Is Mitt Romney a Nazi?
sort of but not literally I have a hard time imagining Romney operating death camps but then on the other hand, his policies would necessitate death camps and that's pretty much the way Hitler and the nazis got around to it; they didn't really plan for it initially but after 'eliminating' all the 'subhumans' from their society, they were left with millions of living human bodies they didn't know what to do with any more so they disposed of them. Romney is so incapable of sympathy, I suppose it's not that much of a stretch to imagine him coming to the only 'logical' 'solution' left after producing a starving underclass of millions, so yeah, maybe Romney is a nazi but he just doesn't know it yet.
If Mitt Romney were elected and pushed for Romneycare on a national scale, would Republicans hate it as much as they do Obamacare?
As a Republican since the day I could first vote - ABSOLUTELY!The core problem for many republicans is that the national government simply does not have any clearly expressed authority to regulate health insurance. One can interpret and infer (i.e. create out of thin air) authority if one twists the wording of the Constitution into something that requires a law degree to even begin to comprehend - let alone really understand. One of the major divides between Democrats and Republicans is their views of the powers granted to the national government. Republicans generally prefer to read those powers narrowly and in line with how those powers were understood when the Constitution was ratified b/c all power comes from the people. Only the people can give up more of their freedoms to allow the national government to do more things - and the way to show that by amending the national constitution. Democrats generally prefer to read those powers (some of them anyway) broadly and wish to have those powers interpreted in light of current needs and expectations. They tend to believe that it is too hard to amend the Constitution so it should be reinterpreted by the judicial branch as time goes on. Obviously those are very broad generalizations and to get deep into the details would fill (and has) several hundred books. So w/ that basic background - no republican would push for an idea like the ACA - granted the idea of an individual mandate (only a small part of the ACA) was floated at the Heritage Foundation some years back - but the idea was soundly rejected by all elected Republican - except maybe Newt Gingrich - he has a long history of being for, against, for, and against just about every idea he's ever encountered ;-) But the whole comprehensive package was never a Republican idea - nor could it be w/o those supporting it basically rejecting core Republican beliefs in government limited by a written constitution.
How can Mitt Romney's 47% statement be compared to sociologist Karl Marx's conflict theory?
I would say that a direct comparison is difficult. Marx's theory rests on the division of classes in capitalist society. Producers, or workers, perfom production and are paid a wage for their labour. Capitalists exploit this labour by only paying what the worker needs to survive and no more, the labour done beyond this becomes the capitalists' surplus value which creates profit. The conflict is over this suprlus value and the right to control production. Workers want to recieve the full value of their labour and have control over the way things are produced, this leads them to organise collectively into unions, and eventually (according to the theory) Communist parties. The capitalist on the other hand, has a legal right to the surplus value and legal control over the production process, they want to maximise profit by minimizing wages, they therefore mobilise the state to enforce their legal property rights against workers who rebel. What Mitt Romney was talking about was 47% of Americans who either don't pay income tax or recieve some form of benifits from the state. This has little to do with productions processes and everything to do with welfare (which didn't really exist in Marx's time). Romney was saying that Republicans can't expect these people to vote for him, presumably because Republicans are all for stripping the very welfare programs these people depend upon. But the people Romney was speaking to aren't really in an inherently antagonistic class relationship with the state's dependants. Sure they'd like to pay less tax if they can, sure they lament the so called lack of initiative and welfare dependency, but it's not like they are structurally forced into conflict by directly contradictory interests. It's more like they are competing over the state. Welfare recepients want more money for the programs they use, while Romney and his rich buddies presumably want to pay less tax and want more money as subsidies for private enterprise. It's probably more amenable to Weber's analysis of class than Marx's, because it takes place outside of the workplace and doesn't involve a relation of interdependance between the two classes. The rich financial capitalists would be fine if all the welfare recepients magically went away, but an industrial capitalist ceases to be a capitalist if he has no workers to work for him.
Mitt romney is a mormon. explain whether his religious beliegs affect your opoion of him as a potential future?
Only a complete fool and traitor would vote for someone who makes such a big deal out of being a mormon while issuing disclaimers. Very bad news his class of massacre-mormon.
What's the difference between Obamacare and Trumpcare?
There is NO Trumpcare. Whatever happens it is all the Republicans in both houses that will own it. But once a bill is passed and becomes Law then a comparison can be made. The Problem with Obamacare is it cannot last more than a year or two then there will not be enough in place to consider it any-care. Paying for it is what they are trying to do in what they are referring to as “Replace” I do not think Obamacare failing is actually a mistake because they knew how they were selling it to the American People was a blatant LIE, or a series of LIES. Some believe it was set up to fail so they could use that as the way for single-payer but it didn’t quite work out as they wanted it to but it appears that it was close if that was what they were doing.So, I guess if they get something the biggest difference could be one being paid for and one not, if the GOP is able to put it together.
What are the similarities and differences between Obamacare and Singapore's healthcare?
Singapore requires it’s citizens to pay for all the basic care out of their own pocket via a forced savings plan similar to the concept of Medical Savings Plans that Obamacare detested.Both plans penalize people economically for not participating.Singapore’s plan works. Obamacare does not.
True or False...Obama and Romney = No Difference?
The effect will be the same ,,,,more money for the military ,,, same job loss to china,,,, same robbing of the social security trust fund ,,, same federal reserve policies ,,,, so true ,,,, no real difference
Is the term "Affordable Care Act" an oxymoron?
Affordable? Tell that to the new members of the "29 Hour Work Week Club," c/o Obamacare! Affordable? Tell that to the millions of people REQUIRED to either get insurance at double the rates or pay a fine! Affordable? Tell that to the thousands of employers who are required to offer a health plan or pay a fine! And to think that the Amish people petitioned Congress (successfully) to be declared exempt from gov entitlements!!!! Talk about "extremes" re personal responsibility! Go figure?