|
|
On October 24 2012 05:46 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:08 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
And of course POTUS is supposed to protect American jobs Actually I don't really think it's any of his business...
It's the highest office of the land, and jobs are directly tied to the welfare of the people.
This a disconnect some Republicans seem to have. In their ideology to see things as Constitutionally-limited as possible, they completely overlook or neglect the spirit of practical government. Why the hell would you want a President that truly doesn't have or wants an interest in the people's general welfare?
|
On October 24 2012 05:45 imareaver3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:39 JDub wrote:On October 24 2012 05:27 jdsowa wrote:
Voting is pointless.
In order for your vote to truly count, the election has to be decided by a single vote--so that either your guy is behind by one vote and you cast the tying vote, or it's tied and you cast the winning vote. That's the only scenario where your vote affects the outcome. And the likelihood of this happening is almost certainly smaller than your ever winning the lottery in your lifetime.
Of course, your vote is counted, so when the final tally comes in, everyone will see that your guy won or lost by a margin of 4,793,212 votes instead of 4,793,211 votes. And that difference will almost certainly give your guy (or prevent the other guy from having) a policy "mandate" when they take office. And by induction, nobody's vote counts, so there is no point in anybody voting. Your argument is silly, but used way too often by people who don't vote. Everyone's vote counts. No, there isn't a point to anyone voting. It's an irrational decision on the part of the voter. I'm personally in favor of mandatory voting laws (non-voters get a small amount withheld from their tax refunds/something similar) for just that reason.
I reallly do not like mandatory voting. For many years, the danish participation in elections for "Folketinget" has been more than 70% without that kind of restriction on peoples freedom (almost everybody above the age of 18 is automatically registered). On the other hand I am not gonna choose not to vote, almost no matter what. If I really do not care I will vote blank as I have done once in an unimportant election.
It is all about culture and assuring that employers let people off work to vote and getting far more registered for voting, than just the ones getting registered for the two parties. Have the third party candidates matter in some way, like a real two-round election if nobody reaches 50% in round one. That forces a larger spread in the votes and will likely be a strong indication for the elected president on the peoples opinion on other issues. Maybe it can even kick one of the two sides down as it has happened in France!
|
On October 24 2012 05:45 imareaver3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:39 JDub wrote:On October 24 2012 05:27 jdsowa wrote:
Voting is pointless.
In order for your vote to truly count, the election has to be decided by a single vote--so that either your guy is behind by one vote and you cast the tying vote, or it's tied and you cast the winning vote. That's the only scenario where your vote affects the outcome. And the likelihood of this happening is almost certainly smaller than your ever winning the lottery in your lifetime.
Of course, your vote is counted, so when the final tally comes in, everyone will see that your guy won or lost by a margin of 4,793,212 votes instead of 4,793,211 votes. And that difference will almost certainly give your guy (or prevent the other guy from having) a policy "mandate" when they take office. And by induction, nobody's vote counts, so there is no point in anybody voting. Your argument is silly, but used way too often by people who don't vote. Everyone's vote counts. No, there isn't a point to anyone voting. It's an irrational decision on the part of the voter. I'm personally in favor of mandatory voting laws (non-voters get a small amount withheld from their tax refunds/something similar) for just that reason.
Not necessarily, assume everybody sees voting as pointless and therefore stops voting, suddenly the incentive to vote get's increasingly bigger.
|
When does a heap stop being a heap?
|
On October 24 2012 06:10 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:46 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 05:08 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
And of course POTUS is supposed to protect American jobs Actually I don't really think it's any of his business... It's the highest office of the land, and jobs are directly tied to the welfare of the people. This a disconnect some Republicans seem to have. In their ideology to see things as Constitutionally-limited as possible, they completely overlook or neglect the spirit of practical government. Why the hell would you want a President that truly doesn't have or wants an interest in the people's general welfare?
It's not that there shouldn't be an interest in the people's general welfare, but a recognition of what that means in terms of a Federal system. The federal government does not exist to alleviate the individual sufferings of her citizens. That doesn't exclude state or local government from doing something. Obviously in cases of emergency where nothing short of full blown federal intervention can solve the problem i.e. war, enormous natural disaster, epidemic outbreaks, etc, the Federal government should step in as those issues directly relate to its responsibilities under a Federal system.
I personally blame the 14th amendment for a number of issues we see manifesting themselves in modern politics, increasing partisanship amongst them.
|
|
|
On October 24 2012 06:50 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 06:10 Leporello wrote:On October 24 2012 05:46 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 05:08 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
And of course POTUS is supposed to protect American jobs Actually I don't really think it's any of his business... It's the highest office of the land, and jobs are directly tied to the welfare of the people. This a disconnect some Republicans seem to have. In their ideology to see things as Constitutionally-limited as possible, they completely overlook or neglect the spirit of practical government. Why the hell would you want a President that truly doesn't have or wants an interest in the people's general welfare? It's not that there shouldn't be an interest in the people's general welfare, but a recognition of what that means in terms of a Federal system. The federal government does not exist to alleviate the individual sufferings of her citizens. That doesn't exclude state or local government from doing something. Obviously in cases of emergency where nothing short of full blown federal intervention can solve the problem i.e. war, enormous natural disaster, epidemic outbreaks, etc, the Federal government should step in as those issues directly relate to its responsibilities under a Federal system. I personally blame the 14th amendment for a number of issues we see manifesting themselves in modern politics, increasing partisanship amongst them.
While the part of the preamble that says the newly born federal government was formed to "promote the general welfare" does not confer any powers directly to alleviate suffering, it does suggest that at the very least the government was formed to make people better off in general. Where you draw the brightline for "too much promotion" is more a matter of ideology than it is of any particular inherent aspect of the federal system.
Edit: Given the competitive nature of the states regarding jobs (Texas vs. California for example right now), they don't do a very good job of promoting the general welfare with regard to that aspect of the country, anyway.
|
On October 24 2012 06:37 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:45 imareaver3 wrote:On October 24 2012 05:39 JDub wrote:On October 24 2012 05:27 jdsowa wrote:
Voting is pointless.
In order for your vote to truly count, the election has to be decided by a single vote--so that either your guy is behind by one vote and you cast the tying vote, or it's tied and you cast the winning vote. That's the only scenario where your vote affects the outcome. And the likelihood of this happening is almost certainly smaller than your ever winning the lottery in your lifetime.
Of course, your vote is counted, so when the final tally comes in, everyone will see that your guy won or lost by a margin of 4,793,212 votes instead of 4,793,211 votes. And that difference will almost certainly give your guy (or prevent the other guy from having) a policy "mandate" when they take office. And by induction, nobody's vote counts, so there is no point in anybody voting. Your argument is silly, but used way too often by people who don't vote. Everyone's vote counts. No, there isn't a point to anyone voting. It's an irrational decision on the part of the voter. I'm personally in favor of mandatory voting laws (non-voters get a small amount withheld from their tax refunds/something similar) for just that reason. Not necessarily, assume everybody sees voting as pointless and therefore stops voting, suddenly the incentive to vote get's increasingly bigger.
There is obviously a point to voting. The point is to elect the people's favorite candidate. Let's look at a similar situation:
Is there a point in donating $5 to a candidates campaign? Well, that $5 by itself isn't going to buy anything by itself, but if tons of people do it now the candidate has tons of money. Every donation counts. Similarly, every vote counts. Unless you don't care at all about who is going to be president, you should vote. Period.
|
Please don't conflate votes and money
|
On October 24 2012 05:56 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:52 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 24 2012 05:46 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 05:08 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
And of course POTUS is supposed to protect American jobs Actually I don't really think it's any of his business... Then why is everyone saying "Mr. President how will you help me get a job" and then voting based on the answer? The president clearly is expected to do what is best for the American economy and depending on how you want to look at things, that includes protecting American jobs (which is likely how most voters look at it). The job of an elected official is to represent the wishes of those that elected him. I think a lot of people think the president is responsible for a lot more than he really should be or is in reality. Which reminds me of a question I wanted to ask you guys: If you made a list of everything the president has obvious influence over and could rank them in most influenced by the president to least, what would that look like? I feel like this would help prioritize issues to vote on. I don't agree with everything either candidate has to say but I believe I could look at what the president actually affects most and can decide from there. Thoughts?
Good point,
Even though the president of the usa has an incredible amount of power when comparing it with european prime minsters he is pretty limited in what he can do.
Hes the captain of the ship,heading towards a new destination
He can stear it a little to the left or a little to the right, changing the route the ship takes, but he can not realy change the destination.
The president of the usa has influence mostly over homeland policys and verry little in foreign policy.
Welfare, healthcare and education are the 3 main isues a usa president has influence on.
A usa president has relativly little influence on the budget and other financial afairs.
A usa president has near no influence on the foreign policy.
This how i see it (can be completely off off course)
Just saw the debate on cnn, i did find romney a clear winner and he made a good impression.
I go with steve jobs prediction of a 1 term presidency for obama.
Dont know about the auto industry in the usa.
I dont think its in great shape.
Chevrolet now for the first time manages to sell cars in the netherlands in a substantial volume but these are not american cars.
It are basicly korean cars with a gm label, and if i remember correctly most gm models wich are sold outside the usa, are basicly korean cars where they put on a chevvy label.
Export models do get produced in the usa, but the development of the model and everything is done in korea.
Does american auto industry still devellop cars for the world market themselves?
I know ford does quiet well with the mondeo and jeep will always be great off course, but chrysler and gm failed with their big volume models imo.
@ below: if the usa president has so much influence on foreign policy, then why does usa forgeign policy never change?
I guess it can be explained that both parties have the same opinnion about it,
Still it feels to me that the usa president is restricted by for example the wishes of its alies like israel , the united kingdom, and the european union and possible also by the wishes of big lobby groups/think tanks.
He can change its face by making it look friendly or more agressive but the basic policy never changes, it also has to much impact on the rest of the world to be decided upon by the usa president alone.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Erhm, what? The President has massive foreign policy influence. It is what he has the most influence on as commander-in-chief. And really, the president has massive influence in pretty much every facet of domestic policy. The veto is a powerful tool.
On October 24 2012 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:
Please don't conflate votes and money
When does money stop being a vote?
Am I doing it right? 
|
On October 24 2012 07:13 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:
Please don't conflate votes and money When does money stop being a vote? Am I doing it right?
eh, I'm just pointing out that votes stay where they are and money goes wherever it wants, so they aren't comparable.
edit: and this bit about individual voters vs. heaps of voters is just the sorites paradox
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 24 2012 07:17 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 07:13 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:
Please don't conflate votes and money When does money stop being a vote? Am I doing it right? eh, I'm just pointing out that votes stay where they are and money goes wherever it wants, so they aren't comparable. edit: and this bit about individual voters vs. heaps of voters is just the sorites paradox
I know buddy. I'm just kidding with ya.
|
On October 24 2012 05:52 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:46 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 05:08 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
And of course POTUS is supposed to protect American jobs Actually I don't really think it's any of his business... Then why is everyone saying "Mr. President how will you help me get a job" and then voting based on the answer? The president clearly is expected to do what is best for the American economy and depending on how you want to look at things, that includes protecting American jobs (which is likely how most voters look at it). The job of an elected official is to represent the wishes of those that elected him.
President's job is to uphold the constitution, secondly to represent the people who elected him. Source: The Constitution
ugh less obvious, is a common one even today: the word "it's" is used in Article 1, Section 10, but the word "its" should have been used. For the layman, if he is elected with the thought of giving 20$ to every Indian woman, throwing Wall Street Executives in jail whose last names begin with the letter "B," and sign into law a bill requiring people with blue eyes to stay off the sidewalks, it is his duty to do none of those things.
Now, like Romney was pushing in the debates, a President can remove unnecessary regulations stunting job growth or taxes on businesses that limit their ability to hire on new workers and grow. He can even grow the government to have openings for every unemployed person in America, and tax the rest to pay their salaries (if the bill reaches his desk, he may sign it into law). So, some people asking for jobs from the President may want government handouts/makework projects, may want government to spur job creation (especially if you have Keynesian leanings), or may want protective tariffs ala Smoot-Hawley under the conception that raising the costs of foreign goods protects American jobs.
|
On October 24 2012 06:41 sam!zdat wrote:
When does a heap stop being a heap?
love that paradox
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 24 2012 07:04 Rassy wrote:
@ below: if the usa president has so much influence on foreign policy, then why does usa forgeign policy never change?
I guess it can be explained that both parties have the same opinnion about it,
Still it feels to me that the usa president is restricted by for example the wishes of its alies like israel and the united kingdom, and possible big lobby groups/think tanks, and that he is not realy free to change foreign policy substabtially.
He can change its face by making it look friendly or more agressive but the basic policy never changes.
Foreign policy is a complex subject, but the President, in the end, has the discretion to make any decision he wants (bar outright war, of which he needs Congressional approval... or does he? That is the question). He can choose whose opinions he'd like to take to heart and opinions which he'd like to ignore. And of course he's restricted by what his allies think - that's all a part of foreign policy. I'd wager if Obama was President during Bush's terms, we probably wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq considering Obama was against it from the start. That's a hypothetical though and we'll never actually know, since Bush had a wide range of intel and advisers not available to Obama.
|
United States6277 Posts
On October 24 2012 05:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 24 2012 05:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Look, can we all agree that Romney's introduction to the editorial-"If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed"-is flat out not happening?
Like "inevitable hyperinflation" level of not happening? Too early to tell, really. Right now GM's market share is at its lowest level since 1922 ( Source) but its profitable again and the fundamentals seem pretty good. Though the playing field still isn't level (GM doesn't pay federal taxes - must be nice!) and a lot can change as time goes on. I dunno, three years is enough that we would be seeing the signs of collapse if they were as inevitable as Romney portrayed them in his op-ed. It certainly doesn't seem to be "virtually guaranteed." I guess his response is also predicated on the fact that the companies would remain the same vis a vis management and the like, which did change somewhat, so maybe that makes it slightly different?
Keep in mind that the bailout has changed over time - GM was given additional tax credits and the debt it owed the government from the bailout was converted to equity.
Regardless, Romney was pointing to long-term structural issues at GM that needed to change. Those issues took years, if not decades, to push GM into bankruptcy in the first place. Allowing some of those issues to persist simply won't push them back into bankruptcy (not after tens of billions in debt being discharged) in just three years.
|
On October 24 2012 06:50 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 06:10 Leporello wrote:On October 24 2012 05:46 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 05:08 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
And of course POTUS is supposed to protect American jobs Actually I don't really think it's any of his business... It's the highest office of the land, and jobs are directly tied to the welfare of the people. This a disconnect some Republicans seem to have. In their ideology to see things as Constitutionally-limited as possible, they completely overlook or neglect the spirit of practical government. Why the hell would you want a President that truly doesn't have or wants an interest in the people's general welfare? It's not that there shouldn't be an interest in the people's general welfare, but a recognition of what that means in terms of a Federal system. The federal government does not exist to alleviate the individual sufferings of her citizens. That doesn't exclude state or local government from doing something. Obviously in cases of emergency where nothing short of full blown federal intervention can solve the problem i.e. war, enormous natural disaster, epidemic outbreaks, etc, the Federal government should step in as those issues directly relate to its responsibilities under a Federal system. I personally blame the 14th amendment for a number of issues we see manifesting themselves in modern politics, increasing partisanship amongst them.
You're free to try to start another civil war over it, but the fact is that the issue has been settled decisively against states' rights (thank god).
|
On October 24 2012 07:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:52 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 24 2012 05:46 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 05:08 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
And of course POTUS is supposed to protect American jobs Actually I don't really think it's any of his business... Then why is everyone saying "Mr. President how will you help me get a job" and then voting based on the answer? The president clearly is expected to do what is best for the American economy and depending on how you want to look at things, that includes protecting American jobs (which is likely how most voters look at it). The job of an elected official is to represent the wishes of those that elected him. President's job is to uphold the constitution, secondly to represent the people who elected him. Source: The ConstitutionShow nested quote +ugh less obvious, is a common one even today: the word "it's" is used in Article 1, Section 10, but the word "its" should have been used. For the layman, if he is elected with the thought of giving 20$ to every Indian woman, throwing Wall Street Executives in jail whose last names begin with the letter "B," and sign into law a bill requiring people with blue eyes to stay off the sidewalks, it is his duty to do none of those things. Now, like Romney was pushing in the debates, a President can remove unnecessary regulations stunting job growth or taxes on businesses that limit their ability to hire on new workers and grow. He can even grow the government to have openings for every unemployed person in America, and tax the rest to pay their salaries (if the bill reaches his desk, he may sign it into law). So, some people asking for jobs from the President may want government handouts/makework projects, may want government to spur job creation (especially if you have Keynesian leanings), or may want protective tariffs ala Smoot-Hawley under the conception that raising the costs of foreign goods protects American jobs.
Can you point me to the part in the constitution that says that? All I found was...
Article II of the Constitution lays out the president's role very briefly. It states that the "executive power" of the government shall be vested in the president and that he shall be responsible for a handful of tasks:
He is to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed
He is to periodically inform Congress of the "state of the union" and recommend to Congress issues that need attention
He is responsible for directing American foreign policy, and he is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces
He has the power to fill, by appointment, offices in the executive branch and to name judges to the Supreme Court
I thought the Supreme Court was the judicial branch?
|
On October 24 2012 06:50 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 06:10 Leporello wrote:On October 24 2012 05:46 BluePanther wrote:On October 24 2012 05:08 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
And of course POTUS is supposed to protect American jobs Actually I don't really think it's any of his business... It's the highest office of the land, and jobs are directly tied to the welfare of the people. This a disconnect some Republicans seem to have. In their ideology to see things as Constitutionally-limited as possible, they completely overlook or neglect the spirit of practical government. Why the hell would you want a President that truly doesn't have or wants an interest in the people's general welfare? It's not that there shouldn't be an interest in the people's general welfare, but a recognition of what that means in terms of a Federal system. The federal government does not exist to alleviate the individual sufferings of her citizens. That doesn't exclude state or local government from doing something. Obviously in cases of emergency where nothing short of full blown federal intervention can solve the problem i.e. war, enormous natural disaster, epidemic outbreaks, etc, the Federal government should step in as those issues directly relate to its responsibilities under a Federal system. I personally blame the 14th amendment for a number of issues we see manifesting themselves in modern politics, increasing partisanship amongst them.
What is it exactly about the 14th amendment that you blame? Is it the citizenship clause allowing African-Americans to be citizens? Due Process clause? Equal protection?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
