bets with golfjudge and the war machine.

obama's health care plan is also getting ripped to shreads. by his own advisors, scholars, and just about everyone except for his blind followers and of course the paid for house majority. #

http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examiner~y2009m11d18-Harvard-Medical-School-Dean-Opposes-Obamas-Healthcare-Plan-Gives-ObamaCare-a-Failing-Grade

some good links are within the article too.

on some things of course he cant even pay for a majority, so this occurs instead:

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/68CD27DF-477A-4169-B814-3E3191347F0A/

take the time and see how democracy really works.

and i forgot to mention north korea on the above list for the war machine

Don, I thought your mate said you were banned? I am happy not to bicker, so long as you don't make wild, inaccurate accusations about me getting your threads removed or being some shill for Betfair, the EU, New World Order or whatever. If you play that game, I will ignore you. Simple.

The 3 bets we have are, all at evens.

£1000 Obama to win a second term
£5 US military spending to be less in real terms for Obama's first term than it was for Bush's last.
£5 Britain to not join the Euro within two years, which is now probably more like eighteen months.

Nothing has changed with the first position, in that I would confidently back Obama against any mainstream Republican, and that is what this will boil down to. I assure you, lefties around the world are cheering on the likes of the unelectable Palin, and hope Republicans continue to take the positions they have been. It is Goldwater all over again. Obama may even benefit further if as is entirely possible, the Right splits.

Miltary spending is less certain, but the fact he's already abandoned missile defence in Eastern Europe bodes well. Surely, if he were a creature of the Military Industrial Complex, Obama wouldn't have taken away this lucrative venture they've lobbied so hard for? I am certain the UK will not be in the Euro in two years.

As for whether I'm disappointed, not at all. You still think Obama is a socialist, right? Well if you're right about that, then surely a socialist like me would be happy?

Across policy area after area, things are moving in a different direction. On who the tax burden falls upon, infrastructure spending, housing market intervention, consumer protections, pending healthcare reform, fair pay + union rights, things are moving in a clearly different, leftward direction. Again, if this isn't true, then why are the Right so furious?

US foreign policy is changing in relation to most countries, and all international institutions. Just as it changed in the direct opposite direction from January 2001, the direction is being reversed. That is pretty much accepted by foreign policy analysts the world over, and by the govts in question. The political weather on tax havens, on international clearing houses etc has changed markedly as can be seen by various new agreements with such havens. There's a long way to go, but we're moving in the right direction.

One of the things I don't get is how the anti-Obama people imply that Afghanistan is some betrayal from him. He repeatedly talked up this war before winning power. Personally, I think they need to find an exit strategy soon, and hope he backs Joe Biden rather than McChrystal. We'll see.

I'm a realist and never expect perfection from politics, so am always going to have my complaints. I don't like Geithner, and would prefer more distance from Wall Street. At some stage during his Presidency, I would like to see him reverse the opposition to a Tobin Tax. Guantanamo will close, and the trials on the mainland are a step forward, it will just take longer than hoped.

All this stuff is inherited, and its madness to expect everything to change overnight. For 10 months in charge, I think that's a perfectly acceptable return for any leftie.

Golf, i noticed that he couldnt get Abortion on the healthcare without it being "Rape" or an endangerment to the persons life though!!

Zilzal - we'll have to see what finally emerges after the Senate tomorrow. It will inevitably involve some undesirable compromises.

keep up - was banned, got unbanned yesterday.

re your comments re obama - i have to say you are totally out of touch with what is actually happening. you're blinded by solely reading the liberal press i suspect.

and you can bang on about what he "inherited" all you like, and blame bush all you like, but the fact is obama and the dems controlled the house from 06-08 anyway, so it is certainly unfair to keep using inheritance as an excuse. additionally to that, re the economy, in obama's own words "it's my economy now". he has taken ownership and told the people of such - results are now expected from him.

what you will find out soon enough is that the usa is largely a conservative country. recent polls highlighted that only 22% identify themselves as liberal. and when i say conservative i do not mean republican! because they are not really being conservative either, as both parties will find out the people have awoken. i stand by my predictions that a 3rd party will take 2012.

and btw, the "right" - in your eyes the republicans - are visbily furious because they are attempting to jump on the bandwagon and steal the thunder from the grassroots uprising of the people that is underway. the people that are really furious are the people in the street - they have figured out what their representatives are about, and they no longer believe the empty promises that all of them, obama included, continue to make.

and if you didnt notice obama has also lost his popularity majority.

you still think Alex Jones is CIA, Warro?

you can bang on about what he "inherited" all you like, and blame bush all you like, but the fact is obama and the dems controlled the house from 06-08 anyway, so it is certainly unfair to keep using inheritance as an excuse.

The Democrats didn't invade Iraq, Afghanistan or create Guantanemo Bay. I have always argued that, had Gore won in 00, none of those would have happened, with the possible exception of Afghanistan.

what you will find out soon enough is that the usa is largely a conservative country.

Its a 50/50 country actually. Words like 'liberal' and 'conservative' are value-laded, and those values change over time. George Bush Snr was certainly viewed as a Conservative throughout his career, yet the Right's philosophy has moved well away from that definition. Therefore, the battle for either side is to win the middle, and from there redefine what the centre is. Same in any country's politics.

Good luck with your 3rd party candidate bets. I hope I get to lay some of them.

yeh

i have 80-1 on any third party.

and ur right the dems didnt invade iraq. but they took no steps to withdrawal once they were in control did they? and yes they have said theyve taken steps now to withdraw but have they really?

you see they keep saying these things, but ACTIONS speak louder than words. if you paid any real attention you would sse just how many things obama has lied about, back tracked on, and contradicted himself with. it's frankly highly entertaining how much of a clown he is making himself look.

it's the same as the legislation.// on healthcare, cap n trade, and everything else. he says "we're gonna do xxx" - then if you actually read the legislation it says something quite different. hence he has backtracked on his proimise to ensure americans had 5 days to review new legislation online before any decisions would be made. clearly he's realised he cant do that if he's gonna lie because people are noticing! why you think a congressman called him a liar during his speech - it's because he is, and those of us that READ and bother to, can see it quite clearly.

so whilst you have a fairly firm opinion on all nthese matters, as usual you're basing it on the press. suggest reading some of the legislation he is passing, because you'[re going to find it's going to hurt a lot of his own voting base in due course, which will spell the end of him if he hasn't gone already.

in short like i keep saying it is not about dems v republicans. it is about the people v government. that is what is occurring in the usa. dems and repubs are all in the trough together.

incidentally, i assume you were aware that several of the justice department resigned this week. obama's private attorney is now his top man there (conflict of interest) - that was in the papers, but the fact that several of the other underlings also resigned will be worrying to a man that is now backed into a corner in court.

the people wanted change yes, but not this change. theyve realised that "redistribute the wealth" means communism, the end of property rights (something you seem to overlook conveniently), something they abhor. all the team obama flashy rhetoric is wearing off very quickly and he has become a national joke. in his speech this week on fox, he aired his concerns about the need to reign in spending, yet how much is he spending!? and you know there's another stimulus round the corner... it's comedy gold.

Don

I really can't be bothered to go round in circles arguing whether moderate European style social democracy represents communism. If you believe it does, that's your business. I doubt more than 1 in 50 people in Europe consider this to be anything even vaguely associated with communism.

As for this 'people vs the government' line, this is so simplistic as to be almost meaningless. Which people? The anti-government people are versus the government, as one would expect them to be. Yet there are many people who are pro-govt - by that I mean pro-public healthcare option ( a majority the last time I looked), pro-union, grateful recipient of tax credits or welfare.

moderate european style no. obama is no moderate - he is far left radical - this is surely obvious now. most that falsely believed he would govern from the centre have realised now, although you dont seem to have done :) so no circles required here..

and it's not that the people are anti government - they are anti BIG government - because they appreicate the corruption and loss of freedoms that comes with it. and this applies to most of the right and independents over there - in fact the vast majority, which as i said earlier refer to themselves as conservative. it's only the 22% liberal base, generally those of lower education and intelligence that buy into the need for big government. of course over here it is quite different, as the british are even more brainwashed than the yanks.

you can deny that usa was set up as a christian conservative country all you like, but that won't change the fact that it is.

Yet there are many people who are pro-govt - by that I mean pro-public healthcare option ( a majority the last time I looked), pro-union, grateful recipient of tax credits or welfare

check again.

and ur right, most dont mind a public healthcare OPTION - but that is not what the legislation will deliver. what will you say when obama starts locking people up for not buying health insurance! he may have held the majority for a short time, but the truth of his plans is out.

Golf

I think that 21st century Social Democracy in no way mirrors the original concept of the ideals it used to do. It now becomes much more Authoritarian and wants all and sundry to conform to its own beliefs, its Plutocratic style and its undemocratic make up has just put people off politics.

We look back in this country to 12 years of a supposedly centre left government to find CCTV rampant, thought police ruling and sleaze rampant, i actually voted New Labour in 1997 so the shame son me as well.

and maybe you should check the links out that i posted at the top of the thread.

ty zilzal

moderate european style no. obama is no moderate - he is far left radical - this is surely obvious now.

So what is Obama doing that is more left-wing than the European norm? Public healthcare, redistrbutive taxes, strong trade unions are the norm. I thought you were anti-Europe precisely because it is this 'big government' that you hate?

you can deny that usa was set up as a christian conservative country all you like, but that won't change the fact that it is.

Because something was set up along certain lines several centuries ago, that doesn't mean it remains so forever, as much older nations than the USA will testify.

for better or worse the law in the usa is rooted in christian belief, and will likely return more closely to it in due course imo.

Zilzal

It depends what you mean by this social democracy. In mainland Europe, it is entrenched and would rarely be referred to as social democracy. Listen to the French or the Germans on the economy, tax, hedge funds, infrastructure spending etc. That argument would be presented on this forum as 'left-wing', by Don as communist I suspect. Yet in those countries, Sarkozy and Merkel's govts are clearly of the Right.

You won't get any argument from me about New Labour, or their obsession with CCTV etc. What you will have got at any time from me in the last decade is an argument that they aren't left-wing - they're Thatcherites with a different base. Sleaze isn't a left/right issue, its just a fact of life.

and re obama - jail time for not buying insurance seems extreme to me.

and he calls for a citizens army, as big and well funded as the military.

he has taken spending to whole new levels where taxes will end up being severe.

in addition, he REFUSES to accept any criticism. he refuses to honour his promises to be transparent.

he has overridden property rights ffs!

lets not forget his long list of unelected czars, who have no democratic oversight whatsoever, only to him. many of which have quite radical backgrounds, as has been already shown by several having been forceed to resign and more on the way. these are people who want to sterilize sections of society - practice eugenics - nationalise as many private businesses as possible and tell people how to live their lives and what to believe in.

congress are the supposed representative, and yes, they're**and on the take and pretty useless. but they are the democratic voice of the people - obama in many senses seeks to make them redundant and not much more than a show piece. but i guess you dont liek the people having a voice since you are an advocate of the eu :)

Golf, you could hardly call their public spending record as right wing, as you couldnt say that social policies re minorities and women were the work of rabid right wingers

i will give you them sidling up to big business though, along with foreign policy

champagne socialism = communism

the far left sidles up to big business no?

obama's legislation is written by the special interests.

the far left sidles up to big business no?

In countries governed by the 'far left', i.e. communists, there is no big business to sidle up to. The state is everything.

Zilzal, fair point about the social legislation, but I don't see their spending plans as being particularly left-wing either. As I've pointed out before on here, at the last election, the huge difference on spending between Lab and Con amounted to the grand total of £4BN, and even then the Tories were struggling to make the figures add up. If anyone was anal enough to actually scrutinise the various calls for more spending on this or that area from Tory spokespeople, they would soon realise what a baseless, opportunist position they've taken.

the tories here were just as bad, and hardly showed true conservative value

and the way things are going, the state soon will be everything... it has certainly expanded under obama. all about direction remember??

you ignored the list , which could have been much longer, with regard to how obama has gone further left than the european norm. any reason?

I noticed that you didnt record the "Off the Book" spending re the PPI though!!, Welfare spending has hardly been cut to the bone either, in fact it has ballooned under Labour.

Lets face it the house has been built on sand, and although i agree that the policies of Thatcher didnt help the country in the way that some of her more slavish supporters think, the hard left must take a lot of the blame for making the conditions in the 60s and 70s that led to her being elected.

you ignored the list , which could have been much longer, with regard to how obama has gone further left than the european norm. any reason?

Because I've found in the past that even if I debunk them, you just dismiss it as liberal propoganda. It is impossible for you and I to discuss these things reasonably, because I think all your links are right-wing propoganda, and you think mine are left-wing propoganda. So we go round in circles.

I noticed that you didnt record the "Off the Book" spending re the PPI though!!,

I'm sure you didn't mean in that way, but 'I' wasn't responsible for it. I, along with the Left like the unions, journalists and politicians like Livingstone, were the only ones complaining about PFI (a Tory invention), in Blair's first term.

Btw, re the Labour legacy of the 60s and 70s, we could also look at the fact that Wilson inherited a dire situation after long Tory rule. There is no simple start and end point.

please go ahead and debunk the czars. show me what i will consider is liberal propaganda PLEASE!

But the left on the labour benches didnt stop crowing about the schools and hospitals built with it, bit of a double edged sword to claim the credit and disown the debt

debunk the property rights issue... did he or didnt he screw over the bondholders.... it's fact not propaganda!

the citizen's army business came from his own mouth on telly.

and why can no one see any of his documents/history? why is he fighting this in court? and i dont just mean the birth certificate - why cant people view his thesis, essays and alike?

Was it that dire Golf??


Well if you think that was the case them no government in the last 100 years was that good because it always seemed to be in "a dire state" i would say that he inherited one of the less dire ones

But the left on the labour benches didnt stop crowing about the schools and hospitals built with it, bit of a double edged sword to claim the credit and disown the debt

Not fair. Our argument was always that it is perfectly possible to build schools and hospitals, yet borrow the money in different, more transparent, better value ways. Furthermore, we didn't all sign up to other areas of vast spending, like wars or quangos.

Was it that dire Golf??

Yes, and it has indeed been dire for any govt, certainly since WW2.

There is an argument that, until 79, everyone assumed Britain was in decline before Thatcher saved us. Yet as some argued at the time, and has now become apparent, it was a myth. Now the limited time bonanza of NSO, privatisation receipts, ultra-liberalised finance etc has come to an end, we're faced with the reality. Britain hasn't been a real world power since 1945, yet we've deluded ourselves that we are and rewarded politicians who encourage further delusion.

debunk the property rights issue... did he or didnt he screw over the bondholders.... it's fact not propaganda!

Which bondholders do you refer - GM? If so, they are lucky to get anything as the company has failed. Imo, if the govt bails out companies, it has the right to restructure them how it sees fit.

under property rights bond holders must be paid first under liquidation or restructuring. obama gave it to the unions, who conveniently raised votes and money for him in the election. he overruled their legal rights.

Zilzal,
Can i ask you a question? , what did the Thatcher/Major gov do with the revenues from the privatisations, North Sea oil, and the money from council house sales which she refused to let the local authorities spend on new housing.Surely much of the present housing crisis can be traced back directly to the sale of the best of council/social housing.

The life of the common man has certainly improved though Golf, what we now laughably call poverty would have been envied in 1945.

I think that we have this attitude that i talked about in thinking we are owed a living and think thats why immigrants who have worked hard have done well here

agree zizal

See my 1935 comment BB
i wasnt a fan of a lot of her policies although the left helped creating the conditions which lead to her gaining power, a lot of the labour politicians in the 60s/70s were nearer the hard left and certainly a number of the trade unions then were boasting about bringing down the country.

The life of the common man has certainly improved though Golf, what we now laughably call poverty would have been envied in 1945.

Of course, in some ways it has progressed, as it has elsewhere due to technological advances etc. The welfare state has also ensured this improvement, hence why as you say we've never seen that dire poverty since.

But whether the life of the common man has increased throughout, beyond that low baseline, is unclear. I don't think it has particularly in the last 20/30 years that I've been alive.

Zilzal,
Thanks for that but you seem to have swerved my question, and just for good measure i would say that almost all of the things that have led to the improvements in living standards and improved life chances of the less well off are a result of Labour governments.

Bentley, they**ed it away on unemployment. However i cant agree with your assertion that all improvements have come by a Labour administration, i think that education has suffered, the family base has been eroded and the concept of personal responsibility diminished.

The private sector has brought a lot of improvement into peoples lives as well imo, thats whu i dont believe in big government

Golf i agree with your assertion that the last 20 years havent been good for the working class man, unless you enjoy being a lazy bstard

i still see homeless people
if labour were helping the poorest, wouldnt they have vanished by now.