• 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 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
How about you actually answer the questions people brought up? Why do you trust free market more than government? Other than being brainwashed into doing so.

Brainwashed is a strong word. The core question here is good though: why does he trust the free market over the government? Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily asking about which you feel is more effective at getting its objectives done, but I'm really interested in the word "trust" here. Trust to do what?
 

Chumly

Member
Brainwashed is a strong word. The core question here is good though: why does he trust the free market over the government?

Brainwashed may be a strong word but the myth is constantly perpetuated by politicians and the media with no real backing. Hes not just an individual that is brainwashed but part of the American population as a whole that is. I guess I should clarify for "government" we are obviously talking about American democratic style verses Chinses, Soviests, Nazi's etc etc.


what i found more interesting about the Bush wars is that he rarely invoked any concept of shared sacrifice that the public needed or should endure. well, perhaps outside of accepting a massive national security apparatus with the ability to sneak into every facet of our lives and holes in our bodies. instead, he told us to go out and shop. literally. go out and buy things so the economy doesn't drag. that will defeat terrorism.

meanwhile he used accounting loopholes for years to keep the true cost of the war off the books. when Obama stopped that trend in his administration, Republicans jumped on him for massively increasing government spending.
The years of being patriotic and shared sacrifice is long dead unfortunately. Republicans that push for patriotism, defense, wars don't believe in shared sacrifice which is the ultimate hypocrisy.
 
Greeces problems were at least partly caused by american financial institutions giving out loans that could not be paid back. Though the government was also undertaxing and overspending. It is pretty complicated.

Umm, America did not loan Greece any large amount of money. Otherwise we would be having some problems right now. Goldman Sachs helped Greek politicians to cover up their debt if that is what you are getting at. Or maybe you are talking about the financial crisis that caused all investors to question the ability of governments and institutions to repay bonds or loans. Because in pre-2008, bond holders thought that ECB (meaning Germany and France) would guarantee all debt issued to all member nations. Now things look like this:

Zj7QG.png


As you can see, people thought it was a real monetary union before 2008. Now they know different.

The story of Greece has little to nothing to do with government management or mismanagement. Greece is actually a story of exploitation of poorer European countries (called "the periphery") by larger ones (primarily Germany, but also France), although an especially inelegant attempt that is coming back to bite the richer ones in the ass. For that reason, it may be that it can be chalked up to the economic stupidity of European neoliberal elites. In plain English, the design of the Eurozone was fundamentally flawed. It was designed to give Germany a trading advantage, but they didn't understand how that would all be lost once the periphery had to start taking counter-cyclical measures in economic bust times.

You should listen to this man. Germany benefited more from this arrangement than any other country. It got to keep the trading value of its currency low which decreased the value of its goods leading to more exports. You also need to realize that Germany is not bailing out Greece, but German and French banks who were the ones to lend Greece all that money. It's ultimately German banks that are going to need capital injections when Greece bows out.

And don't get me started on Spain. Do you know that they have a lower debt to GDP ratio than Germany? Yet they are being nailed to the cross because too much of their economy was tied up in construction. Sad state over there.

Edit: Actually the whole European situation is funny if you look at it from an American liberal perspective. I mean one of the nations in trouble, Ireland, was touted by John McCain back in 2008 as a country to imitate. And then you have Germany with its strong social programs (hint: Universal Healthcare) and low employment.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Here you go

It was quite amusing. He was one of the regulars in "racism is dead" arguments. Not surprising that he was a confederate flag defender. Hilarious that he we go visit his Grandpa who flew the flag and didn't think there was anything wrong with it.

Grazie.

I remember that thread, and perused the first couple of pages back when it was posted. Seems I decided to bail too early.
 
Oh no. More fuel for the fire...

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/fox-poll-obama-by-7

A new national poll from Fox News shows President Obama with a 7-point lead, 46 percent to 39 percent, an improved position for the president after another poll from Fox three weeks ago showed he and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney tied at 46 percent. Pollsters pointed to independent voters as the reason for the Obama lead.

Lol, what kind of polls is Fox news conducting.

MORE Important News, Romney is not going to rely on Nevada GOP State party for ground game

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-rnc-to-ditch-nevada-gop

Apparently fed up with Nevada GOP’s missteps during the primary season earlier this year, the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee are planning to create their own “shadow state party” which will effectively run the ground game in place of Nevada GOP

Romney defends JP Morgan after their 2 billion loss

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...jpmorgan-after-2-billion-loss-video?ref=fpblg
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
It also misses the point because my point was purely economic not prescriptive. You can give poor people money with no strings attached. Or you can also put money in poor people's hands by offering them a government job. Presumably, you would have no objections to the latter approach?

While FDR and I wouldn't exactly be on the same page (he did save capitalism after all), I have no objection to this at all. In fact, what he was saying was that it was our duty to offer jobs to people who want to work but could not find a job. You know that 8.1% unemployment rate. That is all the people who want to find work but are unable to do so, because there simply are not enough being offered by the private sector. The private sector is choosing, for market reasons, not to hire all the people who want to work. So I propose, like FDR did, that work "must be found" for the unemployed. And that is accomplished by the federal government offering every person who wants one a job.

But I suspect you oppose this, even though you just provided the rationale for it.

THIS THIS THIS.

We used to have an argument with the righties about giving them lazy poors free money. They used to say that they don't have a problem giving poor people money as long as they weren't loafing about in their mansions in Bel Air. But now, even giving money for work is considered taboo for Republicans because that money comes from spending, and government spending on anything that's not Pentagon or tax cut for the rich related is taboo now.
 

eznark

Banned
It is unusual for a state to release these figures before they are vetted and blessed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Hence, Walker’s opponents, who have been accusing him of killing jobs, are now accusing him of – gasp! – playing politics. But just how foul is Walker’s move? This is what the Bureau told the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal via email: “No, BLS does not have any concerns. Wisconsin is free to publish its data as it wishes.”

Lol @ saying Wisconsin is making up numbers. It's simply a different data collection. The Dems are touting a sample survey of 1000 businesses. Walker is publishing actual reports from all businesses in the state.

The guy who gathered that data is the states chief economist. Surely a Walker supporter!.....except he signed the recall petition.

Cry more.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
-deregulation
-tax cuts for the rich
-fighting two wars (one of which was under false pretenses)

You know. Pretty much the standard Republican platform?

What deregulation laws?

How did tax cuts for the entire country tank the economy (specifically in 2008)? The same laws that Obama refused to rescind because they could trigger a second recession.

How did fighting the wars tank the economy? If anything, they were a massive stimulative action.


I know of two Bush policies. TARP and using tarp money for the auto bailouts. Something the Democrats seem keen on campaigning on this fall.
 
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb (in Southpark episode voice and tune)

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/rep-joe-pitts-arafat-and-sharon-need-get-work

"With the global war against terrorism, it is now incumbent on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Yasir Arafat to clamp down on Palestinian extremists that have perpetuated violence and to restart a peace process that has collapsed," wrote Pitts in a recent, rather outdated response letter to a constituent.

Arafat has been dead for eight years and Sharon has been in a coma for six. Sadly, "dead" and "comatose" are two adjectives people might use to describe the peace process itself.
 

Tim-E

Member
Bush is giving speeches and will soon be releasing/promoting a book on economic ideas? The last thing the Romney camp wants is Bush out there talking about a book that likely discusses the republican economic policies Romney is pushing. I'll bet his campaign staff will be pulling their hair out in two months when it releases and Bush is on all sorts of shows.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
You mean when he expanded the Clinton program to allow more low income people the chance to be home owners? That evil, nefarious Republican plan?

The same program that mortgage lenders coincidentally seemed to fully endorse?
 
Does anybody have that poll that broke down the Affordable Care Act into parts (covering pre-existing conditions, insurance mandate, etc.) and polled each individually? Google is failing me.
 
Nate Silver's new Senate forecast: Democrats' Odds of Retaining the Senate Improve

Right now, his most likely outcome is 50 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and 1 Angus King, essentially resulting in a 50-50 split. I'm more bullish than he is (gun to my head, I'd say Democrats will hold between 52 and 54 seats), but that's based on the economy improving and Obama winning comfortably over Romney, being less of a drag on red/purple state candidates. As the man himself puts it:

Nate Silver said:
However, it should be remembered that this is just one potential outcome out of a fairly wide range of possibilities. In 2006 and 2008, Democrats won all or almost all of the races that would have been classified as tossups or as leaning toward one party at this stage. Republicans did the same in 2010.

This year, if Republicans won all the lean and tossup races, they would pick up a net of nine seats from Democrats. That would give them control of 56 seats — a sizable majority whether or not Mr. King aligned with them.

Conversely, if Democrats won all the lean and tossup races, they would actually gain a net of three seats from Republicans, or four if Mr. King caucused with them. That would give them 55 or 56 seats over all.

What would produce such a shift in the overall partisan environment is unclear, but a substantial economic upturn or downturn, a major foreign policy success or failure, a significant gap in turnout among Democratic and Republican voters, a partisan row in Congress like last year’s debt ceiling debate or a major scandal involving Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney are all possibilities. Put more simply, the possibility for major news events is a “known unknown,” and there is plenty of time between now and November.
 
Here is he transcript of Nick Hanauer TED talk which ted has not posted for some reason or another

It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one.
If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.
This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape.
But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy.
In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are "job creators" and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.
I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.
That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.
So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.
Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.
That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.
Since 1980 the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.
If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.
Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.
I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.
Here's an incredible fact. If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?
Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being perceived as "job creators" at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it is a small step from "job creator" to "The Creator". We did not accidentally choose this language. It is only honest to admit that calling oneself a "job creator" is both an assertion about how economics works and the a claim on status and privileges.
The extraordinary differential between a 15% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 35% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is a privilege that is hard to justify without just a touch of deification
We've had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.
So here's an idea worth spreading.
In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.
Thank You.

Visual Aids he used during the talk
http://www.businessinsider.com/nick...-creators-2012-5#consumers-are-job-creators-4


Ted may or may not be pandering to their donors who are almost all rich.
(sorry if you saw this on reddit already)
 

RDreamer

Member
Romney's breaking out the debt clock again

Here is he transcript of Nick Hanauer TED talk which ted has not posted for some reason or another

Visual Aids he used during the talk
http://www.businessinsider.com/nick...-creators-2012-5#consumers-are-job-creators-4

Ted may or may not be pandering to their donors who are almost all rich.
(sorry if you saw this on reddit already)

Pretty disappointing that they wouldn't put it up. However, they do still have this one on income inequality up, and it's a pretty in depth look at income inequality. Anyone interested in this stuff should watch that.
 
Joe Biden is everything George W Bush wished and wasn't: straight-shootin, folksy, charming, and 40 years of solid foreign policy experience. Without the stupid Texas belt buckle and hat.
 
Romney matches Obama fundraising at 40 million dollars to Obama's 43.1 million dollars.

That is bad news for O-camp with Dem donors shunning Super PACs and Rove group already on the air with negative ads containing false information.

Unemployment claims unchanged from last week.
 
Joe Biden is everything George W Bush wished and wasn't: straight-shootin, folksy, charming, and 40 years of solid foreign policy experience. Without the stupid Texas belt buckle and hat.
Is there a chance he could run in 2016 or is he going to be too old? I wish we still had time to see both a Biden and Clinton presidency.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I think the reason nobody on the left is really afraid of a Biden gaffe is because outside of looking slightly silly (asking a man in a wheelchair to stand up, for example), everybody kinda assumes and agrees that he's a genuine man with real thoughts, real reactions, and a visceral sense of what it means to be lower middle class.

We simply don't get those types any more. We get blue dogs, who attempt to bridge the gap between economic populism and social conservatism, or we get tea baggers capturing the anger but throwing it in every direction but the obvious (their corporate sponsors).

I mean, Biden. If he was an ounce more calculating and a touch more reserved, he'd be a perfect president -- but he wouldn't be the sincere middle class warrior he's become.
 
Romney matches Obama fundraising at 40 million dollars to Obama's 43.1 million dollars.

That is bad news for O-camp with Dem donors shunning Super PACs and Rove group already on the air with negative ads containing false information.

Unemployment claims unchanged from last week.

Seems like every Obama advantage disappeared this month, from fundraising to the female vote. But no worries, dems are fired up and the economy is steadily improving right
 

ToxicAdam

Member
The same program that mortgage lenders coincidentally seemed to fully endorse?

So, you agree it was a Clinton program. I'm still waiting on your answers on what policies Bush pushed through that ruined the economy.

PL said:
We get blue dogs, who attempt to bridge the gap between economic populism and social conservatism


These people can't actually exist in America? These ideals can only come from a cynical, politically calculated place?

--- // ---


Anyone else think that these SuperPACS have a chance to backfire? Negative ads are effective, but there comes a tipping point where if the ads go too far or are too numerous, they actually turn off the voter (either from the candidate or voting all together). In the past, a campaign has the ability to temper their message if they go too far, but with SuperPACS (supposedly) a crazy billionaire could just decide to flood the airwaves with crazy attack messages and no one can stop him if they backfire.
 

markatisu

Member
Seems like every Obama advantage disappeared this month, from fundraising to the female vote. But no worries, dems are fired up and the economy is steadily improving right

And soon Romney will have the Latino vote, the Black vote, and the youth vote...Obama is doomed...oh wait that's right we are not really talking about reality
 

ToxicAdam

Member
A few good ones:

-telling Greenspan to keep interest rates low, increasing government spending and cutting taxes while the economy was strong
-grew the size of the financial sector
-Iraq War on credit

How does a president "grow the size of the financial sector"? What does that even mean? Now, you can argue that Bush's inactions were a root problem, but that's not how the initial argument was framed. This was about what Bush DID, not what he didn't do.

When was the economy strong? Bush mostly had an anemic/backsliding economy for his entire first term when those actions you listed were enacted.

What does "Iraq War on credit" mean? Was the Afghanistan War prepaid? All wars are engaged with deficit spending. How exactly did spending invisible money on a war exacerbate the collapse of the economy in 2008? Was this mythical mound of money somehow going to prevent it from happening?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom