• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jamesinclair

Banned
Tim-E said:
Dear god why am I reading comments on Bloomberg. When someone calls someone else out for claiming that consumer spending is declining dramatically and points out that it is not, they respond with "I'm not going to repute you because you use a line out of the socialistic play book when attacking a good point." So using data and numbers top prove a point is now socialistic. Every comment on every article seems to be about how positive economic numbers are cooked and anything suggesting otherwise is a lie.

How can people live in such a bubble to convince themselves that literally everything in the world is a cover-up?
Click to expand...

Use the Bush playbook.

If they hate their country so much, why don't they just leave?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
TheHeretic said:
Politically impossible, counterproductive, and the last point about benefits is flat out ridiculous. Medicine allows people to live longer and work longer if they choose, which many do. The benefits are fine and there's more than enough of giving stuff to the elderly in the US - there are more important things to invest in.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the question of whether we should be specifically subsidizing the elderly (on the one hand, we should, but on the other hand, they're jerks) or whether we should be attempting to provide transfer payments for everybody, the benefit of welfare isn't necessarily the immediate gain but the knock-on effects. Those people living and working longer are screwing up the labor market, which is already doing poorly enough as it is. Assuming we don't want to kill them (until Obamacare kicks in in 2014), taking them out of the employment market by offering them support payments is the next best thing -- by raising the cost of labor, we increase wages across the board and force companies to invest in productivity rather than economizing on employees. This actually grows the economy and improves tax revenues, giving us more money to invest in other things as well.

codhand said:
I thought you preferred the economic discussion?
Click to expand...

That's my whole point!
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
Tim-E said:
How can people live in such a bubble to convince themselves that literally everything in the world is a cover-up?
Click to expand...
Because their bubble has cable.

fox-news-logo.jpg
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Tim-E said:
Dear god why am I reading comments on Bloomberg. When someone calls someone else out for claiming that consumer spending is declining dramatically and points out that it is not, they respond with "I'm not going to repute you because you use a line out of the socialistic play book when attacking a good point." So using data and numbers to prove a point is now socialistic. Every comment on every article seems to be about how positive economic numbers are cooked and anything suggesting otherwise is a lie.

How can people live in such a bubble to convince themselves that literally everything in the world is a cover-up?
Click to expand...

Reality has a well-known . . .
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
I'm even more surprised the right isn't using this fact for themselves.
"Look, the economy can recover without government involvement!"
Click to expand...
Their whole message has been that Obama is actively harming job growth. Romney's campaign even got mad at GOP governors for claiming their policies were bringing jobs back, because it undercut the theme that since Obama took office everything's gone to shit.
 
H

HyperionX

Member
pigeon said:
My goal is to increase the general welfare of America. Unless you can present a compelling case otherwise, I'm operating on the assumption that that's the purpose of society. Gun control and combating poverty must both be judged as priorities against that goal, and I would argue that social programs do a better job for a wide variety of reasons, many of which I already stated in that post and you didn't respond to. But I'd also note that there's a compelling case that the murder rate went up -- because of leaded gasoline! Which is kind of my point. We must understand societal externalities to understand the causes of violence.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
Click to expand...

I on the other hand thought we were talking about gun control, not general welfare. I don't have any problem with the latter. In fact, we should pursue both at the same time. However, please don't pretend solving the latter will magically solve the former.

And leaded gasoline was banned long ago. Whatever effect it might have had on the crime rate, it's unlikely to be a major cause now.

I have, actually -- starting with the fact that America has a constitutional right to arms and adding that our highest priority shouldn't be any specific statistic such as gun violence but overall weal. And, of course, the fact that gun violence is a symptom of greater societal problems. You just haven't actually engaged with any of it.

Maybe it's because you keep dismissing my posts as "NRA talking points" without actually attempting to formulate responses to them. This is Poli-GAF, not Gun Control-GAF. If you can't actually defend your position, why are you posting? If they're really talking points it should be that much easier for you to demolish them.
Click to expand...

I'm accusing you of use NRA talking points because you are using a very similar debating style as they do. It's their core belief that any problem with guns are really due to something else. No matter how the problem seems to circle around guns, something else always gets brought as the "real source of the problem". There's no point in trying to debunk every possible alternative cause of violence when the whole of that style of debate is to make people chase down wild geese instead of go after them.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Sounds like Brown will run for governor instead, which seems like a safer proposition. Because of how right wing the GOP is, it would be quite hard for Brown to distance himself every six years during an election; his seat would always be very insecure. Meanwhile Joe Kennedy Jr is waiting in the wings for that seat.

Whereas a Governor Brown could work with democrats and be quite successful for years, completely isolated from the national GOP
 
C

codhand

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Sounds like Brown will run for governor instead, which seems like a safer proposition. Because of how right wing the GOP is, it would be quite hard for Brown to distance himself every six years during an election; his seat would always be very insecure. Meanwhile Joe Kennedy Jr is waiting in the wings for that seat.

Whereas a Governor Brown could work with democrats and be quite successful for years, completely isolated from the national GOP
Click to expand...

this is true but ignores that brown only won to begin with due to shitty dem campaign, obama approval, health care etc.

if he has to win on his own merits, and he has to use something other than his truck to gain appeal, he's effectively toast. ive no doubt massachusetts has not shed many tears on behalf of his absence.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
codhand said:
this is true but ignores that brown only won to begin with due to shitty dem campaign, obama approval, health care etc.

if he has to win on his own merits, and he has to use something other than his truck to gain appeal, he's effectively toast. ive no doubt massachusetts has not shed many tears on behalf of his absence.
Click to expand...

He's still quite popular in MA though. And while he certainly lost big in November it's worth noting he faced off against a very popular, iconic figure (Warren) during a presidential election in which the incumbent (Obama) was very popular. I doubted Warren's chances despite her popularity/talents because she seemed rather distant and awkward on the stump, with voters, etc. But obviously she inspires enormous respect and reverence from her supporters, and they propelled her to victory.
 
A

Averon

Member
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/nra-on-obamas-guards-in-schools-plan-thanks

NRA On Obama’s Guards In Schools Plan: Thanks, But No Thanks

Former Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), director of the National Rifle Association's post-Newtown "School Sheild" program, thanked President Obama on Thursday for including money that can potentially be used to hire armed guards at schools in his gun violence prevention package. But he said that Obama's plan -- which allows disctricts to use funds for armed police officers or improved mental health services -- isn't good enough.
Click to expand...

"I'm very pleased that he did include and recognize the historic role that armed, trained professionals play in protecting our school children," Hutchinson said of Obama's proposals in the video. "I'm also concerned that some of his proposals do not meet the standards of the Second Amendment, and I'm confident that those are going to be rejected by Congress."
Click to expand...

What the hell?!? Obama included money to support the NRA's position that armed guards should be in school, and the NRA still shits on it.
 
E

Escape Goat

Member
All of the news sites included the word "terror" in their headlines (if not the byline) as it relates to the Turkey embassy. Looks like we learned our lesson from Benghazi.
 
C

codhand

Member
NRA have reneged on just about everything they've said following Newtown, they're taking the "no such thing as bad publicity" route.
 
A

Aaron

Member
codhand said:
NRA have reneged on just about everything they've said following Newtown, they're taking the "no such thing as bad publicity" route.
Click to expand...
When it's working for them, why shouldn't they? They've controlled the discussion from the beginning. There's more pushback against Israel than there is against the NRA.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
With these new numbers + the revised numbers, private sector job creation is at 6.1 million.

Once again.

WORST. SOCIALIST. EVER.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Oblivion said:
With these new numbers + the revised numbers, private sector job creation is at 6.1 million.

Once again.

WORST. SOCIALIST. EVER.
Click to expand...
Indeed. If you compare the private/public sector growth between Obama and Bush, it would appear that Bush is a raging socialist. So many government jobs created under Bush's big government revolution.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Jooney said:
uptick in unemployment due to the fiscal cliff deal and its increase in taxes?
Click to expand...

I haven't had time to look the numbers over very closely, but if the economy really is gaining steam the uptick will be due to more people entering the labor market.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
B-Dubs said:
I haven't had time to look the numbers over very closely, but if the economy really is gaining steam the uptick will be due to more people entering the labor market.
Click to expand...

Yglesias has a good post on that.

The bad news in this report, such as it is, is that the unemployment rate ticked up to 7.9 percent. Except it really didn't. You are going to see this misreported, but here's the deal. Each month the unemployment rate is calculated based on a survey of households. To do the household survey you need an estimate of the population universe you're trying to survey. And each January they redo their population estimates. These estimates are not backward-projected into the old data, meaning that from December 2012 to January 2013 you're comparing different survey universes. A gigantic shift in the unemployment rate would swamp those estimation issues, but that's not what we saw. You can't compare December's 7.8 percent to January's 7.9 percent except to say that there wasn't much change.
Click to expand...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/01/february_jobs_report_157_000_new_jobs.html
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Tim-E said:
Even if policies stay the exact same, we're expected to add 9-12 million jobs regardless over the next four years.

Source
Click to expand...

Worth pointing out. If Obama manages to get creation on the high end of that estimate that'll mean he created more jobs than the guy who saved capitalism himself:

reagan.jpg


edit: argh
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Thanks a lot, guys! :mad:


Anyway, can you imagine the flood of bitter tears that would arise if Obama ever got anywhere near Ray-gun in job creation?

Wonder how they'd spin that.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Oblivion said:
Thanks a lot, guys! :mad:


Anyway, can you imagine the flood of bitter tears that would arise if Obama ever got anywhere near Ray-gun in job creation?

Wonder how they'd spin that.
Click to expand...

Probably by pointed to the unemployment rate, which could theoretically still be quite high despite high job growth due to people entering/re-entering the job market
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
5K
Agent_Nobody replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
958
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
528
11K
MrMephistoX replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
852
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Top Bottom