President Obama Re-Elected - Page 706

On October 09 2012 07:42 dvorakftw wrote:


So I'm back from my 30 day temp-ban for having the temerity to point out how biased the admins here are with their treatment of my posts compared to the common insults from the lefties around here. Nice to see nothing has changed.

On February 9 2006 11:25 Manablue wrote:
This is getting sad. Outside of all the bitching, the truth you're all meandering toward is that some of us like it here because we fit in well, are chummy with certain key posters, and fit the personality mould. That's it.

Stop trying to say that this place is about free expression, and pushing the boundaries of our thought and all that other BS Stimy tries to force feed you. Being a member here is like being in a click in some shitty high school. You get along with the group or you don't. Nothing more or less.

Boundary pushers always get burned at the stake eventually (and apparently in Stimy's case multiple times). No one should be surprised here. As for Steve, he was testing his boundaries, and now that he's been warned he knows the fenced in area that he has to work with in being an e-badass and all that shit.

It's really not as deep as everyone tries to make it. Other than the shit eatting holier than thou tone he used, Tasteless was pretty much right.

On October 09 2012 07:52 dvorakftw wrote:

How about I can be a member of the Duke lacrosse team and he can be part of the New Black Panthers?

Americans will do anything for Canada (or so goes an old saying) except read about it.

Which is always a shame, but never more than now, when Canada extends an example from which Americans could profitably learn. In the 1990s, Canada executed a dramatic fiscal turn-around. In 1994, observers wondered whether Canada might actually default on its debt. A decade later, Canada boasted the strongest balance sheet of any of the major democracies. As the world emerges from the 2008 financial crisis, Canada's record looks better still.

How did Canada do it?

[...]

In two consecutive federal budgets, in 1995 and 1996, the Liberal government of Jean Chretien and his powerful finance minister Paul Martin cut spending by a cumulative total of 8.8%. Over two years, the size of the federal government dropped from 16.2% of GDP to 13.1%. Eventually, they would reduce the federal workforce by 45,000 persons, or 14%. By 1998, the Canadian federal budget had shifted into balance. Over the subsequent decade, Canadian federal governments (first Liberal, then Conservative) would run consistent budget surpluses to pay down the federal debt. Between 1994 and the eve of the financial crisis in 2008, federal debt as a share of GDP would be reduced from over 80% to under 50%. Canada slipped back into deficit during the financial crisis. It expects to return to surplus by 2015, and to continue reducing the debt burden to under 30% by 2017.

By any measure, this is a stunning success story.

What lessons should Americans learn?

1) Canada relied mainly on spending cuts to reduce its deficits - mainly, but not entirely. Canada both cut spending and raised taxes, in a ratio of about 4.5 to 1. That ratio was rejected by every single one of the Republican candidates who sought the nomination in 2012, but if Americans are to make progress, they will have to get used to it. Crowley and Murphy do not say, but I would add, that the feasible American ratio would likely be tilted more to revenues than Canada's, because America today is a relatively low-tax country, which Canada in 1994 was not.

2) Canada was able to raise taxes without stifling economic growth in large part because of a decision taken by the Mulroney government of the 1980s: the introduction of a Value-Added Tax (called a Goods & Services Tax) in Canada. The VAT replaced an antique tax on manufactured goods, but it quickly raised much more money than the tax it replaced. Americans who dread a value-added tax because they fear that taxes only go up should know: the VAT rate has dropped from an original 7% to a present 5%.

3) Canada's ironic best ally in cutting spending was its single-payer healthcare system. The federal government was able to decree a reduced grant to provincial healthcare systems and thereby force the provinces in turn to cut healthcare spending in a way that would be much more difficult to execute within Medicare and Medicaid.

4) Integral to the success of Canada's budget-balancing was its acquiescence in a huge decline in the external value of the Canadian dollar, which dropped from 90 to the US $ in 1990 to a low of 63. A cheap dollar enabled an export boom that boosted Canadian-dollar-denominated GDP - and reduced the burdensomeness of Canadian-dollar-denominated debt.

5) As Canada's debt burden dropped, so too did its interest burden. Beginning in 2001, Canada was able to post both an increase in program spending relative to GDP and a decline in total spending relative to GDP thanks to the decline in interest payments.

6) In retrospect, the most amazing fact about Canada's fiscal turnaround was how politically uncontroversial it was. The actions of the Liberal government were broadly supported both by Canada's then-fractured Conservative opposition and accepted with only mild grumbling by the voting population. (The Chretien government won three successive majority governments in 1993, 1997 and 2001.) Provincial governments emulated federal policy, with an NDP (i.e., left-wing) government in Saskatchewan leading the way. This broad consensus made success both possible and enduring. It's a warning against the approach favored by many American Republicans, of hoping to win a huge mandate for one party and then imposing by main force a fiscal adjustment that wholly exempts Republican interest groups and loads all the costs of adjustment onto Democratic constituencies. This approach is unlikely to work, and even less likely to survive. For that sixth reason alone, Northern Light should be required reading for all American would-be budget balancers.

On October 09 2012 07:51 sam!zdat wrote:
In Iraq at least Bremer just basically GAVE them a constitution and said "here you go, it's the end of history, enjoy yourselves now."

This is a very interesting topic and I'm reading a great book on it (in the context of East Asia) at the moment:
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Liberal-Democracy-Political-Thinking/dp/069112308X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349736192&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond liberal democracy

Much of our Western human rights discourse is ham fisted and does not respect the philosophical traditions of other cultures. Is universal suffrage a human right? I for one don't think it's a very good idea. What about the primacy of "freedom from" over "freedom to" in the western tradition, or the privileging of social liberties over economic rights? In the US we have free speech, but we don't have the right to live life on your own terms free from capitalist exploitation (economic freedom). I believe the state has an obligation to secure a basic standard of living for all of its citizens, but this is not a part of western "human rights" (in fact, western human rights are much more concerned with the right to starve).

It's not that I think there's nothing of value in the western tradition, but we should not assume that what we consider to be rights (or, even if we agree on what things should be rights, what things are the most important rights) are universal and equally applicable to different social and cultural contexts. The western tradition needs to engage with non-western traditions for the mutual enrichment of all parties involved.

edit: I should clarify that I am NOT a relativist; quite the opposite, in fact.

edit: the fact that the idea that western conceptions of human rights may not be a) good or b) universally applicable makes you respond with three questions marks should be an enormous red flag

On October 09 2012 07:56 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't know why people are even suggesting Romney covers pre-existing conditions. I thought the whole point is that you can't do pre-existing conditions without the mandate. So no mandate = no pre-existing conditions. What more to it is there?

On October 09 2012 07:47 Souma wrote:

You can just watch this to see it for yourself.

On October 09 2012 07:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Err... the right to live life on your own terms free from capitalist exploitation? What does that even mean? Like that seems like justification to ban purchasing things.

On October 09 2012 07:53 Defacer wrote:


DeepEmBlues pissed me off. His responded to my assertion that there is a fundamental disconnect from US military interventionism from day-to-day America life was to assume I was some kind of hippy-dippy commie. Yeah, I resent that.

On October 09 2012 08:01 dvorakftw wrote:

I like how your response to the guy explaining the context and details of Romney's positions is to simply repeat your attack. For example, Romney wants to cut tax rates but limit deductions and exemptions to get a fairer, simpler, more honest, more competitive tax code and everyone on the left just continues chanting "tax cuts for millionaires".

On October 09 2012 08:03 dvorakftw wrote:

Okay, but can you remind everyone what the first rule of this thread is?

On October 09 2012 08:02 sam!zdat wrote:


Why do there exist people with labor power to sell on the market? This was not always the case.

What we don't have the freedom to do is control the mode of production and own the surplus value that is produced by labor. That goes to the capitalist. (Note that this is not a purely legal state of affairs - it's a historical situation that we should nevertheless work to escape).

On October 09 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:


He explained his outrage quite well. And unlike you, his post actually did contribute to the discussion, while yours simply a distraction and whining about mods.

On October 09 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:


He explained his outrage quite well. And unlike you, his post actually did contribute to the discussion, while yours was simply a distraction and whining about mods.



I don't really understand what you mean. But in terms of western rights, the right to free speech is probably the most important for a liberal democracy to uphold.

On October 09 2012 08:08 jdseemoreglass wrote:

Regardless of how well he explained his "outrage," it is never justified to post something like "seriously, fuck you." At least, that's my opinion, but I'm not a mod.

dvorak was immediately reported, and defacer wasn't reported at all last I checked. Hopefully I evened things out a bit.

On October 09 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:
Anyway, in terms of western rights, the right to free speech is probably the most important for a liberal democracy to uphold. It can't be a 'cultural' thing. Democracy can't work without it.

On October 09 2012 08:09 Souma wrote:


But even Western nations don't necessarily agree with what freedom of speech should entail.

On October 09 2012 08:10 sam!zdat wrote:


Well, I don't really think democracy works anyway, but that's another story.

Sure, I agree that speech is important. But are there limits? We have limits on free speech in America.

Is it good to let politicians lie? That's "free speech". What about corporations? Are they people? Do they have free speech?

1) TL is not a democracy.
2) You can't honestly compare dvorakftw to Defacer.

On October 09 2012 08:12 DoubleReed wrote:


Haha, well we're both Americans, so I'd guess that both of us are on the fanatical side of free speech. I don't think you'll get 'moderate' answers from either of us.

On October 09 2012 08:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:

I'm not comparing their posting history, I'm comparing two posts. Which is worse:
1) Questioning a ban.
2) Telling someone "fuck you."

Based on the reports, I can only assume that TL thinks questioning moderation is worse.

On October 09 2012 08:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:


I'm not comparing their posting history, I'm comparing two posts. Which is worse:
1) Questioning a ban.
2) Telling someone "fuck you."

Based on the reports, I can only assume that TL thinks questioning moderation is worse.

On October 09 2012 08:20 Defacer wrote:


For the record, I don't think it's a good thing to go around telling people on the board to fuck off either. But it would be disingenuous of me to edit the post now after I wrote it. And frankly, I think the gall of being for being painting with the lefty brush by DeepEmBlues was offensive, especially since I've been defending righties from lefties in this thread for quite some time.

But I'll accept whatever punishment TL considers appropriate.