Beyond the elections in the US

Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#1
Democrats lost their super majority and then some, Obama may very well be out the door in two years, and so on, but what really matters is that US has some major structural problems that the later it addresses the poorer it will become relative to the world.

It is because of such structural problems that the unemployment rate is so high, now higher than many European countries, something that would have been unthinkable just 15 years ago. The reason is that the Europeans have been strongly adopting the US style economic principles of free markets just as China has been, and the US itself has actually been regressing away from these principles.

Number 1 structural problem is healthcare. It is slowly but surely bankrupting the US. US is spending over 17% of its GDP on healthcare 50% higher than the next developed nation and US actually has one of the youngest populations among the developed nations. And the results are bad. Healthcare cost is absolutely a huge barrier to hiring and labor mobility in the US. Obama had a chance to address the issue, even if partially, but he truly blew it, too clueless, too much of a coward, and too interested in deal making with the entrenched welfare recipients. His bill, does essentially nothing in curbing healthcare cost. And that is the structural issue, not lack of coverage. People would be covered if it cost less.

The Republicans are even worse. Their bottom line interest in the healthcare debate is to protect the interest of the healthcare welfare recipients even more. Do not believe me, just examine Bush's healthcare bill. It is the single biggest government welfare handout of the past 50 years. It is a $200B government spending bill and it explicitly states, that government cannot then negotiate prices on drugs with the drug companies. Now that is a neat trick! Lets give $200B to buy drugs but lets stipulate that we cannot negotiate on prices. And then, one year later, something that I am willing to bet that not 1 in a 1000 Americans noticed, Bush moved to crack down on the illegal import of drugs under the banner of "protecting the Americans from unsafe foreign drugs."

Are you then surprised that drugs cost 3 times more in the US than any other country in the world?

Now at over 17% of GDP-no longer small enough to just digest, and the cost gap over other countries even greater, if healthcare is not addressed, unemployment will remain chronically high in the US. For now, get used to 10% average unemployment moving towards 12%.

And that is just the number 1 structural problem.
 

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,199
22
#2
Thank god people are waking-up and looking into relevant matters - too bad it took this election to wake some of you up - to start talking about relavant matters. As you may recall I strted a thread about "Liberal BS" - before the elections - trying to say: I am liberal in many ways - but the Liberal BS has the country so mesmerized we don't even get to discuss serious matters.

On healthcare - you are absolutely right - you also put your finger on the right place - the pharmaceutical industry which Bush supported - and Obama is helping even further.

USA is going to be fine - because their foundation is right. Their economy is also going to be fine because they know how and where to invest on R&D. The danger is a hungry, jealous and greedy world who would hope for:


تاقاری بشکنه ماستی بریزه،

جهان گردد به کام کاسه لیسان!!
 
Aug 27, 2005
8,688
0
Band e 209
#3
Democrats lost their super majority and then some, Obama may very well be out the door in two years
Dear F.P, Sir!

Based on recent American political history I disagree with your above assessment.
Mid term losses also happened to Truman, Eisenhower and Bill Clinton and all made it to 2nd term. The trick was shifting from far right or left to center which I think Obama is intelligent enough to realize that, last Wednesday in his post election press conference he indicated plenty hint of upcoming "in center" policies.

He will have no choice but give up some of his health care bill, but republican majority congress does not hold enough number to be able to navigate around his veto power. They will come up to some agreement on the center. JMHO.
 

beystr 2.0

Bench Warmer
Jul 9, 2006
1,983
0
#4
I think..there is no question about U.S. being no.1 in Medical technology...now why is this more of an expensive process as opposed to other feilds?..IMO..part of it has to do with the law suits and FDA's outdated beaurocracy..and ofcourse the lobbies..as its been proven...it's a tough fight in each of those battels.
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#5
Dear F.P, Sir!

Based on recent American political history I disagree with your above assessment.
Mid term losses also happened to Truman, Eisenhower and Bill Clinton and all made it to 2nd term. The trick was shifting from far right or left to center which I think Obama is intelligent enough to realize that, last Wednesday in his post election press conference he indicated plenty hint of upcoming "in center" policies.

He will have no choice but give up some of his health care bill, but republican majority congress does not hold enough number to be able to navigate around his veto power. They will come up to some agreement on the center. JMHO.
Motori jaan, I am not sure if Obama is smart enough; his best chance is that the Republicans may just be stupid enough. He has proven to be a relatively inept politician as President. He was a good (though not great) campaigner. Let me put it this way, Bill Clinton towers over Obama in political intelligence.

Regardless, my main point of the post was that it is way secondary in who it is, Republican or Democrat, in face of the real structural problems US is facing. US is and will be falling further and further behind. The reason is that others are making progress against structural issues while the US is not addressing them or making them worse.

For example, France, the country that is known for inability to address structural issues, is raising retirement age. These are the type of changes that are needed and will improve overall prosperity.
 
Aug 27, 2005
8,688
0
Band e 209
#7
Dear F.P,
I compared Obama's intelligence to other 3 who had to face opposing party taking over the House in the midst of their first term.
I'm not saying he will be elected for 2nd term, I just conveyed an opinion based on US recent history.

As you mentioned he is an avid campaigner so it is fair to presume he is only going to get better. Granted he will have by far the hardest time specially looking at majority of sewing states already on the right. It all depends on who would be the next GOP nominee though. Unless they come up with a self campaign financing candidate I don't see any one else in the Red horizon.
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#9
Dear F.P,
I compared Obama's intelligence to other 3 who had to face opposing party taking over the House in the midst of their first term.
I'm not saying he will be elected for 2nd term, I just conveyed an opinion based on US recent history.

As you mentioned he is an avid campaigner so it is fair to presume he is only going to get better. Granted he will have by far the hardest time specially looking at majority of sewing states already on the right. It all depends on who would be the next GOP nominee though. Unless they come up with a self campaign financing candidate I don't see any one else in the Red horizon.
Yes of course, I also stated my opinion and I have been wrong plenty of times; namely, I did not think that Obama would get elected in the first place, so there :).

The comparison to Clinton is the most relevant and that is why I commented further on that particular case. Thus far Obama has proven to be no where near the politician that Clinton was.
 

ardy

Legionnaire
Nov 25, 2004
6,575
0
San Diego Armando Maradona, CA
#10
Healthcare is obviously a major structural problem of the U.S. economy today, but not the one with the most priority to fix. I mean first thing first; and how about changing the structure of Fed Reserve FFS?

I think Obama also made the same mistake by going after healthcare once he took over, not to mention what a fool he made out of himself by being a total wussy and making so many concessions throughout the process. He instead, should have gone after Wall St, forcing them to make major cut downs and bring back the banking regulations of pre 80's. That was the least he could do.

And I definitely agree with you FP on Obama being clueless. I mean the fact that he surrounded himself with Clinton's men to get some clues of what to do first and how to do it, is good enough to call him clueless.
 

Mahdi

Elite Member
Jan 1, 1970
6,999
497
Mjunik
#11
Let me put it this way, Bill Clinton towers over Obama in political intelligence.
How and why?

Clinton's first 2 years were near disaster, he messed up healthcare even more than anyone could have messed up and after the loss in the midterm elections, he didn't come up with any big issue or anything else but let things ride. He had a smart economics team that in a time of the dot com boom and general boom cycle didn't mess things up, but in reality, if you go back to Clinton's time, he didn't come up with a single achievement/landmark project that is still lasting or still has his name on it. He was a good president for letting things work the way they work, but he had the luck to be at the right time in the right place.

Just because the guy that followed him sucked and messed a lot of things up, it doesn't mean that he was all that great.

And comparing the first 2 years of Obama vs Clinton, maybe health care reform could have been bolder, better, whatever, but at least he pulled it through. What did Clinton do the first 2 years?
 

Mahdi

Elite Member
Jan 1, 1970
6,999
497
Mjunik
#12
And I definitely agree with you FP on Obama being clueless. I mean the fact that he surrounded himself with Clinton's men to get some clues of what to do first and how to do it, is good enough to call him clueless.
Orszag, Biden, Rohmer, Golsbee, Arne Duncan were all not Clinton people but his people.

Geithner, Summers, Emanuel, Clinton were Clinton people.

Summers and Emanuel are gone, leaves us with Geithner who did an okish job. Besides, the Democrats were running between him and Clinton and I don't think that Clinton would have brought in different people to him. Also, when the elite and brains of your party is filled with Clinton people, whom should he bring over? Carter people? Kerry people? Jussayin

(He could have listened more to Volcker instead of Summers though, but then again, in 2008 everyone billed Summers as a brilliant blablabla)

Healthcare is obviously a major structural problem of the U.S. economy today, but not the one with the most priority to fix. I mean first thing first; and how about changing the structure of Fed Reserve FFS?
Hmmmm...so you're saying in a country that has just been hit by a massive wave of unemployment and where around 9.2% of its people are unemployed and hence have no health care and hence can't get ill health care is NOT a major issue but the structure of the Federal Reserve, something that you should maybe talk about once you're out of the recession and need calm and patience for and is a big issue that needs some work should have been a major issue?

Like, really?
 

Mahdi

Elite Member
Jan 1, 1970
6,999
497
Mjunik
#14
^that's the one thing you can really criticize him. You may say that it's about being in the center and whatever, but sometimes you just have to take a stance and pull this through. on too many stances, he just didn't take his stand but whitewashed it, went for bipartisanship and blabla and kind of blew it.

right now the following 2 years he needs to take strong stands and make his position clear. Whenever you move towards the position of your opponents, you lose your own position and people will ALWAYS vote for the ones with the original position. let him be called a socialist or whatever. boldness always wins.
 
Oct 18, 2002
11,593
3
#15
right now the following 2 years he needs to take strong stands and make his position clear. Whenever you move towards the position of your opponents, you lose your own position and people will ALWAYS vote for the ones with the original position. let him be called a socialist or whatever. boldness always wins.
I am not sure that's the case for United States. Americans are probably more centrist than Europeans, and the politics in the States is always populist, not ideological. That's why you see two almost identical parties competing for power.
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#16
Healthcare is obviously a major structural problem of the U.S. economy today, but not the one with the most priority to fix. I mean first thing first; and how about changing the structure of Fed Reserve FFS?

I think Obama also made the same mistake by going after healthcare once he took over, not to mention what a fool he made out of himself by being a total wussy and making so many concessions throughout the process. He instead, should have gone after Wall St, forcing them to make major cut downs and bring back the banking regulations of pre 80's. That was the least he could do.

And I definitely agree with you FP on Obama being clueless. I mean the fact that he surrounded himself with Clinton's men to get some clues of what to do first and how to do it, is good enough to call him clueless.
Ardy jaan, yes I agree that the Federal Reserve system and the special interest groups around it is the greatest, by far the greatest, theft machine out there. However, the reason I did not list that as the number 1 structural problem for the US' wealth is that the Federal Reserve system steals not just from the Americans but it also steals from the rest of the world to the benefit of the Americans. They just issued $600B after a previous round of $700B. This money is handed to US house-holds in the form of ultra cheap 30 year fixed mortgages. That is a theft from the Chinese for example. The Chinese are holding $1.5T US dollars. You have to ask them, what are you holding now!?
 

payan

Captain
Dec 12, 2002
8,517
1
usa
#17
we have to understand the capitaism shows her mean side all the times ,and opportunist take adavantage of weakness of the system. strong law by great politician are the answer .
 

Mahdi

Elite Member
Jan 1, 1970
6,999
497
Mjunik
#18
I am not sure that's the case for United States. Americans are probably more centrist than Europeans, and the politics in the States is always populist, not ideological. That's why you see two almost identical parties competing for power.
nono, Europeans are equally "centrist" or whatever that may be. My problem is, and I realize that compared to problems we have in Iran and such it's ridiculous but still, that for the sake of being "centrist" politicians forget the big picture and work for election to election and don't take clear positions.
You posted that clip of Trudeau. Call me fan of old school politicians but I simply prefer politicians who take positions that seem unpopular with the great public but right in their own view and that are proven right in the end.

It's not about left or right, it's about you getting the vote for your ideas for a period of time and not forgetting why you got the vote for, be it left, right or center. If you're proven right, good for you. If you're proven wrong, well, you were wrong. I have more problems with politicians doing and following what the general public is right than politicians not doing it.
 
Oct 18, 2002
11,593
3
#19
nono, Europeans are equally "centrist" or whatever that may be. My problem is, and I realize that compared to problems we have in Iran and such it's ridiculous but still, that for the sake of being "centrist" politicians forget the big picture and work for election to election and don't take clear positions.
IMO that is not about being centrist, but about populist politics. A centrist does have clear positions on issues, just those positions are not ideological. In that sense, US politicians are mainly populists and their main concern, as you said, is purely for election.
 

Mahdi

Elite Member
Jan 1, 1970
6,999
497
Mjunik
#20
IMO that is not about being centrist, but about populist politics. A centrist does have clear positions on issues, just those positions are not ideological. In that sense, US politicians are mainly populists and their main concern, as you said, is purely for election.
In theory yes but centrist is these days simply different. In fact, to me centrism has turned into a new ideology, that is mainly about nothing. These days every politician claims to be centrist and goes away with it because he is supposedly free of ideology. Maybe, but he's often also free of any clear views(with few notable exceptions).

My simple point is that just for the sake of being centrist or not to offend the other side, you shouldn't let go off ideas you actually might believe in or think are right just because you have to think of the next elections.

Which takes me back to Clinton and the fact that in his second period as president, he could have done lots more and leave a real legacy beyond budget surplus.
 
Last edited: