Americans moderate views in deliberative democracy experiment

Dec 03, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Liberal and conservative citizens weighing options for reducing the national debt moderated their views as a result of deliberation in the largest experiment in deliberative democracy ever. They also made hard choices about spending cuts and tax increases, reported political scientists from the University of California, Riverside, UC Berkeley and Harvard University.

Their study – “The Difference that Makes” – issued Dec. 2 found that 3,500 Americans who participated in a national town hall on the federal budget June 26 came up with some of the same recommendations as the chairs of President Obama’s bipartisan debt commission, but also differed on some important issues. The Obama commission issued its report earlier this week and is expected to take a final vote on the recommendations today.

Participants in the daylong June town hall meetings – convened by the nonpartisan advocacy group America Speaks in 19 cities and online – favored raising taxes on the very wealthy, raising the corporate income tax rate, and establishing a carbon tax and a security transaction tax. They also supported cuts in national defense and military spending.

“The budget deficit and federal debt are clearly issues about which ordinary Americans care a great deal and are willing to make difficult trade-offs,” said Kevin Esterling, associate professor of political science at the University of California, Riverside and one of the study’s authors.

Funded by a $300,000 grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Esterling and researchers Archon Fung from Harvard Kennedy School and Taeku Lee from UC Berkeley analyzed responses from 3.500 people selected to participate in the national town hall on the U.S. budget and economy as well as a control group chosen to mirror the town hall participants. Those participants represented a cross-section of Americans recruited by local nonpartisan groups to reflect diversity in race, gender, income and political ideology.

America Speaks distributed nonpartisan reading material developed in consultation with an ideologically diverse national advisory committee about the budget and public priorities. Participants were randomly assigned to small groups where they discussed their preferences for allocating money and setting priorities, including how to cut spending and/or raise taxes.

Study participants evaluated 42 reform options that included tax increases and spending cuts. Nearly two-thirds of the groups taking part in the discussion were able to develop compromise packages that would reduce the deficit by $1 trillion or more. The researchers said an important trend in this deliberation was moderation. Conservatives became more willing to support tax increases and reductions in defense spending and liberals became more willing to decrease spending on some public programs.

Deliberative democracy relies on popular consultation to make policy and encourages citizens to engage in an intellectual way with their government, a process that researchers believe improves knowledge about issues and policies, trust in political institutions and engagement with the political process, said Esterling, who is one of only a few political scientists conducting experimental research on deliberative democracy in the United States.

The idea of deliberative democracy is that when people sit down and talk about issues they are more likely to listen to others and temper their own views, he said. “It might not change your position, but it might help you understand the rationale of people who differ from you. That is important in a democracy. It’s important that we can disagree in a way that’s reasonable and respectful of other opinions.”

“Overall, the Our Budget, Our Economy event appears to have achieved its goals of bringing together a diverse group of ordinary Americans to engage each other in constructive discussion,” the researchers wrote. “Both liberals and conservatives appear to have moderated in their policy views regarding spending cuts and tax increases. And the organizers appear to have been quite successful in creating a forum for open and balanced discussion, based on the self-reports of participants as well as the extensive observation by our 19 on-site research assistants.”

The tendency for liberals and conservatives to moderate their positions is quite encouraging, they researchers wrote.

“Public deliberation helps to reveal the considered opinions of citizens, a kind of opinion policy-makers should care about,” they said.

“At the end of the day, participants at the town hall meetings had the chance to choose a single most important message to politicians. The vast majority of participants indicated they wanted politicians to set aside partisan bickering in favor of finding solutions to America’s problems. This sounds like good advice to us.”

Explore further: A two generation lens: Current state policies fail to support families with young children

Provided by University of California, Riverside

3.6 /5 (8 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Responses shift when changing languages

Nov 03, 2010

The language we speak may influence not only our thoughts, but our implicit preferences as well. That's the finding of a study by Harvard psychologists, who found that bilingual individuals’ opinions ...

Consumer confidence hits five-year high in Michigan

Oct 27, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Despite Michigan’s continued economic malaise, residents’ optimism about the future is at its highest in nearly five years, according to Michigan State University’s latest State of the State ...

Recommended for you

Scholar tracks the changing world of gay sexuality

Sep 19, 2014

With same-sex marriage now legalized in 19 states and laws making it impossible to ban homosexuals from serving in the military, gay, lesbian and bisexual people are now enjoying more freedoms and rights than ever before.

User comments : 46

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2010
Dig a bit deeper, do your reasearch, is Deliberative Democracy really non-partisan? Not really when do a bit of research on their facilitators, most of them are social activists and Obama suporters. But wait they say they have a couple of toten republicans on their boards, unfortuantely they are Rhinos.

But hey, we can trust them because they are progressives and they moderate conservative beliefs through the use of trained facilitators leading people through a set of discussions.

We should trust them because facts to the contrary, they say they are nutral, they say they are non-partisan, and since they are an progressive organization we should like lemmings trust them.

Unfortuantely Conservatives fall for this trap all too often and don't know they are being played for fools by progressives. These type of meetings have set outcomes and if you think you can change the outcome, your mistaken.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2010
In a constitutional republic, what the majority wants is immaterial if it violates the Constitution.
But that hasn't stopped 'progressives' for the past century.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2010
I don't care about debating issues. You say up, I say down, etc. Just don't lie about the facts.

What I find sickening is manipulation. These meetings and those like it, already have a scripted ending and are a waste of time for any conservative who attends.

Why cant progressive groups be honest and say, hey were progressives and we think you conservatives are wrong. Lets get together and we will show you why you are wrong. No they perfer to say they are non partisan, neutral, and the out come in not pre-determined.

What they fail to say is they are partisan and the press release for the meeting is already written. before the meeting has even begun.
ekim
5 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2010
What they fail to say is they are partisan and the press release for the meeting is already written. before the meeting has even begun.

The tendency for liberals and conservatives to moderate their positions is quite encouraging, they researchers wrote.

How is this a manipulation of the facts? Are you really saying consensus is impossible?
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 03, 2010
Hey free. I'm a progressive. I think you conservatives are wrong. I and other progressives have tried several times to explain to you conservatives why we think you're wrong. But you apparently seem to think it's more important to smear research and attack individuals who prove you wrong. Liberals and progressives aren't the ones publicly declaring the intention to make the President fail, even when the President was a Republican. Conservatives are the ones benefiting from a lack of public deliberation, and so as a group they have no intention of deliberating anything with anybody.
marjon
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2010
T, 'progressives' are socialists. Do you accept that fact?
If conservatives are wrong, why are the 'progressive' economic policies failing around the world?
Biden said today that unemployment benefits increases economic growth.
As for deliberation, just a few months ago, the 'progressives' refused to deliberate with Republicans by proclaiming they needed to get in the back of the bus.
'Progressive' democrats hid from their constituents in town hall meetings.
I want BHO's Marxist policies to fail. Do you?
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 03, 2010
They aren't. Conservative policies are. Unemployment benefits demonstrably improve the economy, by allowing consumers to continue the consumption that they need to live and maintain their lifestyles. I do not want the Bush tax cuts on the richest to be permanent, I want them to go back to the rates they had under Eisenhower. I don't want less Social Security and Medicare, I want more programs in that vein. I want less corporate subsidy, including military spending, and more human subsidy. And I want your despicable, vengeful, desert demon worship out of my government and my schools.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2010
"Senate Democrats lashed out at Republicans on Friday, accusing them of holding the nation’s economic prosperity hostage for the benefit of the wealthy and likening the GOP to a terrorist organization."
http://www.rollca...ble=true

Unemployment benefits demonstrably improve the economy

Gee, then let's fire everyone and the economy will BOOM!
JFK lowered income tax rates and the economy expanded. Why don't you want the economy to expand, T? Why do you want people to be dependent upon the state? Why don't you want people to enjoy liberty and prosperity?
Chuchill said it best:
"Socialism {or 'progressivism'} is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. "

A great way to win friends and influence people!
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2010
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

- John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort - thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

- John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.

The 'winning friends' comment in my last post refers to the Roll Call article.

Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 03, 2010
The tax rate in the 60's was north of 70%. And what did cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans actually do? It didn't grow the economy, it resulted in the stagflation of the 70s. Guess what's going on right now? That's right, stagflation. That's what happens when you cut taxes that don't need to be cut and increase spending on corporate subsidies that don't need to be subsidized.
Squirrel
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
Sad the above comments ignore deliberative democracy is tea party not socialist in spirit--replacing government by a corrupt political elite and putting ordinary folk in the driving seat. Socialism is about getting experts in power that known better than ordinary folk what is best for them. Deliberative democracy is the opposite: getting rid of the "expert" middlemen of politics that have taken over democracy and returning power to citizens.

For another attempt see
http://en.wikiped...rliament
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
"Because politics is a war for radicals they perceive opponents of their causes as enemies on a battlefield and set out to destroy them by demonizing and discrediting them. Personally. "
"The war Alinsky's radicals conduct is for tactical reasons a guerilla war as his manual is designed to explain. Conservatives are not at war with the system, but are determined to defend it, including its rules of fairness and inclusion, which provide a protective shield for cynical enemies willing to exploit them. "
""The setting for the drama of change," Alinsky writes, "has never varied. Mankind has been and is divided into the Haves, the Have-Nots, and Have-a-Little, Want Mores." (p.18)

This is the Manichean bedrock of radical belief, the foundation of its destructive agendas -- that the world is divided into the Haves and the Have Nots, the exploiters and the exploited, the oppressors and the oppressed, and that liberation lies in the elimination of the former and the dissolution of the dyad"
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
"And since we now live in an Internet age we should not fail to mention massive websites such as Huffington Post and Daily Kos and MoveOn.org which are dedicated to promoting the Alinsky program of seizing power from the Haves and giving it to the people. And then there is the inconvenient fact that our president, a radical organizer and leader of an Alinsky organization (ACORN) himself, and an intimate and comrade of revolutionary extremists, ran his successful campaign on a platform not of defending the status quo but of changing it."
http://archive.fr...GID=1051
I think physorg.com should be added to the list given the way they write their headlines.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2010
The current conservatives do not want to deliberate at all. Obfuscation and confrontation are their calling card. This is not how it has always been.

Deliberation between both parties has always resulted in a more reasonable body of law as no one viewpoint has all the answers.

To argue against deliberation in politics is to want for totalitarian oligarchy.
I think physorg.com should be added to the list given the way they write their headlines.
Oh look, Marjon is a McCarthyist.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
The current conservatives do not want to deliberate at all.

Why should they? They were sent to the 'back of the bus' for the past four years by 'liberal' leadership.
The current 'liberal' leaders wanted to purge their party of moderate 'blue dogs:.
Conservatives are not willing to compromise the principles of the Constitution no matter how popular that might be.
SH, what principles are you willing to compromise?
"The Moynihan Commissions of Government Secrecy wrote in its final report, "The first fact is that a significant Communist conspiracy was in place in Washington, New York, and Hollywood" [2] The Commission's final report also included, "the United States Government possessed information which the American public desperately needed to know: proof that there had been a serious attack on American security by the Soviet Union, with considerable assistance from what was, indeed, an “enemy within.” ."
http://www.conser...na_files
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
To argue against deliberation in politics is to want for totalitarian oligarchy.

"Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, said in an interview on The Washington Times' morning radio show "America's Morning News" that Mrs. Pelosi and the Democratic majority had recently authorized an unprecedented change in House rules to curb the right of the minority to offer amendments to appropriations spending bills"
"Democrats say the restrictions are needed to ensure Congress has the time to pass a dozen individual spending bills in the next few months to fund the government, "
"The amendments, which were blocked from a House floor vote, would have prevented ACORN from being eligible for federal funding "
http://www.washin...e-house/
SH must be pleased that Pelosi will not be Speaker next year.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
"Conservatism has steadily spread through the country since its larval days in the 1950s, and the reason is that the vast majority of Americans favor free enterprise and personal liberty. Note the tea party movement. The Republicans just took the House of Representatives by over 60 seats and gained six seats in the Senate. The social democrat in the White House has been routed.

Over the past two years the Democrats showed their true colors. Faced with an entitlement crisis, they rang up trillion dollar deficits. We now face an entitlement crisis and a budget crisis—and liberals have no answer for it beyond tax and spend."
"As a political movement liberalism is dead. They do not have the numbers. They do not have the policies. They have 23 seats in the Senate to defend in 2012 (against the Republicans' 10) and Republican control of state houses and legislatures will give them even more seats in the future. Liberalism R.I.P. "
http://online.wsj...50457561
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
'liberalism' won't die as long as people can't control their envy and greed and allow 'leaders' to take advantage of that dark side.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
SH must be pleased that Pelosi will not be Speaker next year.
I am quite pleased that she won't be speaker. I think she's a corrupt corporatist.
Note the tea party movement.
I'd rather note that the Tea Party movement candidates have requested over 1 billion in earmarks.
http://hotlineonc...aucu.php
So much for controlling government spending.
Shootist
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
This is the Manichean bedrock of radical belief, the foundation of its destructive agendas -- that the world is divided into the Haves and the Have Nots, the exploiters and the exploited, the oppressors and the oppressed, and that liberation lies in the elimination of the former and the dissolution of the dyad"


The world is actually divided into Moochers, Looters and Producers (with apologies to Rand, et. al.).
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
This is the Manichean bedrock of radical belief, the foundation of its destructive agendas -- that the world is divided into the Haves and the Have Nots, the exploiters and the exploited, the oppressors and the oppressed, and that liberation lies in the elimination of the former and the dissolution of the dyad"


The world is actually divided into Moochers, Looters and Producers (with apologies to Rand, et. al.).

Moochers and looters live off the producers.
That is quite popular.
Shootist
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
So much for controlling government spending.


There were no "tea party" members in Congress in 2010. Your opinions are skewed LEFT.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
SH must be pleased that Pelosi will not be Speaker next year.
I am quite pleased that she won't be speaker. I think she's a corrupt corporatist.
Note the tea party movement.
I'd rather note that the Tea Party movement candidates have requested over 1 billion in earmarks.
http://hotlineonc...aucu.php
So much for controlling government spending.

SH wants the govt to have MORE power to loot and mooch. I want the govt to have its power to loot limited, but it is too popular to mooch instead of producing.
I suspect that in two years, those candidates, regardless of party who don't meet up with tea party member expectations will be challenged in primaries, just as what happened this year.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2010
There were no "tea party" members in Congress in 2010. Your opinions are skewed LEFT.

You might actually want to click the link and read it. There were a great many who jumped on the TEA Party bandwagon.

I'm a centrist, stop trying to lump me with the left. It's ignorant and incorrect.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2010
There were a great many who jumped on the TEA Party bandwagon.

Sounds like a populist, centrist response from people who have no principles except they want to be 'popular'.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2010
"Bachmann and 13 of her Tea Party Caucus colleagues did not request any earmarks in the last Fiscal Year, according to CAGW's annual Congressional Pig Book."
http://hotlineonc...aucu.php
As Lieberman said, the first priority of a politician is to be re-elected.
Tea party conservatives will be watching all candidates and their observations will be applied to 2012 primaries, if necessary.
"In the House, Reps. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Mike Pence (R-Ind.), John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) achieved “Taxpayer Super Hero” status with a grade of 100 percent."
"In 2009, however, a whopping 105 members, or 41 percent of the 256 House Democrats, scored a big fat zero. "
http://ccagwratings.org/
SH prefers democrats.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2010
NH CAGW ratings:
Senate:
GREGG (R)
2009 Rating: 80%
Lifetime Rating: 80%

SHAHEEN (D)
2009 Rating: 7%
Lifetime Rating: 7%
House:
SHEA-PORTER (D)
District 1
2009 Rating: 1%
Lifetime Rating: 4%
HODES (D)
District 2
2009 Rating: 8%
Lifetime Rating: 6%

http://ccagwratin...e_id=653
SH must like earmarks as his state's delegation wastes so much taxpayer money.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2010
"Senate Republicans - 81 percent, up 9 percentage points from their 72 percent score in 2008; Senate Democrats - 10 percent, up six percentage points from their grade of 4 percent in 2008; House Republicans - 71 percent, up one percentage point from their 70 percent score in 2008; House Democrats - 4 percent, down two percentage points from their 6 percent score in 2008; House Republican Study Committee - 80 percent, up one percentage point from their 79 percent score in 2008; and House Blue Dog Democrats - 11 percent, up one percentage point from their 10 percent score in 2008"
http://ccagwratings.org/
Which party has the better record against wasting our money?
And the 'populist', 'centrist' SH like Democrats.
Does a centrist support wasting 50% of taxpayer's money?
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 05, 2010
Why on earth would you trust any so-called third party's purity ratings? You want to know the truth about earmarks? Red states get back more for their projects from the feds than they paid in, while blue states get less. They are the epitome of hypocrisy when it comes to state and corporate welfare.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2010
Why on earth would you trust any so-called third party's purity ratings? You want to know the truth about earmarks? Red states get back more for their projects from the feds than they paid in, while blue states get less. They are the epitome of hypocrisy when it comes to state and corporate welfare.

Why shouldn't I trust a third party that wants to save taxpayer's money?
You don't want to justify the 'progressives' waste of tax payer's money?
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 05, 2010
Because they don't want to save taxpayer's money, they want to funnel it to the people who paid to front their think tank ratings agency in the first place. It's amazing how you can be so trusting of people who have a blatant bias and are completely unaccountable while you despise democratically elected officials. It tells us what side you're on, and it's not the side of individual freedom.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2010
have a blatant bias and are completely unaccountable while you despise democratically elected officials

I really like Jeff Flake and Joe Arpaio and other elected officials who understand that the taxpayer's money does not belong to the politicians.
I despise socialist politicians and voters who think they are entitled to my wealth. They are lower than a common thief. Common thieves are honest about what they do.
How is CAGW funded? By voluntary contributions. Not coerced taxes. They must be accountable to their donors to operate.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2010
"CAGW's mission is to eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government. Founded in 1984 by the late industrialist J. Peter Grace and syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, CAGW is the legacy of the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, also known as the Grace Commission.

In 1982, President Reagan directed the Grace Commission to "work like tireless bloodhounds to root out government inefficiency and waste of tax dollars." For two years, 161 corporate executives and community leaders led an army of 2,000 volunteers on a waste hunt through the federal government. The search was funded entirely by voluntary contributions of $76 million from the private sector; it cost taxpayers nothing. "
CAGW's membership has grown from 5,000 members in February 1988 to more than one million members and supporters today. This phenomenal growth is the result of taxpayers' increasing frustration with the squandering of their hard-earned money in the nation's capital."
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2010
It is not surprising socialists would call CAGW biased.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2010
SH must like earmarks as his state's delegation wastes so much taxpayer money.
We actually do fee for service up here so the whole tax thing is kinda a dead end with us. We don't request federal money to stay functional and typically have a surplus. We also have a terrible welfare system. Screws up the checkout lines in every store because the citizens vote republican locally and end up screwing up all the systems. Hence why we've dropped from the top ten for literacy. You know, the way you want it because you live in an upper class home and hock a hack seat in the local politician bunker.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2010
live in an upper class home

Do you live in NH so you can have an 'upper class' home?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2010
live in an upper class home

Do you live in NH so you can have an 'upper class' home?

No. I live in NH to take care of my family because they live here.
lengould100
5 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2010
From Canada, watching you guys argue number of angels dancing on pinheads is hilarious. Marjon, we have a) higher taxes than US b) universal medical insurance managed by provincial governments and paid by both federal and provincial governemts. c) much better employment insurance d) a long history of federal governemt budget surpluses e) a lot of trouble trying to keep our dollar down to even with $US. f) GM adding shifts to their auto assembly plants. g) constant raiding by takeover of our corporate base by "foreign" (read largely US) companies.

In your worldview, we should be flat on our back. How do you explain it?
lengould100
5 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2010
Also instructive is to tour American side and Canadian side of Niagra Falls. Canadian side has wonderful government-operated parks with beautiful landscaping, many modern highrise hotels from all the big international chains, water parks, seaworld aquarium, popular casino's etc.

US side looks like it's been bombed out in an all-out war, half the housing abandoned, zero commercial, a mess.

Difference is in Canada, provincial governemt demands careful city planning using strict regulations on what companies are allowed to do. No company could ever get away with purchasing 180 acres of the downtown and bulldozing it, then simply leaving it un-developed for decades.

It's called "good government".
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2010
Per capita gross national income:
USA: $33,070.30 per person
Canada: $20,789.50 per person

I support, honest, effective, efficient govt that has a limited scope.
These are seldom found in 'liberal' cities and states.
How many Canadian physicians emigrate to the USA?
ekim
5 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2010
Per capita gross national income:
USA: $33,070.30 per person
Canada: $20,789.50 per person

# 1 Luxembourg: $37,499.20 per person
# 2 Switzerland: $36,987.60 per person
# 3 Japan: $35,474.10 per person
# 4 Norway: $35,053.30 per person

Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Dec 07, 2010
I really like Jeff Flake and Joe Arpaio and other elected officials who understand that the taxpayer's money does not belong to the politicians.
Jeff Flake prefers to get massive contributions from billionaires so when they pull his strings he'll get right to work on killing their competition. Then again, it doesn't matter much because his own party removed him from every panel they could. http://reason.com...ff-flake
Republicans love their earmarks.
Joe Arpaio is one of the most corrupt people out there. He's being investigated by the FBI for criminal corruption and abuse of political power. Utterly laughable how you fall for the same propaganda tricks over and over and over.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2010
He's being investigated by the FBI

Big deal. Clinton had all sorts of FBI files on people she did not like.
Joe A. treats his prisoners like prisoners and enforces the law, including laws the federal govt won't enforce, like illegal immigration.
No wonder the Feds don't like him. But he is popular with the voters of Maricopa county.
lengould100
not rated yet Dec 07, 2010
How many Canadian physicians emigrate to the USA?
Only the ones we don't want, you're welcome to hire the ones working only for money. My family doctor's a wonderful fellow who's stated he's entirely happy to be making only twice as much as I do (as an equal partner in the largest clinic in our small city of 450,000). It appears that MANY doctors are happy to be able simply to treat the people who need treatment, without EVER having to think first if the person has insurance coverage. Show up at an emergency ward here and you're only asked to produce the plastic medical card first if your condition allows it. They all know they will be properly paid for all services every time. One triage nurse does all admitting clerical while taking blood pressures etc.

Of course to you, the concept that a person may have entered the medical profession to treat people who need it is a "FOREIGN" concept, eh?
lengould100
not rated yet Dec 07, 2010
Following is according to your CIA FactBook - https://www.cia.g...nk=26#ca

Canada - GDP per Capita in $US - $38,100 (2009 est.)

USA - GDP per Capita in $US - $ 46,000 (2009 est.)

However I think they've got some numbers wrong, 'cause that 82.8% ratio in their stats has remained almost constant since the $Cdn was worth $US0.62 back in 2000, and it's now at par. Maybe some people at the CIA need to come up here for some math training?
ekim
not rated yet Dec 07, 2010
All those Canadian physicians could help raise The United States lower life expectancy.
Canada: 81.16 years
United States: 78.14 years