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
If right now we gave 600 dollars to every poor person it wouldn't help. shoving more money at the lower classes won't do jack. For the very simple reason that you can't buy anything with just a couple hundred dollars. Car? no. House? no. Well hey you could buy that new tv or PS 3. Some food, some new clothes so you can maybe get that job because you don't look like shit during the interview. Gas Money.
But be honest. How many people would actually use the money for anything useful for obtaining a job?
“ I am not insane… What I am saying is most true and reasonable”Doesn't matter. Even them buying food with it would be useful. It's not about how it's spend (Well, it is to a degree, some commodities have a higher multiplier effect than others) but what matters is that money's being spent. You use it for food. Think about how buying a new car allows a company like GM to do incrementally better, thus allowing them to hire more workers, thus giving those workers more money to spend, thus continuing the cycle.
It's "A rising tide that lifts all boats."
The important thing is to get people spending money.
Furthermore, that time not-worrying about starving, not worrying about health insurance gives them either time to get/train for a job, or the stability needed to stop living paycheck to paycheck.
EDIT: The problem is not that people "Aren't trying hard enough to get jobs." it's that companies aren't secure enough that their products will be bought to hire people. By creating/STIMULATING demand, you create jobs.
edited 14th Feb '13 1:33:20 PM by DrTentacles
![]()
Ah yes, Secret Link, the old "The poor are lazy so we shouldn't help them" argument. Because fuck those people, right? They have TV, they can eat McDonald's sometimes, they don't need anyone's help — it's up to them to demonstrate the American Entrepreneurial Spirit and bootstrap themselves to wealth.
You ignore the fact that for every job that opens, there are vastly more applicants than it can fill. You ignore the fact that millions more are unemployed than were before the 2008 crisis, and many of them continue to look for work in vain. You ignore the fact that a person living on unemployment or welfare, with a family to feed, clothe, and house, possibly medical problems that they can't afford to see a doctor for, and either a lack of job skills or job skills that have become stale due to not working, has a really hard time finding a job.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
yes, in another country other than the US. Almost any kind of product bought by the lower class is manufactured outside the US. And the rich will keep getting richer, just in a different country
did I say anywhere that they were lazy? No, i asked how many people would use the opportunity wisely.
edited 14th Feb '13 1:42:46 PM by SecretLink
“ I am not insane… What I am saying is most true and reasonable”True, that's why I said different commodities have different stimulatory effects...but you're ignoring the middleman.
Goods have to travel. They have to be sold at local venders. The service industry is probably one of the biggest industries in the US. It's not glamorous, but it's a job.
And you know what? Even if they're spending money on outsourced goods, that means more demand for them here, and thus, more retailed outlets that open, and have to be staffed. So it's still the most efficient way of creating jobs.
And the more people who have jobs (Even low to medium paying ones, like the ones in the service industry) means more people buying more and more high-end goods, more often. And that creates more demand. And thus more jobs. Rising tide.
edited 14th Feb '13 1:45:50 PM by DrTentacles
![]()
And you are completely missing the point. What good will $1000 do to some guy who can't get an interview because every job he applies for has 1000 other applicants? What it will do is enable him to pay his rent, get medical care, buy food, clothing, and all the other necessities of life.
By doing so, he generates demand in the consumer economy. Demand causes employers to hire people to meet that demand. More jobs means more people earning a paycheck and able to buy stuff. Demand increases further. It's a feedback cycle. The way to start is with direct consumer stimulus.
edited 14th Feb '13 1:46:13 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Secret Link, please take this debate to the economics thread
, so we (read: Fighteer, Tomu, and I) can explain things to you.
Also, for instance, Nixon supported tons of policy positions (i.e. environmental protection legislation, creating OSHA, health insurance reform) that would be in line with a contemporary Democrat but would make you a bleeding liberal by current Republic standards.
Reagan also was somewhat more "leftwing" than current Republicans (not sure of specifics for this, but I believe he supported banning assault weapons- don't quote me here).
For that matter, I'd say that George W Bush's support of immigration reform and No Child Left Behind would probably make him insufficiently conservative by current Republican standards.
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wikiHonestly, that day is probably here. I mean I think there's a reason he doesn't talk much/has retired from politics. I don't think its just that he was unpopular/wants to live a private life (although its part of it), I think its also that he just isn't conservative enough to fit in Republican circles.
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wikiDubya was an "establishment Republican". Much like Huntsman and Christie, he was not radicalized by the "government BAD" ideologies that marked the 2008-2012 crop of Republican candidates. He was still balls-out awful for the country, pursuing idiotic foreign policy and flat-out wrong economic policy, but he wasn't a "chase the Mexicans out, shoot the gays, and defund all government agencies" nutcase. In fact, he, like Romney, was basically beholden to the big money interests behind the GOP. Big Oil was his sugar daddy. (And the military-industrial complex was Cheney's.)
McCain in 2008 was very much like Bush, an inheritor of the kind of moderate conservatism that was willing to cross the aisle and engage in pragmatic compromise. The nascent Tea Party wing of the GOP, however, forced him to espouse views that were probably more radical than he would have liked, and choose a running mate who embodied the worst aspects of the "know nothing know it all" parts of the party. He predictably lost against a popular newcomer and in the face of massive dislike for the Bush era.
Romney is an interesting anomaly. By all rights, he should have been riding on Bush and McCain's policy coattails, but instead he bent rightward in an attempt to accommodate the Tea Party madness, while at the same time being even more brazenly cynical about his support for the wealthy than any candidate to date. His "47 percent" remark really established his true ideology, while the GOP political machine rushed around destroying the party's credibility with extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric and attempted to disenfranchise millions of people with voter ID laws and such.
In reality, since the late 1970's, the Republican Party has been pretty much about three things: increasing the power and influence of the wealthy, disenfranchising workers and minorities, and enshrining evangelical Christian moral principles as law.
edited 14th Feb '13 2:11:21 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"You're right. I appear to have been wrong with my guess as to which costs more. My (very) rough number crunching puts the UK NHS budget at 4-5% of GDP, with the US Medicare and Medicaid budget at 5-6% of GDP. Still, for that extra 1% of GDP spending we cover everyone, so I still think our system is better.
![]()
that is your OPINION of what the republican party is about, and regardless i am not a republican. I am a conservative
and what is wrong with Christian moral principles?
Its because we compromised too much.
Many Conservatives have finally decided they aren't going to compromise anymore because the liberals always got what they wanted eventually. There's nothing left to compromise on, because whats left is fundamental to our beliefs.
yet you said nothing to address anything I posted.
Do I believe that pollution is a bad thing? Yes. Wasn't there a global cooling scare in the 70s? And China is the biggest polluter on the planet, far outstripping the U.S. Do I think the very thing i exhale is "teh end of teh world!!!"? No
Do I believe in evolution by natural selection? Yes. Do I believe single celled organisms gave rise to myself? No Do I believe that supporting those less fortunate than I is a good thing? Yes. Do I believe I should do so without any accountability? No. Do I believe Gay people are going to run out and gun down the nearest person at the slightest provoke? No. Do I believe many if not most live a destructive lifestyle of promiscuity? do I believe the anus was something your waste passed through, and wasn’t exactly a place to play around in? Yes
edited 14th Feb '13 2:39:35 PM by SecretLink
“ I am not insane… What I am saying is most true and reasonable”"Its because we compromised too much."
Oh, ho ho ho. Hahahahaha. Oh, that's a good one. You're funny. Thanks for the laugh. Have you ever considered that your beliefs might simply be wrong? That the mountains of evidence that have been accumulated showing proof of climate change, proof that supporting the lower class increases wealth for all, proof of evolution by natural selection, proof that gays are not harmful to society, proof that coddling the wealthy doesn't make the country richer, might just have some basis in fact?
The modern GOP functions, more or less, by ignoring the facts it can, denying the facts it can't ignore, and attacking the people who employ facts if they can't deny them. It's a faith machine.
edited 14th Feb '13 2:20:09 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Its not really an issue of compromise, at least for the earlier Republicans. Its not that Nixon or the earlier Eisenhauer "compromised" their beliefs- its just that since they were in office, the Republican Party has gone a lot further rightward, whereas the Democratic Party hasn't moved (that far) to the left.
The result is that a Democrat today has beliefs that line up pretty well with a Republican from the 60s or 70s, possibly later in some cases for the "Rockefeller Republican" type.
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki![]()
![]()
![]()
If you're going to insist Fighter starts every post with "This post is my opinion and nothing else" then you should do the same, otherwise you're just a hypocrite.
As for Republicans compromising to much... when was the last time Republicans compromised on anything?
edited 14th Feb '13 2:19:18 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyranvery well then
THIS POST IS MY OPINION
if anything both democrats and republicans have moved to the left democrats just more so than republicans.
I did not say Republicans compromised. I said Conservatives. Roe vs. Wade. The growth of the debt and of the federal government. not tolerance of homosexuals but celebration of their lifestyle. the decaying family and morals. On and on and on.
“ I am not insane… What I am saying is most true and reasonable”What, the Constitution? The basis of the Court's opinion in RVW was the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868. Hardly a modern example of Republican compromise.
Except federal debt is entirely down to GW Bush. Clinton left a surplus when he left office.
You mean that conservatives failed to force a narrow Judeo-Christian view of what constitutes "correct" behaviour over people who don't subscribe to it? Meant that the marriage prospects of a gay couple aren't going to be dictated by a two-thousand year old shred of paper but by the concerns of the modern world. If you don't like gays, don't associate with them and don't get a gay marriage yourself. But don't expect the people you shun to sit back and accept that, because their lifestyle offends some people, they shouldn't campaign for equal respect and rights.
edited 14th Feb '13 2:36:49 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiRoe V Wade was not a compromise. The very fact that it had to be decided by Court Justices is, if anything, proof that no consensus was reached on the topic. That's like saying Brown V Board was evidence of compromise over segregation.
I'm going to skip over the other contentious bits in that post to focus on something else. you have made a claim. Namely that you say democrats have moved further left. Have you any evidence or is that simply a claim?
Also, many things are opinion. But some opinions have evidence in their favor. And their is a lot of evidence regarding the radicalization of the right, the general uncompromising nature of Republican party politics and the nature of lower class spending improving economies.
Well, in terms of the comparisons I was posting, I think that support of abortion rights and gay rights might qualify in that I don't believe either party was as supportive of them in the past (support for gay rights as actually increased/improved a lot within just the past decade).
Now of course, you can get into an argument of whether any policy position is inherently left-wing or right wing (except in terms of who tends to support it), but I would still say that Republicans are more opposed to "government intervention in the economy" than they were previously/social welfare than they were previously, and the support for evangelical Christianity is also pretty new/evidence of them moving to the Right.
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki

Indeed. Basically, poor people spend a high percentage of their wealth than rich people. Currently, rich people aren't spending, they're saving money. This lack of spending is retarding our GDP (which is currently like 6% below projected capability, which is a lot). So, to fix this, we need to make sure the lower/middle class have money (because if you distribute 1,000,000s among 1,000,000, they're more likely to spend it all than if you give it to one person, because lower-class people need to spend pretty much all of their money just to stay afloat) That money has a multiplier effect, as in, it's in our economy, doing stuff, not sitting in bonds or whatever.
So, if we spend more, our economy will start doing better, this allowing us to collect higher taxes (because the GDP is higher) and reduce our deficit.