| 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 | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On October 30 2012 10:03 BluePanther wrote: Of course he does. There is no Democrat with a shot of winning it against the winner of a Rubio/Christie/Ryan/Condi primary. Hillary could. That's about the only Dem I can think of with a shot. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 10:13 sam!zdat wrote: no, that's not what the argument is about, the argument is about what this "civilized standard" is and how to understand it. But, please, guys, go back to shouting at each other about whose polls are better. I can tell I'm boring you with my pedantry It's just a perceived value that's standardized. I mean, you can go all valueception, but what's the point? If you go that route, you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing. It has no relevance in the real world. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 10:15 Adila wrote: Hillary could. That's about the only Dem I can think of with a shot. I don't think she will. And to be quite frank, I don't think she'd win. She's well known, but she's not exactly a person that appeals to a cross voter at all. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On October 30 2012 10:03 BluePanther wrote: Of course he does. There is no Democrat with a shot of winning it against the winner of a Rubio/Christie/Ryan/Condi primary. Hillary Clinton can easily win that. I'm much more concerned about Rubio on that list. Ryan will be burned by this election. Condi is w/e. Don't remember many republicans liking her anyway. Christie is wayyyyyy too overweight to win in the 21st century and he says too many stupid things to survive a primary. The US becomes more socially liberal every year that passes. Republicans who make an issue out of social issues, like Ryan, stand no chance as time goes on. Best bet for people like him is riding on economic fears in elections like this one behind another canidate. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On October 30 2012 10:17 BluePanther wrote: I don't think she will. And to be quite frank, I don't think she'd win. She's well known, but she's not exactly a person that appeals to a cross voter at all. Four years is a lot of time. She also has high approval ratings for her stint as Secretary of State. She also has the super weapon, Bill Clinton. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On October 30 2012 10:13 sam!zdat wrote: no, that's not what the argument is about, the argument is about what this "civilized standard" is and how to understand it. But, please, guys, go back to shouting at each other about whose polls are better. I can tell I'm boring you with my pedantry Never give up, never surrender. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 30 2012 10:16 BluePanther wrote: It's just a perceived value that's standardized. I mean, you can go all valueception, but what's the point? If you go that route, you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing. It has no relevance in the real world. the point is that what you are saying is a totally inadequate theory, barely even a theory really, more of a "just so" story, and that having an adequate theory of value and money is of utmost relevance to the real world. It is the total failure of mainstream economics to consider such matters that contributes to the mess we're in. What's the point of talking about your economy, and how to fix it, if you don't even know what value is in the first place? It's utterly ridiculous. If it's all made up, then who cares about fixing the economy? It's all made up! It's just "standardized." Well, so let's change the fucking standard and we'll all be rich then, yeah? You have to consider what things actually mean. We're so far into this precession of the simulacra bullshit that we can't do that, and that's what's wrong with our civilization. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 10:17 On_Slaught wrote: Hillary Clinton can easily win that. I'm much more concerned about Rubio on that list. Ryan will be burned by this election. Condi is w/e. Don't remember many republicans liking her anyway. Christie is wayyyyyy too overweight to win in the 21st century and he says too many stupid things to survive a primary. You're right that if Romney loses this one, Ryan is likely done for a while. Rubio would make things interesting, but he'd swing a lot of the latino vote back to the Reps I think. I think Christie resounds with a lot of people discontent with "politicking" as he represents a straight shooter. I would sign my life over to a Condi Pres run. I'm not sold that she would run, but this is far and away my preference for '16. Hillary is the only strong Democratic Candidate, but she comes with a lot of baggage. She's also getting up there in age (btw, Bill was a governor at age 32? holy crap). I'm not saying she won't give a it a shot, but I don't think she'll be as strong as she would have been in 08--and i think she would have lost to mccain in 08. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 09:27 Danglars wrote: Yes 43% stay in the bottom. 93% exceed their parent's income, and 43% of those don't earn enough to rise out of poverty. That's right, 57% pop out. You're more likely to get out of the poverty line in a generation than to stay there. Maybe only by one quintile, but it happens. I'd like more policy emphasis on intact families instead of government as the second parent in a two parent family (Welfare policies for single parents making 2 parent families less of a need). Studies I referenced as well as others show the black/white difference tied to families. Again, not the income inequality, but the need to have a marriage bedrock for kids. I see Obama putting class warfare as the highlight (Well, shouldn't the rich pay just a LITTLE bit more while we pursue cutting federal programs. Sacrifice!), and Romney wanting to encourage income mobility. It's a core issue for me. Strangely enough, the exact citation of marrying before kids and finishing high school is demonstrated to be the keys to the escape. Of course I'm for an improvement in education. It is government keeping the poor in under performing schools, essentially dooming the biggest moves out of poverty, because there is no school choice right now. Romney supports school voucher programs, giving the people "purchasing" their education more choice instead of being forced into bad schools with teachers protected by teacher's unions and legislation from being fired for poor performance. Education is a need for the poor, sadly, Obama stands on the side keeping it a need, opposing school choice. The government is indeed working against them in the respect I just talked about and more. The solution to this is, oddly enough, not more government programs. The ones not working now, as you claim, were designed by the same kind of people likely to do the next one. The truly elite sit back with the numbers of how much they're spending on the poor, scoring political points for their intentions, while the programs go on to skyrocket costs for little actual improvement. As mentioned earlier, a simple elimination of the management bureaucracy and a check would be an improvement. Ludicrous, but true. So, look at the supposed ills of income inequality, and you find the real causes. Amongst these are the rise in single-parent families, high school dropouts, and failing education system run by the self-interested bureaucracies. Heck, if you want more income parity, let's go for a bigger recession, that can really nail the wealthy, and have that great side-effect of decreased prosperity for everybody. If you're poor growing up in a system you can't change, there are responsible steps you can take towards a better life. Real edgy, counter-culture ones. Like obeying the law, staying away from alcohol and drugs. It gets a bad rap, but religious and community organizations are there and help make it more likely that you will experience success. Rail against it as you may, the inconvenient truth remains, marriage before kids and high school are on the list to (for ex, Butler, Beach, Winfree 'Pathways to Economic Mobility') I want income mobility, and more truth towards the insignificant statistic of income inequality (as it relates negatively, at least. Rich getting richer is a good symptom of a prosperous nation). My vote is going towards the guy that can be more trusted to support income mobility, the "American Dream," and remove governmental barriers to its realization. I know it was not your intention but when I read this it came off very callous with a distinct lack of understanding of the overall picture. I'll explain why. According to the research, while 93% of Americans who were born into the bottom fifth of the income ladder do indeed end up acquiring higher wages than their parents, 70% of them still do not make it to the middle-class. That's right, there's less than a 1/3 chance for them to rise up to the middle, with significantly less (4%) being able to rise to the top (incidentally, a good chunk of these consist of those who become athletes, actors, musicians, etc. born with raw natural talent exclusive from education/marriage, but that's a different story). It's not enough to just say, "Look, these kids are making a little bit more than their parents!" As a nation, it is to the benefit of us all if those with the potential to do well are not squandered by their economic and social woes. That, and the fact that middle-class income growth has suffered as well. Now, let's be honest, the middle-class is what we should be focusing on. We want the poor to be able to move into the middle-class and we want the middle-class to grow, not only in numbers but in income as well. However, let's take a look at this graph that was posted earlier: ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/IncomeInequality7.svg) From Wikipedia: This graph shows the income of the given percentiles from 1947 to 2010 in 2010 dollars. The 2 columns of numbers in the right margin are the cumulative growth 1970-2010 and the annual growth rate over that period. The vertical scale is logarithmic, which makes constant percentage growth appear as a straight line. From 1947 to 1970, all percentiles grew at essentially the same rate; the light, straight lines for the different percentiles for those years all have the same slope. Since then, there has been substantial divergence, with different percentiles of the income distribution growing at different rates. For the median American family, this gap is $39,000 per year (just over $100 per day): If the economic growth during this period had been broadly shared as it was from 1947 to 1970, the median household income would have been $39,000 per year higher than it was in 2010. Now you say that the current rate of wealth inequality is good because it makes us all prosperous; however you're missing a very important fact: wealth inequality, while necessary, does not have to be this horrid for the middle-class to be prosperous - in fact, it's stumping growth all together. While wealth inequality will increase overtime in absolute terms if the rate of growth between the different percentiles remains similar anyway, when the top percentile is growing at a tremendously higher rate than the middle and bottom percentiles, it is detrimental to everyone but those at the top. Let's look at this other graph to see what I mean: ![[image loading]](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-gdp-growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=19470101&d2=20071031) We can see that before Reagonomics, annual GDP growth was, on average, higher during the preceding years since 1947. This, while the average income of the middle-class and those at the bottom percentile were growing at a faster rate and the top were growing at a slower rate than now. Yet, this is just numbers and falls victim to the same callousness that I accused you of. Obviously wealth inequality does not tell the whole story of the woes of social mobility and the problem extends to education and the family; however, socioeconomics plays a huge role in that regard. Merely saying, "These kids need to rise up above their environment," shows a lack of understanding of the human social and psychological condition. We don't want the government to be the second or third parent, but often times it is better than government not being there at all because there are entire communities that fall through the cracks and cannot provide what's necessary to children and families in need. TL;dr: current wealth inequality is a problem for everyone but those at the top. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On October 30 2012 10:15 Adila wrote: Hillary could. That's about the only Dem I can think of with a shot. Dems will run someone boring like Mark Warner who will get slaughtered. alternatively, Kathleen Sebelius, who will get slightly less slaughtered. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
Can you honestly say you wouldn't support this woman to be president? If you took away her link to Bush and the (R) next her name, the Democrats would flock to support her. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 11:10 sam!zdat wrote: also isn't she's the reason I have to listen to people talk about american exceptionalism so much now? No, that's Rush's fault. | ||
|
nevermindthebollocks
United States116 Posts
On October 30 2012 08:53 Praetorial wrote: NO! The Sith are much more moral than the Jedi! The Jedi teach children and the Sith kill them. I will let everyone decide what that means for themselves. | ||
|
nevermindthebollocks
United States116 Posts
On October 30 2012 11:05 BluePanther wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukfS2bfP738 Can you honestly say you wouldn't support this woman to be president? If you took away her link to Bush and the (R) next her name, the Democrats would flock to support her. I don't really like her and I think many on the Right (not you) like her because they can say Hey look at the black woman on our side. We aren't racist. We aren't sexist. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 11:13 nevermindthebollocks wrote: The Jedi indoctrinate children and the Sith free them from this indoctrination through free choice. I will let everyone decide what that means for themselves. ftfy | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 11:16 nevermindthebollocks wrote: I think many on the Right (not you) like her because they can say Hey look at the black woman on our side. We aren't racist. We aren't sexist. Exactly. When else are we going to be able to get a PhD who's a moderate and doesn't play partisan games into the Oval Office? Gotta take the shot when you got it. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Counter-Strike Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
Clem vs Zoun
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/Gugen/?action=view¤t=page1.png)
![[image loading]](http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/Gugen/?action=view¤t=page2.png)
