Political discussion thread

NaturalScience wrote: NaturalScience wrote: IVNORD wrote: If you call my Weimar Republic scenario and prediction of the almost certain demise of the middle class optimistic, I am afraid to look at things that trigger pessimism in you. My point is life won't stop no matter how bad things are. The adjustments could be severe and may affect you and me in a profound way, but a new generation will go thru a new cycle. I think we agree on a lot, but we might be talking past each other or something.  Oh well. To clarify:  I don't worry as much about hyper-inflation, all I'm saying is that the major entitlement programs continue to occupy a larger percentage of budget spending, and we need to think now about how we either want to modify the programs, cut other ones, raise taxes, or grow deficits.  These are all the possible options and depending on where you reside on the political spectrum some are acceptable and some aren't.  But the more we wait the more drastic (and possibly draconian) the measures will have to be. Medicare and health care issues in general will be the first of the crises and will hit sometime in the next decade (before 2020).

I don't think it would be a major calamity. The entitlement programs will be kept alive thru a combination of measuers. If we add new ones, like the universal health care, taxes must go up. It would be nice to have it, but I don't believe it will work.

debrewguy wrote: IVNORD wrote: debrewguy wrote: DB - Yes, we would. But assuming the worst, based on realities that are no longer the norm should not stop one from seriously thinking about other options. Funny how there is no great rebellion against continously escalating Military costs that never seem to need justification (security yes, but how is it measured, by whom). Earmarks, pork barrel projects, and corporate subsidies with ill-defined , if any, benefits. Need a bridge to nowhere in your district in Alaska. No Problem ! We need your vote on this Homeland Security project in Iowa to protect against a terrorist attack ! Your local military base is set to close due to the fact that it is not needed, we'll vote against it, if you support our bill to subsidize ethanol programs where the fuel made uses up more energy than it produces. You said it. No accountability. Would it be logical to assume that another government program may be as bad as most of the previous ones? Possible, but for logic, one would ask if ALL government programs are massively overfunded and hugely unsuccessful. As I stated, is it possible for voters to accept a new program if its' goals are specifically stated, with measurable goals to be automatically reviews within,say, a five year period of its' inception.

  Most government programs I can think of are overfunded. Some of them work, for example the defense program. Not very efficiently though. When you suggest a program with specific goals and a five year review, do you have a new legislation in mind? Would any lawmaker in his right mind impose such constraints on himself voluntarily? You must have a very politically active population to make them do that, and this is not the case here.

debrewguy wrote: Being white means never having to admit that your skin colour gives you advantages others don't have. It also gives you an excuse when the black/latino/gay/name your minority is hired/promoted ahead of you. After all, who ever heard of a non-white person getting ahead based on the fact that they were qualified.

In a very funny way the reverse happens quite often and this problem is caused by political correctness. Condoleezza Rice was promoted because she's black. She did not otherwise qualify to be Secretary of State. And she proved to be a horrible diplomat. 

IVNORD wrote: Relayer09 wrote: The T wrote:     I don't know about the rest of you but my vote isn't going to what religion Obama or McCain subscribe to but to where they stand on issues and which one I trust more in what they say. You brought this religion thing here. I agree with talking about real issues. Fantastic stories belong someplace else, not in politics. Actually, I didn't bring the religion thing up. I did however respond to another poster.   i'm happy to replied in a corteous manner. Sorry for my constant CAPS. i just need some emphasis sometimes.    I appreciate being able to have a mature discussion with you. People having differing points of view and showing tolerance towards each other is very healthy. It also shows maturity and respect for both parties involved. And now as the two of you ended your dispute in such an amicable way, something completely different.   Forget about political correctness. Let's face it -- a Muslim president is a practical impossibility. THat explains why Obama so vehemently denied being Muslim.   On the other hand -- being politically correct as a Democratic nominee should be -- shouldn't he have ignored the issue altogether? Does it matter what religion President of the United States follows? So doesn't it  stink a bit that Obama denied it in such forceful manner?

I voted for that crazy little man because Clinton was being reported as having it sewed up and Bush was toast, plus I actually had a lot of respect for his opinions until he went bat s--t crazy with his trashing of Clinton, who deserved a lot of the knocks he was got, but most of the attacks were b.s.

By the way INVORD, I intend to keep bugging you with these charts and graphs until your head explodes.  I have addressed your general complaint about not providing source information by posting graphs with source information. 

Something else to consider, how much of a dent would you expect that brief amount of  surpluses ($2.5 billion at it's peak)  to make in a debt that's now about $9.4 trillion?  I believe the last deficit was reported to be $8 billion...

And perhaps it has not occurred to you that maybe the surpluses weren't being applied to the debt?  They are most likely attributable to Social Security anyway and not really surpluses.  Still the budget was closer to balance. 

We're all doomed here in the US.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 01 2008 at 11:22

That cartoon was funny in the first panel...and then got really stupid really fast.

I sort of know where the guys coming from...but if a handgun ban was constitutional, then what would the Second Amendment mean exactly?

"Zucchini Trashcan Mouthwash" is my new favorite saying.  

Actually, great title for a prog album. 

debrewguy wrote: Didn't anyone know that Nelson Mandela has finally been taken off the U.S. Terrorist Watch list as of July 1st ? Which means he no longer needs the American Secretary of State to sign off on any visits he may want to make to the U.S. ... And y'all thought the political system was slow

Relayer09 wrote: IVNORD wrote: Relayer09 wrote: IVNORD wrote: Relayer09 wrote: IVNORD wrote: Relayer09 wrote:   Is it sarcasm or irony? Remember Bush inherited NAFTA from Clinton. The attacks of 9/11 took place less than eight months after Bush was sworn in. Those two things would have taken a toll on any President no matter who was sitting in office. Obama said while campaigning in Ohio that he wanted to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA calling it "devastating" and "a big mistake". This past week he has toned down that stance after talking to Prime Minister Harper but he still believes in "opening up a dialogue" with Mexico and Canada "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people". It's apparent even to Senator Obama that NAFTA has hurt America badly. This definetly goes into the PRO column of reasons I would vote for Obama but so far McCain's PRO column for me is stronger still. The merits and drawbacks of NAFTA are debatable. Blaming the loss of manufacturing jobs on NAFTA alone is naive. Migration of obsolete labor intensive industries to cheaper labor markets is as old a process as capitalism itself. And in modern times older technologies have been going to third world countries for about 100 years. Look at steel and textile industries, engineering and data processing. Obama's anti-NAFTA stand is protectionist in nature. He singled out the most visible trade agreement as the only culprit which may be very popular in Ohio. It's politically smart, but economically silly. NAFTA promised to create jobs and raise the average wage for U.S. workers. It had exactly the opposite effect. NAFTA displaced over 1,000,000 jobs out of the manufacturing industry and forced those displaced workers into lower paying jobs.   There were several studies conducted between 2004-2006 that show the adverse effects of NAFTA not just  for U.S. workers but for workers in Mexico and Canada as well. I found a very interesting article done by the Economic Policy Institute ( a non-partisan think tank) that you may find interesting.   http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp173 Do you really believe NAFTA displaced those jobs?   Smith-Corona moved their operations to Mexico back in '84. NAFTA was ratified in '94.   I will read the article later, don't have time now   Yes it's very clear those jobs were displaced as a direct result of NAFTA. I recommend reading the whole article. It's lengthy and even if you don't agree with all of it, there is alot of good information in it. I could not read thru the whole thing, sorry. It's too biased. It renders the data suspect. My point was those jobs began moving to Mexico long before NAFTA. It probably made it easier for the big money to do so today, but even in absence of NAFTA they would have moved their business there anyway. Abandoning NAFTA would be a definite show of protectionism and as we know protectionism creates more problems in the long run I'm not aware of any studies done that showed NAFTA creating jobs equal in wages to those lost. Showing how NAFTA had the reverse effect as to what was promised it would do isn't neccessarily biased but is just the outcome of the data collected during the study. I believe Ross Perot called it right. That crazy little man and his graphs and charts.

 They are pro-labor and it shows in their analysis of NAFTA too. I don't follow NAFTA (or any other free trade agreement) and don't really know the specifics, but it would have been scrapped long ago if it was pure harm.

IVNORD wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: IVNORD wrote: I watched them back in the late 80's, they were on NBC then I think. But it never occured to me John McLaughlin had anything in common with them Sorry, it was on PMS urm, PBS. You may be right but I remember they had commercial breaks. If I don't confuse it with something else