EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 459
| 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. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On September 20 2013 09:35 sam!zdat wrote: these are the descedants of people who believed that the slaves were happy being slaves, and that freedom would be too much for them to handle and would be really just a cruel thing to do to the happy negro. Keep that in mind during your bafflement No that can't be the case. After all, slavery is inefficient in capitalism  . | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 20 2013 05:13 sam!zdat wrote: to me the bold claim would be that government agencies don't manipulate measures to make them say whatever the want them to say. That to me would be an astounding thing Yes. It is much more believable that a guy with an MBA from the 1970s who runs a website that sells subscriptions to 'alternative statistics' is on the level. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On September 20 2013 10:00 Sub40APM wrote: Yes. It is much more believable that a guy with an MBA from the 1970s who runs a website that sells subscriptions to 'alternative statistics' is on the level. don't look at me, I don't even know who the guy is. I was just saying. I have no opinion about inflation metrics that's not a thing I could possibly know about. I still believe our monetary policy is useless and reckless edit: and I do think it's important to remember that there's no objective thing inflation, inflation is defined by the measure used to measure it. And somebody with some interest makes that measure. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 20 2013 10:00 sam!zdat wrote: Except elizabeth warren, who is the sexiest woman alive Eh? You should have gotten that teaching gig up here then | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will press ahead Friday with tough requirements for new coal-fired power plants, moving to impose for the first time strict limits on the pollution blamed for global warming. The proposal would help reshape where Americans get electricity, away from a coal-dependent past into a future fired by cleaner sources of energy. It's also a key step in President Barack Obama's global warming plans, because it would help end what he called "the limitless dumping of carbon pollution" from power plants. Although the proposed rule won't immediately affect plants already operating, it eventually would force the government to limit emissions from the existing power plant fleet, which accounts for a third of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Obama has given the Environmental Protection Agency until next summer to propose those regulations. The EPA provided The Associated Press with details of the proposal prior to the official announcement, which was expected Friday morning. The public will have a chance to comment on the rule before it becomes final. Despite some tweaks, the rule packs the same punch as one announced last year, which was widely criticized by industry and Republicans as effectively banning any new coal projects in the U.S. Source | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 20 2013 09:57 DoubleReed wrote: Seriously, why do people have a problem with me labeling the Republicans the Bad Guys? The libs are the ones robbing the next generation to feel good about themselves in the current generation. It doesn't matter how you pay for anything, just talk about how many people you could help with other people's money! The people running around with black hats aren't just under one party's banner. Are you encouraging work if you're physically able to have a job, or aren't you? I have no problem with welfare for those truly in need. As Obama and others have eased eligibility requirements, you have to examine how much in the growth of food stamps enrollment are able to look for a job and don't versus needy families. Food stamp spending doubled between 2000 and 2007 and doubled again by 2012. It's an old relic from the 1970s that needs to be reformed (it missed welfare reforms signed into law by Clinton in the 90s). It's hard to picture the do-gooders ever admitting that there's a right and a wrong way to go about "nutrition assistance." It's all about the political invective against the uncaring members of the right. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
On September 20 2013 04:27 Sub40APM wrote: Yes, this is a good way of doing it. Instead of looking at 'facts' that are broadly applicable to the entire economy you should totally focus on your own microeconomy and then extrapolate that outward. You and the Faber guy, are you by chance from zerohedge? . No i am not from zero hedge. I find zero hedge a terrible populistic and sensationalist website, wich is not objective and always bearish/negative. I never even visit it to read their articles. Off course i am only looking at the prices of the goods that matter to me (and to the majority of all people) That is the inflation i (and manny others) are personally experiencing and the only inflation that matters to me (and the majority of the people). I dont look at the price of gold for example, since i nearly never buy gold nor need it for my daily existance. I could verry well also start looking at the price of gold,oil or some art. And then conclude that inflation has been 300% - 500% over the past 10 years but that would be like cheating. Off course the government has other figures,but thoose figures are nearly completely irrelevant for the every day citizen as they dont reflect the loss of purchase power for the every day citizen.The government figures are always set up in such a way that they show low inflation. I think some of you are ignoring the verry obvious. What matters is the loss of purchase power for the every day citizen,and that loss of purchase power is way higher then the official inflation figures say. For thoose who dont believe me, just check your own budget and expenses over the past 5-10 years (this does not go for the few rich young americans who are also on this forum, am talking about average lower and middle class people here, who make up the vast majority of the usa population) This isnt realy suprising btw, does annyone realy think that printing like 2 trillion for tarp and 85b a month in qe 3 wouldnt have anny effect on the inflation lol? Our productivity is not rising that fast to be able to make up for this. You guys are kinda lucky that the difference between rich and poor is so huge and that most of this printed monney is ending up with the rich people,if not then the real inflation for the average american would be even higher. Maybe thats why after printing 85b a month for 12 months the economy can still not stand on its own feet. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 20 2013 16:53 Danglars wrote: The libs are the ones robbing the next generation to feel good about themselves in the current generation. It doesn't matter how you pay for anything, just talk about how many people you could help with other people's money! The people running around with black hats aren't just under one party's banner. Are you encouraging work if you're physically able to have a job, or aren't you? I have no problem with welfare for those truly in need. As Obama and others have eased eligibility requirements, you have to examine how much in the growth of food stamps enrollment are able to look for a job and don't versus needy families. Food stamp spending doubled between 2000 and 2007 and doubled again by 2012. It's an old relic from the 1970s that needs to be reformed (it missed welfare reforms signed into law by Clinton in the 90s). It's hard to picture the do-gooders ever admitting that there's a right and a wrong way to go about "nutrition assistance." It's all about the political invective against the uncaring members of the right. What is this talk about "encouraging work"? It doubled between 2007 and 2012 because we had a complete financial breakdown with a jobless "recovery". Have you been living under a rock? There's only so much that "encouragement" will do when there are no jobs to be had. And you are the same type of person who wouldn't want the government to spend money employing people to build public works so they don't have to be on food stamps. Sometimes I have no clue what you people's idea of a "needy family" or an "able to look for a job" family is. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
If you're having trouble visualizing the process, begin by referring to the work programs established with welfare reform, 1996. I'm talking about how few on food stamps looked for work or worked any hours in the past month even at times when the unemployment rate was much lower (and you might have a point if this was a program made in the past decade and NOT 40 years ago with insufficient analysis on unemployment's contribution). I think some people are sticking their heads in the sand on this. It doesn't matter if somebody could look for a job and chooses to feed themselves on food stamps. As long as one dollar out of every hundred goes to a needy family, it shouldn't get reformed or changed in any way! I want to create jobs, I want to untether the job creators from the specter of additional costs of Obamacare and more regulations from aggressive government agencies, amongst other job killers out there. The past administration has been remarkably good at overseers the death of full time jobs and the creation of the part time. And if there's public works projects that need undertaking, sell them to the voter and their representatives and let's have at it. I've seen enough corporate welfare discussion to know people here have a clue. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On September 20 2013 09:57 DoubleReed wrote: Seriously, why do people have a problem with me labeling the Republicans the Bad Guys? because it somewhat implies that the democrats are much better, when they are actually the same: Imperialism, capitalism and fucking Guantanamo Bay. its all the same stuff but in a different package. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On September 20 2013 20:17 Paljas wrote: because it somewhat implies that the democrats are much better, when they are actually the same: Imperialism, capitalism and fucking Guantanamo Bay. its all the same stuff but in a different package. They aren't the same though. The Republicans are crazies like Danglars who think Keynesian economics robbing the future and want to beat up workers and poor people because they're so "lazy." He basically said outright that unemployment is caused by lazy poor people not interested in finding work. The democrats may be corrupt and incompetent, but yes they are much better than the group that takes its policies from John Galt. Danglars doesn't understand that "job creators" refers to the middle class and workers, not financiers. Jobs are not bestowed by on high, they're to satisfy increased demand in the market. Demand is where jobs come from, and demand comes from the middle. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Also, throwing money at problems like poverty is blindly expected to fix it. Debate ended, any changes to current welfare regimes is a universal evil. Any changes, save increasing the funding and increasing the enrollment. Any thought to the contrary and you're calling all poor people lazy. The rich cannot create jobs by running successful businesses, it is page one of their bible. It is only the holy middle class. You are allowed to be successful to a point--become too successful and you are the target of the class warfare playbook. But that is just relating things on the same level of DoubleReed's last post. Indeed, there exists no dependency hazard in any welfare program. I also imagine his more equitable world would give financiers no job investing in interesting projects. You heard it from his own mouth, no bent paraphrase, that they are not job creators. That is solely the job of the middle class and workers. I mean, the middle class, workers, and government investment, pardon me. Short-sighted from start to end. On September 20 2013 21:23 DoubleReed wrote: They aren't the same though. The Republicans are crazies like Danglars who think Keynesian economics robbing the future and want to beat up workers and poor people because they're so "lazy." He basically said outright that unemployment is caused by lazy poor people not interested in finding work. The democrats may be corrupt and incompetent, but yes they are much better than the group that takes its policies from John Galt. Danglars doesn't understand that "job creators" refers to the middle class and workers, not financiers. Jobs are not bestowed by on high, they're to satisfy increased demand in the market. Demand is where jobs come from, and demand comes from the middle. I mean, I couldn't have put the last paragraph better if it was my own creation mocking his views. That is definitely one crystallized moment of class warfare and the left's ideology of employment. Financiers cannot create jobs through their investment, contrasting with an income tier of the population and (I guess) skilled work tier of the population, which can. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On September 20 2013 22:07 Danglars wrote: Also, throwing money at problems like poverty is blindly expected to fix it. Debate ended, any changes to current welfare regimes is a universal evil. Any changes, save increasing the funding and increasing the enrollment. Any thought to the contrary and you're calling all poor people lazy. The problem with being in poverty is not enough money. So, if we can afford to simply give all the poor people money (which we can because we aren't China or Somalia or whatever), there won't be poverty. It pretty much is that simple. Sure, there are a lot of free rider costs that would arise, but there are a lot of external costs that would be eliminated: building prisons for example is a more expensive alternative to building subsidized housing, giving people free health care is cheaper than rely on emergency room visits, etc. People need to eat. If they can't then they'll come for the rich (and even the not-so-rich) with guns and knives, with fists and teeth. It's really in the best interests even of sociopaths like yourself to provide for the less fortunate. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) continued to draw the scorn of House Republicans on Friday when Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) fumed that Senate conservatives have "bullied" and "abused" their counterparts in the lower chamber throughout the push to defund Obamacare. Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Duffy once again hammered the likes of Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) for acknowledging earlier this week that a continuing resolution (CR) that defunds the health care law is probably doomed in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that the House will pass a CR on Friday that cuts funding to Obamacare, effectively placing the onus on Cruz and his allies in the Senate. "All summer long as these ads have been running, as they've been holding town halls and raising money, we've kept a lid on our anger in the House as we were the punching bag and bullied by some of these Senate conservatives," Duffy said. "And so now with the CR vote that's gonna come today we are gonna give them exactly what they've asked for — the opportunity to fight in the Senate on defunding Obamacare. And you saw us explode with anger publicly when they stood up and started waving the white flag saying, 'Listen, we're not gonna fight here, we're gonna surrender, we can't win.'" Duffy told host Joe Scarborough that House Republicans were steamed at Cruz this week. Source | ||
| ||
