1 - 5
We will be waiting a long time - if not until eternity for the economy to improve substantially under the current conditions. Higher premiums (and often surprise huge deductible obligations at a point of a personal health crisis) while perpetually act like a wet blanket thrown over the barely smoldering economic vitality. Yes, European concepts yeild European outcomes. High taxes ( or withdrawal of discretionary spending from the economy force-funneled into a broken health care system which primarily benefits the now semi-statest health insurance and delivery / pharm corporations) yields fewer pizzas , cars, and Christmas gifts purchased. Prepare for a long recession, in response to which the Fed will choose the continue printing more money so they all don't look like fools - for the moment. Democrats can gloat now, but they can only blame shift for a couple of months and then reality will strike.
In response to:

Why Mitt Lost and it Wasn’t Very Close

Paul756 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 7:03 AM
Daniel, if your comments were intended for me, you have missed my point. I am neither "leftist" nor am I spouting "leftist drivel". Rather, I am just stating the facts. I am not recommending that anyone compromise their value system (as many do today) to become elected. Sadly, because of the broad spectrum of "value systems" which exist in the country today, the only effective election strategy is to pander (often disingenuously ) to each one. Obama is the ultimate politician. And I do not mean that to represent a complement, as (I believe) his interests are more self-serving than he ever allows anyone to see.
In response to:

Why Mitt Lost and it Wasn’t Very Close

Paul756 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 6:43 AM
True. But there-in lies the double-bind. Entropy prevails in this situation. We now have a multi-cultural country with sometimes dramatically opposing world views and agendas. America of 1776 and even 1960 was pretty monolithic if you choose to ignore the existence of the black community ( which they largely did). Almost everyone watched one of three TV stations and they had a largely common view (as shaped through the media) of the world. Not so now. Hence, "divide and conquer" works better than "rally under this flag" political strategies. And so life goes.
In response to:

Why Mitt Lost and it Wasn’t Very Close

Paul756 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 6:43 AM
True. But there-in lies the double-bind. Entropy prevails in this situation. We now have a multi-cultural country with sometimes dramatically opposing world views and agendas. America of 1776 and even 1960 was pretty monolithic if you choose to ignore the existence of the black community ( which they largely did). Almost everyone watched one of three TV stations and they had a largely common view (as shaped through the media) of the world. Not so now. Hence, "divide and conquer" works better than "rally under this flag" political strategies. And so life goes.
In response to:

Why Mitt Lost and it Wasn’t Very Close

Paul756 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 6:12 AM
The Democratric party since 1972 has been "micro-targeting" voters as the electorate no longer falls out like a traditional Bell Curve. What was considered " traditional values" by most in 1960 is now only seen that way by the Boomers. And many Boomers are dying off and/or "softening" there positions regarding abortion, homosexuality, radical feminism, and so forth as they live in a media world ( and commonly even Church environment) that has radically changed it's point of view on all of the above as well. What used to be pretty "black and white" is now "grey"....and people who view the world as primarily "grey" behave differently. And they are much more easy to manipulate, particularly via a Charismatic personality like Obama's.
1 - 5