EPTThis was breifly discussed several pages back.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1431
| 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 | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
This was breifly discussed several pages back. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 11 2012 03:17 BallinWitStalin wrote: Again, I brought this up before, but isn't inquality in funding between schools a major source of the problem? Due to municipal government funding being a major source (funded by property taxes), school funding is often determined by affluence of the area. Ghettos have terrible schools, rich areas have high schools with swimming pools. Federal funding targetted towards only poor schools would probably help this issue a lot. This was breifly discussed several pages back. middle school lol in the case of my brother. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18865 Posts
On November 11 2012 03:17 BallinWitStalin wrote: Again, I brought this up before, but isn't inquality in funding between schools a major source of the problem? Due to municipal government funding being a major source (funded by property taxes), school funding is often determined by affluence of the area. Ghettos have terrible schools, rich areas have high schools with swimming pools. Federal funding targetted towards only poor schools would probably help this issue a lot. This was breifly discussed several pages back. And to make matters worse, a lot of places in the US have adopted poorly conceived voucher programs that only further widen the gap between the "have's" and the "have not's". It would seem that shuttling kids away from problematic school districts (along with their according funding) doesn't fix the problematic school district. Go figure, right? | ||
|
VManOfMana
United States764 Posts
On November 10 2012 17:50 BluePanther wrote: I think the hispanic community, more than any, respects the "american dream" and that is why republicans have historically appealed to them. Republicans have *not* historically appealed to hispanics. Just look at a voting map. On the red states, the only blue spots are border cities or areas with a hispanic population (The county of El Paso, TX is notoriously funny). In Florida, Miami-Dade is no longer red. Republicans have historically appealed only to Cubans, and the main reason is that Republicans have actively enforced anti-Castro policies. Any mention of loosening sanctions to Cuba is considered haresay. It doesn't help Democrats they are seen as backstabbers because of the failure at Bay of Pigs. Unfortunately for Republicans, their support from Cubans Americans is waning as new generations do not have the same focus on Cuba as Castro as the generations before. Plus, South Florida is getting further populated by non-Cuban hispancs. Hispanics do respect the "American Dream", but for most, Republican policy is seen as an obstacle to achieve it. Unless you are Cuban, immigration law is extremely unfavorable to hispanics. For some, it is *impossible* to achieve the "American Dream" legally; for those who can, it can take at least a decade, and no guarantee you will be allowed to be a legal immigrant even if you work hard and follow the law. Strong family values often mean that those who have achieved citizenship and are able to vote often consider the circumstances of those who cannot. Hispanics lean Democrat because at the very least, they don't seem to try making things more difficult. Attitudes that can be easily seen as racist or xenophobic drive hispanics further away from Republicans. At the end, it is "the enemy of your enemy is your friend". For Cubans, the enemy is Castro. For everybody else, the enemy is xenophobic WASPs and the Republican party (by association). | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 11 2012 02:47 DoubleReed wrote: America has 4x the debt just 4 years ago? 10 trillion -> 16 trillion = 4X??? Which, by the way, was almost entirely Bush's fault, considering it was under his watch that we had a financial crisis and somehow he was running up a deficit during economically good times. Financial crises are different from normal recessions in that one of the issues is that they bring about long periods of unemployment. So how exactly do you fault Obama with this? I'm serious. The massive financial situation occurred because of terrible neocon policy, which Romney wanted us to go back to. Obama is actually righting the economy somewhat, and you wanted to go back to those terrible policies that screwed us over in the first place? What 'terrible neocon policy' caused the financial crisis? | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On November 11 2012 02:49 SayGen wrote: NCLB is one part of a bigger issue, which is to accept that kids are less intelgent. fact is, we have lower IQ kids cause poor/minorities tend to have more kids. Those poor/minorities (no hate to them because of race or class-- just calling a flower a flower) Wow. Just... just wow. The lack of basic humanity on display here is breathtaking. Poor/minorities have less intelligent children. That's what you're saying. Gee, maybe it's not that they're less intelligent. Maybe it's because they're brought up in poor environments, where meeting the day-to-day needs occupies every waking moment, where hope for the future via legitimate means is the fevered dream of a madman, where fucking assholes keep telling them that they're less intelligent because of some damn test while daring to claim that this is simply them "calling a flower a flower", etc. Maybe, just maybe, if you raise a child like that, if the world treats them like that, they won't favor education as a means to get ahead. I mean, I know that's unlikely, but it could happen.  On November 11 2012 02:49 SayGen wrote: Until we can stop giving tax cuts for having more children, people will see bringing another child into this world as a financial move. Ah yes, the "welfare queen" fiction. People have babies for tax breaks. Sure. On November 11 2012 02:49 SayGen wrote: We need to also introduce a merrit based school plan. What I would propose. Take all the money that goes to schools right now (including the teachers union fund) and take 90% of it and give it out EVENLY to all schools located in the US. which ever schools do the best gets a bonus from the remaining 10%. Yeah, that makes no sense. That system's called "the rich get richer." Some schools will be better, and some schools will be worse. That's the nature of things. Even with equal funding, maybe one school has a slightly higher percentage of good teachers than another. Which means that, in the next cycle, they'll get bonus money, thus helping them to continue being better while the poor school stays the same. Now the poor school has to compete against a better funded one. In short, they'll never get ahead. They will always be the weaker school. Plus, children usually don't decide where they go to school. They generally go to school based on where they live. So if they just so happen to go to one of those under-performing schools... what do you do for them? Only the more affluent parents will be able to make arrangements to get their child to a specific school. Thus again, perpetuating the cycle of poverty: poor people can't get good education for their children. It doesn't solve the problem. Oh, and here's the biggest problem of all. How do you tell which schools "do the best"? What criteria do you use? Massed testing only encourages teachers to teach to a particular test; that's not helping anyone. In short, your idea only continues the problem. It doesn't solve them. On November 11 2012 02:49 SayGen wrote: This way you offer an incentive to do well, while not harming schools that do poorly. Break the teachers union. Demand all teachers have a4 year degree from an accrediated school. Stop hiring excess teachers, no reason to have more than 1 teacher per 20 students. There are not that many schools where they have more than 1 teacher per 20 students. It's more like 30-40+, especially in the problem schools. Few are the schools that have "excess teachers". | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
systematic risk misestimation is very hard to avoid. it's best to just avoid overleverage. | ||
|
dabom88
United States3483 Posts
On November 11 2012 02:42 SayGen wrote: Peace.......and yet Iran is closer than ever to a Nuclear missile which will very likely break the shallow regional stalemate in the ME. hope...America has 4X the debt than just 4 years ago.... what hope are you talking about? Lol, no. Obama did not add 4X the debt. You are either mistaken or using the wrong numbers. Any search on the matter will tell you you are wrong. The National Debt was $10.6 trillion before Obama took office, it's $16.2 trillion now. 10.6 x 4 does not equal 16.2. Not to mention that, and I quote, while "Obama's policies have added to the debt, they have only contributed around $1.44 trillion -- about half of that in the form of the stimulus package. The tax cuts, wars, and other policies enacted before Obama took office, by contrast, opened up a $5.07 trillion hole in the budget -- over three times as much. So if there is blame to be apportioned, a good share of it must go to President Bush". Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57506201/national-debt-passes-$16-trillion-should-you-worry/ Country back on our feet? 7.8% unemployment is a good thing? Are you serious? The recession was already underway and unemployment was already rising when he took office. Guess what it was at before he took office? 7.8%. During his time in office, Obama lost 4.3 million jobs, but created 4.4 million jobs, making him a net job creator. Things may not be as good as everyone wants, but the math shows that it has improved, not gotten worse. what hope.....I've already pulled all my money out of the market--glad I did cause the Dow went down nearly 300 points day after the election.. The worst is yet to come. Obama is more interested in helping his friends than the country. He isn't the president of the world- he is president of America--and perhaps he should be focusing on helping us by lower taxes, removing harmful regulations, giving small businesses incentives. Yet none of these things are on his to do list. Instead despite the fact I'm in the lowest bracket in America my taxes have gone up. Which means less money is being spent in my local town which hurts the economy. Please tell me about this hope.... I don't see it. I see dark clouds a'comming. Haha, no. Your claims on Obama being more interested in "helping his friends than the country" and how "none of these things are on his to do list" are delusional. Obama has repeatedly lowered taxes in his time in office. I don't know which taxes you pay, but I'd like a source that backs up your claims besides your own experience and blaming it on Obama. Safe from terrorist in the last 4 years..... of course there hasn't been an attack- Bush (not that I have any love for that moron) put in place some hardcore security infustricture that is acting as a serious deterrent. Not even gonna bother with this one. One president experiences an attack, another president doesn't. Guess which one is doing a better job? Or at the very least, you can't really fault Obama for making you feel any less "safer", at least based on facts. | ||
|
ClanRH.TV
United States462 Posts
On November 11 2012 04:26 dabom88 wrote: Lol, no. Obama did not add 4X the debt. You are either mistaken, using the wrong numbers, lying, or don't know how to do Math. Any search on the matter will tell you you are wrong. The National Debt was $10.6 trillion before Obama took office, it's $16.2 trillion now. 10.6 x 4 does not equal 16.2. Not to mention that while, and I quote, "Obama's policies have added to the debt, they have only contributed around $1.44 trillion -- about half of that in the form of the stimulus package. The tax cuts, wars, and other policies enacted before Obama took office, by contrast, opened up a $5.07 trillion hole in the budget -- over three times as much. So if there is blame to be apportioned, a good share of it must go to President Bush". Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57506201/national-debt-passes-$16-trillion-should-you-worry/ The recession was already underway and unemployment was already rising when he took office. Guess what it was at before he took office? 7.8%. During his time in office, Obama lost 4.3 million jobs, but created 4.4 million jobs, making him a net job creator. Things may not be as good as everyone wants, but the math shows that it is improving, not getting worse. Haha, no. Obama has repeatedly lowered taxes in his time in office. I don't know which taxes you pay, but I'd like a source that backs up your claims besides your own experience and blaming it on Obama. Not even gonna bother with this one. One president experiences an attack, another president doesn't. Guess which one is doing a better job? Or at the very least, you can't really fault Obama for making you feel any less "safer", at least based on FACTS. Sounds like a hardcore liberal to me. Not that anythings wrong with that but you asking people to cite their sources when you continuously spit on numbers that aren't cited well is hypocritical. | ||
|
ClanRH.TV
United States462 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 11 2012 04:43 ClanRH.TV wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 11 2012 04:26 dabom88 wrote: Lol, no. Obama did not add 4X the debt. You are either mistaken, using the wrong numbers, lying, or don't know how to do Math. Any search on the matter will tell you you are wrong. The National Debt was $10.6 trillion before Obama took office, it's $16.2 trillion now. 10.6 x 4 does not equal 16.2. Not to mention that while, and I quote, "Obama's policies have added to the debt, they have only contributed around $1.44 trillion -- about half of that in the form of the stimulus package. The tax cuts, wars, and other policies enacted before Obama took office, by contrast, opened up a $5.07 trillion hole in the budget -- over three times as much. So if there is blame to be apportioned, a good share of it must go to President Bush". Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57506201/national-debt-passes-$16-trillion-should-you-worry/ The recession was already underway and unemployment was already rising when he took office. Guess what it was at before he took office? 7.8%. During his time in office, Obama lost 4.3 million jobs, but created 4.4 million jobs, making him a net job creator. Things may not be as good as everyone wants, but the math shows that it is improving, not getting worse. Haha, no. Obama has repeatedly lowered taxes in his time in office. I don't know which taxes you pay, but I'd like a source that backs up your claims besides your own experience and blaming it on Obama. Not even gonna bother with this one. One president experiences an attack, another president doesn't. Guess which one is doing a better job? Or at the very least, you can't really fault Obama for making you feel any less "safer", at least based on FACTS. Sounds like a hardcore liberal to me. Not that anythings wrong with that but you asking people to cite their sources when you continuously spit on numbers that aren't cited is hypocritical. The numbers cited in that specific post are not obscure statistics but well common knowledge. Can't go asking for sources for everything that's said. SayGen says a lot of dumb stuff, and I think it's fine to correct him. He says the debt is 4x what it was 4 years ago, which implies that the debt was about 4 trillions 4 years ago. Do I need to cite that it wasn't? | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On November 11 2012 04:17 oneofthem wrote: neocon is kind of a foreign policy term. (or really, freeing the fuck out of people with extreme neo liberal means) but the lack of regulation in finance was pretty much like storing bombs besides a volcano. the way people bundled risky loans into assets then leveraged those into more of the same, all the while underestimating others' risk and overestimating their own balance sheets... systematic risk misestimation is very hard to avoid. it's best to just avoid overleverage. The problem with the attack on neo con market deregulation is that Clinton was in agreement with the republicans on that one. While it is a subsection of republicans wanting those kinds of policies (libertarianism in particular), the democrats agreed to some extend, so it is not so much a conservative failure as an aneurism from a bipartisan group of politicians. There was a time where risk was something that almost did not exist as long as you hid it well enough in 4 layers of papers or you just kept investing broad enough so the law of fantastic fucking huge numbers made you rich automatically! | ||
|
dabom88
United States3483 Posts
On November 11 2012 04:43 ClanRH.TV wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 11 2012 04:26 dabom88 wrote: Lol, no. Obama did not add 4X the debt. You are either mistaken, using the wrong numbers, lying, or don't know how to do Math. Any search on the matter will tell you you are wrong. The National Debt was $10.6 trillion before Obama took office, it's $16.2 trillion now. 10.6 x 4 does not equal 16.2. Not to mention that while, and I quote, "Obama's policies have added to the debt, they have only contributed around $1.44 trillion -- about half of that in the form of the stimulus package. The tax cuts, wars, and other policies enacted before Obama took office, by contrast, opened up a $5.07 trillion hole in the budget -- over three times as much. So if there is blame to be apportioned, a good share of it must go to President Bush". Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57506201/national-debt-passes-$16-trillion-should-you-worry/ The recession was already underway and unemployment was already rising when he took office. Guess what it was at before he took office? 7.8%. During his time in office, Obama lost 4.3 million jobs, but created 4.4 million jobs, making him a net job creator. Things may not be as good as everyone wants, but the math shows that it is improving, not getting worse. Haha, no. Obama has repeatedly lowered taxes in his time in office. I don't know which taxes you pay, but I'd like a source that backs up your claims besides your own experience and blaming it on Obama. Not even gonna bother with this one. One president experiences an attack, another president doesn't. Guess which one is doing a better job? Or at the very least, you can't really fault Obama for making you feel any less "safer", at least based on FACTS. Sounds like a hardcore liberal to me. Not that anythings wrong with that but you asking people to cite their sources when you continuously spit on numbers that aren't cited well is hypocritical. Pointing out why someone is wrong makes me a "hardcore liberal"? I'm a moderate. Tell me which if my claims you want me to cite and I'll happily find them for you. I DID cite one of my sources, so it is inaccurate for you to say that my numbers aren't cited well. And like Djzapz says, stuff like unemployment numbers are public knowledge made readily available by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They are easily found and don't vary much, if at all, from source to source. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
MattBarry
United States4006 Posts
| ||
|
dabom88
United States3483 Posts
On November 11 2012 05:42 MattBarry wrote: Not that wikipedia is a valuable source, but it said the country is only 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative. So apparently either these statistics are wrong, people are uncomfortable with calling themselves a liberal, or the republicans have little appeal to moderates. I'd say the 3rd is much more likely It could be a combination of all 3. And/or that you can really trust polls to gauge the political preferences of an entire nation accurately. I'd put my bet on that one. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On November 11 2012 05:42 MattBarry wrote: Not that wikipedia is a valuable source, but it said the country is only 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative. So apparently either these statistics are wrong, people are uncomfortable with calling themselves a liberal, or the republicans have little appeal to moderates. I'd say the 3rd is much more likely Many people ARE uncomfortable with calling themselves liberal. Unlike liberal derision of conservatism, conservative derision of liberalism often uses the word "liberal" itself as a derogatory term. I think it's somewhat analogous to how a lot more people will say they do not believe in a god than say they are atheists, or how more people approved of gay and lesbians serving in the military than how many approved of homosexuals serving in the military. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 11 2012 04:50 radiatoren wrote: The problem with the attack on neo con market deregulation is that Clinton was in agreement with the republicans on that one. While it is a subsection of republicans wanting those kinds of policies (libertarianism in particular), the democrats agreed to some extend, so it is not so much a conservative failure as an aneurism from a bipartisan group of politicians. There was a time where risk was something that almost did not exist as long as you hid it well enough in 4 layers of papers or you just kept investing broad enough so the law of fantastic fucking huge numbers made you rich automatically! economics in general has problem dealing with not only model risk, but endogenous risk. stuff like securitizing risky loans which you then sell to people who use them as security and produce more of the same. basically, it magnifies risk exponentially. obama relies on advisers who don't know any better apparently. it's business as usual. \ so to be perfectly frank i think a large portion of blame is laid on academics who have ideological blindspots. efficient market fanatics, neoliberals that can't recognize power etc. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 11 2012 05:42 MattBarry wrote: Not that wikipedia is a valuable source, but it said the country is only 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative. So apparently either these statistics are wrong, people are uncomfortable with calling themselves a liberal, or the republicans have little appeal to moderates. I'd say the 3rd is much more likely those statistics are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States 42.6% registered Democrats in 2004. "Democrats were still the largest political party with more than 42 million voters (compared with 30 million Republicans and 24 million independents)" If we're guesstimating, I would say it's 20% liberal, 20% conservative, 60% moderate. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
