US Politics Mega-thread - Page 461

On September 21 2013 03:01 Melliflue wrote:

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Germany went for more austerity than the US ever did, and the US did do some fiscal stimulus. According to Keynsian economics the US recovery (in this situation) would be better, and as you said the US has done equally well despite the comparative strength of their currency, which surely suggests that US policy was better than German policy.


I never said I hated the rich. I wasn't witch-hunting. I wasn't engaged in class warfare. I don't know where you got that idea from. I merely said the rich are not being altruistic when they pay someone to do a job. Likewise the employee is not doing the job to benefit the employer. The employee does it for the money. I don't understand your reaction to what I said.

On September 21 2013 03:33 Jormundr wrote:

The fact that the SSA itself has predicted more money going out than going in does. How the hell does that get 'tweaked'?

On September 21 2013 03:54 IgnE wrote:


Germany benefited from the profligacy of its southern poor neighbors who are the major importers of its tech goods. Despite the much vaunted German middle class, with its emphasis on family-owned, long-term oriented companies employed by highly skilled employees, the only reason it was able to come out the strongest member of the EU was because it enforced austerity at home while continuing to sell on credit to the neighbors it now excoriates as lazy spendthrifts. When you have a tightly knit economy, like the EU had/has, you can enforce austerity at home for a while and see results, because you are still reaping in the benefits of your neighbors' "stimulus."

On September 21 2013 03:47 IgnE wrote:


No, it's to benefit from the glut in the coal market and take advantage of "clean coal" technologies from the last decade. Some of them may be replacing older plants, but many of them aren't.

On September 21 2013 03:56 kwizach wrote:

By changing revenue formulas, for example (raising taxes...). We have two decades to do that. Call it a runaway snail if you want.

On September 21 2013 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I thought we were burning less coal recently?


I like that analogy

Maybe we should broaden the revenue base for SS? Why only tax wages? Not exactly a plentiful revenue source these days...

On September 21 2013 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I thought we were burning less coal recently?


I like that analogy

Maybe we should broaden the revenue base for SS? Why only tax wages? Not exactly a plentiful revenue source these days...

In his nine months as a U.S. senator, Texas Republican Ted Cruz has managed to infuriate members of his own party by deriding them as cowards who like to cast meaningless votes while pretending they're fighting the good fight for conservatives.

"There are a lot of politicians in Washington who love empty symbolic votes. It's been one of my biggest surprises in the Senate, I guess I wasn't cynical enough when I arrived here," Cruz said in late July at the Heritage Foundation. "I didn't realize how many Republicans love to have a fig leaf vote where they can go and tell their constituents, 'see I voted to do the right thing.' The House has voted what 39, 40, 41 times I can't keep track to repeal Obamacare. Those votes were by and large empty symbolic votes that had zero chance of passing."
The Texas freshman has fired these shots from a comfortable position: a senator representing a deep-red state and member of the minority whose support is not essential to moving any legislation. He's insulated from the responsibilities of governing; he can freely vote the way he wants (he almost never votes for final passage of a bill) and talk smack about his colleagues without having to take real risks.

But now the freshman senator and his fellow Obamacare defunders, most notably Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), have found themselves in an unthinkable position. The House granted their wish on Friday and passed legislation that eliminates funding for Obamacare in a bill to keep the government funded, sending the battle to the Senate. That means that for once, these senators have have to put their votes where their mouths are. Their first instinct was to concede defeat and slink away in the Senate, but after a furious reaction from House Republicans, they feel renewed pressure to walk the walk.

"I hope that every Senate Republican will stand together and oppose cloture on the bill in order to keep the House bill intact and not let Harry Reid add Obamacare funding back in," Cruz said in a statement Friday, referring to the GOP's ability to filibuster.

On September 20 2013 20:17 Paljas wrote:

Imperialism, capitalism

Of course, Cruz’s acknowledgement of the near-impossibility of passing a defunding bill through the Democratic-controlled Senate is an accurate reading of political reality. But House Republicans didn’t care; they were apoplectic with Cruz not only for laying the responsibility for defunding on them, but for making them seem weak. “If Cruz doesn’t help us in the Senate to pass a defunding bill, we’ll end up having to pass a normal CR,” complains a veteran House Republican. “It’ll be pathetic, but I expect him to slam us for it.”

House insiders say a handful of House Republicans cursed Cruz in the cloakroom on Wednesday, and a leadership source says angry e-mails were exchanged among GOP staffers who consider Cruz to be a charlatan. “Cruz keeps raising conservatives’ hopes, and then, when we give him what he wants, he doesn’t have a plan to follow through,” an aide fumes. “He’s an amateur.” Another aide says, “Nancy Pelosi is more well-liked around here.”

On September 21 2013 06:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:

God, what I would give for an Imperialist/Capitalist President.

On September 21 2013 00:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
@ Jormundr: I don't think raising government spending to 100% of GDP is much of a long term stimulus either.
@ Danglars: I can appreciate the desire to reform welfare, but if that's what the GOP is intending I don't see it in their current legislation. Maybe I'm missing something (if so point it out), but even if that's the case it means that they aren't communicating their intentions / plans well enough with the public.

How about some bigger cost of living adjustments? Rural red state Republicans can experience a fall in welfare payments and urban blue state Democrats can experience a rise.

WASHINGTON — The House voted to cut nearly $40 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, over a period 10 years on Thursday.

House Republican’s Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013 passed largely along party lines on a vote of 217 to 210.

The billion dollar cuts to the program — which has ballooned in participation and doubled in cost since 2008 to nearly $80 billion annually — are achieved through reforms such as reducing waivers for work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, tightening eligibility requirements like categorical eligibility (a policy allowing states to determine SNAP eligibility through participation in other welfare programs) and closing loopholes.

The nutrition title represents the second portion of the farm bill, which was split into two separate bills when a comprehensive farm bill failed to pass the House over the summer (in large part due to disputed over the cuts to the program). The cuts to SNAP this time, however, were twice as aggressive.

In July, the House passed the first portion of the traditional farm bill, a stripped down bill dealing just with farm programs.

“In the real world, we measure success by results,” Indiana Republican Rep. Marlin Stutzman said on the House floor arguing in favor of the bill. “It’s time for Washington to measure success by how many families are lifted out of poverty and helped back on their feet, not by how much Washington bureaucrats spend year after year.”

On September 21 2013 06:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:

God, what I would give for an Imperialist/Capitalist President.

On September 21 2013 06:58 KwarK wrote:

Honestly our relationship with China has a great deal of resemblance to that with trading partners in the imperial era. You find a place with an awful lot of a valuable resource you can use (in China's case mainly people) and a friendly regime that'll let you exploit that resource. Financiers then invest in building the infrastructure and trading links to exploit that resource making themselves, and the local despots who secure their investment rich. Troubles only occur when the despot can no longer keep their shit together due to the people getting tired of it (see South America) or gets so outrageously oppressive that the financiers get bad press for it (see Africa). As long as they're discreetly oppressive we will happily arm their regime, finance them and help keep them in charge while they, in turn, give us access to their stuff. Countries getting shaded in on the map is a last resort when you run out of potential despots, life is easier for everyone involved if you can find someone from the area to keep the status quo going while you and them make a lot of money. It is no coincidence that the Chinese elites send their children to school in the United Kingdom, any more than the generation of Oxbridge graduates who ran the Middle Eastern dictatorships happened by chance. China is perhaps the greatest success story of western economic imperialism, the reason we don't hear about it is because, outside of Tiananmen Square, they're very good at keeping their shit together.

Imperialism is alive and with us. The idea that it was sticking flags into beaches and claiming places completely misunderstands the nature of the beast.

On September 21 2013 08:31 Roe wrote:


Can't think of one who hasn't met that criteria

On September 21 2013 09:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Did we turn Iraq into a colony?

There's your answer.

On September 21 2013 09:13 Roe wrote:
Imperialism isn't only colony building. It's forcing your way (culturally, economically, politically, etc..) onto another nation.

On September 21 2013 09:15 Skilledblob wrote:


who controls the oil fields now? There you got your answer.

On September 21 2013 06:58 KwarK wrote:

Honestly our relationship with China has a great deal of resemblance to that with trading partners in the imperial era. You find a place with an awful lot of a valuable resource you can use (in China's case mainly people) and a friendly regime that'll let you exploit that resource. Financiers then invest in building the infrastructure and trading links to exploit that resource making themselves, and the local despots who secure their investment rich. Troubles only occur when the despot can no longer keep their shit together due to the people getting tired of it (see South America) or gets so outrageously oppressive that the financiers get bad press for it (see Africa). As long as they're discreetly oppressive we will happily arm their regime, finance them and help keep them in charge while they, in turn, give us access to their stuff. Countries getting shaded in on the map is a last resort when you run out of potential despots, life is easier for everyone involved if you can find someone from the area to keep the status quo going while you and them make a lot of money. It is no coincidence that the Chinese elites send their children to school in the United Kingdom, any more than the generation of Oxbridge graduates who ran the Middle Eastern dictatorships happened by chance. China is perhaps the greatest success story of western economic imperialism, the reason we don't hear about it is because, outside of Tiananmen Square, they're very good at keeping their shit together.

Imperialism is alive and with us. The idea that it was sticking flags into beaches and claiming places completely misunderstands the nature of the beast.