Aa
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.
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.
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.
That makes sense.
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
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
Yes, that is my understanding as well. We sorta need, each other.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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
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.
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.
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!
I agree, and I'm sure that happens far too often!
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.
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.
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.
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),
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, 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.
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.
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.
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
See! Im easy! lol
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.
Well said, Adgal. I really appreciate what you have to say.
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.
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.
Give it a rest...
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
