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
Indeed. You can't just look at this from the perspective of personal ideology. Francis is looking to save the Catholic Church from what appears to be a global decline in the numbers of the faithful, brought on in no small part by the perception that the Church is mired in old ways that no longer serve the needs of modern civilization.
Obama is looking to govern a nation that is locked in intractable ideological conflict and leave behind a legacy that is favorable to his political party.
All that said, the differences between Obama and Francis, such as they may be, pale before the divide that exists between the Catholic Church under Francis and the U.S. Republican Party.
edited 23rd Sep '15 6:56:07 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That's such a vague question as to be meaningless. What is needed to solve our current systemic problems is the depolarization of the electoral process, which can only happen after the Republican Party burns itself out on its current hate binge.
It doesn't matter how you construct the legislative process if the majority party insists on doing nothing.
It's been offered that a parliamentary system might give voters more choice and inspire greater participation/turnout; however, we've seen in Europe that such systems don't magically have superior results in terms of policy.
edited 23rd Sep '15 8:32:43 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Okay, that last point is kinda confusing me, Fighteer. Are you saying that companies using illegal immigrants to circumvent minimum wage laws is a good thing?
Jeb Bush says he'd get rid of Net Neutrality rules
I'm thinking a few things here.
One, as an "establishment" candidate, Jeb is proving why so many people distrust the political establishment: because it blatantly doesn't represent the people.
Two, it may not matter to many Republicans. They're told Republican politicians feel a certain way about the issue, therefore they must feel that way too. Not all Republicans think this way but it may not hurt him much at all.
It's worth noting that, for better or worse, the American system was specifically designed to be inefficient, to protect against Tyranny of the majority. Considering the fact that in the period we've had the Constitution in place France has gone through 5 republics, 2 Empire's, the Ancen Regime, constitutional monarchy several times, and a Fascist dictatorship, one could argue it has worked for the best.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.Raven Wilder: It is a thing. Whether it is good or bad depends on the point of view. The simple fact is that a lot of businesses use undocumented labor because it allows them to pay lower wages, avoid benefits, impose harsh labor conditions, and so on. Were we to remove this source of labor, those businesses would be forced to hire documented workers, significantly increasing costs.
Those increases would translate into higher prices for their products, including things as diverse as construction, meat, produce, gardening, child care, cleaning, and many more. Since there won't be a directly corresponding increase in employment income for U.S. consumers, most of us will see this as inflation, hurting our purchasing power and reducing net output.
In many cases, the jobs taken by those workers simply will not be replaced, as some southern states discovered when they imposed harsh crackdowns on illegals and saw their fruit picking industry dry up completely as a result. It is simply the truth that we need people who are willing to do the dirty, sweaty, shitty jobs. Alternatively, the jobs could be offshored to other nations, especially those related to agriculture.
What's more, undocumented workers are good citizens. They pay taxes, spend money, and otherwise do the things that responsible consumers do. Their remittances to their home countries allow those countries to buy more U.S. products. They increase our domestic labor force at a time when we are experiencing zero or negative population growth among native demographics, helping sustain GDP.
Dealing with all of these issues responsibly requires a comprehensive overhaul of how we manage our labor force, including minimum/living wage guarantees, healthcare guaranteed to all people regardless of income, child care guaranteed to all working adults, and many more things besides.
edited 23rd Sep '15 8:56:06 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Then you don't get workers being paid to do them, which reduces the income available to sustain consumer demand. There must be corresponding wealth distribution programs to sustain a viable middle class in the absence of jobs for said middle class to perform.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"A bill called The Truth in Sentencing Bill
, sponsored by Elizabeth Warren, just passed the Senate. I find it interesting in part because it revealed some things I didn't know about the settlements the government reaches with companies, like that much of the fines are tax deductible. (WTF?!!)
Her concern is that regulators — in particular the ones responsible for monitoring Wall Street — often announce a tough settlement with an eye-popping dollar figure to grab good headlines, while quietly burying the news that the real penalty is significantly less impressive. Most people don't know, for example, that these settlement fees are usually tax deductible, so a profitable company can slice a third of the price of the fine right off the top. Settlement agreements also at times "credit" companies being penalized for continuing to do things that they are already doing.
Warren's proposed rule would force federal agencies to post settlement agreements on their websites, and require agency press releases and other written material to fully explain tax and credit issues. Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma joined Warren in sponsoring the bill, giving it enough bipartisan support to pass the Senate while Majority Leader Mitch Mc Connell tries to figure out what to do about averting a government shutdown next week.
As the rest of the article points out, not only is there little chance of this passing the House, it's also unlikely to make much of a difference, it's more a way of putting departments on notice that they will have attention drawn to them not being tough enough regarding enforcement on big companies.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |We have machines that mechanically harvest and separate grains and produce. However, they inevitably destroy the plant in the process. You can't use them to harvest fruit trees because the trees would be killed, and you can't use them to harvest berries because the fruit is too delicate.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"In regards to construction, we may be getting there, if articles about 3D printing buildings are anything to go by. We're not there yet, but I expect we will be in... a decade? Things could progress faster or slower, so I'm throwing that out there as an average which could be off by quite a few years.
If people aren't willing to pay enough for fruit that the fruit-pickers can earn a decent wage, then maybe the fruit industry just doesn't deserve to survive. Surely there are synthetic ways to get the necessary vitamins? Or there could be government subsidies to the fruit industry to help cover expenses; even the anti-government spending crowd usually makes an exception when it comes to subsidizing farmers.
I mean, saying we have to use inhumane labor conditions because the we can't afford the harvest otherwise is the same rationale the cotton industry used for slavery.
edited 23rd Sep '15 11:48:20 AM by RavenWilder
Raven Wilder: Nobody is saying that inhumane conditions are a requirement of the fruit industry. However, the grueling nature of the work is a serious distorting effect in the labor market, an effect it shares with many other industries that use lots of undocumented labor.
There are comprehensive solutions available but they would require a substantial investment of resources and a small degree of sacrifice on the part of the general body of American citizens, which means that they are impossible as long as Republicans control Congress.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Politics: as an outbound president, Obama has in his interests to be optimistic, not necessarily downplaying the bad things going on, but portraying these things as surmountable challenges and domains of progress. The Pope's position is to create a sense of urgency to revitalize a church in danger of decline.