Hillary Clinton our next president?

[hogger129]

The liberals are going to lose I think because of this sinking ship known as 0bamacare.

You hit the nail on the head. The average voter is sorely lacking in the real issues and a basic understanding of economics, foreign policy, fiscal responsibility etc. Like most of my friends, they get their information from 30 second sound bytes they hear while making dinner or texting on their phone.

A small example of media bias is this little gem from CNN.com. Obama lies outright to the public for years with "if you like your plan you can keep your plan, PERIOD" After the crap hits the fan for days CNN comes out with an article entitled "6 Things Presidents wish they hadn't said" http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/02/politics/obama-read-my-lips-moment/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

The body of the story talks about Obama's mishap, then Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, and oh yeah, Clinton getting caught with his pants down, literally. Then Reagan, Carter and Ford. It's as if they are saying to their liberal base, "Oh don't worry about Obama's lie, the Bush's did it many times as do all Presidents, nothing to see here, move along, haha, funny joke"

When it's Hilary's turn it'll be, "Benghazi? That was what, 5 years ago, it's history, Republicans are blowing it out of proportion, we had hearings on it and nothing was done wrong...etc. etc. etc." With media support like that, there's less and less chance of a true conservative ever getting elected again in the U.S.

And the media will say absolutely nothing about the fact that the administration is not letting Congress call the witnesses to testify... Actually I take that back, Fox and the conservative talk radio are the only ones who have said as much.

Yeah so much for that transparency 0bama promised us huh?

 

[DK]

The reason Republicans keep losing is because they're running moderates. Run someone more conservative like this Cucinelli guy who is running in W. Virginia.

Yes, because you'll really win over the majority if you're a hardliner on either side.

 

[Omnis]

The only people I'd vote for in the next election are Rand Paul or Mike Lee. Anyone else and I'm staying home.

 

[Danoff]

The only people I'd vote for in the next election are Rand Paul or Mike Lee. Anyone else and I'm staying home.

Don't stay home, vote 3rd party.

 

[Omnis]

Nobody is on the ballot yet. Haha. Will have to see who L and C nominate.

 

[Danoff]

Almost doesn't matter. I like voting libertarian because it sends a very clear message why I didn't vote for the democrapublicans.

 

[BobK]

Apparently that message isn't being received, I'm afraid.

 

[hogger129]

Yes, because you'll really win over the majority if you're a hardliner on either side.

Worked for 0bama.

 

[Danoff]

@BobK only because not enough people vote 3rd party.

 

[LeMansAid]

Worked for 0bama.

Was there hardline advertising? I'd have thought that......

democrapublicans.

.....would be more the situation over there, as it is in Australia.

 

[DK]

Worked for 0bama.

Obama is a hardline socialist? Oh please, if he was in the UK he'd probably be in the centrist bloc of the Conservatives.

 

[White & Nerdy]

That's just because the UK's right is the US's left.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

That's just because the UK's right is the US's left.

The democrats would be considered somewhat conservative in most developed nations. Like it or not, but America is one of the most conservative developed nations in the world. Who's the outlier here?

 

[Danoff]

The democrats would be considered somewhat conservative in most developed nations. Like it or not, but America is one of the most conservative developed nations in the world. Who's the outlier here?

Conservative you say? And yet, our government takes a massive proportion of our wealth and has enormous entitlement programs. One could make a decent argument that the US has some policies which are more socialist than the UK.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Conservative you say? And yet, our government takes a massive proportion of our wealth and has enormous entitlement programs. One could make a decent argument that the US has some policies which are more socialist than the UK.

I very much doubt that. For a start, you're the only developed nation without nationalised healthcare. Our welfare system is far more generous than yours, and our taxes are higher. America is, by European standards, very conservative, and favours the rich immensely. For example, the highest rate a UK resident will ever pay for university is £9,000 a year, which is almost unacceptably high by European standards, but compare that to £40,000 a year for, say, CMU, and it looks pretty good.

 

[Danoff]

I very much doubt that. For a start, you're the only developed nation without nationalised healthcare.

Well that's not exactly true is it? Not only do we have medicare and medicaid, but now we have obamacare as well. It's not nationalized, but to the recipients it doesn't matter.

So that's $802B or about 5% of GDP.

What's the UK's GDP on the NHS? Looks to me like it's about 7%.

So we're at 5% GDP without factoring obamacare. I think if yours counts as a socialist healthcare system, ours has to as well. Note that social security (the next largest item) is also a welfare program.

 

[Dotini]

Social security may be a sort of welfare program, but hasn't it been self-funded, and its revenues over the decades used as general funds?

That 6% slice of federal spending on interest could easily and predictably balloon to a much greater proportion as and when interest rise from their currently artificially low levels.

 

[Danoff]

Social security may be a sort of welfare program, but hasn't it been self-funded, and its revenues over the decades used as general funds?

No, social security is funded 100% by taxes, not by any fee-based revenue stream. So it is absolutely a welfare program. The taxes have been high (until recently) compared to expenses and the excess has been used to fund other programs.

 

[A2K78]

Hillary the next president? With the vast amount of political baggage she has coupled with Obama sinking popularity there is no way democrats would be foolish nominate someone basically in his mold.

At the end of the day the next president will be one someone who is leaning libertarian. They don't necessarily need to be a libertarian, but giving the way the country is and the fact both parties are rapidly falling out favor with the electorate in terms of domestic and foreign policy a candidate that with libertarian leanings is in good shape to take the presidency.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

@Danoff - Spending and sturcturing are different. Americans spend massive amounts of money on healthcare, but their system still involves private insurance corporations, while ours involves a fully government owned and run system. Not partially, fully. The US is the only developed nation that doesn't have a fully nationalised healthcare system, and you have to pay more because of it.

Here's our budget:

Social protection is, as you can see, the largest part of the budget, after health. Combine the two, and you have nearly half the budget, at about $8,000 per person. Note how miniscule our defence spending is compared to yours, and yet we haven't all been killed, nor has anyone tried to attack us .

 

[A2K78]

Conservative you say? And yet, our government takes a massive proportion of our wealth and has enormous entitlement programs. One could make a decent argument that the US has some policies which are more socialist than the UK.

This quite true and the government shutdown demonstrates this well....americans are just too dependent on government.

 

[Badasp5.0]

@Danoff - Spending and sturcturing are different. Americans spend massive amounts of money on healthcare, but their system still involves private insurance corporations, while ours involves a fully government owned and run system. Not partially, fully. The US is the only developed nation that doesn't have a fully nationalised healthcare system, and you have to pay more because of it.

Here's our budget:

Social protection is, as you can see, the largest part of the budget, after health. Combine the two, and you have nearly half the budget, at about $8,000 per person. Note how miniscule our defence spending is compared to yours, and yet we haven't all been killed, nor has anyone tried to attack us .

We have a lot more world wide commitments and infrastructure plus our nation is 30times the size of yours so of course our defense budget is a lot larger. Being a superpower cost money.

 

[A2K78]

@Danoff - Spending and sturcturing are different. Americans spend massive amounts of money on healthcare, but their system still involves private insurance corporations, while ours involves a fully government owned and run system. Not partially, fully. The US is the only developed nation that doesn't have a fully nationalised healthcare system, and you have to pay more because of it.

Here's our budget:

Social protection is, as you can see, the largest part of the budget, after health. Combine the two, and you have nearly half the budget, at about $8,000 per person. Note how miniscule our defence spending is compared to yours, and yet we haven't all been killed, nor has anyone tried to attack us .

There is nothing private, let alone free market about america's healthcare system as its heavily government regulated. In fact the last vestiges of free market healthcare pretty much died when socialist Nixion signed the HMO act into law. Obamacare is merely just an add-on to that.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

We have a lot more world wide commitments and infrastructure plus our nation is 30times the size of yours so of course our defense budget is a lot larger. Being a superpower cost money.

It shouldn't cost $670 billion. In 1960, the US's military budget was $400 billion in today's money, and that was at the height of the cold war when there was a real, serious threat to your nation's security. Today, that threat is gone, yet you spend 70 percent more on your military. I don't understand why America has to spend so much on their military. And about those global commitments, does that include upholding the Saudi Arabian government, a Sharia based law system which discriminates heavliy against women and lacks both the democracy and freedom that America claims to uphold in the world. Your military budget and subsequent hypocrisy, breach of sovereignty, and general attitude that you're the world's police force cost you a lot of credibility. Sadly, many Americans seem incapable of realising that they aren't special, and that nobody is. We're all people in the end.

There is nothing private, let alone free market about america's healthcare system as its heavily government regulated. In fact the last vestiges of free market healthcare pretty much died when socialist Nixion signed the HMO act into law. Obamacare is merely just an add-on to that.

How funny.

 

[Badasp5.0]

It shouldn't cost $670 billion. In 1960, the US's military budget was $400 billion in today's money, and that was at the height of the cold war when there was a real, serious threat to your nation's security. Today, that threat is gone, yet you spend 70 percent more on your military. I don't understand why America has to spend so much on their military. And about those global commitments, does that include upholding the Saudi Arabian government, a Sharia based law system which discriminates heavliy against women and lacks both the democracy and freedom that America claims to uphold in the world. Your military budget and subsequent hypocrisy, breach of sovereignty, and general attitude that you're the world's police force cost you a lot of credibility. Sadly, many Americans seem incapable of realising that they aren't special, and that nobody is. We're all people in the end.

You realize that equipment has become a lot more expensive and specialized since 1960? Even if you look at something as basic as infantry man kit its a massive difference in cost.
Here is a quick picture which outlines it perfectly. And honestly that "Now" part of the list is even longer on most patrols/operations.

The cold war threat is gone but the world is just as dangerous place, rainbows and puppydogs have not broken out everywhere yet. Beyond KSA which I don't like as a us ally anymore than you, we also are in S Korea, and various outposts and assistance programs in Europe Asia and even south America. Plus a lot of that budget is for R&D, you know those nice fancy WAH-64s, C-17s, CH-47s and F-35s your nations military uses, those were developed by that huge US defense budget. I never said anything about being special just the reasons for the large military budget. I agree we shouldn't try to be the worlds policeman and should not intervene as much. I have 1st had experience in both the good and bad side of that since I am a US Army veteran.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff - Spending and sturcturing are different. Americans spend massive amounts of money on healthcare, but their system still involves private insurance corporations, while ours involves a fully government owned and run system. Not partially, fully. The US is the only developed nation that doesn't have a fully nationalised healthcare system, and you have to pay more because of it.

Yes, Americans spend tons on healthcare (pre-obamacare, we'll see what happens post obamacare... probably tons more. So far all that happened to me as a result of obamacare is that my insurance premiums went up $1000/year). But none of that expense is shown in the pie chart I posted. The medicare/medicaid expense is entirely government handouts for medical expenses. There's more government meddling in ways that don't directly involve government money but that do cost Americans healthcare dollars which is not shown in that chart. But regardless, our socialized healthcare (medicare/medicaid) expense are probably larger than your socialized healthcare in terms of actual dollars, and rivals it in terms of GDP. So I'd still say ours counts as socialist.

If you factor in social security we spend almost half of our budget on socalized services (which is an under estimate because there's a lot more hidden in the "discretionary" and "other mandatory" slices). So I think we're right there with the UK in terms of being socialist.

"...the laaaaaand of the freeeeeee..."

 

[Grayfox]

Clinton can be next president.
go to 55s, that will be her campain slogan

 

[White & Nerdy]

We may be the outlier, but somehow I think that's a positive thing, not a negative thing.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It shouldn't cost $670 billion. In 1960, the US's military budget was $400 billion in today's money, and that was at the height of the cold war when there was a real, serious threat to your nation's security. Today, that threat is gone, yet you spend 70 percent more on your military. I don't understand why America has to spend so much on their military. And about those global commitments, does that include upholding the Saudi Arabian government, a Sharia based law system which discriminates heavliy against women and lacks both the democracy and freedom that America claims to uphold in the world. Your military budget and subsequent hypocrisy, breach of sovereignty, and general attitude that you're the world's police force cost you a lot of credibility. Sadly, many Americans seem incapable of realising that they aren't special, and that nobody is. We're all people in the end.

How funny.

Sadly, what you are incapable of realising, is that the reason you can get away with spending only $38Billion on defence is because Americans spend $670Billion. You aren't being attacked because you are doing such a great job in defending your country and because $38Billion buys you such a great military, but because everybody knows if you are attacked, the Americans will bail you out. Canada is in the same boat and we're damn glad we are.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Sadly, what you are incapable of realising, is that the reason you can get away with spending only $38Billion on defence is because Americans spend $670Billion. You aren't being attacked because you are doing such a great job in defending your country and because $38Billion buys you such a great military, but because everybody knows if you are attacked, the Americans will bail you out. Canada is in the same boat and we're damn glad we are.

Also I believe some of the foreign aid is part of the defense, like money we send to Israel and other nations too (Pakistan, S. Korea, etc.) However, I will say I don't fully agree to the extent of our military spending.