Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

As long as you need money to make money, wealth will never have more than a tentative correlation to hard work and/or aptitude. The hard workers are making minimum wage. The geniuses are in R&D on salary.

Not only this, but as long as you can make money by having money. As long as people with money can get exponentially more money through solid investments, how is anyone else going to squeeze their way toward the top?

[Frumple]

$15 Trillion in debt and spiraling out of control.

Just minor enlightenment there; the states're actually at a lower debt than we were back in WWII, when measured as a % of the GDP. 15 trill's still insane, yes, but the states have been in a worse position before, several times.

But yeah, the question re: spending is always the same -- what gets cut? S'a discussion for another thread, though, if it's not something one of the candidates are campaigning on.

[NinjaBoot]

$15 Trillion in debt and spiraling out of control.

Just minor enlightenment there; the states're actually at a lower debt than we were back in WWII, when measured as a % of the GDP. 15 trill's still insane, yes, but the states have been in a worse position before, several times.

It is a problem when other countries own the debt. 

But yeah, the question re: spending is always the same -- what gets cut? S'a discussion for another thread, though, if it's not something one of the candidates are campaigning on.

The candidates do not focus on it because it would be political suicide to openly talk about cutting down the size of government. 

[Aqizzar]

But yeah, the question re: spending is always the same -- what gets cut? S'a discussion for another thread, though, if it's not something one of the candidates are campaigning on.

The candidates do not focus on it because it would be political suicide to openly talk about cutting down the size of government.

Well, there's a fair sized branch of American politics that believes its not.  They just have to find creative ways to say so.

And yes, this is a topic a bit too broad and heated for me to really welcome it here, because I've seen it happen a hundred times before.

[RedKing]

Yeah, what Aqizzar said. This is the Election thread, not the "What's fucked up with America?" thread. Which would need a computer the size of the Earth to properly hold it all.

So, we're all mostly familiar with the line of "reasoning" among some evangelical Protestants that the Catholics aren't really Christians, right?
Well, now we have a speech dredged up from 2008 where Rick Santorum is basically saying the opposite at a lecture at a Catholic university: that American Protestants are "gone from the world of Christianity".

Be interesting to see if this gets much play from his rivals. Nothing like a little old-school sectarian warfare to liven things up. They gonna party like its 1629!

[NinjaBoot]

Yeah, what Aqizzar said. This is the Election thread, not the "What's fucked up with America?" thread. Which would need a computer the size of the Earth to properly hold it all.

So, we're all mostly familiar with the line of "reasoning" among some evangelical Protestants that the Catholics aren't really Christians, right?
Well, now we have a speech dredged up from 2008 where Rick Santorum is basically saying the opposite at a lecture at a Catholic university: that American Protestants are "gone from the world of Christianity".

Be interesting to see if this gets much play from his rivals. Nothing like a little old-school sectarian warfare to liven things up. They gonna party like its 1629!

I suppose that is what is fucked up with America, the focus on such non-issues. 

I guess congress not having passed a budget in over 1000 days is not important.  I suppose that government now being the sole lender of post-secondary financial aid is also a non-issue.  PPACA?  All good.  Fast and Furious?  Nope.  All that money squandered on green energy?  Just tax rich people more.  Shitty economy that hasn't done anything in 3 years?  Gonna need another term to fix it.  Education system that is broken and in need of an overhaul?  Throw more money at it. 

Oh, right.. I suppose a candidates religious beliefs are a good indicator of how well he run the country. 

[G-Flex]

All that money squandered on green energy?  Just tax rich people more.

Because we all know that reliance on fossil fuels is going to be great in the long-term, and that the rich in the US pay more than their fair share.

[Azkanan]

I'm British and vote for Ron Paul.

[Montague]

As long as you need money to make money, wealth will never have more than a tentative correlation to hard work and/or aptitude. The hard workers are making minimum wage. The geniuses are in R&D on salary.

Not only this, but as long as you can make money by having money. As long as people with money can get exponentially more money through solid investments, how is anyone else going to squeeze their way toward the top?

Honestly, I'd let people with money make as much money as they possibly can, I'd just tax the majority of it. Also, investments can fail, so they are taking a risk with their money when they play these games with it. Also, investment and financing and loans are immensely important for growing the economy and allowing new businesses to get up and running.

If there was no real incentive to offer loans or buy shares of a corporation, the economy would stagnate and would cripple innovation and kill off new ventures before they were born. All and all, while the ultra-rich capitalist sorts don't work very hard, they do contribute to the economy.

Again, I'd also tax them to the point where they'd almost want to quit doing this.

[RedKing]

Yeah, what Aqizzar said. This is the Election thread, not the "What's fucked up with America?" thread. Which would need a computer the size of the Earth to properly hold it all.

So, we're all mostly familiar with the line of "reasoning" among some evangelical Protestants that the Catholics aren't really Christians, right?
Well, now we have a speech dredged up from 2008 where Rick Santorum is basically saying the opposite at a lecture at a Catholic university: that American Protestants are "gone from the world of Christianity".

Be interesting to see if this gets much play from his rivals. Nothing like a little old-school sectarian warfare to liven things up. They gonna party like its 1629!

I suppose that is what is fucked up with America, the focus on such non-issues. 

I guess congress not having passed a budget in over 1000 days is not important.  I suppose that government now being the sole lender of post-secondary financial aid is also a non-issue.  PPACA?  All good.  Fast and Furious?  Nope.  All that money squandered on green energy?  Just tax rich people more.  Shitty economy that hasn't done anything in 3 years?  Gonna need another term to fix it.  Education system that is broken and in need of an overhaul?  Throw more money at it. 

Oh, right.. I suppose a candidates religious beliefs are a good indicator of how well he run the country.

It's not that they're not important, it's that this thread is not the place for that discussion. From the OP:

And yes, I know this is a politics thread, but let's try to have too many policy arguments, okay?  It's inevitable, but I'd like to keep everything civil here, and the horserace of electioneering is more than enough to keep everyone entertained without a firestorm of pointless ideological debates.

Might I suggest the progressive rage/annoyance thread, if you're so inclined? (although I gather you'd be more annoyed at the progressives there than what they're annoyed at)

[mainiac]

Nope.  All that money squandered on green energy?  Just tax rich people more.  Shitty economy that hasn't done anything in 3 years?

1) We spend more money on oil subsidies then we do on green energy subsidies.
2) The economy has grown been growing at a decent clip in the past two years.  It's just that the financial crises fucked things up so far that there's plenty of distance still to go.  This is hardly surprising, it often take a decade or more to recover from a severe financial crises.  And considering that some nations like the UK (poster child of austerity) and Greece STILL aren't growing, we could be doing a lot worse.

[Leafsnail]

And considering that some nations like the UK (poster child of austerity) and Greece STILL aren't growing, we could be doing a lot worse.

It's not that the UK "still isn't't growing".  It's that the UK economy WAS growing until austerity kicked in and reversed that last quarter.

[Montague]

You can't sustain growth forever on government debt.

Austerity is just a reality check, really.

[mainiac]

You can't sustain growth forever on government debt.

Austerity is just a reality check, really.

This isn't forever though.  This is when the economy is severely depressed.  If you are complaining about structural deficits then complain when interest rates aren't at the zero bound, we have 3-5 percentage of the population cyclically unemployed and cutting deficits would be self defeating like in the UK.  I.E. the bush deficits were a good time.

[Montague]

You can't sustain growth forever on government debt.

Austerity is just a reality check, really.

This isn't forever though.  This is when the economy is severely depressed.  If you are complaining about structural deficits then complain when interest rates aren't at the zero bound, we have 3-5 percentage of the population cyclically unemployed and cutting deficits would be self defeating like in the UK.  I.E. the bush deficits were a good time.

A severe recession isn't a great time to accumulate government debt, either. When the good times come back, the government is going to have to crash the party by introducing austerity measures to cover the debt. So you can lengthen a recession or abort a good economy, austerity measures aimed at reducing debt are going to suck no matter what part of the boom-bust cycle it's implemented.

Although, I think it'd be ideal if the government never went into deficit in the first place unless it absolutely had to. I think it'd help dampen the extremes of the economic cycle, if at least the government could be consistent with it's spending even if revenue declines or increases.