EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 356
| 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. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
| ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On July 26 2013 05:14 Klondikebar wrote: Well a lot of people are happy about the government takeover of healthcare because right now, they have zero healthcare. There are tons of problems with it but for a lot of my friends, it's a huge weight off their shoulders. I'm not gonna tell em to hate it. Just curious, what are your friends expecting healthcare will be like under the ACA? I saw a survey a little while back that many Americans believe Obamacare will give them free health care. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
| ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On July 26 2013 05:23 ziggurat wrote: Just curious, what are your friends expecting healthcare will be like under the ACA? I saw a survey a little while back that many Americans believe Obamacare will give them free health care. Well right now several have pre-existing conditions that they can't get treatment for because they're pre-existing. Also, some of them will be able to stay on or get back on their parents heath insurance. And a couple will finally get insurance through their work. In case you haven't noticed, most of my friends are 20 somethings who came out of college when the job market was at its absolute worst so they couldn't get jobs and their parents couldn't really support them. They don't expect it to be great. They expect it to exist at all. Right now if any of them went to the hospital, it'd financially ruin them for the rest of their lives. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On July 26 2013 05:31 Klondikebar wrote: Well right now several have pre-existing conditions that they can't get treatment for because they're pre-existing. Also, some of them will be able to stay on or get back on their parents heath insurance. And a couple will finally get insurance through their work. In case you haven't noticed, most of my friends are 20 somethings who came out of college when the job market was at its absolute worst so they couldn't get jobs and their parents couldn't really support them. They don't expect it to be great. They expect it to exist at all. Right now if any of them went to the hospital, it'd financially ruin them for the rest of their lives. Obamacare will definitely be good for people with pre-existing conditions, so I'm glad that your friends will be better off anyway. I guess we can all hope that the economy picks up sometime soon too. I have several friends (and one family member) in the states who can't find good jobs. And the Canadian economy pretty much runs in lockstep with the American, so people here are affected too. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
It's funny. Other people in my state (mostly Republicans) like to rail on Obama (and the federal government) for basically flipping Texas the bird on so many occasions. From the West, Texas explosion to hurricane relief, we tend to get a smaller amount of federal aid. However, they seem to forget how much of a pain in the ass this state is to those on Capitol Hill. The state has a nasty history of disenfranchising its voters, along with a rather embarrassing reputation for stupidity across the country. Even recently, we have some of the most combative, irresponsible representatives come out of our state towards the capitol. Our state wins no prizes on political friendliness, so I'm not surprised when the federal government seems to look at us with disgust and disappointment. Frankly, with the state of Texas' politics today, I hope the federal scrutiny reverses the trend of stupidity in this state. On July 26 2013 06:08 ziggurat wrote: Obamacare will definitely be good for people with pre-existing conditions, so I'm glad that your friends will be better off anyway. I guess we can all hope that the economy picks up sometime soon too. I have several friends (and one family member) in the states who can't find good jobs. And the Canadian economy pretty much runs in lockstep with the American, so people here are affected too. Hasn't Canada been doing quite well since the start of the Great Recession? | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On July 26 2013 08:10 aksfjh wrote: Hasn't Canada been doing quite well since the start of the Great Recession? "Well" means "less loss than most countries". Part of a global economy means that everyone is affected by everyone else. Plus a good deal of our exports/cross border contracts relies on a cheaper dollar. Having a dollar on par with yours makes our products/services less enticing. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Senate Democrats have signed onto a letter urging President Barack Obama to appoint Janet Yellen to be Ben Bernanke's successor as chairman of the Federal Reserve, according to The Wall Street Journal. Yellen currently serves as the vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The Journal reported it could not confirm the full list of senators who signed on, but the list appears to represent the more liberal wing of the Democratic caucus -- a third of the 54 seats they currently hold in the upper chamber. "There's a lot of concern among a lot of Democrats about an appointment of Larry Summers to that long-term position as Fed chairman," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), who signed the letter, told the Journal. "He was one of the architects of getting rid of Glass-Steagall, of getting rid of other regulations. There's real concern about his economic views not really being in line with Obama's views." Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Angus King (I-ME) are also confirmed to have signed the letter. Source | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON (AP) — Halliburton Energy Services has agreed to plead guilty to destroying evidence in connection with the 2010 Gulf oil spill, the Department of Justice said Thursday. Federal officials said in a news release that a criminal information charging Hallburton with one count of destruction of evidence was filed in federal court in Louisiana. Halliburton has agreed to pay the maximum fine, be on probation for three years and continue to cooperate with the government’s criminal investigation, said the news release, which did not spell out the fine amount. The Houston-based company has also made a $55 million voluntary contribution to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. It was not a condition of the court agreement, the news release says. Halliburton was BP’s cement contractor on the drilling rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The blowout triggered an explosion that killed 11 workers and spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf. According to the news release, Halliburton conducted its own review of technical aspects of the well’s design and construction. It also established “an internal working group to examine the Macondo well blowout, including whether the number of centralizers used on the final production casing could have contributed to the blowout.” A production casing is a long, heavy metal pipe set across the area of the oil and natural gas reservoir, the news release said. Source | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 26 2013 05:11 ziggurat wrote: Well, of course when I say I want smaller government that's just my opinion. Lots of countries have even more intrusive governments than the US. But haven't the last few months given even the most determined big-government liberal a few reasons to rethink their world-view? Let me make a list off the top of my head: 1. Obamacare - implementation of a major part of the law is delayed (even though there appears to be no lawful authority to delay it) because the people who are supposed to oversee it don't have their act together. Just a typical example of government overreach right? Govt says they'll take control of 1/6 of the US economy and then they're suprised when it turns out to be really complicated. 2. Major revelations that the NSA has been spying on US citizens. Whistleblower flees to Russia. But don't worry, Obama apologists say, you can trust the government. It's spying on us to keep us safe. Dick Cheney agrees. 3. Incidentally, the US govt under Obamacare will introduce an enormous database of info about its citizens, but don't worry. The info will be private. LOL 4. Congressional investigation into the IRS targeting the president's political opponents. IRS says it was some rogue employees in the Cincinnati office. Does anybody believe that? All these things to me argue in favour of reducing government powers. Even if you trust Obama to be able to do all these things, and you think it's fine for his people to have all these powers -- how do you know you'll like the next guy? Besides, look at how dysfunctional the govt in Washington is? How can any sensible person be happy that the people in Washington are about to take over his or her health care?' Anyway, it's a big debate and I don't expect to convince anybody to change their mind. But I hope you'll at least thing about it a bit. Do not forget to praise the just Supreme Court for its defense of ACA and righteous smackdown of DOMA, but revile its vendetta against voter rights! We want the next majority opinions in the court to have that kind of power to legislate from behind the bench. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On July 26 2013 15:46 Danglars wrote: Do not forget to praise the just Supreme Court for its defense of ACA and righteous smackdown of DOMA, but revile its vendetta against voter rights! We want the next majority opinions in the court to have that kind of power to legislate from behind the bench. Striking down the portions of the VRA was definitely quite "activist" as far as that goes. Don't get me wrong: other rulings with which I agree are "activist" too, such as Roe v. Wade, but even that was activist in kind of the opposite manner--the Court stretching to find penumbrae for a right to privacy, rather than telling Congress that they are factually incorrect and their evidentiary hearings irrelevant and overruled by the personal opinions of the Justices. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 26 2013 05:11 ziggurat wrote: Well, of course when I say I want smaller government that's just my opinion. Lots of countries have even more intrusive governments than the US. But haven't the last few months given even the most determined big-government liberal a few reasons to rethink their world-view? Let me make a list off the top of my head: 1. Obamacare - implementation of a major part of the law is delayed (even though there appears to be no lawful authority to delay it) because the people who are supposed to oversee it don't have their act together. Just a typical example of government overreach right? Govt says they'll take control of 1/6 of the US economy and then they're suprised when it turns out to be really complicated. 2. Major revelations that the NSA has been spying on US citizens. Whistleblower flees to Russia. But don't worry, Obama apologists say, you can trust the government. It's spying on us to keep us safe. Dick Cheney agrees. 3. Incidentally, the US govt under Obamacare will introduce an enormous database of info about its citizens, but don't worry. The info will be private. LOL 4. Congressional investigation into the IRS targeting the president's political opponents. IRS says it was some rogue employees in the Cincinnati office. Does anybody believe that? All these things to me argue in favour of reducing government powers. Even if you trust Obama to be able to do all these things, and you think it's fine for his people to have all these powers -- how do you know you'll like the next guy? Besides, look at how dysfunctional the govt in Washington is? How can any sensible person be happy that the people in Washington are about to take over his or her health care?' Anyway, it's a big debate and I don't expect to convince anybody to change their mind. But I hope you'll at least thing about it a bit. All of these are problems that aren't intrinsic to big government; there are plenty of more socialized societies out there that don't have these problems, so I don't see how these should make Liberals second-guess their views. These problems speak to problems with American political culture, not the intrinsic nature of government in general. Do not forget to praise the just Supreme Court for its defense of ACA and righteous smackdown of DOMA, but revile its vendetta against voter rights! We want the next majority opinions in the court to have that kind of power to legislate from behind the bench. For some reason, American political culture has recently told us that groups/parties in politics are like teams; you either always or never support them. Fortunately, reality is different, and you can criticize a group for one thing and praise that same group for a different thing. Just because SCOTUS makes some good decisions doesn't mean we don't criticize them for bad ones or vis versa. Stratos_speAr you have a fair point that the right is quick to cut rather than find meaningful cost savings. But the left is quick to spend more without finding real cost savings. Both sides have their faults in that regard. Other than healthcare the status quo is pretty good. Education is a bit expensive, but still a fantastic deal overall. Military spending is set to fall too, even more so with the sequester cuts. Edit: I appreciate a nice rant from time to time How is the status quo for education good? And how is it a great deal? Aside from extremely expensive and prestigious private universities, an education in any number of European countries is just as good as an education in the U.S., and these educations are a tenth of the cost. I don't see how that's a good deal, and I don't see how we can excuse our system for charging ten times more for the same thing. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Nice to see some bipartisan standing up against executive assertions of power. It only took Congress two years after they rolled over on Libya, but still, better late than never... All of these are problems that aren't intrinsic to big government; They are potential problems inherent in power itself... government is only as good as the people working under its aegis. there are plenty of more socialized societies out there that don't have these problems Every single one of those problems listed has existed in one form or another in "more socialized societies out there." so I don't see how these should make Liberals second-guess their views. Most liberals would say that things like NSA spying and repression of opposition are not liberal views, but there is an autocratic, authoritarian strain in every political movement, liberals and conservatives are no exception. Even the most hard-line individualist has a little jackboot in him... actually many hardcore libertarians or anarchists are very authoritarian intellectually, at least on the internet. These problems speak to problems with American political culture, not the intrinsic nature of government in general. I must disagree. These problems exist at the place where government authority meets individual self-interest and, generally speaking, occur less frequently and in less severity in nations where governments have substantial restrictions on their power both formally and informally. Today we are seeing what happens when government decides that it doesn't need to abide by the informal restrictions on its power anymore... NSA metadata collection and analysis and a huge Obamacare database may not strictly be unconstitutional but if such capability existed in 1787 I'm pretty sure the Fourth Amendment would be a lot longer and a lot more strongly worded than it is. I can't see even Alexander Hamilton supporting this kind of intrusive and extensive government data-gathering. History will look back at the first two presidents we elected this millenium and ask what the fuck were we thinking. Or history won't mention them at all because the trend towards more government power less individual power that Bush and Obama greatly accelerated will have reached its dystopian culmination. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 27 2013 00:17 DeepElemBlues wrote: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/24/197591/on-voice-votes-house-sets-limits.html#.UfKSco32ZOk Nice to see some bipartisan standing up against executive assertions of power. It only took Congress two years after they rolled over on Libya, but still, better late than never... Syria is a little harrier than Libya, and Egypt is altogether different. I like the measure though. I must disagree. These problems exist at the place where government authority meets individual self-interest and, generally speaking, occur less frequently and in less severity in nations where governments have substantial restrictions on their power both formally and informally. Today we are seeing what happens when government decides that it doesn't need to abide by the informal restrictions on its power anymore... NSA metadata collection and analysis and a huge Obamacare database may not strictly be unconstitutional but if such capability existed in 1787 I'm pretty sure the Fourth Amendment would be a lot longer and a lot more strongly worded than it is. I can't see even Alexander Hamilton supporting this kind of intrusive and extensive government data-gathering. Question about that last line, particularly about the word "intrusive." In what way is the NSA program intrusive? The general public was unaware of it until somebody pointed it out, and even then, they don't deal with any part of the program, ever. Their data is collected without any obstruction to their every day lives. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On July 27 2013 00:30 aksfjh wrote: Syria is a little harrier than Libya, and Egypt is altogether different. I like the measure though. Question about that last line, particularly about the word "intrusive." In what way is the NSA program intrusive? The general public was unaware of it until somebody pointed it out, and even then, they don't deal with any part of the program, ever. Their data is collected without any obstruction to their every day lives. To intrude simply means to come without invitation. No one invited the NSA to read our browser histories or to read our emails. And now that we know about it, it does obstruct the way we communicate because, in the back of our minds, we know that the NSA is reading. It sounds like a dumb paranoia but remember the British couple who was detained and interrogated because they tweeted that they were gonna get drunk in America? They had just used British slang to describe it but the NSA thought it was a terrorist threat. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 27 2013 00:48 Klondikebar wrote: To intrude simply means to come without invitation. No one invited the NSA to read our browser histories or to read our emails. And now that we know about it, it does obstruct the way we communicate because, in the back of our minds, we know that the NSA is reading. It sounds like a dumb paranoia but remember the British couple who was detained and interrogated because they tweeted that they were gonna get drunk in America? They had just used British slang to describe it but the NSA thought it was a terrorist threat. That's (literally) "uninvited," not "intrusive." Intrusive has the added effect of getting in the way and causing annoyance. Also, that's not really a good example. They said that in a clearly public setting. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On July 27 2013 01:01 aksfjh wrote: That's (literally) "uninvited," not "intrusive." Intrusive has the added effect of getting in the way and causing annoyance. Also, that's not really a good example. They said that in a clearly public setting. Cause two words can never be synonyms. I love it when discussions devolve to the point that people require dictionary.com instead of focusing on the issue at hand. Stay classy TL. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrusive Regardless of what the stupid word means, the NSA has grossly overreached its authority and clearly isn't paying attention to any restrictions on it's power. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 27 2013 00:09 Stratos_speAr wrote: How is the status quo for education good? And how is it a great deal? Aside from extremely expensive and prestigious private universities, an education in any number of European countries is just as good as an education in the U.S., and these educations are a tenth of the cost. I don't see how that's a good deal, and I don't see how we can excuse our system for charging ten times more for the same thing. Higher education in the US is more expensive but not that much more expensive. In Europe (excluding the UK) it's just financed more by the government. So rather than making loan repayments you pay more in taxes, which isn't necessarily a better deal either way. On the other end of things a degree in the US is more valuable than in Europe. So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
So rather than making loan repayments you pay more in taxes, which isn't necessarily a better deal either way. On the other end of things a degree in the US is more valuable than in Europe. So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. This is sorta misleading. First of all, you don't necessarily pay off your tuition in the form of taxes; you and the rest of society pay taxes and that subsidizes education. There's a pretty big difference, because even people who aren't students are contributing to the pool of money which helps to cover education. I don't think that this is in any way inferior to paying 100% out of pocket, because taxation shares the burden over all of society, and because taxation is gradual, and because taxation is relative to one's income, and because taxation funds things other than just education. Furthermore, I'd say that the difference in value between a solid European degree and a solid American degree is pretty negligible. The fact of the matter is that unless we're talking about graduate school, or something incredibly specialized (rare for a modern day 4year degree) a BA/Bsc is a BA/Bsc. As long as it's from somewhere credible, you're fine. As someone from a non-US country (Canada) I feel that the obsession over getting into a "good school" in the US really stems from the polarized situation engendered by a lack of government funding in favour of more prestigious, private universities. While these private universities are by all means some of the best (if not the best) in the world, there are also a lot of them. You have to consider that the US is a nation of over 200 million people. Most European nations are nowhere close to that. That means that there simply aren't abundantly populated "tiers" of universities in these countries. They have their best, top-of-the-line universities on one level, and then everything else on another level. In countries with small geographic size + high population density, there simply isn't as much space for low-tier, accredited-but-barely universities to survive. Finally, I don't think that your last claim is very fair: So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. First of all, this claim is very difficult for any prospective or current student to evaluate. At the end of the day you'll have more money? Well, okay, but when? While it's true that a better degree (in America) improves one's chances of getting a job quickly, it also tends to mean that you're a tonne of money in debt, and that you'll be repaying loans for the foreseeable future. while repayment plans aren't usually too strenuous, they're definitely a burden to people just entering the workforce, because they limit your ability to make financial decisions, like any other loan does. This, in itself, isn't a bad thing, of course, but I think you overestimate the benefit viz. overall financial stability of taking out a massive loan upfront versus living in a country which subsidizes post-secondary education more generously. I guess it really comes down to the notion that the money you pay upfront (on loan) to go to a private university is a massive investment, but the benefit you reap from doing so is a lot less tangible, and almost certainly less massive. Conversely, while it's true that certain universities from certain European countries are considered less prestigious than certain American counterparts, we're not talking about the difference between wealth and poverty. What's more, this battle of prestige is gradually fading away as the world becomes more globalized and reliant on electronic communication. The reason for this is pretty simple: faculty from different institutions are able to share knowledge much more easily and regularly than they could in pre-digital times. And when that happens, it means that if the engineering department at some university in, say, Romania, has a significant breakthrough with respect to some relevant problem, then all the other engineering departments in the world are able to read about it pretty much immediately. Any employer worth his/her salt is going to know a thing or two about the hierarchy of faculties in his/her field. The only time I can see a US>EU distinction being made in such a superficial way is for jobs which are essentially non-specialized, but which require a BA (in no particular field) as a qualification. But then, those jobs are like lotteries to start with, so I don't think they're indicative of any success in the education system. I've always been very much in favour of heavily subsidized post-secondary education (for college/vocational school/trades, as well, mind you) because an educated population is just a straight good thing. It makes the nation more knowledgeable, more skilled, and gives them more options. The only reason to forego education should be a lack of interest or a lack of aptitude; never should it be a lack of money or an unwillingness to put oneself in fairly large debt. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 27 2013 01:06 Klondikebar wrote: Cause two words can never be synonyms. I love it when discussions devolve to the point that people require dictionary.com instead of focusing on the issue at hand. Stay classy TL. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrusive Regardless of what the stupid word means, the NSA has grossly overreached its authority and clearly isn't paying attention to any restrictions on it's power. It's just a matter of framing the discussion in the correct direction. When people use "approximately" the correct word/phrase/quote over and over, the discussion stops being about facts. The NSA use of data is a matter of right to privacy, which is implied by the Fourth Amendment. However, it lacks that "harassment" aspect that's commonly used when referencing the Fourth Amendment directly. This is why your opinion of the NSA "grossly [overreaching] its authority" is up for debate, and shouldn't just be assumed to be THE correct opinion. | ||
| ||
The article title might as well have read as, "Romney Campaign Strategy, a retelling.". Fortunately, congressional approval numbers indicate that the public at large ain't buying "House Republicans have put a check on Mr. Obama's most destructive economic policies,".
