EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 702
| 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. | ||
KwarK
United States44340 Posts
| ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
We find a small but statistically significant reduction in the unemployment exit rate and a small increase in the expected duration of unemployment arising from both sets of UI extensions. Do Extended Unemployment Benefits Lengthen Unemployment Spells? Evidence from Recent Cycles in the U.S. Labor Market In sum, the authors found that extending UI increased the unemployment rate by ~0.4% during the Great Recession, and that this effect occurred primarily through a reduction in labor force exits. There's ammunition here for both sides of the debate, the real world sure is messy. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
That sounds like it is working as intended. UI benefits should be keeping you looking and prevent you from exiting the labor force. We don't want people to exit the labor force. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On December 11 2013 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote: "Nn sum, the authors found that extending UI increased the unemployment rate by ~0.4% during the Great Recession, and that this effect occurred primarily through a reduction in labor force exits. " That sounds like it is working as intended. UI benefits should be keeping you looking and prevent you from exiting the labor force. We don't want people to exit the labor force. True, though not ALL the increase in unemployment came from people staying in the labor force who otherwise would have exited. Also, some posters were suggesting earlier that many UI recipients may game the system by only superficially looking for work when they don't actually intend to take a new job so they can continue to receive benefits. I think the strongest argument for providing extended benefits is that the 0.4% increase in unemployment is relatively small, while the decreased hardship for individuals and families affected by job loss may be significant. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28900 Posts
On December 11 2013 01:32 Acrofales wrote: Is there anybody who has scored high with democrats but low with either socialists or greens? If not, this test has a really low capacity to distinguish between different (left-wing) ideologies. The problem is really that if people voted according to preferred politics, USA wouldn't be a two party state. Green and Libertarian would both get much more votes. Not nearly as much more as the internet makes it seem, but significantly more than just a couple percent combined. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 11 2013 03:11 Nyxisto wrote: I'm still not getting over the evolution and global warming answers of the GOP. Are these the official positions of the GOP? It's unbelievable to me that in a two party system one party is just like "nah we'll just disagree on things that are basically scientific consensus, lets just teach intelligent design in schools". In the US politicians are first and foremost local representatives. So if a community is highly religious, their representatives will reflect that, regardless of the party. Political parties also tend to cater to different groups, generally. So if you are religious you'll generally want to vote Republican because that party generally caters to that group - i.e. open to teaching intelligent design in schools. Where I live you won't see Republicans pushing intelligent design in schools at all. If you go down south to the bible belt I wouldn't be surprised if you found Democrats that support intelligent design. But generally if you support intelligent design you'll vote Republican. Nationally that doesn't matter too much since education is primarily a state / local issue. As for global warming, Republicans tend to be more skeptical of the science - the severity, the cause, etc. Which shouldn't be too surprising since Republicans tend to represent areas engaged in a lot of CO2 production and so they're more worried about the economic impact. Republicans also tend to represent older voter who have lived through a lot of dire predictions that never came true. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22628 Posts
On December 11 2013 04:15 Liquid`Drone wrote: The problem is really that if people voted according to preferred politics, USA wouldn't be a two party state. Green and Libertarian would both get much more votes. Not nearly as much more as the internet makes it seem, but significantly more than just a couple percent combined. 2 Party systems dont exist because people only believe in the values of 2 parties and not the rest but because of the way votes are handled. As for the test being able to distinguish. Are there actually big differences between Dems and the rest of the left? Because the rest has 'almost' no political influence there isn't a need for clear separation like in more open systems. And even then you often have parties you only difference on a few select issues which following broadly the same lines. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
sweden closes prisons | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 11 2013 05:01 ticklishmusic wrote: Those darn swedes and their universal healthcare, unemployment benefits and socialist ways. sweden closes prisons No no no! Leave it to the private sector! Supply and demand will exactly determine the right number of prisons and the country wide competition will drive the cost down! | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On December 11 2013 03:11 Nyxisto wrote: I'm still not getting over the evolution and global warming answers of the GOP. Are these the official positions of the GOP? It's unbelievable to me that in a two party system one party is just like "nah we'll just disagree on things that are basically scientific consensus, lets just teach intelligent design in schools". Most republicans are more moderate. If the more "hard to justify scientifically" parts of the republican party appeals to you, the constitution party is probably a better fit. I am surprised that it doesn't figure on the list when it is generally considered a far bigger party than SPUSA. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 11 2013 05:23 Nyxisto wrote: No no no! Leave it to the private sector! Supply and demand will exactly determine the right number of prisons and the country wide competition will drive the cost down! Can't do worse than the state of California  | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On December 11 2013 04:15 Liquid`Drone wrote: The problem is really that if people voted according to preferred politics, USA wouldn't be a two party state. Green and Libertarian would both get much more votes. Not nearly as much more as the internet makes it seem, but significantly more than just a couple percent combined. Talking from experience, lots of Americans I talk to seem to be aware of this, but they always fall back on the excuse of "lesser of two evils." | ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
On December 11 2013 05:23 Nyxisto wrote: No no no! Leave it to the private sector! Supply and demand will exactly determine the right number of prisons and the country wide competition will drive the cost down! Hmm... do you think recidivism rate ought to factor into this free market solution? After all, if I pay you to rehabilitate someone and he or she ends up back in jail on my dime, you haven't saved me much money. How could such a metric be gamed? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. regulators toughened key sections of the Volcker rule's crackdown on Wall Street's risky trades on Tuesday as they finalized one of the harshest reforms after the credit meltdown. The rule - named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who championed the reform - generally bans banks from proprietary trading, or speculative trading for their own profits. The final rule includes strictly defined carve-outs for trades executed to serve clients' interests or to protect against market risks, and forces banks to show regulators that they are not trying to pass off speculative bets as legitimate trades. Regulators are eager to prevent a repeat of trading debacles such as JPMorgan's $6 billion trading loss in 2012, dubbed the "London Whale" because of the huge positions the bank took in credit markets. Still, it is unclear exactly how regulators will police banks' trading activity and officials acknowledged the sprawling, 882-page rule was a complex document. "Many of us - myself included - had hoped for a final rule substantially more streamlined than the 2011 proposal. I think we need to acknowledge that it has been only modestly simplified," Federal Reserve Governor Dan Tarullo said. Source | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 11 2013 03:24 KwarK wrote: American exceptionalism. They're too free to be constrained by facts. Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. President Barack Obama I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.) The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 11 2013 05:38 hummingbird23 wrote: Hmm... do you think recidivism rate ought to factor into this free market solution? After all, if I pay you to rehabilitate someone and he or she ends up back in jail on my dime, you haven't saved me much money. How could such a metric be gamed? You are neglecting the fact that the recidivism rate isn't zero because some prisons are state run! The highly competitive free market prisons will be so awesome that no one's going to become a criminal again!(unless they're so awesome that people voluntarily want to come back) The problem is really that if people voted according to preferred politics, USA wouldn't be a two party state. Green and Libertarian would both get much more votes. Not nearly as much more as the internet makes it seem, but significantly more than just a couple percent combined. They would get more votes, but their influence would decrease. Look how much influence the tea party actually has as a grassroots movement inside the Republicans. Where as our(Germany) Green and left parties, which both scored about 8%, are basically going to completely drop out of any decision-making because our big parties are going to get a 2/3 majority and we're going to have a opposition with 20% of the seats. I personally like the two party system because all the "craziness" gets filtered and ends up in a way more digested form and you'll basically end up with one moderate left and one moderate right party(while maintaining the interests of minor parties in some form). Although the Republicans seem to go more and more to the right at the moment. But i do think that this won't last long because it's bound to fail and they'll eventually go towards the center at some point. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 11 2013 05:55 Nyxisto wrote: You are neglecting the fact that the recidivism rate isn't zero because some prisons are state run! The highly competitive free market prisons will be so awesome that no one's going to become a criminal again!(unless they're so awesome that people voluntarily want to come back) I think you have it backwards. The left argues that private prisons result in more imprisonment - the "prison industrial complex". The right just argues that they'll save money. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The Obama administration has approved Iowa's alternative plan for expanding Medicaid under Obamacare -- but with one important tweak, which state officials will have to sign off on. The approval was first reported by the Washington Post. A spokesman for Gov. Terry Branstad (R), who proposed the alternative plan, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Branstad had asked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to allow the state to use Medicaid expansion money to pay for people to purchase private health coverage on HealthCare.gov -- similiar to what Arkansas had already received approval for. That would cover people between 100 and 138 percent of the federal poverty level. People below the poverty level would be covered by a modified version of the state's traditional Medicaid program. But Iowa also wanted to require those covered by the expansion to contribute money toward their coverage. CMS said Tuesday that Iowa could implement that requirement for people above the poverty line, but not for people below it. Source | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22628 Posts
So in order to get the care you cant afford they want you to pay for it with money you dont have. right... makes total sense... | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 11 2013 06:52 Gorsameth wrote: So in order to get the care you cant afford they want you to pay for it with money you dont have. right... makes total sense... How much money do they have and what level of payment is unaffordable? | ||
| ||
