Off Topic USA 2012 Elections Thread

[wandrewsjr]

Think it is quite a stretch to say the USA is ahead in the medal count because of it's backing by private industry. The primary reason is POPULATION and then our nation's wealth. We are the 3rd biggest country in the world. The majority of the 2nd biggest nation has a polulation whose majority is primarily concerned with finding their next meal and keeping their children from dieing of cholera and the biggest nation is only a generation or 2 removed from these issues(but they are catching up to the US).

A more accurate comparison would be medals per capita. By this standard, the US comes in 49th!!! Now if you discount the smallest countries(if Grenada wins 1 medal, they are obviously first in per capita, since their entire population is only 100,00),
let's say we only inclue countries of more than 10 million, then the countries ahead of the USA in per capita medal winning are:

Hungary,Australia,Netherlands,Great Britain,Czech Republic,Kakakstan,South Korea,Russia,Germany,France,Canada,Italy,Romania,Ukraine,Spain

Hmmm...seems to be a lot of where countries where the government backs it's olympic team. How did they get so successful without the power of private industry?

 

[BlairBob]

Gymgurl...to note girls on the Senior National team recieve a training stipend of 2k$/month. Not sure about MAG and other disciplines. Lifters@OTC have room and board paid for and training I suppose but often work weekend jobs.

 

[Muddlethru]

Yes, gymgal, the quote was indeed "if the glove don't (sic), you must acquit".

 

[gymgal]

Think it is quite a stretch to say the USA is ahead in the medal count because of it's backing by private industry. The primary reason is POPULATION and then our nation's wealth. We are the 3rd biggest country in the world. The majority of the 2nd biggest nation has a polulation whose majority is primarily concerned with finding their next meal and keeping their children from dieing of cholera and the biggest nation is only a generation or 2 removed from these issues(but they are catching up to the US).

A more accurate comparison would be medals per capita. By this standard, the US comes in 49th!!! Now if you discount the smallest countries(if Grenada wins 1 medal, they are obviously first in per capita, since their entire population is only 100,00),
let's say we only inclue countries of more than 10 million, then the countries ahead of the USA in per capita medal winning are:

Hungary,Australia,Netherlands,Great Britain,Czech Republic,Kakakstan,South Korea,Russia,Germany,France,Canada,Italy,Romania,Ukraine,Spain

Hmmm...seems to be a lot of where countries where the government backs it's olympic team. How did they get so successful without the power of private industry?

First, I did not say the private industry backed the athletes. I merely made a comparison of private industry to private funding for athletes (mainly through family funding) - or at least that's what I meant to do. Perhaps it did not read that way. Second, if you are going to go make comparisons between countries, you have to do it with how many Olympians there are per country, not the total population of each country.

And the argument about the 2 largest countries having poverty concerns is weak - China and India's populations are each 4x as large as the US. Even if 3/4 of their people lived in extreme poverty (which which is incorrect - it's around 50% in India, which is horrible in itself), the remaining 25% would still equal the total US population (including our extreme poverty stricken) - so still fair playing ground.

 

[gymgal]

Gymgurl...to note girls on the Senior National team recieve a training stipend of 2k$/month. Not sure about MAG and other disciplines. Lifters@OTC have room and board paid for and training I suppose but often work weekend jobs.

Gymgal, not Gymgurl - no problem - easy mistake to make..

I was unaware that the USAG receives funding from the government... Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was purely a privately funded non-profit organization. If that's the case, then my point still stands. Yes, the athletes may receive money for their training but it is not government funded - it is privately funded either by their own families or from sponsorships. If the government does fund this organization (or any other US Olympic training organization), them I stand corrected.

 

[wandrewsjr]

"The USA is only one of 3 countries whose government does not provide funding for its Olympic athletes to train. And yet, we came out far above the other powerhouses in terms of medals. That's the power of private industry"


Ok, totally forget about the poverty arguement and China and India. We beat them fair and square. How does the statement above jive with Hungary,Australia,Netherlands,Great Britain,Czech Republic,Kazakstan,South Korea,Russia,Germany,France,Canada,Italy,Romania,U kraine,Spain coming out ahead of the USA in terms of medals per capita?

 

[gymgal]

Ok, totally forget about the poverty arguement and China and India. We beat them fair and square. How does the statement above jive with Hungary,Australia,Netherlands,Great Britain,Czech Republic,Kazakstan,South Korea,Russia,Germany,France,Canada,Italy,Romania,U kraine,Spain coming out ahead of the USA in terms of medals per capita?

As I said, it's not an appropriate comparison to use per capita. If you are going to reliably compare, you can only use the number of athletes who actually participate in the Olympics. Using per capita is totally irrelevant. Being a larger country (aside from India and China), we naturally have significantly more people outside the competing range (both young and old). Now, if you wanted to take the percentage of Olympic athletes to total population of each country and then formulate their success based on number of medals won, that would be more relevant, but way too much work for me...

 

[wandrewsjr]

I am still unclear why a total medal count to prove a countries dominance is completely relevent but a per capita count is "totally irrelevent". Though the complex participation percentage number you describe would be the most relevent, why does the total number of medals prove an arguement, while a basic per capita number is "completely irrelevent"?

 

[wandrewsjr]

If we are going to discussing government funding of athletes, you cannot forget that there are many more forms of "government support" than cash payments from the government to cover training. What percentage of the Olympics athletes received some part of their training at a public US University? I am willing to bet a good percentage of the swimming and track a field teams, water polo teams, women's basketball team etc received some of their most valuable training while at University.

We have the best University athletic programs in the world, by far(heck, I would love to see the numbers break down of foreign countries Olympians that received some training at US colleges!). And though public Universities receive the most transparant government support, even private Universities receive government grants both directly, and indirectly through government loans and grants to students.

 

[SkiBumGymMom]

I usually don't share this much of my background but feel compelled as much of what I've read here centers on people who disagree that the government should help take care of its citizens and hard work alone will get you to the top... People mentioning any form of public assistance is creating a "victim mentality"...

I'm Canadian first and foremost, from a small, rural town in Quebec. My family worked in the logging industry and in the late 60s and early 70s (right around the time the separatist movement blew up and the economy tanked). We moved to the US and lived in a working class neighborhood.

Long story short, I became pregnant with my oldest son when I was 17. With the support of our public school (not one of the better districts in the state, working to middle class, very diverse) I was able to complete my high school diploma. I didn't have the chance to go to college originally and had to depend on various forms of government aid (WIC, a nutrition program from Women Infants and Children, etc.) I worked multiple jobs, mostly waiting tables. I had zero support from my family, who were very old school conservative Catholics and moved back to Quebec after we had been in the states for about 5 years because of a lack of jobs. My son's father went onto college on scholarship and came from a low income family as well and was not able to help support financially. We were estranged more or less until my son was a teenager and then he fell ill and passed away when my son was 16.

However, I, with the help of government grants was able to go to school part time to become an interpreter/get my associate's. My son's paternal grandmother helped with childcare, and we did go without. The image of welfare queens living off the government buck, having kids without fathers just isn't true. Like I said I worked tow jobs, attended class, utilized WIC and student loans and we still had winters where there was no heat.

But I finally got my degree and a teaching job. I got married to my longtime boyfriend who was a raft guide and worked his way up to managing and co-owning a ski/outdoors shop. I worked through school, finally getting my bachelors and masters in special ed, while raising my children, once again with the help of federal financial aid and student loans.

Then the unspeakable happened. My husband passed away, hit by a drunk driver only miles from our house. I work as a public school teacher in an expensive resort town. I teach skiing on winter weekends and raft guide in the summer to help make more money. To pay for my daughter's gym and dance and school supplies. To pay the mortgage. To pay for my daughter's hearing aids that my school health insurance plan doesn't cover. To pay for my youngest daughter's therapy from a very traumatic childhood incident. Both my girls (like my son) worked part time in high school, in addition to studying and participating in sports (cheer/gym/dance).

My husband's best friend was in the accident with him was paralyzed from the waist down, losing his job as a professional kayaker. As a small business owner he had no health insurance and no amount of communal fundraisers and help could pay his hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. It was Medicaid that got him through ICU, through rehab and got him his $7,000 wheelchair. He's back to work but still is paying medical debt off every year. My daughters were 3 and 5 and my son was applying to college. He went to school on a scholarship as well.

Without this support, I don't know where I'd be or where my family would be. I'm a hard worker. My children are hard workers. But we don't come from means. It's easy to say these things when you don't have to take out student loans or use EBT to make sure your child gets fed because your $1.75 an hour paycheck (what I made waitressing back in the 80s, and if I didn't get good tips, well...) only covers heat or groceries and it's not a choice you want to make. Yes there are people that abuse the system. But there are people who are very wealthy who abuse unbridled capitalism. That's the way of the world.

People deserve affordable health care. People deserve the chance to better their lives, even if they make mistakes. No one should be confined to poverty because their parents aren't wealthy or they make one poor choice. People shouldn't have to work 39.5 hours a week then overtime to be classified as part time to not be given any benefits. People shouldn't have to choose between heating their home and feeding their children. The government isn't its own entity, it's people coming together to lead a society. And I want to live in a society that cares about its citizens and gives them all opportunities. I'm Canadian like I said, but I've been in the US since 1972 and what I see the GOP do is try to regulate women's bodies, try to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Try working multiple part time minimum wage jobs and support your family and then say if you just work harder you can make your life better.

I'm not a victim, I'll tell you that much.

:gets off soap box:

And don't get me started on what the right has done to public education.... Gosh, bog was right, I should have been careful reading this post!!!!

 

[gymgal]

I am still unclear why a total medal count to prove a countries dominance is completely relevent but a per capita count is "totally irrelevent". Though the complex participation percentage number you describe would be the most relevent, why does the total number of medals prove an arguement, while a basic per capita number is "completely irrelevent"?

huh? I didn't say that medal count proved dominance. Nor did I imply that it proved any argument. So I'm not sure what argument you are referring to... I only pointed out that the US did a mighty fine job of providing outstanding athletes to these games - all without tax payer dollars (through private funding)

as for why per capita is totally irrelevant, you only have to look at the numbers. Roughly 30% of the US population fits into the age range of Olympic Athletes - 15-34. I know there are some above and below, but it's a good round number. Assuming that most countries have similar age distributions, we can compare them reliably. So, lets look at the ineligible folks and use GB as an example - 60% 315million is 189m (USA). And 60% of 62million is 37m (Great Britain). So in the per capita comparison, the USA has 5 times the amount of the ineligible population as Great Britain. How could it possibly be a relevant comparison to use per capita in figuring out how well a country fared against another?

Now, looking at the number of athletes Great Britain took compared to USA and the percent of their populations within that athlete age bracket, that's impressive of GB - They took 11 more athletes than we did even though the US had more people in that age bracket (75m) than GB has in their whole country (62m)

 

[wandrewsjr]

huh? I didn't say that medal count proved dominance. Nor did I imply that it proved any argument. So I'm not sure what argument you are referring to... I only pointed out that the US did a mighty fine job of providing outstanding athletes to these games - all without tax payer dollars (through private funding)

I thought you were making the arguement that the USA dominated the other power house countries in the olympics, and arguing that private industry were what fueled this dominance in this post:

"The USA is only one of 3 countries whose government does not provide funding for its Olympic athletes to train. And yet, we came out far above the other powerhouses in terms of medals. That's the power of private industry"

I appologize if I misread your statement.

 

[wandrewsjr]

We definately need to define what qualifies as "providing athletes without tax payer dollars". Because I would define a full scholarship at UC Berkeley and the 4 years of prime swimming training that comes with it, a full scholarship to U of Conneticut and the 4 years of top women's basketball training that comes with it or a full schoarship to U of Illinois and the 4 years of gymnastics training that comes with it as using "tax payer dollars". And I don't think any of these athletes would deny that the training they received in these collegiate programs(partially funded by tax payers) was invaluable to their athletic and olympic success.

 

[gymgal]

If we are going to discussing government funding of athletes, you cannot forget that there are many more forms of "government support" than cash payments from the government to cover training. What percentage of the Olympics athletes received some part of their training at a public US University? I am willing to bet a good percentage of the swimming and track a field teams, water polo teams, women's basketball team etc received some of their most valuable training while at University.

I'm sorry, no disrespect, but I found this really funny - we are on a gymnastics forum. These elite gymnasts' careers are practically over before they are out of high school!

But I do see your point, and it is a valid one...

 

[wandrewsjr]

I'm sorry, no disrespect, but I found this really funny - we are on a gymnastics forum. These elite gymnasts' careers are practically over before they are out of high school!

But I do see your point, and it is a valid one...

Maybe women's, but not men's gymnastics............

 

[gymgal]

Skibumgymmom, thanks for your post. Your story is exactly why we have public assistance, to give families a leg up when they are in need - as they try to work through the bad times and elevate their situation. Republicans (and conservatives) are not against this. the are against free loading, which happens all too often in this country. I know - I see it everyday and there is nothing I can do about it because they are not doing anything illegal.

Let me just say that we just have very different ways of looking at situations and different ways of solving problems. I am a small business owner. I pay for my own insurance. I have significant medical needs that place me in the highest tier for premiums. I shell out a little under $1k a month just for premiums for my family. Is it expensive? you bet it is, but I made the choice that health care insurance is a necessity in my family - and it is the 2nd bill I pay every month, after our housing. We moved from a very expensive area of the country to a very inexpensive area with more work opportunities for jobs so that we could live more comfortably.

The government isn't its own entity, it's people coming together to lead a society. And I want to live in a society that cares about its citizens and gives them all opportunities. I'm Canadian like I said, but I've been in the US since 1972 and what I see the GOP do is try to regulate women's bodies, try to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Try working multiple part time minimum wage jobs and support your family and then say if you just work harder you can make your life better.

I can honestly say that we have been there, done that several times in our life and we did look in the mirror and tell ourselves that we needed to work harder, or think more intelligently so that we could find a way to improve our situation. It took years, but we finally have a better lot in life. We live comfortably now. And we have our own safety net that we have built.

How exactly are the Republicans trying to keep the poor-poor? I just never understand this argument. it's like people think that there is only so much money available in the country - like a pie that has to get divided amongst everyone. So the rich get a huge amount and it leaves only a small amount for the rest of us. That's not how the economy works. There is no pie that gets divided. just because the rich makes more money doesn't mean that you make any less. In fact, it is just the opposite, as they make more money, they are able to give more to their employees - this might not be as fast or to the percentage we all might want, but it happens all the same.

And Ski - I would love to open up an education debate... Public education is a mess right now and it is the fault of both sides of the aisle. Personally, I think we need affordable competition in education for things to get better.

 

[wandrewsjr]

Ah... yes... private competition will make our education system better. That is why the most capitalist, private secter driven nations of Finland, Canada and Switzerland have the best educational systems in the world, right?

Sorry, know this is a much moure complicated arguement (diversity of population, etc), but have to run right now. But thought I would get things started!

 

[Andersonortho]

Skibumgymmom---I respectfully disagree with your statement that "Welfare Queens living off the government buck.... just isn't true."

I just had a few in my office today and will probably see a few dozen more this week. I serve them fairly and compassionately. I am disturbed by the increasing numbers of Medicaid recipients who feel compelled to reveal how they "hide" money from Uncle Sam and are "deservin'" of this "free" medical treatment. All the while my employees and I are thinking how we are playing by the rules... paying our taxes- working hard everyday-- and paying for our own health insurance.
I am self employed and pay well over $1300 per month for a very healthy family of 5. To get that 'low' premium- we have a 10K deductible.

Frustrated? Tell me about it.

BTW... I am compensated for the "free" treatment that I provide. However--- it often costs me more to provide it than what I receive from Medicaid. Apparently, that makes sense to our government.

 

[gymgal]

Ah... yes... private competition will make our education system better. That is why the most capitalist, private secter driven nations of Finland, Canada and Switzerland have the best educational systems in the world, right?

Sorry, know this is a much moure complicated arguement (diversity of population, etc), but have to run right now. But thought I would get things started!

i never mentioned anything about private competition so not sure where you're going with that one...

These countries are ahead of the US in large part because of the crap that teachers have to put up with in US schools: too much fluff in the curriculum, testing, discipline issues, and lack of support from parents and administrators. They also prepare their teachers better and make it a priority to keep them trained.

Competition - private or public - should bring the best schools/staff forward and force the rest to change their plans to stay successful.

 

[ALgymMom]

I usually don't share this much of my background but feel compelled as much of what I've read here centers on people who disagree that the government should help take care of its citizens and hard work alone will get you to the top... People mentioning any form of public assistance is creating a "victim mentality"...

I'm Canadian first and foremost, from a small, rural town in Quebec. My family worked in the logging industry and in the late 60s and early 70s (right around the time the separatist movement blew up and the economy tanked). We moved to the US and lived in a working class neighborhood.

Long story short, I became pregnant with my oldest son when I was 17. With the support of our public school (not one of the better districts in the state, working to middle class, very diverse) I was able to complete my high school diploma. I didn't have the chance to go to college originally and had to depend on various forms of government aid (WIC, a nutrition program from Women Infants and Children, etc.) I worked multiple jobs, mostly waiting tables. I had zero support from my family, who were very old school conservative Catholics and moved back to Quebec after we had been in the states for about 5 years because of a lack of jobs. My son's father went onto college on scholarship and came from a low income family as well and was not able to help support financially. We were estranged more or less until my son was a teenager and then he fell ill and passed away when my son was 16.

However, I, with the help of government grants was able to go to school part time to become an interpreter/get my associate's. My son's paternal grandmother helped with childcare, and we did go without. The image of welfare queens living off the government buck, having kids without fathers just isn't true. Like I said I worked tow jobs, attended class, utilized WIC and student loans and we still had winters where there was no heat.

But I finally got my degree and a teaching job. I got married to my longtime boyfriend who was a raft guide and worked his way up to managing and co-owning a ski/outdoors shop. I worked through school, finally getting my bachelors and masters in special ed, while raising my children, once again with the help of federal financial aid and student loans.

Then the unspeakable happened. My husband passed away, hit by a drunk driver only miles from our house. I work as a public school teacher in an expensive resort town. I teach skiing on winter weekends and raft guide in the summer to help make more money. To pay for my daughter's gym and dance and school supplies. To pay the mortgage. To pay for my daughter's hearing aids that my school health insurance plan doesn't cover. To pay for my youngest daughter's therapy from a very traumatic childhood incident. Both my girls (like my son) worked part time in high school, in addition to studying and participating in sports (cheer/gym/dance).

My husband's best friend was in the accident with him was paralyzed from the waist down, losing his job as a professional kayaker. As a small business owner he had no health insurance and no amount of communal fundraisers and help could pay his hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. It was Medicaid that got him through ICU, through rehab and got him his $7,000 wheelchair. He's back to work but still is paying medical debt off every year. My daughters were 3 and 5 and my son was applying to college. He went to school on a scholarship as well.

Without this support, I don't know where I'd be or where my family would be. I'm a hard worker. My children are hard workers. But we don't come from means. It's easy to say these things when you don't have to take out student loans or use EBT to make sure your child gets fed because your $1.75 an hour paycheck (what I made waitressing back in the 80s, and if I didn't get good tips, well...) only covers heat or groceries and it's not a choice you want to make. Yes there are people that abuse the system. But there are people who are very wealthy who abuse unbridled capitalism. That's the way of the world.

People deserve affordable health care. People deserve the chance to better their lives, even if they make mistakes. No one should be confined to poverty because their parents aren't wealthy or they make one poor choice. People shouldn't have to work 39.5 hours a week then overtime to be classified as part time to not be given any benefits. People shouldn't have to choose between heating their home and feeding their children. The government isn't its own entity, it's people coming together to lead a society. And I want to live in a society that cares about its citizens and gives them all opportunities. I'm Canadian like I said, but I've been in the US since 1972 and what I see the GOP do is try to regulate women's bodies, try to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Try working multiple part time minimum wage jobs and support your family and then say if you just work harder you can make your life better.

I'm not a victim, I'll tell you that much.

:gets off soap box:

And don't get me started on what the right has done to public education.... Gosh, bog was right, I should have been careful reading this post!!!!

You believe exactly what the Democrats want you to believe, that Republicans don't want people to receive assistance. Those programs are in place to help people exactly like you. They are not in place to help lazy people live their life in gov't housing & collect welfare checks forever.