|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
anyway this is getting too far afield but
being able to see things in terms of actions, reasons, choices etc involves a specialised neural routine that is receptive to those 'objects'. being able to see things in terms of observed social structures takes a quite different way. is there a fact of the matter? there is a fact of the matter in terms of the mental state of the actors in question, for instance, whether the women were drunk when they made those choices.
but, even when fully conscious and even fully reasoned, these choices are still legitimately seen as products of certain social factors. the extra information comes from you, the analyst, using a different part of your brain, and from seeing these people acting in a richer context.
|
On September 07 2012 15:37 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 15:35 sunprince wrote:On September 07 2012 15:34 oneofthem wrote:On September 07 2012 15:30 sunprince wrote:On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote:
now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own. The problem is that feminists blame the structure without providing any empirical evidence that the structure is responsible. I've shown empirical studies suggesting that social factors are not the reason. a good feminist will never find a causal chain too long to turn your conclusion moot. the data is there, but the interpretation is the issue. as an example, you may say wage diff is explained by choice of working time. since it is a choice, it is not a structurla problem. feminists will say the choice is actually the result of the system. if you want to dig into this agency vs mechanism issue a bit more you shoudl read some philosophy of mind maybe. but wait a few years for my papers on the topic lol. If you don't want to take them on, then you simply don't take them. I have very little sympathy for someone who makes educational and career choices that they "didn't really want". now you have some real talk. this is the crux of the issue is it not? Let me put it this way, if a man rapes a woman and then claims that rape culture and social conditioning made him do it (don't forget, feminists argue that this is the main cause of rape!), do you think feminists would support letting him go free? Since the answer is no, we'd hold him responsible, then why don't you think women should be held responsible for their own decisions too? Isn't it because you believe that women are children who don't really know what they're doing? well yes, as i have said, there's a turning of the coin involved. on one side, there's agency and the grand structure of human drama. on the other, theories upon theories of mechanism. if the rape issue has two sides, why not the working hour choice one.
You're turning this into a philosophical debate on agency vs mechanism. I'm speaking to people in the real world, using language and definitions as understood by most people. If you're working on a paper arguing that free will doesn't exist then that's cool for you, but as far as politics and our legal system is concerned, women are agents responsible for their own actions.
|
"For non-US citizens, who do you hope for to win?" is probably the most pointless poll ever. Romney's just so unthinkable outside the American psyche.
|
On September 07 2012 15:30 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote:
now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own. The problem is that feminists blame the structure without providing any empirical evidence that the structure is responsible. I've shown empirical studies suggesting that social factors are not the reason. Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote:
this is to say, for those who DO NOT WANT TO take on these trad. gender roles, they can be legitimately seen as external. If you don't want to take them on, then you simply don't take them. I have very little sympathy for someone who makes educational and career choices that they "didn't really want".
Let's just assume for a moment that you really are morally superior to those wretched villains who dare to be underprivileged and have to make sacrifices in order to survive and support their loved ones. Even so, shouldn't you--as a better person--feel pity for your inferiors, rather than scorning them?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 07 2012 15:39 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote:
i have not made that argument at all. the issue is not whether they are genuinely agency choices, but whether those choices are the products of social factors.
now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own.
this is to say, for those who DO NOT WANT TO take on these trad. gender roles, they can be legitimately seen as external. You don't expect.. you realize what you're discussing is rudimentary second year critical theory, and intuitive to anyone at a Green level of moral development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics). Am I correct in assuming you're in the English department? Everyone faces social conditioning. This thread as it pertains to Democrats vs. Republicans could be viewed as deconstructing social conditioning. Here's an idea. It's sexist to assume: 1) Social conditioning negatively impacts women but not men, and 2) Women are more susceptible to social conditioning.. let me know if you wanna spend some time with #2, I'm game.
well no i am not in english at all lol. i am also not arguing the feminist line here which is of course rudimentary as i've already noted. just that the studies are not all that damaging to the feminist position because they can always push back the causal chain, or find some other angle of attack that portrays the situation in the schematic suitable for their view, one involving some structural causes that led to certain observed trends, which these studies treat as neutral and external.
and because sunprince seems to think these studies do reach such conclusions and thes conclusions are purely empirical, there is strong reason to suspect that he has missed the interpretative issue involved.
so no i am not taking up your game because you've not seen my point in this.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 07 2012 15:41 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 15:37 oneofthem wrote:On September 07 2012 15:35 sunprince wrote:On September 07 2012 15:34 oneofthem wrote:On September 07 2012 15:30 sunprince wrote:On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote:
now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own. The problem is that feminists blame the structure without providing any empirical evidence that the structure is responsible. I've shown empirical studies suggesting that social factors are not the reason. a good feminist will never find a causal chain too long to turn your conclusion moot. the data is there, but the interpretation is the issue. as an example, you may say wage diff is explained by choice of working time. since it is a choice, it is not a structurla problem. feminists will say the choice is actually the result of the system. if you want to dig into this agency vs mechanism issue a bit more you shoudl read some philosophy of mind maybe. but wait a few years for my papers on the topic lol. If you don't want to take them on, then you simply don't take them. I have very little sympathy for someone who makes educational and career choices that they "didn't really want". now you have some real talk. this is the crux of the issue is it not? Let me put it this way, if a man rapes a woman and then claims that rape culture and social conditioning made him do it (don't forget, feminists argue that this is the main cause of rape!), do you think feminists would support letting him go free? Since the answer is no, we'd hold him responsible, then why don't you think women should be held responsible for their own decisions too? Isn't it because you believe that women are children who don't really know what they're doing? well yes, as i have said, there's a turning of the coin involved. on one side, there's agency and the grand structure of human drama. on the other, theories upon theories of mechanism. if the rape issue has two sides, why not the working hour choice one. You're turning this into a philosophical debate on agency vs mechanism. I'm speaking to people in the real world, using language and definitions as understood by most people. If you're working on a paper arguing that free will doesn't exist then that's cool for you, but as far as politics and our legal system is concerned, women are agents responsible for their own actions. the argument is not that agency does not exist.
and no, politics is an activity that does touch on this issue quite a bit. whether you treat someone in a situation like that (woman in trad family/surrounded with trad signals) with sympathy or not does turn on your understanding of agency, even if you have never considered the issue. (or realize that there is an issue)
|
On September 07 2012 15:09 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:39 screamingpalm wrote:On September 07 2012 12:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 12:16 Mysticesper wrote:On September 07 2012 12:13 aksfjh wrote:On September 07 2012 12:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 11:51 TheSwedishFan wrote:On September 07 2012 11:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
There is no such thing as Clean Coal Mr. President. there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal Why not just replace coal plants with nat gas? Its cheaper and cleaner (though not perfectly clean ofc). If my SimCity experience has taught me anything, natural gas burning is a much lower energy output process. Otherwise, storage and transportation is a lot more hazardous and costly. Natural gas is great for home heating systems (furnaces, boilers). Outside of that, it's not great. Disagree: The International Energy Agency has just released some data that green-minded fans of shale gas should appreciate. The organisation's latest figures show that America's carbon-dioxide emissions from generating energy have fallen by 450m tonnes, more than in any other country over the past five years. The turnaround has been welcomed by many, and Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist, ascribes much of the credit to a shift away from dirty coal towards cleaner gas, according to an article in the Financial Times.
The importance of coal in America's energy mix has indeed tumbled since 1997, from almost half of electricity generation to just 36.7% in February, according to America's Energy Information Administration (see chart). This has come about mostly because of an increase in the use of natural gas (from 21.6% to 29.4% over the same period) rather than renewable energy (from 8.3% to 12.1%). Source As long as there's no fracking in my neighborhood and flammable tap water, nat gas is pretty decent. You can definately tell the difference just looking at how much cleaner the busses are that use nat gas when our public transportation system switched over. The flaming water in Gasland was propaganda.In the film's signature moment Mike Markham, a landowner, ignites his tap water. The film leaves the viewer with the false impression that the flaming tap water is a result of natural gas drilling. However, according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which tested Markham's water in 2008, there were "no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well." Instead the investigation found that the methane was "biogenic" in nature, meaning it was naturally occurring and that his water well was drilled into a natural gas pocket. This is one of several examples where the film veers from the facts. A second depiction of a flaming faucet in the home of Renee McClure also misleads viewers about the connection between natural gas development and methane in water wells. McClure's well was sampled by the state of Colorado and it, too, showed only naturally occurring methane. More debunking at the link.
Propaganda? I'm not so sure about that. You might want to double check your source, I think you accidentally linked to the Natural Gas Alliance. :D Not saying that I know for sure either way, but I sure as hell don't the industry to become transparent.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/07/24/industry-money-and-questionable-ethics-contaminate-ut-austin-fracking-study/?WT.mc_id=SA_syn_HuffPo
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/gas-fracking-science-conflict/
|
On September 07 2012 15:47 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 15:39 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote:
i have not made that argument at all. the issue is not whether they are genuinely agency choices, but whether those choices are the products of social factors.
now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own.
this is to say, for those who DO NOT WANT TO take on these trad. gender roles, they can be legitimately seen as external. You don't expect.. you realize what you're discussing is rudimentary second year critical theory, and intuitive to anyone at a Green level of moral development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics). Am I correct in assuming you're in the English department? Everyone faces social conditioning. This thread as it pertains to Democrats vs. Republicans could be viewed as deconstructing social conditioning. Here's an idea. It's sexist to assume: 1) Social conditioning negatively impacts women but not men, and 2) Women are more susceptible to social conditioning.. let me know if you wanna spend some time with #2, I'm game. well no i am not in english at all lol. i am also not arguing the feminist line here, just that the studies are not all that damaging to the feminist position because they can always push back the causal chain, or find some other angle of attack that portrays the situation in the schematic suitable for their view, one involving some structural causes that led to certain observed trends, which these studies treat as external. and because sunprince seems to think these studies do reach such conclusions and thes conclusions are purely empirical, there is strong reason to suspect that he has missed the interpretative issue involved. so no i am not taking up your game because you've not seen my point in this.
I understand you. I understand your point. And you're wrong about the causal chain. Green postmodernist feminism believes it can push the causal chain further and further back because they equate all views as being equally arbitrary in the sense that they're socially defined. In other words, on whatever basis you choose to critique them, they will simply point to a value you believe has inherent meaning, and they will tell you its arbitrary and socially defined. This process can theoretically go on for days. It's one of the most laughably infantile modes in academia and university culture. It's green consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics). In fact I know exactly where the green view falls apart and the causal chain ends. PM me if you want to talk about it more, cause this is getting off topic.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i've not seen that book and i am not actually arguing one can legitimately push things to extremes or that this is a suitable defense. the issue here is whether women choosing shorter hours is a simple choice, or some sort of structural symptom. the feminist would obviously argue the latter and my point is merely this is not a way closed by any empirical study that only explains the wage gap in terms of this choice difference, because the choice itself can be challenged and rendered into a structural problem.
that is all, it is a questionof whether this matter is empirically decided, or there exists a difference in theory scope. in the latter case the two sides can be talking past each other and failing to see the other viewpoint. i am not arguing that you should come down either way, just that when you don't see the other pov you miss out on some information.
so to apply to the case at hand, i do not argue that feminists are right about this entirely (nor do i even know what they think about it down to actual words, just a rough guess which is good enough), i just argue that because sunprince thinks this is an empirical matter settled by these studies, he might miss some information made available by a social theory that explains the choices as result of mechanics. empirical studies may use data but that does not mean the conclusion is straight empirical. there's the frame of the study which is theory.
/sleep all communication to pm etc.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Interesting debate. What I gathered from it was that there is a non-existent wage gap between men and women, but oneofthem brings up the critical question: why? If there is truly a discrepancy in the amount of hours worked between men and women and that it is by choice, it is pivotal that we try and dissect this and ask ourselves, "Why do women choose to work shorter hours?" aside from just dismissing it.
But all-in-all, even if women are socially conditioned to not work as many hours, the problem that should be solved is the underlying, fundamental problem: the social conditioning itself. The issue should not be solved by simply handing over money, as that does not solve the main problem, and no one can really expect employers to pay someone for less work (bar extreme circumstances like maternity leave).
This is easier said than done, however. As two biologically different entities, it is hard not to treat each sex differently as they have different needs, different hormones, different physical abilities, etc.
Is it really possible to have "neutral" social conditioning? Isn't the "end game" not only accepting others as equals but also as "different"? And if we accept them as different, do we accept any inequalities (such as lower wages due to lower hours worked due to social conditioning) that follow?
|
On September 07 2012 15:46 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 15:30 sunprince wrote:On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote:
now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own. The problem is that feminists blame the structure without providing any empirical evidence that the structure is responsible. I've shown empirical studies suggesting that social factors are not the reason. On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote:
this is to say, for those who DO NOT WANT TO take on these trad. gender roles, they can be legitimately seen as external. If you don't want to take them on, then you simply don't take them. I have very little sympathy for someone who makes educational and career choices that they "didn't really want". Let's just assume for a moment that you really are morally superior to those wretched villains who dare to be underprivileged and have to make sacrifices in order to survive and support their loved ones.
You're strawmanning. I've made the argument (backed by sources) that women choose their educational and career choices, meaning that they weren't forced into those by circumstances beyond their control. You're basically arguing that women do not consent to work fewer hours, which is a pretty bold claim that isn't going to be accepted without evidence. The empirical studies show that plenty of women choose to be stay at home mothers or to work fewer hours so that they can spend more hours at home, not that they are forced into it.
On September 07 2012 15:46 HunterX11 wrote:Even so, shouldn't you--as a better person--feel pity for your inferiors, rather than scorning them?
I have no scorn for those who are underprivileged (nor do I pity them, since that would be condescending). I do, however, have scorn for people who choose to work shorter hours yet demand equal pay to those who work longer hours. That's what it boils down to, when feminists perpetuate the 77% "wage gap" myth when women work 78% as many hours as men. That's not even going into the fact that dangerous (e.g. higher paying) jobs are overwhelmingly filled by men (along with the fact that the overwhelming majority of work-related deaths are male), that college women (who now outnumber men by 50%) choose non-STEM majors, that women are more likely to take career breaks, and that in spite of all that young single women make 8% more than comparable men.
|
On September 07 2012 15:44 nihoh wrote:
"For non-US citizens, who do you hope for to win?" is probably the most pointless poll ever. Romney's just so unthinkable outside the American psyche.
Sigh. So true. Honestly, I don't know Romney would never even be considered for high political office in Canada based on his current positions on healthcare, gay marriage and abortion.
I'm not suggesting social issues like gay marriage and abortion aren't controversial -- there's plenty of people that are against both ... but the separation of church and state is so clear that the question of whether or not people should have a choice is a non-issue. Of course they should. We're way past that.
Ontario just legalized the operation of brothels, for fucks sake.
|
On September 07 2012 15:44 nihoh wrote:
"For non-US citizens, who do you hope for to win?" is probably the most pointless poll ever. Romney's just so unthinkable outside the American psyche.
Haha, this. In most other western countries Obama would be considered well right of center (making people buy health insurance at exorbitant rates from private insurance companies instead of introducing a public health system for example) and Romney, well he's just off the scale.
|
On September 07 2012 14:26 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 14:24 aksfjh wrote:On September 07 2012 14:15 sunprince wrote:On September 07 2012 14:07 aksfjh wrote:On September 07 2012 14:02 sunprince wrote:On September 07 2012 13:44 oneofthem wrote:On September 07 2012 13:37 sunprince wrote:
Am I the only one getting sick and tired of listening to Dems harp on the wage gap myth?
I know they need the woman vote and the support of feminist groups to win the election and all, but do they really think women are gonna run to the GOP if the Dems stop buying into failboat statistics on a single issue? do you have compelling research suggesting that it is indeed a myth? The “pay gap” is probably the most widely-cited example of supposed disadvantages faced by women today. It is also totally misleading, as it is only a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes that does not account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work, or other non-discriminatory, voluntary factors. The US Department of Labor funded a study that proved this and found the pay gap is caused by choices, not discrimination. Women work (44/56)x100=78% as much time as men. Kind of explains the gap by itself doesn't it? Gender pay gap is not what activists claim (Canada).Equal pay statistics are bogus because they don’t compare like with like (UK).Fair Pay Isn’t Always Equal PayThe Wage Gap MythWomen In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than MenFemale U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: studyWomen between ages 21 and 30 working full-time make 117% of men's wages.According to the U.S. Census Bureau, single women between 22 and 30 years old earn 8% more than comparable men. This was further supported in the book “Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell, who examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don’t have. That is why never-married childless women outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts. Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men. Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce. This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home). Blaming men for women’s choices is unfair. In fact research shows most men have no problem with their wives outearning them. Research also shows most working dads would quit or take a pay cut to spend more time with kids if their spouses could support the family. Not to mention the fact that parents share workloads more when mothers allow men to be primary parents. In reality, career decisions, not sex bias, are at the root of the "wage gap".There is also the myth that women are kept out of certain more lucrative fields by sexism. The truth is that women stay away from math out of their own free choice. Cornell determined that there discrimination is not responsible for the lack of women in science. Business Insider concurs. TL;DR: The 77 cents to a dollar wage gap myth is based on the unadjusted wage gap, which means it does not take into account factors like hours worked, occupation, education, or experience. However, at the same time, the legislation proposed doesn't FORCE unjust equal pay by the same criteria. It gives women the ability to confront employers in a reasonable time frame. Saying the law is unnecessary is really just saying the law is redundant. The cost of implementation is relatively nothing. This would be the equivalent of killing a fly with a fly swatter. In practice, the act encourages employers to overpay women to reduce the likelihood of a potentially costly lawsuit. The main issue, though, is that the Dems are deliberately perpetuating a feminist myth, which further plays into the false (not to mention misogynistic) narrative of women as victims rather than equals. I'd think companies would attempt to pay women fairly before they would pay them in excess... All of the research shows they already do: Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men. Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: studyWomen between ages 21 and 30 working full-time make 117% of men's wages. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, single women between 22 and 30 years old earn 8% more than comparable men.
Alright, I just read these links, and none of them prove that the disparity between the pay between men and women is unjustifiable or a result of overcompensating out of 'fear of being accused of discrimination' -- which is a big leap.
Link 1 and 2
In the case of software engineering and computer sciences, women are so rare that they are actually needed to add diversity to the overall culture of the workplace (as the article states, the ratio of men to women is 20 to 1). I've worked in studios compromised 100% of sweaty, stinky guys in front of computers, and trust me, adding a girl seems to class up the joint and genuinely offer a perspective on problems that was otherwise lacking.
To me, that's no different than a Chinese manufacturer paying extra for a bilingual White guy to manage his plant, even if he's doing the same job as other managers. Because they're rare, and now they are a commodity, they can leverage that for better wages.
A qualified female director that can hang with the boys is hard to find. Does that mean that sometimes a woman might get promoted ahead of a man, despite not being qualified? Sure. But then again, I've met plenty of male bosses and teachers and friends that have also been promoted for stupid reasons. It has nothing to do with the Lily Ledbetter Act, and more to due with nepotism and bad management.
Link 3
The article speculates that part of the reason that 21-30 women might be making more money than men is because young women are migrating to larger urban areas in greater numbers. To be clear, they are not comparing men and women in similar jobs, they just notice a trend that women in this age group, overall, are out earning men.
But let's pretend they are. In some industries, the difference in pay for similar jobs in large urban centers compared to smaller towns is dramatic, because the cost of living is higher and the businesses are larger. An editor at Harper Collins in New York would make much more than an editor based in Portland.
Link 4
This article also states that women are graduating college and earning advanced degrees at a higher rate than men. So of course they're earning more.
Anyway, based on these links, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue anymore. You've successfully confused the issue with non-sensical references.
|
I saw Obama's speech.
Honestly, it was a piece of crap. It was vague, it didn't give any specifics about policy. He hardly even defended his own record. And he didn't attack Republicans on their bullshit policies.
It was the exact opposite of Clinton's speech -- his was specific, wonkish, technical, it was all about policy, he defended Obama's record, he attacked Republicans for redoing Bush's policies, blasted them for offering no specifics on their tax plans, for being hypocrites about the medicare cuts, and on and on.
This was a terrible speech. The fact is Obama has a very detailed, very specific 250 page plan. Yet Obama hardly talked policy -- Clinton did, he absolutely nailed it, basically everything point-by-point. This was a huge disappointment given that Obama is usually a great orator.
Clinton's speech was absolutely amazing, literally the best political speech I've ever seen. Obama speech was horseshit.
|
On September 07 2012 18:45 paralleluniverse wrote:
I saw Obama's speech.
Honestly it was a piece of crap. It was vague, it didn't give in any specific about policy. He hardly even defended he's own record. And he didn't attack Republicans on the bullshit policies.
It was exactly of Clinton's speech -- he's was specific, wonkish, technical, it was all about policy, he defended Obama's record, he attacked Republicans for redoing Bush's policies, blasted them for offering no specifics on their tax plans, being hypocrites about the medicare cuts, and on and on.
Terrible speech. The fact is Obama has very detailed, very specific 250 page plan. Yet Obama hardly talked policy -- Clinton did, he absolutely nailed it, basically everything point-by-point.
Clinton's speech was amazing. Obama speech was a piece of shit.
I wouldn't call it a 'peice of shit' -- but what Obama really, really, REALLY needs to improve on is connecting his ambitions to his policies.
For example, he said something along the lines of, 'We need to make sure people that serve our country come back to good jobs, never go without a home," etc.
However, what most people do not realize is that this is NOT empty rhetoric. Whether you agree with him or not, there are actual policies and decisions he has already implemented to improve the employability of veterans (a tax credit for businesses that train and hire veterans) and protect their homes.
The $25 billion foreclosure abuse settlement announced last month between a group of state governments and the largest mortgage banks in the country is meant to help homeowners everywhere who were wronged by foreclosure abuses. But it targets one group very specifically: members of the armed forces.
Active military employees have historically enjoyed special housing protections, the idea being that someone on the front lines might be a little too busy to remember to mail a mortgage payment. But in the newest initiative, announced Tuesday, members of the armed forces who were having their mortgages serviced by four of America’s largest mortgage lenders, and foreclosed upon after 2005, are having their cases reviewed. Servicemembers who were found to have been the victims of wrongful foreclosure will be granted a settlement of $116,785, plus lost equity, plus interest.
http://moneyland.time.com/2012/03/09/housing-bail-out-arrives-for-one-group-of-americans-soldiers-and-vets/
Obama takes for granted that other people will explain how his policies work for him. He needs to learn how to connect-the-fucking-dots.
|
On September 07 2012 03:42 dvorakftw wrote:If only our projections had been a little bit better, Increases Spending could have won the clear majority and avoided the run-off election!
Why did you ignore the other graphs in my post?
Do you expect the CBO to have predicted the bursting of the dot com bubble, the bursting of the housing bubble and the GFC (the latter being responsible for most of the increase in the deficit under Obama)?
Yes, spending caused about 50% of the increase in the deficit since 2001 as the above graph shows. But who added all that spending -- Bush. Here's the graph that I posted, and that you dodged.
![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/debt-mountain-chart.jpg)
The Bush tax cuts was more than twice the size of Obama's stimulus. And where do you think the rest of the increase in the deficit under Obama has come from? Basically the only thing Obama has done to increase the deficit was to save 3.3 million jobs (according to the CBO) with the stimulus, and that cost less than half of the Bush tax cuts.
|
On September 07 2012 16:34 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 15:46 HunterX11 wrote:On September 07 2012 15:30 sunprince wrote:On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote:
now, here's a rather intricate logical problem that i don't expect you to sense. the idea is that, even without changing the actual facts on the ground, one can take different attitudes towards them. feminists who see the structure behind the actions will protest against the structure, because they are alienated from those choices and do not regard that as their own. The problem is that feminists blame the structure without providing any empirical evidence that the structure is responsible. I've shown empirical studies suggesting that social factors are not the reason. On September 07 2012 15:26 oneofthem wrote:
this is to say, for those who DO NOT WANT TO take on these trad. gender roles, they can be legitimately seen as external. If you don't want to take them on, then you simply don't take them. I have very little sympathy for someone who makes educational and career choices that they "didn't really want". Let's just assume for a moment that you really are morally superior to those wretched villains who dare to be underprivileged and have to make sacrifices in order to survive and support their loved ones. You're strawmanning. I've made the argument (backed by sources) that women choose their educational and career choices, meaning that they weren't forced into those by circumstances beyond their control. You're basically arguing that women do not consent to work fewer hours, which is a pretty bold claim that isn't going to be accepted without evidence. The empirical studies show that plenty of women choose to be stay at home mothers or to work fewer hours so that they can spend more hours at home, not that they are forced into it. Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 15:46 HunterX11 wrote:Even so, shouldn't you--as a better person--feel pity for your inferiors, rather than scorning them? I have no scorn for those who are underprivileged (nor do I pity them, since that would be condescending). I do, however, have scorn for people who choose to work shorter hours yet demand equal pay to those who work longer hours. That's what it boils down to, when feminists perpetuate the 77% "wage gap" myth when women work 78% as many hours as men. That's not even going into the fact that dangerous (e.g. higher paying) jobs are overwhelmingly filled by men (along with the fact that the overwhelming majority of work-related deaths are male), that college women (who now outnumber men by 50%) choose non-STEM majors, that women are more likely to take career breaks, and that in spite of all that young single women make 8% more than comparable men.
Just for the record, there IS a wage gap, it's about 5-7%, and it's a well studied phenomenon. There's a ton of econometric papers out there on it, and I think some might even be public access. Just do a google scholar search.
It's not as big as 23%, as *most* of it can be explained by issues of field of employment, experience in labour force, education, child-rearing breaks, etc. However, 5-7% remains unexplainable econometrically. This is the wage gap.
Additionally, if I recall correctly, there is also an unexplainable penalty for women who have children. Can't remember how much of a gap it is, though. But mother's, controlling for time off in labour force, education, etc. do make a bit less than women without children.
|
On September 07 2012 04:15 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 03:15 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 07 2012 03:04 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 02:48 Sadist wrote:On September 07 2012 02:42 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:
Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. Let's say you want to rob a home and murder the family and I don't so you say "Let's compromise and we rob the house and kill just the kids." And then I point out the last three times you said that you ended up killing everyone anyway. That's a lot like the situation. Go read about the Reagan illegal immigrant compromise and the Read My Lips No New Taxes compromises. So republicans dont want to raise taxes no matter what and stick their head in the sand, but democrats see raising taxes as a way to tackle the budget problem. It is a fundamental disagreement we will never get over. The republican method has been tried over and over again and never works. Reaganomics is/was a fraud and needs to be put to bed. The Republican method and basics of Reaganomics is what helped the United States become the most successful, largest GDP nation in the history of man. The 20th century was a move away from those principals into massive money transfers. As I alluded to in a previous post, the true Republican way hasn't been tried in recent history because the agreed to spending cuts always get turned into spending increases. No. ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOVk/TAcUwUiTiNI/AAAAAAAAAJU/C0dJtVpm-3o/s1600/Figure_1.bmp) I can't puzzle out what your picture is supposed to mean. The United States went from tiny colonies the world's economic superpower with no or little taxes, rule of law and true respect for property rights and you have some infograph that starts with FDR? Okay. Whatever.
You claim that Reagan was who caused the US to have the highest GDP on Earth. But that's wrong. Democratic presidents grew GDP far more than Reagan (or any Republican president) did, as the graph shows.
As Clinton pointed out: Since 1961 "What's the job score? Republicans, 24 million; Democrats, 42 [million]." And that's despite the fact that Republicans have been in power long than Democrats.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/bill-clinton-job-creation_n_1861071.html
|
On September 07 2012 18:57 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 18:45 paralleluniverse wrote:
I saw Obama's speech.
Honestly it was a piece of crap. It was vague, it didn't give in any specific about policy. He hardly even defended he's own record. And he didn't attack Republicans on the bullshit policies.
It was exactly of Clinton's speech -- he's was specific, wonkish, technical, it was all about policy, he defended Obama's record, he attacked Republicans for redoing Bush's policies, blasted them for offering no specifics on their tax plans, being hypocrites about the medicare cuts, and on and on.
Terrible speech. The fact is Obama has very detailed, very specific 250 page plan. Yet Obama hardly talked policy -- Clinton did, he absolutely nailed it, basically everything point-by-point.
Clinton's speech was amazing. Obama speech was a piece of shit. I wouldn't call it a 'peice of shit' -- but what Obama really, really, REALLY needs to improve on is connecting his ambitions to his policies. For example, he said something along the lines of, 'We need to make sure people that serve our country come back to good jobs, never go without a home," etc. However, what most people do not realize is that this is NOT empty rhetoric. Whether you agree with him or not, there are actual policies and decisions he has already implemented to improve the employability of veterans (a tax credit for businesses that train and hire veterans) and protect their homes. Show nested quote +The $25 billion foreclosure abuse settlement announced last month between a group of state governments and the largest mortgage banks in the country is meant to help homeowners everywhere who were wronged by foreclosure abuses. But it targets one group very specifically: members of the armed forces.
Active military employees have historically enjoyed special housing protections, the idea being that someone on the front lines might be a little too busy to remember to mail a mortgage payment. But in the newest initiative, announced Tuesday, members of the armed forces who were having their mortgages serviced by four of America’s largest mortgage lenders, and foreclosed upon after 2005, are having their cases reviewed. Servicemembers who were found to have been the victims of wrongful foreclosure will be granted a settlement of $116,785, plus lost equity, plus interest. http://moneyland.time.com/2012/03/09/housing-bail-out-arrives-for-one-group-of-americans-soldiers-and-vets/Obama takes for granted that other people will explain how his policies work for him. He needs to learn how to connect-the-fucking-dots.
I didn't know about that. But when he said "'We need to make sure people that serve our country come back to good jobs, never go without a home," to me that sounded like empty rhetoric.
So basically, you've proven my complaint with Obama's speech. He has good policies, he needs to tell people about these policies. He needs to talk policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/E21-debt-chart.png)
]
