• 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.
I

IronicallyTwisted

Banned
Chichikov said:
But who's making that claim?
For example, I don't accept that ethnic makeup of a country has anything to do with its ability to implement a welfare system, why would I try to explain why it can only be done in Sweden?
Are you shadowboxing?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.
Click to expand...

You are describing the welfare state as some binary manifestation of Government, every Government creates welfare, its a question of quantity, direction and financing. Sweden has an unusually large Government, not an unusually large welfare state which is a common mistake people make when analysing the country and think all Government spending is equal.

The size of their Government exploded in the 60's when leftism was in vogue, and thats what they have today.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
IronicallyTwisted said:
You are describing the welfare state as some binary manifestation of Government, every Government creates welfare, its a question of quantity, direction and financing. Sweden has an unusually large Government, not an unusually large welfare state which is a common mistake people make when analysing the country and think all Government spending is equal.

The size of their Government exploded in the 60's when leftism was in vogue, and thats what they have today.
Click to expand...
That's not what I was trying to say, at all.
Let me try again -
All I'm saying is that I don't think that the US's ethnic diversity is what preventing us from implementing a welfare state, in fact, I think it has next to nothing with it (and more broadly, I think the US's diversity is one of its greatest asset).

And in most of the developed world, the welfare state was expanded more in 40s and 50s than the 60s, and I think it has very little to do with what was in vogue, though honestly, I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion at hand.
 
I

IronicallyTwisted

Banned
Chichikov said:
That's not what I was trying to say, at all.
Let me try again -
All I'm saying is that I don't think that the US's ethnic diversity is what preventing us from implementing a welfare state, in fact, I think it has next to nothing with it (and more broadly, I think the US's diversity is one of its greatest asset).
Click to expand...

Its not ethnic diversity, its cultural diversity. Having people with different skin colour doesn't make a society diverse if those individuals share a similar cultural background, and a long dependance on immigration is a clearly influential in modern politics in all sorts of ways.
 
N

Nert

Member
Chichikov said:
Have you ever been to Golden, Colorado?
The commercials make it looks like the pacific northwest, but it's mostly shitty little desert mountains around there.
Click to expand...

I lived in Colorado for about a decade, and the majority of the state is "shitty desert" and "shitty plains." There are some beautiful areas, particularly up in the mountains, but that's not where most people in the state actually live.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
IronicallyTwisted said:
Its not ethnic diversity, its cultural diversity. Having people with different skin colour doesn't make a society diverse if those individuals share a similar cultural background, and a long dependance on immigration is a clearly influential in modern politics in all sorts of ways.
Click to expand...
But if we go by immigration, Canada and Australia are more diverse than the US, and yet they manage to have a very robust welfare state.
Also, how do you think that actually works?
Like, by which mechanism does ethnic diversity prevent a country from establishing such systems?
It's not like we have other examples of developed countries whose ethnic diversity prevented them from putting a welfare system in place.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Nert said:
I lived in Colorado for about a decade, and the majority of the state is "shitty desert" and "shitty plains." There are some beautiful areas, particularly up in the mountains, but that's not where most people in the state actually live.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I snowboard, and I had quite a different image in mind about how that part of the world looks.

jamesinclair said:
America the beautiful
Click to expand...
Prettiest country I ever been to.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
IronicallyTwisted said:
Same claim, different framing, and the framing matters when people want to jump right to racism.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. Nobody is jumping to racism. You don't have to -- in America, there's so much racism in politics, you can generally just walk. Are you really trying to argue that the damage to our social safety net in the last fifty years is not generally due to the desire to prevent the benefits of that social safety net accruing to people of color, especially African-Americans? Because I always thought that was pretty well on the record. This idea that "welfare doesn't work in America because of cultural diversity" is nonsense. It doesn't work in America because one of those cultures keeps trying to beat up the other culture for not wanting to be enslaved any more. That's not a problem with diversity!
 
C

Chichikov

Member
pigeon said:
This is ridiculous. Nobody is jumping to racism. You don't have to -- in America, there's so much racism in politics, you can generally just walk. Are you really trying to argue that the damage to our social safety net in the last fifty years is not generally due to the desire to prevent the benefits of that social safety net accruing to people of color, especially African-Americans? Because I always thought that was pretty well on the record. This idea that "welfare doesn't work in America because of cultural diversity" is nonsense. It doesn't work in America because one of those cultures keeps trying to beat up the other culture for not wanting to be enslaved any more. That's not a problem with diversity!
Click to expand...
I think the desire to dismantle the new deal was for the most part not fueled by racism, but racial and racist language was used quite successfully to sell that to the public.
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
The other reason for the decline of social services is due to the fact that a near majority of Americans no longer need social welfare programs. The uppermiddle class and the middle class are the primary focus for much of the nations politics and they are essentially petty borgious.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
zero shift said:
The other reason for the decline of social services is due to the fact that a near majority of Americans no longer need social welfare programs. The uppermiddle class and the middle class are the primary focus for much of the nations politics and they are essentially petty borgious.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. Wages have been stagnating for forty years.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
zero shift said:
The other reason for the decline of social services is due to the fact that a near majority of Americans no longer need social welfare programs. The uppermiddle class and the middle class are the primary focus for much of the nations politics and they are essentially petty borgious.
Click to expand...
What do you mean decline of social services?
We decided to cut some programs, that is true, we have also underfunded others, but those were our choices, done through our elected officials.
We don't need to go all Freakonomics to understand how the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 came to be.

p.s.
I'm really not sure what's the bigger point you're trying to argue here, you seem to jump around a bit, maybe you can clarify?
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
Chichikov said:
What do you mean decline of social services?
We decided to cut some programs, that is true, we have also underfunded others, but those were our choices, done through our elected officials.
We don't need to go all Freakonomics to understand how the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 came to be.

p.s.
I'm really not sure what's the bigger point you're trying to argue here, you seem to jump around a bit, maybe you can clarify?
Click to expand...

The grassroots movement of the New Deal coalition was led by the working class of America. Eventually the working class worked its way up but during this some people got further ahead then others thus different subclasses were created (poor, working class, middle class, upper-middle class, etc.) eventually much of the nation felt that there was no need to supply the poor and working class anymore so they can benefit themselves. David Simon will explain it better than I will. http://vimeo.com/29805278

In short: The working class rises up for social services --> many people from the working class rise up --> many rise through the social classes others are left behind --> due to this the elite convince the higher classes (those who made it) that they don't need to invest in the lower class and only I the selves thus cuts to benefits in "exchange" for lower taxes.

Dax01 said:
That doesn't make any sense. Wages have been stagnating for forty years.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
P

Piecake

Member
20120929_FNC155.png


Yup, purchasing power has totally increased for the middle class
 
J

Jackson50

Member
zero shift said:
While the topic of looking at smaller nations experiment with economics is still slightly on topic I wonder why people tend to ignore Belarus? I mean it has tons of human rights abuses and what not but it has some of the highest GDP growth rates in the world. It's sort of proof that a state controlled economy could still work yet its always ignored as people instead attack Venezuela (a nation with mixed results), Cuba (has been doing fairly on point with GDP growth but is "privatizing" companies, and North Korea which is a giant slave state. Yet Belarus always gets ignored.
Click to expand...
First, there are more compelling cases of economic growth coupled with considerable state intervention. Second, Belarus's robust growth is partially illusory. A sizable portion of the past decade's growth resulted from Russian subsidization through cheap energy; Belarus's petrochemical and fuel industry, its largest industry, flourished because of this. Belarus benefited immensely from importing Russian crude at deflated prices and selling the refined product to Western states at market value. Additionally, cheap Russian natural gas, which was significantly lower than what other states paid, spurred growth. Absent Russian subsidization, Belarus's growth would have been significantly lower. And the economic turbulence over the past few years, precipitated by the government's baffling decision to inflate wages, has obscured the Belarusian miracle.
Diablos said:
He's pretty charismatic, speaks well, has a hot wife, looks quite Presidential, etc. etc. He's basically the closest thing to the GOP Obama in terms of his prospects.
Click to expand...
If I squint intensely I can detect a modicum of charisma. Nothing too worrisome. Also, you constantly feared Obama was going to lose. Why fear a pale imitation?.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
zero shift said:
The grassroots movement of the New Deal coalition was led by the working class of America. Eventually the working class worked its way up but during this some people got further ahead then others thus different subclasses were created (poor, working class, middle class, upper-middle class, etc.) eventually much of the nation felt that there was no need to supply the poor and working class anymore so they can benefit themselves. David Simon will explain it better than I will. http://vimeo.com/29805278

In short: The working class rises up for social services --> many people from the working class rise up --> many rise through the social classes others are left behind --> due to this the elite convince the higher classes (those who made it) that they don't need to invest in the lower class and only I the selves thus cuts to benefits in "exchange" for lower taxes.
Click to expand...

It is flatly ignorant to ignore that around the time this decision took place it became illegal to ban African-Americans from the social services, such as public schools, enjoyed by white people. In case you hadn't noticed, even the people in the lower classes are constantly voting against welfare, which kind of screws up your whole narrative -- according to you, they should still be voting for the New Deal. But they aren't! Or, rather, they are if they're people of color, but if they're white, mysteriously, they now oppose the programs they supported before the Civil Rights Act.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
CHEEZMO™;47563444 said:
Why didn't you let us know 114 pages ago??? Bah.
Click to expand...

Because I didn't see the thread until it was like 80 pages or so?

And I did post about the TPC site a while back on here when it first popped up. No one was having a laugh with me :(
 
K

kehs

Banned
"We know nothing about what the president did on the night of September 11th during a time of national crisis, and the American people need to know what their commander in chief did, if anything, during this eight-hour attack," Graham said on CBS.

Graham contended that a six-person rescue team was delayed from leaving the Benghazi airport because of problems "with the militias releasing them and a lot of bureaucratic snafus," and he said he wants to know whether Obama called any Libyan officials to expedite their mission.
Click to expand...


At the Senate hearing, Panetta testified that he and Dempsey were meeting with Obama when they first learned of the Libya assault. He said the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible. Graham asked whether Panetta spoke again to Obama after that first meeting. Panetta said no, but that the White House was in touch with military officials and aware of what was happening. At one point, Graham asked Panetta if he knew what time Obama went to sleep that night. The Pentagon chief said he did not.
Click to expand...

Oh me oh my

http://apne.ws/X1t7iq
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
pigeon said:
It is flatly ignorant to ignore that around the time this decision took place it became illegal to ban African-Americans from the social services, such as public schools, enjoyed by white people.
Click to expand...

I don't understand where you are getting at here.


pigeon said:
In case you hadn't noticed, even the people in the lower classes are constantly voting against welfare, which kind of screws up your whole narrative -- according to you, they should still be voting for the New Deal. But they aren't! Or, rather, they are if they're people of color, but if they're white, mysteriously, they now oppose the programs they supported before the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...

I never stated that this was the only reason, actually I literally started the first post on this topic with the exact opposite.

Jackson50 said:
First, there are more compelling cases of economic growth coupled with considerable state intervention. Second, Belarus's robust growth is partially illusory. A sizable portion of the past decade's growth resulted from Russian subsidization through cheap energy; Belarus's petrochemical and fuel industry, its largest industry, flourished because of this. Belarus benefited immensely from importing Russian crude at deflated prices and selling the refined product to Western states at market value. Additionally, cheap Russian natural gas, which was significantly lower than what other states paid, spurred growth. Absent Russian subsidization, Belarus's growth would have been significantly lower. And the economic turbulence over the past few years, precipitated by the government's baffling decision to inflate wages, has obscured the Belarusian miracle.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.

Dax01 said:
...what?
Click to expand...
I don't think that I can explain this any clearer.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
"We know nothing about what the president did on the night of September 11th during a time of national crisis, and the American people need to know what their commander in chief did, if anything, during this eight-hour attack," Graham said on CBS.
Click to expand...
dead-horse.gif


What the fuck? 4 people died in a dangerous post-revolution country half-way across the planet. 26 people died at Sandy Hook Elementary school and Graham says there is nothing we can do about that. But 4 people die in dangerous country far away and it is a 'national crisis'?

Never mind that we have already had hearings, investigations, and reports. Changes are being made. But they just gotta keep beating that dead horse. What do they think they will accomplish? They are just still pissed that the story didn't do shit for them during the election . . . but keep fucking that chicken
 
J

Jooney

Member
"Did the President make love to the First Lady on the night of the attack? The American people deserve to know for how long and in what positions the President was engaged in coitus during a time of national crisis"
- Lindsay Graham
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
Jooney said:
"Did the President make love to the First Lady on the night of the attack? The American people deserve to know for how long and in what positions the President was engaged in coitus during a time of national crisis"
- Lindsay Graham
Click to expand...
As if Lindsey Graham has any interest in hearing about sex with a woman.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Clevinger said:
Lower Obama's foreign policy approval. That's supposed to be the big strong Republican's issue.
Click to expand...

So maybe they'll be able to beat him in the next election?


Go ahead and keep bringing up Libya. A country where we helped depose a dictator who was Reagan's nemesis for 0.1% of the cost of the Iraq war (where we lost 3000+ dead . . . a bit more than 4). That really shows how the GOP is so much better at foreign policy.
 
C

Clevinger

Member
speculawyer said:
So maybe they'll be able to beat him in the next election?
Click to expand...

It's about the image of Democrats as a whole. Obama's strength and respect with FP pokes a huge hole in their myths of "Democrats are big pussies, weak on defense" and "Republicans are strong and great with FP and defense."

speculawyer said:
Go ahead and keep bringing up Libya. A country where we helped depose a dictator who was Reagan's nemesis for 0.1% of the cost of the Iraq war (where we lost 3000+ dead . . . a bit more than 4). That really shows how the GOP is so much better at foreign policy.
Click to expand...

They don't. It's BENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZI. I'm guessing they consciously chose to do that because most Americans probably have no idea where Benghazi is.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Jooney said:
"Did the President make love to the First Lady on the night of the attack? The American people deserve to know for how long and in what positions the President was engaged in coitus during a time of national crisis"
- Lindsay Graham
Click to expand...

we already know the answer to that question is no
 
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
956
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
523
11K
Artoris replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
851
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Top Bottom