A few questions to you Americans about your politics!

[Reeve]

Well, with the situation not getting any better here (we missing one storm system after another), you can see the farmers in the daily news on every local channel. The situation as I understand is like this:
We have to include farms that live off livestock as well into the picture. In order to maintain and raise livestock, it needs food. That consists in big parts what the crop farmers have, corn etc. That very corn is now withered in the fields. Means the supply for the livestock farmers falls short. The livestock farmer has to sell parts of his herd, a lot more than he wants to. One can now predict a slightly lowered meat price, in the near future. But that reverts in the next year and there after, since the herds need to be rebuilt, and less meat will be available. First overstocked, then understocked.
Also the price for our food related to crop rises dramatically... Corn price is up by 50% and more already within the last month.
I think what you've heard were big farmers, corporation size already. The average farmer isn't really a millionaire, unless they are in a state where farmland is expensive. Then they are equity millionaires. The average farmer has a few fields and tries to make a living for him and his family. And I can tell you that much, that here where I am, I have never seen that many signs on the roads pointing to the farms for direct sales of farm products like eggs, corn, tomatoes and the like.
And all of them are smaller size farms.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting that drought years like this one don't hurt. What I am suggesting is that farms are already receiving heavy federal subsidies, and have subsidized crop insurance to get through these sorts of down years. Sure it'll hurt a little, but they're already receiving such a great amount of help that they'll be OK. We don't need to be subsidizing them any more than we already are.

The sense I got from the podcast was that they were talking to relatively small farmers (Not giant Cargill farms), but their farmland was very valuable and so they were very wealthy through equity. The podcast was taped at a meeting put on by a farmers' advocacy group to teach them how to submit crop insurance claims. Either way, these farmers didn't feel that one bad year would force them to sell land or otherwise go under, even if they didn't have crop insurance, and they do have it.

[chadwix]

More romney bashing from someone "who doesnt understand". These threads are getting old

[Eo Jenkins]

Here in America, many people respect the right of an unborn baby to life. It has nothing to do with restricting a woman's "rights" or keeping women down.
also...
We have a 2nd amendment which allows us to own and purchase guns. The reason why this was put in place by the founders was so that the people would have chance to overthrow an oppressive government in the future or help defend the country from invasion.
also...
In my opinion Obama is a Socialist. All of his policies however will not be simply because that kind of crap does not fly in America. He could never truly apply Socialism in America. Socialism is a dirty word for many. Just look at some of the people he surrounds himself with, they are open socialists. And on the topic of him being called a Communist, that is just people being over the top with political rhetoric. Sometimes people can get carried away on both sides.

---------- Post added 2012-08-16 at 04:11 PM ----------

More romney bashing from someone "who doesnt understand". These threads are getting old

yeah they never..."understand"...lol

[Shadowmelded]

Basically OP, politics in the US are very hypberolic and extremely heavy on the rhetoric. You have to apply critical thinking, which works out in the parties favour because many people would prefer to listen to the hyperbole than the truth because the truth is 'boring' I partly blame the 24 hour news cycle, which in it's desire to keep people watching their channel are willing to go to crazy lengths to spin what people are saying to create a scandal.

Just don't be fooled by what a lot of people try to say 'Both sides are as bad as each other' Sure they both play the politics game, however one party has been racing towards the extreme right faster and faster each year, which drags the center into the right, because the minute the other party doesn't 'compromise' they're suddenly being obstructionist, when they shouldn't have to compromise to that degree considering how far right it is from where their party should be.

[Deleted]

Here in America, many people respect the right of an unborn baby to life. It has nothing to do with restricting a woman's "rights" or keeping women down.
also...
We have a 2nd amendment which allows us to own and purchase guns. The reason why this was put in place by the founders was so that the people would have chance to overthrow an oppressive government in the future or help defend the country from invasion.
also...
In my opinion Obama is a Socialist. All of his policies however will not be simply because that kind of crap does not fly in America. He could never truly apply Socialism in America. Socialism is a dirty word for many. Just look at some of the people he surrounds himself with, they are open socialists. And on the topic of him being called a Communist, that is just people being over the top with political rhetoric. Sometimes people can get carried away on both sides.

---------- Post added 2012-08-16 at 04:11 PM ----------



yeah they never..."understand"...lol

This is what Europeans see as quite unusual.

Policies such as a universal healthcare or a welfare system designed to give individuals a certain standard of living are considered slight left wing or even centre policies in countries throughout Europe. Even in the UK which is almost identical to the USA in terms of culture these policies are considered slightly left wing and a basic human right.

In the USA these policies are considered EXTREME left wing policies and EXTREMELY socialist.

[Adam Jensen]

This is what Europeans see as quite unusual.

Policies such as a universal healthcare or a welfare system designed to give individuals a certain standard of living are considered slight left wing or even centre policies in countries throughout Europe. Even in the UK which is almost identical to the USA in terms of culture these policies are considered slightly left wing and a basic human right.

In the USA these policies are considered EXTREME left wing policies and EXTREMELY socialist.

Which is what liberal Americans, like myself, finds so frustrating.

How come everything that goes to improve quality of life throughout Europe, is trashed and labeled "SOCIALIST!!!111!!one!" here? If it works over there, why can't we adapt it to work over there?

Socialism IS NOT evil. Neither is communism. Nor is capitalism. Nor are most of the other "isms." They are all part of a political/economic spectrum and we need a healthy dose of each in order to maintain a functional society.

[Shadowmelded]

Which is what liberal Americans, like myself, finds so frustrating.

How come everything that goes to improve quality of life throughout Europe, is trashed and labeled "SOCIALIST!!!111!!one!" here? If it works over there, why can't we adapt it to work over there?

Socialism IS NOT evil. Neither is communism. Nor is capitalism. Nor are most of the other "isms." They are all part of a political/economic spectrum and we need a healthy dose of each in order to maintain a functional society.

Because the red scare tactic seems to still work and apparently the cold war is still going. It's because people are trying to turn it into a pejorative and anyone who is ok with it as an 'other' that people aren't being taught what it truly means, or if they are it's quickly wiped away by the bombardment aimed at anyone slightly to the left of the GOP. Because of that people don't realise that things like public roads and SS and things that THEY themselves actually benefit from, are 'socialist'

I mean I heard that in America, civics 101 is mandatory if you're attending college. At first I thought that was amazing and should be implemented in Europe (I still kinda do tbh) but it really seems to be failing or perhaps the people that don't benefit from it are the majority of the country, which I find kind of sad.

[buck008]

Here in America, many people respect the right of an unborn baby to life. It has nothing to do with restricting a woman's "rights" or keeping women down.
also...
We have a 2nd amendment which allows us to own and purchase guns. The reason why this was put in place by the founders was so that the people would have chance to overthrow an oppressive government in the future or help defend the country from invasion.
also...
In my opinion Obama is a Socialist. All of his policies however will not be simply because that kind of crap does not fly in America. He could never truly apply Socialism in America. Socialism is a dirty word for many. Just look at some of the people he surrounds himself with, they are open socialists. And on the topic of him being called a Communist, that is just people being over the top with political rhetoric. Sometimes people can get carried away on both sides.

According to most of the scientific community life does not begin at conception. There are time limits as to when an abortion is legal, most of these have to do with when a fetus is likely to be able to sustain life without the host. If the only argument you have that runs counter to that is religious then it has no place in a political discussion. Likewise if it is "just your opinion" or "just how you feel".

There is a ton of debate on the second amendment for a reason. It is vaguely worded, and you don't know what it means. I can say this with confidence because Constitutional scholars still argue what the intention was. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it means private citizens are allowed to own weapons. Most of what Obama says about guns simply says that convicted felons and people with a history of mental illness shouldn't have access to weapons, and that we should continue to strictly enforce the laws we have on the books.

In my opinion, Obama is a magical genie who grants wishes to poor Filipino children. That doesn't make it true. To call Obama a socialist is to insult socialists worldwide. He is as centrist as one can possibly be, and has meticulously planned his entire political career (seemingly) to give that image of perfect centrism. Is that a good thing? No. But it makes the claims of socialism a bit ridiculous.

[time0ut]

According to most of the scientific community life does not begin at conception. There are time limits as to when an abortion is legal, most of these have to do with when a fetus is likely to be able to sustain life without the host. If the only argument you have that runs counter to that is religious then it has no place in a political discussion. Likewise if it is "just your opinion" or "just how you feel".

Source? Biologically speaking, a fetus is alive. A fetus is genetically and physically a living human. It scares me that people honestly believe that its alright to end a human life just because that life is weak and cannot live on its own yet. Our society has some odd double standards.

Also, religious arguments and opinions have a definite place in politics. Since politics deal with how to govern a country, the beliefs and issues important to the governed have a place in politics.

[Eo Jenkins]

According to most of the scientific community life does not begin at conception. There are time limits as to when an abortion is legal, most of these have to do with when a fetus is likely to be able to sustain life without the host. If the only argument you have that runs counter to that is religious then it has no place in a political discussion. Likewise if it is "just your opinion" or "just how you feel".

There is a ton of debate on the second amendment for a reason. It is vaguely worded, and you don't know what it means. I can say this with confidence because Constitutional scholars still argue what the intention was. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it means private citizens are allowed to own weapons. Most of what Obama says about guns simply says that convicted felons and people with a history of mental illness shouldn't have access to weapons, and that we should continue to strictly enforce the laws we have on the books.

In my opinion, Obama is a magical genie who grants wishes to poor Filipino children. That doesn't make it true. To call Obama a socialist is to insult socialists worldwide. He is as centrist as one can possibly be, and has meticulously planned his entire political career (seemingly) to give that image of perfect centrism. Is that a good thing? No. But it makes the claims of socialism a bit ridiculous.

I believe it starts at conception. From the point of conception the process of life begins and it starts to form into a human life. If you stop or cut off that process you are basically ending the life of a defenseless human being. That is how I see it. If you have a different opinion that is cool but i feel differently. And I am not a religious person either I just have a fundamental moral difference on this issue.

[Simulacrum]

I believe it starts at conception. From the point of conception the process of life begins and it starts to form into a human life. If you stop or cut off that process you are basically ending the life of a defenseless human being. That is how I see it. If you have a different opinion that is cool but i feel differently. And I am not a religious person either I just have a fundamental moral difference on this issue.

Stuff like this is a perfect example of what's wrong with valuing intuition over analysis. Even if someone accepted that a zygote should be treated as a fully grown human being, the sheer impracticality of enforcing this makes it an indefensible stance to take. It logically leads directly to the sexual oppression of an entire society, and the oppression of women in particular.

I realize that's not the goal of everyone who defends it, but it nonetheless is the consequence. Then starts the special pleading, and all of a sudden that zygote that was "an innocent human life" a few talking points ago is now totally fine to kill in the name of other human rights, which logically leads to questions of if the same applies to other "innocent human lives"? And down the path of logic it goes.

Almost anyone who defends this position is not concerned with the well-beings or lives of other people, they're just regurgitating tribalistic rhetoric because that's what they've been conditioned to do; there's no actual thinking involved.

[buck008]

Source? Biologically speaking, a fetus is alive. A fetus is genetically and physically a living human. It scares me that people honestly believe that its alright to end a human life just because that life is weak and cannot live on its own yet. Our society has some odd double standards.

Also, religious arguments and opinions have a definite place in politics. Since politics deal with how to govern a country, the beliefs and issues important to the governed have a place in politics.

Biologically speaking a fetus is a parasite for 9 months. If you are actually interested, I could do some research into the matter. A fetus is genetically a living human, physically it's an unthinking ball of cells. Once there is brain activity, then we can talk about semantic grey areas.

In the United States we have a clear line of distinction between religion on public policy. Or at least that is the philosophy we were founded upon. Morality isn't universal. So I restate, if the only argument you have against something is a religious one, then it isn't a political argument.

[Eo Jenkins]

Stuff like this is a perfect example of what's wrong with valuing intuition over analysis. Even if someone accepted that a zygote should be treated as a fully grown human being, the sheer impracticality of enforcing this makes it an indefensible stance to take. It logically leads directly to the sexual oppression of an entire society, and the oppression of women in particular.

I realize that's not the goal of everyone who defends it, but it nonetheless is the consequence. Then starts the special pleading, and all of a sudden that zygote that was "an innocent human life" a few talking points ago is now totally fine to kill in the name of other human rights, which logically leads to questions of if the same applies to other "innocent human lives"? And down the path of logic it goes.

Almost anyone who defends this position is not concerned with the well-beings or lives of other people, they're just regurgitating tribalistic rhetoric because that's what they've been conditioned to do; there's no actual thinking involved.

It is people like you that make me happy my parents left Sweden/Norway.

[FusedMass]

It's pretty simple the republicans look out for the super rich and democrats look out for everyone else.

[GarGar]

I mean I heard that in America, civics 101 is mandatory if you're attending college. At first I thought that was amazing and should be implemented in Europe (I still kinda do tbh) but it really seems to be failing or perhaps the people that don't benefit from it are the majority of the country, which I find kind of sad.

It depends on what you're studying, at least at my university. Most Liberal Arts degrees (business, philosophy, education, etc) require it here, but science and engineering generally doesn't.

It's pretty simple the republicans look out for the super rich and democrats look out for everyone else.

Well, I heard someone mention on the Diane Rehm show the other day, which I agree with: Republicans take care of the rich, Democrats take care of the poor, which leaves most of America (the middle class) with no one.

As for the abortion debate, I don't get into it because it's a minefield and is a good way to get a thread locked (so please calm down), but Dr Ron Paul introduced me to a quote which basically says, the real measure of a society is how it cares for/defends those who cannot cannot care for/defend themselves. Something like that.

[Sivick]

Hi. First: I am NOT that knowledgeable about politics, and especially about american politics. I do not wish to upset anyone with this post and im neither pro-democrat or republican, because i know so little about them. I come from Scandinavia, and there is something i have been wondering about for a long time.

So basically in the US you have 2 big parties: Republicans and Democrats, rightwing and leftwing. But there seems to be SO much of a difference between theese parties in...everything. I can also use some examples from my homecountry and compare it to the US: If a politician here would even mention not being pro abortion, or even being uncomfortable with the fact that abortion is legal, they would be shredded to pieces by the media and the other parties - it's just out of this world. Same with everyone being able to buy guns almost "at will", or healthcare not being free.

And in the US it seems like theese topics are not "taboo" at all? It just facinates me. Also i've noticed alot of people on the internet saying Obama is "communist" and whatnot; I mean seriously theese people should come here then! With a RIGHT-WING, yes RIGHT-WING government, the taxrate is roughly 30% minimum, if you have an average salary, and it gradually increases to about 55-60% if you earn about 15.000 USD/month. I read that Mitt Romney would pay like 10% in taxes if the republicans won, and he is super-rich.

Okay now that i read my post i realize it is kind of hostile to republicans: rest assured i did not intend it to be.

But basically my question is: Am i wrong in my information/assumptions or is American politics really so different?

Thanks.

it's real fucked up and yes, the right wing nuts blow everything out of proportion. You are correct though that our american left would be considered the right over in most of europe (which our right thinks you are all communists over there anyway).

[kailtas]

Must be noted that in Europe all those extra taxes you mention are also there. Not just straight up income tax.
Between net and gross on my paycheck are:
incometax
healthcare payment (not my health insurance)
Pension
disability
job accident insurance thing

And then, because the government thinks we are dumb, they make us reserve "vacation money" through our employer of 8% a month. However, when you let it pay out they tax it for I think 50%? So the employer receives intrest on your reservation and when you let it pay out, the government takes a big chunk of it as well .

Then we have county tax through:
- Waste disposal tax
- Dog tax
- house owner tax
- parking tax
- sewage tax
And a bunch of others depending on where you live.

Then you want to drive a car, so you pay taxes on that as well. Plus the "taxes" (don't know the right word) on gas which is basically the true price x 1.3 (€2,85 a liter now). And for cigarettes and liquor + some more things you pay this sort of tax as well.

Then for required health insurance I pay around €150,- + the 7.1% of my wage (already above) + 7,1% that the employer pays for me. Because of all the old people here, health insurance is crazy expensive now.

And then of course the 21% VAT on pretty much everything you buy except for fooditems.

I think for every Euro I make at work, in some way around 70% goes to the government? And I am not in the highest tax bracket yet


Oh I forgot, if you also decide to save money, you pay taxes over that entire amount as well if it is over something like €15.000,-. The tax is atm higher then the intrest of the bank and that is not even taking inflation into account.
Finished your mortgage on your house? you also have to pay this "wealthtax".

And if you are lucky and win something in the casino/lottery, prepare to get taxed with change-game tax and then later wealth tax.

Nice post, but i live in Europe and barely anything you wrote is the same where i live. Could it be that Europe consists of 50 countries (including european-asian
countries).

[FusedMass]

It works like this most groups from republicans claim that God is working through them or they are doing God's work. Bush thank and quoted God several times. In one instance he said God talked to him. They claim to be the foundation of family values. Anti Abortion. Yet all they are doing actually is protecting the richest Americans. You see Corporations or Special Interest groups like Big Oil, donate to a party's campaign fund's in exchange for promises what they will do once they are in office.

Republicans obviously favor less spending. While the Democrats on the other isle most of them DO believe in God. They just don't believe God talk's to every single one of them. They believe in the freedom to choose if a woman want's keep her baby or not. They also believe everyone to be equal. They protect the low income and middle class. You will find most of the advanced minds here IMO. Like Foreign Policy.

Obama went to London when he was trying to become Prez and met with people on a fundmental level believe differenrtly in then him. He was able to bond much easier with them then republicans. He understand's what it takes for the world to work aka Forgien Policy. If you remember Mitt Romeny went to London and they called him "Mitt the twitt"

This is election year and less then three months we will decide who will become the next Prez Obama or Mitt. Tempers seem to run high at this time because each side is trying to make the other look bad. This has been going on for nearly a year.

[Diraction]

Here in America, many people respect the right of an unborn baby to life. It has nothing to do with restricting a woman's "rights" or keeping women down.

Yet making blood donations or organ donations mandatory would have those same people screaming that we're living under some kind of Orwellian tyranny, even though those measures would save a lot of innocent lives too.

You can't separate the issue of abortion from the fact that you can only prevent one by restricting the freedom of women to control their own bodies. Maybe you come to a conclusion that such a restriction is justified at least some of the time, but you can't pretend that the restriction has nothing to do with women's rights.

---------- Post added 2012-08-17 at 07:31 PM ----------

Republicans obviously favor less spending.

The last time Republicans controlled the White House, Senate and House of Representatives at the same time was during the George W. Bush presidency, and during that period Republicans were spending as freely (or worse) than anything they accused the Democrats of wanting to do. We wouldn't nearly the deficit problem we have today if it weren't for spending commitments locked in during the Bush presidency, especially Medicare Part D and the invasion of Iraq.

So when a Republican tells you he favors less government spending, you tell him that actions speak louder than words.

---------- Post added 2012-08-17 at 07:37 PM ----------

it's real fucked up and yes, the right wing nuts blow everything out of proportion. You are correct though that our american left would be considered the right over in most of europe (which our right thinks you are all communists over there anyway).

That's partly true but more complicated than that. The terms "right and left" or "conservative and liberal" don't travel well, so positions that get you defined as a conservative or liberal here in the United States don't necessarily get you labeled in the same way in other countries. The terms don't mean the same thing that they do here, and they don't even mean the same thing here today that they meant fifty or sixty years ago. For example Barry Goldwater was considered super-right wing when he ran for President against Lyndon Johnson in 1964, but he wouldn't be regarded as super-right wing if he were around today. So beware of those labels - they mislead more than they inform.

Also, there are plenty of Americans who would be labeled left wing in the United States and also left wing in some other English speaking country, like Canada or England or Australia. But because there are only two major political parties in the United States, there is a huge range of viewpoints in each of them (though more so among the Democrats) so you can find Democrats to fit nearly any label in a European country.

---------- Post added 2012-08-17 at 07:41 PM ----------

Source? Biologically speaking, a fetus is alive. A fetus is genetically and physically a living human. It scares me that people honestly believe that its alright to end a human life just because that life is weak and cannot live on its own yet. Our society has some odd double standards.

It scares me to think that people are willing to give the government power to control your physical body just by saying that doing so will help save somebody else. What would you think of a law requiring you to donate blood every month? How about a law requiring you donate bone marrow? give up a kidney? Those measures would save lives too. Surely a few weeks in the hospital for your bone marrow donation is a small price to pay to save someone's life, right?

---------- Post added 2012-08-17 at 07:44 PM ----------

This is what Europeans see as quite unusual.

Policies such as a universal healthcare or a welfare system designed to give individuals a certain standard of living are considered slight left wing or even centre policies in countries throughout Europe. Even in the UK which is almost identical to the USA in terms of culture these policies are considered slightly left wing and a basic human right.

In the USA these policies are considered EXTREME left wing policies and EXTREMELY socialist.

Actually, the USA has universal, government provided healthcare already - as long as you're 65 years of age or older, and Republicans insist this is a sacred trust that must be protected at all costs. But if you recommend that Medicare apply to people under 65, well then that's downright extreme left, socialist, Un-American and a betrayal of everything this country fought for during the Revolutionary War. Of course, it's purely a matter of high-minded principle on their part and has nothing to do with the tendency of seniors to vote Republican.

---------- Post added 2012-08-17 at 07:47 PM ----------

We have a 2nd amendment which allows us to own and purchase guns. The reason why this was put in place by the founders was so that the people would have chance to overthrow an oppressive government in the future or help defend the country from invasion.

Not entirely accurate - until the Heller decision a few years back, the Supreme Court had never struck down a law for violating the Second Amendment. The ability to purchase guns in this country is largely a product of the fact that guns are popular and therefore legislatures are disinclined to enact heavy restrictions on purchasing them, other than in a few of the bluest, most urban states. Even if there were no Second Amendment, it would still be pretty easy to purchase guns in most of the country.

[Rukh]

Not entirely accurate - until the Heller decision a few years back, the Supreme Court had never struck down a law for violating the Second Amendment. The ability to purchase guns in this country is largely a product of the fact that guns are popular and therefore legislatures are disinclined to enact heavy restrictions on purchasing them, other than in a few of the bluest, most urban states. Even if there were no Second Amendment, it would still be pretty easy to purchase guns in most of the country.

Well that and the NRA spends huge money advertising to the populace and funding campaigns.