• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

Habsy said:
Is there really a choice? I think the first round was misused, why should I believe a second one won't be? Much more needs to go into infrastructure like FDR did. No more pussying around, get people to work.
Click to expand...

Well, there's always a choice. Some people don't think underutilized labour doesn't have serious economic consequences. But, if you think it's a real problem, then no. There wasn't really a choice this time. It's rare that fiscal stimulus is needed, it doesn't happen often. You didn't need it in the 2000-01 recession, and we didn't need in Canada for the recent troubles. But this time, the US needed it - all the signals were there (massive private sector debt overhang that had to deflate, interest rate is zero, etc).

Agree with your criticism of the first stimulus. I cringed at all that green economy sh*t, they rammed a bunch of industrial policy through that was silly and not all related to the problem. From what I gather, there two big issues that need to be addressed: the persistent debt overhang for households and the sharp decrease in state and muni level public employment (apparently, that's what is dragging the overall number down). To a certain extent, those problems may overlap.

Anyway, it would entail some major transfers from DC to the state governments.
 
Habsy said:
Couple of studies have the participation rate tanking over the next two decades due to retirement, death and slowed birth rates.

ParticpationRateProjection.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how retirement is treated exactly but the baby boomer generation reaching retirement age will continue to drive workforce participation down in a big way.
 
holy crap. go Fox News go!

[video=youtube;rH8O5NIyit4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH8O5NIyit4[/video]
 
Just thought I'd note that the Dems are making heavy use of the assassination of UBL for this election. Weird seeing bloodlust at a democratic national convention, but there's Obama's great accomplishment.
 
Glenn Greenwald, one of the few commentators not sucked in by the partisan bullshit, had this to say.

Democrats parade Osama bin Laden's corpse as their proudest achievement
It's one thing for Democrats to fete Obama's tougher-than-thou national security credentials, but this ghoulish jingoism is warped


One of the formative events shaping my views of the last decade's American political landscape was watching the 2004 Republican national convention. An expertly staged, supremely manipulative ritual of jingoism and leader-worship, I regarded it with an equal measure of awe and horror.

America's militarism was continuously exploited by speaker after speaker to glorify the commander-in-chief, George W Bush, as a brave and noble warrior for American Greatness. Each mention of war and killing prompted his delirious followers to erupt in the same boisterous crowd-chant: "USA, USA." Bush's opponent (and his supporters), by contrast, were vilified as soft-on-the-terrorists, troop-hating, America-despising weaklings who lacked the stomach to Keep Us Safe.

Typifying all of this was Dick Cheney's vice-presidential acceptance speech:

"As in other times, we are in a war we did not start, and have no choice but to win.

(APPLAUSE)

"Firm in our resolve, focused on our mission, and led by a superb commander-in-chief, we will prevail.

(APPLAUSE)

"The fanatics who killed some 3,000 of our fellow Americans may have thought they could attack us with impunity, because terrorists had done so previously.

"But if the killers of September 11 thought we had lost the will to defend our freedom, they did not know America, and they did not know George W Bush.

(APPLAUSE)

"From the beginning, the president made clear that the terrorists would be dealt with and that anyone who supports, protects or harbors them would be held to account.

(APPLAUSE)

"President Bush does not deal in empty threats and half measures. And his determination has sent a clear message …

"Even in this post 9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a 'more sensitive war on terror' …

(LAUGHTER)

" … as though al-Qaida will be impressed with our softer side.

(LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE)

"He declared at the Democratic convention that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked …"

(APPLAUSE)

[AUDIENCE:] "USA. USA. USA."

[CHENEY:] "But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few.

(APPLAUSE)

"George W Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people."

(APPLAUSE)

[AUDIENCE:] "USA. USA. USA."

It went on and on like that, speaker after speaker. The same chant erupted when Bush, in his acceptance speech, declared that ever since 9/11, "I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America – whatever it takes." It erupted again when he added:

"In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running-mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force."

I thought, or at least hoped, that such vulgar crowd celebrations of leader-reverence, jingoism and militarism would not soon be replicated. But on Thursday night, the final night of the Democratic party convention, it was.

It is hard to count how many times a Democratic party speaker stood up proudly to proclaim:

Osama. Bin. Laden. Is. Dead!

Almost every time Bin Laden's scalp was paraded around on its pike – all thanks to the warrior spirit and unflinching courage of our commander-in-chief – the crowd of progressives, liberals and party faithful erupted into a prolonged "USA. USA" chant.

Leading this orgy of chest-beating, we're-more-bellicose-than-you, nationalistic strutting was, ironically, the 2004 GOP's prime victim of it: Democratic Senator John Kerry. Kerry's speech exploited virtually every theme of patriotism and militarism that was used against him eight years ago, and he did so with great efficacy.

...

Continued here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/07/democrats-parade-osama-bin-laden-corpse
Click to expand...
 
Note as well that they proudly touted pulling out of iraq and the imminent pullout from afghanistan, while also pushing military spending cuts as essential going forward.

Not exactly a warmongering circlejerk, despite their emphasis on nailing the most lethal foreign attacker in US history.
 
Probably like the imminent closure of Guantanamo.

Note also the introduction of executive-level summary assassinations of American citizens.
 
Well, the military spending cuts have actually been given to congress, unlike the guantanamo promises.

as for the executions.....increasing drone strikes on terroriist targets is exactly the way you avoid engaging in wasteful miliary engagements in unwinnable wars aka military occupations for the purpose of corporate profits.
 
for the purpose of corporate profits. that old canard pops up again.

china and the EU are doing much, much better in getting iraqi oil contracts than the US is.
 
I am not for war period but Iraq is not done. It will become a hotbed for terrorists.

Iran is another problem, as evidenced by Canada's severing ties.
 
i think canadians should be fiercely proud of our foreign policy under stephen harper. no more noodle-backed nods to foreign dictators, no more trying to be the world's boy scout, no preening to fool ourselves into believing that everyone in the world loves us because we're so nice and polite. finally, a realistic foreign policy that stands up for canadian interests and signals to our friends and allies that we support them.

iran has killed canadian citizens. purposely. both in iran and in afghanistan. they have overtly supported our enemies in afghanistan and provided them with weapons and training that have resulted in the deaths of our soldiers. they are working to destroy the only liberal democracy in the region, and a strong ally of canada. they made the right move to cut off diplomatic ties. especially after 7 british diplomats were held hostage earlier this year and after one of our former ambassadors warned that iran doesn't respect diplomatic niceties like most other nations do. our people there were probably not secure, and this sends a strong message about where we stand against a brutal dictatorship.
 
What the **** are you talking about? Pakistan is the problem in that region, not Iran. And what evidence do you have that Iran was killing Canadians? That's the first I've ever seen any connection made between Afghanistan and Iran.

You think a predominantly Shia Islam state is going to go out of its way to destabilize its own borders just for the sake of a few hated Sunnis?
 
i read numerous reports, and our defence minister has also confirmed, that a lot of sophisticated weapons, explosives, and detonators that have killed canadians in afghanistan, have come from iran and were made with iranian support.

you keep apologizing for your friends though. you keep trying to pretend that "iran isn't a problem in that region". you are monumentally stupid if you actually believe that iran isn't a problem in that region. ask canadian and american troops in afghanistan. ask syrian rebels. ask christians in lebanon being intimidated by hezbollah. ask israel. hell- ask fatah having to deal with hamas being supported by iran. or go ask the saudis and egyptians if they see iran as a problem in the region.

my god what a stupid statement. "iran isn't a problem in that region".

f*ck- go ask the goddam KOREANS if iran isnt a problem. they have supported the NK missile program.
 
your statement is so stupid and so maddening. its disgraceful that you dismiss iran as a problem when they have KILLED canadian troops. go find all the stories about how republican guard training and equipment, about how sophisticated detonators and shaped charges, have been provided to jihadists in afghanistan who have killed canadian and american and british troops.
 
Christ you're dense.

You have zero means to prove any of that and it's entirely antithetical to the geopolitics of the region. It's about as outlandish and incorrect as the threat of WMD's from Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top