|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 21 2012 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
I suspect that this thread may be a bit of a clusterfuck if it tries to cover every country's politics and all related global events. It was hard enough to keep things focused in the US general elections thread where, at least nominally, the focus was on only US politics.
Yeah, I definitely share your concerns, only I'm hoping that the lack of specificity in this thread ends up placing focus on discussion above all else. A great many of the best US election conversations dealt with US politics only tangentially anyhow. If this does end up being a horrible mess, we can narrow the scope accordingly.
|
On November 21 2012 06:52 helvete wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 06:37 Lucario wrote:I hope you know that it is very difficult to make such a thread work! I think people slightly overreacting is part of the reason why the tensions in Gaza are rising. My father knows people who live in Israel and he talks about this regularly. And here a link to a list of countries by external debt, the EU being ranked 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt I like the part where Sweden has a larger debt than China.. ;(
A lot of organizations want to lend money to Scandinavian countries because they know that our currency is extremely stable, thus making sure that their money is pretty safe now that other countries are devaluing their currency. Therefore we appear to have a pretty high foreign debt, but most of that money is at a extremely small, or even negative interest.
|
On November 21 2012 07:49 Fenris420 wrote:Gilad Sharon wrote a rather unsettling column in the jerusalem post. Whole thing available below. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=292466Show nested quote +There is no justification for the State of Gaza being able to shoot at our towns with impunity. We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too. Then you go to the other side of things and read: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/11/2012112073330494272.htmlShow nested quote +This, according to the Israeli government, is in response to hundreds of rockets fired at Israel by Hamas from Gaza, that has created fear amongst the Israeli population and claimed three Israeli lives. But this is asymmetric warfare: The death toll in Gaza has already crossed 100, including many women and children. Such a weird conflict. Both sides consider themselves victims and justified in their actions. Even stranger is the ritual where first palestinians fire rockets, then israel retalliates and then there are peace talks. It is almost like a married couple.
To be honest I feel as though the only reason this dynamic of small indirect attacks leading directly into peace talks is due more to the international pressure than anything else.
Israel has disputes with virtually every neighboring Middle Eastern sovereignty, but they can never really see those disputes through to completion because NATO or the UN inevitably steps in to quiet everything down before the entire region turns into a blood bath.
It's an interesting and somewhat unique dynamic, I feel like Israel feels emboldened to retaliate indiscriminantly whenever they feel threatened because they know the West has their backs, but I feel that sort of international intervention only further strengthens anti-Western sentiment amongst middle easterners.
So all the peace talks end up doing is prolonging a conflict through a series of ceasefires without ever really resolving it.
|
Looking at those numbers, it looks like US is worse than the EU on a per capita but both show weakness. The BRIC countries show lots of room for growth. Japan, Germany and Canada seem to have a proper balance in relation to other industrialized countries.
What is the ideal per capita/GDP to debt ratio in economists eyes?
|
imo, you should keep this thread focused on US politics. The international events discussed on this site are often important enough to warrant their own threads.
|
On November 21 2012 08:14 kwizach wrote:
imo, you should keep this thread focused on US politics. The international events discussed on this site are often important enough to warrant their own threads.
See, I rather like the idea of there being a catch-all discussion based political thread in which TL members, regardless of nationality, can contribute. Anyone who'd like to give specific topics more direct treatment is welcome to a thread on it. In the meantime, I'll pay close attention to this thread and change it if it seems unworkable in its current form.
|
On November 21 2012 08:05 Vindicare605 wrote:
To be honest I feel as though the only reason this dynamic of small indirect attacks leading directly into peace talks is due more to the international pressure than anything else.
Israel has disputes with virtually every neighboring Middle Eastern sovereignty, but they can never really see those disputes through to completion because NATO or the UN inevitably steps in to quiet everything down before the entire region turns into a blood bath.
It's an interesting and somewhat unique dynamic, I feel like Israel feels emboldened to retaliate indiscriminantly whenever they feel threatened because they know the West has their backs, but I feel that sort of international intervention only further strengthens anti-Western sentiment amongst middle easterners.
So all the peace talks end up doing is prolonging a conflict through a series of ceasefires without ever really resolving it.
Interesting idea. It might be true, but then again, the military power of israel is still a fact. With or without the western world. Strategically, it makes no sense for any of the neighbours to start a fight with them and yet they do. I can't get my head around how people reason when they decide to randomly break a cease fire in gaza. Do the palestinians think they can win? Why?
Maybe the problem needs to bleed out, however that ends up happening, but it is a pretty big moral defeat for all parties involved if that is the case.
And on a different note:
What if this thread acts as a router to the bigger threads about specific events, rather than containing all of the discussions directly? (Multi-threading lolol)
It seems to me like it will be very difficult to discuss a single thing if the thread gets hundreds of irrelevant posts (irrelevant to your topic) every day.
|
Won't work with so many different issues flying around.
Say I came in here to talk about the SEA maritime dispute. Then I have to browse 5 pages before and after my post to filter out posts regarding other topics, and pray that my post is seen by someone else who replies in time for me to see his post?
Yah... No.
|
On November 21 2012 09:43 Fenris420 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 08:05 Vindicare605 wrote:
To be honest I feel as though the only reason this dynamic of small indirect attacks leading directly into peace talks is due more to the international pressure than anything else.
Israel has disputes with virtually every neighboring Middle Eastern sovereignty, but they can never really see those disputes through to completion because NATO or the UN inevitably steps in to quiet everything down before the entire region turns into a blood bath.
It's an interesting and somewhat unique dynamic, I feel like Israel feels emboldened to retaliate indiscriminantly whenever they feel threatened because they know the West has their backs, but I feel that sort of international intervention only further strengthens anti-Western sentiment amongst middle easterners.
So all the peace talks end up doing is prolonging a conflict through a series of ceasefires without ever really resolving it. Interesting idea. It might be true, but then again, the military power of israel is still a fact. With or without the western world. Strategically, it makes no sense for any of the neighbours to start a fight with them and yet they do. I can't get my head around how people reason when they decide to randomly break a cease fire in gaza. Do the palestinians think they can win? Why? Maybe the problem needs to bleed out, however that ends up happening, but it is a pretty big moral defeat for all parties involved if that is the case. And on a different note:What if this thread acts as a router to the bigger threads about specific events, rather than containing all of the discussions directly? (Multi-threading lolol) It seems to me like it will be very difficult to discuss a single thing if the thread gets hundreds of irrelevant posts (irrelevant to your topic) every day.
On the topic of the Israel/Palestine conflict, I am personally very hesitant to be very definitive, as I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it. On one hand, I feel a greater degree of affinity and sympathy for the Israeli people, based purely on my knowledge of their historical plight as a people, though I realize that this is awfully myopic. In my mind, the atrocities of the Holocaust were of enough severity to warrant the sort of dramatic and shortsighted response that fed into the culmination of Zionist activism; in other words, possible belligerence on the part of the British when it came to acquiescing to the wishes of UNSCOP was to be expected. The world, at least insofar as United Nations representation was concerned, deemed the Jewish people worthy of some sort of tremendous recompense, and the Palestinians were simply forced to bear a great weight of that reparation.
On the other hand, I still have a hard time getting a firm grasp on who the Palestinian people are, specifically in terms of how they collectively want to conduct this conflict. From the very beginning, regional Arab authorities refused to negotiate with any government or collective body that dealt with Jews, meaning that the religious political attitudes of regional Arabs could have possibly superseded the local interest of Palestinians from an early outset. And it got even worse as time went on. In 1930, a militant Islamic preacher by the name of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (who was Syrian mind you) showed up in Palestine and created the Black Hand, a terrorist group that would go on to fundamentally influence the direction of militant, extremist, and oftentimes foreign Islamic influence in the Palestinian region.
My point to all this? I think the current influence of Hamas as it pertains to the direction of Palestine is the crux of the issue; are they firmly in power, is that power legitimate, and can that power be reduced or eliminated altogether? It may sound subversive, but I think far more Palestinians are willing to compromise than Hamas represents, and I see that as the only real realistic path to peace.
As for your thread suggestions, I like the idea of linking to other pertinent threads, so I'll make sure to do so. And like I said, I'll narrow the scope if the thread does indeed received hundreds of hurried posts, though I doubt that'll be case 
Edit: EngrishTeacher, I will keep the OP updated with links to substantial posts/topic starts if such a thing becomes needed. If you are dying to discuss the specifics of the SEA maritime dispute, then start a thread or look for one. This is not the thread to end all threads, it is a place to read up on general current political events and discuss them in a convenient place.
|
On November 21 2012 10:20 EngrishTeacher wrote:
Won't work with so many different issues flying around.
Say I came in here to talk about the SEA maritime dispute. Then I have to browse 5 pages before and after my post to filter out posts regarding other topics, and pray that my post is seen by someone else who replies in time for me to see his post?
Yah... No.
Thats a good point.
Why not discuss a topic within a certain time frame and then move on to the next one? There could be polls about the topic and maybe a summary after each round. Maybe the time limit will even help not to waste time on minor details and focus really on the topic at hand.
|
On November 21 2012 10:38 igotmanatoblow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 10:20 EngrishTeacher wrote:
Won't work with so many different issues flying around.
Say I came in here to talk about the SEA maritime dispute. Then I have to browse 5 pages before and after my post to filter out posts regarding other topics, and pray that my post is seen by someone else who replies in time for me to see his post?
Yah... No. Thats a good point. Why not discuss a topic within a certain time frame and then move on to the next one? There could be polls about the topic and maybe a summary after each round. Maybe the time limit will even help not to waste time on minor details and focus really on the topic at hand.
thats more for a debate thread, it would be nice to be able to talk about events as they unfold, like during U.S. election we talked about 47% video, and Benghazi, and the debates, and the polls, and the people denying the polls etc. It's hard to vote on an upcoming topic when it hasn't happened yet, and not to mention just the posts about what we should discuss next will add to the mixture of other posts causing even more confusion.
I like the general idea, I just feel like ALL politics/events in one thread is over reaching, A U.S. politics thread might be interesting, but will enough people be interested in it after the election season is over? A world events thread is interesting, but we already have individual threads for some of the topics we might discuss in there, such as the recent events in Isreal.
Don't really know how best to separate these things but ALL in one is unlikely to be very easy to follow or be interested in, at least for me.
|
Ok, y'all convinced me to make the thread specific to US politics I've gone ahead and PM'ed Plexa to get the name changed, and I've amended the OP. From this point on, we shall attempt to stay somewhat within the realm of US interests. In keeping with that idea, here is an interesting perspective on the "fiscal cliff".
“The best thing that happens is we go off the cliff. That (a recession) is what the U.S. economy needs,” Paul Gambles, managing director at MBMG International, a financial advisory firm, told CNBC Asia's “Squawk Box."
The $600 billion in tax hikes and government spending cuts, set to take place in January 2013 if policymakers do not reach a compromise for avoiding them, are essential to debt reduction and the long-term balancing of the U.S. budget, Gambles said.
“If we extend the Bush tax cuts and carry on getting deeper and deeper in debt, believe me that’s a lot uglier,” he added.
In a speech delivered at the Economic Club in New York on Tuesday, Bernanke said 2013 could be a very good year for the U.S. economy if politicians reach a deal to avoid the “fiscal cliff.” The central bank chief added that the Fed does not have the tools to offset the negative effects brought about by the economy falling off the cliff. (Read More: Full Text of Bernanke Remarks)
Failure to avert the combination of tax hikes and spending cuts is expected to result in an economic contraction of 0.5 percent next year, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, but Gambles said delaying fiscal discipline would be even more detrimental for the economy.
“Nobody wants to have a recession, but they are part of the cycle, they are essential. We've been avoiding or minimizing recessions for the last 15 years or so. We've been getting away from reality, that’s why we have these fantasy markets, asset prices that have no relation to reality,” Gambles added.
Source
|
On November 21 2012 06:26 farvacola wrote:Welcome, fellow denizens of TL, to the US Political Megathread! In keeping with the spirit of the soon to be defunct US Presidential Election thread, this shall be a common ground for the discussion of issues of US political interest.
If you intend for the thread to be US-focused, you should probably include that in the title.
That said, I hope it generates some interesting discussions!
|
Canada11378 Posts
|
This is why I didn't want to make this thread. 
|
On November 21 2012 08:08 Wolfstan wrote:Looking at those numbers, it looks like US is worse than the EU on a per capita but both show weakness. The BRIC countries show lots of room for growth. Japan, Germany and Canada seem to have a proper balance in relation to other industrialized countries. What is the ideal per capita/GDP to debt ratio in economists eyes?
The claim is 70%. But Japan has been chugging along with over 100% for almost 20 years now.
Canada looks 'balanced' now because our debt crisis still has not arrived. Once it does though, because of the way the federal government insures a large portion of mortgages it will be pretty pretty awful.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On November 21 2012 13:18 farvacola wrote:Ok, y'all convinced me to make the thread specific to US politics I've gone ahead and PM'ed Plexa to get the name changed, and I've amended the OP. From this point on, we shall attempt to stay somewhat within the realm of US interests. In keeping with that idea, here is an interesting perspective on the "fiscal cliff". Show nested quote +“The best thing that happens is we go off the cliff. That (a recession) is what the U.S. economy needs,” Paul Gambles, managing director at MBMG International, a financial advisory firm, told CNBC Asia's “Squawk Box."
The $600 billion in tax hikes and government spending cuts, set to take place in January 2013 if policymakers do not reach a compromise for avoiding them, are essential to debt reduction and the long-term balancing of the U.S. budget, Gambles said.
“If we extend the Bush tax cuts and carry on getting deeper and deeper in debt, believe me that’s a lot uglier,” he added.
In a speech delivered at the Economic Club in New York on Tuesday, Bernanke said 2013 could be a very good year for the U.S. economy if politicians reach a deal to avoid the “fiscal cliff.” The central bank chief added that the Fed does not have the tools to offset the negative effects brought about by the economy falling off the cliff. (Read More: Full Text of Bernanke Remarks)
Failure to avert the combination of tax hikes and spending cuts is expected to result in an economic contraction of 0.5 percent next year, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, but Gambles said delaying fiscal discipline would be even more detrimental for the economy.
“Nobody wants to have a recession, but they are part of the cycle, they are essential. We've been avoiding or minimizing recessions for the last 15 years or so. We've been getting away from reality, that’s why we have these fantasy markets, asset prices that have no relation to reality,” Gambles added. Source
Two things came to mind when i read this.
Firstly, the fiscal cliff represents a drastic response to dealing the America's debt issues that is simply not necessary. There was a great article linked in the US election thread that did a quick but informative analysis of the US debt crisis. It essentially concluded that America has approximately ten years to put in place effective policies to tackle their debt problem. Ten years. This sort of "let's go over the fiscal cliff and just start a-fresh" is a very, VERY dangerous line of thinking and represents immense arrogance as a receding US economy does not only effect themselves.
Secondly, I sort of thought that it was that arrogance in particular that would prevent the US from going over the cliff. Republican obstruction aside, I believe US politics is too proud of an institution to let the economy crash... again.
Just my 2c
edit: also on that Wiki with debt:GDP - i am not sure how up to date that is because i remember reading something recently that showed Italy's debt to GDP around 120% and Spain's also looks a bit lower than i thought it was..
|
It's so weird seeing this legion of random names pop up here like in any general thread. Guess I didn't realize how much I'd gotten used to the exact same people taking up every post in the election thread.
|
On November 21 2012 14:39 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 13:18 farvacola wrote:Ok, y'all convinced me to make the thread specific to US politics I've gone ahead and PM'ed Plexa to get the name changed, and I've amended the OP. From this point on, we shall attempt to stay somewhat within the realm of US interests. In keeping with that idea, here is an interesting perspective on the "fiscal cliff". “The best thing that happens is we go off the cliff. That (a recession) is what the U.S. economy needs,” Paul Gambles, managing director at MBMG International, a financial advisory firm, told CNBC Asia's “Squawk Box."
The $600 billion in tax hikes and government spending cuts, set to take place in January 2013 if policymakers do not reach a compromise for avoiding them, are essential to debt reduction and the long-term balancing of the U.S. budget, Gambles said.
“If we extend the Bush tax cuts and carry on getting deeper and deeper in debt, believe me that’s a lot uglier,” he added.
In a speech delivered at the Economic Club in New York on Tuesday, Bernanke said 2013 could be a very good year for the U.S. economy if politicians reach a deal to avoid the “fiscal cliff.” The central bank chief added that the Fed does not have the tools to offset the negative effects brought about by the economy falling off the cliff. (Read More: Full Text of Bernanke Remarks)
Failure to avert the combination of tax hikes and spending cuts is expected to result in an economic contraction of 0.5 percent next year, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, but Gambles said delaying fiscal discipline would be even more detrimental for the economy.
“Nobody wants to have a recession, but they are part of the cycle, they are essential. We've been avoiding or minimizing recessions for the last 15 years or so. We've been getting away from reality, that’s why we have these fantasy markets, asset prices that have no relation to reality,” Gambles added. Source Two things came to mind when i read this. Firstly, the fiscal cliff represents a drastic response to dealing the America's debt issues that is simply not necessary. There was a great article linked in the US election thread that did a quick but informative analysis of the US debt crisis. It essentially concluded that America has approximately ten years to put in place effective policies to tackle their debt problem. Ten years. This sort of "let's go over the fiscal cliff and just start a-fresh" is a very, VERY dangerous line of thinking and represents immense arrogance as a receding US economy does not only effect themselves. Secondly, I sort of thought that it was that arrogance in particular that would prevent the US from going over the cliff. Republican obstruction aside, I believe US politics is too proud of an institution to let the economy crash... again. Just my 2c edit: also on that Wiki with debt:GDP - i am not sure how up to date that is because i remember reading something recently that showed Italy's debt to GDP around 120% and Spain's also looks a bit lower than i thought it was..
I think it's pretty clear that republicans in Congress are going to be more flexible with Obama at least during the short term. They'll probably give Obama a deal that is comparable or even a little better than what was supposedly on the table during the last set of debt limit talks.
|
On November 21 2012 14:39 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 13:18 farvacola wrote:Ok, y'all convinced me to make the thread specific to US politics I've gone ahead and PM'ed Plexa to get the name changed, and I've amended the OP. From this point on, we shall attempt to stay somewhat within the realm of US interests. In keeping with that idea, here is an interesting perspective on the "fiscal cliff". “The best thing that happens is we go off the cliff. That (a recession) is what the U.S. economy needs,” Paul Gambles, managing director at MBMG International, a financial advisory firm, told CNBC Asia's “Squawk Box."
The $600 billion in tax hikes and government spending cuts, set to take place in January 2013 if policymakers do not reach a compromise for avoiding them, are essential to debt reduction and the long-term balancing of the U.S. budget, Gambles said.
“If we extend the Bush tax cuts and carry on getting deeper and deeper in debt, believe me that’s a lot uglier,” he added.
In a speech delivered at the Economic Club in New York on Tuesday, Bernanke said 2013 could be a very good year for the U.S. economy if politicians reach a deal to avoid the “fiscal cliff.” The central bank chief added that the Fed does not have the tools to offset the negative effects brought about by the economy falling off the cliff. (Read More: Full Text of Bernanke Remarks)
Failure to avert the combination of tax hikes and spending cuts is expected to result in an economic contraction of 0.5 percent next year, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, but Gambles said delaying fiscal discipline would be even more detrimental for the economy.
“Nobody wants to have a recession, but they are part of the cycle, they are essential. We've been avoiding or minimizing recessions for the last 15 years or so. We've been getting away from reality, that’s why we have these fantasy markets, asset prices that have no relation to reality,” Gambles added. Source Two things came to mind when i read this. Firstly, the fiscal cliff represents a drastic response to dealing the America's debt issues that is simply not necessary. There was a great article linked in the US election thread that did a quick but informative analysis of the US debt crisis. It essentially concluded that America has approximately ten years to put in place effective policies to tackle their debt problem. Ten years. This sort of "let's go over the fiscal cliff and just start a-fresh" is a very, VERY dangerous line of thinking and represents immense arrogance as a receding US economy does not only effect themselves. Secondly, I sort of thought that it was that arrogance in particular that would prevent the US from going over the cliff. Republican obstruction aside, I believe US politics is too proud of an institution to let the economy crash... again. Just my 2c edit: also on that Wiki with debt:GDP - i am not sure how up to date that is because i remember reading something recently that showed Italy's debt to GDP around 120% and Spain's also looks a bit lower than i thought it was..
Well at this point it is quite difficult to accurately predict where the pieces will fall in the coming weeks as Obama meets with the top legislators, especially in terms of who makes what concession when. If the cognitive dissonance at play in the conservative media as it pertains to interpreting the election result is any indicator, a Republican leader like Boehner may be the player most likely to act on compromise in the hopes that it helps to give foundation to the consensus Republicans are going to need for a successful 2014 election year. While this may be the optimistic Democrat in me speaking, I really don't see Obama moving away from tax raises on those making 250k and over; not in the current political climate at least.
Edit: Holy shit, xDaunt and I agree. Let this be an fortuitous sign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
