|
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 December 15 2012 08:22 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +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.
http://www.businesspundit.com/10-of-the-biggest-lobbies-in-washington/
Biggest lobbying group right now seems to be oil, followed by tech and agribusiness.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
NRA does have very powerful grassroot level organization though. their membership vote is pretty devastating if brought against a hapless republican in a primary or two
|
On December 15 2012 09:06 oneofthem wrote:
NRA does have very powerful grassroot level organization though. their membership vote is pretty devastating if brought against a hapless republican in a primary or two
Yeah, other lobbies might be powerful in terms of money, but in terms of actual voting influence, nobody comes close to matching the NRA.
|
Seems like the NRA would hold a huge sway for the GOP, but not so much with Democrats. I would venture to guess that the AARP would have a larger, more blunt (thus powerful) influence.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the tactic these groups use is to focus their resources on defeating a few congressperson per cycle. this way their threats are more credible and their influence is maximized.
|
On December 15 2012 10:09 aksfjh wrote:
Seems like the NRA would hold a huge sway for the GOP, but not so much with Democrats. I would venture to guess that the AARP would have a larger, more blunt (thus powerful) influence.
Southern Democrats have almost as much to fear from there wrath as Republicans so they fall in line.
|
Mike Huckabee is really a piece of work i.e. an Asshole.
|
On December 15 2012 07:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to risky housing loans isn't necessarily stopping those loans. it may just involve a recategorization from loan to subsidy. the political calculus is the same anyway.
the absolute amount of the policy can be better limited if seen as a need based subsidy as well.
I'm pretty sure politicians and voters will care about a higher rate of foreclosures (bad for homeowners) and loan losses (bad for the budget). When Fannie May and Freddie Mac stated costing the government billions people cared and the political calculus of backing them changed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 15 2012 13:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to risky housing loans isn't necessarily stopping those loans. it may just involve a recategorization from loan to subsidy. the political calculus is the same anyway.
the absolute amount of the policy can be better limited if seen as a need based subsidy as well. I'm pretty sure politicians and voters will care about a higher rate of foreclosures (bad for homeowners) and loan losses (bad for the budget). When Fannie May and Freddie Mac stated costing the government billions people cared and the political calculus of backing them changed. if you see housing assistance as providing these kind of 'bad' loans at a loss, then it becomes an accounting problem. minus the foreclosures ofc.
|
On December 15 2012 10:09 aksfjh wrote:
Seems like the NRA would hold a huge sway for the GOP, but not so much with Democrats. I would venture to guess that the AARP would have a larger, more blunt (thus powerful) influence.
Most blue dogs also subscribe to the NRAs votes. I'm sorry, but there are some states where you can't be against guns and get elected, regardless of party. NRA endorsements can kill campaigns in some areas. And its not like Democrats don't own guns or hunt the same as republicans. In some parts of the country, that's just part of the culture--it's not political.
|
On December 15 2012 10:09 aksfjh wrote:
Seems like the NRA would hold a huge sway for the GOP, but not so much with Democrats. I would venture to guess that the AARP would have a larger, more blunt (thus powerful) influence.
I forgot about the AARP. They are definitely up there with the NRA. I don't think an AARP endorsement means quite as much as an NRA endorsement, however. I feel like that's slightly more policy debate focused (as in, they like to shape the conversation rather than focus on defeating certain candidates).
|
On December 15 2012 11:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Mike Huckabee is really a piece of work i.e. an Asshole.
What exactly did he do this time?
|
On December 15 2012 13:14 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2012 07:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to risky housing loans isn't necessarily stopping those loans. it may just involve a recategorization from loan to subsidy. the political calculus is the same anyway.
the absolute amount of the policy can be better limited if seen as a need based subsidy as well. I'm pretty sure politicians and voters will care about a higher rate of foreclosures (bad for homeowners) and loan losses (bad for the budget). When Fannie May and Freddie Mac stated costing the government billions people cared and the political calculus of backing them changed. if you see housing assistance as providing these kind of 'bad' loans at a loss, then it becomes an accounting problem. minus the foreclosures ofc.
Well no, you still need to care if a program is effective or not. If you wind up with too many foreclosures than the program becomes not worth it. Owning a home is not a necessity.
|
On December 15 2012 18:01 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Mike Huckabee is really a piece of work i.e. an Asshole. What exactly did he do this time?
He said that keeping God out of American schools contributed to having shootings like this one. Like Stealthblue said, he really is an asshole.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 15 2012 18:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:14 oneofthem wrote:On December 15 2012 13:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2012 07:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to risky housing loans isn't necessarily stopping those loans. it may just involve a recategorization from loan to subsidy. the political calculus is the same anyway.
the absolute amount of the policy can be better limited if seen as a need based subsidy as well. I'm pretty sure politicians and voters will care about a higher rate of foreclosures (bad for homeowners) and loan losses (bad for the budget). When Fannie May and Freddie Mac stated costing the government billions people cared and the political calculus of backing them changed. if you see housing assistance as providing these kind of 'bad' loans at a loss, then it becomes an accounting problem. minus the foreclosures ofc. Well no, you still need to care if a program is effective or not. If you wind up with too many foreclosures than the program becomes not worth it. Owning a home is not a necessity.
social benefits do not stop at necessity. if you make it look like a subsidy, then it can be controlled easier and targeted better.
|
On December 15 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 18:01 Adreme wrote:On December 15 2012 11:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Mike Huckabee is really a piece of work i.e. an Asshole. What exactly did he do this time? He said that keeping God out of American schools contributed to having shootings like this one. Like Stealthblue said, he really is an asshole.
that's not being an asshole.
|
On December 16 2012 02:33 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 18:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2012 13:14 oneofthem wrote:On December 15 2012 13:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 15 2012 07:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to risky housing loans isn't necessarily stopping those loans. it may just involve a recategorization from loan to subsidy. the political calculus is the same anyway.
the absolute amount of the policy can be better limited if seen as a need based subsidy as well. I'm pretty sure politicians and voters will care about a higher rate of foreclosures (bad for homeowners) and loan losses (bad for the budget). When Fannie May and Freddie Mac stated costing the government billions people cared and the political calculus of backing them changed. if you see housing assistance as providing these kind of 'bad' loans at a loss, then it becomes an accounting problem. minus the foreclosures ofc. Well no, you still need to care if a program is effective or not. If you wind up with too many foreclosures than the program becomes not worth it. Owning a home is not a necessity. social benefits do not stop at necessity. if you make it look like a subsidy, then it can be controlled easier and targeted better.
Subsidizing home ownership is already a dubious public good to begin with. If the cost of foreclosures gets too high then eventually you are doing more harm than good. Reclassifying foreclosure as a subsidy is just window dressing and means nothing in terms of the program's effectiveness.
|
On December 16 2012 03:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On December 15 2012 18:01 Adreme wrote:On December 15 2012 11:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Mike Huckabee is really a piece of work i.e. an Asshole. What exactly did he do this time? He said that keeping God out of American schools contributed to having shootings like this one. Like Stealthblue said, he really is an asshole. that's not being an asshole.
It is. The two are completely unrelated, and the only thing he's doing is pushing his agenda.
|
On December 16 2012 04:07 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 03:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 15 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On December 15 2012 18:01 Adreme wrote:On December 15 2012 11:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Mike Huckabee is really a piece of work i.e. an Asshole. What exactly did he do this time? He said that keeping God out of American schools contributed to having shootings like this one. Like Stealthblue said, he really is an asshole. that's not being an asshole. It is. The two are completely unrelated, and the only thing he's doing is pushing his agenda.
in your opinion they are unrelated. in many other people's opinion, they are not unrelated at all. I guess you could say that you disagree with his opinion and that because you disagree, he's an asshole for having that opinion, but I think that's a little ridiculous.
|
On December 16 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:07 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 03:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 15 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On December 15 2012 18:01 Adreme wrote:On December 15 2012 11:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Mike Huckabee is really a piece of work i.e. an Asshole. What exactly did he do this time? He said that keeping God out of American schools contributed to having shootings like this one. Like Stealthblue said, he really is an asshole. that's not being an asshole. It is. The two are completely unrelated, and the only thing he's doing is pushing his agenda. in your opinion they are unrelated. in many other people's opinion, they are not unrelated at all. I guess you could say that you disagree with his opinion and that because you disagree, he's an asshole for having that opinion, but I think that's a little ridiculous.
Ah, the good old "it's only your opinion". How are the two supposed to be related exactly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
