exist -- talk about a 'Face in the Sand" mentality. :wtf:  And ya wonder why I'm a little touchy at times?!
 
I think people here do mix up climate and weather -- it's great that was said in that article.  If it's a cold spring or summer, Americans think global warming has reversed itself.  It's like that old argument about the world being flat.  :blink:  No wonder American students score so much worse in science than the rest of the world.

Okay, here's another good example of US politics in the guise of dunderheadedness, this of the autocratic, I-spend-therefore-I-am sort:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/nyreg ... ?th&emc=th

Because apparently Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is so afraid of his nearly invisible competition, he feels he has to flog them with his bank account in public. 

I mean, come on, 85 million dollars spent on a campaign to be mayor?  MOst mayors running for office in the US probably don't spend a tenth of that.  And with unemployment in the US at ovr 9%, 85 million on a campaign which Bloomberg probably has already won, through sheer overkill, and which he probably should never have even entered (but he actually had the laws changed so that he could be spoiled with a third term of mayor), begins to look just a tad obscene.  Call me a spoilsport.  :S

I just like my democracy to have an even playing field, and burying the competition in reams of dough they couldn't even dream of spending on a campaign smacks of the odoriferous edges of autocracy and megolomania.  :innocent: Yep, I just said that.
 
I don't see a problem with it.  Bloomberg earned money to spend as he wishes.  If the people of NYC wanted him out, he'd be out.  He's extremely popular, remember.
 
Genghis Khan said:
So?  Ross Perot also spent millions of his own dollars on campaigns.  This does not necessarily equal victory.
Click to expand...

If I recall, Perot was an underdog, because he didn't have any Party money to spend, compared to the R's and D's.  So, he had to pour cash into it.  I don't know much about mayoral races, though.
 
Right.  Combine both your comments.  He is popular, and so never needed to bury his rather poor (in terms of available cash) opponents so entirely.  It's unreal overkill. 

And he isn't on the national stage as Perot was.  It's a mayor's job.  Even figuring it's for the largest city in the country, it's still an obscene amount.

Also Perot did need to spend to get attention; Bloomberg does not.  He's a gigantic fish in a small pond. Everyone knows him, he almost already won -- nearly a sure thing. 

Was all that money necessary? Um, to me, no.  Will he someday somehow convince voters to change the NYC statute or laws or whatever so that he can have a fourth term, a fifth, a sixth?  Even if he's the best mayor ever, the laws should be followed, otherwise what's the point of having them?  What's the point of having an election if there's no competition that can possibly come close to spending what he can?  Hell, just make him honorable mayor for life.  There's just one problem with that.  It's not the way a democracy should run.

I like the guy and the job he does, up until the third term, and the 85 million on a shoe-in campaign.  And then I thought, it isn't really what it's about.  Maybe 85 million seems reasonable to you guys, but think about that amount for a second.  It's a huge amount for a mayor's race. 

And I totally agree with you, Wasted, that he can spend it as he wishes.  He's a wealthy guy and he knows no one can compete, that he's already popular, and already favored to win.  That amount of money isn't even needed, and yet he'll throw it around anyway. 

I understand that you guys are saying 'so what?'  But IMO, it's really an obscene amount, especially in a recession.
 
That's ridiculous.  Bloomberg is spending Bloomberg's money on Bloomberg's campaign.  He's buying TV and radio time in local NY tv and radio stations.  Hiring people to design, print, and put up ads.  He's spending all that money - not tax payer dollars, not contributions - out of his own pocket.  I see nothing wrong with that.

Laws are designed to be changed, jmpoet.  They can be altered to fit the time.  This time, the representatives of the people of NY thought it was appropriate to extend term limits.  It's supposed to work that way.  Bloomberg is an immensely popular mayor, yes, but have you thought about what it might mean that he spends that money in NY?  It's kinda like NYC's own little stimulus, pouring money into local stations and such that would be ordinarily hammered by the recession.
 
Interesting. I only knew Bloomberg as a major economical factor -see Bloomberg L.P.
I only now realize that he's mayor of NY too!!

I made some research in Wikipedia, he seems -apart from serious, obviously- a very sympathetic man as well.
Only one question: He's Republican or Democrat ? A Republican that jumped to Democrat party ?
 
How do you spend 85 mill?  He'd have to have ads running constantly.  Maybe he hires private cars for all his campaign volunteers.  He is a generous person, so I've read, and maybe he should be.  Or not, as you wish.  He's broken the campaign spending record, but that spending effects a pretty narrow margin of people.  I'm sure they are grateful for the business, you're right. 

But it is not ridiculous to leave term limits alone.  There's a reason they set up a term limit for the presidency after FDR, and there's a reason to set them up for any elected office.  I disagree with changing those rules, as they were well-considered to begin with.  We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, and the one about 85 million being a lot of money.
 
There's a huge difference between presidential term limits and mayoral term limits.  The difference is the Constitution of the United States.  Term-limiting mayors in NY only needs a simple majority of the councilors of NY.  Altering the Constitution requires a 2/3rds majority in both Houses of Congress and 3/4ths of the states ratifying the amendment with a simple majority.

And, for reference, the NYC term limits were established to limit Tammany Hall bosses from dominating consolidated city politics, a situation which certainly no longer applies.  In addition, it's not like they removed term limits, they simply expanded them to three terms from two.
 
jmpoet said:
There's a reason they set up a term limit for the presidency after FDR, and there's a reason to set them up for any elected office. 
Click to expand...

This is sort off-topic, but did not FDR change rules himself by staying in office for four terms?  I thought Thomas Jefferson changed the rules to only two terms in office after he realized he could win a third term, but decided not to go for office as he thought this threatened democracy with oligarchy.  Maybe I'm getting my facts mixed, but that's my memory anyway.  Anyone care to elucidate?

By the way, great points in this latest "argument".
 
There was no presidential term limit before the amendment which set the current limit at 2.

It was Washington, not Jefferson, who set the precedent as 2 terms. He could have easily won another term in the electoral college if he wanted it. He retired because he believed in giving up power. Remember, as a General there was a movement to make him King for life after the US won their independence. With that offer unofficially on the table, Washington gave up all his military power. He was generally against any one person having too much power.

The 2-term precedent is not entirely by intent. At a minimum, I know Teddy Roosevelt ran for a 3rd and lost. Maybe others did too, but if so I don't recall them offhand.
 
TR ran thrice.

So did Grover Cleveland, but his second running was a lost; he then became the only US president to serve non-consecutive terms.  He did not offer a fourth time.

William Jennings Bryan ran thrice for the Democrats, but never won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top