Can Liberals Criticise Obama?

[Wicked Jester]

Wicked Jester -

you're a fuckin' euro, nobody really gives a shit what you socialist loons think in this country

I'm fairly sure France is in Europe - though by all means correct me if I am wrong.

Regardless of what the Tourettes-suffering Meathead might tell us, more than 10% of the population (7.2 million people) of France are immigrants, a number I would hardly consider "miniscule".

btw, "Euro" is a currency - not a person.

Soooooo, how about you address the cruxt of the point....how many are illegals and draining their entitlement programs?

And don't try and tell me about France......I spent over two years in Paris, while going through culinary school at Le Cordon Bleu......That city is a dirty shithole, particularly when you venture out beyond the tourist traps......It's only then that you see what socialism is all about.....It's only then that you see just how miserable their residents truly are.

 

[Saigon]

Jester -

I agree this is a huge problem - for both the US, France and Germany.

I don't think there is any simple, one-size-fits-all solution to dealing with mass immigration.

But I think it's also an issue which is more shackled by political problems than economic ones. The extreme right wing will always see immigration as a threat; the extreme left will always see any criticism of immigration as racism - realistically both sides have a point.

All developed societies need immigrants. It has often been said of London that if all migrants went on strike, the city would collapse within 24 hours. No bus drivers, no cab drivers, no cleaners, no shop assistants, no waiters and no rbbish collectors.

So I think that is essential to any debate about how to provide healthcare to those people.

btw. I am interested in your chef's training! We must discuss that elsewhere. Grimy as Paris can be, it remains for me the most magical city on earth. It's hard for me to believe anyone who has been there really thinks it is a shithole, regardless of the banlieues. Also, France is a capitalist democracy - it is not the Soviet Union, even if it does have a left wing government right now.

 

[MeBelle]

Jester -

I agree this is a huge problem - for both the US, France and Germany.

I don't think there is any simple, one-size-fits-all solution to dealing with mass immigration.

But I think it's also an issue which is more shackled by political problems than economic ones. The extreme right wing will always see immigration as a threat; the extreme left will always see any criticism of immigration as racism - realistically both sides have a point.

All developed societies need immigrants. It has often been said of London that if all migrants went on strike, the city would collapse within 24 hours. No bus drivers, no cab drivers, no cleaners, no shop assistants, no waiters and no rbbish collectors.

So I think that is essential to any debate about how to provide healthcare to those people.

You're missing the point.
Let's go back to the stats.
Do the stats include illegal immigrants?
From what I read the stats DO include immigrants.

There is a difference.

 

[Saigon]

MeBelle -

There are two issues here, definitely.

One is the sheer number of recent migrants into a country, legal or illegal. In the case of France, almost all of the migraton has occured since the 1960's, after the Algeria War and as a result of independence in Algeria, Morocco, Viet Nam and Francophile West African nations such as Benin and Senegal. As we've seen, that is more than 10% of the French population. I think this is the crux of the issue in France.

Secondly, there is that issue of legality - that I sense is the bigger issue in the US.

I don't think is missing the point - it means the point is a little different to France than it is to the US.

 

[MeBelle]

MeBelle -

There are two issues here, definitely.

One is the sheer number of recent migrants into a country, legal or illegal. In the case of France, almost all of the migraton has occured since the 1960's, after the Algeria War and as a result of independence in Algeria, Morocco, Viet Nam and Francophile West African nations such as Benin and Senegal. As we've seen, that is more than 10% of the French population. I think this is the crux of the issue in France.

Secondly, there is that issue of legality - that I sense is the bigger issue in the US.

I don't think is missing the point - it means the point is a little different to France than it is to the US.

So there is no system in place in France to provide healthcare to immigrants?
How many illegal immigrants are there in France?

 

[Saigon]

So there is no system in place in France to provide healthcare to immigrants?
How many illegal immigrants are there in France?

Well, as I just explained at some length, the issue in France is less one of legality than sheer numbers.

I'm not an expert on how the system works in France, but this looks right to me (based on our EU system):

"Health care is highly socialized. It does not discriminate any income levels wherein everyone is entitled to an equal level and quality of service in both public and private institutions. There is also no waiting list for the conduct of surgical procedures. Everyone can consult any health practitioner he/she wants in any public or privately run hospitals or clinics. This was echoed in a post on France Expat Forum last July 9,2009:

Normally, those coming from other EU countries get the appropriate paperwork from their home system, basically attesting to their eligibility for coverage in their home system."

If you’re working and paying into the cotisation system, you and your family are covered. The French system is a reimbursement system – again in two parts. The state health care system reimburses about 70% of most routine health care, and then most people have a mutuelle that pays the rest according to the terms of the specific contract you have. Your employer usually provides the mutuelle – with the cost split 60-40 between employer and employee – but if your employer doesn’t have a mutuelle, you can always get your own.

Health Care in France


My guess is that a migrant without EU papers has to use a private doctor - that is how it is here.

 

[Unkotare]

I agree this is a huge problem - for both the US, France and Germany [sic].

All developed societies need immigrants. It has often been said of London that if all migrants went on strike, the city would collapse within 24 hours. No bus drivers, no cab drivers, no cleaners, no shop assistants, no waiters and no rbbish [sic] collectors.

Wow, imagine all the "rbbish."

 

[MeBelle]

So there is no system in place in France to provide healthcare to immigrants?
How many illegal immigrants are there in France?

Well, as I just explained at some length, the issue in France is less one of legality than sheer numbers.

I'm not an expert on how the system works in France, but this looks right to me (based on our EU system):

"Health care is highly socialized. It does not discriminate any income levels wherein everyone is entitled to an equal level and quality of service in both public and private institutions. There is also no waiting list for the conduct of surgical procedures. Everyone can consult any health practitioner he/she wants in any public or privately run hospitals or clinics. This was echoed in a post on France Expat Forum last July 9,2009:

Normally, those coming from other EU countries get the appropriate paperwork from their home system, basically attesting to their eligibility for coverage in their home system."

Health Care in France

My guess is that a migrant without EU papers has to use a private doctor - that is how it is here.

That's very interesting.

I'm still not talking about migrants, who are factored into US stats.
I'm referring to illegal immigrants, who are not factored into US stats.

In the US it's a legal issue and a sheer volume issue.

 

[Dubya]

I ask again...are those stats for citizens?


I ask again...are those stats for citizens?

Well, let's look at it! The 2012 estimate for our population is 315,562,000. Multiplied by the cost that equals $2.598 trillion. The stats aren't probably old or used a smaller population, but that number is in the ballpark of what I've been told the figure is for our health care.

The latest report from the BLS shows 155,654,000 people in the workforce, which is less than half the population. Even if adjusted up somewhat, our yearly health care costs are definitely much more than $1.3 trillion, so my guess is the figure was based on population and not taxpayers

Thanks for the post, but it didn't answer my question.
I said nothing about population (citizens) vs taxpayers.

Are you that thick to not realize it can't be taxpayers? If it were taxpayers, the amount would be around twice that amount. That is per capita amounts and my link proves it.

 

[NoNukes]

whacko stories about Marxism when most normal people know that is bunk

What is more irritating, his paranoia or his stupidity?

tough choice, no nukes displays both characteristics, as do you.

A rather childish reply, and when have I ever displayed paranoia?

 

[MeBelle]

Well, let's look at it! The 2012 estimate for our population is 315,562,000. Multiplied by the cost that equals $2.598 trillion. The stats aren't probably old or used a smaller population, but that number is in the ballpark of what I've been told the figure is for our health care.

The latest report from the BLS shows 155,654,000 people in the workforce, which is less than half the population. Even if adjusted up somewhat, our yearly health care costs are definitely much more than $1.3 trillion, so my guess is the figure was based on population and not taxpayers

Thanks for the post, but it didn't answer my question.
I said nothing about population (citizens) vs taxpayers.

Are you that thick to not realize it can't be taxpayers? If it were taxpayers, the amount would be around twice that amount. That is per capita amounts and my link proves it.

No, I'm not thick.
Sorry you didn't understand my original query but I appreciate the information you gave.

 

[editec]

Can you believe it? According to libs on this board - Obama needs to move MUCH further to the left...

OMG... I never thought I'd be grateful that Obama is so far to the right...

Depends on what you define as "left".

Why don't you define it for us so we can know what you're talking about?

Thanks.

ummm, people with social, economical, and political shortcomings...

You get it now???

I see.

Anyone/thing you personally disapprove of is your definition of liberal.

So noted.

thanks.

 

[editec]

I resent the stupid notion that somehow liberals don't criticize President Obama. Liberals are forever criticizing everything.

It's the modern Republican party that lacks such self-awareness.

I am sure liberals discuss this stuff with each other - but on this board I think we are all guilty of being defensive and playing team politics.

True liberals are NOT on a team.

The very moment you join a team you give up the one thing that is required of you to be a real liberal...you give up your right to think for yourself.

 

[Unkotare]

The very moment you join a team you give up the one thing that is required of you to be a real liberal...you give up your right to think for yourself.

 

[Saigon]

I resent the stupid notion that somehow liberals don't criticize President Obama. Liberals are forever criticizing everything.

It's the modern Republican party that lacks such self-awareness.

I am sure liberals discuss this stuff with each other - but on this board I think we are all guilty of being defensive and playing team politics.

True liberals are NOT on a team.

The very moment you join a team you give up the one thing that is required of you to be a real liberal...you give up your right to think for yourself.

I totally and absolutely agree - and I think this is a wonderful statement.

One thing that just baffles me on this board is this idea of loyalty to a party. That loyalty simply isn't warranted any more than always going back to the same grocery store even when you get bad service.

In a democracy we get choice - and we utilise that choice by voting for the best candidate regardless of the party. I've voted for 4 different parties in the last 10 years or so.

People should be much quicker to dump the Dems or Reps if they feel they are not going in the right direction.

 

[billyerock1991]

I was hoping for more bipartisanship. I know Bush threw that kind of thing out the window, but I think a two party state can only be successful if both parties are involved. That's not to say I don't approve of the job Obama's done. But the country is super divided and I would like for that to change.

Excellent point, I agree.

I tend to blame the GOP for this more than Obama, but maybe back on his first day in power Obama could have really tried to open up a dialogue with the moderate limb of the GOP and offered them a couple of policy victories in order to establish common ground.

You 'blame' the GOP? Obama is President - it is his fucking job to find compromise. And he is crap at it. 'Winning' does not mean you get it all your own way... it means you are supposed to fucking lead. LEAD. Not divide. You - and any other moron who voted for Obama - really need to learn that lesson.

no its not obbama's fucking job... its the congresses job to compromise ... where ever you get that from is beyond me ... no sweetie pooh it means he runs on what the people elected him to run on ... seems you forgot what he ran on ... it wasn't on tax cuts only ...it was clearly on tax cuts and revenues ... which the republicans refuse to compromise on... seems you forgot that too... when you have 75% of the Voters saying tax cuts and revenues my question to you is, why doesn't the republicans grasp that thought ??? you see these republicans only see it their way ... we can see mthe past 8 years of republicans running it their way hasn't worked ... they have said under no scircumstance will the votet for revenues ... the you have the gual to come here and say Obama won't compromise really ??? finally why hasn't the republicans said to the people what subsidy will they cut from the budget they have offered one .... do you ever look up anything before you insert foot into mouth

 

[Redfish]

What is more irritating, his paranoia or his stupidity?

tough choice, no nukes displays both characteristics, as do you.

A rather childish reply, and when have I ever displayed paranoia?

I merely responded in kind to a childish post directed at me. If you are that thin skinned, maybe you need for find another place to post

 

[Wicked Jester]

Excellent point, I agree.

I tend to blame the GOP for this more than Obama, but maybe back on his first day in power Obama could have really tried to open up a dialogue with the moderate limb of the GOP and offered them a couple of policy victories in order to establish common ground.

You 'blame' the GOP? Obama is President - it is his fucking job to find compromise. And he is crap at it. 'Winning' does not mean you get it all your own way... it means you are supposed to fucking lead. LEAD. Not divide. You - and any other moron who voted for Obama - really need to learn that lesson.

no its not obbama's fucking job... its the congresses job to compromise ... where ever you get that from is beyond me ... no sweetie pooh it means he runs on what the people elected him to run on ... seems you forgot what he ran on ... it wasn't on tax cuts only ...it was clearly on tax cuts and revenues ... which the republicans refuse to compromise on... seems you forgot that too... when you have 75% of the Voters saying tax cuts and revenues my question to you is, why doesn't the republicans grasp that thought ??? you see these republicans only see it their way ... we can see mthe past 8 years of republicans running it their way hasn't worked ... they have said under no scircumstance will the votet for revenues ... the you have the gual to come here and say Obama won't compromise really ??? finally why hasn't the republicans said to the people what subsidy will they cut from the budget they have offered one .... do you ever look up anything before you insert foot into mouth

Well, according to William Jethro Clinton, yes it is the presidents job to find compromise.....In fact, he urged Obama to find compromise during the campaign.

So, I guess we can now expect you to claim that William Jethro is full o' shit, eh?

 

[editec]

True liberals are NOT on a team.

The very moment you join a team you give up the one thing that is required of you to be a real liberal...you give up your right to think for yourself.

I totally and absolutely agree - and I think this is a wonderful statement.

One thing that just baffles me on this board is this idea of loyalty to a party. That loyalty simply isn't warranted any more than always going back to the same grocery store even when you get bad service.

In a democracy we get choice - and we utilise that choice by voting for the best candidate regardless of the party. I've voted for 4 different parties in the last 10 years or so.

People should be much quicker to dump the Dems or Reps if they feel they are not going in the right direction.

Incidently I feel exactly the same way about REAL conservatives.

If one adheres to a political philosophy, one does not have to accept the pragmatism of those who are in power and have to make compromises.

The first rule of partisanship is to remain loyal to the PARTY.

And let's face it, no political party in power adheres to the philosophy they claim to cherish.

Not the GOP and not the DNC, either.

 

[Ernie S.]

Of course Liberals can and do criticize Obama - but the smarter ones don't do it in public to give the rabid right unnecessary ammunition. I generally defend Obama rather than criticize him in public, but if I have worthwhile complaints - I email them to the DNC and White House.

Does the White House take you any more seriously than we do here?

You see, that's the problem. Liberals keep quiet and blindly go along with the idiocy for fear word will spread that their policies are about to destroy us.