Barack Obama v. Mitt Romney

[callippo 10]

I thought Truman was a failed haberdasher, not a bank clerk. Or that's the way the legend went.

[Harleyman 12]

I thought Truman was a failed haberdasher, not a bank clerk. Or that's the way the legend went.

 

He was a failed haberdasher but he looked more like a bank manager. To me anyway.

A much underrated President but who made decisons together with his Secretary of State George Mrashall which shaped western democracy and US policy even up to this day

[Annoni_mouse 10]

 

 

A very good point. One thing to remember though is that the US Navy lost many of it's prime warships during the attack on Pearl Harbour. Fortunely for them the carriers were all out at sea during the attack otherwise subsequent events would have been very far different.

 

The US in Roosevelts words became the arsenal of democracy which were fine words but the US military at that early stage was still very much a "hollow force" in many ways. The country found itself having to gear up for a prolonged war against two very powerful nations at very short notice. The Navy had to be built up to a size and with the firepower to take on the Japanese navy in a war across the biggest ocean in the world and it was believed at that time that the Pacific war would last for years even beyond 1945. It was projected that it could well last until late 1846/ early 47 by some experts.

I think that because of the necessity for a high rate of production in a critical time frame that navy ships were built with less armour plating than their British counterparts. There was a tremendous demand for steel for the manufacture of tanks, armoured vehicles, howitzers and transportation vehicles, aluminum for aircraft etc. All this at a time when the US was supplying weaponry to Russia and Britain also.

 

Some American weaponry could be classified as being manufactured in a state of "quantity over quality' in particular the workhorse of the western allies the Sherman tank. American tank technology had not really kept up with that of Germany or for that matter Russia which arguably had the best all round general purpose tank of the war the T-34. But the Sherman tanks could be knocked off the assembly line in the thousands and could be lost in quantities which the Germans with their superr King Tigers could not sustain in equal numbers..

 

To be fair, the Sherman is often given a bad reputation it doesnt deserve. Considering the time it was designed and its intended role (that of infantry support with anti-tank capability a close second), it compares favourably with the German tanks of the time. It was no Panther or Tiger, but then the 'Supercats' only had a thimble of fuel to share between 'em so any qualative advantage was largely lost. The T34 was good, but they were a blunt tool at best - it's hard to believe that any western tank would have left the factory in such a poor state, some of the finished product from the Soviet production line was sketchy to say the least!

 

It's also worth noting that the Sherman stayed in service around the world into the 80's and the Israeli's got a lot of use from their Super Shermans post war. Not bad for a design that's often considered inferior!

 

Back on the subject of battleships I've been on board two of them, the USS Missourri "the mighty Mo" now docked at Pearl Harbour as a floating museum and the USS Iowa which has just been opened to the public as a museum in San Pedro, Caliifornia. Looking at those two behemoths with the firepower they have they were a match for any enemy or allied batlleship in WW2

 

True, the Iowa class were/are superb battleships. Its a shame that HMS Vanguard was not kept in service in a similar way. She was the pinnacle of battleship design, much like the Iowa's, but was sold for scrap in 1960:(

 

(There was a joke doing the rounds at the time of the Falklands war, something along the lines of "Save your razor blades - Thatcher wants the Vanguard back!)

[bazrippa 10]

that's not true, and anyway if Gary Johnson was so good then why isn't he polling a lot more, than even the 10% you claim he is?

 

if he is polling 10%, which he isn't, then Obama is home clear because Johnson is a former Republican that will shave the GOP vote plenty more than his. Obama wants more people like Johnson to stand in swing states and draw votes. That means he will win the election a lot easier.

 

Johnson 10.6%

Obama 44.5%

Other/Unsure 7.1%

Romney 37.8%

 

Most polls are showing him as other / unsure which i think is a little unfair but tgat is to be expected from a corrupt system.

 

Have you looked at any of his policies???

[callippo 10]

Johnson is definitely NOT getting 10% in Ohio, although Obama would be delighted if he is, because if Johnson is getting 10%, the state will go for Obama as Johnson, being a Republican in all but name, will take votes off Romney.

 

even Ron Paul in Texas won't get as much as 10%, and if he gets much more than that in Texas, that's good news for Obama there too as Romney will be looking over his shoulder there as well.

[bazrippa 10]

You know this how?????

[buck 11]

I thought Truman was a failed haberdasher, not a bank clerk. Or that's the way the legend went.

He was a haberdasher, but not a failed one. There are many legends about Truman, but he was tough. His ' the buck stops here ' motto was true. He fired McArthur and prevented WW3 by doing so.

[buck 11]

 

 

 

To be fair, the Sherman is often given a bad reputation it doesnt deserve. Considering the time it was designed and its intended role (that of infantry support with anti-tank capability a close second), it compares favourably with the German tanks of the time. It was no Panther or Tiger, but then the 'Supercats' only had a thimble of fuel to share between 'em so any qualative advantage was largely lost. The T34 was good, but they were a blunt tool at best - it's hard to believe that any western tank would have left the factory in such a poor state, some of the finished product from the Soviet production line was sketchy to say the least!

 

It's also worth noting that the Sherman stayed in service around the world into the 80's and the Israeli's got a lot of use from their Super Shermans post war. Not bad for a design that's often considered inferior!

 

 

 

True, the Iowa class were/are superb battleships. Its a shame that HMS Vanguard was not kept in service in a similar way. She was the pinnacle of battleship design, much like the Iowa's, but was sold for scrap in 1960:(

 

(There was a joke doing the rounds at the time of the Falklands war, something along the lines of "Save your razor blades - Thatcher wants the Vanguard back!)

The Vanguard was beautiful and impressive. While I was aboard Indomitable in the Med, she was in company with us, and at one tiime fired a full broadside just to show off to us flyboys she was still capable of inflicting serious harm. The noise was tremendous and made Indom shake. She fought off the inevitable as long as she could. While being towed to the breakers yard, she broke free, floated into Old Portsmouth, and almost took out a 16th century pub.

[Harleyman 12]

 

 

 

To be fair, the Sherman is often given a bad reputation it doesnt deserve. Considering the time it was designed and its intended role (that of infantry support with anti-tank capability a close second), it compares favourably with the German tanks of the time. It was no Panther or Tiger, but then the 'Supercats' only had a thimble of fuel to share between 'em so any qualative advantage was largely lost. The T34 was good, but they were a blunt tool at best - it's hard to believe that any western tank would have left the factory in such a poor state, some of the finished product from the Soviet production line was sketchy to say the least!

 

It's also worth noting that the Sherman stayed in service around the world into the 80's and the Israeli's got a lot of use from their Super Shermans post war. Not bad for a design that's often considered inferior!

 

 

 

True, the Iowa class were/are superb battleships. Its a shame that HMS Vanguard was not kept in service in a similar way. She was the pinnacle of battleship design, much like the Iowa's, but was sold for scrap in 1960:(

 

(There was a joke doing the rounds at the time of the Falklands war, something along the lines of "Save your razor blades - Thatcher wants the Vanguard back!)

 

The Sherman had two shortcomings. It's firepower was no match for the tanks that the Germans were putting into service at the late stage of the war and it's armour was inferior too boot.

It was something of a black joke among British troops that it earned the nickname "the Ronson" after the Ronson cigarette lighter.

 

Overall it did it's job though and it was mechanically reliable whereas some of the later German tanks although having superior fire power and armour were prone to mechanical problems.

 

I'm sure the Israelis did well by them but then again one Israeli tank crew in a vintage Sherman could wipe out a couple of Arab tank crews in state of the art T-74s any day and that's a fact

[skinz 10]

Would this cease for the Burger King chain of restaurants functioning if at all valued?

 

Yes, if the kitten was relative to the elephant receiving Thai quondo just before prayers on Sunday.

[Harleyman 12]

He was a haberdasher, but not a failed one. There are many legends about Truman, but he was tough. His ' the buck stops here ' motto was true. He fired McArthur and prevented WW3 by doing so.

 

He owned a haberdashery business in Kansas City in partnership with a friend of his named Edward Jacobson. Truman called it "the shirt store" It fell victim to the great depression when sales fell off and he and Jacobson closed it down.

 

It's known that he never wanted to be President and when Roosevelt died suddenly he was in a terrible state mentally, almost in panic mode.

 

He was however a common sense, down to earth type mid westerner who had grown up with a strong work ethic, had the guts to go with it and turned out to be a very capable leader at a very difficult time in history.

 

 

I recently read a biography on him written by David McCullough

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

... Obama Care has had an adverse effect on the services that hospitals have up to now provided and nursing staff are actually being laid off or having their work hours and salaries reduced because of the 800 million dollars that have been siphoned off from Medicare to pay for Obama Care

 

You mean the baby boomers? The largest age group currently in the US.

 

What's happening now is that any stays in hospital are becoming less and less frequent. Even victims of heart attack are sometimes treated as out patients and sent home assuming that they haven't been completely crippled by it. Many health maintenance organisations are jacking up patient co-payments for treatment. My hospital daily co-payment stay for a period of less than 9 days has increased from 125 dollars to 170 dollars, lab blood tests run at 40 dollars but on the other hand if I need a prescription that has become much cheaper.

 

So which is it? Are nurses being laid off because the money which would have paid them has been diverted into Obamacare or are they being laid off because people don't need to spend so much time in hospital? - You too (like Obama) have avoided the question:

 

How does reducing the funding to medicare by $800 million maintain or improve the standard of Medicare? (and as you said, the baby boomers are the biggest group in the US and the numbers won't start to decrease for some years yet.) The demand placed on Medicare is almost certainly going to increase for some years, yet Obama has taken $800 million from the Medicare budget and has declined to explain the effect that is likely to have on the programme.

 

Obama did not discover that there are problems with the US medical system. - That's been known for years.

 

Have you received any sort of explanation of what Obamacare means to you?

 

Has anybody?

 

As you say, many HMOs are increasing co-pays, but do you think Obamacare is going to reduce them?

 

I have a government-run Insurance plan. Tricare. (Used to be called CHAMPUS, the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the US Government.)

 

Why did Obama not expand CHAMPUS, 'grandfather' those who are already in it and fund it through a Payroll tax for those joining?

 

That would've been expensive, but it would have been transparent. People would know what they were going to get and know how much it was going to cost them. (It would, in effect, have been very much like the German system - which seems to work pretty well.)

 

 

...There are two sides to it. I hear the negative on Obama Care from my daughter-in-law who is in the medical business and the positive from a couple of my neighbours, one who will now not be refused coverage for a pre-exisitng medical condition and the other who has a daughter who has just graduated from an engineering course but is having difficulty getting a job in that field. She will be allowed to remain on her parents medical coverage until she reaches 26.

 

Why do you need 'Obamacare' to allow family members to stay on their parents' Insurance plan until they are 26?

 

Pre-existing conditions are a more difficult problem - but could that not have been solved by providing government-funding to pay the excess premium? Many years ago (in the UK) my life insurance premiums attracted a surcharge (for the first 5 years) because my job was deemed to be a 'high risk' one. The government (my employer) paid the surcharge for me.

 

...What about Romney's idea of vouchers as an alternative to Medicare? One way to starve Medicare also and eventually force it out of existence

 

What are the alternatives?

 

The Republican answer to shoring up the system is vouchers: giving seniors a cash grant to apply to the healthcare coverage of their choice, be it from private insurance companies or a government-run program. Partial funding. The argument accepts that there isn't going to be enough money to fund every treatment. That's a pragmatic view. - Healthcare is a 'scarce (not unlimited) resource'. All 'scarce resources' are subject to rationing; rationing by price or by waiting time.

 

The Democrats' answer is to cut payments to doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, and to intensify anti-fraud efforts, perhaps cut benefits for those wealthy enough to pay for their own care. 'Means-tested Medical Care for OAPS'. That should be a vote winner. By all means cut down on fraud.

 

Romney repeatedly stressed the voucher plan does not include current Medicare beneficiaries or those now in their late-50s. So the voucher plan is a medium-term attempt at curing the problem? - Everybody accepts that at present, there aren't enough people paying enough money into the scheme to maintain medicare. It is going to run out of money. - The question is, "When?"

 

Obama argued Medicare has lower administrative costs than private plans and no profit motive. Nor does it have any motive to be efficient. "It's only taxpayers' money. If we run out we can always get some more."

 

Obama would restrain Medicare cost growth through an Independent Payment Advisory Board, which would be unable to propose anything that smacks of rationed care, change benefits or reduce subsidies for drug coverage. Cost controls would be placed largely on providers, which senior fellow Robert Moffit of the conservative Heritage Foundation said inevitably will lead to cutbacks in care.

 

I wonder whether this 'Independent Payment Advisory Board' will be working for nothing? - It sounds like a UK Quango.

 

Romney seized on the advisory board ... saying it would lead to the government telling doctors and seniors what kind of care can be provided.

 

Obama said the board just would look at best practices and offer advice.

 

"It puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea,"

Romney said.

 

If Romney's got it right, Obama's board is going to ration healthcare for Seniors.

 

If Obama is telling the truth, his board is merely going to be a (probably expensive) talking shop which costs the taxpayers money, but doesn't actually do anything.

 

I don't much like either plan, but given that Medicare probably isn't going to pay for everything, then either a detailed list of what it will pay for or a voucher scheme seem to be inevitable.

 

The election isn't going to be just about Obamacare.

 

"President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order on March 16 giving the White House absolute control over all the country’s natural resources in case of a natural disaster or during a time of war.

 

In the order, the National Defense Resources Preparedness Order, the President granted to himself the authority to approve the dispensing of all domestic energy, production, transportation, food, and water supplies as he deems necessary to protect national security.

 

Despite the national defense hurdle that ostensibly must be jumped in order for the order to take effect, the text of the document itself does not limit implementation to a time of war. In fact, the specific sections of the order make it clear that the President can take complete command and control of the country’s natural resources in peacetime, as well."

 

It seems that Obama feels that Congress can't be trusted to govern the country. It appears that he thinks he should be able to take control whenever he feels like.

 

'Obama is ignoring the U.S. Constitution'?

 

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she is “very glad” and “proud” that President Barack Obama appointed a director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and three members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) without putting them through Senate confirmations."

 

Obama Repeals the 5th Amendment

Glen Greenwald said it: “That is the mindset of the U.S. Government and its followers expressed as vividly as can be: we can spy on, imprison, or even kill anyone we want – including citizens – without any due process or any evidence shown, simply because we will tell you they are Bad People, and you will trust us and believe us.”