But then we agree! Those who knew about the issues, most likely voted and were Republican. Those who didn't vote, were most likely Democrats?

Anyway, voter turnout does not appear to be the problem.

(Just an outsiders opinion: I wish that the weather had been 'better' for the 2000 & 2004 elections - GW must have surely been an embarrassment to 'those who knew more about the issues'.)

I'd say that yes, people are going out of their way to make Obama's job as difficult as possible. The State of the Union speech was basically a little American civics lesson to the public on what a president can actually do and a severe scolding to congress to get their act together and "Send him a bill" that handles the various issues.

Obama has actually done an amazing job despite the resistance and has achieved the two biggest things that I care about: getting us out of Iraq and regaining international support.

Also, the economy is not nearly bad enough. People are still clinging onto unsustainable and inefficient debt-based lifestyles. I'm only barely starting to see the lifestyle shifts people need to do to survive in a bad economy. It's ridiculous that there's a social stigma for living with your parents or not owning a car.

Just some thoughts on Johnsfine's terminology here:

I've looked into actual Marxist organisations in your country, and honestly I doubt they represent more than a fraction of a percent of your population. And I mean real Marxists -- the type who talk about "workers' revolution" and "overthrowing the bourgeoisie". I suspect you are labouring under the misconception that Liberals are Marxists. This is equally as obstructive to meaningful discussion as when people on the left label anything right of them as "Fascist".

The European Union (which is I presume what you mean) is certainly further towards the Socialist end of the Social Democracy continuum than the United States, but calling it "Socialist" is about as accurate as calling the US "Lassez-faire Capitalist". Both are Social Democracies, as pretty much all democratic nations have been for the past half-century or more.

As for your implied link between Europe's economy and their relatively more Socialist system, I think you should consider that several US States are in a far worse shape financially than the collapsing marginal Eurozone economies. There doesn't really seem to be much difference in the degree of financial collapse between the EU and the US. Personally I ascribe the collapse to the remarkably similar economic, rather than the disparate domestic, policies.

Looking for a Marxist in the USA is like looking for monarchists in countries like Syria or NK.

In Syria and NK the policies that are described by "monarchy" are the core policies of the group in power, but admitting it is "monarchy" is absolutely unacceptable to those same people.
In the left wing of the Democrat party, including Obama, the policies that are described as "Marxism" are their policy goals. But calling it "Marxism" is well understood as defeating those goals.

In other words, exactly the concepts of both the occupy movement and Obama's fundamental class warfare approach, but with a cultural requirement to use different words.

Equality of outcome regardless of difference in effort is Marxism and is the goal of the American left. They are not willing to use the phrase "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" but everything in their policies and decisions indicates that is their definition of the political label they claim, "progressive".

Again I think you are confused. "Equality of outcome regardless of difference in effort" is exactly opposite to "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". In fact, I'm pretty sure that quote from Marx was predicated on an assumption of "equality in effort".

Ensuring that the citizenry's basic needs are taken care of is more or less the definition of government, from Ancient to Mediaeval monarchies through to modern Social Democracies (and yes, including Communist and Socialist states). If you're religious, you can find much the same sentiment throughout the New Testament, as well as in many other major religions.

I cannot see any reason, beyond the fact that Marx said it, why you would think it is something unique to, or indicative of Marxism.

This is space lizards territory. You claim, and seem to honestly believe, that the centre left in your country is a secret Marxist conspiracy. As I said earlier, this is a very bad place to start if your goal is to rationally apprise your national politics.

He seems to be torpedoing himself quite well, without outside assistance from anyone.

Nevertheless, don't pay too much attention to "the newspaper version" of any country or its politics. The current political strategy here, as is the case in many countries, is "divide and conquer." Split the country into two groups and have them fighting one another while you reach over and pick both of their pockets. And, this strategy does go a long way, but not nearly so far as you might see from the newspapers and their electronic equivalents. (See this link.)

Quoting from the above-linked article, remember that we are talking about something that happened in the late 1800's, but, "what goes around comes around" as technology is forever changing. We are all living in just such times now, in times that are singularly characterized by the "rapid onset" of unexpected technological advances, viz:
"News" (sic) sources will endlessly hammer upon the notion that a country's entire population consists of one group of ignorant idiots (called "Republicans"), bashing away at another group of ignorant idiots ("Democrats"), while a third group of ignorant idiots ("Independents") are ignored completely and deemed irrelevant... while a tiny group with self-proclaimed "unstoppable" power do as they may please without any hope of encountering meaningful opposition. That, in a single sentence, is (IMHO) "the party line." One of the most basic principles of propaganda is that you take a very simple (if flawed) premise and make sure that this is the only thing that your target audience ever sees or hears, and then make sure that they see and hear it constantly. You can't stop it from going on, but you are the only master of what you actually choose to think.

Pause and consider, "is this idea that's running around in my head actually mine, or did I just pick it up from somewhere?"

The USA today ... ahem ... I think I'll keep that serendipitous phrase just as it is ... ... is absolutely stuffed with very vicious propaganda right now.

I think people should educate themselves, what the world they live in really is. Things like: where does the energy come from?
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/i...urce-large.gif
And then ask themselves, who gets the most of the benefits, and who has to deal with most of the consequences?
Then you should probably ask yourself: what can I do about it?
Is voting equal to "doing something about it"? I don't think so.
If you look at the projections/prognoses of energy consumption, they will not change much, regardless of who you choose as far as administration. That tells me, that it's not up to them to change things: it's up to us.
We can vote in many ways, and the two obvious ones are: to vote once on the voting day, or to keep voting everyday, by supporting certain things with your money (or by not supporting them with your money).

We are a "young" society, yet we are already facing the problems of overpopulation, overconsumption, and excessive waste generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

I think, that we would be much further ahead as far as technological advancement, if the people with stocks in oil, and other non-renewable energy sources, weren't voting against it with their money.
I think that's why the USA is still getting their energy mostly from coal, natural gas, crude oil, and nuclear power plants, (all of those being non-renewable energy sources).
And what happens if something becomes more and more scarce in economy? Guess what! Its price goes up!

That is a very strange view for a fiscal liberal.

Most religious conservatives don't focus on making the world a better place by obeying God themselves, they want to make the world a better place by forcing others to obey God.

That behavior is far more universal in economic liberals. They don't focus on economic sacrifices they can make themselves to improve the world, but on economic sacrifices they can force on others to improve the world.

So in your proposal for (apparently) voluntary economic sacrifice (invest in less profitable businesses), I see the usual liberal misunderstandings of the workings of economics. But I also see and applaud a very non liberal view of personal responsibility in economic matters.

Best of luck with your confused idea, but I'm going to go on investing in most of the stocks that I think will be most profitable. There are a few companies I have avoided investing in because I think their actions are evil. But I make those decisions carefully and by myself. The companies (Walmart, Pfizer, big Oil, etc.) that the popular media demonizes are big parts of my retirement portfolio.

As I said in my other post in another topic: people are blinded by money.
You can put me in any political, religious, or any other group you want, but I don't belong to any of those. I'm myself. I'm far from being confused.
The scary part about the Americans, is that they are being dumbed-down, and scared by mass media, and litigation. After 9/11, people got so scared, that all major airlines went bankrupt!

Most anti-religion activist blame religion for everything, which is what you are doing here. Why can't people take religion out of things when they seem to want people to believe they aren't religious? Focus on the point at handnot on some apparent evil plot by religious people.

I only made an analogy to the religious right to explain an observation about the fiscal left. If you chose to stop reading the moment you saw something you disagree with, you missed the main point of my message.

I am not at all anti-religion. I do not believe in God. But my wife does believe in God. She is a member of two different synagogues and we are generous financial supporters of both. Objecting to those who force their religion upon us through government is very different from objecting to religion.

I am not opposed to compassion for the less fortunate. My wife and I give a significant fraction of our income to various charities (beyond what we give to two synagogues). I object to those in government who express their compassion for the less fortunate by stealing my money to give to the less fortunate. (I object even more because all those doing that are wealthier than I am and they manage to profit from handling my money on its way supposedly to the less fortunate).

Externalizing costs?
http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-stuff/
And if not this, maybe one of George Carlin's videos will give you some hints. I could post plenty of them here, but they contain a lot of offensive language, so look for them by yourself.

And by the way, that "story of stuff" is missing a very, if not the most, important thing: the law.
But I'd rather call it: the "(f)law" because it is a flow of a flawed law.

I don't care how "good" you are towards religious organisations, you took a pot shot in a post and involved religion where there was no need to. I merely commented on that. I read the entire post and saw nothing else worthy of comment, if you want me to comment on something you said, apart from your analogy, then post something I think is worthy of commenting on.

This is one of the most blatant and dishonest strawman arguments I've ever seen.

* puts k3lt01 in ignore list

I'm getting used to being called a liar today, oh well such is life, at least I don't attack particular groups just because I think I can use that in a discussion. The post I referred to just incase you didn't read it brought religion up as a way to show the previous posters apparent ignorance. That my dear fellow is a "strawman argument". Religion had nothing to do with the other posters discussion but it was thrown in just to make a point.

Such is life, I have to wonder about the need to announce this to the world.