Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Election 2012

Postby Skye1013 » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:07 pm

I can see where he's coming from, but I can't say how he decided to handle things was all that great. While he may not perceive that as a threat to "vote for Romney or lose your job," a lot of his workers will be. Now, whether that actually influences their votes is something only they can decide. All in all, this will probably hurt him more than help him.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3965
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:41 pm

Well it can't really be a threat since he doesn't know how they ultimately vote.

He's basically saying, if costs go up, that he may have to cut back on compensation packages or jobs, which is logical. He's saying that he expects costs to go up under Obama which I'm sure at least some employees find that information important. You see this sort of thing from labor unions as standard procedure. However, he's basically encouraging a problematic behavior by suggesting that folks should vote to their benefit instead of the greater good (special interest voting so to speak).

All the whiny crap about his sacrifices as he built his business was dumb to include, especially for a culture that has no tolerance for the "plight" of the rich. I don't doubt that he worked harder than most people, and took much bigger risks than most people, but he doesn't need that to justify cutting costs if his taxes go up, and it won't do anything for those who think he needs to cut his profits instead.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9668
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Koatanga » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:51 pm

Skye1013 wrote:Discussion question:
If we hadn't entered Iraq, do you think the situation in the Middle East would be better/worse than it currently is and would we have wrapped up in Afghanistan before Bush left office?

Additionally, do you think entering Iraq would have been forced at a later date, had Bush not pushed us there when he did?

Bit of a red herring, masking the fundamental question: Would the US be better off if it left well enough alone and didn't drain vast economic resources policing things it could easily have stayed out of?

Certainly the mood of the middle east impacts America, but if Hussein was left in power and to this day the UN was still trying to inspect potential weapons sites, what impact would that have made on the US, and how would it be worse off in that scenario than it is now, having spent trillions to stabilize the power vacuum it created?
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:41 pm

Cogglamp wrote:However, things have begun to change even in some of the monarchies. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing for additional rights. While they're still under a regime of some sorts, the progress shouldn't be discounted. It's a short term fix and isn't a lasting option as both countries seem to keep the majority of its populace quiet by using its vast petrodollar resources in the form of public spending.


I think you are vastly over-stating the impact the Arab Spring had in countries that are not Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:46 pm

Koatanga wrote:Bit of a red herring, masking the fundamental question: Would the US be better off if it left well enough alone and didn't drain vast economic resources policing things it could easily have stayed out of?

Certainly the mood of the middle east impacts America, but if Hussein was left in power and to this day the UN was still trying to inspect potential weapons sites, what impact would that have made on the US, and how would it be worse off in that scenario than it is now, having spent trillions to stabilize the power vacuum it created?

Geez, that's so loaded I feel like responding with "when did you stop beating your wife?"...

You're going to have to establish your premise first, that somehow economically we are worse off right now due to that spending. Ultimately, I think you're going to have a tough time on that. While not as efficient as spending directly to generate jobs, the military industrial complex isn't insignificant either. At the moment, I think we are 800 billion in Iraq war spending, not trillions.

You can argue that the increase in deficits may ultimately not have been worth it with interest factored in at some point down the road I guess. Either way, it's not some massive expenditure that is dragging on us now, nor is that likely to be the case down the road (at least not that expenditure alone).
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9668
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Koatanga » Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:32 pm

Fridmarr wrote:You're going to have to establish your premise first, that somehow economically we are worse off right now due to that spending. Ultimately, I think you're going to have a tough time on that. While not as efficient as spending directly to generate jobs, the military industrial complex isn't insignificant either.


While you may equate the war expenditure with job generation efforts in terms of money spent that employs Americans, I fail to see how you would miss that the end product is entirely different. If you spend $50,000 on a missile that you fire at a bunker in Iraq, you have no asset at the end of it. The missile was the asset, and it's blown up. If you spend $50,000 on domestic infrastructure, you retain the use of that asset for your people, the intrinsic value of which should obviously be included in the balance sheet.

If you had to spend $800 billion, I think it should be intuitively obvious that spending that money on domestic job programs resulting in assets on US soil has more value than spending it on a war effort (even if that war effort was a 100% peaceful exercise simply rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure) because the resultant assets are either destroyed or ceded to a foreign state.

Economically speaking, of course you are worse off if you fail to retain the resulting asset than you are if you do retain it. That should be fundamentally obvious.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:47 pm

I didn't miss the end product. It's a fair point that the money didn't promote domestic infrastructure (that was also one of the big knocks of the stimulus package), but it also wasn't a total zero. Not every dollar, or even a majority of the dollars were spent on stuff that blew up. We spent a ton of money employing and training people, on building products that we still own and use, and all sorts of things that provide some benefit stateside. I never said it was an efficient way to promote economic growth (I said the opposite really), but it's not a negative in the short term, which is where we are now.

You could make the case that that money was taken from elsewhere, but mostly it was borrowed so you'll have to make that claim down the road. Down the road we'll have to deal with that cost, but we aren't there yet, it's backloaded.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9668
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Koatanga » Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:53 pm

Fridmarr wrote:I didn't miss the end product. It's a fair point that the money didn't promote domestic infrastructure (that was also one of the big knocks of the stimulus package), but it also wasn't a total zero. Not every dollar, or even a majority of the dollars were spent on stuff that blew up. We spent a ton of money employing and training people, on building products that we still own and use, and all sorts of things that provide some benefit stateside. I never said it was an efficient way to promote economic growth (I said the opposite really), but it's not a negative in the short term, which is where we are now.

You could make the case that that money was taken from elsewhere, but mostly it was borrowed so you'll have to make that claim down the road. Down the road we'll have to deal with that cost, but we aren't there yet, it's backloaded.

We spent money employing and training people for what? Aren't people talking about what to do with the soldiers when they come back and how they need to be retrained to do civilian jobs? What good is the training if they need to be retrained to be employable?

Building products we still own and use? The leftover munitions and military assets will sit around until the next conflict (blown up) or (more likely) be scrapped, just like all the cold war crap that never got used before being decommissioned. It's rubbish as soon as the Iraq conflict is over.

I also don't particularly care for the cavalier attitude towards US debt, but I guess the debt is beyond payable now, so Nero might as well fiddle while the fiddling's good.

That 800 billion might have been better spent teaching Chinese in grade schools.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:53 am

The bulk of those problems are with front line troops, but there are plenty of other positions that have marketable skills.

You don't build infrastructure with tanks and guns, you need standard equipment for that. We employed many civilians for those ends as well.

I don't have a cavalier attitude toward the US debt, but your question was suggesting that we are currently feeling some pain from "draining our vast economic resources".

Despite all the conjecture about oil, we didn't go to Iraq to turn a profit making the focus of your question specious in the first place. We'll have to wait and see how the security aspect turns out, certainly the potential is far better than it once was.

I think suggesting that at the end of the day we probably won't be better off especially when you factor in the human cost (which makes the financial discussion seem childish) is a fair argument. It's also difficult because there are certainly scenarios that could have been costly had we done nothing just from the lack of stability that was there and the political turmoil that was on the horizon, much less ill intent.

But I think Sky's question was pretty fair because this wasn't all about us either. The people suffering under the previous regime and their plight going forward do count and it's really the only thing that can compare to the human cost on our side.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9668
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Cogglamp » Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:36 am

Brekkie wrote:
Cogglamp wrote:However, things have begun to change even in some of the monarchies. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing for additional rights. While they're still under a regime of some sorts, the progress shouldn't be discounted. It's a short term fix and isn't a lasting option as both countries seem to keep the majority of its populace quiet by using its vast petrodollar resources in the form of public spending.


I think you are vastly over-stating the impact the Arab Spring had in countries that are not Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya.


I'm not sure how I "vastly over-stated" the impact as I said it's not a long term solution and recognized that they're still under a regime. However, discounting the fact that some rights are being granted, you're ignoring some intrinsic desires of the common people that once you taste a little bit of freedom, you crave for it more and more.

It will probably take decades to see the real extent of the change in that region but I think that even the slightest bit of reform/change is good. That's all I was getting at.
Cogglamp
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Koatanga » Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:16 pm

Fridmarr wrote:But I think Sky's question was pretty fair because this wasn't all about us either. The people suffering under the previous regime and their plight going forward do count and it's really the only thing that can compare to the human cost on our side.

The world abounds with plight. You can find plight wherever you want to look for it. The US doesn't have the resources to make their own plight go away and shouldn't be prioritising the plight of people in other countries before the people in their own country.

Sucks to be a a person living in a dictatorship. Also sucks to lose everything you have in a hurricane, or tornado, or bank foreclosure.

Sucks to live in Rwanda even more than it sucks to be in Iraq, but the US does nothing. Sucks to be in the Congo, too.

The US has an obligation to its own people. If it is unable to meet the needs of its own people because it is busy providing infrastructure to a foreign nation, then the US is doing it wrong.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Amirya » Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:24 pm

Did I miss the memo about Roger Rivard?

What the hell is with these guys these days?
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:06 pm

A large part of that post is, frankly, disturbing to me, but I'll reign myself in just to the topic at hand.

I think the part where you suggest that our spending in Iraq has made us unable to meet the needs of our people is where I have the disconnect. You seem to think we never have met those needs, and that's a fair opinion, but I don't think there is much evidence to suggest that the cost of the Iraq war altered our spending on our needs much at all. I mean that war averages to like 80billion a year, and we already were spending ~25billion* a year in foreign aid. We have a massive amount of discretionary spending that one could argue isn't entirely aimed at the needs of our citizens, but of course that's a rather subjective topic subject to lots of debate all around.

*2008 data
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9668
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Cogglamp » Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Koatanga wrote:The world abounds with plight. You can find plight wherever you want to look for it. The US doesn't have the resources to make their own plight go away and shouldn't be prioritising the plight of people in other countries before the people in their own country.

Sucks to be a a person living in a dictatorship. Also sucks to lose everything you have in a hurricane, or tornado, or bank foreclosure.

Sucks to live in Rwanda even more than it sucks to be in Iraq, but the US does nothing. Sucks to be in the Congo, too.

The US has an obligation to its own people. If it is unable to meet the needs of its own people because it is busy providing infrastructure to a foreign nation, then the US is doing it wrong.


It's a slippery slope when you start shutting out the rest of the world and only focusing on your own nation. Turning a blind eye to the world's problems is myopic at best. Self-destructive at worst.

The US can't be the savior of every conflict and many times it appears we have certain agendas when we decide to interject our country into a situation, but arguing that we shouldn't get involved because we haven't taken care of every last soul here in the US is bad reasoning. Humanitarian intervention is an ideal that I hope we don't lose sight of here. Non-interventionism or even worse, isolationism, can lead to ruin.
Cogglamp
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Passionario » Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:48 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Well it can't really be a threat since he doesn't know how they ultimately vote.


Unless he follows the example of certain Russian directors, who ordered their employees to take photos of themselves with a ballot marked with the vote for United Russia (on the threat of being fired).
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 3373
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aergis and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Aergis and 1 guest