2010 US Midterm Elections: Cast Your Votes

[drone]

You should appoint me as Magister Populi, I will rule for the benefit of the people.

We already have that. Over here, a "person" has a dubious legal definition.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Republican ties to the more "evil" special interests are more well publicized, but the Dems have been bought off on a fair number of issues as well. Unions and the MPAA/RIAA come to mind.

Unions have little sway over congress. They are simply too poor to amount to a potent force. The past three decades union membership has been declining almost as fast as living-wage jobs for ordinary Americans. Even labour friendly democrats are nowadays firmly to the right of Nixon-era Republicans. Apparantly the Democrats, never mind Washngton, has not in the pocket of unions at all.

Rather, Democrats, and this is much more disturbing, like Republicans are in the pocket of more spendthrifty special interest groups. That is the real tragedy of Congress, the cause for US voter apathy. What good is your vote going to do against Washington and its 15000 lobbyists. The really influential lobby groups are smart enough to have both parties on the payroll. Science is bought, politicians are bought. Corporations and other organised intitutions (from hospitals to insurance firms) are strenghtened against individual Americans. And all these are left with, is the wish to have as little government as possible, because they've rightly learned that government will not protect them. So in the end, the means by which the people could protects their freedoms, a strong government, remains unused out of anger and mistrust over a government which tends to use its strenght against ordinary citizens.

[Beskar]

What I don't get is how the US pays far more in money per person on Health, than the United Kingdom, while not even providing a basic standard of healthcare to its population. You can tell there are lots of people on the gravy train there.

[rory_20_uk]

What I don't get is how the US pays far more in money per person on Health, than the United Kingdom, while not even providing a basic standard of healthcare to its population. You can tell there are lots of people on the gravy train there.

Loads of reasons:

1. Standard of living of doctors is higher in the USA
2. No treatment of chronic diseases - things only addressed as emergencies, rather than prevention.
3. Incentive to do "everything" as more procedures = more money
4. Litigation - best be ultra-bulletproof safe so do every test just in case
5. Use of most expensive drugs: newest drug is 5% better but x2 the cost - if it's on insurance, why not?
6. Massive inefficiencies in the "back office"
   
   

[Crazed Rabbit]

Look up videos of Tea Party rallies and their leaders such as Sarah Palin on Youtube?

Anecdotal data. Those most likely to appear in such videos are probably the most likely to get worked up over such things as 'death panels'.

No, it isn't right, to be honest, we actually probably agree that Congressmen should read every bill (albeit maybe for different reasons). I am just saying that to point out this flaw in the system for this particular bill seems a bit of reaching there considering that we can say this about every single bill from the good ones to the bad ones. It is how Washington operates and although it shouldn't operate like that I don't think it is fair to chastise a bill for something that can be applied to every other bill.

I don't think it's reaching. The bill has a huge affect and will likely be with us until we have some sort of successful revolution or an even worse bill with even more government control gets passed - and that bill will be shaped by this one. In short, this bill will shape our lives for decades to come and the nitwits couldn't be bothered to read it.

I believe there is plenty incentive for the interns to accurately communicate in a non partisan and very factual, through way the ins and outs of a bill. The Congressman certainly does not want to be ignorant of any facts about the bill and how it works because he doesn't want to look like a fool and the intern certainly doesn't want to lose his job.

I think there's simply too much info for any sort of summation to explain everything. And because tiny details can have huge consequences, everything needs to be examined.

To some extent yes, this is true. But then again, the GOP did not take the Senate, so I could argue that the public is currently very divided about their opinions on the matter. Perhaps we could give the health care bill a fair shot and give it full election cycle before we start dismantling it? Perhaps the public will have a more clear consensus about it by then and give one of the parties a clear mandate.

As said above, I view dismantling as highly unlikely in future years and decades.

Ok again, this is where I am going to own up to my mistake. Wasn't Bush, it was Democratic President Clinton with a Republican controlled Congress that instituted the financial deregulation regarding mortgages if I remember correctly. But substitute Bush with Clinton/GOP congress in my original statement.

I don't believe that happened. The government for decades has sought to encourage lending on subprime loans in order to increase home ownership. It wasn't deregulation, but greater government involvement that led to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying so many subprime loans.

I admit I completely forgot about the FDIC. No banks nevertheless would mean absolutely no loans and no loans means no rebuilding. I still fail to see how having the banks fail would lead to better outcome. Perhaps you need to just go over it for me so I understand.

Not all the banks would fail. Those that survive would gobble up some of the collapsed ones, new ones would start.

I don't look at it like that. I see that government can't always do something about a problem, but I also recognize that capitalism has self destructive tendencies regarding the state of the workers within the system or the support of the system itself. And that is where I think government has a legit role.

What self destructive tendencies? I think that term is better applied to Keynesian economics - another part of which is inflating the monetary supply in order to spur the economy (see recent news of the Fed pumping billions into the economy), which causes a economic retraction eventually because all that spending was based not on 'real' savings, but on money the government created.

I disagree about the prices I think they have more of an impact then most people realize. (I will come back later with an edit looking for sources to see how much the subsidies bring down prices, too busy right now.) Yeah profit is the motive for people to provide good services, but there is a set of services where the profitability factor begins to degrade the quality of the service itself. That's what I think is happening with health care, other countries spend less per GDP and seem to have very nice statistics (better then ours in most cases). The US health care system has been a patchwork of alterations and additions of various sorts to a private sector system over many decades, including medicare, HMOs etc... yet we still can't get things working. I just find the notion that the system itself is fine and we need to get rid of all these government intrusions and regulations to be a bit...disconnected from what history tells me.

Certainly there is the temptation for companies to increase profits by cutting costs - which usually cuts quality. Normally, such as with food or goods like computers, consumers see this and buy something else. But because of the healthcare insurance model in the USA (Primarily employer provided) people are much more restricted. This, too, is the result of government meddling; first in WWII with wage caps (so companies offered benefits like insurance to get people to apply for jobs, as they could not offer higher wages), and later when employer healthcare payments became tax deductible and privately bought personal insurance payments were subject to taxes.

If people had more choices and it were easy for them to switch, companies would be punished for shoddy services.

Again actually, we could agree about ending subsidies and getting rid of import restriction (again, probably for different reasons), but my point is that the subsidies from what I have read are what supports the food industry to a very large extent because the US doesn't want the security risk of having to import cheaper food from other (maybe not so friendly) countries. I mean, what is to stop farm companies from simply shifting their farms to Mexico where they can get cheap labor and probably not have to deal with as many government regulations and such, it probably comes down to the subsidies, which would need to be very large.

I believe the subsidies are around because the farmer's lobby is strong, not because of any real security risk.

To some extent I agree that shouldn't have bought the house. On the other hand, at the time when everyone was buying these houses, everyone was in a boom like fever and I'm sure many homeowners were talked into how they could afford it if they just did x, y and z. They wouldn't have ever figured that soon it would be impossible to do x, y or z because values dropped like a rock and etc (we know how it played out)...

The banks were often in on it. I recall reading of Washington Mutual loan meetings were people just provided a picture of them shaking mariachis as proof they played in a band, and then they got the loan. The banks were the ones who offered the risky loans.

CR

[Beskar]

Not all the banks would fail. Those that survive would gobble up some of the collapsed ones, new ones would start.

But wouldn't that cause more monopolies and control within smaller group of people?

Problem with many industries, is that you need money in order to make money. Since the crash causes less money, unless a couple of the billionaires or large corporations branch out, there would not be many banking ventures to replace the ones which disappear. Since the providers of the supply decrease, there is less competition, which means rates will raise (simply because they can force them too). So unless there is a socioeconomical revolution and fundamental shift of personal values, this higher credit will cause troubles in other areas, as businesses will collapse, leading to greater unemployment, which in turn causes greater rise in crime, increasing the costs to other businesses which in turn can not even get credit themselves since there is even less customers... (insert a large range of consequences and actions which will get employed). The economy on the grand-scale will now sink, which many companies buying their rivals and achieving monopoly status. There will very high unemployment and the wages will pummel. A lot of the high-end products will simply stop being stocked mainstream, as no one can afford it, and it would go to the 'essentials', or even large-scale backyard farming might take hold. There will be a high death and casualty rate, as the society will simply begin to break down, as there is no longer the support for vital services, and there might be even an implementation of martial law in some areas of the country (Effectively, imagine Greece situation in America, potentially being far worse.) Other economies in the world will replace America, and some countries will even fail themselves as the direct result, especially if America recalls all loans.

However, CR, there is a chance of something good happening, and that would be a socioeconomic revolution from the grassroots. Unfortunately, history has shown us that it never occurs as such, as those at the top will have the means to guarantee it will fail. Unless the situation comes so severe, then you are facing revolution either of an extreme fascist or communist style government which can then systematically deal with 'those at the top' with the use of force.

[This is the progressive destruction of the economy (and society) if no intervention ever occurs either through foreign debt. governmental debt, and any form of 'stimulus'.]

Yes, there is a need for change. I think both you and I agree on that point. However, the change we would want (even though it might differ) would not be best be served during an economical collapse.

However, what makes the situation even worse is only in periods of unrest, can real change occur, as during a high-time, everyone is too apathetic to care about any real change. (See: Lazy)

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm busy studying for my midterms, so I will get back to you in a couple days CR. But thanks for the reply.

[drone]

Looks like Murkowski pulled it off convincingly, 92,715 unchallenged votes (+ ~8K challenged ones) vs 90,468 for Miller. First time in over 50 years a write-in won a Senate race.

And Pelosi stays on as the House Minority Leader, holding on to whatever power she can in her cold, dead hands. She'll have to fly commercial again, wonder if she will choose the scanner over the pat-down. 50 bucks says they have to drag her out of the Speaker's office by her feet on January 3rd.