EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 39
| 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. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On December 14 2012 11:48 ticklishmusic wrote: Sometimes when you're the bigger person you still feel like you lost. And sometimes bitter old men still carry the day. | ||
|
Holytornados
United States1022 Posts
On December 14 2012 11:52 Jaaaaasper wrote: Susan Rice pulling out sucks, she reported what the CIA gave her, but the gop wants John Kerry's seat, so they will block anyone other than him in hopes of the Democrats folding. I feel like, personally, John Kerry is a stronger candidate for the position anyway. I think losing his seat was a large detractor to him being appointed though. It's a tough call. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On December 14 2012 13:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: And sometimes bitter old men still carry the day. What happened to this guy... | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
| ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On December 14 2012 13:56 Sub40APM wrote: But what are the odds that Scott Brown could actually win that seat? Did something change that made the GOP undesirable? Warren won a pretty convincing victory and presumably whoever runs in Kerry's place wont have to deal with Rove's unlimited war chest and have the full backing of Obama... Scott Brown only really won in the first place because his original opponent didn't even bother to campaign at all until the last minute once she realized that the voters might not vote for her by default. I don't think the MA Democrats are going to make that mistake again. | ||
|
forgottendreams
United States1771 Posts
On December 14 2012 11:48 ticklishmusic wrote: Sometimes when you're the bigger person you still feel like you lost. When I heard the news my instant reaction was like "Ok you got what you wanted but what in the FUCK was the point of that?" This has to be one of the most meaningless "victories" I've ever seen. I think it just hurts the GOP image even more actually... If I was the republican strategist I'm trying to scale the GOP down from petty and pointless battles that has dragged them down so far. Edit; and I don't buy that it opens the seat, I guess it opens the chance but it would be just more wasted GOP money trying for it imo, especially if the economy keeps recovering. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 08 2012 05:34 TheFrankOne wrote: I wrote up a larger response to this earlier, but I fucked up and forgot I hadn't posted it when I closed my browser. So this will be kind of short. Nevermind, its not short, but still shorter than it was. So first off, I love your tone, Danglars, you have so far been one the most cordial and respectful posters in the thread (better than me and most of the other liberals too) way to go man! That said, I feel like there is a lot of criticism but I am struggling to understand what you think should be done instead and what specific problems you have with some things. The ARRA projections were based on an economy that was better than reality. Models fuck up, it happens. The effectiveness of the stimulus is not determined by what politicians say it will do. The effectiveness if based on the real macro effects of the stimulus. Did it work? My answer is: its complicated. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html You might not like Ezra Klein and his wonkblog but he gives a decent overview of the studies. For an impartial source here is the CBO estimate. It did not keep unemployment below 8% but that criticism isn't a reasonable criticism of the fiscal stimulus policy on the whole, its just a sign politicians should be careful what they say when the models aren't as definitive as they think. I don't really like Obamacare either, far to right-wing for me. I mean, the idea was from Heritage foundation and supported by Orrin Hatch! Can you give some specific criticism of the Dodd-Frank bill? It has pros and cons but I believe that we needed to change the financial regulations in the wake of the housing crash. I like it overall I think, not really sure about that one, certainly no strong feelings here. You can criticize Obama's math on spending cuts but the Republicans look no better to me with their utter lack of specifics. The truth is that neither party puts forth good clean numbers, but at least Obama's math is understandable even if he does include some questionable numbers, the war spending reductions in particular, which is the worst one in my opinion. Honestly, I would hope both sides are willing to break from their public positions to reach a goal, but it seems like neither one is. Then again, we don't know what is going on during their real negotiations. That op-ed on the Bush tax cuts was terrible. Just awful stuff. He attributed all economic and tax revenue growth to the Bush tax cuts and did not make any effort to control for any variables. Acted like GDP growth would have been 0% every year without those cuts. If you want to discuss the economic effect of the Bush tax cuts we can do that, but let's try to set a higher bar for discourse and use more realistic estimates of their effect than what that guy did. He could of switched out the tax cuts with No Child Left Behind and it would of been as intellectually honest. Coal and oil industries should have to cover their environmental costs. They get to externalize too much, and while some Republicans have tried to claim their industries suffering is due to the Democrats the truth is that if Republicans would let the regulatory hammer come down on fracking then coal would be doing better all of a sudden. The truth is that natural gas has been ruining coal, not really regulations. I hate coal anyways, you're not going to get me to cry a single for the dirtiest energy source we use. (not even talking carbon here) I am having trouble finding any good sources on the regulations, all I can find is angry coal groups and Republicans who have no substance to their criticisms just say it kills jobs, God forbid they say what it actually is. We should probably have a discussion about fracking in this thread at some point, really make it live up to that "megathread" title. Do you think a balanced budget is a reasonable goal in this economy? I'm not sure I understand what policy solutions you are advocating. Low taxes and low spending is arguably good but its difficult to control spending when so many more people than normal are relying on the safety net/automatic stabilizers with the economic situation (food stamps/unemployment insurance/etc) I don't see how a balanced budget is reasonable right now but in the near future I don't see why a carbon tax isn't a good part of a deficit reduction program. I would hope carbon taxes would be passed on to the consumer, providing a price difference between goods with more carbon and those with less I don't believe the deficit can be solved only with cuts, that is a brutal proposition when you look at the numbers. This is essentially exactly how I feel except I might have a little more faith in markets: Also: Jobs report beats expectations! @BluePanther and OneOfThem: C'mon you guys, this kind of sourcelss partisan bickering over something incredible vague like "who makes the tax code more complicated" with no real information is something we should be avoiding. I wouldn't be surprised if both parties support the largest distortions in the tax code. edit: wouldn't be surprised. Thank you for the compliment. From polls before and after the election, it's pretty clear now that minds are made up whether you supported a Romney-style approach (only tax-loophole closing, massive spending cuts) or an Obama style (tax increases or previous tax cuts expiry on rich, some spending cuts, only tax freeze/cuts on middle class and poor). So I'm just here to explain the other side, why I believe what I believe, and some of the evidence supporting it. I can find it again but some of the predictions used in the ARRA could be seen as painting a rosy picture in order to sell the bill. Honestly proposing what you think the ARRA will do, and having models that end up inaccurate, and choosing to paint the future situation (including economic growth) super optimistically to give great predictions are two different things. Comparing Obamacare to Heritage think tank suggestions is a funny one. Back at that time, we were speaking of universal health care, Hillary Clinton/Clinton Administration style. It's a false comparison, for we were talking about abolishing Medicare and Medicaid with the individual mandate and vouchers as part of the debate. Clinton's Universal Healthcare was bad policy on a number of levels. A voucher program for the young and/or poor mandated to be spent on healthcare I'd be totally behind if it included a phasing out of Medicare/Medicaid. I'll try to summarize my views on Dodd-Frank here. The idea is that one pillar of the housing bubble was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's backing of mortgages. Indeed, they were a big player here. There were warning signs on that side of responsibility way back when. But guys like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank insisted that everything was fine saying, 'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing. And when the attention is on the lack of affordable housing, these kind of things are actively talked about. Later on, they are forgotten. Fast forward through the meltdown and onto Dodd-Frank, and they cover the mistakes of the past with the GSE's while introducing sweeping new regulations on the banks. The term "regulatory creep" comes up a lot, and act as extreme burdens on the smaller banks (compliance). Other bad things in Dodd-Frank include a limit on fees collected from retailers by banks, and that is lost revenue that banks will try to make up, famously with 5$ transaction fees. Specifically, another shocking addition is odd conflict diamond provisions that may cause more distress for both companies in America and countries in Africa. From the article linked, Section 1502 was adopted despite a report last year by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness that noted the SEC’s initial estimated “cost of implementation would be approximately $71 million, an amount calculated without reference to competitive burdens or compliance costs that would be borne by upstream companies not directly covered by the rule, but whose products are used by companies that would be subject to the rule.” Indeed, the SEC revised those figures upward this week, saying on Wednesday that “it would cost companies a total of $3 billion to $4 billion upfront, plus more than $200 million a year.” So there's a few specifics, and a few generals, on my opposition. On spending, I am not particularly for a balanced budget every year without fail. We were attacked a decade ago and the ensuing wars run up debts, there may be things passed with up-front costs whose benefits will only be realized later, such as tax cuts. When you talk about safety net/automatic stabilizers with the economic situation (food stamps/unemployment insurance/etc I am totally in agreement. But the problem is not their existence, I say, but the current way they are being managed. I want Medicare and Social Security reform, a safety net not a fine salary for many government bureaucrats. Rewards for those that planned their retirement wisely, and do not need government assistance, and a backup plan for those that do need it when the time comes. If you hadn't heard, Social Security was sold as you paying into a special account, with the money saved for later. Now, it's just today's payers funding a portion of today's retirees. Ponzi-scheme-esque. We can do better, and any reform will be painful, but runaway spending needs to be reigned in.I refer back to my original post on why tax increases followed by spending increases is the way the budget game is played, and why there is understandable balking at "We're gonna do both in a compromise!" today. I would wager Congressional approval ratings would go up if they ever pass something close to the size of the PRWORA of yesteryear. Ryan and others worked up some concrete ideas that start to tackle the growth in spending, and I want even more ideas being debated. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Anny news on gun control or do people hold the opinnion that if these kids would have had guns also, then this would not have happend? Obama will do something this term is my bet, to justify his nobel peace price and because he can not get reelected annyway. Is public opinnion in the usa slowly changing due to all these horrible events if may ask? From what i see on cnn it looks like it, though i am not sure they objective. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Study Shows a Pattern of Risky Loans by F.H.A. A new and extensive analysis of 2.4 million loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration in recent years shows a pattern of risky lending that could generate $20 billion in losses and harm thousands of the nation’s most vulnerable borrowers. By ignoring risks in loans it insured in 2009 and 2010, the study concludes, the F.H.A. is imperiling both borrowers and taxpayers who stand behind the agency. Link | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On December 15 2012 02:52 Rassy wrote: Another mass shooting at a school in the usa. 27?! death at least. Anny news on gun control or do people hold the opinnion that if these kids would have had guns also, then this would not have happend? Obama will do something this term is my bet, to justify his nobel peace price and because he can not get reelected annyway. Is public opinnion in the usa slowly changing due to all these horrible events if may ask? From what i see on cnn it looks like it, though i am not sure they objective. gun bans will never happen in the USA. gun control has varying levels of support, but I think they've passed everything they're going to be able to pass in the near future. People who debate about whether gun bans are good as a policy are soap-boxing. There are simply way too many poeple who enjoy recreational use, whether it be hunting or in other forms, for it to ever get widespread support. It's a moot political issue in the USA. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On December 15 2012 02:52 Rassy wrote: Another mass shooting at a school in the usa. 27?! death at least. Anny news on gun control or do people hold the opinnion that if these kids would have had guns also, then this would not have happend? Obama will do something this term is my bet, to justify his nobel peace price and because he can not get reelected annyway. Is public opinnion in the usa slowly changing due to all these horrible events if may ask? From what i see on cnn it looks like it, though i am not sure they objective. Gun control is pretty much done as a political issue in the United States. In fact the Kenyan Muslim UN Gun Grabbing president has only taken small measures to *reduce* gun control. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On December 15 2012 03:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Looks like another Fannie May and Freddie Mac in the making... Study Shows a Pattern of Risky Loans by F.H.A. Link Isn't the FHA prone to give out risky loans because it extends a hand to those the private sector won't lend to (at affordable rates)? | ||
|
Trumpet
United States1935 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 15 2012 04:39 aksfjh wrote: Isn't the FHA prone to give out risky loans because it extends a hand to those the private sector won't lend to (at affordable rates)? Yes and according to the study the FHA is taking on more risk than they realize which will mean more losses for the FHA and more foreclosures for homeowners which isn't good for anyone. According to the article the FHA still accepts loans with a 3.5% down payment. That's absurd - if that's all a person can afford then they shouldn't be buying a house. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the absolute amount of the policy can be better limited if seen as a need based subsidy as well. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On December 15 2012 02:52 Rassy wrote: Another mass shooting at a school in the usa. 27?! death at least. Anny news on gun control or do people hold the opinnion that if these kids would have had guns also, then this would not have happend? Obama will do something this term is my bet, to justify his nobel peace price and because he can not get reelected annyway. Is public opinnion in the usa slowly changing due to all these horrible events if may ask? From what i see on cnn it looks like it, though i am not sure they objective. Never going to happen. The NRA is the single most powerful lobbying group in Washington and they will oppose any form of gun regulation and with there opposition every republican and a lot of democrats will as well. | ||
| ||
