|
|
On July 25 2012 16:01 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 12:10 Golgon wrote:On July 25 2012 11:46 xDaunt wrote:
I don't expect any liberals to think less of Obama for his speech because they generslly agree with what he said. I also think that liberals don't really understand why many people (particularly moderates) find the comments to be offensive.
you are right, "liberals" don´t think less of Obama because of his speach. and maybe i don´t understand why people (republicans) find it offensive, but hey i can give it a try. Because they live in lala land, and don´t want reality to interfere with their world view. when i researched the "incident" a bit, the first source i found was an interview on faux news, getting one of those small business owners in a one on one with a fox guy, talking about it´s all his work that he did so his company is successfull. He first starts off how his dad build everything (so he didn´t do it) and then goes on how his dad took out a loan many years ago to start the company and build it from there. So the guy that faux news picks as the best representative for building everything on your own starts off how his dad got a loan from a bank. Are you fucking kidding me?? there is no arguing with these people, there is just facepalming over their stupidity and hoping that natural selection speeds up and kills those retards off faster. But hey, go Romney, i fucking hope he wins, nothing could be better for the German Economy. The words behind Obama's speech are logical and make a lot of sense. However, it's the ATTITUDE which he delivers these words that bugs conservatives so much. Republicans idolize individualism and independence. Obama basically insinuated that we are nothing but a product of our situation. This just isn't true, and that's why there's such a violent reaction to his statements. Have his words been taken out of context by some? Absolutely. But what he said is a contentious topic in the United States even at face value because of the underlying meaning.
Is the underlying meaning that we all aren't super special snowflakes and that even superstars benefit from the occasional lucky break or helping hand?
I kid, I kid.
|
On July 25 2012 14:28 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 13:17 aksfjh wrote:On July 25 2012 11:07 coverpunch wrote:On July 25 2012 08:37 aksfjh wrote:
We refinance daily through long and short term bonds. What DOES happen is that, while paying the interest, the economy and interest erode our debt for us. As long as the combination of the 2 is larger than the deficit, the debt as a percentage of GDP shrinks, which is essentially the same as paying it off. The key is to use the low bond rates when we can, and cut back on deficit spending when rates increase. The notion that the rates will increase to an unsustainable amount very rapidly just isn't true for a country that has control over its own currency and a diversified economy. We will have plenty of warning, and plenty of opportunities to reign in spending before the debt becomes too large to service (without cutting a bunch into government services).
Edit: SEIGE TANK WOOOO! (2k posts) This is so terribly naive. I've never heard anyone try to claim that interest erodes debt (I think you might mean inflation). But you can't find any examples of a debt crisis where a country had plenty of warning and jumped out of the way just in time (edit: maybe Clinton in 1993). More than that, you can't find any areas where the US can plausibly cut enough spending to rein in the debt to serviceable levels and it's far less realistic than you think for the US to just print its way out of trouble. Ironically, this has become especially clear under Obama, who has committed himself far more to global stability than he has to what's solely in America's best interest. The US can't just shuck off these de facto obligations to avoid a crisis and in most cases it would just make things worse. Japan is a good test case. They have sky-high debt (the highest in the OECD at 200+% of GDP). They don't have a problem yet but they also don't have any clear ways to pay it off. If anything, the government is committed to doing anything to avoid interest rates from rising and maintaining the status quo at any price. The EU's woes are added examples of how it's never as easy as you think to just slash spending to sustainable levels. I don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing, especially in the short term. But there's no doubt that Obama has more problems than he has answers to and that he's done a piss-poor job of managing them with the resources that he used. Can Romney do better? To be honest, I doubt it. Whenever he faces of question of "Okay, Obama botched that. What would you do differently?", he never has a good answer. Yea, I typed that in a hurry. It's supposed to read "economy and inflation erode our debt." Also, it took 4 years for rates to go from just under 8% to 5.5%, back to 8%. Even when it did bounce, it only went back to levels we had recently seen. If that is any example to go off of, we would see interest rates go back up to 2.5% at most. As for Japan and Europe. Japan has been, for a long time, proof that high debt levels aren't cause enough alone to incite bond vigilantes to stop buying debt. What will spark a run on interest rates is a lack of control in monetary policy, fiscal policy, and economic outlook for the country in question. We're seeing just that with EU. Spain and Ireland have no control over monetary policy, and only a shadow of control over fiscal policy. To that point, their economies are very small and specialize in very few goods to export. Their economies rely heavily on the health of the economies they do business with, and those too are doing less than stellar. So, when the governments had to take on huge loans to give to backs in the wake of last housing bust, there was no confidence that they could pay back that loan because of poor growth and bad inflation numbers. The reason why EU is having troubles slashing spending right now is because so many people rely on the government in hard times. It's hard to make cuts to pensions, unemployment compensation, healthcare, education, and safety, when those are the services we need more than ever. Well, I do agree with the bottom line point, which is that there isn't a mathematical formula here. There's no bright line at which the bond market erupts and a debt crisis ensues. But that's very different from insisting that high debt isn't a problem and doesn't present the dry powder that can explode into a crisis. Suggesting that the US take advantage of low bond yields and try to buy its way out of a crisis is an all-in strategy. If the president tries it and the economy remains in stagnation, the country will really be in a tough spot. But IMO, if your economic plan doesn't provide a way out for debtors and deal with the housing market, it ultimately fixes nothing. The real basis for my objection to that kind of plan is that it is our generation that ends up paying off the debt through increased taxes. So pretty much you want to bet all the increases in my future income so that plausibly it could be the year 2042 and my after-tax income is exactly the same as it is now, which I definitely do not want to happen.
Free money.
|
On July 25 2012 16:01 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 12:10 Golgon wrote:On July 25 2012 11:46 xDaunt wrote:
I don't expect any liberals to think less of Obama for his speech because they generslly agree with what he said. I also think that liberals don't really understand why many people (particularly moderates) find the comments to be offensive.
you are right, "liberals" don´t think less of Obama because of his speach. and maybe i don´t understand why people (republicans) find it offensive, but hey i can give it a try. Because they live in lala land, and don´t want reality to interfere with their world view. when i researched the "incident" a bit, the first source i found was an interview on faux news, getting one of those small business owners in a one on one with a fox guy, talking about it´s all his work that he did so his company is successfull. He first starts off how his dad build everything (so he didn´t do it) and then goes on how his dad took out a loan many years ago to start the company and build it from there. So the guy that faux news picks as the best representative for building everything on your own starts off how his dad got a loan from a bank. Are you fucking kidding me?? there is no arguing with these people, there is just facepalming over their stupidity and hoping that natural selection speeds up and kills those retards off faster. But hey, go Romney, i fucking hope he wins, nothing could be better for the German Economy. The words behind Obama's speech are logical and make a lot of sense. However, it's the ATTITUDE which he delivers these words that bugs conservatives so much. Republicans idolize individualism and independence. Obama basically insinuated that we are nothing but a product of our situation. This just isn't true, and that's why there's such a violent reaction to his statements. Have his words been taken out of context by some? Absolutely. But what he said is a contentious topic in the United States even at face value because of the underlying meaning.
And the fact that it's such a contentious topic is pretty frightening about American culture. You can't even suggest that "it takes a village" without people decrying that you're a socialist. The mentality has become "Who cares about other people? What about me?" This kind of irrational indifference is what makes conservative thinking absolutely frightening and psychopathic. Republicans have become the cartoonish version of themselves at this point.
It's not emotional or logical. It's total apathy.
|
As a UK citizen I'm hoping Obama will win.
|
ok lately i've become completely disinterested in politics so i know almost nothing about the 2012 election. i just started paying attention and it looks like its coming down to romney vs obama. is this an accurate description? how did romney become the forefront republican candidate?
|
On July 25 2012 16:01 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 12:10 Golgon wrote:On July 25 2012 11:46 xDaunt wrote:
I don't expect any liberals to think less of Obama for his speech because they generslly agree with what he said. I also think that liberals don't really understand why many people (particularly moderates) find the comments to be offensive.
you are right, "liberals" don´t think less of Obama because of his speach. and maybe i don´t understand why people (republicans) find it offensive, but hey i can give it a try. Because they live in lala land, and don´t want reality to interfere with their world view. when i researched the "incident" a bit, the first source i found was an interview on faux news, getting one of those small business owners in a one on one with a fox guy, talking about it´s all his work that he did so his company is successfull. He first starts off how his dad build everything (so he didn´t do it) and then goes on how his dad took out a loan many years ago to start the company and build it from there. So the guy that faux news picks as the best representative for building everything on your own starts off how his dad got a loan from a bank. Are you fucking kidding me?? there is no arguing with these people, there is just facepalming over their stupidity and hoping that natural selection speeds up and kills those retards off faster. But hey, go Romney, i fucking hope he wins, nothing could be better for the German Economy. Obama basically insinuated that we are nothing but a product of our situation. This just isn't true, and that's why there's such a violent reaction to his statements.
No, he didn't. To quote him, "we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together". He's very clearly not saying that "we are nothing but a product of our situation", but instead that our situation helps our individual initiative make us succeed.
|
On July 24 2012 02:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 12:28 xDaunt wrote:
As someone who has practiced employment discrimination law, I assure you that real gender discrimination is very infrequent. Sexual harassment still occurs quite a bit, but that is a different animal. Even if there were zero gender discrimination lawsuits, it would not mean that gender discrimination doesn't exist or isn't frequent. For example, the first study on the matter I found on google mentioned an effect dubbed "gender fatigue": "individuals tire of acting upon gender discrimination in spite of the fact that incidents of gender bias either occurred at one time within their organization or could occur again". On July 23 2012 12:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:
[quote]
That's an (imperfect) argument against there being rampant conscious discrimination, but there's no good reason to assume that capitalism would automatically self-correct for the effects of implicit biases, which are rampant.
I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen, I'm saying it's widely overplayed and frequently missadressed. Especially with politicians and their laws. Any sources to back up that claim? Read my first post a few pages back. Politicians (mostly Democrats) love to use the 77 cents number as a statement of gross inequality, when I as already discussed, it's more like 95 cents. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/06/05/reid-democrats-stand-for-equality-for-every-working-woman-republicans-stand-for-obstructionism/ The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. The idea that this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. That 42% wage difference was for financial planners - a commission/bonus based job. You really can't show discrimination at a national level. There's just too many different factors involved. Women might choose a job as a financial planner that pays mostly on salary (+bonus) while men might choose financial planner jobs that pay mostly (or only) commission - and get paid more for it. If the 42% difference was at all valid it would make for an extremely easy lawsuit.
Again, you need to read the article better. The authors explicitly state that the different non-gender discrimination factors they found that could have an influence on wage difference did not suffice to explain the wage differences. Gender discrimination was clearly still at play. In the case of the 42% difference example, nobody's saying the entire 42% difference is explained by gender discrimination, but rather that the outside factors are unlikely to explain the entire difference by themselves. Forget that example if you want and focus on the broader picture, in which almost every single occupation sees higher pay for men.
|
On July 24 2012 04:28 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 12:28 xDaunt wrote:
As someone who has practiced employment discrimination law, I assure you that real gender discrimination is very infrequent. Sexual harassment still occurs quite a bit, but that is a different animal. Even if there were zero gender discrimination lawsuits, it would not mean that gender discrimination doesn't exist or isn't frequent. For example, the first study on the matter I found on google mentioned an effect dubbed "gender fatigue": "individuals tire of acting upon gender discrimination in spite of the fact that incidents of gender bias either occurred at one time within their organization or could occur again". On July 23 2012 12:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:
[quote]
That's an (imperfect) argument against there being rampant conscious discrimination, but there's no good reason to assume that capitalism would automatically self-correct for the effects of implicit biases, which are rampant.
I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen, I'm saying it's widely overplayed and frequently missadressed. Especially with politicians and their laws. Any sources to back up that claim? Read my first post a few pages back. Politicians (mostly Democrats) love to use the 77 cents number as a statement of gross inequality, when I as already discussed, it's more like 95 cents. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/06/05/reid-democrats-stand-for-equality-for-every-working-woman-republicans-stand-for-obstructionism/ The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. The idea that this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. You're missing the point. Nowhere have I ever said there is no discrimination. What I'm saying is that democrat politicians are purposely using misleading statistics as an attempt to justify legislation and then labeling republicans as sexist when they oppose it. No republican is trying to repeal the 1963 act (except maybe Ron Paul) and its ridiculous to claim this is some sort of "war on women". Now for abortion on the other hand...
You didn't say there was no discrimination, but you did say it was "widely overplayed", and the source you provided did not back up that claim, as I pointed out. That the 77 cents per 1 dollar figure is inaccurate/misleading/wrong does not mean that the issue of gender discrimination itself is "widely overplayed".
Regarding the "war on women" argument, the repealing by Republicans of measures passed to fight gender discrimination is not by itself what is denounced as a "war on women", but rather one aspect of it, in addition to, notably, the fight against abortion rights and abortion funding, the fight against woman contraception funding, etc.
|
On July 25 2012 10:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:09 Defacer wrote:Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy. "Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent. Going to be a fun election this year! Sure, I'd love to see Romney flesh out his economic plan more, and lots conservatives have called upon Romney to do just that. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Romney would be a better steward of the economy (if for no other reason than he is neither a democrat nor Obama), and polls are showing that my opinion is in the majority on the point. As for the rest of the quote, let's just say that I disagree with Sargent and fall into Krauthammer's camp as I mentioned in a previous post. At a minimum, it looks like democrats, liberals, and the Obama campaign have finally figured out how badly Obama fucked up with that Roanoke speech. The root problem is that, regardless of what Obama actually believes, Obama has enough of the stink of being anti-enterprise that his speech has done nothing but confirm the suspicions (or fears, if you will) of many Americans.
I don't think he is anti-enterprise. I believe his point was that businesses don't need to hire guards to keep their businesses safe like they used to due to police and the military. They don't need to treat their sewage and find their own water sources or their own power generation or lay their own roads. While they are good business people, these people did not do it 100% on their own like people try to pretend. All the things I listed significantly decrease the cost of business operations and aren't things that magically fall from the sky. There's nothing wrong with reminding businesses of that.
|
On July 25 2012 23:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 10:09 Defacer wrote:Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy. "Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent. Going to be a fun election this year! Sure, I'd love to see Romney flesh out his economic plan more, and lots conservatives have called upon Romney to do just that. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Romney would be a better steward of the economy (if for no other reason than he is neither a democrat nor Obama), and polls are showing that my opinion is in the majority on the point. As for the rest of the quote, let's just say that I disagree with Sargent and fall into Krauthammer's camp as I mentioned in a previous post. At a minimum, it looks like democrats, liberals, and the Obama campaign have finally figured out how badly Obama fucked up with that Roanoke speech. The root problem is that, regardless of what Obama actually believes, Obama has enough of the stink of being anti-enterprise that his speech has done nothing but confirm the suspicions (or fears, if you will) of many Americans. I don't think he is anti-enterprise. I believe his point was that businesses don't need to hire guards to keep their businesses safe like they used to due to police and the military. They don't need to treat their sewage and find their own water sources or their own power generation or lay their own roads. While they are good business people, these people did not do it 100% on their own like people try to pretend. All the things I listed significantly decrease the cost of business operations and aren't things that magically fall from the sky. There's nothing wrong with reminding businesses of that.
You're liberal, so you don't see him as being anti-enterprise and you are viewing his statements from a different, friendlier perspective than many (if not most) Americans. Consider how someone with a different perspective would take his comments. Many people see Obama's rhetoric as being divisive. In particular, they see Obama playing the class warfare game and going out of his way to demonize "the rich." They also see Obama promote many policies that harm businesses, whether it be enacting new regulations (Obamacare certainly hurts him here) or obstructing obviously beneficial projects (like the Keystone XL pipeline). Consider all of the other people who look at Obama's past and see a slew of leftist radicals with whom Obama has been closely affiliated at one point or another during his life. How do you think all of these people take Obama's comments? Hell, just compare what Obama said to what other presidents have said (go look at the new Scott Brown ad).
When you consider all of the above, it becomes very obvious why Obama's comments have damaged him so badly. I guarantee you that a majority of independents aren't reacting well to what Obama said.
|
On July 26 2012 00:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 23:34 Mohdoo wrote:On July 25 2012 10:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 10:09 Defacer wrote:Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy. "Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent. Going to be a fun election this year! Sure, I'd love to see Romney flesh out his economic plan more, and lots conservatives have called upon Romney to do just that. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Romney would be a better steward of the economy (if for no other reason than he is neither a democrat nor Obama), and polls are showing that my opinion is in the majority on the point. As for the rest of the quote, let's just say that I disagree with Sargent and fall into Krauthammer's camp as I mentioned in a previous post. At a minimum, it looks like democrats, liberals, and the Obama campaign have finally figured out how badly Obama fucked up with that Roanoke speech. The root problem is that, regardless of what Obama actually believes, Obama has enough of the stink of being anti-enterprise that his speech has done nothing but confirm the suspicions (or fears, if you will) of many Americans. I don't think he is anti-enterprise. I believe his point was that businesses don't need to hire guards to keep their businesses safe like they used to due to police and the military. They don't need to treat their sewage and find their own water sources or their own power generation or lay their own roads. While they are good business people, these people did not do it 100% on their own like people try to pretend. All the things I listed significantly decrease the cost of business operations and aren't things that magically fall from the sky. There's nothing wrong with reminding businesses of that. You're liberal, so you don't see him as being anti-enterprise and you are viewing his statements from a different, friendlier perspective than many (if not most) Americans. Consider how someone with a different perspective would take his comments. Many people see Obama's rhetoric as being divisive. In particular, they see Obama playing the class warfare game and going out of his way to demonize "the rich." They also see Obama promote many policies that harm businesses, whether it be enacting new regulations (Obamacare certainly hurts him here) or obstructing obviously beneficial projects (like the Keystone XL pipeline). Consider all of the other people who look at Obama's past and see a slew of leftist radicals with whom Obama has been closely affiliated at one point or another during his life. How do you think all of these people take Obama's comments? Hell, just compare what Obama said to what other presidents have said (go look at the new Scott Brown ad). When you consider all of the above, it becomes very obvious why Obama's comments have damaged him so badly. I guarantee you that a majority of independents aren't reacting well to what Obama said.
You've done a rather poor job of tying mainstream Republican thought with your own, so I'm inclined to simply shake my head every time you use words and phrases like "many (if not most) Americans", "They", and "all of these people". Your source material is and has been summarily extremely activist right-wing, and if you want anyone to follow your logic and accept your collective declarations, some sort of centrist evidence would be nice. Because otherwise I can't help but feel as though you are simply putting words and ideas in peoples mouths and heads.
For example, you clam that many consider Obama's rhetoric divisive. Do you not accept that many people also consider the entirety of the Republican platform as one which lives and dies on tactics of division? Mitch McConnell even says as much.
|
On July 26 2012 00:36 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 23:34 Mohdoo wrote:On July 25 2012 10:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 10:09 Defacer wrote:Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy. "Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent. Going to be a fun election this year! Sure, I'd love to see Romney flesh out his economic plan more, and lots conservatives have called upon Romney to do just that. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Romney would be a better steward of the economy (if for no other reason than he is neither a democrat nor Obama), and polls are showing that my opinion is in the majority on the point. As for the rest of the quote, let's just say that I disagree with Sargent and fall into Krauthammer's camp as I mentioned in a previous post. At a minimum, it looks like democrats, liberals, and the Obama campaign have finally figured out how badly Obama fucked up with that Roanoke speech. The root problem is that, regardless of what Obama actually believes, Obama has enough of the stink of being anti-enterprise that his speech has done nothing but confirm the suspicions (or fears, if you will) of many Americans. I don't think he is anti-enterprise. I believe his point was that businesses don't need to hire guards to keep their businesses safe like they used to due to police and the military. They don't need to treat their sewage and find their own water sources or their own power generation or lay their own roads. While they are good business people, these people did not do it 100% on their own like people try to pretend. All the things I listed significantly decrease the cost of business operations and aren't things that magically fall from the sky. There's nothing wrong with reminding businesses of that. You're liberal, so you don't see him as being anti-enterprise and you are viewing his statements from a different, friendlier perspective than many (if not most) Americans. Consider how someone with a different perspective would take his comments. Many people see Obama's rhetoric as being divisive. In particular, they see Obama playing the class warfare game and going out of his way to demonize "the rich." They also see Obama promote many policies that harm businesses, whether it be enacting new regulations (Obamacare certainly hurts him here) or obstructing obviously beneficial projects (like the Keystone XL pipeline). Consider all of the other people who look at Obama's past and see a slew of leftist radicals with whom Obama has been closely affiliated at one point or another during his life. How do you think all of these people take Obama's comments? Hell, just compare what Obama said to what other presidents have said (go look at the new Scott Brown ad). When you consider all of the above, it becomes very obvious why Obama's comments have damaged him so badly. I guarantee you that a majority of independents aren't reacting well to what Obama said. You've done a rather poor job of tying mainstream Republican thought with your own, so I'm inclined to simply shake my head every time you use words and phrases like "many (if not most) Americans", "They", and "all of these people". Your source material is and has been summarily extremely activist right-wing, and if you want anyone to follow your logic and accept your collective declarations, some sort of centrist evidence would be nice. Because otherwise I can't help but feel as though you are simply putting words and ideas in peoples mouths and heads. For example, you clam that many consider Obama's rhetoric divisive. Do you not accept that many people also consider the entirety of the Republican platform as one which lives and dies on tactics of division? Mitch McConnell even says as much.
Like I have said many, many times in this thread, all I'm trying to do is explain why what Obama said is damaging to his campaign. For whatever a reason, a majority of you simply refuse to accept that Obama's Roanoke speech was incredibly stupid and harmful, despite the fact that the Obama campaign has finally figured out Obama stepped in it and is now actively doing damage control. If you really want to put your head in the sand and simply dismiss me as a "right-wing extremist," go ahead. Like I have said before, I'm all for democrats and liberals not figuring out what their weaknesses are.
|
Can I ask, out of curiosity, who is "winning" at the moment ? I feel, from this thread, that Obama is not winning but that Romney seems to be considered as rather bad candidate, am I right ?
|
On July 26 2012 00:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 00:36 farvacola wrote:On July 26 2012 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 23:34 Mohdoo wrote:On July 25 2012 10:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 10:09 Defacer wrote:Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy. "Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent. Going to be a fun election this year! Sure, I'd love to see Romney flesh out his economic plan more, and lots conservatives have called upon Romney to do just that. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Romney would be a better steward of the economy (if for no other reason than he is neither a democrat nor Obama), and polls are showing that my opinion is in the majority on the point. As for the rest of the quote, let's just say that I disagree with Sargent and fall into Krauthammer's camp as I mentioned in a previous post. At a minimum, it looks like democrats, liberals, and the Obama campaign have finally figured out how badly Obama fucked up with that Roanoke speech. The root problem is that, regardless of what Obama actually believes, Obama has enough of the stink of being anti-enterprise that his speech has done nothing but confirm the suspicions (or fears, if you will) of many Americans. I don't think he is anti-enterprise. I believe his point was that businesses don't need to hire guards to keep their businesses safe like they used to due to police and the military. They don't need to treat their sewage and find their own water sources or their own power generation or lay their own roads. While they are good business people, these people did not do it 100% on their own like people try to pretend. All the things I listed significantly decrease the cost of business operations and aren't things that magically fall from the sky. There's nothing wrong with reminding businesses of that. You're liberal, so you don't see him as being anti-enterprise and you are viewing his statements from a different, friendlier perspective than many (if not most) Americans. Consider how someone with a different perspective would take his comments. Many people see Obama's rhetoric as being divisive. In particular, they see Obama playing the class warfare game and going out of his way to demonize "the rich." They also see Obama promote many policies that harm businesses, whether it be enacting new regulations (Obamacare certainly hurts him here) or obstructing obviously beneficial projects (like the Keystone XL pipeline). Consider all of the other people who look at Obama's past and see a slew of leftist radicals with whom Obama has been closely affiliated at one point or another during his life. How do you think all of these people take Obama's comments? Hell, just compare what Obama said to what other presidents have said (go look at the new Scott Brown ad). When you consider all of the above, it becomes very obvious why Obama's comments have damaged him so badly. I guarantee you that a majority of independents aren't reacting well to what Obama said. You've done a rather poor job of tying mainstream Republican thought with your own, so I'm inclined to simply shake my head every time you use words and phrases like "many (if not most) Americans", "They", and "all of these people". Your source material is and has been summarily extremely activist right-wing, and if you want anyone to follow your logic and accept your collective declarations, some sort of centrist evidence would be nice. Because otherwise I can't help but feel as though you are simply putting words and ideas in peoples mouths and heads. For example, you clam that many consider Obama's rhetoric divisive. Do you not accept that many people also consider the entirety of the Republican platform as one which lives and dies on tactics of division? Mitch McConnell even says as much. Like I have said many, many times in this thread, all I'm trying to do is explain why what Obama said is damaging to his campaign. For whatever a reason, a majority of you simply refuse to accept that Obama's Roanoke speech was incredibly stupid and harmful, despite the fact that the Obama campaign has finally figured out Obama stepped in it and is now actively doing damage control. If you really want to put your head in the sand and simply dismiss me as a "right-wing extremist," go ahead. Like I have said before, I'm all for democrats and liberals not figuring out what their weaknesses are.
You are trying to paint the speech as "stupid and harmful" by itself. It wasn't. The only reason why some of Obama's comments could be damaging to him is that his opponents actively took them out of context. That's the only reason.
|
On July 26 2012 00:48 WhiteDog wrote:
Can I ask, out of curiosity, who is "winning" at the moment ? I feel, from this thread, that Obama is not winning but that Romney seems to be considered as rather bad candidate, am I right ?
I'd say that if there is a lesson to be taught by this thread it is that attempts at estimating which candidate is "winning" are hollow and speculative at best. We are now in the heat of the election cycle, a time in which one can find a poll to support practically any assessment and a pundit to match. I'd say the most reasonable conclusion at this point is to call it even, with a slight edge going to either Romney or Obama, given bias and difference in perspective.
|
On July 25 2012 22:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 02:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 12:28 xDaunt wrote:
As someone who has practiced employment discrimination law, I assure you that real gender discrimination is very infrequent. Sexual harassment still occurs quite a bit, but that is a different animal. Even if there were zero gender discrimination lawsuits, it would not mean that gender discrimination doesn't exist or isn't frequent. For example, the first study on the matter I found on google mentioned an effect dubbed "gender fatigue": "individuals tire of acting upon gender discrimination in spite of the fact that incidents of gender bias either occurred at one time within their organization or could occur again". On July 23 2012 12:39 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen, I'm saying it's widely overplayed and frequently missadressed. Especially with politicians and their laws. Any sources to back up that claim? Read my first post a few pages back. Politicians (mostly Democrats) love to use the 77 cents number as a statement of gross inequality, when I as already discussed, it's more like 95 cents. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/06/05/reid-democrats-stand-for-equality-for-every-working-woman-republicans-stand-for-obstructionism/ The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. The idea that this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. That 42% wage difference was for financial planners - a commission/bonus based job. You really can't show discrimination at a national level. There's just too many different factors involved. Women might choose a job as a financial planner that pays mostly on salary (+bonus) while men might choose financial planner jobs that pay mostly (or only) commission - and get paid more for it. If the 42% difference was at all valid it would make for an extremely easy lawsuit. Again, you need to read the article better. The authors explicitly state that the different non-gender discrimination factors they found that could have an influence on wage difference did not suffice to explain the wage differences. Gender discrimination was clearly still at play. In the case of the 42% difference example, nobody's saying the entire 42% difference is explained by gender discrimination, but rather that the outside factors are unlikely to explain the entire difference by themselves. Forget that example if you want and focus on the broader picture, in which almost every single occupation sees higher pay for men.
Yes but other factors that they did not, or could not, look into can still exist. Most likely the authors used easy to get data from the BLS and census bureau which isn't detailed enough for a real apples to apples comparison.
|
On July 26 2012 00:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 00:36 farvacola wrote:On July 26 2012 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 23:34 Mohdoo wrote:On July 25 2012 10:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 10:09 Defacer wrote:Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy. "Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent. Going to be a fun election this year! Sure, I'd love to see Romney flesh out his economic plan more, and lots conservatives have called upon Romney to do just that. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Romney would be a better steward of the economy (if for no other reason than he is neither a democrat nor Obama), and polls are showing that my opinion is in the majority on the point. As for the rest of the quote, let's just say that I disagree with Sargent and fall into Krauthammer's camp as I mentioned in a previous post. At a minimum, it looks like democrats, liberals, and the Obama campaign have finally figured out how badly Obama fucked up with that Roanoke speech. The root problem is that, regardless of what Obama actually believes, Obama has enough of the stink of being anti-enterprise that his speech has done nothing but confirm the suspicions (or fears, if you will) of many Americans. I don't think he is anti-enterprise. I believe his point was that businesses don't need to hire guards to keep their businesses safe like they used to due to police and the military. They don't need to treat their sewage and find their own water sources or their own power generation or lay their own roads. While they are good business people, these people did not do it 100% on their own like people try to pretend. All the things I listed significantly decrease the cost of business operations and aren't things that magically fall from the sky. There's nothing wrong with reminding businesses of that. You're liberal, so you don't see him as being anti-enterprise and you are viewing his statements from a different, friendlier perspective than many (if not most) Americans. Consider how someone with a different perspective would take his comments. Many people see Obama's rhetoric as being divisive. In particular, they see Obama playing the class warfare game and going out of his way to demonize "the rich." They also see Obama promote many policies that harm businesses, whether it be enacting new regulations (Obamacare certainly hurts him here) or obstructing obviously beneficial projects (like the Keystone XL pipeline). Consider all of the other people who look at Obama's past and see a slew of leftist radicals with whom Obama has been closely affiliated at one point or another during his life. How do you think all of these people take Obama's comments? Hell, just compare what Obama said to what other presidents have said (go look at the new Scott Brown ad). When you consider all of the above, it becomes very obvious why Obama's comments have damaged him so badly. I guarantee you that a majority of independents aren't reacting well to what Obama said. You've done a rather poor job of tying mainstream Republican thought with your own, so I'm inclined to simply shake my head every time you use words and phrases like "many (if not most) Americans", "They", and "all of these people". Your source material is and has been summarily extremely activist right-wing, and if you want anyone to follow your logic and accept your collective declarations, some sort of centrist evidence would be nice. Because otherwise I can't help but feel as though you are simply putting words and ideas in peoples mouths and heads. For example, you clam that many consider Obama's rhetoric divisive. Do you not accept that many people also consider the entirety of the Republican platform as one which lives and dies on tactics of division? Mitch McConnell even says as much. Like I have said many, many times in this thread, all I'm trying to do is explain why what Obama said is damaging to his campaign. For whatever a reason, a majority of you simply refuse to accept that Obama's Roanoke speech was incredibly stupid and harmful, despite the fact that the Obama campaign has finally figured out Obama stepped in it and is now actively doing damage control. If you really want to put your head in the sand and simply dismiss me as a "right-wing extremist," go ahead. Like I have said before, I'm all for democrats and liberals not figuring out what their weaknesses are.
You seem to love analyzing political tactics, but when it comes to analyzing policy or finding the truth, you are mute on these matters.
I don't think Obama reminding everyone that government plays a role in enabling the success of businesses and people is a bad political move. Although, it would have been wiser to use a phrase that cannot be so easily twisted, taken out of context, and misinterpreted.
But everything Obama said in that speech is completely true and deserves to be heard.
|
On July 26 2012 00:49 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 00:44 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2012 00:36 farvacola wrote:On July 26 2012 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 23:34 Mohdoo wrote:On July 25 2012 10:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 10:09 Defacer wrote:Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy. "Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent. Going to be a fun election this year! Sure, I'd love to see Romney flesh out his economic plan more, and lots conservatives have called upon Romney to do just that. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Romney would be a better steward of the economy (if for no other reason than he is neither a democrat nor Obama), and polls are showing that my opinion is in the majority on the point. As for the rest of the quote, let's just say that I disagree with Sargent and fall into Krauthammer's camp as I mentioned in a previous post. At a minimum, it looks like democrats, liberals, and the Obama campaign have finally figured out how badly Obama fucked up with that Roanoke speech. The root problem is that, regardless of what Obama actually believes, Obama has enough of the stink of being anti-enterprise that his speech has done nothing but confirm the suspicions (or fears, if you will) of many Americans. I don't think he is anti-enterprise. I believe his point was that businesses don't need to hire guards to keep their businesses safe like they used to due to police and the military. They don't need to treat their sewage and find their own water sources or their own power generation or lay their own roads. While they are good business people, these people did not do it 100% on their own like people try to pretend. All the things I listed significantly decrease the cost of business operations and aren't things that magically fall from the sky. There's nothing wrong with reminding businesses of that. You're liberal, so you don't see him as being anti-enterprise and you are viewing his statements from a different, friendlier perspective than many (if not most) Americans. Consider how someone with a different perspective would take his comments. Many people see Obama's rhetoric as being divisive. In particular, they see Obama playing the class warfare game and going out of his way to demonize "the rich." They also see Obama promote many policies that harm businesses, whether it be enacting new regulations (Obamacare certainly hurts him here) or obstructing obviously beneficial projects (like the Keystone XL pipeline). Consider all of the other people who look at Obama's past and see a slew of leftist radicals with whom Obama has been closely affiliated at one point or another during his life. How do you think all of these people take Obama's comments? Hell, just compare what Obama said to what other presidents have said (go look at the new Scott Brown ad). When you consider all of the above, it becomes very obvious why Obama's comments have damaged him so badly. I guarantee you that a majority of independents aren't reacting well to what Obama said. You've done a rather poor job of tying mainstream Republican thought with your own, so I'm inclined to simply shake my head every time you use words and phrases like "many (if not most) Americans", "They", and "all of these people". Your source material is and has been summarily extremely activist right-wing, and if you want anyone to follow your logic and accept your collective declarations, some sort of centrist evidence would be nice. Because otherwise I can't help but feel as though you are simply putting words and ideas in peoples mouths and heads. For example, you clam that many consider Obama's rhetoric divisive. Do you not accept that many people also consider the entirety of the Republican platform as one which lives and dies on tactics of division? Mitch McConnell even says as much. Like I have said many, many times in this thread, all I'm trying to do is explain why what Obama said is damaging to his campaign. For whatever a reason, a majority of you simply refuse to accept that Obama's Roanoke speech was incredibly stupid and harmful, despite the fact that the Obama campaign has finally figured out Obama stepped in it and is now actively doing damage control. If you really want to put your head in the sand and simply dismiss me as a "right-wing extremist," go ahead. Like I have said before, I'm all for democrats and liberals not figuring out what their weaknesses are. You are trying to paint the speech as "stupid and harmful" by itself. It wasn't. The only reason why some of Obama's comments could be damaging to him is that his opponents actively took them out of context. That's the only reason. The entirity of that section of the speech implies that infrastructure deserves just as much, if not more, credit for a successful business than the sacrifices and work of the people who built it.
"I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."
This implies it was primarily luck that chose the people who succeeded in their businesses. My parents in particular found this the most insulting part of the speech. My mother and father put all of their net worth up for collateral for a business loan to get started. They then proceeded to work nearly every day of the week for the next year without drawing a regular paycheck, the employees, bills, and inventory had to come first. Our family got enough to pay the bills and eat, that's about it. This comment is incredibly demeaning to people who have gone through this (which is, surprise surprise, the overwhelming majority of small business owners).
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Again, this is saying that infrastructure (which is nearly constant for all business owners so it actually has almost no baring on who survives and who doesn't) and education had more to do with the success than working 60-70 hours a week for the first year (sometimes years!) after putting up everything you own to try to start your business. Funny thing that the unbelievable American system is built on the idea of self-reliance and government staying out of individual's lives; the exact opposite of what he's talking about here!
I don't see how this is out of context, I don't see how you can say it's not harmful. It was a very stupid comment to make off-the-cuff and plays to his class warfare bullshit he's been peddling recently. Even if you take the "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" line alone it still encapsulates what his whole statement was getting at; the contributions of society and luck were more impactful on your business than your hard work.
In this speech he listed constants (society, infrastructure) as if they were the variables. This leads to a perception of an attack on small business, and perception is reality.
|
On July 26 2012 01:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 22:45 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 02:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. The idea that this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. That 42% wage difference was for financial planners - a commission/bonus based job. You really can't show discrimination at a national level. There's just too many different factors involved. Women might choose a job as a financial planner that pays mostly on salary (+bonus) while men might choose financial planner jobs that pay mostly (or only) commission - and get paid more for it. If the 42% difference was at all valid it would make for an extremely easy lawsuit. Again, you need to read the article better. The authors explicitly state that the different non-gender discrimination factors they found that could have an influence on wage difference did not suffice to explain the wage differences. Gender discrimination was clearly still at play. In the case of the 42% difference example, nobody's saying the entire 42% difference is explained by gender discrimination, but rather that the outside factors are unlikely to explain the entire difference by themselves. Forget that example if you want and focus on the broader picture, in which almost every single occupation sees higher pay for men. Yes but other factors that they did not, or could not, look into can still exist. Most likely the authors used easy to get data from the BLS and census bureau which isn't detailed enough for a real apples to apples comparison.
So your argument is essentially "I have no facts or evidence whatsoever to stand on, but I choose to believe outside factors suffice to explain the wage differences between women and men rather than gender discrimination"?
|
On July 26 2012 01:17 Budmandude wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 00:49 kwizach wrote:On July 26 2012 00:44 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2012 00:36 farvacola wrote:On July 26 2012 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 23:34 Mohdoo wrote:On July 25 2012 10:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 10:09 Defacer wrote:Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy. "Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent. Going to be a fun election this year! Sure, I'd love to see Romney flesh out his economic plan more, and lots conservatives have called upon Romney to do just that. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Romney would be a better steward of the economy (if for no other reason than he is neither a democrat nor Obama), and polls are showing that my opinion is in the majority on the point. As for the rest of the quote, let's just say that I disagree with Sargent and fall into Krauthammer's camp as I mentioned in a previous post. At a minimum, it looks like democrats, liberals, and the Obama campaign have finally figured out how badly Obama fucked up with that Roanoke speech. The root problem is that, regardless of what Obama actually believes, Obama has enough of the stink of being anti-enterprise that his speech has done nothing but confirm the suspicions (or fears, if you will) of many Americans. I don't think he is anti-enterprise. I believe his point was that businesses don't need to hire guards to keep their businesses safe like they used to due to police and the military. They don't need to treat their sewage and find their own water sources or their own power generation or lay their own roads. While they are good business people, these people did not do it 100% on their own like people try to pretend. All the things I listed significantly decrease the cost of business operations and aren't things that magically fall from the sky. There's nothing wrong with reminding businesses of that. You're liberal, so you don't see him as being anti-enterprise and you are viewing his statements from a different, friendlier perspective than many (if not most) Americans. Consider how someone with a different perspective would take his comments. Many people see Obama's rhetoric as being divisive. In particular, they see Obama playing the class warfare game and going out of his way to demonize "the rich." They also see Obama promote many policies that harm businesses, whether it be enacting new regulations (Obamacare certainly hurts him here) or obstructing obviously beneficial projects (like the Keystone XL pipeline). Consider all of the other people who look at Obama's past and see a slew of leftist radicals with whom Obama has been closely affiliated at one point or another during his life. How do you think all of these people take Obama's comments? Hell, just compare what Obama said to what other presidents have said (go look at the new Scott Brown ad). When you consider all of the above, it becomes very obvious why Obama's comments have damaged him so badly. I guarantee you that a majority of independents aren't reacting well to what Obama said. You've done a rather poor job of tying mainstream Republican thought with your own, so I'm inclined to simply shake my head every time you use words and phrases like "many (if not most) Americans", "They", and "all of these people". Your source material is and has been summarily extremely activist right-wing, and if you want anyone to follow your logic and accept your collective declarations, some sort of centrist evidence would be nice. Because otherwise I can't help but feel as though you are simply putting words and ideas in peoples mouths and heads. For example, you clam that many consider Obama's rhetoric divisive. Do you not accept that many people also consider the entirety of the Republican platform as one which lives and dies on tactics of division? Mitch McConnell even says as much. Like I have said many, many times in this thread, all I'm trying to do is explain why what Obama said is damaging to his campaign. For whatever a reason, a majority of you simply refuse to accept that Obama's Roanoke speech was incredibly stupid and harmful, despite the fact that the Obama campaign has finally figured out Obama stepped in it and is now actively doing damage control. If you really want to put your head in the sand and simply dismiss me as a "right-wing extremist," go ahead. Like I have said before, I'm all for democrats and liberals not figuring out what their weaknesses are. You are trying to paint the speech as "stupid and harmful" by itself. It wasn't. The only reason why some of Obama's comments could be damaging to him is that his opponents actively took them out of context. That's the only reason. The entirity of that section of the speech implies that infrastructure deserves just as much, if not more, credit for a successful business than the sacrifices and work of the people who built it. "I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."This implies it was primarily luck that chose the people who succeeded in their businesses. My parents in particular found this the most insulting part of the speech. My mother and father put all of their net worth up for collateral for a business loan to get started. They then proceeded to work nearly every day of the week for the next year without drawing a regular paycheck, the employees, bills, and inventory had to come first. Our family got enough to pay the bills and eat, that's about it. This comment is incredibly demeaning to people who have gone through this (which is, surprise surprise, the overwhelming majority of small business owners). "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."Again, this is saying that infrastructure (which is nearly constant for all business owners so it actually has almost no baring on who survives and who doesn't) and education had more to do with the success than working 60-70 hours a week for the first year (sometimes years!) after putting up everything you own to try to start your business. Funny thing that the unbelievable American system is built on the idea of self-reliance and government staying out of individual's lives; the exact opposite of what he's talking about here! I don't see how this is out of context, I don't see how you can say it's not harmful. It was a very stupid comment to make off-the-cuff and plays to his class warfare bullshit he's been peddling recently. Even if you take the "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" line alone it still encapsulates what his whole statement was getting at; the contributions of society and luck were more impactful on your business than your hard work. In this speech he listed constants (society, infrastructure) as if they were the variables. This leads to a perception of an attack on small business, and perception is reality.
This is exactly right. Obama isn't being hammered for just one throw away line that might be taken out of context. Obama is being hammered for making extended comments that have all of the implications described above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
