EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 1098
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
Shelke14
Canada6655 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
 When I try to catch up I always see a post that I want to respond to after the conversation has carried on. At least these topics are more interesting to discuss than Romney's taxes and Obama's birth certificate. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 29 2012 14:27 jdseemoreglass wrote: Wealth does not come from bargaining. It comes from producing and earning. More zero-sum perspective. The people who are successful in this country have usually gotten there by improving themselves. Improving their education, learning marketable skills, social skills, etc. It's about self-value, not force or taking power. your singular focus on growth driven by profit incentive is rather dated and narrow. not all work or invention is perfectly elastic to profit at a constant marginal rate. equalty is not even a zero sum perspective, as you need consumers too. incremental improvements and management system-making are driven more by incentives, while revolutionary step ups in tech rely more on concentration of research and entrepreneuring individuals matched up with resources. this is not so simple as incentives. it requires quite a bit of wise investment of which much is public. i would like a low level of corporate tax and higher tax on non productive wealth, be it dividends or whatever. broad based bargaining would lead to more improvements to actual working conditions and quality of life because some of these things are politically defined, i.e. they require actual politiking to get done. you also have to realize that public investment tends to be very high in affluent neighborhoods, meaning it is actually something people with the resources desire. we may infer that public goods are underinvested in poorer neighborhoods, partcularly education. stuff like the 40 hour work week etc are concrete products of bargaining and politics. it's a complicated world out there i am sleeping | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
I'm from New Orleans, so I scoff at the panic over a Category One. | ||
|
blug
Australia623 Posts
However, I did watch a video of Romney bad mouthing the poorer individuals, how did Romney talk his way out of that? How are people even willing to vote for Romney after saying those comments? Do people actually agree with what he said? I'm not saying if it's bad if you do, I just thought the general populous wasn't that open minded xD | ||
|
hacklebeast
United States5090 Posts
On October 29 2012 15:20 blug wrote: I'm not an American, I don't know anything about the American Political System besides the fact that you have 2 main candidates running. However, I did watch a video of Romney bad mouthing the poorer individuals, how did Romney talk his way out of that? How are people even willing to vote for Romney after saying those comments? Do people actually agree with what he said? I'm not saying if it's bad if you do, I just thought the general populous wasn't that open minded xD A lot of his supporters have the mentality of "He's totally right! THOSE lazy people are ruining it all for US hard working Americans!" not realizing that they are in the group he was referring to. Other people like my self just don't care (I'm not a Romney supporter, but I personally though the whole thing was blown out of proportion). | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On October 29 2012 14:41 jdseemoreglass wrote: I personally don't have the view that American well being is somehow more important than other people, I don't think in nationalistic terms. So I don't think job exports are bad on that grounds, but that's a separate topic.... Trade is good, trade is beneficial. No one says "I'm not going to buy anything from walmart, because then walmart would have my money. I'm going to grow my own food and build my own furniture and weave my own clothes so that I stay economically strong." It's the most ridiculous economic fallacy, and yet it gets repeated endlessly. Trade is efficient. People specialize in one task they can do better than others, and that trade based on specialization and comparative advantage leaves both parties better off. A person who shops and trades for their goods will always be richer, because they will be getting those goods at a cheaper cost than they could have produced themselves. It shows a real ignorance of economics to think that outsourcing is bad for the country. Outsourcing is bad for the individuals who lose their jobs, but it is good for the country. We have goods produced at a lower cost, which means more money in our pockets to spend and other goods and replace those jobs plus interest. We should not be subsidizing inefficient industries and jobs to cater to a minority of workers at the expense of the rest of the country. Imagine if we had subsidized horse and buggy drivers when the automobile came out, to protect their jobs. Protectionism is also provably anti-progress and therefore anti-progressive in my opinion. I don't know what you mean when you say "domestically detrimental business strategies," but something makes me think it's based either on more economic fallacies such as the one above, or on a failure of government regulation. I'm not really sure where all that rhetoric on trade came from; wherever these "anti-trade" people are, I'm sure they are quaking in their boots. More to the point, I fail to see how uttering juvenile aphorisms and following them with strange, loaded hypotheticals indicates anything other than a self-identified professorial streak in the speaker usually inspired by a zealous over-reading of a "seminal" work. That being said, let's skip ahead to your bit on outsourcing. So, you come out of the gate with a conclusion, an assertion that only ignorance could beget a suspicion of outsourcing. This is backed up with a clarification that outsourcing may seem bad to those losing their jobs, but is actually beneficial to the nation as a whole (though I thought you didn't believe in "nationalism", but I digress). This is where it gets good. Your evidence that outsourcing is actually good for the whole of the economy of the United States is a discrete quip on goods, as though the lowered cost of goods accounts for wages, employment, inflation, market saturation, etc. So, to summarize, you've stripped down useful thoughts on economics into convenient bites with which to make your point, a point so bereft of nuance and specificity so as to render it a dogmatic sermon (or an Ayn Rand novel, whichever you choose). That's fine and dandy, but please excuse my refusal to partake in an economic discussion with someone who'd rather speak from the pulpit rather than the dinner table or classroom. I've got no problem with cutting down on wasted subsidy money, but if you think subsidies refer exclusively to benefits given with intent to "protect their jobs", I think you'd better take a better look at what makes up subsidy funding (hint, its more than wind energy credits and Solyndra). | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 29 2012 15:20 blug wrote: I'm not an American, I don't know anything about the American Political System besides the fact that you have 2 main candidates running. However, I did watch a video of Romney bad mouthing the poorer individuals, how did Romney talk his way out of that? How are people even willing to vote for Romney after saying those comments? Do people actually agree with what he said? I'm not saying if it's bad if you do, I just thought the general populous wasn't that open minded xD Well now that you've watched Romney bad mouthing poorer individuals, how about Obama bad mouthing some hard-working individuals. News media is all about sensationalism. Don't think you saw one volley of mud slung and have people seriously question their votes as a result of it. I mean, we on the other side were aghast at how Obama's numbers have held on considering what the last 4 years have shown America about how the man likes to govern. Two sides to this deal. On October 29 2012 15:00 Souma wrote: ^ Yeah we talked about it, then you went off on a tangent about X-Boxs and air-conditioning. Because those are some of the evils that one cause of income equality generates. The living conditions of the poor improve even as the income gap between them and the wealthy widens. I hear the moans about this gap, but the deleterious effects of it are not borne out. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 29 2012 15:20 blug wrote: I'm not an American, I don't know anything about the American Political System besides the fact that you have 2 main candidates running. However, I did watch a video of Romney bad mouthing the poorer individuals, how did Romney talk his way out of that? How are people even willing to vote for Romney after saying those comments? Do people actually agree with what he said? I'm not saying if it's bad if you do, I just thought the general populous wasn't that open minded xD It's clear he's referring to the entrenched 47%, the 47% who are unpersuadable and will vote for Obama regardless of what he says. He associates them with what they are protecting--moochers. It's metaphorical, not literal. It's meant to be rousing rhetoric, not a literal discussion. I understood exactly what he meant. It was a poor choice of words to express it because he's incorrectly lumping them together and speaking a falsehood, but the idea is the same. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 29 2012 16:06 Danglars wrote: Well now that you've watched Romney bad mouthing poorer individuals, how about Obama bad mouthing some hard-working individuals. News media is all about sensationalism. Don't think you saw one volley of mud slung and have people seriously question their votes as a result of it. I mean, we on the other side were aghast at how Obama's numbers have held on considering what the last 4 years have shown America about how the man likes to govern. Two sides to this deal. Because those are some of the evils that one cause of income equality generates. The living conditions of the poor improve even as the income gap between them and the wealthy widens. I hear the moans about this gap, but the deleterious effects of it are not borne out. I'm sorry, but life is not measured by something so trivial as the affordability of a television to the general populace. This whole black-and-white perspective on income inequality is stupid. There's a certain threshold where income inequality becomes detrimental to society and that line has been all but crossed as demonstrated by paralleluniverse's sources and even Jonny's linked article. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 29 2012 15:18 ticklishmusic wrote: How will a Hurricane affect voting in the Northeast? Will disaster relief, if needed, affect the president's image as an executive going in? I'm from New Orleans, so I scoff at the panic over a Category One. He'll overreact to appear strong and prevent a Katrina oops moment. There is no other political move that makes any sense. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On October 29 2012 16:41 BluePanther wrote: He'll overreact to appear strong and prevent a Katrina oops moment. There is no other political move that makes any sense. Not just the prez is overreacting ... Press Release issued from New Jersey National Weather Service. And yes, it was written in all-caps. SANDY IS EXPECTED TO SLAM INTO THE NEW JERSEY COAST LATER MONDAY NIGHT, BRINGING VERY HEAVY RAIN AND DAMAGING WINDS TO THE REGION. THE STORM IS A LARGE ONE, THEREFORE DO NOT FOCUS ON THE EXACT CENTER OF THE STORM AS ALL AREAS WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE AN HISTORIC STORM, WITH WIDESPREAD WIND DAMAGE AND POWER OUTAGES, INLAND AND COASTAL FLOODING, AND MASSIVE BEACH EROSION. THE COMBINATION OF THE HEAVY RAIN AND PROLONGED WIND WILL CREATE THE POTENTIAL FOR LONG LASTING POWER OUTAGES AND SERIOUS FLOODING. PREPARATIONS SHOULD BE WRAPPING UP AS CONDITIONS ARE EXPECTED TO WORSEN TONIGHT AND ESPECIALLY ON MONDAY. SOME IMPORTANT NOTES... 1. IF YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO EVACUATE A COASTAL LOCATION BY STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS, PLEASE DO SO. 2. IF YOU ARE RELUCTANT TO EVACUATE, AND YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO RODE OUT THE `62 STORM ON THE BARRIER ISLANDS, ASK THEM IF THEY COULD DO IT AGAIN. 3. IF YOU ARE RELUCTANT, THINK ABOUT YOUR LOVED ONES, THINK ABOUT THE EMERGENCY RESPONDERS WHO WILL BE UNABLE TO REACH YOU WHEN YOU MAKE THE PANICKED PHONE CALL TO BE RESCUED, THINK ABOUT THE RESCUE/RECOVERY TEAMS WHO WILL RESCUE YOU IF YOU ARE INJURED OR RECOVER YOUR REMAINS IF YOU DO NOT SURVIVE. 4. SANDY IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS STORM. THERE WILL BE MAJOR PROPERTY DAMAGE, INJURIES ARE PROBABLY UNAVOIDABLE, BUT THE GOAL IS ZERO FATALITIES. 5. IF YOU THINK THE STORM IS OVER-HYPED AND EXAGGERATED, PLEASE ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. WE WISH EVERYONE IN HARMS WAY ALL THE BEST. STAY SAFE! | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 29 2012 16:46 Defacer wrote: Not just the prez is overreacting ... Press Release issued from New Jersey National Weather Service. And yes, it was written in all-caps. just fyi, all weather warnings are in all caps  | ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 29 2012 16:40 Souma wrote: I'm sorry, but life is not measured by something so trivial as the affordability of a television to the general populace. This whole black-and-white perspective on income inequality is stupid. There's a certain threshold where income inequality becomes detrimental to society and that line has been all but crossed as demonstrated by paralleluniverse's sources and even Jonny's linked article. Thanks for the straw man, I'll stick it in the corner. I'm talking about the general trend of the elevation of the person in poverty's lot in life. That they now have money for that extra TV, for the car, for the AC, and everything else. And even when you say that life is not measured by the luxuries you can afford, I'll stack on top of it that well-being is not measured by income. I read at least The Economist article seeing with what broad strokes they painted societal ills into the income inequality bucket. China came first, the bastion of a politically free and responsive government. Of course, the political favors of a corrupt, unresponsive government creates poor conditions, and not some income gap with free people able to do business apart from state-owned allowances. Throw Russia and India in that pile. Wall Street cronyism not letting up-and-comers in to become wealthy? Let's get government out of the too-big-to-fail business and back to the worst-run banks fail, allowing new ones to spring up to take their place. There is still quite a big of income mobility into the top ranks. Taking 1995 to 2005, you can see only one quarter of those at the very top still being in their coveted position, new ones coming in to take their place (US Treasury Report, 2007). Celebrate it for goodness sakes. Continuing in the trend of misdeeds done by the government on the economy is the subsidies, and the declining state of schools (Not for lack of spending money on them, the growth in that is astronomical.) I doubt I can convince even one who focuses on income inequality that it is misappropriated. It is a political issue, it is the way of drumming up envy and votes, and it will remain so. The alternative is stark. The improvement of conditions for those who at any point in time are in the bottom 20% is remarkable. Income mobility is still very good in the United States, even with the increase in single-parent families and other pressures. 93% of the time, if you were born to a family at the very bottom, you will supercede your parents. This is 88% if you're in the middle class (Pew Trusts, Economic Mobility Project, 2012). If you don't want to be counted amongst the poor in this country, it isn't that hard, it isn't . Get through high school, marry before getting kids, and wait until after 20 to get married (This from William Galston, Clinton adviser, back in 2002. Only 8% of families that did this are poor, you're up to 79% chance if you fail to do those three. Personal responsibility). | ||
|
ControlMonkey
Australia3109 Posts
On October 29 2012 17:56 feanor1 wrote: Sent in an absentee ballot for the first time yesterday. I still hate the US political system in that my vote for the president essentially doesn't count because I am not in one of the 9 states that have a realistic shot of going either way. I can't think of many logical reasons why we still vote with the electoral college and not just a simple majority. The system was design when it took days for messages to travel between states, now communication is instant. The only reason I voted was because of a state ballot initiative that is very close (Michigan Canada bridge). The same can be said of a lot of voting systems. In Australia, there are about 25 marginal seats out of 150, and that is what decides who wins the election. Live in a safe Liberal or Labor seat? Too bad, you get nothing! | ||
|
ey215
United States546 Posts
On October 29 2012 15:18 ticklishmusic wrote: How will a Hurricane affect voting in the Northeast? Will disaster relief, if needed, affect the president's image as an executive going in? Early voting will likely be shut down today and tomorrow. There are projections of 8 - 10 million people that will end up without power and as we've seen in the past that isn't something that gets cleared up immediately. I think the potential snow may cause some issues as well. For instance, Western Maryland is actually under a blizzard warning right now due to the two fronts coming together. There's potential this helps the President since instead of talking about whether or not Romney has momentum and the economy the news will be all about this for the next few days. I'm from New Orleans, so I scoff at the panic over a Category One. What we're also seeing is the overreaction by the news media (like they do with everything else) because it is happening in the Mid-Atlantic to Northeast. It's this way with everything from sports, to news, to weather. It never fails. Having lived in areas with hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, snow storms, monsoons, wildfires and every other type of weather I can think of the whole thing amuses the hell out of me. The scariest natural disaster I've ever seen was the 2007 San Diego wildfires. Being able to see the flames from those right from the house made for one scary night especially as fast as that one moved. | ||
| ||
