EPTRepublican nominations - Page 95
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jace32
33 Posts
| ||
|
cskalias.pbe
United States293 Posts
On September 16 2011 01:32 xDaunt wrote: In other news, it looks like no one -- not even democrats -- likes Obama's job bill: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44528419/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/ Ask the unemployed. Although not like that is reason it an of itself to like the jobs bill. One point I'd like to make is that many people have only a loose grasp of what policies they benefit from and don't benefit from. Maybe, MAYBE across many many individuals they can reliably assess whether it helps the group on average (using some measure of utility or morality or justice that can be discussed forever), but I have my doubts even then. However, individuals' ability to reliably determine that a hundred page bill can benefit them having only received a few key statements from politicians is absurd. I'm sure you understand this and the political game. But I'm not a fan of how you and modern American politics (but especially republicans) conflate persuasion with edification. | ||
|
cskalias.pbe
United States293 Posts
On September 16 2011 02:51 Kiarip wrote: zero sum games are better than negative sum games Clearly negative sum games are ok as long as ones respective side gains, and probably even if they still gain relative to the other if not absolute terms. edit: sarcasm | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 16 2011 08:25 cskalias.pbe wrote: Ask the unemployed. Although not like that is reason it an of itself to like the jobs bill. One point I'd like to make is that many people have only a loose grasp of what policies they benefit from and don't benefit from. Maybe, MAYBE across many many individuals they can reliably assess whether it helps the group on average (using some measure of utility or morality or justice that can be discussed forever), but I have my doubts even then. However, individuals' ability to reliably determine that a hundred page bill can benefit them having only received a few key statements from politicians is absurd. I'm sure you understand this and the political game. But I'm not a fan of how you and modern American politics (but especially republicans) conflate persuasion with edification. Well, before the hate machine even started, a lot of people disliked the approach. The Republicans are going to hate the bill regardless, and would NEVER support it unless it basically read "Obama is a Republican now!" (Even that's debateable though). However, there are credible reasons why independents and Democrats aren't too excited about the bill. In effort to appease Republicans, there is a disproportionate amount going into payroll tax exemptions (that Republicans turn their noses at). There's a lot of people who would rally behind a REAL investment in infrastructure and/or technology, even if those of us who have good jobs already had to pay a little more. $600 billion on pure spending would likely put a smile on a lot of people's faces, but the debate is being controlled by people who are on a short leash connected to a group who cheer the most for people dying for making mistakes. | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On September 16 2011 08:25 cskalias.pbe wrote: Ask the unemployed. Although not like that is reason it an of itself to like the jobs bill. One point I'd like to make is that many people have only a loose grasp of what policies they benefit from and don't benefit from. Maybe, MAYBE across many many individuals they can reliably assess whether it helps the group on average (using some measure of utility or morality or justice that can be discussed forever), but I have my doubts even then. However, individuals' ability to reliably determine that a hundred page bill can benefit them having only received a few key statements from politicians is absurd. I'm sure you understand this and the political game. But I'm not a fan of how you and modern American politics (but especially republicans) conflate persuasion with edification. Very good point. It's really the oldest indictment against democracy, as Plato articulated in the "Ship of State" analogy. People don't vote for the best leader, but rather the best persuader. The public doesn't understand enough to know what is best for society, and they are seduced by reductive arguments and short-term desires. Without the wisdom of philosopher kings, democracy is probably the best thing we can hope for in an imperfect world. But an informed populace is essential to a good democracy, and the founding fathers stressed that importance. At the moment it seems Plato's fears have come true, quite magnified by intentional misinformation, corporate media, identity politics, lobbying, and the perpetual campaign. I'm not picking on either side here, it's a fundamental problem with our political system. | ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
On September 16 2011 03:00 DeepElemBlues wrote: Elaborate + examples please. (1) I find this unconvincing as an indictment of the free-market system. (2) Rather, I see it as proof that it worked as intended. Executives were overpaid during a period when money appeared free. Then the game was up, so to speak, and many companies and executives paid for it. The economy is weak because the market does not fail to punish mistakes, whether honest or not. And whether it is businesses or government doing it. "Divorced," interesting word to use. What do you mean? (3) You seem to be mixing two different things together in the middle of this paragraph. (Never mind that the first sentence is a kind of big assertion.) It is very true that the technological basis of the economy has been born in no small part from direct government or government-subsidized basic research, no doubt about that. But I don't understand how a [i]financial[i] crisis has connection to "cannibalizing talent" and "basic research." It seems you're just vehemently denouncing capitalism and coherence be somewhat damned. (4) Again, a lot of things jumbled up together. I don't think there is some kind of overwhelming feeling in this country or any country that "zero-sum games of wealth" are the highest achievement of an individual or society. (5) Or that "the best and brightest" have overwhelmingly devoted themselves to the intricacies of making money from money, denying the country or the world talent in other areas. Or that there are oceans of "wasted human potential" because Bank of America and Goldman Sachs expanded greatly in the last decade before the crash. The situation is a lot more complex than you make it seem. Some streets are only one way but this one is definitely two. (1) You don't think that securitizing stuff, selling it and then betting against your own product is an abuse of information asymmetry to transfer wealth upwards? See Goldman. If you lend money at your own risk, profit accrues for bearing that risk. But when you obfuscate and conceal and offload that risk and thereby sell debt at prices that aren't in the least commensurate with risk, I'm not even sure how this can be defended. See also Moody. (2) Does your period of "when money appeared free" span three decades? If not, then the point raised still stands. (3) I use the word divorced because when zero sum activities generate apparent monetary gain (see options and derivatives trading, or high-speed trading) and people are paid on how much they make by exploiting asymmetries or even paid per transaction, or per dollar they handle, when all is said and done and the market corrects, the people wiped out aren't the traders. Sure they lose future income, but the money they took in previous years had to come from somewhere and this is where wealth has been transferred in real terms. Even if the company gets wrecked, the people involved still make out like bandits. Creation of real, concrete value (like goods) is supposed to be rewarded by the market, yet the greatest rewards make it into the hands of those whose business is finding a greater sucker to offload their liabilities onto. Hence the term divorced. (4&5) This was in reply to xDaunt's charge that a postdoc generates only as much value as he or she is paid and that market pricing for labour is efficient. The positive externalities of basic research are well known and are not in contention. I can provide links on request. Still, points 4 and 5 are fair and I withdraw those assertions. To expand on your BoA and GS points, the income distribution is exactly why cutting income taxes across the board is unlikely to stimulate consumer demand. No one, I hope, is continuing to advocate high end income tax cuts as a means of job creation, there's already enormous amounts of wealth but no giant surge of production. Returning to the original topic, how is it that any of these candidates are election material? Bachmann and Santorum showcase weapons-grade idiocy, not one of them (save Huntsman) has a remotely reasoned view on climate change (disagreeing about how to handle it is reasonable, ostriching its existence is not), half of them are libertarian at a time when 'fuck you I got mine' has been and continues to be a disaster that accelerates wealth transfer upwards, and to top it off, they're all (save one) pandering to either the dumb-as-bricks segment or the 'mine, all mine' segment of the population? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 16 2011 15:57 hummingbird23 wrote: Returning to the original topic, how is it that any of these candidates are election material? Bachmann and Santorum showcase weapons-grade idiocy, not one of them (save Huntsman) has a remotely reasoned view on climate change (disagreeing about how to handle it is reasonable, ostriching its existence is not), half of them are libertarian at a time when 'fuck you I got mine' has been and continues to be a disaster that accelerates wealth transfer upwards, and to top it off, they're all (save one) pandering to either the dumb-as-bricks segment or the 'mine, all mine' segment of the population? So far, it looks like republicans have basically decided that no one other than Romney and Perry are presidential material. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On September 16 2011 15:57 hummingbird23 wrote: Returning to the original topic, how is it that any of these candidates are election material? Bachmann and Santorum showcase weapons-grade idiocy, not one of them (save Huntsman) has a remotely reasoned view on climate change (disagreeing about how to handle it is reasonable, ostriching its existence is not), half of them are libertarian at a time when 'fuck you I got mine' has been and continues to be a disaster that accelerates wealth transfer upwards, and to top it off, they're all (save one) pandering to either the dumb-as-bricks segment or the 'mine, all mine' segment of the population? Worth noting that Romney went from being like Huntsman in a "global warming exists but I don't want to do anything about it" way to denying it outright. He has to beat crazy, and it's making him look sleazy. | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On September 17 2011 00:25 xDaunt wrote: So far, it looks like republicans have basically decided that no one other than Romney and Perry are presidential material. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html About half of the polls used in their average were conducted before the last two debates, but that doesn't seem to make much difference since the more recent polls still put Perry clearly ahead. That is surprising to me, it really seemed like Romney came out looking better after those debates. I guess doubling down on creationism and global warming spoke to the base, or the social security thing? I'm not sure. edit:It's also waaaay too early to tell who will win the nomination, but much more telling is the fact that is definitely a two-man race and the circular way that these polls and the media feed on each other will keep it that way. edit2: sorry to ninja edit on you  . I agree with your assessment about Romney, it looks like the primary will come down to passion vs. electability.edit3: Perry is also just likable, isn't he? That Texan drawl, the folksy charm, and he's a good looking fella. Contrasting that with a Massachussets elite worked pretty well in 2004. On September 17 2011 00:56 jon arbuckle wrote: Worth noting that Romney went from being like Huntsman in a "global warming exists but I don't want to do anything about it" way to denying it outright. He has to beat crazy, and it's making him look sleazy. The primary process is just like that, unfortunately. They have to lean as far right or left as they can for the base, while hopefully not so far as to turn off independents. I tend to take it easy on them because it's part of the game but it actually is one of the more disgusting parts of the process. It goes to show that these guys don't actually believe in anything, just what scores the most points. Sometimes it's called flip flopping, sometimes it's called open-mindedness, but it's just political calculation. How do we change that? I have no idea <2 edit: it also leads to very polarized general elections dictated by relatively small parts of the population. And to Hummingbird's point, they are NOT libertarians (besides Paul of course). | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 17 2011 02:15 Senorcuidado wrote: About half of the polls used in their average were conducted before the last two debates, but that doesn't seem to make much difference since the more recent polls still put Perry clearly ahead. That is surprising to me, it really seemed like Romney came out looking better after those debates. I guess doubling down on creationism and global warming spoke to the base, or the social security thing? I'm not sure. I don't see the numbers changing much with regards to the non-Romney/Perry candidates. Bachmann has been on a clearly downward trajectory since Perry got in the race. Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, Paul, and Huntsman were never competitive/relevant. As for Romney, I think he has two problems. The first is Romneycare. That's going to haunt him throughout the primary. The second is that, although he presents very well, Romney isn't aggressive enough. Republicans want someone who is going to fight for them and their values. They know that Perry will do that. Romney has a history of appearing "weak." For example, the best and most impassioned speech that he gave in 2008 was his concession speech to McCain. That's not the type of candidate that's going to motivate voters. | ||
|
dOofuS
United States342 Posts
On September 17 2011 02:23 xDaunt wrote: Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, Paul, and Huntsman were never competitive/relevant. I frankly, beg to differ. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 17 2011 18:12 dOofuS wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohKz9OeiI0g I frankly, beg to differ. Nice video. It does touch on the reason why MANY people on both sides like him as a person and politician. He is marvelously consistent and has a very good understanding of where he stands. However, I think most of his policies are ridiculous. His ideas on monetary policy, taxation, and social programs are a century behind, and that's meant as a demeaning statement. We have very tough 21st century problems which take 21st century solutions. Going back to 1900 for a selection of policies will not help us. | ||
|
LeibSaiLeib
173 Posts
tax the poor, taxcut the rich, republicans=rich people who just want more benefits and the jobs will NOT come back there are million reasons, oil prices go up, tehnological unemployment, innevitable lack of recources, upcominb series of economic collapses etc, everyone knows that but still people are fooled. USA is fucked in every regard (arguably, hence the world), gl having to vote between bad (democrats) and total crap(republicans). Things will not get better things will only get worse the next decades. | ||
|
dOofuS
United States342 Posts
On September 17 2011 18:35 aksfjh wrote: Nice video. It does touch on the reason why MANY people on both sides like him as a person and politician. He is marvelously consistent and has a very good understanding of where he stands. However, I think most of his policies are ridiculous. His ideas on monetary policy, taxation, and social programs are a century behind, and that's meant as a demeaning statement. We have very tough 21st century problems which take 21st century solutions. Going back to 1900 for a selection of policies will not help us. Why do people seem to believe that Ron Paul is off base when it comes to monetary policy, taxation, and social programs? If anything, he's the only one that will realistically cut spending (unnecessary wars, bloated government programs, removing the system that prints the money and devalues our currency... to name a few). His economic advisor in the last election (2008) was Peter Schiff, who predicted the housing bubble, and many of our financial problems before they occurred. Have a listen to this 2 part video, and explain to me how his (and Ron Paul's) ideas won't work. Part 1: Part 2: If these ideas are 1900's, give me the 1900's. | ||
|
ChApFoU
France2983 Posts
| ||
|
dark0dave
179 Posts
EDIT: toned down the BM | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On September 18 2011 03:57 ChApFoU wrote: The fact that such a total lunatic like Bachmann can be a senator kinda shows the limits of our modern days democracies. Still better that most of what we've seen so far in terms of government though ... Bachmann isn't a Senator and, given where she lives, I doubt she could be. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
In a speech to about 400 Republicans gathered for the state party's fall convention here, the three-term Minnesota congresswoman blamed President Obama for "the hostilities of the Arab spring" and expressed regret that "we saw (Egyptian) President (Hosni) Mubarak fall while President Obama sat on his hands." Source | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
Unfortunately, the organized religion called Christianity leads many to say and do some very un-Christian (that is to say un-Christ-like) things. Religion creates a lot of problems for the Republican party, but that's a tale for another post. Anyway, let's keep the conversation constructive. If all you have to say is "Republicans suck and we're all doomed", chances are it's been said before. At least narrow it down to which candidate(s) sucks and why. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On September 17 2011 18:35 aksfjh wrote: Nice video. It does touch on the reason why MANY people on both sides like him as a person and politician. He is marvelously consistent and has a very good understanding of where he stands. However, I think most of his policies are ridiculous. His ideas on monetary policy, taxation, and social programs are a century behind, and that's meant as a demeaning statement. We have very tough 21st century problems which take 21st century solutions. Going back to 1900 for a selection of policies will not help us. Those ideas that are "a century behind" predicted the economic crises. Your "21st century solutions" caused it. | ||
| ||
