The General Politics Thread

Goat · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:58 pm

That's for the deficit, anyway. Tackling the debt itself will require a lot more...

Bruce_Bitenfils · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:50 pm

If you're in a zero-deficit situation, taking care of the debt itself is a non-issue. Just let (monitored) inflation do the dirty work, slowly and gently, over time...
The real issue is the deficit.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:49 pm

Bruce_Bitenfils wrote:

Thanks Zad for the article. As you say, the best thing to do is making the curves converge :

Notice how the spending / reciepts started to drift further apart just after the D's took over the house and senate, in 2006/2007?
So, your friend blaming the tea party is incorrect.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:59 pm

Bruce_Bitenfils wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

Bruce_Bitenfils wrote:

A (genuine and honest) question to the US folks : I heard two days ago that Minnesota (iirc) went bankrupt. The guy was saying it was basically some Tea Party guys's fault. The same guy was also saying the same Tea Party was responsible of this thing between the Congress and Obama regarding the debt ceiling, which threatens not only the US, but basically the economy of the whole fucking world.
So, my question is simple : I don't know whether it's true or not - if it's not please explain - but if it is, those guys (tea party) are obviously traitors to the nation. The way I understand it, they'd rather flush the country down the toilet than see Obama reelected. So, why don't you put a bullet (or three) in their necks ?

So, wanting to curb outrageous and unprecedented spending is treason, now? Hmmm.

Of course not. We have a serious debt problem here as well, and I'm in favor of cutting expenditures AND raising taxes (in a cleaver manner). The treason thing wasn't about wanting to curb spendings as you say, but risking a catastrophic impact on Moody's and Standard & Poor's (and the like) ratings. That would kill you, and us in the process. Those guys claim having America's interests at heart, and yet they want to choke it to death. Riiiiight.

CotB wrote:

Blaming the tea party is ridiculous... they have been around for what? A few years now?

The guy's point (may I remind you I am not saying this is true, because I don't know) was that the Tea Party guys basically took control of the Republican Party. And that they are directly responsible of the current... fight ? Although the obvious thing to do would be to raise the ceiling in exchange of structural cuts on spendings.

CotB wrote:

No, this countries convulsive death rattle is a bi-partisan affair and goes much further back than the last few years. Though Obama has made it infinitely worse through sheer incompetence and irresponsibility. Not to mention gangster style politics.
But to think that the next neo-con meat puppet in line for the presidency will make a difference is pure naivete.

OK, I'm not disagreeing.

CotB wrote:

Serious question: since Obama is the one really putting the boots to this nation, does the same sentiment regarding bullets apply to him?

Don't try to take me there. I'm no Obama fanboy/hater. I don't care. All I'm saying is that if a group of people (right-wingers, left-wingers, I don't care) are willing to risk the future of your country (and the rest of the planet with it), of the PEOPLE of your country, well... then they should be politically (not physically) taken down. And from where I stand - which is far away, granted - I don't feel Obama is one of that kind of people. He just wants to avoid the worst.

The people who ruled Greece the past 40 years were, that kind of people. I wouldn't mind see them in jail for the rest of their lives (the "bullet" thing was a figure of speech, obviously. Or was it ?)

"Those guys" are not choking it to death, it's the spending like there is no tommorrow that is doing that.

As for Obama just wanting to avoid the worst... a very large part of the problem is due to his residence in the white house. He's been in office for three years now, and the first two of those he had a D majority in both the house and the senate, so all of a sudden blaming the "tea party" (which isn't even a political party anyway) is absurd.
Bush was lousy, but Obama is many times worse. His policys are not in line with fiscal responsibility whatsoever. More like "one hand washes the other".

Just look at the raw data. I could supply pages of things Obama has done that has hurt the country, but it really just makes me tired.
If you are really interested, google it.

Bruce_Bitenfils · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:22 pm

Nah, I don't care about Obama's abilities to govern. I was only interested in the motivations of the Congress members who want to play with the country's sake. It just seems unnatural to me, that is all.

Anyway. The debt limit will be raised eventually, because the alternative is much worse. So, whatever.

Edit : And I meant no disrespect. I only have a hard time to understand some things.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:32 pm

Bruce_Bitenfils wrote:

Nah, I don't care about Obama's abilities to govern. I was only interested in the motivations of the Congress members who want to play with the country's sake. It just seems unnatural to me, that is all.

Anyway. The debt limit will be raised eventually, because the alternative is much worse. So, whatever.

Edit : And I meant no disrespect. I only have a hard time to understand some things.

So you think going further and further into debt is a good thing?

You don't care about O's abilty to govern... why does this guy always get a pass? This is part of the problem, he is not being held accountable. He is, after all, the President, is he not?

The R's are still a minority (in the Senate) and the past five or so years the D's had a majority in both branches (until 11/10), yet the quicksand we are sinking in is their fault, solely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divi ... Congresses

Also of note: the Clinton years in which we saw a balanced budget(second term) were under R majority house and senate. So, there's some food for thought.

Bruce_Bitenfils · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:50 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

So you think going further and further into debt is a good thing?

I said the exact opposite in a previous post. Deficit (aka going further and further into debt) = BAD when your debt level is high already. BUT, since your deadline is what, the 2nd of August iirc, the best choice is to raise the limit, AND start to cut spendings (and raise taxes, but that's just me).

CotB wrote:

You don't care about O's abilty to govern... why does this guy always get a pass? This is part of the problem, he is not being held accountable. He is, after all, the President, is he not?

I'm not giving a pass to anyone. If I were American, I don't know if I'd vote for the guy honestly. Or for a Dem. We'll never know.

CotB wrote:

The R's are still a minority (in the Senate) and the past five or so years the D' had a majority in both branches (until 11/10), yet the quicksand we are sinking in is their fault, solely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divi ... Congresses

I wasn't blaming the Republican Party as a whole (or its members), I was only discussing the (what seems to be the) far-right part of it.

CotB wrote:

Also of note: the Clinton years in which we saw a balanced budget(second term) were under R majority house and senate. So, there's some food for thought.

Good to know, but again, I am not blaming Rs as a whole.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:55 pm

The sooner people everywhere realize that the gang rape that is happening to the US is a bi-partisan affair, the better.

R and D are merely two sides of the same coin, or tag team if you prefer.

Goat · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:59 pm

The debt ceiling will eventually be raised, with much noise from the R's about how they secured 'serious' spending cuts. This should be obvious to everyone.

Bruce_Bitenfils · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:01 pm

It is.

stevelovesmoonspell · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:13 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

Bruce_Bitenfils wrote:

Nah, I don't care about Obama's abilities to govern. I was only interested in the motivations of the Congress members who want to play with the country's sake. It just seems unnatural to me, that is all.

Anyway. The debt limit will be raised eventually, because the alternative is much worse. So, whatever.

Edit : And I meant no disrespect. I only have a hard time to understand some things.

So you think going further and further into debt is a good thing?

You don't care about O's abilty to govern... why does this guy always get a pass? This is part of the problem, he is not being held accountable. He is, after all, the President, is he not?

The R's are still a minority (in the Senate) and the past five or so years the D's had a majority in both branches (until 11/10), yet the quicksand we are sinking in is their fault, solely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divi ... Congresses

Also of note: the Clinton years in which we saw a balanced budget(second term) were under R majority house and senate. So, there's some food for thought.

....and then there was NAFTA.....

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:21 pm

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

Bruce_Bitenfils wrote:

Nah, I don't care about Obama's abilities to govern. I was only interested in the motivations of the Congress members who want to play with the country's sake. It just seems unnatural to me, that is all.

Anyway. The debt limit will be raised eventually, because the alternative is much worse. So, whatever.

Edit : And I meant no disrespect. I only have a hard time to understand some things.

So you think going further and further into debt is a good thing?

You don't care about O's abilty to govern... why does this guy always get a pass? This is part of the problem, he is not being held accountable. He is, after all, the President, is he not?

The R's are still a minority (in the Senate) and the past five or so years the D's had a majority in both branches (until 11/10), yet the quicksand we are sinking in is their fault, solely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divi ... Congresses

Also of note: the Clinton years in which we saw a balanced budget(second term) were under R majority house and senate. So, there's some food for thought.

....and then there was NAFTA.....

Yeah, that really hurt us.
They are now allowing Mexican trucks into the country, which will of course cost us truck driving jobs.
It just keeps getting better and better.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:13 pm

Incredible.

You have to watch the whole thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc

Bruce_Bitenfils · **Posted:** Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:37 pm

This officer must be on steroids or amphetamines, or something. This man's behaviour is a disgrace.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:31 pm

I don't mean to detract from the brutality of the attacks but some interestingly political articles on the reaction by the media in relation to Muslims as initially having perpetrated the crime.

http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/ind ... 2F23%2Fnyt

http://electronicintifada.net/blog/benj ... slo-horror

Some will obv hate it since I posted it but thought of frig reading them.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:48 pm

traptunderice wrote:

I don't mean to detract from the brutality of the attacks but some interestingly political articles on the reaction by the media in relation to Muslims as initially having perpetrated the crime.

http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/ind ... 2F23%2Fnyt

http://electronicintifada.net/blog/benj ... slo-horror

Some will obv hate it since I posted it but thought of frig reading them.

9/10 of the time it would have been islamist fanatics, though, so it's not as if the event (coupled with the initial reports of responsibility claims from some jihad group, made up or not) being initially suspected to be the act of muslim extremists are so unwarranted.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:03 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

I don't mean to detract from the brutality of the attacks but some interestingly political articles on the reaction by the media in relation to Muslims as initially having perpetrated the crime.

http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/ind ... 2F23%2Fnyt

http://electronicintifada.net/blog/benj ... slo-horror

Some will obv hate it since I posted it but thought of frig reading them.

9/10 of the time it would have been islamist fanatics, though, so it's not as if the event (coupled with the initial reports of responsibility claims from some jihad group, made up or not) being initially suspected to be the act of muslim extremists are so unwarranted.

Yeah because in America we don't have that old saying of innocent until proven guilty. Or that right-wing white folk like David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh, Joe Stack, John Bedell, all the white kid school shootings, never happened. Targeting scapegoats without evidence is problematic, no?

And that's not really what the articles even address. The first is about how the media isn't describing the Norway attack as terrorism because only brown people are terrorists and the second is about how military "experts" can spout whatever the hell they want to assert their agenda.

Bruce_Bitenfils · **Posted:** Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:10 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

I don't mean to detract from the brutality of the attacks but some interestingly political articles on the reaction by the media in relation to Muslims as initially having perpetrated the crime.

http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/ind ... 2F23%2Fnyt

http://electronicintifada.net/blog/benj ... slo-horror

Some will obv hate it since I posted it but thought of frig reading them.

9/10 of the time it would have been islamist fanatics, though, so it's not as if the event (coupled with the initial reports of responsibility claims from some jihad group, made up or not) being initially suspected to be the act of muslim extremists are so unwarranted.

This.
And also, Madrid and London, two other capitals in Europe, have been the target of islamists the last few years (several hundred deaths, remember). It is a only matter of time until a third one is attacked (well, actually Paris already was in 1995, again by islamists). So, you know. Many just thought this was the time. You can't blame them too much, really.

noodles · **Posted:** Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:35 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

9/10 of the time it would have been islamist fanatics

Quote:

Meanwhile, in the world of reality, of 294 Terrorist attacks attempted or executed on European soil in 2009 as counted by the EU, a grand total of one -- 1 out of 294 -- was perpetrated by "Islamists."

http://www.dangardner.ca/index.php/arti ... -civil-war

traptunderice · **Posted:** Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:45 pm

v probably took to heart my comment that stats can prove anything so that stat means nothing in the face of the cold hard truth, i.e., what the news chooses to cover through its own particular interpretation and framing of the given event at 5pm each day.

Metal Reviews

The General Politics Thread

Who is online