EPTOn August 20 2012 04:12 sam!zdat wrote:
This is really at the root of most of our problems. Does anybody disagree with this?
This is really at the root of most of our problems. Does anybody disagree with this?
Anyone who is conservative does.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 315
| 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 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Anyone who is conservative does. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
Can you elaborate on the thought behind this? I don't understand. Conservatives are happy with the power of lobbyists and mass media? Isn't that power of special interests which acts against the free play of market forces? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 20 2012 04:37 sam!zdat wrote: Can you elaborate on the thought behind this? I don't understand. Conservatives are happy with the power of lobbyists and mass media? Isn't that power of special interests which acts against the free play of market forces? You're the one positing that a Constitutional right is a bad thing. You should probably explain yourself first. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 20 2012 04:26 aksfjh wrote: It has yet to come down because we're still 6-12% below pre-crisis GDP potential and we still have high unemployment and underemployment, pushing a significant number of people into welfare programs like unemployment and food stamps. Also, if you imagine that the government should attempt to fill the gap in production/consumption, the stimulus should have been much larger and over the span of 2-4 years. Stating that it "lasts until 2019" just emphasizes how pitiful of a stimulus it actually was. Good picture: ![[image loading]](http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4fd021cbecad04ca73000034-590/nope-public-construction-spending-is-falling.jpg) We had a bubble in construction spending. I don't see how filling the gap in construction spending to bubble levels would do anything but increase the amount of unproductive assets in the economy. For the economy as a whole, fiscal stimulus has never needed to fill the entire output gap to be considered stimulus. You can make the argument that the stimulus should have been bigger (plenty do) but that's a different argument entirely and one I'd still disagree with. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 20 2012 01:13 RenSC2 wrote: Wait, what? So you just want to parrot political talking points without actual arguing the merits of them? At least you've gotten to the point where you admit that you can't defend the points you're making, you just want to say them anyways. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery. Seems like your ability to understand what he wrote is very poor. He said he often debates political strategy which is the perfect thing to debate in an election thread. This is also why I have posted about Ryan's impact on the election. Its interesting to talk about where candidates should spend their money or what media strategies they use because you can understand why people do what they do and what influences them. If there is ever a time that debating political strategy is appropriate, it is in this thread. And debating political strategy is not the same as just saying "You're stupd", "no YOU!", "no YOU!" which is essentially what you did in your post to him... Just sayin.. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On August 20 2012 04:39 xDaunt wrote: You're the one positing that a Constitutional right is a bad thing. You should probably explain yourself first. I don't take the US constitution as sacrosanct, first off, and secondly, I think the idea that spending money is first amendment speech is far from uncontroversial (though I'm not a constitutional scholar - maybe somebody who knows will weigh in). Anyway, most constitutional interpretation is more hadith than anything else - the constitution itself is too vague to say much of anything at all. It's my feeling that the power of money as speech has turned the US democracy into a parody of itself, basically tantamount to fascism. We don't have political discourse, we have a competition to see which meme is most virulent, or which propaganda most effective. (if an acceptance of the power of money as speech is an inextricable element of the constitution, then I would take that as an indictment of the moral legitimacy of the constitution.) | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 20 2012 04:39 xDaunt wrote: You're the one positing that a Constitutional right is a bad thing. You should probably explain yourself first. Ehhh... it's not so much "money = speech" that's scary but the fact that Corporate Personhood grants corporations "money = speech" properties. Corporate Personhood isn't a constitutional right. As far as I've seen the partisanship of Citizens United stuff isn't that clear from conservatives or liberals. Conservatives tend to side with money = speech side just because I guess corporations favor conservative policies in general. But conservatives also have reason to not like the idea because it has the potential to undermine democratic principles and gives the appearance of complete and total corruption. Here's the ACLU take, which I think gives a better idea on the complexity of the issue: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 20 2012 04:49 sam!zdat wrote: I don't take the US constitution as sacrosanct, first off, and secondly, I think the idea that spending money is first amendment speech is far from uncontroversial (though I'm not a constitutional scholar - maybe somebody who knows will weigh in). Anyway, most constitutional interpretation is more hadith than anything else - the constitution itself is too vague to say much of anything at all. It's my feeling that the power of money as speech has turned the US democracy into a parody of itself, basically tantamount to fascism. We don't have political discourse, we have a competition to see which meme is most virulent, or which propaganda most effective. (if an acceptance of the power of money as speech is an inextricable element of the constitution, then I would take that as an indictment of the moral legitimacy of the constitution.) I don't think that speech = money but I do think that 1 of the ways to communicate is to spend money (you can also just talk to people, hold peaceful protests, write letters to the editor, put bumper stickers on your car, go yell in a park somewhere or do whatever you want). The problem is that if you want to stop people from communicating with money, you have to do some tyranical things (as in tyrany). You either have to take government control of the media so they are not allowed to take money, or you have to start telling people what they can and cannot spend their own money on. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
 What bothers me is that the media find it a profitable strategy to emphasize the "glamorous" or the instant news rather than the most substantial stuff. Cable news is a perfect example of this, which is why I don't watch any cable news station (I'm conservative, but won't watch FoxNews). But I don't really have any better idea on how to improve things either in the political discourse. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 20 2012 04:39 xDaunt wrote: You're the one positing that a Constitutional right is a bad thing. You should probably explain yourself first. Anyone who rationalizes anything on the mere basis of it being a constitutional right needs to try a little harder. When people start relying on laws just because they are a law, they make themselves vulnerable not only to tyranny but also outdated mandates. The constitution exists not to just provide us with rights, but to show us how laws work, how laws come to existence, and how laws can change. Anyone who just blindly obeys the constitution remains oblivious to its construction and purpose. Besides, money = speech is not a constitutional amendment, it's a Supreme Court mandate. However, if I were to use the constitution as a basis to explain why money != speech, it would be that speech is free and money is the exact opposite of that. If I were to explain my reasoning a bit more, it's because in a truly representative democracy that touts "fair" elections, the very situation in which one candidate receives more funding than the other skews the election by giving the one with the bigger war chest an advantage. How is it fair at all when a single corporation donates $10 million dollars to a candidate? In a fair election parties should, at the very least, have a cap on the total amount of donations they may receive (for example, maximum set to $70 million), so that while their funds are even, they can try to persuade the public by actual strategy and policy. The very existence of caps placed on individual donors is a testament to the influence of money and how it can skew an election. In a truly fair election, however, there wouldn't be a cap on total donations, but rather parties would play with the same amount of funding from the get-go... that is a little impossible though. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
But they are essentially acting as whistleblowers for the mainstream news media like when MSNBC edited a Romney clip in order to make him look stupid and then they laughed at him: http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/06/19/msnbc-busted-for-editing-romney-comments-out-of-context-backtracks-sorta-video/ | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 20 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote: We had a bubble in construction spending. I don't see how filling the gap in construction spending to bubble levels would do anything but increase the amount of unproductive assets in the economy. For the economy as a whole, fiscal stimulus has never needed to fill the entire output gap to be considered stimulus. You can make the argument that the stimulus should have been bigger (plenty do) but that's a different argument entirely and one I'd still disagree with. We had a minor stimulus in construction spending during the recession, but it has since declined. We have an excess of resources in the construction sector in terms of workforce and equipment that is essentially sitting around. Now would be a perfect time to use those idle resources with the government expanding construction and infrastructure projects. Here's a good description of what happened and what needs to be done: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-fix-the-economy-2011-10 I should note that instead of doing what this article calls for, we've had 2+ years of kneejerk deficit fighting. If not explicitly at the federal level, the state and local levels have been absolutely ridiculous. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 20 2012 05:08 Souma wrote: Anyone who rationalizes anything on the mere basis of it being a constitutional right needs to try a little harder. When people start relying on laws just because they are a law, they make themselves vulnerable not only to tyranny but also outdated mandates. The constitution exists not to just provide us with rights, but to show us how laws work, how laws come to existence, and how laws can change. Anyone who just blindly obeys the constitution remains oblivious to its construction and purpose. Besides, money = speech is not a constitutional amendment, it's a Supreme Court mandate. However, if I were to use the constitution as a basis to explain why money != speech, it would be that speech is free and money is the exact opposite of that. If I were to explain my reasoning a bit more, it's because in a truly representative democracy that touts "fair" elections, the very situation in which one candidate receives more funding than the other skews the election by giving the one with the bigger war chest an advantage. How is it fair at all when a single corporation donates $10 million dollars to a candidate? In a fair election parties should, at the very least, have a cap on the total amount of donations they may receive (for example, maximum set to $70 million), so that while their funds are even, they can try to persuade the public by actual strategy and policy. The very existence of caps placed on individual donors is a testament to the influence of money and how it can skew an election. In a truly fair election, however, there wouldn't be a cap on total donations, but rather parties would play with the same amount of funding from the get-go... that is a little impossible though. It's a stronger argument to say that massive spending actually squelches people's freedom of expression and free speech through completely drowning out opponents. The constitution is built to protect everyone's free speech, not just those that have lots of money. The Constitution is pretty damn awesome (especially the power of the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments which outlines rights to speech, privacy, due process, and equality), so I don't think there's anything wrong with using it as the absolute basis of arguments. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On August 20 2012 05:02 Savio wrote: I think the democracy is OK, but it irks me that jounalists and news organizations get so much money because I don't like them all that much What bothers me is that the media find it a profitable strategy to emphasize the "glamorous" or the instant news rather than the most substantial stuff. Cable news is a perfect example of this, which is why I don't watch any cable news station (I'm conservative, but won't watch FoxNews). But I don't really have any better idea on how to improve things either in the political discourse. I do not think it is a new problem. It just happens to be a lot easier to point towards the abuse of "money = speech"(however you define it). Actually I think it is a tradition to think of king, pray to god and talk to country in any deal you make (the poor chap who talked to god and prayed to country never had a chance since he thought of himself!) and the bigger the deals are, the more you discuss it with the politicians. Oldschool media has a history of some discretion towards the subjects of their stories, At the same time they were supported by the politicians directly or indirectly. Breaking the "discretion" seems to correlate exponentially in punishment with the anger and power of the rulers. The new boy in the debate is the internet where "there be dragons". The more the government opens up, the more skeletons will leave the closet. I think the "problematic" dealings in governance has gone down significantly with the increased use of the internet and the lack of the old media as a filter. It does however leave the old media with a role as entertainment first and integrity later and later in their priority. They have lost some of their primary battle-grounds to the internet already (Fast news and indept analysis since they cannot be "protected") and are fighting tooth and nail to keep cable cutting down by strenghtening their positions (entertainment being the easiest because of the low cost and it being an area where they can go together with all publishers and secondary producers in a battle against abuse of their protection on the internet). | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 20 2012 05:13 aksfjh wrote: We had a minor stimulus in construction spending during the recession, but it has since declined. We have an excess of resources in the construction sector in terms of workforce and equipment that is essentially sitting around. Now would be a perfect time to use those idle resources with the government expanding construction and infrastructure projects. Here's a good description of what happened and what needs to be done: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-fix-the-economy-2011-10 I should note that instead of doing what this article calls for, we've had 2+ years of kneejerk deficit fighting. If not explicitly at the federal level, the state and local levels have been absolutely ridiculous. I had a knee-jerk reaction to construction spending (construction = buildings) when I'm completely for more and better roads and bridges etc. I just think we should pay for it by redirecting inefficient spending towards more useful projects rather than simply increasing overall spending / deficits. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 20 2012 05:30 DoubleReed wrote: It's a stronger argument to say that massive spending actually squelches people's freedom of expression and free speech through completely drowning out opponents. The constitution is built to protect everyone's free speech, not just those that have lots of money. The Constitution is pretty damn awesome (especially the power of the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments which outlines rights to speech, privacy, due process, and equality), so I don't think there's anything wrong with using it as the absolute basis of arguments. That is definitely an argument, yes. You know what's really awesome about the Constitution? The way the founding fathers knew it would have to be altered in order to keep up with the times. You can use the Constitution as the 'basis' of an argument, but if you don't understand why a certain right is guaranteed by the Constitution (i.e. why it was introduced in the first place and during what kind of political and social environment) and are unable to elaborate on its affect in a certain situation then you really need to reevaluate your stance... is what I'm saying. Incidentally I am not an advocate of absolute free speech, absolute privacy, nor absolute equality. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On August 20 2012 01:12 xDaunt wrote: I'll let this guy speak for me on the voter ID issue: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/voter-id-laws-are-good-protection-against-fraud/2011/07/08/gIQAGnURBI_story.html He makes literally no good points - facts directly disagree with his assessment of the impact and magnitude of fraud. Also, the voter ID laws would completely fail to prevent most types of possible voter fraud. You pasting this article basically means you have no answer to the arguments that were presented to you in the voter ID laws debate. At this point, you're sticking your hand in the sand and pretending not to hear us. Also, you have once again deliberately avoided mentioning the move by Republicans in Ohio to restrict voting hours in Democratic-leaning districts. I must say I'm not surprised to see you dodge the issue. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On August 20 2012 03:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The stimulus package wasn't a one-time spending plan. It lasts until 2019. There has been huge fiscal stimulus (beyond stimulus bills) in the economy since the recession began. Government spending as a % of GDP has yet to come down to pre-recession levels and deficits are huge. Out of curiosity, have you followed many university-level economic courses? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 20 2012 05:59 kwizach wrote: Out of curiosity, have you followed many university-level economic courses? I think I've taken 4, if memory serves correct. | ||
| ||
