TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#33351: Oct 17th 2012 at 7:29:06 PM

[up][up]Yarp. smile Hmmm... I've hit the point where I'm too tired to type straight or to actually get to sleep when I hit the bed. Rats. I'll shut up now...

I was actually trying to riff on the sarcastic-to-the-advert theme. And, failed. sad

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#33352: Oct 17th 2012 at 7:55:28 PM

The relevant question, Grizzly, is "are there jobs in America that would not be there were it not for that stimulus, and if so, how many?". The nature of the globalized economy is that stimulus anywhere will affect jobs somewhere; it's not surprising that something that increases employment in the States may increase employment elsewhere, either by creating the demand for another facility in a different part of a production chain, or by creating more middle-class American consumers with disposable income to buy both foreign and homemade goods.

So, let's get to the meat of the assertion: they're trying to argue that the stimulus spent money that benefited foreign employment more than American employment. Keeping in mind that it's possible to make a faulty argument even if you have some true premises, is their assertion accurate or valid?

EDIT: Another take on what Obama could have done better, relevant to this question.

edited 17th Oct '12 7:58:02 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#33353: Oct 17th 2012 at 7:59:42 PM

There's also the question of, if it indeed did help other countries more, did it still do what it was intended to do for this country. Just because another country gets a boost doesn't mean we didn't help ourselves. Especially when another country needs a lot less to get a bigger boost.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
#33354: Oct 17th 2012 at 8:12:29 PM

Yeah, that's really the crux of the matter: did the bailout really produce as great a benefit as the Obama campaign claims it did, and if so was it worth the cost?

I don't really know the answer, or care that much. Economic issues aren't really that high on my priority list.

<><
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#33355: Oct 17th 2012 at 8:18:10 PM

[up]

But what about ''It's the economy, stupid''?

Anyway I think that Bush and Obama's bailouts need time before historians/economists/writers can fully evaluate them.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
#33356: Oct 17th 2012 at 8:37:46 PM

[up] Not for me, it isn't.

The most important political issues for me are the right to life, freedom of speech/conscience, and education/parental rights pertaining thereto, in that order. I'd like the government to promote prosperity and make it easier for me the achieve my goals, but it doesn't do that great of a job anyway and I'll survive even if it does let things become suboptimal.

<><
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#33357: Oct 17th 2012 at 8:45:16 PM

I know the "freedom without the minimum level of prosperity to act on that freedom is equivalent to having no freedom at all" argument has been made before, but it's always ended in a derail. Has that ever been given its own thread?

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
ch00beh ??? from Who Knows Where Since: Jul, 2010
???
#33358: Oct 17th 2012 at 8:45:57 PM

@Radical: I posted that like two pages back but no one responded :(

It looks like no one will respond again, so I'll tl;dr it for everyone since it's relevant to this current discussion—basically yeah, companies outsource unskilled labor, but that's usually because it's the last leg of construction, so it really doesn't matter in terms of generating jobs or money or whatever.

"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter
#33359: Oct 17th 2012 at 8:53:23 PM

[up][up] I think one problem is I put the "minimum level of prosperity necessary to act on that freedom" much lower than most people here seem to.

<><
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#33360: Oct 17th 2012 at 9:01:36 PM

[up] I generally put the minimum somewhere around "can afford food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare".

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
#33361: Oct 17th 2012 at 9:02:39 PM

[up] Which, for various definitions of those four things, covers a ridiculously large range.

<><
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#33362: Oct 17th 2012 at 9:08:07 PM

[up] Basically, if you can afford to eat more than ramen, rent a cheap apartment (this includes splitting with a roommate), own clothing that isn't falling apart, and get insurance (and have the money needed to utilize it), then you're probably well off enough to start enjoying your freedoms.

Then again, I consider all that stuff basic needs for survival.

edited 17th Oct '12 9:08:52 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Ekuran Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#33363: Oct 17th 2012 at 9:38:45 PM

If you wish to know the actual minimum, Mr. Grizzly, thisappears tobe it.

#33364: Oct 17th 2012 at 9:52:27 PM

Aren't those just policies relating to enhancing general well-being? I don't see what those have to do with the minimum level of prosperity at which a person benefits from being free, which is what I thought we were talking about.

<><
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#33365: Oct 17th 2012 at 10:13:50 PM

I thought most of the companies that got bailed out eventually paid back all the money the government gave them?

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#33366: Oct 17th 2012 at 10:29:08 PM

[up]

I Think AIG spent the money on bonuses, and still hasn't payed the government back.

edited 17th Oct '12 10:29:25 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#33367: Oct 17th 2012 at 10:54:20 PM

I think the automakers have repaid it. Dunno about the banks/insurance companies.

Thorn14 Gunpla is amazing! Since: Aug, 2010
Gunpla is amazing!
#33368: Oct 17th 2012 at 11:21:13 PM

Here's how I feel about that whole Liberty over Prosperity thing.

I have not seen the negative effect of the deficit.

I HAVE however seen the negative effect of the auto industry almost going under AND the positive of it being saved.

Aqueos Nova here from Los Angeles Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Californicating
#33369: Oct 17th 2012 at 11:25:57 PM

[up]Of course you haven't we're borrowing money like crazy. Directly the deficit does nothing. Until we can't pay it back we're golden.

However just like the people who had their house foreclosed on, eventually it bites you in the rear, and then everything goes down the drain as we have to cut back on everything in order to pay it back (Hi greece)

Sure we are recovering the money we lent the auto and banking industry, so I suppose that worked out well, but the deficit does need to be addressed.

edited 17th Oct '12 11:28:01 PM by Aqueos

Bet you didn't see that coming
Enkufka Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ from Bay of White fish Since: Dec, 2009
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
#33370: Oct 17th 2012 at 11:32:57 PM

And we are nowhere near Greece in the problems. Greece had the problems of A) A massive culture of not paying taxes, B) It didn't have control of its own currency, and C) the might of Germany and France actively shafting it to make their economies better.

Look at Japan, which has massive amounts of debt, but they do not have the financial problems of Greece.

The deficit is, as of right now, and as of 2008-ish, the least of our worries.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
Thorn14 Gunpla is amazing! Since: Aug, 2010
Gunpla is amazing!
#33371: Oct 17th 2012 at 11:37:14 PM

What really grinds me is how the republicans go "DEFICIT DEFICIT DEFICIT" and when the Obama administration goes "Fine, lets cut some spending, and also improve revenue" Republicans go absolutely bonkers and criticize him for THAT!

Ekuran Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#33372: Oct 17th 2012 at 11:43:31 PM
Thumped: Wow. That was rude. Too many of this kind of thump will bring a suspension. Please keep it civil.
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#33373: Oct 17th 2012 at 11:43:35 PM

also improve revenue
There's your problem.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#33374: Oct 17th 2012 at 11:53:36 PM

This is kind of a dire news: according to Huffington Post, two researchers are predicting that a Mitt Romney victory may be coming.

And here's something interesting: the major 3rd party candidates - Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Virgil Goode, Rocky Anderson - are invited to a 3rd-party debate on October 23rd, the day after the final Obama/Romney debate. It's hosted by Larry King.

Though, I don't know if Stein can make it after she got arrested... (link)

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#33375: Oct 18th 2012 at 12:23:43 AM

[up]

You can run a campaign from jail.

Just look at Eugene Debs.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Total posts: 417,856
Top