INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Why Obama Now

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#21 Post by Dave B » October 30th, 2012, 8:43 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

. . . good education will be thrown under the bus to pay for more wars and wealthier wealthy.
What chance that some of those "wars" will be internal, civil unrest, as suggested in one of the videos? It worries me in a country where there are already ethnic and colour problems and lots of guns any legislation that makes things worse for the minorities and the under-privileged may cause even more violence. Then if the reactionary right wing white supremacists get in on the act . . .
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#22 Post by animist » November 1st, 2012, 8:35 pm

Nick wrote:Some good stuff in there, but what a shame he confuses trickle-down with the Laffer curve. Two different things entirely. And his tale of Henry Ford is just plain wrong.
I watched the video a couple more times and did not see or hear the Laffer curve mentioned (though I did notice two misspelt captions!) Presumably the curve does not really argue for a particular increase or decrease in income tax, simply pointing out that both 0% and 100% will generate no revenue and that there is some optimum in between which generates most.

I think you are right about Henry Ford - what the video said does not make sense if taken too literally; maybe Obama was trying to point out that the Keynesian multipier still works and that, since poor people spend more of their income than do rich people, cutting the taxes of the rich may be not be the best way out of recession:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... you-think/

Only a couple of days to go - the hurricane seems to be an Obama supporter, according to tonight's TV news

User avatar
Ken H
Posts: 4256
Joined: February 22nd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Why Obama Now

#23 Post by Ken H » November 2nd, 2012, 1:49 am

Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York, endorsed Obama today. Bloomberg has been a Democrat, then a Republican and is now an Independent. It's going to be a close race.
This is one of the great social functions of science - to free people of superstition. - Steven Weinberg

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#24 Post by Dave B » November 2nd, 2012, 10:23 am

For the first time in years I find a stirring of interest in the process rather then just the result.

If Obama loses when do you think the shooting will start, Ken?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Ken H
Posts: 4256
Joined: February 22nd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Why Obama Now

#25 Post by Ken H » November 2nd, 2012, 12:45 pm

Dave B wrote: If Obama loses when do you think the shooting will start, Ken?
I see your point, as the nation is definitely getting polarized left and right. But nah, I don't think they'll be any shooting. Americans don't take their politicians that seriously. Besides, no one really knows the true Romney as he contradicts himself all the time. Anyway, Romney is a Mormon and they are supposed to spread world peace, aren't they??
This is one of the great social functions of science - to free people of superstition. - Steven Weinberg

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#26 Post by Dave B » November 2nd, 2012, 1:07 pm

Ken H wrote:
Dave B wrote: If Obama loses when do you think the shooting will start, Ken?
I see your point, as the nation is definitely getting polarized left and right. But nah, I don't think they'll be any shooting. Americans don't take their politicians that seriously. Besides, no one really knows the true Romney as he contradicts himself all the time. Anyway, Romney is a Mormon and they are supposed to be peaceful people, aren't they??
Wasn't thinking so much about the politics but the effects of the shift in ideology on American society as a whole.

All over the world the poor are getting poorer, the unprivileged more so and the rich, of course, getting all the cash and property in the end.

The ethnic and economic (not to mention religious) divisions are causing public problems from Spain to China at the moment and no signs of it getting better. You have a whole world's worth of ethnicity condensed in the States, and all of them suffering similar problems. No longer the melting pot, the land of equal opportunity and equality (was it ever?) and getting more divided it seems to the outside view.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Why Obama Now

#27 Post by Nick » November 3rd, 2012, 4:04 pm

animist wrote:
Nick wrote:Some good stuff in there, but what a shame he confuses trickle-down with the Laffer curve. Two different things entirely. And his tale of Henry Ford is just plain wrong.
I watched the video a couple more times and did not see or hear the Laffer curve mentioned (though I did notice two misspelt captions!) Presumably the curve does not really argue for a particular increase or decrease in income tax, simply pointing out that both 0% and 100% will generate no revenue and that there is some optimum in between which generates most.
On re-viewing the clip, Obama gets trickle-down wrong too. He says it has never happened. He then promptly gives an example in Henry Ford. The "middle class" benefitted immeasurably from him and his fellow industrialists.

From what I remember, Henry Ford had to pay his workers high wages because of the extreme monotony of the work and the existence of alternative jobs. Not so that they could afford his cars.

Nor is trickle down equal to "supply side" economics, which is a much wider concept. He implies tax cuts are a supply-side argument, whereas investment in education is not. In fact, tax cuts relate to the Laffer Curve, whereas education is a supply-side measure (though, IMO, widely misunderstood and abused).

I do agree with him that the wealthy in the US are not taxed so heavily that the Laffer Curve adversely affects growth and investment. But I do think there is huge scope for tax cuts if exemptions and allowances (eg on home loans) were phased out. This would help, but is such a political hot potato that the chances of it being introduced are slim. Ryan is nearest to it, but he only mentions tha tax cuts, not the cuts in allowances. Naughty.

Also, the reasons for greater wealth at the very top have far more to do with the expansion of world markets and astonishing technological change, rather than any tax policy. It might be right to be concerned about those at the bottom, but they are not poor because others are rich. We need to help the poor, not clobber the rich.

I would also hesitate to use the cataclysmic economic events of the past 8 years as a guide to how an economy behaves in general. He talks about weak regulation. Hmmm.. . not weak, but wrong. America has been losing out to London because of this. More of the same willl not help America.

Corporate profit growth could be a good or a bad thing- it all depends. But it has nothing to do with soaring medical costs and health insurance premiums. Grrr!

Yes, the Republicans are a bunch of wing-nuts, but at least get your facts straight, please!

And, of course, my own country is the greatest on earth :D
I think you are right about Henry Ford - what the video said does not make sense if taken too literally; maybe Obama was trying to point out that the Keynesian multipier still works and that, since poor people spend more of their income than do rich people, cutting the taxes of the rich may be not be the best way out of recession:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... you-think/
Nice ot see Tim Worstall referenced. Well worth reading- very provocative!

Obama wasn't talking about the Keynsian multiplier, though he could have. Note, however, that this is a matter of on-going discussion amongst economists and is not as clear-cut as you think it might be. But, as things stand, tax cuts for the richest will be of no consequence. IMO, they are low enough already.
Only a couple of days to go - the hurricane seems to be an Obama supporter, according to tonight's TV news
Indeed. Perhaps the ultimate ill-wind will blow Obama some good!

User avatar
Ken H
Posts: 4256
Joined: February 22nd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Why Obama Now

#28 Post by Ken H » November 3rd, 2012, 9:07 pm

Unfortunately, the average American voter won't listen to logical, detailed explanations about the economy or anything else. That's why intellectuals seldom are elected to office. The voters only want simple explanations that they can be persuaded to believe. I'm afraid most politicians are elected by how well they appear on 30-second commercials and how fast and cleverly they respond to questions.

This was exemplified in the first debate, where Obama apparently lost points, because he took time to put some thoughts into his answers in defending his administration. Romney, on the other hand, could say practically anything he wanted as he had no clear-cut policies to defend. Nor was he afraid to contradict what he had said in previous statements.
This is one of the great social functions of science - to free people of superstition. - Steven Weinberg

User avatar
Carja
Posts: 2325
Joined: September 4th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#29 Post by Carja » November 3rd, 2012, 9:18 pm

The Salt Lake Tribune (Utah) is not endorsing Romney. He has "flip flopped" on issures so many times even a Mormon based newspaper has lost faith in him.

"In short, this is the Mitt Romney we knew, or thought we knew, as one of us.

Sadly, it is not the only Romney, as his campaign for the White House has made abundantly clear, first in his servile courtship of the tea party in order to win the nomination, and now as the party’s shape-shifting nominee. From his embrace of the party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: "Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?"

More.....

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55 ... t.html.csp
Laugh often/love much;leave the world a bit better whether by a healthy child,a garden patch,or a redeemed social condition;play w/enthusiasm & sing w/exultation;know even 1 life has breathed easier because you lived. This is success.B.A.Stanley

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#30 Post by Dave B » November 3rd, 2012, 9:26 pm

they have just commented on BBC World Service that Romney changed to a, "I can work with Democrats, after all we are all in this together," type tone recently. The commentator said that he might have scored more points had he displayed that attitude a while ago.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Carja
Posts: 2325
Joined: September 4th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#31 Post by Carja » November 3rd, 2012, 10:07 pm

The day after the 2010 election, when the Republicans took over the Congress, President Obama made a press statement that he was willing to compromise with the Republicans for the good of the country. John Boehner, who would become the new Speaker of the House, stated in his press statement that he would not compromise with the Democrats. Rand Paul, who was speaking for the Tea Party, stated that the Tea Party would not compromise with the Democrats or the Republicans. And so went any chance of anything worthwhile getting done.

I'm hoping that over the years with several more elections, that more and more Republicans will learn that no one party can have everything their way 100%. There has to be compromise. We are just too large of a country to please everyone all the time.
Laugh often/love much;leave the world a bit better whether by a healthy child,a garden patch,or a redeemed social condition;play w/enthusiasm & sing w/exultation;know even 1 life has breathed easier because you lived. This is success.B.A.Stanley

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#32 Post by Fia » November 3rd, 2012, 10:42 pm

Ah, Carja, that's the nub. In your democracy, as ours in the UK, it's adversarial rather then co-operative. Many of us in the UK are now embarrassed by our support for the LibDems which got the tories power, and are beginning to realise that a round table would be loads better than shouting over a rectangular one.

And if I had a vote this alone would clinch it for me:

Image

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#33 Post by Alan H » November 3rd, 2012, 10:56 pm

Fia wrote:In your democracy, as ours in the UK, it's adversarial rather then co-operative. Many of us in the UK are now embarrassed by our support for the LibDems which got the tories power
Indeed. And I will find it very difficult to vote LibDem next time - they may well have moderated the worst excesses of Tory ideology, but God help us if they got a second go at it.
and are beginning to realise that a round table would be loads better than shouting over a rectangular one.
Again, indeed, but how can that be achieved?
And if I had a vote this alone would clinch it for me:

Image
Indeed, yet again.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Ken H
Posts: 4256
Joined: February 22nd, 2009, 12:09 am

Re: Why Obama Now

#34 Post by Ken H » November 4th, 2012, 12:30 am

Romney the shape shifter. That's a good one, Carja!
This is one of the great social functions of science - to free people of superstition. - Steven Weinberg

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Why Obama Now

#35 Post by Nick » November 4th, 2012, 8:22 am

Fia wrote:Ah, Carja, that's the nub. In your democracy, as ours in the UK, it's adversarial rather then co-operative. Many of us in the UK are now embarrassed by our support for the LibDems which got the tories power, and are beginning to realise that a round table would be loads better than shouting over a rectangular one.
Hmmm... The Tories would still have formed the government, and I don't think an overall majority ould have been particularly likely in a subsequent re-election. And in any case, isn't the Coalition an example of co-operation rather than confrontation? And has there ever been a more cynical vote than Milliband's toadying with Tory loonies (unfortunately led by my own MP, the eponymous Mr Reckless) to try to win petty points, even if it hurts the country? So you won't be voting Labour either, then..... :wink:




PS: In spite of this, I don't think the UK Parliament is as dementedly divided as the US Congress, especially the Tea Party. We've seen their brinkmanship over the debt ceiling, which did no-one any good, and we'vwe got another cliff-hanger immediately after the Presidential election. Hmmm.... Gonna be interesting...!

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#36 Post by Fia » November 4th, 2012, 11:49 am

Alan H wrote:
Fia wrote:and are beginning to realise that a round table would be loads better than shouting over a rectangular one.
Again, indeed, but how can that be achieved?
Well, for a start it seems to me that the political system is flawed. Just how much money is spent on campaigns, and how much bullying by the whips goes on? Party politics seems not the best way. Rather than various wings of politics would it not be possible for independent folk to be elected? Instead of having a political party in control it surely isn't beyond the cleverness of folk to discuss issues, debate and vote.

But perhaps that's as much of an apparent pipe dream as a world without economics...

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#37 Post by Dave B » November 4th, 2012, 12:24 pm

I think that you would have to actively ban people getting together, forming groups of common interest that might just form into colluding, er, parties.

Think its called Anarchy, ennit? Everything run by committees of disparate people, who chooses these committees. How are the committees chosen, some kind of random ballot? Names out of a hat?

As a real OT on this a chap is extolling the Chinese system of government at the moment - not the lack of human rights etc., just the system. China considers itself a "civilisation" rather than a "nation" and this seems to make a big difference. But one of the things I seem to remember is that the ruling group mostly have some sort of industrial, engineering or scientific background. This is perhaps as much a reason for their growing economy as the totalitarian system they (decreasingly) run.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#38 Post by Fia » November 6th, 2012, 9:50 pm

Dave B wrote:How are the committees chosen, some kind of random ballot? Names out of a hat?
Nope. Folk who have a proven record in the field. Wouldn't it be better to have groups of experts rather than shoving ill-equipped party toadies to various very important positions they have absolutely no understanding of? Just look at the last UK cabinet reshuffle if you don't believe me...



This would be funny if it wasn't so sad:

Image

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#39 Post by Marian » November 6th, 2012, 9:59 pm

Fia, there was an excellent Youtube video featuring a little girl who said there were two presidents: Barack Obama and Mitt Robber. Too bad I couldn't locate it on the web.
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Why Obama Now

#40 Post by Altfish » November 7th, 2012, 6:31 am

Well done USA; magic underpants defeated :D

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Why Obama Now

#41 Post by Alan H » November 7th, 2012, 10:06 am

Marian wrote:Fia, there was an excellent Youtube video featuring a little girl who said there were two presidents: Barack Obama and Mitt Robber. Too bad I couldn't locate it on the web.
Too bad - it would have been a good laugh!

I hope Romney will now sink into the obscurity he so richly deserves.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply