It's a 50-50 nation, give or take

http://www.medhelp.org/posts/new_with_new_subject?forum_id=621

Nov 7, 11:05 AM (ET)

By CALVIN WOODWARD


WASHINGTON (AP) - The election laid bare a dual - and dueling - nation, politically speaking, jaggedly split down the middle on the presidency and torn over much else. It seems you can please only half of the people nearly all of the time.

Americans retained the fractious balance of power in re-electing President Barack Obama, a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, altogether serving as guarantors of the gridlock that voters say they despise. Slender percentages separated winner and loser from battleground to battleground, and people in exit polls said yea and nay in roughly equal measure to some of the big issues of the day.

Democracy doesn't care if you win big, only that you win. Tuesday was a day of decision as firmly as if Obama had run away with the race. Democrats are ebullient and, after a campaign notable for its raw smackdowns, words of conciliation and healing are coming from leaders on both sides, starting with the plea from defeated Republican rival Mitt Romney that his crestfallen supporters pray for the president.

But after the most ideologically polarized election in years, Obama's assertion Wednesday morning that America is "more than a collection of red states and blue states" was more of an aspiration than a snapshot of where the country stands.

Compromise was a popular notion in the hours after Obama's victory and an unavoidable one, given the reality of divided government. But the familiar contours of partisan Washington were also in evidence, especially the notion that compromise means you do things my way.

As Democratic Rep. Steve Israel of New York put it, "If you refuse to compromise, we are going to beat you." Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the election showed "if you are an extremist tea party Republican, you are going to lose."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was grudging in interpreting the election as any kind of mandate for Obama, saying voters "have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together" with Congress, and did not endorse his "failure or excesses."

In New York's bustling Times Square, hope, skepticism and familiar polarities were all to be found when people talked about the president. "He may not have done a great job in my mind but I kinda trust him," said Jerry Shul. "I have faith he will get with the Republicans and get something done."

A less-flattering George Dallemand called this "a moment of truth" for the country. "I guess we have to wish for the best now, but I still think he is socialism."

In Miami, Karen Fitzgerald, 55, wore a black dress and said she was in mourning over Romney's defeat.

"It's an upsetting day," she said. But she took some comfort from her Democratic friends on Facebook, who have stopped chiding the other side in their posts. "Now they're all saying we need to work together and be united," she said. "Maybe we can."

In Chicago, Obama supporter Scherita Parrish, 56, predicted the president will reach out to Republicans but may not get much back.

"But the people have spoken," she said. "They need to lick their wounds, get on with it and start working with the president."

Indeed, unity is a challenge not just for Obama but for the Republicans, who won less than 30 percent of the growing Hispanic vote and not even one in 10 black voters. Obama built a strong Electoral College majority, if only a narrow advantage in the popular vote, despite losing every age group of non-Hispanic white voters.

Surveys of voters found Obama's health care law to be as divisive as ever, with just under 50 percent wanting it repealed in whole or part, and 44 percent liking it as is or wanting more of it.

But democracy doesn't care about exit polls, either, and the election almost certainly means Republicans can forget about trying to roll it back now.

In reaffirming divided government, though, Americans all but ensured colossal fights are ahead over the shape of government and Obama's agenda. He is out to break a wall of Republican opposition to tax increases on the wealthy - a move that about half the voters in exit polls thought was a good idea. And extraordinarily difficult negotiations are imminent as the president and Congress try to make a deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" - steep spending cuts and a variety of tax increases in January.

In the end, voters split about equally on whether Obama or Romney would be better at handling the economy.

Then again, they were divided down the middle on whether Obama or his predecessor, George W. Bush, deserves most of the blame for the economy's problems.

So it goes in the 50-50 nation, give or take.

---

Associated Press writers Christine Armario in Miami, Michael Tarm in Chicago and David Martin in New York contributed to this report.

[brice1967]

...."start working with the President".  That statement should be a 2 way street.  Both parties need to open their eyes to what is happening here and get something done... something real.  What about this economy?  What about jobs?  What about the banking industry?  Pick something and get it handled....

[rivll]

So it goes in the 50-50 nation, give or take.
*give and take* it is true. Now that I am feeling less threatened, I feel much more open to the 50% who wanted Romney. They (the reasonable "they") need to be heard and hopefully the Administration will move forward with an attitude of inclusion.
As much as that is possible without compromising the basic platform they ran on.

[Vance2335]

I don't expect Dems to give in on what they want and don't expect R's to give in on what they want. But it can't be 1 sided like it was for the 1st 4 years. I think you will be hard pressed to actually find anything that the R's had major dealings in during the 1st 4 years. This is why I actually have little hope that anything gets done.

[MrsPincince]

I have hope!

[mikesimon]

Me too!

[el_em_en_oh]

"...Now that I am feeling less threatened..."

Why did you feel threatened in the first place?

Unless you drank the media-koolaide, in which case, I completely understand.

[el_em_en_oh]

"...the notion that compromise means you do things my way..."

If anyone thinks that anything more is going to get done in the next 4 years, than got done in the first 4 years, please pass me some of what you're smoking, as I'd like to think the same thing.

[brice1967]

Hoping is the easy part.  Hell, I'm hopeful.  Honestly, I'm not expecting much either, but any progress... anybody meeting anybody in the middle would be better than what we've got.

I've noticed this cycle, and especially here.... people need to be "right".  That takes away any flexibility/opportunity to meet somewhere else.  

Compromise.... it can happen.  I remain hopeful but am not holding my breath.

[MrsPincince]

For those that are saying you don't think anything will get done, did you not listen to the Presidents speech last night? Were you not a little bit inspired. At least he is reaching out and saying he will work with the other side. That's a start in the right direction IMO...I mean have more faith. Congress does need to come together. If one side feels that they will still oppose then yes, NOTHING will get done but if both sides take a good look at last night's election and see that the majority has spoken clearly, they will both see that they have no choice but to come together. I'm going into the next 4 yrs with optimism and I have faith that both dems and repubs will actually focus on what's important to our country and just get thing done..Partisan aside...

[Barb135]

Just realized that I messed up when I posted the link.  Here's the right one.

http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019626024_apuselectionmood.html

[Vance2335]

He said we would work with the other side 4 years ago and he never did. So why believe him this time? He has given no reason to believe him.

[MrsPincince]

"He said we would work with the other side 4 years ago and he never did. So why believe him this time? He has given no reason to believe him."

Well he did and the reason why he couldn't fulfill it 100% is because the republicans refused to work with him. We have provided all of you on the right links of the Speaker Mitch McConnell declaring that as his first priority..You can say what you want but the reality is the repubs in congress caused the stalemate and refused to work with the President..Why? Who knows. They just don't like or respect him....

[Barb135]

"If one side feels that they will still oppose then yes, NOTHING will get done but if both sides take a good look at last night's election and see that the majority has spoken clearly, they will both see that they have no choice but to come together."  

No, not so........ from what I've been reading, both sides are interpreting the vote in different ways.  The Republicans are seeing that 1/2 the country doesn't like Obama and are for them, so they should stay their course.  Sounds like the Dems think the same way.  

They need to look at it, not only from the standpoint of how many voted for each candidate, but, just as importantly --- how many DIDN'T vote for each candidate.  Once elected, the President must represent the entire country, including those who didn't vote for him.  Same with Congress.

[MrsPincince]

"They need to look at it, not only from the standpoint of how many voted for each candidate, but, just as importantly --- how many DIDN'T vote for each candidate"

Agreed!

[adgal]

Can anyone honestly say that the lack of working together was entirely one parties fault, left or right?  From where I am sitting, they both had a part to play in this, and keeping in mind that even politicians are still individuals, I'm certain they each had their own reasons for doing so.  At the end of the day, the important thing is that both sides work on this issue and try to come together.  Baby steps at first, but even baby steps are a step forward right?

[Vance2335]

Why do you continue to argue that point that he tried to work woth R's? That is just a lie. Telling then to get on board or go away is not working with them. When did Obama ever try to work with the R's. Tell me one time. What on healthcare? So you wanted R's to just give in and do something they don't want? That the people didn't want?

Thsi idea that Obama ever tried to WORK with R's is laughable.

[adgal]

Don't you think that perhaps it's a matter of perspective rather then a lie?  I think both sides could make an argument that they tried to work with the other side, and that the other side refused to work with them. This is because both had their own agenda, and they are so far apart in even understanding what compromise means.  Finger pointing doesn't resolve it - they are both right and both wrong.  The point is, unless both of them learn the meaning of compromise, it's just going to get worse.  Arguing who is more at fault isn't solving a thing, and it's what they both are doing.  Or at least have been.

[teko]

I think the situation is such that it would be beneficial for both sides to figure out the solution. No more do they have to try to make Obama a one term president and if they want a political future, I think they will see it is in their best interests to get the job done. We can only hope.

[Barb135]

"Well he did and the reason why he couldn't fulfill it 100% is because the republicans refused to work with him. We have provided all of you on the right links of the Speaker Mitch McConnell declaring that as his first priority..You can say what you want but the reality is the repubs in congress caused the stalemate and refused to work with the President..Why? Who knows. They just don't like or respect him.... "

Just because Mitch McConnell declared that his first priority was to make Obama a one term President, doesn't mean the entire Republican Congress agreed with him......... you're back to lumping everyone together again.  A Republican is a Republican is a Republican... not the least bit true.

Maybe the President "did" try to work with Congress - you see it that way, I don't particularly, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  If he were such a great leader, he would have been able to find ways to work the obstinate group of people he had to deal with.  If Romney had won, he'd have had to contend with a Democratic Senate, who probably would have fought him at every turn, as well.  If he weren't able to work them and get things done, I'd say he wouldn't deserve a second term either.

Barack Obama is the President of the Untied States for a second term. He campaigned vigorously and paid a lot of money, for the position, twice; he knew full well what he was getting into, both times -- it's time for him (and his supporters) to stop blaming other people and truly believe that the "buck stops with him".  

[adgal]

Here's hope for you.  I am home today with a sick child (not serious, just pink eye). He's napping, so I turned on CNN and caught Bohners speech.  It was really really good.  He talked a lot about compromise, working together and how that is what the people want.  And his tie was...PURPLE!  It sounded to me like he is committed to assisting in leading the Republican politicians more to the middle.  Hopefully the left is committed to the same.  Bohner came across as sincere and I hope people will give both sides a chance, no matter whom you tend to stand with.  It was really really good and very positive.

[brice1967]

Well put....

[Barb135]

'Untied States"........... sorry, that should "United States", of course, but sometimes I feel like we have become *untied*......... lol

[MrsPincince]

"Just because Mitch McConnell declared that his first priority was to make Obama a one term President, doesn't mean the entire Republican Congress agreed with him......... you're back to lumping everyone together again.  A Republican is a Republican is a Republican... not the least bit true."

It is true. He is the speaker. He speaks for the republican party in  Washington...You don't have to believe it, but it is true. that was their position and it failed.....


"Maybe the President "did" try to work with Congress - you see it that way, I don't particularly, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  If he were such a great leader, he would have been able to find ways to work the obstinate group of people he had to deal with."

I'm not going to go back and forth. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. We'll just have to agree to disagree...

[brice1967]

About McConnell..... that would be like you saying you speak for the whole democratic party.  (I didn't elect McConnell and I sure has hell didn't appoint him!  He doesn't speak for me, and I bet there are some republicans out there who feel the exact same way....)

[specialmom]

The problem I have with what you are saying MrsP is that I never wanted Obama's vision or agenda in the first place.  Wouldn't it stand to reason that
the officials I elected would work to promote the conservative agenda which is in conflict with the presidents?  So, yes, they'd vote no to many things and while I've seen your list of bipartisan things they stood still on or voted no----  each and every one when you google the full story, it makes sense to me why they did what they did.  No, it doesn't make sense to me if they were just being brats and saying "nanner nanner boo boo " to the pres for the sake of making him fail but I also think a lot of what you saw is that Republicans fight for what conservatives believe in (all or part of it anyway.  I'm pretty moderate on social issues but did not want Obamacare and many other things need cuts or reform).

They are going to have to bend and work together.  I don't really think Obama will lead that way as he never has.  I think he promotes the seperatism.  At a rally here, he screams to the crowd . . .  "The fight won't be over on Tuesday".  His words, the fight.  He's polarizing.  But I'm hoping that those in congress and the senate are able to come together and work on issues as a team.  Not as opponants where there is a 'fight'.  

[Barb135]

Mitch McConnell does NOT speak for the Republican party in Washington.  He is the Senate Minority Leader.  He was elected only by other Republican senators, to represent them.  A leader is voted on at the beginning of each Congress, so what's to say some don't like him and will want to have a different leader?

As Brice said "I didn't elect McConnell and I sure has hell didn't appoint him!  He doesn't speak for me, and I bet there are some republicans out there who feel the exact same way...."

As to my other comments, we know that you wouldn't disagree with ANYTHING the President did, so, yep, we'll agree to disagree.

[MrsPincince]

He speaks for the repubs in the house and they make the decisions....

"As to my other comments, we know that you wouldn't disagree with ANYTHING the President did, so, yep, we'll agree to disagree."

Nice! Real nice!

[el_em_en_oh]

At the end of the next 4 years, the Democrats will be pointing a finger at the Republicans, and still blaming them because Obama couldn't get anything done during his 2nd term as president.

And it won't be because they're just saying "no" to everything he puts forward, it'll be because they're saying "NO" to his asinine proposals and policies, and promoting Conservative/Republican principles (which are polar opposite to Democrat/Liberal principles).

As I've been saying for the last 3-4 months... after Obama wins his reelection bid, it's time for us all to hunker down, and just try and survive the next 4 years of the hell that's coming along with Obama's 2nd term (which will be AS BIG a failure as his 1st term).

[MrsPincince]

It's VERY clear to me we are all still divided on this forum... I want no part of it anymore...I'll support the President and his policies on my own...I'm out!

[el_em_en_oh]

Have you noticed that there aren't any Republicans/Conservatives in the CE-Forum that feel Obama has done a good job, is doing a good job, or will DO a good job in the future?

Why do you think that is?

Do you think it's because we hate him? Do you think it's because we're the party of "no" and will just say the opposite of whatever the Left has to say? Do you think it's because we we want Obama to fail?

No... it's because we don't think Liberal/Democrat political principles are ideal for the country, as a whole. Oh sure, there are a smattering of things that Repubs & Dems will agree on, but for the MOST PART... we're polar opposites.

The problem with Obama's ideology, is that it's 100% Democrat, and he's trying to ram it down the throats of people that are 100% Republican.

And the problem with YOU is, you don't understand why Obama can't say "jump", and all of us ask him "How high???"

Just because he's the President, doesn't mean he gets his way all the time.

[el_em_en_oh]

"...It's VERY clear to me we are all still divided on this forum..."

Did you think that just because he won, we'd all gather round and fully support him and his stupid policies and ideas?

Think again Sister!!!

[brice1967]

Wait a minute.  We are talking conservatism vs liberalism.  By being unified, you could not have thought that conservatives were going to come around to being liberal, could you?  Some people don't like his policies, and that's okay.  Some people don't find him as a great leader, and that too is okay.

El thinks we're in for a $hit storm and you think everything will be wonderful.  Both opinions are fine.  I don't think El wants the President to screw up or ruin everything... that would mean El is going down with the ship too.

[brice1967]

And I am not trying to pick on you or the Presidents speech last night, but he said some of that 4 years ago, about being a motivator and getting both sides on the same page.  

I totally see the hope in that speech last night.  I hope everything turns around.  

Conservatives are not going to jump ship any quicker than you would.  You were not a conservative when Bush was in office. (Of course neither was Bush there at the end.)  I want the best for this country and I don't know if either side can provide that, without bending... but bending doesn't mean throwing out all conservative thoughts and opinions.  It's like throwing the baby out with the bath water.... Nobody does that.  

[mikesimon]

What a bunch of crybabies. Hey, you lost. Get over it.

[Barb135]

Mitch McConnel represents Republicans in the Senate, not the house.  There are (or were before the election) 47 Republican Senators.

[brice1967]

Who's crying?

[orphanedhawk]

Although I think that in the country as a whole, as on our little forum, you have people who are delighted that Obama won, people who are upset that he won and people who are in the middle. It's not really 50-50.

Not everyone voted for the candidate whether Rep or Dem because they really were behind that person's views, all the way. As with all things, there are not just the black and white view points but all shades of grey
( No jokes about that book, please.)


Let's hope the president and the congress will work together over the next four years for the good of our country. Whether we actually think it will happen is moot.
But I think we can all agree that our country would be better off if all sides work together.

[adgal]

No, the President can't get his way all the time.  But nor can the Conservatives get their way all the time.  That's the whole point of compromise right?  Both have to give in, otherwise you've got a stalemate.  So how does that help things.  Good Lord, this country is incredibly divided and just from reading comments above, it seems like both sides want their way and want it that way all the time.  Ok, great.  So now what?  Everything just stands still?  Doesn't seem like a great solution to me.

[specialmom]

Oh my goodness, did someone just call me a cry baby?  MrsP, I don't think everything Obama did was bad.  I'm on the conservative side and he definately isn't conservative though.  I'm not sure why you are upset with me or other conservative voters here.  I didn't wish Obama any ill will and actually the contrary.  I mention that I think that he IS part of the polarizing forces that are ruling this country right now.  How he can overcome that (or my impression about it), I'm not sure.  I'm not close minded as you may believe I am.  But I'm waiting to feel like he gives a darn about me or cares about me as much as the other citizens he typically addresses.  Any words from him about people that pay a lot of taxes, follow the laws, do as they are told but have a different opinion than him on the future of the country?  Just that his peeps need to keep the fight up after Nov. 6th.  

I'm not a cry baby.  I'm worried in earnest.  Morale is very low and it isn't just the bad economy (boy, did you see the market today?)----  this nation is divided in a huge way.  Our election process certainly doesn't help things.  You come off of it feeling beat up and discouraged.  

Trust me, I want to feel hopeful.  I want to feel optimistic.  I DO hope for this nation to recover and things to not only be better but to FEEL better regarding one party to the other.

I've said my congratulations to obama supporters and I hope that I've made it clear that *I* want Obama to be my president too.  I want life here to be peaceful, for people to prosper from their hard work, I want to be proud of our elected officials.  Many a Republican has embarressed me in the past few years.  I remain loyal because overall, their ideas on various things are closer to mine but that is not to say that I feel good about them all the time.  I'm sure Democrats feel the same way.  

Oh well, I'm probably just yacking to myself.   But I hope Washington makes changes in how they handle things, not just Republicans but all of them.  

[rivll]

I agree with you. I think that Obama will work with the conservatives and I believe most of them will work with him. They know we are watching and if they cannot do their jobs there will be consequences from the voters. Obama may not have that motivation but I believe he is sincere in wanting to work on compromises for some issues anyway.
I think that there is absolutely nothing to be smug about. I am so happy he won but I am sorry for the half of the nation who feels the anxiety I felt when I thought Romney would win.
We will find common ground, we *must* find common ground or we are lost.
Except for the extremists, I think we cam come together.
I also think we might try modeling the behavior we want from our leaders right here on the forum. Are *we* able to be sincere and thoughtful? Can *we* avoid getting personal when we disagree? I have failed several times in my efforts, but I think we should continue to try.
I am an idealist and I believe in the goodness of everyone on this forum so I think it wold be awesome to try.
When I am out of line I promise not to cry if you tell me so, when you are out of line you should know I love you even if I tell you I think your behavior is unbecoming.
Whaddya think?

[specialmom]

Well, you sold me!  Sounds good.  

[rivll]

Thanks love. Rejoin you later. I have got to get some air been holed up and sick all day.
Hugs

[specialmom]

Oh, I'm sorry you are sick!!  Hope you feel better.  Hugs to you.

[orphanedhawk]

I didn't think she meant you when she said crybabies. Not you at all.

Funny how our perspectives are so different. I felt Obama moved too far towards the right after becoming president.

To repeat my earlier words, I hope everyone can find a way to work together to help our country.

[nursegirl6572]

I think this is an excellent discussion.  I don't see anyone bashing Obama, like brice, and Barb and el said, at the end of the day, we're still conservative republicans.  

So one guy said he wanted to make Obama a one term president.  That was his opinion, and probably a dumb thing to say out loud.  It doesn't mean that repubs as a whole sabotaged Obama, and it doesn't mean he speaks for us.

Adgal makes a great point, seems like there isn't a lot of budging.  There HAS to be...there IS common ground if both sides will budge a bit.  But, like the others said above, you have to remember that, TO A POINT, our repub officials are going to argue our beliefs and goals, that's why we elected them....yours would do the same if Romney had won.  That's not something you can hold against them...that's their job.  

Now, like SM said, if they're saying NO just to say NO, that's a different story, and I'm sure that goes on to an extent, but you can't say that is the case 100% of the time.  Healthcare is a good example...that was a good and worthy "fight"...we lost, but it was important for our reps to ask for more changes.  They were not being difficult.  That was a HUGE thing, and Obama would have gained a lot more bi-partisan support if he hadn't taken such a hard a$$ stance.  

Something as big a deal as that should have been better thought out, and he should have demanded from HIMSELF that more people were on board before pushing it through.  

That's the BIGGEST source of anxiety I have about Obama.  I'm really afraid of what our healthcare (quality) is going to look like in 5-10 years.  I've already seen first hand what a mess things like Medicaid and Medicare are...I sincerely think that's going to be more of the same.  

If he would have allowed for some compromise, so those who feel like me could have swallowed it better, he would have gotten more support.  His intentions were in the wrong place, IMO.  He recognized that it was a BIG deal, and something had to change, and he wanted that to be his legacy.  

Because of that...he rushed it and pushed it through despite a LOT of oposition from BOTH sides.  That's just one example.  I would hope this time around, especially when discussing things that are SO big...he does what he needs to to get as much support.  He says pretty much the same thing about the possibility of having to take military action against Iran.  He said, if he would ever do it, it wouldn't be until he had the backing of the world behind him.  He should have looked at O-care the same way.

Lastly, I kind of take offense to people being called a "cry baby".  This is just a discussion.  NO ONE is making excuses for the outcome of the election, no one is saying Obama won the WH fradulently, nothing like that.  I think we deserve credit where credit is due, we've all been congratulatory, gracious, and have said we hope he does well.  What more do you want?  Of course our views haven't changed.  I think we've all handled this very very well.  It's not easy being on the losing side, but someone has to be.  The people spoke, and chose a leader, they chose him.  We're not being childish about that at all.

Rivil....nicely said.  I also hope you feel better soon.  Your immune system probably crashed after the election ended!  Too much stress!  :0)  LOTS of TLC!!!

[rivll]

That's the BIGGEST source of anxiety I have about Obama.  I'm really afraid of what our healthcare (quality) is going to look like in 5-10 years.  I've already seen first hand what a mess things like Medicaid and Medicare are...I sincerely think that's going to be more of the same.  

Well, it doesn't seem like we have had much of a healthcare system and I saw Obama actually doing something about it. I appreciate him so much for standing his ground. And anyway, didn't he use the model that Romney created (and later dismissed for the nation)?
I don't see what is so radical about it.
My knowledge of this issue is limited and superficial and if anyone out there has some unbiased information they can put forth, I will be delighted to deepen my knowledge.
What I do know is that the Northern European countries as well as England, Germany and France all have really good care for their people.
How do they do it? I believe the taxes are very high.
We can o back and forth on this for awhile bt hopefully we will be focused on upcoming issues more than what was.

[adgal]

Rivil, we also have a nationalized health care plan in Canada.  I do believe our taxes are higher, but they are not extraordinarily high, and honestly, I am very happy with our level of care.  YOu hear so many things that just aren't true.  I've heard everything from I can't choose my own Dr. (total falsehood) to the idea that some sort of panel decides who gets treated and who is left to die.  Totally ridiculous.  What I like is no one can be denied coverage for any reason.  And I don't know anyone who has had trouble receiving care, or getting the treatment they need.  All medical decisions are between Dr. and patient with no interference from the Insurance carrier.  If my Dr. and I decide I need a test or treatment, I get it, end of story.  In my life it works and works well

[rivll]

Wow! And no one calls you Communists? That's great.
We have much to learn from our Northern neighbors.
So who manages it w/o the Insurance carriers?

[brice1967]

If you aren't throwing yourself at the feet of a democrat right now, you're a cry baby.  That's the mentality... we're supposed to be converts now that the election is over and were supposed to be good with everything the President says and does.  That is the expectations.... read all of the posts above... nobody is bashing the guy and you've got mike calling people cry babies.....and Mrs P running out of the room.  

[orphanedhawk]

Okay. Mike should not have called anyone cry babies. Not terribly mature. No name calling goes for everyone, no exceptions.

He doesn't seem to be around so, can't we move on ??

[rivll]

Me:We can go back and forth on this for awhile bt hopefully we will be focused on upcoming issues more than what was.
You:
we're supposed to be converts now that the election is over and were supposed to be good with everything the President says and does.  That is the expectations.... read all of the posts above... nobody is bashing the guy

I am not accusing anyone of bashing Obama it was just a request to move on to a more constructive line of  thinking. Sorry if I was unclear. I was hoping for some real dialogue.
Regarding being called crybabies-very silly-you all know that you are not crybabies.
There are a few men here that seem to manage staying out of the pissing contest and I applaud you-you know who you are.
And the rest of you, you know how valuable you are..pls continue to share with us your shining intelligence and kindness. It really makes this forum something special.
I realize that by saying this I may have lost friends and I am sorry. It is truly a loss for me.

[adgal]

The money is taken in through taxes, and each province manages it's own funds.  Here we have Alberta Health Care.  We are far from communist and even from socialist though.  In all honesty, most democratic countries have this type of health care.  The US is actually in the minority in that regard.  England, France, Canada, Sweden and lots more.  It's run like a non profit so the "carrier" (the gov't) doesn't profit from it.  I think that's why it's less expensive perhaps then a system such as yours as Insurance Companies are for profit.  To each their own, and our system isn't for everyone I'm sure, but I like it.  If you are born in Canada, you are covered for life, end of story.  It makes me feel secure I guess.

[Barb135]

As for people being called cry babies, yes, that was out of line.  No name calling goes for everyone. Were there not already so many comments about it, in posts that contain other good comments, it would be deleted.

I can't say much about France, Canada and Sweden, but I do know there are a lot of people in England/UK who can not get testing/treatment they need, due to the rigidity and antiquated guidelines of the NHS.   I've also seen it a few times with Canadians.

[specialmom]

Google wait times as well even for Canada.  Seeing a specialist takes longer based on the WHO studies that were done.  And every doctor has some type of protocol and standard of care that they follow.  Who sets the standard?  

Example, mammograms.  Right now in the US, they are recommended to start at age 40.  In 2010, there was a govt. agency study done that said women shouldn't get them until age 50 due to false positives.  Thank the dear lord they did not change the standard of care because physicians did not agree with them.  I have no family history or reason to be suspected as high risk for cancer but am based on my first mammogram findings.  Right now the standard of care is mammos at age 40.  That is the standard.  (that is not a political comment but just an example of 'standard of care' and understanding that 'someone' sets it over and above treating physicians and patients.)

See what I'm saying?  Death panals are a scary term but in reality, what that means is that the deciding body for standard of care in whatever country we are talking about says when a person with cancer reaches X point, they are no longer a candidate for treatment and it is only comfort care verses here, some will treat to the bitter end on on the chance it will work.  But they choose that over being told you've reached X point and there is nothing else we are going to do.  

I also wouldn't have given up the care I received for my son by moving to another country.  We were asked to moved several times since my sons birth and declined.  Even when they were little and moving to Europe sounded exciting.   With his delay, I don't think I could have duplicated the therapy and help we got elsewhere.  I looked into it.  

Anyway, always a discussion that people are entrenched in their views.  I respect my friend Adgal and am glad she loves her system and it gives her security.  :>)

[el_em_en_oh]

"...What a bunch of crybabies. Hey, you lost. Get over it. ..."

I don't hear anyone crying, dude.

Although, at the end of his 2nd term, when his 8 years in office have amounted to exactly zero (which is basically what his FIRST 4 years in office have amounted to), I'd be EXTREMELY surprised if you're not still pointing the finger at GWB and complaining about how "there's NO WAY it could have been fixed in 8 years... if only he'd had more time, and the party of NO would have worked with him".

You want to hear crybabies? Take a look in the mirror, and look at all the moaning & complaining you've been doing for the last 4 years, about how everything is GWB's fault, and how the Republicans just won't work with us, not to mention how "stupid" we Republicans and our comment are, here in the CE-Forum.

Look in the mirror Mike, if you'd like to get a good look at a crybaby.

Glass houses and stones and throwing, comes to mind.

[brice1967]

Actually, my comment about "being converts" was to MrsP.  And it really sounded like that was what she was inferring... that we have to be 100% on board with the President, believe in all of his policies and practices, and I think that is unrealistic.  By no stretch of the imagination was she 100% okay with everything Bush did....

EL... they'll still be crying about Bush.  What else are they going to do?  Step up and say things aren't working?  No dice....

[MrsPincince]

"Actually, my comment about "being converts" was to MrsP.  And it really sounded like that was what she was inferring... that we have to be 100% on board with the President, believe in all of his policies and practices, and I think that is unrealistic.  By no stretch of the imagination was she 100% okay with everything Bush did...."

ABSOLUTELY ridiculous...Why in the world would I even think ANY of you on the right would support the president 100% or his policies. None of you even believe in his policies....I can't stand it anymore. Most of you jump down my throat because I support the President. You jump down my throat when I show facts on how the repubs in congress intentionally oppose him just because. You gloss over the fact that the majority of the American people believe in him and his policies that why he was re-elected...I left this forum because i was told in a sarcastic way that I wouldn't disagree with ANYTHING the President says..I'm sick of it. Like I said I will support the President on my own AWAY from CE...You guys can continue to dissect everything you think is wrong with my stance and what I believe. I've NEVER intentionally made anyone feel less of themselves for what or who they believe in. I may have disagreed but that's about it. I maybe young but I'm not naive and I'm not gullible.....It's sad that most of you on the right on this forum believe I am and for that I am DONE with this forum! My opinions and what I believe in get mocked and it's just a damn shame... I wish you all well.

[specialmom]

I'm sorry you feel that way, honestly.  I never intended to mock anyone in any way and do believe that I don't have all the answers or always know what is right.  I just do the best I can with what I got.  There is a lot of tension because people are worried is all.  I imagine you'd feel the same way if Romney were elected.  I don't think it is personal and am really sorry that you do.  The election has amped things up in terms of the discord and that is unfortunate for sure.  Not sure when it will get better either.  

Anyway, I understand your decision to leave as I think anything a place/people are too frustrating to deal with it just isn't worth it.  But I'm sorry if I had a part in that.  Peace

[specialmom]

anything should be 'any time'.  typo.

[nursegirl6572]

I maybe young but I'm not naive and I'm not gullible.....It's sad that most of you on the right on this forum believe I am and for that I am DONE with this forum! My opinions and what I believe in get mocked and it's just a damn shame... I wish you all well.
.

Whoever said you were gullible?  We're discussing politics, it isn't always pretty, but i'm sorry, I'm not seeing where anyone is knocking you for your beliefs.

None of you even believe in his policies

That's actually not entirely true at all.  It's his approach that we disagree with most of the time.  Our goals on both sides are shared ones.  Like health care...there DOES need to be massive changes, but I don't think his plan is the way to go.  There are parts of it that are good, and parts that aren't.  So, in that sense, I don't diasagree with his policy, but rather HIS idea of what the solution should be.  There needs to be more compromise.  The repubs weren't on board and asked for changes to be made...they were shut down.  That works both ways.

Just as you feel frustrated, we feel the same way.  This isn't directed at YOU, but it is frustrating when a discussion comes up about how some of us feel Obama has fallen short.  You seem to take that so personally, and then start in with the fact that the repubs made it their goal to make him fail, etc etc etc, or how he inherited a mess.  ONE guy made a comment about Obama being a one term president.  We've all come out and said that was probably not the brightest thing to say, and people were just trying to explain, that while repubs in congress need to compromise along with the dems....there's good reasons for their opposition, it's their job to support the repub agenda, as much as it is the dem's job to further the liberal agenda...with a repub president.  That's what it's supposed to be...that creates the much needed checks and balances that keeps one side or another from just running rampant with their agenda.  It just seems like there are always excuses toi be made for why he didn't do what he promised he would.

Now, sure, both sides are guilty of defending and protecting their agenda to an extreme, where not much is getting accomplished.  We've all said as much.

I loved GWB, but I have no problem stating things I think he did wrong...or agreeing with some of the opinions about him.  That was the point I was trying to make yesterday about how I see similarities to him and Obama in their presidencies...but I kind of got shut down as if I was bitching or something.  I wasn't. But, I just let it go.

Sometimes, we're just getting involved in the convo, and with all due respect, you guys get upset, like we're badgering you all or something.  Ironically, most times we're not even the ones who started the thread...but yet, if we engage in a resulting discussion, we're told you're tired of hearing it, etc etc.  You see?  That's very frustrating.  Sometimes, I don't even bother, because I don't want people to accuse me of beating a dead horse....when I'm only trying to have a discussion!!

I'm sorry you're so upset to the point where you feel you want to leave CE.  Maybe just give yourself a breather.  We've stated that we're happy for you guys that Obama prevailed....but of course we're still going to discuss the issues.  That doesn't mean we don't support Obama or wish him well.  We're not going to all of a sudden change our opinions, as you know, but I think us conservatives have been gracious about the outcome.  We're all cautiously optimistic, is that not enough?  I don't see how you're taking that personally.

Our continued discussion over our worries and fears doesn't mean we're being difficult, or cry babies, or anything of the sort.  I wish you wouldn't take our views about Obama so personally.  That's nothing directed at you.


I left this forum because i was told in a sarcastic way that I wouldn't disagree with ANYTHING the President says..

Mrs. P....I will say, honestly, that you HAVE stated at times....areas in which you weren't pleased with Obama...you've said many times that Libya wasn't sitting well with you.  So, yes, you HAVE said things before about Obama...HOWEVER, overall, MOST times, you won't budge.  I don't think that's anything to take personally either.  That's who you are, you're passionate about your beliefs, and you DO support Obama in a big way, so of course you would back him up in most cases.  That's fine.

That's no reason to leave the forum, IMO.  Of course, that's your decision...but that comment is just another person's opinion based on their observations.  I agree with it, to a point.  I don't think that should necessarily be a bad thing.

Hope you give this some thought...certainly no one is wanting you to leave.  I've enjoyed getting to know you.  This election has been a long and stressful one.  Maybe you just need a break!

[teko]

Well Mrs. P, I do agree with you as far as Obamas policies. I think the media has gone a long way in treading the party line and as such people are not aware of what the healthcare entails, frankly it either has not been covered or has been used as a political football. Obama actually wanted universal health care and what we ended up with is mostly Republican ideas. But how do people KNOW that if they are not given the straight of it all.

Rivil the healthcare that is coming is not universal. It will work the same as it does now with the exception that more exchanges will be set up to choose from and all will be required to carry it and you will no longer have to depend on an employer to cover you which I think is a good thing. You can keep what you have if you like but what this is intended to do is make it possible for more people to get coverage. In my own situation, having pre existing conditions and insurance companies refusing to cover me because of them, this is hope for people like me and my husband. Its funny, we are not low income at all, (those people have options), unlike myself so I look at it as a good thing.

My concern about the parties working together is optomistic because Obama is no longer going to run again (knocks that excuse of making him a one termer), and we have midterms in two years when lots of these people will come up for re election and if the two parties are not working on our behalf, we will vote them out! Two reasons for the parties to work together imo.

My concern is that all or most of the republicans in office have signed a tax pledge and I do not see them coming off of it so I am left to wonder how that is going to work when the president ran on raising taxes, which means ending the bush tax cuts for starters. So right off the bat I see gridlock once again.

The majority has spoken and agree that we need spending cuts as well as increased revenue. Now lets see if that message got thru or not?

One good thing is more dems came to the senate and maybe will have enuff votes to kill a filibuster which is what was used every time someone wanted to kill any chance of bipartisanship. It only takes one person to stall the process altogether

That is and has been my stance all along. Mrs. P I think that has been yours as well along with several other non republicans on this forum.

No one is changing their minds just because they won or lost the ballgame. What it does do is send the president back to the drawing board with capitol from his win. As george bush once said, I have been given capitol and Im going to use it. Obama handled it much differently (altho I kinda wish he had taken the same stance of Bush), he said, he intends to reach across the isle and work in a more bipartisan way.

Will he? I believe he will. Will they? Like you, this pledge will probably get in the way, in fact I would bet on it. I hope not! But we will see.

The people have spoken.

Here in Florida they had 11 constitutional amendments put on the ballot by republicans. All but three of those failed. Dems were put in office across the nation. My take on this is that overall the people have tried to stop the gridlock.

Now we sit back and watch and hope that we can all take away something from the oncoming negotiations. But to think we are not going to have to hurt a little to get out of the mess we are in, is just naive imo.

I hope you wont leave, and I hope you let it slide off your back. Obama won, the people have spoken, and in the end that is the only bottom line. No opinions have been changed as a result. Mine either. So come back.

[MrsPincince]

Who am I kidding!..I CANNOT stay away.....Mock on, say I'm naive, tell me I'm blind I don't care..I support the President and I will continue to express that in his defense if I feel like I have to defend his policies...If you don't like it...TOO BAD! As long as I'm not personally offending or attacking anyone, my conscious is clear because I know I don't come on this forum and disrespect or mock people...

teko,

I agree about the two reasons that the repubs HAVE to work together...John Boehner actually has an opportunity here to do something BIG..He really doesn't owe anyone anything in his party anymore..Whether or not the reubs like it, they HAVE to know that a tax increase is a must also the dems HAVE to know that the entitlement programs do absolutely NEED reform..So EVERYONE including us (the president's supporters) are going to have to realize that we ALL have to compromise our principals a lil bit to get this country moving FORWARD!...

I agree, the President needs to take a firm bit reasonable stance. I believe he will. My biggest question is like you said, "will they?"..Speaker Boehner showed a glimpse of they will yesterday when he spoke and IMO, with the rupubs coming from 4 yrs ago and having a stance on making the president fail and instead they failed at their goal and the majority of the American people do NOT agree with them, I think speaker Boehner and the rest of the repubs in congress know there is a lot at stake...We'll see. I'm a little more worried about Mitch and the tea party in congress. We'll see how they deal with all of this when they start talking about the "fiscal cliff"...

[teko]

Well good, Im glad your not staying away. And in the same vein of this conversation, read this link. Says it all I think.

President Obama's Quick Pivot From Campaigning to Governing

Nearly half of voters (47 percent) said Tuesday they thought income tax rates on those making more than $250,000 a year should go
up. Another 13 percent said rates for all Americans should be increased,
while 35 percent said taxes should not be raised on anyone.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/11/the-presidents-quick-pivot-from-campaigning-to-governing.html

[specialmom]

Hey, good news.  They go up for EVERYONE in January!

[rivll]

Give it a rest...

[adgal]

Awww, respect you and love you too.  

You know, in reading your's and Barb's comments on healthcare, something struck me.  Do you realize that the things you hear about our healthcare system (the negatives) are almost exactly the same thing we hear about yours?  Difference is, you hear that we have these longs waits and trouble getting certain tests due to ours being Nationalized and gov't interference.  We hear that you have the same issues due to Insurance Companies intereference.  Sort of ironic really.  You meet people on the forums who complain about our system, and I meet people who complain about yours.  Interesting and I guess it goes to show that no matter how you do it, your not going to please everyone.  But of course I have to respond.....ha

The long waits can happen in some areas.  It's not an issue where I live, but in small rural areas where there are fewer Dr.s it can happen.  Mammograms - we also stuck to the standard of 40, but if your Dr feels you need one earlier (perhaps family history or something) you get it.

I had to have surgery almost 2 years ago for a condition called VIN, which is a precancerous condition.  From diagnosis to surgery, I waited about a week.  

I think both of us need to remember we are always going to hear the horror stories - human nature right?  For most Canadians our system works or there would be screams to change it.  I'm sure its the same in the US, that for most the system works, and what we hear are the horror stories.

[rivll]

I think both of us need to remember we are always going to hear the horror stories - human nature right?  For most Canadians our system works or there would be screams to change it.  I'm sure its the same in the US, that for most the system works, and what we hear are the horror stories.

Well said, Adgal. I really appreciate what you have to say.

[teko]

Actually, that would not bother me one iota. They were meant to be temporary and should have xpired long ago and will take billions off the deficit!

See! Im easy! lol

[nursegirl6572]

My BIGGEST fear with Obamacare is that the quality of our HC will suffer, in terms of research, technology, etc.  There's just not going to be the same interest in funding a lot of those projects, IMO.

While Obamacare isn't a 100% nationalized system, there will be a lot of aspects of it that will be.  Also, as a small business owner, I'm anxious to see how this will affect me.  The initial plan was very strict and aggressive, with hefty fines for ANY employer who did not offer HC to their employees.  Then, it lightened up a bit and there were some minimal requirements put in place for businesses (especially with a small # of employees).  I have yet to receive ANY kind of instructions about any changes I'll have to make.

I HAVE researched insurance for employees recently, it aint pretty.  I'm not sure what's going to happen, but I have a feeling that a lot of companies will just choose to pay the fine, if the costs do not become more competitive.  In theory, OC should make it more affordable....I hope so.  That's one of the fundamental problems I see with OC..they are going to try to implement these employer rules before a lot of changes are made that would allow the COST of acquiriing HC for employees to go down.  That could be disastrous to small businesses.

There are some aspects I think are great...the pre-exisiting clause for one, is great.  That has turned into a witch hunt in HC.  It was basically designed to keep people from abusing the system but turned into a way that insurance companies get out of paying for every little thing they can.

I think people being able to stay on their parent's policies a little longer is also a good thing, but I think there should have to be somewhat of an effort to show that the person is either still in school, or seeking a job.  People could run with that as well.  Overall, the sentiment is a good one, as obviously, people aren't getting jobs right out of school.

I think that one of the ways OC could be improved is to encourage more compeition among insurers.  That was one of Romney's ideas, and it's a good one.  That COULD be incorporated into Obamacare.  The last thing that we should want is less competition...that's going to lead to a nationalized HC system by default, because what will happen is, private insurance will remain unaffordable and unattractive (and actually become more so), so people will automatically go with the gov't plan.  

More competition would help everyone...less burden on the gov't, as they should want and encourage as many people as possible to retain their private insurance co.  That will keep costs down, keep HC the same in many ways so that quality isn't jeopardized, and still give uninsured an option to get the gov't plan.  That's my issue...take the good things from BOTH sides, and make a better plan.  This is a HUGE change in our country...the better plan we have, the more successful it will be.

The last thing we want to do is jump into something that could cost a LOT of money, potentially sacrifice the amazing high quality care we have here, and end up not being able to revive private insurance companies IF OC turns out to be unsuccessful.  Just the increase in competition will keep them in check, force them to keep prices and policies fair.  Right now, there are too many monopolies.

Medicare and Medicaid are a bleeding wound for this country.  Changes need made bigtime there...especially with Medicaid.  

Just my take.

[specialmom]

Yes, some parts of obamacare are needed and I appreciate that but have the same fears ng does.  We'll see.

Teko, I don't know how I feel about it.  We are having a rough time personally right now so wish it would be held off a little but then I don't know how the future will be either. Rip the band aid off now or later.   And I do understand that the country needs the money.  So, it is what it is.  

I just wish that tax money would go to get us out of debt rather than expand programs.  At our house, we try to pay down the debt before we aquire any more if that makes sense.  Hey, maybe that is the plan.  I hope so!!  I hope they use the tax money wisely.  

[teko]

Yes, supposedly the money from that will be used to address the deficit. Thats what I'm hearing, so we will see? I'm like you (It is what it is),

[adgal]

Lol, you run your house like we do.  Pay down debt and live less expensively before buying more stuff.  What a concept!  I think earlier comments are correct.....they should let moms do the budgeting for our respective countries.  We KNOW how to budget and cut costs when we need to don't we.

[kindathesame]

How many of you have voted in the belief that your candidate was going to go to Washington DC and be your state's voice  only to be disappointed because it seems when candidates get to Washington, they change. The reason they change is because there's a third party in Congress- it's called "The Good Ole Boy" Party...made up of Democrats and Republicans who have been there too long and they have too much power. That is why nothing significant gets done- because they are wheeling and dealing and gambling our rights away. That's the first problem and maybe term limits would help solve it. Then you have the Lobbyists----they need to go. Period. Outlawed. End of Second Problem. A return to common sence and ethics would be nice. Anyway, I just wanted to throw that out there.

[adgal]

Well said.  I can tell you that the politicians in my country could also use a huge dose of ethics and common sense.  Most of them these days seem more concerned with getting or maintaining power rather then actually working for the folks that elected them.

[nursegirl6572]

I immediately thought of the "Dukes of Hazard" when reading your post.  "Just a good ole' boy...never meanin' no harm..."

I agree, and I'm sure that happens far too often!

[orphanedhawk]

I agree. You take a healthy fish and throw it in a cesspool and it isn't going to stay healthy.

My personal feeling is this is what happened with Obama and this will happen with anyone who says they're going to change politics in DC.

Lobbyists need to go, special interests out the window, term limits, and limits on campaigns too.

[el_em_en_oh]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"
William Pitt the Elder, Earl of Chatham

"It is not only the slave or serf who is ameliorated in becoming free... the master himself did not gain less in every point of view,... for absolute power corrupts the best natures."
Alphonse Marie Louis de Prat de Lamartine

[adgal]

I know I'm risking sounding like a broken record, but you really all should read that book Collapse.  One common denominator in every super power that collapsed......political corruption brought on by the desire for power.  It's such an eye opener.

[orphanedhawk]

Thanks. I'll see if I can find it.

That brings to mind another topic that I generally avoid but I do often think of with the mess we currently face, the collapse of the empire.
Historically, empires rise and fall. Chaos accompanies the fall of empires and I wonder if that is what we are witnessing.

[nursegirl6572]

Historically, empires rise and fall. Chaos accompanies the fall of empires and I wonder if that is what we are witnessing. .

I've thought of that too.  My hubby believes in this bigtime.  He said, according to history, every nation has risen and fallen.  He thinks our hey days are over.  Not that he's all doom and gloom, and he doesn't think we're going to see it in our lifetime, but he thinks there will be a day where we could technically be like a 3rd world country.  Scary to think about, but not impossible.

I think we're sometimes a bit too cocky for our own good, and let's face it, there are a lot of people in the world who don't think very highly of us.  We have a lousy reputation in many parts of the world, yet we're pretty stuck on ourselves, thinking that everyone envys us.

Interesting to think about.  We need to get our sh*t together to make sure that doesn't happen, for a long time anyway.  Can't be successful when we're drowning in debt, and all of our leaders have played a role in that...no one man gets the credit for that.

What happens when China sends the repo men?  ;0)  Yikes.

[adgal]

Chaos does always accompany the collapse of an empire.  What is so interesting though is that almost every collapse has been brought on by politics, and was avoidable.  Roman Empire, etc. etc.  The theme is consistent throughout - when you start to read up on it, it's very eye opening.  The drive for power is so strong and when a country reaches super power status, the corruption that accompanies is almost a given. It's truly interesting, although parts of the book are a bit dry.  Makes sense though.

[el_em_en_oh]

China CAN'T just call in their chips (make us pay the debt we owe them) according to the video RIVLL posted.

It's explained in the video, although I didn't really understand that part.

Something to do with them owing US money as well, and the fact that we export a lot of stuff to China, if they called us and asked us to "pay up", we could leverage off the exports to them to pay down the debt.

I have to admit, international-economics wasn't my strong-suit in college. International FINANCE I did well in, but econ is a different ball-game.

[nursegirl6572]

Yes, it is confusing.  I would IMAGINE there's definitely something in it for them too.  How does that even WORK?  Sorry, the video may have covered that, admittedly, I didn't watch it yet.  Do they actually give us a loan, with a % rate (interest)?, or do we deal some other way?  And why China?  That's probably a dumb question...but why not borrow from another country, or does not other country have that kind of dough?

It's kind of ironic...all the hub bub about the bad mortgage loans and such, sure doesn't seem like deciding to be in hock to China for so much is such a great idea.  Of course, our economy is very cyclic.

[adgal]

I'm not an economist, nor do I even pretend to completely understand the dynamics of all of this, but it seems to me China would be very very foolish to call in it's loan and sink the US economically.  I believe that the US is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) importers of Chinese goods.  So that would be cutting their own throat I'd think.  I may be completely and totally off base on this opinion, but that is my understanding.

[teko]

Yes, that is my understanding as well. We sorta need, each other.

[adgal]

Here's a table I found on China's top countries of export.  There is more info here (and this is where I found the table below)
https://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html

Table 8: China's Top Export Destinations, 2010 ($ billion)
Source: PRC General Administration of Customs, China's Customs Statistics
Rank Country/region Volume % change over 2009
1       United States 283.3 28.3
2         Hong Kong 218.3 31.3
3         Japan         121.1 23.7
4         South Korea 68.8   28.1
5         Germany   68.0         36.3
6         The Netherlands 49.7   35.5
7          India         40.9         38.0
8         United Kingdom 38.8   24.0
9         Singapore   32.3   7.6
10          Italy         31.1         53.8

[nursegirl6572]

That makes sense.

[adgal]

Oh dear, that table didn't cup and paste very nicely.  Sorry.  But, it does show the US is the biggest importers of Chinese goods by a fairly significant number.  So I cannot imagine them wanting to see your economy fail.