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
Letting the Bush tax cuts would save 950 Billion over the next ten years.
Yet we're having a debate over the Fiscal Cliff over at Washington. Why? Because they're not concerned about saving 950 Billion - for the middle class.
edited 13th Nov '12 12:28:25 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Because right now the Republicans continue to hold our government hostage, despite losing resoundingly in the election, and the President still appears to lack the balls to tell them to get bent.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"As we've discussed before, that represents about a 2% advantage in support, due to how the electoral college works. He destroyed Romney in the sense that there was not a high probability of Romney winning, not in the sense that he has broad support from the population.
<><
And for every 1 percentage point is between roughly 100,000 to 200,000 votes. 336 Electoral College votes is 336 Electoral College votes.
Also, the "he has no broad support" line is a very convenient way to say "Oh, fuck whatever 'mandate' he has, 'cause he only has two more people that support him out of ten". Majority rule is majority rule. Majority support is majority support.
edited 13th Nov '12 12:34:59 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Could you cut that shit out for those of us who aren't raging leftists who support Obama?
And by that I mean those of us who voted for Obama, but aren't in any hurry to become Europe.
edited 13th Nov '12 12:36:51 PM by Barkey
Facts are facts, Barkey. I know Republicans are institutionally allergic to math (for reference, watch Fox News), but unfortunately it agrees with me on this point.
edited 13th Nov '12 12:39:11 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"As for defense, remember Simpson-Bowles? Very little cuts to defense. Obama saw their proposal, knowing how little in defense cuts it contained, and said "They wanted defense cuts that were steeper than I felt comfortable with as commander in chief."
I take that to mean he won't cut defense at all, despite the rhetoric. Unless you count the corporate jets, but that's barely 1% of the defense budget.
edited 13th Nov '12 12:37:57 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Companies won't invest in business growth unless they have customers. We must attack the demand side of the economy in order to pull ourselves out of these doldrums.
Eliminating the capital gains expenditure would at least mean that people would not get a federal subsidy for investing their money rather than spending it. It would have indirect benefits (more revenue to spend on stimulus or reduce the deficit), but not in the sense of immediately stimulating growth.
Edit: Now in the news, a sane criticism of PPACA (and of growth in healthcare demand in general): not enough primary care doctors
.
edited 13th Nov '12 12:56:57 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"This is why we need (more) intermediary health positions that can provide care for more simplistic ills and save doctors for more complex ills. Instead, we overwork our doctors to an insane degree because we only find care from people with goddamn PhDs acceptable for something as simple as a sprained fucking ankle.
edited 13th Nov '12 1:42:47 PM by Ekuran
We need legislation to allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to provide primary care, and we need federal incentives to make primary care a more attractive profession, one example of which would be loan subsidies. We also need some way to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance, whether it is tort reform, a national system, or something else.
The fear of getting sued rules the U.S. medical industry.
edited 13th Nov '12 1:46:29 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Agreed: experienced nurses aren't just part of the wallpaper. Let them use the skills they've built up over years in a more proactive role, instead of driving them out of the profession with no careers (or wage) advancement... or behind desks for those who do find a furthering career path.
edited 13th Nov '12 1:47:52 PM by Euodiachloris
Well, there's always plenty of commercials in my area encouraging women to go into nursing, so really I think that they should change it just slightly so they can see patients and well, do the nursing jobs they're trying to get people into. But that doesn't sound like a symptom of the PPACA so much as a symptom of a litigation happy society and a profession full of people who are properly paranoid about unhappy people coming after them.
Also, the "he has no broad support" line is a very convenient way to say "Oh, fuck whatever 'mandate' he has, 'cause he only has two more people that support him out of ten". Majority rule is majority rule. Majority support is majority support.
First, he has 2-3 more out of a hundred, not out of ten. Second, majority support is not just majority support. There is a huge difference between 90% support and 52% support. The former justifies a much greater expectation of smooth sailing for you agenda than the latter.
edited 13th Nov '12 1:54:43 PM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><Well, yes, we need a national system. Obamacare is a half-assed attempt at appeasing the Free Markets Uber Alles mentality of the right. Single payer isn't even on the radar at the moment.
In slightly different news, Krugman takes his analytical skills to the issue of "identity voters"
— that is, people who vote on the basis of political identity (race, in this case) rather than economics or other political considerations. Adjusted for median income (and therefore eliminating the rich/poor divide), blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Asians seem to favor Democrats. Guess which demographic group favors Republicans overwhelmingly? Southern whites. No surprise there, eh?
@Edwards Grizzly: 52% is not a mandate in terms of simple ratios, but given the division of the electorate, with the middle group of "independent" voters shrinking each cycle, it's going to be nearly impossible to shift that line much farther. If you accept the common wisdom that 40% will always vote D and 40% will always vote R, that leaves the public vote perennially shifting between 40 and 60%. If you insist on a greater mandate than that, it'll never happen unless one side simply doesn't show up for some reason.
One thing is certain: if the Republican Party continues to rely on southern whites for its core demographic, it will continue to lose electoral share year after year.
edited 13th Nov '12 2:02:56 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Cutting spending in any way is bad for the economy right now. Raising taxes is not great, but its impact is lowest on the wealthy, so that's where we should be focusing. We can examine various areas of the budget for their impact on the economy; the best place to cut is almost certainly the military-industrial complex if we have to cut anywhere. That and farm and oil subsidies which are in essence tax cuts on certain industries.
If Obama continues to smoke the Cult of Centrism peace pipe, we could be looking at four more years of disappointing growth that is completely unnecessary.
Edit: It's entirely possible to lower corporate tax rates in a revenue-neutral or even revenue-positive way. Just gut all the exceptions and deductions that let corporations like Apple get away with single digit effective rates.
edited 13th Nov '12 12:17:27 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"