EPTOn October 05 2013 07:41 Poffel wrote:
Sam, you disappoint me. Capitalism isn't the motor. It's the sugar in the tank.
Sam, you disappoint me. Capitalism isn't the motor. It's the sugar in the tank.
it's both! now you have found the dialectic! :D
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 515
| 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
it's both! now you have found the dialectic! :D | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
On October 05 2013 07:30 aksfjh wrote: Because it's literally stupid to give any measurable attention to the debt or deficit at this time. Do you know what happens when you let the debt/deficit get out of control? You'd be a Nobel prize winning economist if you did. However, we know what happens with prolonged periods of high unemployment and low inflation. It's not pretty, and government spending is the only known way to get out of it (unless you think world war is the REAL way to get out of it). The only problem is, government spending is not really helping. We are still a normal country you know; it cannot happen forever, and must stop at some point. Let's not make an experiment out of it. Do you honestly think that we will be a-ok if the debt reaches 20+ trillion in the 2020s like it's supposed to do? We WILL go out of control. Maybe we don't know exactly the result, since we aren't exactly the same as the smaller countries that ARE out of money. But it should be enough warning that most (if not all) economists say that, somehow someway, the debt and deficit must be addressed. Yes, from here on out any course we take is going to hurt. But the longer we sit here, the more it's going to hurt. Moreover, Obama doesn't really have a plan for addressing it, which is my main point. At best he is driving forward with no look towards the future. A man in the fog. And for good reason as far as I can tell. Wasn't one of the knocks on Cruz that he supported it? What am I missing here? http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/313555-cbo-sequester-cuts-would-cost-16m-jobs-through-2014 I don't know about Ted Cruz, but a quick search showed that he disapproved of how much was cut from military sections. Most conservatives were, but they still took the hit because it was a start, and Obama was acting like the sky would fall (until he backed off). My main point remains the same, cuts must be made. For all the Democrat's chatter about jobs, they (and their massive spending) have done little to help . But like I said, it was a decrease in the increase of spending, so it's really not that bad. If we can't even do that we are screwed. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On October 05 2013 08:05 Introvert wrote: I don't know about Ted Cruz, but a quick search showed that he disapproved of how much was cut from military sections. Most conservatives were, but they still took the hit because it was a start, and Obama was acting like the sky would fall (until he backed off). My main point remains the same, cuts must be made. For all the Democrat's chatter about jobs, they (and their massive spending) have done little to help . But like I said, it was a decrease in the increase of spending, so it's really not that bad. If we can't even do that we are screwed. Well according to the CBO we're screwed if we do. :D As already said, now is probably not the time for that, and also note that I believe Cruz said that this was a "good first step" or something to that effect. How many jobs need to be sacrificed for ideology? Managing the debt needs to be done, but sensibly. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 05 2013 07:32 Poffel wrote: You kind of answered your own question there, didn't you? Anyway, here's the whole talk (the quote comes from min 21:45): On a side note, I'm not posting a new quote this time because you forgot to explain why Hagel and Abizaid are just as clueless as Kissinger and Greenspan. But since you already took a look at the wikipedia article, you see that I can keep up this stuff for a while - and the longer we keep going at it, the more silly the statement I was contesting ("I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense.") will look... so please, continue to help me out here.  Wait which quote supports the idea that the US went to Iraq to steal oil? Where in the video does it say that the only reason war occurred in Iraq was oil? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
On October 05 2013 08:10 screamingpalm wrote: Well according to the CBO we're screwed if we do. :D As already said, now is probably not the time for that, and also note that I believe Cruz said that this was a "good first step" or something to that effect. How many jobs need to be sacrificed for ideology? Managing the debt needs to be done, but sensibly. According to the CBO, lots of things are going to go badly. But that is going to happen anyway. Seriously, I don't know how someone can, with a straight face, tell me that a minuscule reduction of increases (meaning they still spent MORE this year than last) is too much. We are so screwed if that is true. if now was not the time, then when? The current policy is racking up debt for minimal (if any) gain. Obama is the one bound to ideology, he refuses to try something else. edit: the conservatives actually compromised on ideology, they accepted the military cuts at full force. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 05 2013 08:19 oneofthem wrote: i thought some of you were talking about why they hate the u.s., and not about why the u.s. is interested in that region. if we weren't there, because we were interested in the region, they wouldn't have any reason to dislike us. they don't care about how infidels run their society on the other side of the planet. that's just a jingoistic american fantasy | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Poffel
471 Posts
On October 05 2013 08:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Wait which quote supports the idea that the US went to Iraq to steal oil? Where in the video does it say that the only reason war occurred in Iraq was oil? Is your mousewheel broken? Or is your objection that Greenspan writes "largely" but not "only"? If it's only a question of vocabulary to you (mind you, not even my words but those of a different poster), why did you write about the housing bubble before? Never mind... if that's really the one objection you have, let's just meet half-way: You can keep the "only", and I'm going with the "evidence" instead - so far, the evidence points rather strongly towards Iraqi oil being of vital interest to the US - but, please, feel free to provide similarly convincing evidence for all the many other reasons for the war against Iraq. Should we start with their WMDs or the figs? On that note, I have to leave now... so feel free to either continue on your own (to substitute for my part, just c&p some random stuff that google throws up and then look at how the other guy squirms) or to just enjoy your hard-earned 'last man standing' victory. @Sam: Good one. Of course it's dialectics... even if, by now, the identity of identity and difference is somewhat overdue. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On October 05 2013 08:13 sam!zdat wrote: the only reason ANYONE cares about the region AT ALL is oil. nobody says we "went to iraq to steal oil" that's a stupid caricature. but if there weren't oil there, nobody would care, because other than oil, the region is utterly useless. Oil is the foundation of the strategic significance of the middle east. This should be obivous it's obvious why the US have strategic interest in the middle east, i still don't get why going to war because of oil is so obvious. The US could have saved the trillions of dollars and could have simply bought the oil. Following your logic the US would have to fight Saudi-Arabia right now. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 05 2013 09:11 Nyxisto wrote: it's obvious why the US have strategic interest in the middle east, i still don't get why going to war there is so obvious. The US could have saved the trillions of dollars and could have simply bought the oil. Following your logic the US would have to fight Saudi-Arabia right now. because saddam was making a power play and was not playing nice... the saudis were smooching george in texas... the other poster was correct that now we just want to be out because of the changed oil landscape. obama wants nothing to do with ME. but we're stuck anyway, my point is not "geopolitics aren't complicated, we just want to steal oil." my point is that the geopolitics of the ME are all "in the last instance" founded on oil, because without oil the region is utterly irrelevant | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law. “The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.” The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded. "Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement. Source | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On October 05 2013 09:09 Poffel wrote: Is your mousewheel broken? Or is your objection that Greenspan writes "largely" but not "only"? If it's only a question of vocabulary to you (mind you, not even my words but those of a different poster), why did you write about the housing bubble before? Never mind... if that's really the one objection you have, let's just meet half-way: You can keep the "only", and I'm going with the "evidence" instead - so far, the evidence points rather strongly towards Iraqi oil being of vital interest to the US - but, please, feel free to provide similarly convincing evidence for all the many other reasons for the war against Iraq. Should we start with their WMDs or the figs? On that note, I have to leave now... so feel free to either continue on your own (to substitute for my part, just c&p some random stuff that google throws up and then look at how the other guy squirms) or to just enjoy your hard-earned 'last man standing' victory. @Sam: Good one. Of course it's dialectics... even if, by now, the identity of identity and difference is somewhat overdue. While I think that you are largely correct, I think that its important to point out that its not like the US got t just seize all iraqi oil or something like that. The US just wanted to make sure that the supply wasn't cut off from the rest of the world as that would have the adverse effect of sending prices through the roof. So yes, we only care about them for their oil, but its not like we fought to just take it. Also, while you could argue (as sam does) that the only reason people are strategicallly interested in the middle east is because of oil, but it doesn't change the fact that a decent amount of IR and military scholars seem to indicate that the war was undertaken as a sort of show of force of both US military might and political will. So as to save sam a reply, I will acknowledge that the only reason such a gesture in the middle east was necessary is because of oil (and also concerns about russian influence in general, can't give you everthing). However saying that the war was undertaken 100% "because of oil" is glossing over the detail. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 05 2013 09:09 Poffel wrote: Is your mousewheel broken? Or is your objection that Greenspan writes "largely" but not "only"? If it's only a question of vocabulary to you (mind you, not even my words but those of a different poster), why did you write about the housing bubble before? Never mind... if that's really the one objection you have, let's just meet half-way: You can keep the "only", and I'm going with the "evidence" instead - so far, the evidence points rather strongly towards Iraqi oil being of vital interest to the US - but, please, feel free to provide similarly convincing evidence for all the many other reasons for the war against Iraq. Should we start with their WMDs or the figs? On that note, I have to leave now... so feel free to either continue on your own (to substitute for my part, just c&p some random stuff that google throws up and then look at how the other guy squirms) or to just enjoy your hard-earned 'last man standing' victory. @Sam: Good one. Of course it's dialectics... even if, by now, the identity of identity and difference is somewhat overdue. I'm disputing two words - steal and only. I don't think you've cited anything with regards to theft. As far as "only" goes I take issue even with "largely". The reason for that is that many countries have oil, but we don't invade all of them. There is more to the catalyst for war than just the presence of oil. Finland has oil. It's also not warmongering with its neighbors over North Sea oil rights, oppressing its citizens, shooting at US warplanes and violating important UN resolutions. Simply 'because it has oil' is not enough of a catalyst to spark war with the US. Now if Finland started invading its neighbors and shooting at US warplanes we'd have another scenario entirely. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On October 05 2013 08:10 screamingpalm wrote: Who cares if jobs are lost? Government jobs are neither productive nor necessary, as a summation. You can lose them and all you will gain is prosperity and economic efficiency.Well according to the CBO we're screwed if we do. :D As already said, now is probably not the time for that, and also note that I believe Cruz said that this was a "good first step" or something to that effect. How many jobs need to be sacrificed for ideology? Managing the debt needs to be done, but sensibly. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On October 05 2013 10:20 Dazed_Spy wrote: Who cares if jobs are lost? Government jobs are neither productive nor necessary, as a summation. You can lose them and all you will gain is prosperity and economic efficiency. Is that what the right is calling it these days? Here I was thinking you guys hated expanding unemployment and safety net/welfare programs.  | ||
| ||
