Support NeoGAF

[mcgruber]

I'm not sure I'm following.


Pretty much all developed countries used protectionism to grow their economy at some point, and in many cases with great results.
But that was before we started being ideological about such things.


I just read about this.
This can't be legal, right?

you said sales tax is quite easy to evade, i assumed you meant under the table sales via mom n pops or local establishments as opposed to walmarts and best buys

 

[The Librarian]

I just read about this.
This can't be legal, right?

I wouldn't be surprised. If you get fined for misusing a Super PAC, you can use its funds to help pay your bail.

I learned that from Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.

 

[Amir0x]

This is what keeps me awake at night, and what ultimately will probably tip me over the edge to vote for Obama despite my reservations:

Next President could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the federal court appeals, as well as the Supreme Court

A second term for President Barack Obama would allow him to expand his replacement of Republican-appointed majorities with Democratic ones on the nation's appeals courts, the final stop for almost all challenged federal court rulings.

Despite his slow start in nominating judges and Republican delays in Senate confirmations, Obama has still managed to alter the balance of power on four of the nation's 13 circuit courts of appeals. Given a second term, Obama could have the chance to install Democratic majorities on several others.

Fourteen of the 25 appeals court judges nominated by Obama replaced Republican appointees.

The next president, whether it's Obama or a Republican, also has a reasonable shot at transforming the majority on the Supreme Court, because three justices representing the closely divided court's liberal and conservative wings, as well as its center, will turn 80 before the next presidential term ends.

The three justices are Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the leader of the court's liberal wing, conservative Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy, who leans conservative but on some issues provides a decisive vote for the liberals.

The next high court opening would cause a titanic confirmation fight if it would allow a Republican president to cement conservative control of the court by replacing Ginsburg or if Obama could give Democratic appointees a working majority for the first time in decades by replacing Scalia or Kennedy.

link

As we see with the disastrous Citizens United, shit matters who is on the court. It's getting extremely dangerous to allow the court to shift any further right. The results could be the final undermining of the authority of the courts, who would forever be tainted by radical ideology out of tune with what this country is about.

 

[Chichikov]

you said sales tax is quite easy to evade, i assumed you meant under the table sales via mom n pops or local establishments as opposed to walmarts and best buys

Gotcha.
Well, small business are about half of the GDP.
There's a whole lot of taxes to evade there.

Plus I never like laws that makes large parts of the population criminals.
And trust me, VAT will, back home, you get cash only discount for EVERYTHING, so much so, that the government ran a lottery program based on invoices twice, trying to bribe the citizens into compliance.
Didn't work.

This is what keeps me awake at night, and what ultimately will probably tip me over the edge to vote for Obama despite my reservations:

Next President could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the federal court appeals, as well as the Supreme Court



link

As we see with the disastrous Citizens United, shit matters who is on the court. It's getting extremely dangerous to allow the court to shift any further right. The results could be the final undermining of the authority of the courts, who would forever be tainted by radical ideology out of tune with what this country is about.

Ginsburg HAS to retire.
Yeah, it's sad that the Supreme Court had turned so partisan, but damn, getting another conservative in the court will make life extremely hard to liberals for decades to come.
Any word on her plans?
(didn't hear anything).

 

[Plinko]

Really? They are really gonna try that? Yes, please tie yourself to the ship anchors known as Kasich, Scott Walker, and Rick Scott. They are such popular governors.

Don't forget Mich governor Rick Snyder, who had approval numbers plummet after a month or two in office.

 

[empty vessel]

Good post.
People sure do an inordinate amount of talking about taxing the rich--as if it will solve our fiscal problems. It won't. But as empty vessel will tell us, debt and deficits don't matter so who really cares.

Exactly. All of this talk about making things balance serves no purpose. It's like an OCD disorder. People are obsessing about balancing the budget, but they can't explain why the budget needs to be balanced.

It is, however, a simplification of my position to say that deficits don't matter at all. They just don't matter per se. If the government deficit spends too much in a hot economy, it could create problems.

 

[speculawyer]

protectionism ain't bad. Look at China, their tariffs are higher and they give us the bird in the auto industry. their tariffs are much lower for german cars comparatively(2% for bmw vs 15-22 for GM and Chrysler).

How is that possible? Why do we put up with that? Why don't we raise our tariffs on everything to at least that level? Trade war! We have the trade deficit so we win any trade war.

 

[Tamanon]

So, does anyone know how the whole attendance situation for something like the DNC convention/closing speech works? My fiance and I are wanting to catch the closer at least at BofA Stadium.

 

[AlteredBeast]

How is that possible? Why do we put up with that? Why don't we raise our tariffs on everything to at least that level? Trade war! We have the trade deficit so we win any trade war.

Coward-in-chief. Apologizer-in-Chief, Cowtower-in-chief, + whatever other hyperbolic nickname people can call the president.

On a serious note, that is pretty messed up.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

As for Syria, if the UN can't get off its lazy ass, I say we give Russia the finger, and go in there and remove their government and save some lives. If our allies want to help, they can. This isn't about playing world police...

This is about being the country that does the right thing.

I always love A27's simplistic view of the world.

Why not go into Africa and other ME countries to dispose dictators?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I always love A27's simplistic view of the world.

Why not go into Africa and other ME countries to dispose dictators?

You're thinking of the wrong black gold.

Heyo

 

[Puddles]

A27, would you enlist as front-line infantry, right now, to go into Syria?

 

[jamesinclair]

Pathetic performance from Ron Paul considering all the hype over Nevada.

Same amount of delegates as the Newt.

 

[Plinko]

Has anybody ever come back from this big of a delegate deficit during an election? I don't recall anyone ever making a really late turnaround to win, although I admittedly haven't been paying attention to primaries until the George W Bush presidency.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Exactly. All of this talk about making things balance serves no purpose. It's like an OCD disorder. People are obsessing about balancing the budget, but they can't explain why the budget needs to be balanced.

It is, however, a simplification of my position to say that deficits don't matter at all. They just don't matter per se. If the government deficit spends too much in a hot economy, it could create problems.

FWIW, you are the only person I've ever read, anywhere, who had this view. I've been intentionally trying to read up on this point of view without much luck. You've been repeating this for a while now, and may have linked to some work on it before, but if you have anything handy I'd appreciate some reading.

I'm frustrated with the talk of deficits for a different reason: we don't need to be running one perpetually. The means to achieve both a balanced budget and a thriving economy are not that difficult; it is a political crises we face, not a debt crisis.

 

[Puddles]

Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods when the capacity for increasing supply is maxed out or bottlenecked.

In a slack economy where productive capacity is far below its maximum level, increasing the money supply should not lead to inflation, nor will it crowd out private investment. It should, rather, have the effect of increasing production.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only recall high inflation and interest rates during the 70s/early 80s due to OPEC ordeal.

 

[PhoenixDark]

FWIW, you are the only person I've ever read, anywhere, who had this view. I've been intentionally trying to read up on this point of view without much luck. You've been repeating this for a while now, and may have linked to some work on it before, but if you have anything handy I'd appreciate some reading.

I'm frustrated with the talk of deficits for a different reason: we don't need to be running one perpetually. The means to achieve both a balanced budget and a thriving economy are not that difficult; it is a political crises we face, not a debt crisis.

You're not going to find any credible author or writings that suggest endless 15 trillion dollar debts is not a problem, or that we can just spend more money and never address these issues.

I'm not in favor of austerity right now, we need to get the economy back on track; I think it's safe to say we'd be doing quite well if Obama's jobs bill had passed a few months ago, for instance. But at some point there will need to be some changes to Medicare, Social Security, etc. Some are easier (lifting the income cap on SS for instance) than others (Medicare)

 

[empty vessel]

FWIW, you are the only person I've ever read, anywhere, who had this view. I've been intentionally trying to read up on this point of view without much luck. You've been repeating this for a while now, and may have linked to some work on it before, but if you have anything handy I'd appreciate some reading.

I'm frustrated with the talk of deficits for a different reason: we don't need to be running one perpetually. The means to achieve both a balanced budget and a thriving economy are not that difficult; it is a political crises we face, not a debt crisis.

The distinction being made here is essentially between so-called deficit doves and deficit owls. (Deficit hawks are the Republicans and those Democrats we're both fed up with.) The main difference between doves and owls is that the former seem to believe that deficits are per se bad, and that governments should only run deficits during bad economic times but should otherwise strive for a balanced budget (i.e., deficits as short-term necessary evil) while the latter view deficits only as mechanism for some economic end (i.e., deficits as tool). In other words, that deficits are not per se bad and whether the government runs deficits or not should depend entirely upon the economic outcomes one seeks to obtain. This is called "functional finance." Owls have no interest in a balanced budget or surplus per se (although if a desired economic outcome were ever to require it, then so be it, but it is hard to see how a government surplus could ever be beneficial unless needed to quell inflation). And they have no interest in "paying down the debt" (they view government bonds as the equivalent of savings accounts, so the government debt is really just the size of the government bank--a person makes a deposit when he buys a bond and when the bond matures receives his deposit back plus interest).

Links to some articles discussing differences between doves and owls:

http://kmci.org/alllifeisproblemsolving/archives/deficit-doves-vs-deficit-owls-at-nd20/ (this one has links to various online exchanges between doves and owls)
http://www.multiplier-effect.org/?p=3351

The deficit owls are proponents of Modern Monetary Theory (economists who count among them James Galbraith), and their thinking can be found from various blogs that they write:

Bill Mitchell's blog: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/
Bill Mitchell interview by Harvard Int'l Review: http://hir.harvard.edu/debt-deficits-and-modern-monetary-theory
New Economic Perspectives (group blog): http://www.neweconomicperspectives.org/
Peter Cooper at Heteconomist: http://heteconomist.com/

Krugman (deficit dove) may be moving in a more owlish direction, as he recently seems to have recognized that governments that issue their own currency cannot be analyzed in the same fashion as those who do not.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Has anybody ever come back from this big of a delegate deficit during an election? I don't recall anyone ever making a really late turnaround to win, although I admittedly haven't been paying attention to primaries until the George W Bush presidency.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Now that Mitt Romney is once again the front-runner, his campaign focus is returning to President Obama. And he's probably going to start repeating a line that he's used often in the past: "This is a president who fundamentally believes that this next century is the post-American century."

Now, I leave it to the president to describe what he believes, but as the author of the book The Post-American World, I'd like to clarify the phrase. At the very beginning of the book, I note: "This is a book not about the decline of America but rather about the rise of everyone else."

Throughout the book, I am optimistic about America, and I'm convinced it can prosper in this new world and remain the most powerful country on the planet. But I argue that the age of America's singular dominance, its unipolarity, has ended. For a quarter-century after the collapse of communism and the Soviet Union, the United States dominated the world with no real political or economic competitors.

Mitt, we are in a different world now.

In 1990, China represented 2% of global gross domestic product. It has quadrupled, to 8%, and it's rising. By most estimates, China's economy will become the world's largest between 2016 and 2018. And this is not simply an economic story. China's military capacity and reach are also expanding. Beijing's defense spending is likely to surpass America's by 2025.

It's not just China that's rising. Emerging powers on every continent have achieved political stability and economic growth and are becoming active on the global stage. Twenty years ago Turkey was a fragile democracy, dominated by its army, constantly in need of Western economic bailouts. Today, Turkey has a trillion-dollar economy that grew 6.6% last year. Since April 2009, Turkey has created 3.4 million jobs - that's more than the entire European Union, Russia and South Africa put together.

Look in this hemisphere: In 1990, Brazil was emerging from decades of dictatorship and was wracked by inflation rates that reached 3,000 percent. Today, Brazil is a stable democracy, steadily growing with foreign-exchange reserves of $350 billion.

I could go on, Mitt.

Barack Obama has succeeded in preserving and even enhancing U.S. influence in this world precisely because he has recognized these new forces at work. He has traveled to the emerging nations and spoken admiringly of their rise. He replaced the old Western club and made the Group of 20 the central decision-making forum for global economic affairs. By emphasizing multilateral organizations, alliance structures and international legitimacy, he got results. It was Chinese and Russian cooperation that produced tougher sanctions against Iran. It was the Arab League's formal request last year that made Western intervention in Libya uncontroversial.

Mitt, by and large you have ridiculed this approach to foreign policy, arguing that you would instead expand the military, act unilaterally and talk unapologetically. But chest-thumping triumphalism won't help you secure America's interests or ideals in a world populated by powerful new players. You can call this new century whatever you like, but it won't change reality. After all, just because we call it the World Series doesn't actually make it one.

[URL="[URL="http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/05/zakaria-its-a-new-world-mitt/]You guys should really watch GPS if you have the time.[/URL]

 

[PhoenixDark]

I find this argument to be pretty irrelevant. Republicans fall in line. I don't remember many in the media or online focusing on how few delegates McCain had at this stage. Like McCain, Romney is the front runner and will now win a series of caucuses and primaries without much trouble. The party may have buckled for awhile, but there's not really a likely scenario where anyone surpasses him.

And lol again @ Ron Paul

 

[elrechazado]

I always love A27's simplistic view of the world.

Why not go into Africa and other ME countries to dispose dictators?

You mean african countries like libya?

 

[Kusagari]

Ron Paul with 4 more delegates than Jon fucking Huntsman. Way to go man.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think Kennedy and Ginsburg will retire if Obama wins a second term.

All the old conservative wing will stick there until they die (or until a Republican wins), but Kennedy is the only one who'd need to be replaced anyway.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I find this argument to be pretty irrelevant. Republicans fall in line. I don't remember many in the media or online focusing on how few delegates McCain had at this stage. Like McCain, Romney is the front runner and will now win a series of caucuses and primaries without much trouble. The party may have buckled for awhile, but there's not really a likely scenario where anyone surpasses him.

And lol again @ Ron Paul

I'm not saying that Romney isn't going to win, or that he's likely to be challenged significantly going forward. But it's simply not factually correct to assert that Mitt Romney currently enjoys an insurmountable lead in the delegate race, which is the point that was being contested. Language is important.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

I always love A27's simplistic view of the world.

Why not go into Africa and other ME countries to dispose dictators?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/05/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

People are dying, I believe the country has the ability to put an end to this.

If you are cool with innocent people dying, then continue what you are doing. The United States could easily go in there and effectively save these people.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/05/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

People are dying, I believe the country has the ability to put an end to this.

If you are cool with innocent people dying, then continue what you are doing. The United States could easily go in there and effectively save these people.

Did you read any of the posts by Jackson50 or me in the last couple of days? It's not that simple.

Are you saying that the United States should launch a full-scale ground invasion?

 

[RDreamer]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/05/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

People are dying, I believe the country has the ability to put an end to this.

If you are cool with innocent people dying, then continue what you are doing. The United States could easily go in there and effectively save these people.

To think that we can just go in and be the entire world's guardian angel is pretty simple. Maybe we do have the ability to do it in this one instance, but where do we stop, then? We can't invade every country where things like this happens. We need a truly global force against these kind of situations. The energy must be put into making more of the world's powers united behind things like that, and then we can save more people in the long run and we'll have more options for doing so. As has been stated before, disposing of a dictator doesn't just magically solve everything overnight.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

To think that we can just go in and be the entire world's guardian angel is pretty simple. Maybe we do have the ability to do it in this one instance, but where do we stop, then? We can't invade every country where things like this happens. We need a truly global force against these kind of situations. The energy must be put into making more of the world's powers united behind things like that, and then we can save more people in the long run and we'll have more options for doing so. As has been stated before, disposing of a dictator doesn't just magically solve everything overnight.

Right. And I'd say our reasons are apropos to Syria. Qaddafi's regime was an especially frail sultanistic regime, yet it proved difficult to depose. Moreover, the Libyan opposition was more unified and operated over a concentrated, propitious geographic range. None of that applies to Syria. We'd be opposing a sturdier regime in conjunction with a less unified opposition in a country unfavorable to intervention. Additionally, whither the aftermath?

Right. Unilateralist excursions into Middle Eastern states have proven productive. First, only a prodigious military effort can effect regime change. A NFZ would prove ineffective; note, this also pertains to the proposition of employing drones. That necessitates extensive operations in dense urban terrain against ambiguous targets with meager intelligence. That is a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, the proposition of assassinating Assad with special operations would prove prohibitively perilous. First, the logistical requirements are immense. They would have to identify a viable route into Syria and identify a viable configuration to land the special forces. Then, they would have to attack a likely heavily guarded compound; this necessitates heavier munitions which only compounds the logistical problems. Meanwhile, the presence of foreign forces would induce a hostile response from proximate security and military forces. The amount of preparation and intelligence required for a successful operation is considerable. Sending in special forces is not a viable option.

Furthermore, preceding any intervention, we must prepare a viable replacement for the regime. The inevitable power vacuum engendered by Assad's deposition would be tremendous. Who would inherit power? As we have witnessed in Libya, Iraq, and even Egypt, systemic transitions are terribly difficult. Would the United States administer Syria? Would an international coalition? It's imperative we produce viable, feasible answers to these questions before we intervene.

So, no. I do not support a military intervention. Doing the right thing is desirable. Lamentably, it's not always feasible.

It's really not feasible, much as we might like to.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/05/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

People are dying, I believe the country has the ability to put an end to this.

If you are cool with innocent people dying, then continue what you are doing. The United States could easily go in there and effectively save these people.

Oh, man. You sure like making assumptions, don't you? But go ahead, let's see a detailed, logistical plan to carry out both military and political goals for Syria.

Again, since you dodged my other question, do you think the U.S. should go into African countries to dispose dictators?

 

[RDreamer]

It's really not feasible, much as we might like to.

Yeah, I figured that much. I should have really worded that as "even if we had the ability to do it in this one instance..." Because yeah even if we could do all that what then? Then do we have a responsibility to do it to every oppressive regime around the world all by ourselves? The last part of that post was also what I was getting at with saying that we need more energy put into the international community rather than solving things by ourselves. That way we can decide, should a regime need to be taken down, what will happen after that, and it will be an international decision and an international responsibility to keep up with.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Ron Paul with 4 more delegates than Jon fucking Huntsman. Way to go man.

Delegate strategy!

Thanks for the links EV, I'll read tonight.

 

[Frank the Great]

damn, justice thomas is only 63. i feel like he's been there forever.

 

[The Librarian]

One point about justice appointments – remember the Senate. If Republicans win the Senate, we might end up with two Kennedys instead of one.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Yeah, I figured that much. I should have really worded that as "even if we had the ability to do it in this one instance..." Because yeah even if we could do all that what then? Then do we have a responsibility to do it to every oppressive regime around the world all by ourselves? The last part of that post was also what I was getting at with saying that we need more energy put into the international community rather than solving things by ourselves. That way we can decide, should a regime need to be taken down, what will happen after that, and it will be an international decision and an international responsibility to keep up with.

Well, for one, even if we imposed a NFZ, it would be ineffective. Assad's SF and militias have been conducting small scale attacks on Syrians.

Also, weapons are being smuggled into Syria, so you have to deal with closing the borders which could potentially foment confrontations with other nations.

 

[Oblivion]

This is what keeps me awake at night, and what ultimately will probably tip me over the edge to vote for Obama despite my reservations:

Next President could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the federal court appeals, as well as the Supreme Court



link

As we see with the disastrous Citizens United, shit matters who is on the court. It's getting extremely dangerous to allow the court to shift any further right. The results could be the final undermining of the authority of the courts, who would forever be tainted by radical ideology out of tune with what this country is about.

I've asked this a million times and no one's given me a straight answer.

If Obama gets re-elected, but loses the senate, what difference does it make?

 

[Oblivion]

What the fuck?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-need-pro-growth-policies-instead.php?ref=fpa

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I've asked this a million times and no one's given me a straight answer.

If Obama gets re-elected, but loses the senate, what difference does it make?

Supreme court appointments are generally easier to get through

 

[Amir0x]

That Clint Eastwood Car commercial was like a wave to Obama's policies, a thank you for helping the American car industry bounce back. Very interesting. Wonder what type of play that will get.

I've asked this a million times and no one's given me a straight answer.

If Obama gets re-elected, but loses the senate, what difference does it make?

There's no straight answer. In a typical universe, the Republicans would hem and haw and simply deal with it in the end. As long as the Judge is well qualified, it's very difficult for them to make a case to America not to allow it. They will dig and try to find examples of 'extremism' in their case history, but ultimately it'll fail hard as it does 9/10 times.

 

[jamesinclair]

2 minute long Obama commercial, I expected it to end with a super PAC notice

 

[Ether_Snake]

Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods when the capacity for increasing supply is maxed out or bottlenecked.

In a slack economy where productive capacity is far below its maximum level, increasing the money supply should not lead to inflation, nor will it crowd out private investment. It should, rather, have the effect of increasing production.

It's the best of times for the government to spend, right now. But people have been blinded by the "Oh no the deficit!" bullshit.

 

[markatisu]

That Clint Eastwood Car commercial was like a wave to Obama's policies, a thank you for helping the American car industry bounce back. Very interesting. Wonder what type of play that will get.

Yeah I thought the same thing, Mr Evil Socialist Obama basically gets the credit for resurrecting a industry the GOP was going to let die

There's no straight answer. In a typical universe, the Republicans would hem and haw and simply deal with it in the end. As long as the Judge is well qualified, it's very difficult for them to make a case to America not to allow it. They will dig and try to find examples of 'extremism' in their case history, but ultimately it'll fail hard as it does 9/10 times.

Obama also won't be up for re-election in 2016 so there is no real reason to stonewall him as much as they have been. They will still fight but in the end whoever he appoints will get through (since he is much more moderate then liberal). Obama won't make the mistake Bush did and appoint a Harriet Miers type that gets slaughtered

 

[elrechazado]

I've asked this a million times and no one's given me a straight answer.

If Obama gets re-elected, but loses the senate, what difference does it make?

Do you think that obama will somehow nominate conservatives because the repubs take the senate? That's not how it works.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

2 minute long Obama commercial, I expected it to end with a super PAC notice

More strange as Eastwood is a republican

 

[Oblivion]

Do you think that obama will somehow nominate conservatives because the repubs take the senate? That's not how it works.

It's not?

 

[elrechazado]

It's not?

uhh....no

 

[cooljeanius]

Moved to Community? Well I suppose that makes sense...

 

[Oblivion]

uhh....no

This is keeping in mind that we have the most radical right wing party since the Civil War, right?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Obama + Republican Senate would still result in more moderate appointments than Romney + Republican Senate.

Really, there's no realistic scenario where Romney wins and Democrats still hold the Senate, so it's not even worth discussing.

The Senate appointments would basically be a game of chicken and that's starting to backfire against republicans.