-
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 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
I think one key difference is that far left liberals are the fringe of the democratic party, if they even figure into democratic politics at all. The far right on the other hand is the base of the republican party. Therefore their irrational beliefs and hate of the president is more potent and figures more into our national politics well beyond the near incomprehensible grumblings on the internet that the far left kick up.
zero shift
Banned
The most ridiculous mainstream far-left film in recent years:
The most ridiculous mainstream far-right film in recent years:
Reading their titles you may believe they may be similar. However one just merely criticizes modern society (with mostly, even though many unrelated, facts) and believes that one day the nations economic system will fall like the Roman Empire. Extreme yes but no more ridiculous than a link to a Youtube video on Facebook. The other believes that the president is being guided by his ghost daddy and is on a road to bring on a socialist revolution through his near dictator powers.
I always found it ironic when they made the "you can't say "nigger"" episode and not long followed it by "you should be able to say "fag"" episode. Am I the only one who just saw the insane irony on the plots and the "morals" of those episodes?
I find it painful that I use to think South Park was "educational".
PhoenixDark
Banned
Sounds like Harry Reid knows the AWB isn't going to pass, and will focus on items that could pass congress. Dems should let Feinstein's bill die in the senate, then move to a bill that actually can get some bipartisan support. Background checks, end straw purchases, close gun show loopholes etc.
But will they include a ban on certain mags? That might doom the bill
But will they include a ban on certain mags? That might doom the bill
They're puerile libertarians that shoot from the hip, and it's gotten them far. Pity how dumb they reveal themselves to be if you're well informed.
jamesinclair
Banned
What does poligaf think of my idea about mandating heavier guns? Simply in the same way cars must meet certain standards and such.
Look, I think this whole focus on assault weapon, 30 round thing is bs. A mass shooting happens every x years, and its a tragedy, but in any given day more people are killed by small, portable guns.
My idea:
The minimum weight for a handgun is 8lbs. (or other debatable amount)
Why?
The "I need a gun by my bed to protect the kids" crowd gets to keep their gun. If the gun truly is, and stays in the nightstand all day, every day, adding a few pounds means diddly squat. Its still light enough that any adult could pick it up and protect themselves in their little scenario where a gang of thugs invades their home.
HOWEVER, added weight means 3 year old jimmy is going to have a lot more trouble finding the gun, handling it, and shooting tammy in the head.
And it helps with the whole thug problem. Go ahead, try and conceal a 7lb gun in your back pocket while walking down skid row. Now your saggy pants are truly on the floor. The added weight also makes the gun seem more serious, and less of a toy. Right now many people have too much distance between the power in their hands and their action. If shit FEELS heavy, more "weight" is added in their mind.
As for the "I conceal carry its MY GODDAMNED RIGHT" crowd? Nothing is stopping you. Enjoy the added weight. Also makes it easier for the rest of us to know you're a menace to society (again, having the added weight would affect your walk eventually), and to be quickly stopped and detained before entering gun-free zones like schools and bars. End of the day, people will leave it in their car because they're sick of the weight.
And the mass murderers? Won't do much, but hey, it's harder to carry 10 guns if they weight, at minimum, 8lbs each.
So, come at it poligaf, does the idea have some merit?
zero shift
Banned
Team America: World Police is even more hilarious in retrospect. I love the parts dealing with those wacky antiwar liberals and the "dicks, pussies, and assholes" analogy.
Also I wouldn't really say they're libertarian as they don't seem insanely hunky dory on the free market as say Penn Jillette. They seem more centrist to me.
That being said I completely agree with you guys on them being shitty on science.
Trey Parker in Interview said:
Vermillion
Banned
Interesting. That explains these radio shows. Following up - if hitting the debt ceiling hurts our credit to other nations, how does repeatedly raising the ceiling not do the same thing?
I agree. And lol.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Because people continue to make money off of you.
Vermillion
Banned
Ah. Makes sense - thank you all!
This is literally what my grandpa thinks
It sounds absurd. It'd be better to have guns with a complex safety lock out something maybe.
The weight wouldn't do anything, and people only carry 1-2 tops. Also im kind of perturbed by you saying that those with a concealed weapon are menaces somehow.
You need a special permit for a concealed weapon, so you're actually talking about illegal weapons or illegal concealment.
Not only do concealed-carry permit holders commit less crime than the general public, they also commit less crime than police officers. Are police officers a menace to society?
Well, seems Scarborough is back to retard mode after a few weeks of appearing semi-reasonable. He went off on Obama for "not being serious" on the deficit, and thinks the Republicans are right to hold the debt ceiling hostage to have that "conversation". Hell, it took corporate Dem extraordinaire, Harold Ford Jr. to be the voice of reason.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
They still rub me the wrong way because they (generalizing, I know) as Obama put it "those who oppose any common sense gun control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow the federal governments about to take all your guns away."
Do you have evidence to back these two claims up? Are you seriously comparing the population that have conceal-carry permits and comparing their permits to the rest of the population which would be the overwhelming majority of the population as a sign of anything?
A lot of the people I know who CC are also quite normal and see little problem with a lot of the regulations around registration being talked about.
On the other hand, the AR crowd I know is death before gun laws
PhoenixDark
Banned
What does he think about Obama using executive orders on gun control?
Has this approach to gun violence been discussed? Its pretty much the approach we need as a nation to get serious about curbing gun crime and violence in general over time. It was previously called CeaseFire and is now called Cure Violence. I've only just discovered it. If its claimed effectiveness is true then damn.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17402-treat-killing-like-a-disease-to-slash-shootings.html
http://cureviolence.org/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17402-treat-killing-like-a-disease-to-slash-shootings.html
http://cureviolence.org/
empty vessel
Member
I feel pretty much the same about the both of them, but in this instance I have to regretfully prefer Krugman. Stewart can sometimes be such a damn mushy centrist and totally unhelpful. Like his and Colbert's rally to promote false equivalences.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Sounds like utter bullshit. I'd like to know where in Chicago they found a lowering in gun crime; it sure as hell isn't the south side or other poor areas which have been war zones for the last few years. Same with Baltimore.
I only saw a portion of the show and they only talked about the deficit/debt ceiling.
electricpirate
Member
You could, ya know, read or something, and realize those numbers were from the program in 2008.
Or you could just post knee jerk reactions!
It's the same program that was successful Boston.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/01/straight-outta-boston?page=1
Not to defend TDS' general handling of more complex economic matters, but there are some ideas which you can just respond to effectively at the gut level. Like this one.
electricpirate
Member
double postage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=13mTKCuL4XA
I'll admit, that vid gave me some shimmer of hope. I've had doubts of Obama getting rid of the debt ceiling by the time his term is over, but now I'm confident he will. Simply because of how insane the Right-Wing is. He'll essentially have no choice.
I'll admit, that vid gave me some shimmer of hope. I've had doubts of Obama getting rid of the debt ceiling by the time his term is over, but now I'm confident he will. Simply because of how insane the Right-Wing is. He'll essentially have no choice.
It also promoted the notion that Glenn Beck is a stupid asshat, and for that I can't hate it.
Not really
Maybe not the right question to ask an Oaklander. Or most people of color really.
So it's not a bad idea that some are only entertaining because historic levels of obstruction and hyper-polarization have taken much better ideas completely off the table?
I mean, if it really comes down to it and we can't do anything else, it may turn out to be the best of what we've got, but that doesn't stop it from being a horrible idea.
I'd like you to explain to me what makes it a horrible idea without relying on the fact that it just sounds ridiculous. Gut reactions are a terrible way to judge policy.
empty vessel
Member
For my part, I think the alleged "much better ideas" (bond issuance arbitrarily tied to spending above tax receipts) aren't really better for a monetarily sovereign government and are probably worse.
Cuomo does something good for once:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/ny_gov_cuomo_pushes_for_green_energy_bank/
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/ny_gov_cuomo_pushes_for_green_energy_bank/
So, would the best idea be to just change the debt ceiling's name to a bond ceiling? Then, print the money (physically or otherwise) when we need it, and raise the bond ceiling when we feel like we need to sell more bonds... i.e. when it's beneficial for more people to have that safe investment.
I feel like that's the easiest transition into a better understanding of how these things actually work.
But gut reactions abound in how markets react to economic policy, so how is it not valid to express concern over an idea based on how ridiculous it sounds? How will world markets react to us minting a trillion dollar coin as the only solution we could come up with to bypass a vocal minority in this country, that only exists as an option solely because of the serendipity of a loophole introduced by a fairly recent law? Is that the new norm and is it really reassuring to markets and other nations? Are we minting trillion dollar coins now every time we need to raise the debt ceiling or is that option off the table as soon as Congress gets around to passing an amendment to the legislation that allowed it in the first place?
My apologies, my "explanation" is mostly just based on questions I have that seem to open more cans of worms than they do away with.
If the market reacts terribly to good policy, then the solution should be to educate the market rather than abandon the policy.
I mean, the general reaction to Obamacare based just on how it sounds was "Oh my god, death panels!"
And your argument against the policy doesn't seem to be particularly against the policy so much as the context the policy would come about. i.e. people would be worried that we had to come up with an alternate scenario because a minority in this country wouldn't budge. I'd agree that's worrying to a market, probably, but again, not because of the particular policy of minting a coin. Just because you stumbled on a policy in an odd circumstance doesn't really mean it should be thrown away. That doesn't make it some horribly laughable idea.
Good article from Reuters. Why Public debt isn't like credit card debt:
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/14/why-public-debt-is-not-like-credit-card-debt/
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
One of the most interesting things in there is that the government increased its receipts by 700% between 1940-1945. Even Ray-Gun never had an increase like that in his whole two terms.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/14/why-public-debt-is-not-like-credit-card-debt/
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
One of the most interesting things in there is that the government increased its receipts by 700% between 1940-1945. Even Ray-Gun never had an increase like that in his whole two terms.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I wonder what Kos thinks about this considering he doesn't like Cuomo.
Definitely seems like Cuomo and O'Malley are getting their resumes ready for 2016, hardcore
Assuming we've definitively established that minting a trillion dollar coin is "good" policy, then sure, markets should be educated. But I don't think the policy has come close to passing that test yet. Even EV, whose knowledge and insight on this subject I would completely defer to, seems at most to be only saying it's the best of bad ideas. Hardly glowing endorsement.
Even if it is good policy, of course context matters. Doesn't matter how good you can make something sound on paper if it fails to account for context at the time of implementation. The two aren't mutually exclusive - "good policy" doesn't truly get to be that without proving itself so under real world conditions. If a policy fails to work, you can't just blame the markets for not getting it. This is a completely untested solution that only exists because of a recently introduced legal loophole and is only being considered out of sheer desperation. Has any other nation done anything like this - regularly and with success?
empty vessel
Member
That sounds great to me. It'd be nice if, instead of physically minting a coin--which is a purely symbolic representation of money--the Congress passed a law just directing the Fed to credit the Treasury's account in the amount necessary to comply with its spending decisions.
Paypal only charges five bucks for transfers, maybe they could do it.
Option 3): Obama and the Treasury simply didn't think the coin idea was feasible.
I think it was a mix of 2) and 3), myself.
empty vessel
Member
It may be good politics, but in pursuit of bad policy. We should be trying to make the sale of bonds irrelevant to spending decisions, and that's what the coin accomplishes. Obama is trying to save the legal connection between bond sales and spending in excess of tax receipts that was forged under a different monetary regime and which has since become needless and arbitrary as a result of the adoption of a fiat monetary system based on nonconvertible currency.
No other country has had a need to do such a thing, because the US is one of only two countries in the entire world to even have a debt ceiling. (The other one, Denmark, keeping the debt ceiling high enough to not be an issue the way it is in the US.)
Black Mamba
Member
No it's good policy on both ends. The coin option is a bad option even if its better than no debt ceiling raise. We don't know what it will do on the perceptions of people.
Economics still struggles to understand how human psychology plays a role. In a perfect world, you'd be right to push for it. But this isn't one. The change you're looking for has to come about from a much bigger change in the general perception of money.
Obama is right to take it off th table from a political level. But the right long term move, even economically, would be congress effectively making the debt ceiling useless or getting rid of it. It is not minting coins to bypass congress.
- Status