|
|
Random Politics & Religion #18
By Ramyrez 2017-01-20 12:11:34
The "economic recovery" has largely been confined to the wealthy cities with the rural area's being sucked dry.
How do you propose fixing rural areas?
Why would any business in their right mind go there short of resource extraction, which is by nature a boom/transient industry that will leave again once the resource is dried up?
By Viciouss 2017-01-20 12:12:14
Thats one of those graphs that assigns Bush's final 1.4T deficit to Obama, isn't it? Its amazing how you can find those, there can't be many out there.
Well it's nice that you can cherry pick the one chart that you can explain away and ignore the rest. It really helps the argument.
It does. It lets Bush off the hook for Fiscal 2009, which was really bad, and puts all the blame on Obama, despite him not even being in office. He hadn't even won the election when FY2009 started. Fortunately, history doesn't see it that way.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-01-20 12:21:08
Digging up 7yo threads could be seen as mildly obsessive. That all you have to say about it? Apparently, you haven't changed at all in 7 years. So there's that.
Find me someone in here who has.
Politically speaking or...
I mean, this isn't so much to brag, but I've undergone major life changes for the better in the past 8 years.
Just sayin'. It's harder to change a political viewpoint than it is to change an economical viewpoint. You had to make those changes because of your own situation.
[+]
By Ramyrez 2017-01-20 12:22:35
It's harder to change a political viewpoint than it is to change an economical viewpoint. You had to make those changes because of your own situation.
*shrug*
Most people don't change their politics without a significant life event forcing the change. IE: a successful business turning to a struggling one, a traumatic death in the family or personal injury due to a specific circumstance that can be politicized, etc.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-01-20 12:22:42
Thats one of those graphs that assigns Bush's final 1.4T deficit to Obama, isn't it? Its amazing how you can find those, there can't be many out there.
Well it's nice that you can cherry pick the one chart that you can explain away and ignore the rest. It really helps the argument.
It does. It lets Bush off the hook for Fiscal 2009, which was really bad, and puts all the blame on Obama, despite him not even being in office. He hadn't even won the election when FY2009 started. Fortunately, history doesn't see it that way. So, you are saying that when Obama had the option to reverse such policies and/or a friendly Congress to reverse such legislation, and he did nothing of the sort, it's still Bush's fault?
Let me ask you this then: Who's responsible for NAFTA, Bush I or Clinton?
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-01-20 12:23:45
It's harder to change a political viewpoint than it is to change an economical viewpoint. You had to make those changes because of your own situation.
*shrug*
Most people don't change their politics without a significant life event forcing the change. IE: a successful business turning to a struggling one, a traumatic death in the family or personal injury due to a specific circumstance that can be politicized, etc. I fail to see how any of these examples or others can happen often, or often enough.
By Ramyrez 2017-01-20 12:25:02
I fail to see how any of these examples or others can happen often, or often enough.
People change their political beliefs often?
I thought that was Rav's point. Without a major incentive to change, no one is changing political belief.
[+]
By Ramyrez 2017-01-20 12:25:55
I was just sort of playing the angle there. I've had significant changes in the past eight years for the better.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-01-20 12:31:13
How do you propose fixing rural areas? if implemented correctly. And you know what's shocking about this? This was done with bipartisan support (Bush II proposed it, Obama kept it). Right now it's only being targeted to very specific, very restricted, and very politically motivated. It needs to be expanded to areas other than the poorest communities in cities.
Last 8 years of implementations, it has only benefited inner cities, and even then, only heavy-democrat areas. At the very least, when it was implemented, it included a good portion of America, which also includes rural areas.
There's also expanding Section 168(k) to 100% for American made products only. That would increase demand by at least 5-fold. At least!
There's also a repatriation tax reduction down to 5% of overseas profits, which will free up a lot of capital for large companies to reinvest in American products (due to the Section 168(k) mentioned above).
Also, please don't remember any of this >.>
 Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2017-01-20 12:32:02
I fail to see how any of these examples or others can happen often, or often enough.
People change their political beliefs often?
I thought that was Rav's point. Without a major incentive to change, no one is changing political belief.
That was basically it. Take all the viewpoints (and most of the attitudes) of the P&R "core" from years back, compare them to now. Obviously we're not all exactly the same, but judging from the posts alone there isn't much difference.
[+]
 Lakshmi.Zerowone
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2017-01-20 12:34:50
Contextual analysis of the charts indicate a negative trend that begins at the end of the Clinton administration.
It's easy to blame one administration over the other but as a whole Obama's economic impact wasn't a negative as indicated in the Total Growth chart.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-01-20 12:36:44
Better yet, how is a dismal ~1.5% average economic growth any much better (where economic growth under any other administration averages 4-5%, including Bush II)?
Don't forget that Obama is the first president since Hoover to not even break 3% GDP growth under his watch in any economic quarter.
His (and his administration's) policies have kept the US down for almost a decade. We can all finally breath a sign of relief now that he is officially out the door. Probably not. But you know what? Even by your own standards, starting at a very low point, and "grading" average still shows that Obama's economic policies are dismal, as every single economic recovery under every other administration has shown very high (6-8%) GDP recovery bounces, where Obama's "recovery" bounce never hit over 2%. It took him almost 8 years to make it at the level before the Great Recession. How can you quantify that as a success? Posting this for nobody important in general.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-01-20 12:38:34
I fail to see how any of these examples or others can happen often, or often enough.
People change their political beliefs often?
I thought that was Rav's point. Without a major incentive to change, no one is changing political belief. I'm talking about your examples though.
Successful to struggling business wouldn't necessary change a political belief unless the government in involved.
Neither would a death of a family member, unless the government is involved.
All in all, there's an overlying theme to this, which is the government.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-01-20 12:41:14
Ramy, I hope you saw that post, cause, well, you know
By Viciouss 2017-01-20 12:41:35
Reposting wrong information for no reason? Oh and didn't we just have over 3% growth in the last quarter? So much for that Hoover stat. Sure, growth has been slow, but its trending up under Obama and no Congress.
Its funny how KN tries (and fails) to discredit Clinton's economic boom, instead attempting to credit Congress. But under Obama, its all on Obama, Congress is blameless. But like I said, history doesn't see it that way.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2017-01-20 12:47:51
Economic growth under Bush II didn't even come close to averaging 4-5% btw. The Great Recession pretty much guaranteed that.
I would say history will grade Obama as average for the economy, he inherited an economic disaster and turned it into something better. It isn't stellar but its a positive score. He also had a pure obstructionist Congress that year after year broke its own record for least productive Congress ever. History will definitely remember that and soften on Obama.
Trump is inheriting a way better economy that Obama did. The average growth rate since the Washington days has been 3.7% a year. Obama didn't even have a year where he broke 3%
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2017-01-20 12:51:43
Thats one of those graphs that assigns Bush's final 1.4T deficit to Obama, isn't it? Its amazing how you can find those, there can't be many out there. Obama had full control to spend or not spend whatever he wanted during his first year. That spending gets attributed to his tenure.
By Ramyrez 2017-01-20 12:52:36
I fail to see how any of these examples or others can happen often, or often enough.
People change their political beliefs often?
I thought that was Rav's point. Without a major incentive to change, no one is changing political belief. I'm talking about your examples though.
Successful to struggling business wouldn't necessary change a political belief unless the government in involved.
Neither would a death of a family member, unless the government is involved.
All in all, there's an overlying theme to this, which is the government.
Well, no. That's not true at all.
Let's say you're pro-immigration and then a family member is killed by an illegal immigrant.
Or say you're anti-abortion until your daughter's life is only able to be saved if she has one.
You could be staunchly anti-establishment and think all police are bad until an officer risks/loses life/limb to save your wife in a robbery situation.
The government can play a part in the business examples, true.
All I'm saying is that your deeply-held beliefs aren't going to be changed without a significant motivator or a moment of deep insight.
Those are seldom going to be found in online discussion, so expecting any sort of major change is unlikely.
[+]
Lakshmi.Zerowone
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2017-01-20 12:53:39
Reposting wrong information for no reason? Oh and didn't we just have over 3% growth in the last quarter? So much for that Hoover stat. Sure, growth has been slow, but its trending up under Obama and no Congress.
Its funny how KN tries (and fails) to discredit Clinton's economic boom, instead attempting to credit Congress. But under Obama, its all on Obama, Congress is blameless. But like I said, history doesn't see it that way.
cherry picking what is conducive to their argument, not being above hypocrisy in attempts to disprove obvious statistical trends, coupled with spam posting behavior to shout down opposing view points... yep some things just don't change. Some people are just way too invested I guess.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2017-01-20 12:54:37
At noon all references to "climate change" were removed from the White House web site.
[+]
Lakshmi.Zerowone
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2017-01-20 12:57:13
At noon all references to "climate change" were removed from the White House web site.
Sounds like the climate in the White House changed.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2017-01-20 12:58:51
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2017-01-20 13:13:16
At noon all references to "climate change" were removed from the White House web site.
Sounds like the climate in the White House changed.
It's a good time to invest in smog mask stocks. I really hope that you are joking.
[+]
Lakshmi.Zerowone
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2017-01-20 13:14:44
[+]
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2017-01-20 13:17:50
At noon all references to "climate change" were removed from the White House web site. Just need to erase it from all the scientific journals and we're golden.
By Viciouss 2017-01-20 13:21:44
Looks like they also removed civil rights and LGBT rights from the WH page. White supremacists rejoice?
[+]
By fonewear 2017-01-20 13:26:16
At noon all references to "climate change" were removed from the White House web site. Just need to erase it from all the scientific journals and we're golden.
The good news is most of us can't read anyways.
By fonewear 2017-01-20 13:26:47
If you gave me a scientific journal I'd need Bill Nye to explain it to me !
|
|
