Author Topic: Election 2012  (Read 231743 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1085 on: February 03, 2012, 02:15:04 PM »
It is moot.  The logistics of invividuals directing tax revenue to their own particular destination makes it impossible.

So put the most invasive and controlling as close to the individual as possible. City, county, state. It is much easier to leave from under them, or change them this way.

Shouldn't I have a choice about whether or not the money taken from my paycheck every week is used to drop bombs on people in a country 6000 miles from here that I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about?

I've vowed to never argue with you again, but I'll say this one thing. Act's of war should only be done as a last resort under direct threat of attack, or actual attack,  with declaration of congress, and with an exit strategy.  I feel that those who want preemptive war with 3rd world nations should pick up a gun, buy a plane ticket, and fight it themselves.

Then we have no argument here


Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52771
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1086 on: February 03, 2012, 02:22:54 PM »
That still doesn't have anything to do with tax money going toward purposes you as an individual don't agree with.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1087 on: February 03, 2012, 02:32:15 PM »
That still doesn't have anything to do with tax money going toward purposes you as an individual don't agree with.

Well, yeah, I'm just trying to play nice in the sandbox.  :P

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52771
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1088 on: February 03, 2012, 02:41:47 PM »
It is appreciated.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1089 on: February 03, 2012, 03:10:11 PM »

There are no natural rights, there are only socially agreed upon moral rights. The only "natural" right is your right to be free, becuase it's physically impossible to ever fully control someone (at least so far). You're right to property? How inherent is that right, when I can easily steal your property? It's a "right" because I, and other people in our society, have an obligation to respect your right, and claim, to your property, in exchange for the same. How is property a "natural right" when numerous societies in history have not had a conception of property, or thought you could really "own" something? It's a pure social fabrication, it's a social contract. Notice how historically, "rights" came into proper conception with the concept of a social contract, and of the evolution from a state of nature to a social state. "Rights" are simply statements of a morality, to be enforced by a government and a collective will. If you don't respect my claims to property, we'll imprison you. If you don't respect my right to life, we'll imprison you (and maybe kill you). It set's up a framework.

That's your opinion, mine is that we have natural rights.

Go tell that to a bear. I'm sure he'll understand your natural rights. The reality of life is, you have no rights that are not protected and assured to you by society, and your rights are tied to the society you live. Go to Saudi Arabia, and try and claim your right to free speech.

It's also not just my opinion, it's a fully loaded argument I am giving. There's a difference between the two, even though they obviously overlap.

Quote
Where does the authority come from for social safety nets? The stated power to "promote the General Welfare," and the stated power to do everything "necessary and proper" to achieve this end.

If this was a method of granting the government powers, then why was the tenth ammendment added?

Why did the tenth amendment not get rid of the necessary and proper clause, and the other stated powers? Why, under thsi scenario, did the founders, and Madison himself, come to agree that a National Bank was constitutional because it was necessary and proper? I'm not sure about you, but I've read the notes on the debate, and they were quite aware of this limited their foresight was, and that they didn't want to basically doom their country because they couldn't foresee every possibility.

The 10th amendment also gives the States any powers not granted in the Constitution - this, however, is very specifically a power granted to the Federal Government.
 
Quote
Your kind of libertarian faces a huge inherent problem: the Founders set up a government. If they believed as you did, there wouldn't BE a federal government, there wouldn't BE a Constitution.

No, the federal government was created to regulate commerce between (not within) states and provide national deffence. And these are necessary roles for it.

Yes, but the Federal Government we have came about because there was too little cohesion, too much anarchy.

There's also the preamble, which quite clearly tells us why the Federal Government was set up:

Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Again, the promotion of the general Welfare is mentioned, as well as some other things you're ignoring.

The Founders did quite a few things that today's Libertarians whitewash over.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1090 on: February 03, 2012, 07:38:37 PM »
Getting back to the OP topic, today's economic numbers must have been a heart attack for the GOP.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52771
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1091 on: February 03, 2012, 09:20:40 PM »
Getting back to the OP topic, today's economic numbers must have been a heart attack for the GOP.

rumborak
I would think so.  Not only with the unemployment info, but how well the stocks did today was also great news. 

Well, not for the Republicans, I guess.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1092 on: February 03, 2012, 09:47:54 PM »
According to Mitt, Obama has still made the economy worse. We should've been here two years ago, or something.

What's so entertaining about how long elections are now, is that candidates start running on issues that evolve and become false issues to run on. Mitt's still running like it's 2008 (probably because he's been running since 2006), and his positions are horribly anachronistic. Now, he's stuck in the uncomfortable position of trying to cast doom on the economy, because he would basically give the election to Obama if he actually admitted the truth of the economy.

I heard an interesting statistic that basically guarantee's the next President will be hailed as a hero. Apparently, by 2015, manufacturing in China will no longer be cheaper than manufacturing in the US. Apparently, this'll be worth somewhere around 2-3 million jobs, just in manufacturing.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1093 on: February 03, 2012, 10:38:23 PM »
According to Mitt, Obama has still made the economy worse. We should've been here two years ago, or something.

Unfortunately, there will be plenty who jump on board with him on that.

I heard an interesting statistic that basically guarantee's the next President will be hailed as a hero. Apparently, by 2015, manufacturing in China will no longer be cheaper than manufacturing in the US. Apparently, this'll be worth somewhere around 2-3 million jobs, just in manufacturing.

Yeah, I hope you're right on that, and I hope it's our man.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline Riceball

  • It's the economy, stupid.
  • Posts: 969
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1094 on: February 04, 2012, 12:15:21 AM »
Getting back to the OP topic, today's economic numbers must have been a heart attack for the GOP.

rumborak
At a glance they are ok (in terms of job creation), but the unemployment number is almost totally misleading at the moment. The US participation rate has dropped to its lowest level on record (records go back to 1948) to 63.7 per cent I think. This is a very, very low rate of workforce participation - on par with the socialist parts of Europe (who have structurally lower participation due to higher social welfare on average*). Prior to "The Great Recession" - which is a stupid name by the way, participation was about 66-67 per cent. A ~3 per cent fall doesn't sound like much...but:

If we were to hold the participation rate steady at its pre-crisis peak, 66.4 per cent, the US unemployment rate would be sitting pretty at 11.9 per cent as oppose to 8.2 per cent. No kidding either.

Why? People have given up looking for work. I don't think you can argue anything other than that - the change in participation is far too severe for it to be simple fluctuation in the level of participation. So yeah, its great that the US economy is creating jobs, but you've got a hell of a long way to go yet until things are under control.

I heard an interesting statistic that basically guarantee's the next President will be hailed as a hero. Apparently, by 2015, manufacturing in China will no longer be cheaper than manufacturing in the US. Apparently, this'll be worth somewhere around 2-3 million jobs, just in manufacturing.

I wouldn't bet your house on it. That would require heaps to go your way: that the US continues to trash the Dollar, that China allows the Yuan to keep rising, that China runs out of cheap labour (it won't, I don't think), that India doesn't get its shit together (which it is), that Africa remains a basket case (can't say on that one), that Europe survives (and so the Euro doesn't become either non-existent or remain well undervalued), etc etc. That's way too big a call to make. Reminds me of a couple of articles that I've read earlier in the week, the second of which is quite relevant - although it states the obvious really (we call it garbage in, garbage out):

https://www.watoday.com.au/business/the-very-model-of-a-future-based-on-guesswork-20120203-1qxma.html

Who made that assertion, by the way?



*Please don't let that comment start a flame warm between the right and the left. I'm suprised this thread has gone as far as it has without it so far.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2012, 12:24:11 AM by Riceball »
I punch those numbers into my calculator and they make a happy face.

A $500 Musical Odyssey: Now accepting nominations

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1095 on: February 04, 2012, 12:33:28 AM »
What counts as participating? Our population is getting older, more people would be retiring and leaving the workforce naturally anyways. And what about people going back to school and getting new training?

I mean, it's a valid point, but it still needs to be evaluated. What's the "ideal" participation? If there is such a thing. Personally I think it's odd how much we think everyone needs to have a job. And let's say before that both people in a relationship were working, or that some people got married, and because their partner got a better paying job, they no longer have to work. Is that accounted for, and whose to say its not better, or can't be better? More people have to work if there's just shitty paying jobs.

The fact that American manufacturing is coming back is huge, as is the fact that were closing the trading gap.

Offline Riceball

  • It's the economy, stupid.
  • Posts: 969
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1096 on: February 04, 2012, 12:44:58 AM »
Yeah there are a whole bunch of reasons that the particpation rate fluctuates, but in my professional opinion its to do with discouraged workers by in large. Sure, you get labour market churn all the time - I read this week that in any given year the Australian economy churns through about 1,000,000 people (out of total employment of ~12,000,000), I can imagine the US would be similar as a percentage. Oh yeah, and the participation rate is derived as the percentage of people aged between 15 and 65 (I think...) either in work or actively seeking, so an ageing population may not necesserally drive a fall in participation.

I don't think there is an "ideal" participation rate, but I know the OECD average is around 65 per cent. This is including socialist Europe, which as said has a structurally lower participation rate. Australia's overall rate is ~66 per cent, while my state almost hit 70 per cent recently (made it to 69.8 per cent). Participation is driven by a lot of forces; I'm actually working with the policy team over the next few months to come up with some papers on participation so hopefully I'll have an answer soon.

I don't think everyone needs to have a job, but I think everyone that wants a job should be able to find one within a reasonable timeframe. If they can't, presumably they will drop out of the labour fore, which means that although they can't find a job, they are not statistically unemployed - and so that inflates (deflates) your unemployment rate.

Not saying its right, but thats just how things are measured.
I punch those numbers into my calculator and they make a happy face.

A $500 Musical Odyssey: Now accepting nominations

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1097 on: February 04, 2012, 01:00:30 AM »
Well, I guess my point would just be that lower participation doesn't equate with a worse economy. There's a lot of factors involved and it could really go either way. Republicans though only want to use it as a sign that things are actually worse still, which seems groundless to me, without a full explanation of why and how.

Offline Riceball

  • It's the economy, stupid.
  • Posts: 969
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1098 on: February 04, 2012, 01:06:08 AM »
I would agree with that. Although I still believe the lower participation rate relative to before TGR is an indicator of how bad things have become in the US labour market.

The abuse of statistics is something that pisses me off pretty much more than anything - whether to talk up or talk down.
I punch those numbers into my calculator and they make a happy face.

A $500 Musical Odyssey: Now accepting nominations

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52771
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1099 on: February 04, 2012, 01:46:13 AM »
People aren't just giving up in searching for jobs.  You can't really do that here in America; that is a recipe for eviction, foreclosure, and becoming homeless.  Unemployment benefits only last so long.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Riceball

  • It's the economy, stupid.
  • Posts: 969
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1100 on: February 04, 2012, 02:09:28 AM »
I'm an economist, I can conviniently assume those things to the dustbin :)

However, the BLS stats are generally pretty good...and they do indicate that this is happening. Haven't foreclosures been pretty high for quite a while now?
I punch those numbers into my calculator and they make a happy face.

A $500 Musical Odyssey: Now accepting nominations

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52771
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1101 on: February 04, 2012, 02:36:53 AM »
Yes, but part of that is actually voluntary.  I read an article about that a month or so ago.  There is a growing number of people who are voluntarily giving up their mortgages and letting banks foreclose, especially people who are underwater on their mortgage.  A foreclosure doesn't count as badly toward your credit as a bankruptcy, so they are saying "fuck it" and renting instead.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Riceball

  • It's the economy, stupid.
  • Posts: 969
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1102 on: February 04, 2012, 05:24:28 AM »
When life hands you lemons, just say fuck the lemons and bail.
I punch those numbers into my calculator and they make a happy face.

A $500 Musical Odyssey: Now accepting nominations

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3745
  • Gender: Female
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1103 on: February 04, 2012, 07:04:12 AM »
Yes, but part of that is actually voluntary.  I read an article about that a month or so ago.  There is a growing number of people who are voluntarily giving up their mortgages and letting banks foreclose, especially people who are underwater on their mortgage.  A foreclosure doesn't count as badly toward your credit as a bankruptcy, so they are saying "fuck it" and renting instead.

This has been going on here in Arizona for years. So many people just walk away from a house they bought for $300k that is now only worth $150k. Just pack up and move on, leave it empty. It's crazy to me to think about doing something like that.



As far as Romney saying we should have been here 2 years ago, blame congress, not the president.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1104 on: February 04, 2012, 07:22:26 AM »
Yes, but part of that is actually voluntary.  I read an article about that a month or so ago.  There is a growing number of people who are voluntarily giving up their mortgages and letting banks foreclose, especially people who are underwater on their mortgage.  A foreclosure doesn't count as badly toward your credit as a bankruptcy, so they are saying "fuck it" and renting instead.

This has been going on here in Arizona for years. So many people just walk away from a house they bought for $300k that is now only worth $150k. Just pack up and move on, leave it empty. It's crazy to me to think about doing something like that.



As far as Romney saying we should have been here 2 years ago, blame congress, not the president.

Yep, the central point that everyone somehow misses. I don't really know how we can do it (especially without resulting in the opposite problem: an executive that actually is overpowered), but this country really has to rein in its legislative branch.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5821
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1105 on: February 04, 2012, 11:12:42 AM »
When life hands you lemons, just say fuck the lemons and bail.

It felt so wrong to read that with your icon.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1106 on: February 04, 2012, 11:53:26 AM »
True dat.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1107 on: February 05, 2012, 05:58:31 AM »
Jesus, how long does it take Nevada to do their fricking  counts?! It's the next day and there's still only 70% reported.
That said, looks like in the other states. Big margin for Romney, Gingrich second, then Paul, then Santorum.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1108 on: February 05, 2012, 06:16:04 AM »
Getting back to the OP topic, today's economic numbers must have been a heart attack for the GOP.

rumborak

True, but consider this:  No incumbent since Roosevelt has won reelection with an unemployment rate higher than 7.2% and it's unlikely in the extreme that the economy will expand fast enough for us to reach those numbers by election day.

Still, these are unusual times, since we're simultaneously recovering from the deepest recession of our lifetimes and experiencing the globalization of money and labor markets, which tends to apply downward pressure on the GDP.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1109 on: February 05, 2012, 03:04:53 PM »
So, complete clusterfuck #2 in the GOP primaries: Nevada has to completely recount the votes in Clark County. Apparently the sign sheet count doesn't match the ballot count. :lol

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1110 on: February 05, 2012, 03:28:00 PM »
Oh boy. I hate to be yelling vote fraud, because of the whole Paulite = conspiracy theorist, but seriously - how difficult can it be to count votes accurately.

Offline ClairvoyantCat

  • DT is no longer Majesty.
  • Posts: 3185
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1111 on: February 05, 2012, 04:05:02 PM »
I wouldn't put it past the GOP to intentionally half-ass the counting to encourage cries of voter fraud.  Cases of mistaken identity are a hell of a lot more common than actual fraud, but making the threat of voter fraud seem much larger than it actually is legitimizes more severe voting requirements that keep legitimate votes out.  Making it so these requirements block the right kind of people out doesn't seem out of the question. 

But actual voter fraud?  Nah.  Difficult, high risk, and probably not terribly effective. 

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1112 on: February 05, 2012, 06:00:09 PM »
Some new results in, and Paul actually moved up a bit. Call off the conspiracy theories.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline unklejman

  • Posts: 715
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1113 on: February 06, 2012, 08:08:00 AM »
I can't say I blame anyone for being suspicious.

https://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?S=11421562

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1114 on: February 06, 2012, 09:57:39 AM »
Hmm, good point. Even though, the article made it look as if the Paulites were using a technicality to push through (undeservedly?) delegates, in which case I could understand the GOP's stance on it.

BTW, so far I had been scratching my head at why Santorum would still remain in the race. But I just saw the Minnesota polls, and he's leading there. WTF?!

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1115 on: February 06, 2012, 11:02:53 AM »
Hmm, good point. Even though, the article made it look as if the Paulites were using a technicality to push through (undeservedly?) delegates, in which case I could understand the GOP's stance on it.

BTW, so far I had been scratching my head at why Santorum would still remain in the race. But I just saw the Minnesota polls, and he's leading there. WTF?!

rumborak

Same state Michelle Bachmann in office.    Kinda takes the edge off that "WTF" doesn't it?  :lol

Online lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5311
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1116 on: February 06, 2012, 11:11:24 AM »
Hmm, good point. Even though, the article made it look as if the Paulites were using a technicality to push through (undeservedly?) delegates, in which case I could understand the GOP's stance on it.

BTW, so far I had been scratching my head at why Santorum would still remain in the race. But I just saw the Minnesota polls, and he's leading there. WTF?!

rumborak

Same state Michelle Bachmann in office.    Kinda takes the edge off that "WTF" doesn't it?  :lol
For the record, Michelle Bachmann is disliked by most people in the state. She manages to win in a district that is very different politically than most of the state. And those district lines are being redrawn, so she may have a tougher time getting reelected. Why Santorum is popular there, I don't know.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1117 on: February 06, 2012, 11:35:56 AM »
First of all, if Minnesota doesn't like Michelle Bachmann, someone should tell Minnesota, because she's been getting elected to public office there since 2000 - that's over a decade of winning elections.  Someone must like her. 

I get the redistricting thing, but the fact is, enough people have voted for her that she's won.  Again and again and again.  So, it's not THAT surprising to me that a guy like Santorum -a guy who thinks pregnancy via rape is a "gift from god"- is polling well in a state where Bachmann has been winning either state or national elections for about 12 years.

Online lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5311
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1118 on: February 06, 2012, 12:17:25 PM »
Bachmann has never won a statewide election though (though I don't know that she's ever tried). She's popular in her district and that's about it. That's all that matters for a representative. If she were to run for Senate or Governor she would likely lose. At least among those I knew when I lived in Minnesota, she was seen as a joke and a bit of an embarrassment (I did not live in her district).

I guess Minnesota has enough conservative evangelical types to boost a guy like Santorum. For the most part it's a relatively liberal state (at least for the midwest).

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1119 on: February 06, 2012, 01:45:20 PM »
Bachmann has never won a statewide election though (though I don't know that she's ever tried). She's popular in her district and that's about it. That's all that matters for a representative. If she were to run for Senate or Governor she would likely lose. At least among those I knew when I lived in Minnesota, she was seen as a joke and a bit of an embarrassment (I did not live in her district).

I guess Minnesota has enough conservative evangelical types to boost a guy like Santorum. For the most part it's a relatively liberal state (at least for the midwest).

They appear to "lean Obama" statewide, but the 2004 presidential election was very close there.....you just never know in politics.  Look at MA where Ted Kennedy's seat was taken by a Republican.  No one ever thought that was possible.....

If you look at the stats here it's easy to see why Santorum might do OK in a primary in that state.  It's definitely not a "liberal" state by any means.

Doesn't matter anyway, because Mitt Romney will be the nominee.