EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 585
| 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. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
The embargoes were put into place to force castro from power, some 40 years later he retires due to ill health; conclusion: the embargoes didn't work. In general, I observe that embargoes either work fast (the threat of embargo as much as the actual embargo) or they don't work at all. I favor trade in general as it opens up lines of communication and makes it harder for a government to lie to its citizens; because when there's trade there's travel, and business travel is much harder for a government to monitor; so people get more communication in. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 30 2013 18:07 Danglars wrote: And by taking away more choices through regulation, even the choice to go without and save money for other things while you're young, government helps create choice. Love it. not eating is not a choice of food you know. ensuring universal care is one necessary step towards glorious communism | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
Open trade has done more good in this regard than any sanctions ever did. Open trade allows slow erosion of regime's power and prepares way for change in governance towards democracy. Cuba will most likely change into some kind of democracy sooner or later, but sanctions won't have much to do with it and considering suffering they cause, they are not worth it. Unless of course your goal is not helping the people, but instead US political domination and punishing countries you consider your puppets for their bad behaviour, just like Sermokala displays. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Paul Ryan killed any lingering hopes of a grand bargain within moments of the budget conference kickoff on Wednesday. In his opening remarks, the Wisconsin congressman and chairman of the House budget committee laid down a firm marker against new taxes, which are essential to any major deficit reduction proposal that can pass Congress and be signed into law. "Taking more from hardworking families just isn't the answer. I know my Republican colleagues feel the same way," Ryan said. "So I want to say this from the get-go: If this conference becomes an argument about taxes, we're not going to get anywhere. The way to raise revenue is to grow the economy." In the same opening remarks, Ryan urged action on scaling back Social Security and Medicare -- which progressives want to avoid at all costs, and which President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders have promised not to touch without new federal revenues. "Ten thousand baby boomers are retiring every day. Health care costs are rising. Medicare and Social Security are going broke," Ryan said. "The Congressional Budget Office says if we don't act, we'll have a debt crisis. And if that happens, the most vulnerable will suffer first and worst. This debt weighs down our economy even today. ... We can't kick the can down the road anymore. We've got to get a handle on our debt -- now." Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) made clear Wednesday that Democrats aren't going to enact GOP priorities without addressing some of their own. Source | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22610 Posts
On October 31 2013 04:52 zlefin wrote: without new taxes? easy, they just have to agree to reductions in military spending. rofl. or fix the current tax loopholes. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
(and social security of course). | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10958 Posts
| ||
|
ddrddrddrddr
1344 Posts
Next idea? | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6322 Posts
On October 31 2013 01:13 Sermokala wrote: My post was about the moral reasons about rewarding a violent dictator not about them being commies. China gets a pass for bringing more people out of poverty then the rest of the world combined. Opening our economy to them will only strengthen rauls power hold on the country. China gets a pass but isn't the opening up to the world and trading the thing that made them able to raise all those people out of poverty. I don't ser why Cuba would be different although admittedly I don't know a lot about the political situation in Cuba. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On October 31 2013 05:16 Velr wrote: cutting social security is bad for the economy, just as bad if not worse than raising taxes. It wouldn't be that bad to cut SSI for NEETs and mildy disabled people who could potentially work. Number of unemployed seeking employment would rise, and wages for unskilled non-minimum wage labor might fall, but more people could actually be working. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10958 Posts
Well... except if you want to exploit people china style... But i seriously hope thats not what your proposing. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On October 31 2013 05:51 RvB wrote: China gets a pass because since the 70s it was an anti-Soviet ally for the Americans. Thats why Republicans are still paranoid about Russia -- hence Mitt Romney labeling them as America's number 1 geopolitical foe -- while China keeps on trucking. Cuba just choose wrongly in 1960s when the Soviets and Chinese split up, if they had sided with China they'd be golden too. China gets a pass but isn't the opening up to the world and trading the thing that made them able to raise all those people out of poverty. I don't ser why Cuba would be different although admittedly I don't know a lot about the political situation in Cuba. | ||
|
NPF
Canada1635 Posts
On October 31 2013 05:51 RvB wrote: China gets a pass but isn't the opening up to the world and trading the thing that made them able to raise all those people out of poverty. I don't ser why Cuba would be different although admittedly I don't know a lot about the political situation in Cuba. Cuba is actually a super popular tourist destination during winter or study breaks in Canada. Often people go down, tip a few dollars and buy/bring school supply presents for local children. So in that sense Cuba resorts are a bit open to a lot of Canadian tourists. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On October 31 2013 06:10 Velr wrote: creating jobs that pay so little, that you still need to give out foodstamps and other help programs does basically nothing to your economy, you need people to buy stuff, social security assures that. Cutting social security means cutting potential customers. Well... except if you want to exploit people china style... But i seriously hope thats not what your proposing. But the whole reason those jobs would come in to being would be to add revenue to some sort of enterprise. For example, let's say that you get hired to sell toys at $10/hr. Even if you might personally net just a little bit more money than you did while on SS, and although you may still receive food benefits / reduced costs for some things, you are still actually increasing the rate of commerce by moving more money around, and now the government does not have to support you as much. Win-win. Also companies get benefits for hiring people that have been out of work for a long time, which of course does not ensure that you will be hired to but does help when it comes to low wage jobs. For the ones that do not find employment, their family would (hopefully)support them, which is less than ideal but at least diverts costs from the government. I suppose you could enlist in the military as well. I would not advocate cutting SS for people that physically cannot actually work or are much too mentally ill to hold a job, but to be honest I know multiple people on SSI / similar benefits programs that could work and contribute. There are also total bullshit reasons to be on SSI, like from injuries and conditions that arise from complications related to obesity. Of course, SS reform will not pass in the foreseeable future anyway because it would be political suicide. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 31 2013 05:16 ddrddrddrddr wrote: No military reduction because of jobs and defending freedoms and support our troops and red commies in China and blah blah blah. Next idea? Military spending is already being reduced. Let's cut healthcare spending. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On October 31 2013 07:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Military spending is already being reduced. Let's cut healthcare spending. 1: by how much over how long? 2: how would that in any conceivable way be a good idea? | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2013 07:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Military spending is already being reduced. Let's cut healthcare spending. Let's do it. I have an awesome plan: single-payer. ^^ If that's too extreme, let's just go with price controls. ^^ | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
| ||
| ||
