Can someone explain to me in simple terms. USA elections

No, free public (state) education is considered a birthright and one of the beacons America shines forth for the rest of the world. It is criticised heavily because of perceptions of poor standards, and funding is always a contentious issue but the idea that people would have to pay for education directly would cause ructions. People pay indirectly through local taxes and state income taxes and are very aware of this.

The inherent inequality of public education that is funded from local municipal property taxes doesn't faze a lot of people. Poor municipalities generally have bad schools and prosperous ones tend to have good schools. Large cities with large school districts often have good schools in some neighbourhoods and horrible ones in others. Families look for houses to buy or property to rent in good school districts and they are in general happy to pay the necessary taxes assessed on valuation of their property in order to send their children to the schools they have chosen. If that is not possible, they make all kinds of sacrifices to send children to parochial elementary schools or Catholic high schools (Catholics tend to run more private schools than any other denomination, and especially in cities) even if they are not Catholic. Enforcement of catchment areas is rigorous and offenders can be prosecuted and asked to pay the tuition fee charged to out of district students by some districts. The question of educational vouchers that would enable families to send children to better performing schools even if they were religious-run is a Republican favourite while Democrats tend to want to improve the public schools and not cross the church-state divide.

Romneys lack of effectiveness in the Mass. economy is widely reported and the only reason for the reduced unemployment by the end of his term was down to the national policies implemented by the Democrats at the time. The actual reduction in unemployment in Mass. and improved economy mirrors that of the whole US at the time. Anyone who knows anything about politics in the US knows that governors have little if any possibility to effect the economy of their state. For him to claim any improvement was affected by him is disingenuous.

For those who wonder why faith should come into things don't forget that for 5 years the republicans have tried to paint Barack Obama and protestant Christian born in the US as a muslim born in Kenya. Fox news itself had to shut down its chat boards as hey were populated by the tea party activists who would post pictures of bacon and pork etc to drive away any democrats on the chat rooms by trying to imply that barack supporters would be offended by any pork product as eating the pig is banned in islam. What the idiot tea party bunch forget was that eating pig is also banned in Judaism so they were offending all the jewish who support republicans as well. They are an anti semite racist bunch to the core.

TEA PARTY RACISM

This is extremely interesting with very informative posts. I do think there is a massive cultural divide whereby the social values of the christian extreme right of the Republian party have no place in British politics. British politics tolerates religious sensibilities, politics is not based upons these sensibilities.

My understanding is that the very extreme Christian right is probably a vocal proportion with money and who are influential on that basis. I would imagine, especially at grassroots levels, that there are many who identify as Republicans on a predominantly fiscal basis, and do not share all of the social standpoints that are identified with Republicanism. Like cheerfulyank.

There is a very good episode of The West Wing where Donna'a Republican boyfriend (the lawyer, not Christian Slater's character) explains why he is republican. He distances himself from the extreme right social policies and explains the idea of fiscal conservatism and autonomy and less government intervention in ordinary life. The latter makes a great deal more sense now having read some of the helpful posts up thread highlighting the very different attitude Americans have towards government as a concept.

He got ticks for being the least insane out of the crew of batshit lunatics who were all running for the nomination.

very interesting.. will read when not saturday night!

Romney gets ticks for being a businessman in a party which fetishises business.

He gets ticks for being clearly religious, even though some in his party distrust his particular brand of religion.

He gets ticks for being rich, in a Republican subculture which is more and more tending to demonise the poor for being deserving of being poor.

Really loving this read!

Sorry, simple question but why do some Americans like Mitt Romney? - he seems to be a broad church ( excuse pun) for a whole host of people. America is so huge that I believe views are so radically polarised across such a vast area - we are a much smaller culture in UK.

What ticks does Romney get? Family man?

Piglet it's not that I am not able to help, and more not willing to help...

thanks, math

I don't think worldcitizen was able to help, and I am happy to continue without her response.

So if it does convey "free at point of service" and, I think, paid wholly or largely out of taxation, is the same term used to describe schools and other public services?

FREE at point of service...

Socialised medicine means Communism to the section of American politicians who use it to rile up the voters. The fact that the thoughts of pay at point of service medicine makes people quake with fear is a hangover from the days of the Red Scare, bomb drills in classrooms, McCarthyism, etc. America in the 1950s was in many ways as much a thought control state as the USSR was.

I agree it is not an international healthcare policy term, It is a term invented by Ronald Reagan.

piglet please, does this really need a response???

I did not say it was derogatory. I said it was used that way. Which in US politics it is . And in the UK it is rarely if ever used in a domestic context- hence some people only knowing it from its US use.

It is an international health care policy term!!!!!

Not in my country, worldcitizen

I will confess that I am only familiar with health services and terminolgy in three European countries, only one of which uses English as the official language, so if you claim to know terminology in all countries in the world that use the English language, then you have the advantage of me.

Do you?

"Socialised Medicine" is not a term we use in my country, worldcitizien. I gather from your post that it is a term used in some of the countries you live in, so you attach a particular meaning to the term.

It seems to be used in a derogatory or hostile way to refer to medical service that is funded partly or wholly out of taxation, is that what it means to you?

In my country, and in many others, there are various other services that are also funded partly or wholly by taxation, such as the services I mentioned above, and, for example, many schools. Would that be described as "Socialised Education" where you come from?

It is NOT a derogatory term!!!!! It is an international health care policy term!!!!!

Wasn't Piglet's point that socialised is being used as a derogatory term, but we don't label other things the government maintains as 'socialised', we accept it is best for government to do it?

Piglet what's your point??? If you have no clue about official health care policy terms, then please...

do they call it a "socialised poloce force" a "socialised road system" "socialised fire department" and "socialised street lighting"?

Are the National Parks, sea-ports and canals "Socialised?"

Loved the Simpsons' slogan on the Fox News helicopter:

<a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=fox+news+not+racist+but+%231+with+racists&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&sa=N&rls=en&biw=1261&bih=668&tbm=isch&tbnid=8sk1ufwAnZyn7M:&imgrefurl=gawker.com/5697635/&imgurl=cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/11/medium_8688dec73e2513f10f98d94393377ca4.jpg&w=300&h=228&ei=cEhCUPTNH7GZ0QXxvoGYCw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=804&vpy=161&dur=1355&hovh=182&hovw=240&tx=110&ty=97&sig=109773650532389043107&page=1&tbnh=146&tbnw=192&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0,i:82" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"Fox News: Not Racist, but Number 1 with racists"

Even better when you note that Fox is the channel which funds the Simpsons.

Americans baulk at "socialised" medicine
but consider it perfectly normal that the federal government underwrite mortgage debts
go figure ?

I'm a tad biased about the wonders of US healthcare because Medicaid paid for my sister's kidney transplant but will not pay for her anti rejection drugs so she will never be well enough to work. Do the math.

The weird thing about American opposition to 'socialised medicine' is that having to fork over for employees' health insurance and pay the administrative costs that fall to the office manager or whoever takes care of all that eats into the profit of companies of over 50 employees (who are obliged to provide employee health insurance).

In other words, American businesses are in competition with companies in 'socialised medicine' countries that do not have this drain on income because to a large extent the cost of insurance is borne by the individual employee through taxation. It puts American companies at a disadvantage.

It also makes moving your operation abroad an attractive proposition for American companies.

I don't think Republican voters of either white or blue collar varieties should be as gung ho as they are about private health insurance.

"Blacks were never denied membership in the Mormon church. The early mormons suffered a great deal of persecution, in part, because of their anti-slavery views."

After Brigham Young took over the Mormon Church mirrored the views of society in general about black people. Under his predecessor Joseph Smith a few black men were allegedly ordained but all that changed when Young became leader and it wasn't until the late 60s (as with the rest of American society) that the exclusion of blacks was questioned and steps taken finally during the 70s to rectify the situation.

The early Mormons may have had abolitionist views but they observed the law in slave states where they lived (mainly Missouri) and did not interfere in the relationship between slave and master by baptising slaves or preaching to them for instance, unless the owners allowed it, and by baptising slaves if the owners asked (if the owners were converting for instance).

I dunno, my friends and I are liberals and have always referred to ourselves as such. Never thought it was a bad term.

I have friends who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, as well.