EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 80
| 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. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
Obamanation666
United States70 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 18 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote: Did I just read that aid and investment shouldn't be given because of "moral hazard"? That sounds like a good idea. We'll teach an entire state and then some a lesson by making them suffer. Then they'll move to some other part of the nation where there aren't natural disasters or limited resources! I do find it a bit ridiculous the florida thing, yes. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 18 2013 05:35 Obamanation666 wrote: I like how you linked articles from Washington Post and Forbes. These are real objective sources of non bias information. LoL The same kind of voices that call rags like the New York Times the unbiased newspaper of record. Perhaps you would prefer Fox News sources? Accept that basically every large media outlet in the United States has varying degrees of bias and don't hold dear the ones that lean liberal and utterly reject those that lean conservative in ideology. | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 18 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote: Did I just read that aid and investment shouldn't be given because of "moral hazard"? That sounds like a good idea. We'll teach an entire state and then some a lesson by making them suffer. Then they'll move to some other part of the nation where there aren't natural disasters or limited resources! No, you didn't. Not from me at least. To clarify for those that aren't aware (including yourself) the moral hazard arises from the government guaranteeing that you will be made whole even if it doesn't makes sense to do so. Houses destroyed in clearly hazardous areas should not be rebuilt in the same clearly hazardous areas. The should be rebuilt in relatively safe areas. This is not an argument for zero aid to people hit by a disaster. This is an argument for reforming parts of the disaster relief system that clearly broken. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On January 18 2013 09:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote: No, you didn't. Not from me at least. To clarify for those that aren't aware (including yourself) the moral hazard arises from the government guaranteeing that you will be made whole even if it doesn't makes sense to do so. Houses destroyed in clearly hazardous areas should not be rebuilt in the same clearly hazardous areas. The should be rebuilt in relatively safe areas. This is not an argument for zero aid to people hit by a disaster. This is an argument for reforming parts of the disaster relief system that clearly broken. And if and when global climate change brings about a shift in disaster danger zones, how do you expect the government to legislate such a thing? Edit: In fact, how are we to know that such a thing has not already begun? Where does the line get drawn? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
The whole of LA is a hazardous area basicly with the san andreas fault. Can not relocate them all. Same with coastal areas, citys are build there because there are ports and because its nice to live along the water, the ground has a high value. Simply giving that all up so easily i can not understand. | ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
On January 18 2013 10:02 Rassy wrote: Not building in hazardous areas is not realistic. The whole of LA is a hazardous area basicly with the san andreas fault. Can not relocate them all. Same with coastal areas, citys are build there because there are ports and because its nice to live along the water, the ground has a high value. Simply giving that all up so easily i can not understand. It can be understood, if you only have half a brain. Those people simply have no clues, they have tunnel visions, and they only look at the negatives and simply forgot the positives. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 18 2013 10:02 Rassy wrote: Not building in hazardous areas is not realistic. The whole of LA is a hazardous area basicly with the san andreas fault. Can not relocate them all. Same with coastal areas, citys are build there because there are ports and because its nice to live along the water, the ground has a high value. Simply giving that all up so easily i can not understand. I think you are misunderstanding the issue. This isn't about relocating people. This is about limiting the incentive for people to build in risky areas. For example, Federal flood insurance can charge more for living in an area prone to flooding. So if you really really really want to live along a river that regularly floods you can still do so - but the rest of us shouldn't be forced to pick up your tab. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Republican senator Ted Cruz of Texas said Thursday that Barack Obama is "high on his own power" with regard to the president's announced efforts on gun control. Speaking on Laura Ingraham's radio talk show, Cruz, who was just elected to the Senate last November, said "this is a president who has drunk the Kool-Aid." "He is feeling right now high on his own power, and he is pushing on every front, on guns," Cruz said. "And I think it's really sad to see the president of the United States exploiting the murder of children and using it to push his own extreme, anti-gun agenda. I think what the president is proposing and the gun control proposals that are coming from Democrats in the Senate are, number one, unconstitutional, and number two, they don't work. They're bad policy." Cruz told Ingraham that he does not believe Obama will be successful in passing gun control legislation and that the political ramifications of pursuing such laws could be bad for Democrats. "I think he's going to pay a serious political price, and I think the price that's going to be paid on this is going to manifest in Senate races in 2014, in some red states," Cruz said. "And there have got to be some Democrats who are up for reelection in 2014 who are very, very nervous right now that Presidnet Obama is picking this fight." The news here is that he's stating it will come as early as midterm elections. I don't know if it can come as early as midterm elections without some more major flubs by Obama. It's not like the Republican party has well-spoken politicians in leadership positions right now. Boehner's as uninspiring as they come, GOP leadership is pretty mum on everything of substance, and Tea Party positions haven't been too powerful apart from Cruz's rhetoric. Obama's kind of an easy target, passing such controversial orders and statements, but it takes strong leadership to call him to the carpet and that seems to be lacking lately. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14048 Posts
Pretty interesting shift in GOP policy going forward. They're not going to threaten to default in any way and instead are going to hold hostage the paycheck of senate and the house if a debt deal isn't put though. They're getting this strategy from the last major budget deal coming from a string of small compromise's and continuances while a larger deal shapes itself out. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On January 19 2013 07:16 Sermokala wrote: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/18/house-republicans-announce-vote-on-three-month-extension-of-debt-ceiling/?hpt=hp_t2 Pretty interesting shift in GOP policy going forward. They're not going to threaten to default in any way and instead are going to hold hostage the paycheck of senate and the house if a debt deal isn't put though. They're getting this strategy from the last major budget deal coming from a string of small compromise's and continuances while a larger deal shapes itself out. There is NO way that the president will give in to a temporary extension. If the House wants to force the Senate to pass a budget then they probably have to at least offer a year or two. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
Wish I had this story a few days ago when we were talking about "disaster relief" funds. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On January 19 2013 07:16 Sermokala wrote: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/18/house-republicans-announce-vote-on-three-month-extension-of-debt-ceiling/?hpt=hp_t2 Pretty interesting shift in GOP policy going forward. They're not going to threaten to default in any way and instead are going to hold hostage the paycheck of senate and the house if a debt deal isn't put though. They're getting this strategy from the last major budget deal coming from a string of small compromise's and continuances while a larger deal shapes itself out. 3 month extension. That's quite pathetic. Now they're demanding a new budget, which they claimed that Congress hasn't passed since 2009. Well, every budget, including the last one is a 10 year budget, so I don't see how it is relevant that a budget was last passed in 2009. Nor is it surprising that no budget has been passed since then, given how obstructive Republicans have been since the last midterms. It's not as if without passing a budget, they can't change fiscal policy, in fact, the last 2 debt reduction deals between Obama and Congress, totaling to about $2.5 trillion, has significantly already reduced debt to GDP over the next 10 years relative to a current policy baseline, and almost stabilizes debt to GDP over the next 10 years. So grats, Republicans have decided not to blow up the world economy, at least for the next 3 months. But I think it's clear that holding the debt ceiling hostage will no longer work moving forward. So that's great news. And rather than using more expansionary fiscal policy to support the economic recovery, and help people find jobs, they're more concerned about demanding spending cuts to hurt the poor and reduce the deficit, which like last time, will quite likely be blown on another massive tax cut when they next get in power. Here's the most important fact that needs to be hammered into everyone's brains in the next budget negotiations: Economic recovery => Reduction in deficit. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On January 19 2013 10:31 BluePanther wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/justice/louisiana-former-mayor-indicted/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Wish I had this story a few days ago when we were talking about "disaster relief" funds. It wouldnt have helped because even with corruption its still far more expensive to expect each state to do it themselves instead of just having government handle large scale disasters. | ||
| ||
