EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2879
| 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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6205 Posts
On February 10 2016 22:32 GoTuNk! wrote: I still don't understand why people like Krugman and Stiglitz are still hold on high steem and their opinions worthy of anything. It's because political ideology plays a big part in economics as a science. Simply put leftists will like Keynesian more while someone from the right (like me and I assume you as well) like neoclassical. econjwatch.org papers.ssrn.com edit: I will say though that I think that Keynes is an excellent economist. He's just very wrong. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On February 10 2016 23:42 RvB wrote: It's because political ideology plays a big part in economics as a science. Simply put leftists will like Keynesian more while someone from the right (like me and I assume you as well) like neoclassical. econjwatch.org papers.ssrn.com edit: I will say though that I think that Keynes is an excellent economist. He's just very wrong. Wrong on the effect of contra cyclical fiscal policy (which was what we were talking about)? can you provide a source on that? | ||
|
pyrocumulus
United States65 Posts
On top of that, you also have the situation with CNN where they put out a poll to see what people thought of a democratic debate, and Bernie was winning by 74% on one and 81% on the other, but they deleted the polls and then released articles that talked about how Clinton "dominated" the debate. Those are two occasions where she lied to the general public, one of them could even lead to someone stealing classified government information. I don't want her to be president (though she would be able to accomplish a few things in office), but my vote's probably still going her way if she wins the Democratic nomination. Personal Opinion Part: Why are people scared of Trump being president? Yes, he is a racist, sexist, islamophobic piece of shit, but are people actually threatened by him? I feel like if he get's office, he wouldn't get much done. I would be (and am) scared of Ted Cruz. While Trump is after attention, Cruz seems to be after power. I feel like he'd do a lot of shady stuff to get what he wanted. (if I'm missing something, please let me know.) | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6205 Posts
On February 10 2016 23:51 puerk wrote: Wrong on the effect of contra cyclical fiscal policy (which was what we were talking about)? can you provide a source on that? In regards to contra cyclical fiscal policy I'm not sure if he's wrong but the evidence is mixed. It's not quite as clear cut as he makes it out to be. https://www.piie.com/publications/pb/pb15-15.pdf | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
Now, those are the extreme ends of things, but the basic expectation is that if Trump is elected he's going to end up making a mess of everything he touches. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
What's more painful is the fact that she does have a lot of stink in her history. The Emailgate honestly does seem a fair bit more credible than Benghazi, seeing as the FBI has been investigating it and it sounds like a just plain terrible security violation to anyone who has worked with government secrets. The Clinton legacy is overall positive, but with many flaws and quite a few credible points of criticism. I think there was a reason she didn't win in 08, and that has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of people just aren't into the idea of Hillary being the president. I think the existence of the Sanders campaign damages her more in the Democratic primaries than anything that the Sanders campaign has actually said or done. There have been quite a few instances of perceived bias (Iowa is seen as a corrupt affair by many) and a few of very clear bias (DNC, CNN, etc have been extremely partisan lately to the point that it's obvious). The more Clinton campaigns against him, the more she resorts to adopting similar positions to him (his popular talking points) and to playing identity politics. Whether or not those strategies beat Sanders, they make her look petty and untrustworthy and could alienate voters. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
On February 11 2016 00:08 LegalLord wrote: Hillary's greatest strength, her experience in the system and the supposed "inevitability" of her campaign, is also her biggest weakness. Bernie has been one of the least aggressive candidates in pointing out her weaknesses, and frankly taking campaign contributions is the least of her worries. I think that while that doesn't look positively on her, it's not exactly something that people are going to care all that much about unless she fumbles and makes herself look terrible when defending the accusation. One analysis I saw suggested that considering how much Wall Street was part of her experience, she should have done more to defend the ethical side of Wall Street than to just fumble like this - it would have been a weakness, but one that would be harder to rally against. What's more painful is the fact that she does have a lot of stink in her history. The Emailgate honestly does seem a fair bit more credible than Benghazi, seeing as the FBI has been investigating it and it sounds like a just plain terrible security violation to anyone who has worked with government secrets. The Clinton legacy is overall positive, but with many flaws and quite a few credible points of criticism. I think there was a reason she didn't win in 08, and that has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of people just aren't into the idea of Hillary being the president. I think the existence of the Sanders campaign damages her more in the Democratic primaries than anything that the Sanders campaign has actually said or done. There have been quite a few instances of perceived bias (Iowa is seen as a corrupt affair by many) and a few of very clear bias (DNC, CNN, etc have been extremely partisan lately to the point that it's obvious). The more Clinton campaigns against him, the more she resorts to adopting similar positions to him (his popular talking points) and to playing identity politics. Whether or not those strategies beat Sanders, they make her look petty and untrustworthy and could alienate voters. Should Hillary end up winning the Democratic nomination, her having been pulled to the left by Sanders will only look bad to voters who would already be predisposed towards voting Republican. Like others have said, Sanders presence in the campaign can be pretty easily characterized as a win-win for Democrats. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42596 Posts
On February 10 2016 12:59 Deathstar wrote: Jeb Bush's speech sounds like he's not dropping out. He's more energized than ever lol More energized than ever? So you're saying he has a nonzero amount of energy. Must be all those nails he had for breakfast. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 10 2016 22:37 DickMcFanny wrote: I can, and every economist can, and every gay person, feminist, atheist, everyone who's ever been on the 'fringe' of society can. It's called consciousness raising. In large parts of the US, the word 'socialist' is still meant as an insult. The capitalism apologists managed to grease the propaganda machine so exceptionally well that for the longest time it was unthinkable to even discuss socialism, or any alternative to the capitalist system. The Americans were taught to despise welfare (and to ignore or like corporate welfare, for some reason), so if nothing else, Bernie's showing that large parts of the population don't take for granted that neo-capitalism isn't the only acceptable economic model. this is just high hysteria. market socialism still works with the market, and all your actual complaints mainly about infrastructure are not even along the capitalism vs socialism axis. it mainly has to do with the competency of local governments, how messy it is to build etc. financial capitalism let alone capitalism is here to stay, you are not getting away from this market because it is not the creation of bad people, just some fundamental features of business activity. | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
At the same time, Rubio doesn't have any reason to drop out. Kasich is probably a dead campaign walking despite his strong finish, and Jeb seems unable to gain momentum or post strong numbers. Similarly, Kasich doesn't have any reason to drop out. Rubio seems to be collapsing and Jeb seems unable to gain momentum or post strong numbers! | ||
|
KwarK
United States42596 Posts
On February 10 2016 21:45 oneofthem wrote: the much higher middle class tax burden You need to look at tax statistics. The US middle class are fucked. The poor are too poor to have anything worth taxing and the rich are too rich to pay more than 15%. The superrich do still pay a lot of tax but that's only because 15% of 90% of the money is still far more than 40% of the remaining 10% of the money. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 11 2016 00:34 KwarK wrote: ive said in the past the middle class is at about a 40% or more effective rate when considering the state tax and so on, and prob same with europe when benefits are considered. however, additional revenue required to transform u.s. to quasi european situation would take higher tax on the middle class because the portion of income tied to payrolls cant run away. You need to look at tax statistics. The US middle class are fucked. The poor are too poor to have anything worth taxing and the rich are too rich to pay more than 15%. The superrich do still pay a lot of tax but that's only because 15% of 90% of the money is still far more than 40% of the remaining 10% of the money. it would be great to tax capital without affecting the underlying companies tho. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
Also Krugman is really not very smart, and speaks outside his area of expertise at length without giving any interesting insight. The advantage of having frequented so called elite school is that you the percentage of idiots is constant in any sufficiently large sample of population. And you don't have to worship the rich the famous and the powerful. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42596 Posts
On February 11 2016 00:38 oneofthem wrote: ive said in the past the middle class is at about a 40% or more effective rate when considering the state tax and so on, and prob same with europe when benefits are considered. however, additional revenue required to transform u.s. to quasi european situation would take higher tax on the middle class because the portion of income tied to payrolls cant run away. it would be great to tax capital without affecting the underlying companies tho. You think there's no alternative to an aristocratic low tax class and a permanent underclass so any money has to come from the middle? I agree that we don't need to take more money from the middle class but we can certainly take money from the very rich and that money can expand the middle class at the expense of the underclass. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 10 2016 20:50 rudimentalfeelthelov wrote: Question from Europe, why do people dislike Sanders? Reading his policies, he seems the only one who'll change things to improve lives of middle and lower class. Most suggestions he has, we do have in Europe and they work and I'm glad they are different here from USA (free universities etc.) Plus he's not completely mad like Cruz or a walking joke like Trump. I don't think many people dislike Sanders-- personally, I like him quite a bit though I don't think he's nearly as saintly as he's made out to be. Mostly, I just think his platform is completely unimplementable. He's a very good talking points candidate, but his policy is pretty thin. On February 10 2016 23:38 Mohdoo wrote: This is my concern as well. People are getting so laughably aggressive towards Clinton as if they have a chance at winning the primary. It's just stupid. Build Bernie up all you want, but actively trying to destroy the democratic nominee is stupid. it's pretty disgusting. GH is a pretty mild case of it. On February 11 2016 00:08 LegalLord wrote: Hillary's greatest strength, her experience in the system and the supposed "inevitability" of her campaign, is also her biggest weakness. Bernie has been one of the least aggressive candidates in pointing out her weaknesses, and frankly taking campaign contributions is the least of her worries. I think that while that doesn't look positively on her, it's not exactly something that people are going to care all that much about unless she fumbles and makes herself look terrible when defending the accusation. One analysis I saw suggested that considering how much Wall Street was part of her experience, she should have done more to defend the ethical side of Wall Street than to just fumble like this - it would have been a weakness, but one that would be harder to rally against. What's more painful is the fact that she does have a lot of stink in her history. The Emailgate honestly does seem a fair bit more credible than Benghazi, seeing as the FBI has been investigating it and it sounds like a just plain terrible security violation to anyone who has worked with government secrets. The Clinton legacy is overall positive, but with many flaws and quite a few credible points of criticism. I think there was a reason she didn't win in 08, and that has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of people just aren't into the idea of Hillary being the president. I think the existence of the Sanders campaign damages her more in the Democratic primaries than anything that the Sanders campaign has actually said or done. There have been quite a few instances of perceived bias (Iowa is seen as a corrupt affair by many) and a few of very clear bias (DNC, CNN, etc have been extremely partisan lately to the point that it's obvious). The more Clinton campaigns against him, the more she resorts to adopting similar positions to him (his popular talking points) and to playing identity politics. Whether or not those strategies beat Sanders, they make her look petty and untrustworthy and could alienate voters. It doesn't help that the media is happy to present a very, very simplified and biased conflict narrative since that's what sells. I'll acknowledge fully Hillary has had plenty of missteps, sure, but along with 20+ years of mistakes, she has 20+ years of accomplishments, and experience and knowledge. What a lot of young people know isn't her, it's a caricature largely designed by Republicans. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On February 11 2016 00:38 corumjhaelen wrote: Also Krugman is really not very smart Whats the metric on that one? | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
| ||
