Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Maybe you could convince McCain's crew to become his new political advisors. I'm sure they're looking for work.

Totally win-win.

He'll get the same kind of scintillating advice they all gave McCain and lose, and we'll get to stop listening to them whine and try to scapegoat Palin for their mistakes. (Such as making Palin the VP-candidate.)

Of course this story ends with them all sharing a leaky dinghy in the middle of the Mediterranean.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

... pity in the mediterranean we have very few sharks :D

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Sigh so many opinions.. so manythings to be wrong on. Not palin.
If you are concerned about global warming - you are foolish to throw away one of the brightest technologies, aka nuclear.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

At least that's something that I can agree on.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

1) The wisecrack is from an european-liberal point of view. As Aezeal already pointed out, we have very different issues than the US. For many EU nations, many of your issues (death penalty and creationism above the others) are totally non-issues, and an USA VP with those opinions on those issues is quite scary for many, known your influence on the world. Not that it would force anyone here to teach even creationism in science classes i.e. of course, but still...

2) We aren't as lucky as you to have big deserts and plains to stock the dangerous nuclear wastes. For us, having nuclear power stations would mean pretty much to build radioactive scrap-yards near towns and have the inhabitants get crazy on that, evenly. We already have some big problems for the few nuclear wastes we already have to dispose of... ehm, even on the normal ones to be fair. Also there is the big scar of Chernobyl still in many people's minds. That was a primitive unefficient power station of course, but tell that to whoever has seen the photos of the babies born in the surrounding areas even many years after...

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Ironic that you think so, as the country that generates the highest percentage of its power in the world from nuclear energy is france - at over 70%.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Death penalty is a non issue in the US as well, not sure why most europeans seem to think its a big deal here.

Creationism is also completly overblown, only crops up now and again in fairly backwater areas.

Politicians are generally all idiots though, so its nominally easy to find something to criticise them on, even if it's a minor issue which would ultimately never matter.

What I don't understand is how politicians who are convicted of fraud or other crimes keep on getting reelected. People in this country are seriously stupid or blind if they continue to support people like Stevens (Alaska) or Jefferson (La).

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

The Borg provides the same thing. The government runs everything. :)
Except they're pro-gun.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

So they're republicans. :fire:

And btw they're not pro-gun. They have inbuilt guns. How could they be against? That would be like you being against-your arm. :D (Not a trekker, I may be wrong)

Actually I was talking about my country on nuclear. But I wasn't clear enough I admit.
Even if looks like my government is now thinking about going for it.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I would have no problem with implants. And as much as piercings have become popular, Im guessing that the general public wont have a problem with it either.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Which SF book had the original skull gun? The one implanted between your eyes, when you fire it then you get a massive headache? Cannot remember. I'm thinking maybe Neal Stephenson/William Gibson/David Brin/Phillip K Dick? This is bugging me. :(

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Neal Stephenson if I remember correctly.
"The Diamond Age"

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I don't really think guns will be an issue, at least in this term. Obama has much more important things to deal with. I am actually the pro-gun democrat, a rare thing, since I agree with the Democratic party on all things except gun control.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

All things? Thats.. mind boggling.

Prevailing wage rules? Govt Contractors must pay union wages
to non workforce.
Restricted Card Balloting for unions? (ie, no secret ballots)
Protectionism?
Earmarks?
FAIRness Doctrine (shut down talk radio)
No drilling for oil
No use of nuclear fuel.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

So many people say that they're going to leave the country if so-and-so is elected; I've never heard of anyone that followed through on it when so-and-so was elected.

The chief problem with leaving the country is, where would you go? Despite all of the USA's problems, I can't think of anyplace else in the world where I think I would be better off.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

If you were leaving America because it had become too left-wing, I think you might have problems, because most places in the world are probably even more left wing.

If I were to emigrate (which I won't, because of family), I think Australia, New Zealand or Canada would all be good options.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

So basically the decision for you would be to choose between hunting kangaroos, sheep/kiwi or moose. :fire:

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Republicans do not want the government running everything... hence "more government is not the answer." Considering all the problems in government today we should not be giving our government more money and responsibilities until its current responsibilities are fixed.

Everyone has inbuilt guns this is pro-gun to an extreme. Basically the Borg government decided to arm everyone with guns, and chose the arm as its location. As part of the Borg you don't have the option to be against this decision because the Borg government runs everything.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Yet, Republicans consistently elect Presidents who increase spending at irresponsible, and unsustainable rates..... the irony is astounding.

Since the 90s republicans and democrats have BOTH been increasing taxes on the middle class, except Reagan who actually lowered taxes. There's plenty of charts showing who raised taxes and the democrats are not the 'pure good' which you believe.
The larger government grows the more it will need to raise taxes on its people and since the wealthy have loop holes the middle class people and middle class businesses will be suffering. The end result causes a smaller amount of middle class and a greater gap between the wealthy and the poor.

In any case the democrats now own the presidency, the majority of congress and the majority of governors... so let's see where we sit in 3 years.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Jim,

Essentially, there is no way to fix our current problem.
If we elinated *every* government program, we still could not pay our current social security obligations. This is why when people release reports that say SS is broke, and WILL have to be fixed, this is what they mean.

On a somewhat different note..
I absolutely agree that the best of all possible worlds is spending less than our present taxes.

Deficit spending is not always a bad idea. This is why businesses take out loans - if you are going to make money on the transaction - its a good idea.

So for example deficit spending to fund the construction of the internet, or basic research - so long as their is a problable return is smart policy.

Deficit financing of consumption - ie., welfare, on the other hand is generally ridiculous.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I absolutely, never said that Democrats are "pure good". That is the only absolute I will offer you, other than this one. ;)

However, statistically speaking, Republicans have consistently had greater rise in deficit spending, and in % of budget as deficit.

I don't care how much we get taxed, as long as there is something to show for it. But somehow Republicans manage to spend more, and do less. Explain that to me, please. I am sure you can, and I'm sure I'll disagree, but hey, evolution thrives on adversity.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I saw some stats collected from the Economic Report Of The President on the tax/spend trends of the two parties postwar. They suggest Republicans do indeed reduce taxes, but they don't actually reduce spending.

http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

This is another article that suggests from the raw data that the US economy not only has historically grown more under the Democrats, but but more equally too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bu...in&oref=slogin

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

In fact, they -increase- spending.

Of course, there are some who would argue that increasing wages is not indicative of a growing economy..... though, they are the same people who claim that providing tax breaks to the rich bolsters the economy, and leads to higher wages. ;)

I think these figures are a bit misleading though. I'd venture to guess that under the Republicans, the top 5% does better than the NYT table shows, but through deregulation and tax loopholes, are more able to hide their income, during those administrations. :P Then when a Democrat takes office, they add some regulation back in, forcing the rich to declare more of their income.....


(Oh and Agema, apparently to Republicans, linking to Slate is something akin to how I might feel if they linked from O'Reilly..... Even if you are just trying to show them numbers that were compiled directly from the Economic Report to the President, complete with link to said document. ;))

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

These are the same canards floated the last time.
I don't actually dispute that over the period from 54 until the present that that statistics have favored the democrats.

I dispute they are factually relevent; to restate - I don't disbelieve figures on how the economies fared. I dispute that they are attributable to democrats or republicans.

Case in point- Clinton cut defense spending dramatically (the so called peace dividend). He cut it because the actions of Reagan led to the break up of the Soviet Union.

Again, the US economy performed well during the 50's as we had no significant opposition. This happened as a result of WWII - one can not statistically make any claim that was a result of the actions of the democrats.

Assume that there were 7 democratic and 5 republican administrations in 48 years. What are the chances if you flipped a coin that the democrats would get 3.5 heads and the republicans 2.5 (zero). So the odds are someone will get more heads - but getting more has nothing to do with being democrat or republican.

I don't say that there is no causal relationship - but I am saying it is nowhere near 1 - and probably much closer to .1. And that other factors are much larger.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Oh and it turns out I was wrong. At least my local NPR claims that Martin Luther King was a republican.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Providing tax breaks to the rich won't bolster the economy or provide higher wages. Increasing minimum wage has not improved the lives of those working minimum wage as the rest of the market adjusts upwards as well... the $1 menu's from fast food restaurants have been disappearing as a result. Another bad side effect of increasing minimum wage is other businesses don't match the increase... thus if you're earning $6.25/HR and minimum wage is increased from $5.00 to $6.15 you're out of luck and closer to the poverty level.

Bill Gates found a way to pay zero in taxes for 1999 so those Democrats do a terrible job getting him and others at his level to pay taxes. If the Democrats were serious about improving the tax system they would attack the existing loopholes.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I would say-in my economic innocence-that the best way to attack poverty (it seems to me) would be to, yes, more heavily tax the very rich, but while attacking inflation, itself. That would cause everyone's money to be worth more, while reducing the gap between the very rich and the very poor. It *should*, I would think, also cause prices to drop, since the money itself would have more value.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Honey, it is widely held that that *deflation* is a much greater risk right now.

There are lots of reasons, however if you deflate your money, you make it more difficult to service existing debt. This lends to market defaults -- such as the problem we are having now with the collapse of the housing market. Too many properties entering the market crushing the housing market.

Whereas if you *inflate* your money, you make it easier to pay off existing obligations.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I'm pretty sure that you're well aware that the purchasing power of "minimum wage" has been eroding for decades now?

That is to say, that we are not keeping pace with the cost of living. Not only that, but as you point out, many middle-wage jobs don't even see the corresponding increase, thus we experience the phenomenon of a shrinking middle class, and more people at or below poverty level.

But poverty, is a mutable point. If I were to pay 100% taxes, but have a decent place to live, healthful food on my plate, and an ID card that let me into movies, and let me pick up a few luxuries here and there, why would I complain? People ultimately complain about taxes because of how little they see in return.

Our approach to taxation and spending is entirely backwards for this day and age - and the lack of serious accountability ruins our government's chances of success.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Well how about we don't assume that. How about we look at the report, and see that of the 50 years used for the article, 30 years had Republican Presidents, and 20 years had Democratic Presidents. Now, using your example, that means that by sheer chance, the Republicans had more chances to do better. Unfortunately this forces you to stand strong on your refusal to give creedence to isolated statistics, as obviously they had more chances to do poorly, as well. And, in most cases, they in did manage to do more poorly. Of course there were more factors involved, but one thing that makes a good President, is the ability to harmonize with those factors, to get a more effective whole. You can argue what could be, or what also maybe had relevance, but it doesn't change the fact - over the last 50 years, Democrats have had significantly, and fairly reliably more positive economic figures during their time in office. That is a simple fact, it's backed up by other facts, and it's hard to effectively argue against it without presenting facts that support your position.


I will again clarify, for those who like to skim - I am not a Democrat, nor do I implicitly support that party. However I do feel that the Republican party has gone so far beyond the line of good sense, that our country could be much better off. Since we have a very broken 2 party system, I have nothing to compare them to, but the Democratic party, which has become almost as bad in many ways, but is still statistically, and (to me anyways) ideologically superior.

I do wish we could manage something better than either.....

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

There's just no way on earth that paying the very poor another 20% is bad for them. Yes, technically it shifts the median wage upwards and statistically takes more people into poverty. But if another family goes from just above the poverty line to just below it because the extremely poor got a pay raise, it makes pretty much no difference to their household finances.

The market cannot shift that far up either. To counteract a minimum wage increase from $5.00-6.15 dollars would take inflation of 20% suddenly occurring. Bear in mind the rest of the population towards the middle class don't see pay rises when minimum wage is increased, so although wage rises are inflationary, the overall inflation is a tiny fraction of the wage increase for the minimum wage.

Also, when you say other businesses don't match the increase, I don't think you're right by the requirements of basic economics. Companies pay more because they need to attract better staff. When minimum wage goes up, if they want to keep attracting those better non-minimum wage staff they have to raise their wages. This will send ripples outwards increasing wages.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Sorry, part of that is wrong. Increase the minimum wage and whilst the mean income goes up, the median will not, so more people will not be put across the poverty line. Besides, I think I also slightly misinterpreted NTJedi's point, I think you were actually saying that people already above the new minimum wage become poorer because costs go up and their salary doesn't alter, although I don't agree that's the case for reasons stated above. Sorry about the double post, didn't have an edit entry option the previous.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Since I couldn't find any indication of this the first time I looked around, I did it again. It turns out that Microsoft paid zero federal taxes in 1999, although they had $12.3 billion U.S. income. That's because they found a loophole through international tax evasion.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

It also causes unemployment, as businesses evaluate costs vs production. One computer > 10 low paid accountants.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I don't know if you are deliberately misunderstanding or not.

What I am saying is:

1. The sample size is *too* small to determine causality between performance and party.
2. Performance is greatly overshadowed by external factors such as the putative ending of the cold war.
3. The choice of 1954 as an ending point is arbitrary, and designed to make the democrats look good. Throw in the great depression years and the democrats look abysmal. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Any decision to chose an arbitrarily starting point (throwing out hundreds of years of data) you have to immediately infer that any legitimate reason has been tossed out the window.

Its like saying.. yes.. we are going to measure the mpg of this car - but only during the times its running *down* the mountain.


For the sake of argument, what makes you think its broken? I think it is working as well as usual, and as well as intended, more or less.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

It's not bad for the very poor it provides the very poor a short term benefit, but it's bad for the working class just above them. When minimum wage increases the vast majority of those small businesses either cut staff and make the remaining staff work harder or raise the prices for food/services provided.
The family above the poverty line which is pushed closer to minimum wage DOES suffer because of the adjustment businesses must make. When I was a teenager I worked in the fast food restaurant and recognized the owner had no choice except to raise prices every time minimum wage increased. One example is our grocery stores with employees earning minimum wage (not the cashiers)... as minimum wage increases the grocery stores balance the increase by raising food prices. There's plenty of articles describing the long term effects of raising minimum wage.


In the majority of cases these other businesses do not match the increase of minimum wage. I've never met anyone such as friend, relative, coworkers who reported receiving a raise because minimum wage increased... unless they were at minimum wage. Simply walk around and ask the employees at small businesses and you'll see. Also the more minimum wage increases the more companies will consider sending call center job overseas!

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Erm... are you sure the Great Depression will make the Democrats look bad?

It started during a Republican presidency (Herbert Hoover) following a previous Republican incumbent, and the drop in US GDP is almost entirely in his stewardship. The US recovered under FDR (Democrat).

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

1) It's the only sample that we have. Post WW2 we see the plastic revolution, computers, television, etc etc. For so many reasons, the rest of history isn't even entirely relevant to the current situation, because life and the economy have both evolved tremendously, changing the dynamics of cash-flow forever.

2) Going back to your "chances of positive or negative events" argument, I can only state that given how many extenuating factors exist, the only thing that we can do, unless we can achieve full transparency from our government and our corporations, is assume that over time, the net effect of positive and negative factors upon the performance of the Presidency, has been roughly equal.

3) There is no "choice" of an ending date for the study, and it is not arbitrary. That year was chosen for one simple reason, it is the first year that all relevant factors was tracked by the Economic Report to the President. And as I postulated before, it's all that really matters to the here and now. 70 years ago for example, our economy was balanced around the concept of single income families. It was considered generally disreputable for a married woman to be working in America, rather than taking care of her children. The advent of so many of our modern trappings, and the rapid rise in apparent cost of living, has transformed our economy in ways that make historical dynamics inapplicable to the present state of the nation (and the world), thus invalidating data culled from another era. Otherwise, we must both bow to the assumption that Despotism is the superior form of government, as the greatest empires of all time, Alexander the Great's Greece, and Ghengis Khan's Mongolia, were essentially led by intensely charismatic and intelligent dictators. Ignoring that fact, is arbitrarily skewing results towards some sort of representative government, and thus ignoring the ability of a strong dictator to make a nation grow and flourish beyond expectations.


Certainly not as intended. The type of conflict in Washington that was originally intended, has all but faded away. Our elected officials are no longer elected based upon their ability to debate, their ability to innovate, or their ability to help our government evolve. Our Federal Government was intended to change and grow over time, to meet the changing needs of the nation, and her people. But as politicians perfected spin, and their ability to manipulate people into voting for charisma, rather than for integrity and courage - as the focus was taken away from serious national concerns, and placed upon petty social issues - we failed ourselves, and our government failed us.

Both parties have failed us. Just, the Republican party has managed to fail us just a bit more.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may -- may not, I hope not -- but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

You see why there's such concern about where our country is going.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Yeah, I'd be concerned about people like that in Congress, too.

Also, as has been mentioned earlier (Godwin's law), this guy just shot himself in the foot by Reductio ad Hitlerum. And so did you.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I think this concept of "Civil Service", and the concept of "security" were being lumped together. That is to say that if we had better foreign relations, and a more contented citizenry, that we would safer (read: more secure) from terrorist attacks, whether domestic or foreign in origin.


Oh how we love biased conjecture. What else does Broun believe? He's a member of the Committee on Homeland Security - so maybe he is just protecting himself, while whipping up anti-liberal sentiment?


And so the threshold of Godwin's Law is breached.

No, I don't see why there is "such concern", not from this. I saw concern on a nearly daily basis, due to GW Bush's actions, inactions, and legislation. You let someone gut the 4th amendment, and then you run around screaming that someone else might infringe "a little" bit on another amendment, in your eyes?

All I see here is politically aimed propaganda and hysteria-mongering.

Let's all relive 2004 and run around chanting "9/11, terrorism, Bin Laden" for a few months, shall we? I'm sure that will be productive. Let's always measure people by what we can imagine to fear they are capable of, rather than what they are actually doing, or have done. We just got through 8 of the worst years of governance in this nation's history, and McCain looked to want to continue walking down that same path - at least give the alternative a chance to step into office and prove he can do even just a LITTLE BIT better than what we've been trained to accept.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

How dare you beat me to the post. I demand a duel, select your fish!

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I don't think that Obama is hitler, I am very worried about our future. I think that we have to be watchful and informed. I try to get my information from many sources. Sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong. But at least I make an effort to stay informed. The parallels of where we are now is frightening similar to the hyperinflation of the mark. And the response is the same, Print more money. Create a national but separate "police" force. Wiki the Wiermar Republic.
I'm just scared that if we don't watch and restrain the government it will turn against us. Being informed is the one and only way to stop tyrants. I'm sorry if I offended you but I think we have to discuss the potental and guard against it.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

It runs in parallel because there was a stock market crash, too. The things that are done to combat hyperinflation are the same. But what brought down the Weimar Republic was that the chancellor could abuse power too easily and subvert the system by emergency decrees, in times of war for example.

Where have you been seven years ago? :(

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Read the original speech. Not the wingnut's take on it. He's talking about expanding AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, programs like that. Not some new secret police force.
There's one line, that Broun quotes, that if you take it out of context and squint just the right way can hint at some security force. In context, he's talking about relying on diplomacy not just the military.

Sure watch the government, be informed, but at the same time don't latch on to the first paranoid conspiracy theory you find.

Aside: If you think Broun's credible, my favorite pet project of his is his personal crusade to make our fighting men and women safer by removing porn from military bases.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Oh come on. Do you know how many studies have shown that chronic masturbation directly impedes a soldier's crisis response? No..... Well, none really, but you can imagine it if you already dislike porn, and the concept is presented to you!

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Cute. Godwins Law I knew of course. But thats the first time I remember seeing it put into logic rules as Reducto_ad_Hitlerium.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

My fears are based on the Patriot Act. When you are charged under it you lose all your rights. They can lock you up and there is no appeal. No council. No Habeas Corpus. Yes I blame bush for this travesty. We need to rid ourselves of this law. It concentrates power and removes our right of redress. Look man, I'm not trying to tick you off, I'm trying to talk about a serous problem. Our civil liberties are being taken away. And as far as Obama is concerned, we should ask him to rid us of this law. We should petition congress as well.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I agree 100%, Bwaha.

I do hope, that if Obama does something about this atrocious blight on American justice, that even the most hard-hearted of conservatives will start to see the possibilities that the future holds.....

Seriously, I have seen nothing that makes me think that Obama himself would abuse the "rights" given to the establishment through the Patriot Act. Would that I had remembered to reference it in the fascism sub-argument earlier.....