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
True but it's not specifically tied to race so there's less reason to complain about it.
I'll admit, Maxima, I'd be worried about a socially conservative economically liberal party focusing on religious liberals and minorities. Mostly because I'm an open atheist and LGBTQ ally. I don't like the thought of such a party becoming madly popular, and then seeing limitations on the First Amendment or constitutional gay marriage bans floating. And they better not start passing hate speech laws on my Greydon Square
albums
.
Reposting this since I think it got buried in the avalanche of the DHS conversation:
Romney's being slapped with a lawsuit for profiteering from the auto bailout and not disclosing it during the electoral campaign.
The “Fiscal cliff” is the popular shorthand term used to describe the conundrum that the U.S. government will face at the end of 2012, when the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 are scheduled to go into effect.
Among the laws set to change at midnight on December 31, 2012, are the end of last year’s temporary payroll tax cuts (resulting in a 2% tax increase for workers), the end of certain tax breaks for businesses, shifts in the alternative minimum tax that would take a larger bite, the end of the tax cuts from 2001-2003, and the beginning of taxes related to President Obama’s health care law. At the same time, the spending cuts agreed upon as part of the debt ceiling deal of 2011 will begin to go into effect. According to Barron's, over 1,000 government programs - including the defense budget and Medicare are in line for "deep, automatic cuts."
In dealing with the fiscal cliff, U.S. lawmakers have a choice among three options, none of which are particularly attractive:
- They can let the current policy scheduled for the beginning of 2013 – which features a number of tax increases and spending cuts that are expected to weigh heavily on growth and possibly drive the economy back into a recession – go into effect. The plus side: the deficit, as a percentage of GDP, would be cut in half.
- They can cancel some or all of the scheduled tax increases and spending cuts, which would add to the deficit and increase the odds that the United States could face a crisis similar to that which is occurring in Europe. The flip side of this, of course, is that the United States' debt will continue to grow.
- They could take a middle course, opting for an approach that would address the budget issues to a limited extent, but that would have a more modest impact on growth.
What I hope to see after this election is a Republican party willing to work with the rest of us toward solving America's problems. Being obstructionist and reactionary is counterproductive and it lost them this election. I don't want to see the right abandoning their principles and values, or marching in lockstep with the left. I just want them to be the loyal opposition instead of a brick wall standing in the way of getting anything done unless it meets with their full and complete approval.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.@Deviant: Oh. I'm still wary but I don't really know the circumstances behind why this is happening, so...
And yeah, I don't think we'd see a dramatic shift in who benefits from affirmative action, though I would like to have the system account for impoverished people of both minority and majority races out of principle.
I don't think people would complain less, though. Their ire would shift to the poor, and that's just an unfortunate consequence that is inevitably faced every time someone has the tenacity to suggest that not everyone has an equal chance in life.
In my right-wing Christian platform, there'd be no bans on gay marriage and the atheists wouldn't be harassed. The Greydon Square albums gotta go though.
It was an honorThree. Rove, Koch Brothers, and Grover Norquist. There are a few lesser ones as well.
None of the vote counts that we've been going by will be certified until much later, anyway.
I would argue with the training wheels/crutches analogy, but it's probably not really meaningful, as I do get your point anyway.
As for loving humanity, please. I would be amazed—in the very best way possible.
Also, just because something can be tagged "socialism" does not mean it is a bad thing.
There are a good few of us who feel that way, no matter what the liberal media says.
First, I share your resentment, though as I said before, I'm surprised there hasn't been a similar groundswell movement against mandatory car insurance.
I also recognize that, while this is something that is explicitly mandated by the government, there are many things in life that are not mandated but are also pretty much must-get items by practicality (such as a car, or a semi-permanent address). The only difference seems to be one's perception of agency, even when the results are pretty much the same. I'd argue that this difference ought to be seen as pointless; you may disagree with me on this.
By the way, is that last line supposed to imply that the media overall have a liberal bias, or just be meant to address the portion of the media that may have a liberal bias?
Isn't that basically what Roberts did?
I'm sorry to sound like I'm singling you out, and I definitely don't mean to, but I've noticed something. A lot of your reaction to the PPACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) seems to be about feeling discomfort or upsetness. You don't like the notion of a nanny-state, you don't like the notion of a government mandate, and so on.
As opposed to considerations of the practical costs and benefits of the PPACA.
I think you're missing Starship's point. Again, it's about what some people call the "sense of agency". Do you feel like you're getting to choose to help someone else, or do you feel like you're being forced to help someone else? It's about the difference in the feeling.
Very.
No, it's not; it's just being a vehicle that lets us get together, talk out our differences in policy ideas, and think through what's good and what's bad without having party labels fucking everything up, even if we are well aware of such party labels.
See, at the end of the day, good policy does not inherently have ANY party label.
This has very unfortunate implications about my whole idea that the Republican/conservative leadership might be trying to establish themselves as effectively a separate class from the Republican base, intending to do the "things that are actually good for you" stuff behind closed doors while serving red meat to the base up front.
Thank you for practicality!
Seriously.
I'm an engineer, and that means I solve problems. Not problems like "What is the proper role of government in society?" because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of political ideology.
I solve practical problems.
![]()
I want to see tax increases on business that try to dodge the Kyoto accords. I'd like to see meaningful steps taken to switch to a solar-panel, wind turbine infrastructure. As in, I'd like to see half the country's building be able to capture non-reactor electricity by 2022, if not sooner.
edited 8th Nov '12 5:40:44 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor@ Maxima.
The thing with Obamacare (as I understand it) is it's a form of prisoner's dilemma. Like Social Security, it only works if everyone buys into it. Collectively, we're all better off for it. Individually, if just you didn't buy into it, but most people did, you might be better off than them, if you're wealthy(ish). However, if nobody buys into it, everyone loses.
Just for fun: Have you guys seen the Political Kombat videos on Slate where they turned the 2012 election into a series of videogame fights.
http://www.slate.com/articles/video/political_kombat.html
edited 8th Nov '12 5:42:35 PM by nightwyrm_zero
I would like to see the true social costs of fossil fuel energy be internalized.
Unfortunately, this has two problems:
- It is hard to determine their true social costs, other than to note that they are significantly higher than the private costs they carry right now.
- If you internalize these costs inelegantly, you risk fucking up the economy.
![]()
Explain.
re: Environmental policy - I'm vehemently against hydro-fracking. As in, I'd get it labelled a felony if allowed.
Did you just quote the Badass Engineer trope?? Awesome!
@L Mage: Denial?? Lol. No seriously, I'm not sure what the fuck I am anymore. But the abortion issue is one that has never so much as shifted an inch over the years. Maybe that's it, I guess...
edited 8th Nov '12 5:45:24 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor
All of the policies that you've mentioned are very much Democratic liberal policies. In everything but abortion, you're not a libertarian, you're a hard core liberal. Sorry to break it to you, but you aren't any sort of conservative. You only have one conservative issue.
You'd probably fit best in the Green Party actually with your environmental focus.
edited 8th Nov '12 5:48:03 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickYou mean, I'm really a tree-hugging, feminist, gay friendly hippie posing as a rich white guy???
KHHAAAAAANNNNNNNNNN!!
edited 8th Nov '12 5:57:52 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorCanada PM (Stephen Harper) urges Obama to avoid "fiscal cliff"
12 hours, 4 pages old... But this is false.
Very few of Tea Party backed candidates running for an open seat(in the Senate or House) won... But the vast majority(well over 90%) of Tea Party backed candidates that were incumbents in the House won re-election...
The idea that the Tea Party lost a majority(or even a quarter) of the "power" they gained in 2010 is ludicrous...
edited 8th Nov '12 5:51:52 PM by Swish
![]()
It has come to my attention that we have moved four pages in the last twelve hours.
Gentlemen, what the hell happened? We should have added ten pages!
edit: Okay, back to being serious.
True they didn't lose too many seats but again, this was the Democrats election to lose. The fact that the flood of Tea has been blocked is good news since it means people are starting to wise up to them.
edited 8th Nov '12 5:55:36 PM by Kostya
