-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Flying_Phoenix said:
How about we get more corporate money out of politics first. We don't need a new voting system per say.
empty vessel said:
Gore did lose (in the eyes of the Court system that we have).
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
ivedoneyourmom said:
From the start of Social Studies the schools hammer in your head that as long as you aren't for Communism your opinion is valid. I had a high school history teacher who said quote "The white people in the 60's had a reason to riot against the blacks. It was because the government was taking their rights away" And as much as I want to brush it off as "he was racist" it was more so because he wanted everything to be "balanced and equal".
mckmas8808 said:
That is issue #1, but the voting system in the country needs change.
The fact that someone is throwing their vote away when they vote third party is very wrong.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Something Wicked said:
Are you serious right now?
The financial troubles over in Europe are giving right-wingers some ammunition as well. Over the past few arguments, I've heard arguments like "You want universal healthcare like Europe? Those countries are all going bankrupt!" more than a few times.
It's infuriating because by now these people must have seen the data showing that we spend almost twice on healthcare as much as most of the UHC countries, ergo UHC must have very little to do with the debt crisis in Europe, so either they're willfully allowing cognitive dissonance to take place in their heads, or they're just trying to sway the uninformed.
It's infuriating because by now these people must have seen the data showing that we spend almost twice on healthcare as much as most of the UHC countries, ergo UHC must have very little to do with the debt crisis in Europe, so either they're willfully allowing cognitive dissonance to take place in their heads, or they're just trying to sway the uninformed.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Puddles said:
UHC has been killing Europe for the past 30 years. Its the "PC Gaming is DYING!" argument or the previous "Year of the PS3!!!".
Something Wicked
Member
Puddles said:
mckmas8808 said:
Cyan said:
Do you guys seriously not understand why companies go and stay public?
Has this been posted?
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday
jamesinclair
Banned
Something Wicked said:
I dont believe you do.
I could not care less how you vote, or how you feel about Obama. Do what you feel like. It's your right, and I don't blame you at all for being incredibly discouraged and disappointed. But I take issue with this specific position/argument.Byakuya769 said:
On somethingawful's political forums they talk about this issue daily. They call it "Accelerationism." It is their own little attempt at codifying a political theory. And it's absolute nonsense.
The theory boils down to two core concepts: 1) We should vote for Republicans, because this will speed up our nation's decline. 2) When the country has burned itself to the ground, we will build it back up, with proper liberal/left ideals!
Note: This ^ is not what Byakuya has argued, so I'm not trying to put words in his mouth. Rather, the above is the kneejerk response that liberals seem to be making a lot these days, whenever things don't seem to be going their way. The problem is, it's not just an embarrassingly empty threat like "If politician X is elected President, I'm moving to Canada!" It's that this argument has been put into practice before, and it always works out that when you put the power in the hands of this so-called destructive political force, that force will always have the strongest hand in developing what happens next.
To Godwin things up: When Germany was facing the Depression and Nazis were beginning to win elections, the Social Democrats begged the more orthodox socialists and communists to join forces to avoid far right ascendance. Stalin basically said ha ha, no, let the Nazis gain control of the government. Their policies will fail, and then we'll move in and bring the socialist revolution. So the Nazis took even more power, and executed the leftists. Great idea, Joey! Of course, even someone as hardline as Stalin saw what a mistake this was, and changed the official policy to the Popular Front.
We obviously do not live in Nazi Germany, but the configuration of our political problems is similar (within an overall moderate frame). We have the Right, which is unwilling to accept anything politically but their way or the highway. We have a Center-Left party which is unable/not allowed to govern. And we have the pretensions of a Left, which is rightfully fed up, but is offering nothing but empty "burn it all down" rhetoric.
In our country's own political history, there has never been a case where people on the left have refused to vote for Democrats, and the Democrats have moved left to retake them. They will always turn to the center, because that's where the reliable votes are. All this talk of liberals abandoning Obama will have only one logical conclusion: An actual move to the center/right on Obama's part. You think he's "moved to the right" already? You ain't seen nothing yet.
If you want to see moves to the right, look at our very own Bill Clinton. You know, the guy who gets praised whenever he makes speeches today with phrases like "damn, now that's a guy who gets it. If only he was still Prez instead of Obama!"
What did Bill Clinton get done when he actually had Congress in 1993? Not much. The Brady Bill, NAFTA, Don't Ask Don't Tell. Not especially progressive, but then again he only had 57 Dems in the Senate (I guess 2-3 more Senators either makes a world of difference, or Obama is a much more accomplished legislator). But how about after losing congress to the Republicans? Well, liberal political historiography tells that "Clinton outmaneuvered those wacky Republicans during the government shutdown. If only Obama had those kind of balls." Meanwhile his considerable "balls" got us Welfare Reform, the Defense of Marriage Act, repeal of Glass-Steagall, and a whole lot of spending cuts. And all of this in a time of economic prosperity. That's what a move to the right looks like.
And here we are complaining that the $787 Billion stimulus should have been over 1 trillion. It's not wrong at all to think that, but to believe that this is the "end of stimulus/Keynesianism" smacks of kneejerk fear or political ignorance. To believe that the American people won't be begging for government spending if another recession hits is to swallow the right-wing narrative du jour hook, line, and sinker.
I have said it before, I will say it again, I will shout it from the rooftops for all my days: Leave the modern Democratic Party to mixed government, and they will advocate fiscal responsibility. Give them strong majorities and they will spend money. The belief that we've seen the end of Keynesianism is absurd.
The problem is, left liberals don't make up the dominant deciding force in our electoral politics. And so our frustration with the political system manifests itself as impotent rage, self-hate and denial about the prospect for progress in the not-too-distant future.
So ask yourselves this: If everything else were the same, the unemployment rate, the GDP, all the troubles that our nation faces, and the only difference was that Obama and the Democrats' approval ratings were 10-15 points higher, would you really be as upset with politics, and not just the actual suffering taking place in the country? In other words, if it seemed likely that Obama would win re-election and the Democrats would resoundingly retake Congress, would you really not want that, and instead advocate for "positive destruction" by electing Republicans?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Great post Hokuten. Great post! WOW!
dave is ok
aztek is ok
So in a time with record breaking profits and record low taxes such as now, we should have very low unemployment right?Something Wicked said:
Orbis Tabula
Member
A 'friend' of mine is posting on facebook about the "government budget is like a household budget" argument. I feel like commenting on it to start a fight, because I do that when I'm bored, but I feel like I'm not educated enough about it and would just embarrass myself.
BotoxAgent
Member
Great post hokuten
RustyNails
Member
Great post.Hokuten said:
I really miss this Obama...the one who stands tall and rebuffs conservative bs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/transcript-of-president-o_n_442423.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/transcript-of-president-o_n_442423.html
Invisible_Insane
Member
Is your friend in college? Does he have student loans? Do his parents have a mortgage? A car loan? The government shouldn't be run like a household, but households don't operate with "balanced budgets" either, so the comparison is, in that regard, ridiculous.EskimoJoe said:
I would be more than happy to provide you with additional ammunition to continue that fight.
Reasonable voting in America is almost always an act of harm mitigation. That simple. Vote for the party least likely to fuck shit up. It would be nice to vote for someone who you actually support and agree with, but I've been waiting to do that for decades now, with very little chance that I'll get to do it before I die.
It's not fair or reasonable that our government is so broken that good people can't find a candidate who has a chance, but that's the shitty system we have. Rather than try to accelerate its demise (which includes the grinding down of huge swaths of innocent people) spend that effort working on fixing the problems that make it impossible for us to effectively vote our conscience. Get involved at the state level and try to change the laws that make third-party voting a waste of time and money.
You won't think highly of yourself when you vote for men whose policies you find abhorrent and they go forth and start wrecking things in your name. Don't allow your frustration with the broken system to do that to you.
/broken record
It's not fair or reasonable that our government is so broken that good people can't find a candidate who has a chance, but that's the shitty system we have. Rather than try to accelerate its demise (which includes the grinding down of huge swaths of innocent people) spend that effort working on fixing the problems that make it impossible for us to effectively vote our conscience. Get involved at the state level and try to change the laws that make third-party voting a waste of time and money.
You won't think highly of yourself when you vote for men whose policies you find abhorrent and they go forth and start wrecking things in your name. Don't allow your frustration with the broken system to do that to you.
/broken record
Orbis Tabula
Member
Puddles said:
My Friend said:
I've tried google-ing to find some good resources to read, but I'm finding far more websites supporting his argument (often ver batim the same example) and far less explaining why it's wrong.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Evlar said:
Yeah, I was planning on mentioning that. Basically the government isn't like a household, since the government could, if it wanted, just start taking in more money, and member of a household can't "demand" he get more money.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
EskimoJoe said:
Again remind him that most household budgets aren't balanced either. Also tell him that if he insist that he's right, then remind him that most familes would look for more money to help them if through tough times by finding an extra job or working overtime.
Ask him if America (if run like a household) should raise more money by raising taxes too?
EskimoJoe said:
S&P: Debt default skeptics fueled ratings downgrade
Link that article, and you're done.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Puddles said:
Now that's a good link. I knew I had read something like that before. I'll start with that.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Right, but he can go get another job and increase his income that way. It also bears mentioning that, specifically with respect to the debt ceiling, if one wishes to analogize it to a credit card, then it must be noted that the U.S. is also the issuer of the credit card. No family is in the position to raise its own credit limit. (You could also, if you were feeling plucky, find a graph depicting treasury yields since the downgrade.)EskimoJoe said:
HamPster PamPster
Member
When people bring up the government = household analogy I can't help but remember how awesome those Calvin and Hobbes strips are with the Dad "running" for office and Calvin going over poll numbers were
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Hokuten said:
Fantastic post, and I agree with much of what you said, but to be fair much of that (some say half of that, but I'm too lazy to find a source) was from the extending of the Bush tax cuts.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Flying_Phoenix said:
No it wasn't. Only a third were tax cuts. And the tax cuts weren't the Bush tax cuts.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Thanks for all the suggestions, guy. I don't wanna distract the PolgiGAF thread anymore from serious discussion with my petty facebook squabbles, so I'll stop here. I have a tendency to get in fights with facebook friends about politics a lot. And usually I lack sufficient knowledge to do well, so I always end up frantically researching. But hey! At least it gets me to learn.
empty vessel
Member
mckmas8808 said:
He didn't lose even in the eyes of the court system. The court system acted extra-constitutionally. This isn't subject to debate by any reasonable legal observer. The US experienced a coup in 2000, albeit perpetrated by the Supreme Court.
jamesinclair
Banned
You know what grinds my gears?
The amount of gun violence in this country, but the NRA is so fucking powerful, nobody is willing to stand up and say "enough"
---
http://news.yahoo.com/ihop-gunman-dead-killing-3-wounding-6-193516612.html
48 hours in America, ladies and gentlemen.
You know the idiotic "guns dont kill people, people kill people line"? If guns werent the problem, why don't we read about mass stabbings every morning in the paper?
There were more "normal" mass shooting this weekend in America than terrorist attacks on this country in the past year. Something is not right.
The amount of gun violence in this country, but the NRA is so fucking powerful, nobody is willing to stand up and say "enough"
---
http://news.yahoo.com/violence-amid-revelry-ny-west-indian-day-parade-031906107.html
http://news.yahoo.com/ihop-gunman-dead-killing-3-wounding-6-193516612.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/06/ap/business/main20102220.shtml
http://gothamist.com/2011/09/04/eight_people_shot_injured_at_bronx.php
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8341584
48 hours in America, ladies and gentlemen.
You know the idiotic "guns dont kill people, people kill people line"? If guns werent the problem, why don't we read about mass stabbings every morning in the paper?
There were more "normal" mass shooting this weekend in America than terrorist attacks on this country in the past year. Something is not right.
Something Wicked
Member
Cyan said:
Oh, I forgot, all CEOs take all their shareholders' cash and bail for the Cayman Islands...
dave is ok said:
Well, first off, the US stock markets have come quite a ways from their late '08/early '09 lows. Also, unemployment levels have lowered from their highs during this period, so even very recent history backs up as to what I said.
Secondly, after Japan lowered their's, US corporate taxes are the highest in the world. Yeah, yeah, I know- not all companies that would fall under this rate actually pay that amount due to tax deductions and such. Still, many companies do pay the 35% federal corporate tax rate or close to it- along with a state corporate tax rate.
However, I agree that companies are not using as much of their cash from stocks/bonds to expand as they traditionally have do so before. So, what are the reasons for this?
Are the CEOs and upper management of these companies taking this cash and putting it in offshore accounts as I sardonically joked above? Obviously not.
Are they using all of that money on lobbyists in DC and "to manipulate their puppets in Congress?" Nope... well, okay, perhaps a small fraction of it.
So they're just holding onto the cash? Why? - There are high levels of uncertainly within the overall US economic outlook. The major factors of this uncertainly are: A) future federal and state tax rates, B) healthcare benefits costs, and to a lesser degree C) electricity costs. The Obama administration, US Congress, and most state governments have not addressed these with enough specifics to alleviate companies' future cost concerns- and until they do, companies will not rapidly increase hiring and unemployment will remain unacceptably high.
TacticalFox88
Banned
And you guys laughed at me when I said he had the nomination in the bag.PhoenixDark said:
jamesinclair
Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
Im still laughing.
Hes going to fall just like Newt, Crazylady etc.
The more press = more crazy exposed = uh never mind.
Romney is always stable because everyone knows him from 2008.
let's also consider where Dean stood roughly around this time in 2003.
Something Wicked said:
I assume you're familiar with the concept of marginal product, which is the extra output that can be produced if another unit of input (an employee in this case) is added.
If increasing production is profitable, and if extra hiring is needed to increase production, companies will hire. If they aren't hiring, it's because they don't see a reason to increase production. Many people believe that this is because there isn't a sufficient level of consumer demand to justify an increase in production.
The uncertainty argument seems like a convenient scapegoat to hide three facts: 1) Households don't have money to spend to create enough demand to cause an increase in supply, 2) In the current job climate, minor increases in production can be achieved without additional hiring by overworking the existing workforce (due to the unacceptably low level of leverage that employees have in the labor market right now), and 3) The U.S. has not enacted any policies that would increase the expense of increasing production in countries with a lower labor cost.
- Status