EPTIt's just painful watch her speeches and debate performances
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2783
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
It's just painful watch her speeches and debate performances | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
On January 24 2016 04:02 aksfjh wrote: We've seen the shale boom affect output since late 2011, so about 4 years, where US output grew about 4,000 barrels of oil per day. Total output in 2011 was about 88,500 barrels per day (its currently, so US added about 4% cumulative from 2011 through 2015. Oil prices didn't crash until late 2014, as global economic expectations started to seriously adjust downward. That was and still is the single largest drag on oil prices. I'm fine with not giving Obama credit, but don't try to make US industry to be some sort of hero in this case. You're more than welcome to give them credit for propping up the overall US economy (or at least the numbers) from 2011 through 2014. Those are thousand barrels. It is as much as if the US added an entire Iraq out of nowhere, plus Iraq's own growth accounting for an extra 1.5M barrels per day. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 24 2016 04:21 Soap wrote: Those are thousand barrels. It is as much as if the US added an entire Iraq out of nowhere, plus Iraq's own growth accounting for an extra 1.5M barrels per day. Yea, I was off on magnitudes, but it's still the same by scale. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 24 2016 04:21 Soap wrote: Those are thousand barrels. It is as much as if the US added an entire Iraq out of nowhere, plus Iraq's own growth accounting for an extra 1.5M barrels per day. Basically this. Creating that kind of excess daily capacity creates a huge imbalance. | ||
Falling
Canada11564 Posts
On January 24 2016 03:44 ticklishmusic wrote: We could have a public option...  That's the only sort of large-ish change I see working on our healthcare system from a regulatory perspective right now. Krugman was suggesting that aside from single payer, there really is no alternative that could be offered that a) doesn't cut out people with pre-existing conditions, b) is financially viable and therefore pulls from healthy people and c) doesn't overburden low income families http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/tina-and-the-aca/ Trump has been compared to Perot with his tariffs. But what about a comparison to Andrew Jackson as a demagogue? | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 24 2016 04:35 xDaunt wrote: Basically this. Creating that kind of excess daily capacity creates a huge imbalance. So, a growth of 5% in oil is enough to send the price down 75%? Even if you call it the largest contributor, you're saying it is enough to cause a 30-40% reduction in price. That's absurd. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 24 2016 02:51 aksfjh wrote: Like what? Most people are itching to learn what we'll get instead, but so far there hasn't really been an alternate even floated, just a ton of attempts and talks of repeal. not sure how to multiquote, so I'm using this as a reply to JW as well. single payer, or for something more republican; a very light touch single payer (free but very basic healthcare, for more ya gotta pay; I've checked the numbers it's certainly affordable for the federal government, it'd cost a fair bit of course). While the preexisting conditions issue is a big one, if you force insurers to take it anyways, then it's no longer insurance; so it'd make sense to do it through some other system than insurance. As for Republican failures to put forth an alternative: well, they suck. I'm not a Republican and don't mind the ACA but if I were in congress I might've put forth a detailed proposal anyways, simply because some of my constituents would've wanted one, and making legislation would be my job. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 24 2016 04:58 aksfjh wrote: So, a growth of 5% in oil is enough to send the price down 75%? Even if you call it the largest contributor, you're saying it is enough to cause a 30-40% reduction in price. That's absurd. Don't be so rote. You can't just point to the actual increased output and call it a day with your analysis. You have to consider the size of the discovered reserves in the US (massive) and the expected future production with accelerating development. Rational expectations matter. If you don't understand these concepts, then just read what the Saudis have to say about the development of the US shale industry. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On January 24 2016 05:03 zlefin wrote: not sure how to multiquote, so I'm using this as a reply to JW as well. single payer, or for something more republican; a very light touch single payer (free but very basic healthcare, for more ya gotta pay; I've checked the numbers it's certainly affordable for the federal government, it'd cost a fair bit of course). While the preexisting conditions issue is a big one, if you force insurers to take it anyways, then it's no longer insurance; so it'd make sense to do it through some other system than insurance. As for Republican failures to put forth an alternative: well, they suck. I'm not a Republican and don't mind the ACA but if I were in congress I might've put forth a detailed proposal anyways, simply because some of my constituents would've wanted one, and making legislation would be my job. For multiquote just pop open the things you want to quote then copy paste into one reply. On January 24 2016 04:44 Falling wrote: Krugman was suggesting that aside from single payer, there really is no alternative that could be offered that a) doesn't cut out people with pre-existing conditions, b) is financially viable and therefore pulls from healthy people and c) doesn't overburden low income families http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/tina-and-the-aca/ Trump has been compared to Perot with his tariffs. But what about a comparison to Andrew Jackson as a demagogue? I agree with Krugman on this (and a lot of other things for that rate). Single payer just isn't going to come to pass, maybe after a few years of public option but we're not making the jump to singe payer directly. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6258 Posts
On January 24 2016 02:51 aksfjh wrote: He's not strictly wrong in his list (on the left hand side at least). Those are the general directions of a lot of Republican policies, the things they would pursue if they got to the office. He's missing a few, like abolish/reform corporate tax law (and I can't think of any others right now), and embellishes a few to the extreme, but the idea is correct. There are a few that are candidate specific: abolish the IRS and increased oversight/controls over the Federal Reserve. I can't really make this point without dissecting his specific list, so I'll do that, but what I'm getting at is not treating our political candidates seriously and not being able to differentiate policy among the "other" side is exactly why our politics appears this childish sometimes - the politicians are just matching the level of what we've come to expect of them. On January 24 2016 01:31 JW_DTLA wrote: Republicans can't run on policy because they don't have answers to the country's actual problems (income inequality, wage stagnation, environmental degradation, assimilation of new Americans, tackling global political Islam). They have to run on grade school bullying. Look at the Republican policy proposals: Like in this case, a lot of subtle insight is lost when we generalize the bad guys' policies and dismiss them in the least charitable way. Carpet bomb the Levant -- absolutely insane and the Air Force generals would resign before agreeing to it. That's why I don't think we need to take a statement like this that seriously, as educated people, I feel. That specific statement came from Rubio, iirc, the young upstart challenger. Sound bytes like that are about signaling strength w.r.t. security and interventionism. We might conclude, for comparison, that the current administration wouldn't want to go into Syria/Iraq before an election. Tax cuts for the rich -- tried and failed, and polls so badly that Republicans don't even run on them anymore. Then this wouldn't be a policy we need to worry about, right? De-unionize America -- madness but they keep trying, polls like hell so they leave it to the judges. The same here? Wild tarrifs (Trump) -- not possible under all out treaties, pointless and counterproductive in the modern globally integrated supply chain. I doubt if we dissected Trump's own words that we'd find he would be seriously committed to "wild" tariffs. You might disagree ideologically on the question of whether tariffs are ever appropriate, but they do exist in the world. And anyway, to the extent you say our trade agreements now make them impossible, why is this an issue? Privatize social security -- attempted in 2006 by Bush2 and Paul Ryan, Rubio and Bush3 presumably support this, disastrous. Now this is a fair disagreement about policy. (1) Repeal ACA -- lunacy, would break the insurance industry and bring back pre-existing condition bans. Like this. (2) Criminalize abortion -- stupid and hateful move to punish single women. I mean there's Roe v. Wade still, this is little more than lip service for the religious right. Privatize public schools -- charter schools do no better than public ones, but funnel more money into well places private companies. And this. (3) Muslim busting laws -- almost all of them are unconstitutional due to 1st and 14th, and will certainly backfire. I don't exactly know what "Muslim busting laws" is talking about. They can't run on those so they run on bluster and posturing in an attempt to appeal to easily manipulated white suburbanites (aka Values Voters). Democratic candidates are also guilty of pandering to their base: doubling minimum wage, free college, pay equality... is there really workable policy behind these? My point is the more we can differentiate noise from issues (on both sides) and disregard the noise, with the media doing the same, we could all have a more honest system.. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 24 2016 05:07 xDaunt wrote: Don't be so rote. You can't just point to the actual increased output and call it a day with your analysis. You have to consider the size of the discovered reserves in the US (massive) and the expected future production with accelerating development. Rational expectations matter. If you don't understand these concepts, then just read what the Saudis have to say about the development of the US shale industry. I understand the concepts perfectly, but you're completely missing that 3/4 of the world is either stagnating economically or contracting. Before China began its slide, it was only half the world. Expected demand for oil basically fell through the floor and there is no economy that looks like it might expand at a pace that will absorb the supply. | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On January 24 2016 05:56 Soap wrote: China is still growing faster than the US did since the 80s. And how far are chinese from US citizens in GDP per capita ? Come on... China is just riding on its cheap labor and its disrespect for intellectual property, its model is unsustainable and barely help the global economy. Economists already jumped ship by the way, most papers I've read in the last month talked about India as the new hero for future growth. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24054 Posts
Washington (CNN)Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering a possible independent presidential run and is looking at making a decision sometime in March, two sources familiar with Bloomberg's thinking told CNN on Saturday. One source said aides to the three-term mayor are looking at ballot access issues, but the source refused to speak specifically about what Bloomberg, 73, asked to be done. The source added that Bloomberg sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg's views. But Bloomberg, who has flirted with Oval Office aspirations in the past, is serious about a possible candidacy, the source insisted. A decision will have to be made by the first week of March, likely before it's clear who the Democratic and Republican nominees are, because of the process to get on ballots for the November election. Source | ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
On January 24 2016 05:56 Soap wrote: China is still growing faster than the US did since the 80s. According to the numbers the communist party publishes - we don't have any international numbers for China. I read that (western) economists say the real numbers would be closer to zero or even contracting in some sectors, estimating by proxy indicators like shipping volumes, factory utilization, resource imports and so on. see for example: www.telegraph.co.uk Whatever the real numbers may be, the reported ones shouldn't be compared to the US' numbers at face value. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On January 24 2016 06:43 ACrow wrote: According to the numbers the communist party publishes - we don't have any international numbers for China. I read that (western) economists say the real numbers would be closer to zero or even contracting in some sectors, estimating by proxy indicators like shipping volumes, factory utilization, resource imports and so on. see for example: www.telegraph.co.uk Whatever the real numbers may be, the reported ones shouldn't be compared to the US' numbers at face value. This. Basically the only reliable way to measure China's economy is through their imports of raw materials and capital equipment. Even then it is difficult because they have a lot of "make work" projects in the Keynesian style that don't really improve the productivity of the economy. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 24 2016 06:06 WhiteDog wrote: And how far are chinese from US citizens in GDP per capita ? Come on... China is just riding on its cheap labor and its disrespect for intellectual property, its model is unsustainable and barely help the global economy. Economists already jumped ship by the way, most papers I've read in the last month talked about India as the new hero for future growth. That's delusional. Even with Modi as a neoliberal lapdog for opening the country up to capital, it's not like the Chinese are going to be buying Indian goods, and the reason China is sliding is because the US/West is saturated with Chinese goods. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
Confident Trump says could 'shoot somebody' and not lose voters U.S. Republican front-runner Donald Trump expressed confidence on Saturday that he could push back attempts by his rivals to knock him off his top perch, saying he could stand on New York's Fifth Avenue "and shoot somebody," and still not lose voters. [...] source: www.reuters.com he's probably right lol | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22439 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:45 Toadesstern wrote: not really newsworthy but made me chuckle: source: www.reuters.com he's probably right lol The words of a man who has is himself amazed people haven't dumped him yet :p | ||
| ||
