Obama is basically a moderate Republican:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...e_gop.html

Quote: (11-07-2012 02:26 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Really?

Tell me more about my life, bro. You must know me so well.

In 2000, Al Gore got 90% of the Black vote. Kerry got 88% in 04. Mondale got 91% in 1984. Dukakis got 89%. Clinton got figures up into the high 80's both times.

Blacks have been firmly Democrat for decades. The last Republican to yield more than 15% of the Black vote was Nixon. If Obama were white, he'd still yield close to or more than 90% of the black vote, just like his predecessors.

And yet, now that we have a black candidate, conservatives like yourself go on about how Blacks are suddenly racists for doing what they've been doing for 30+ years in support of white democrats.

Interesting logic.

Brian's arguments are just weak.

But if blacks were really interested in progress and advancing up the social ladder and the American dream, they'd be backing a hard-line protectionists and anti-immigration groups. That would translate directly into hire wages for blacks, as low-skill labor becomes scarcer. This I'm very much in favor of, as are famous conservative economists like Briggs and Borjas.

Now everyone loses, because government and the tax-payers are going to be tasked with doing a job the free market would've done automatically and much, much better - and not only for blacks, but for hispanics as well. The result will be a disaster for all Americans - white, asian, black and hispanic.

Quote: (11-07-2012 02:29 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Obama is basically a moderate Republican:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...e_gop.html

That's why he shoved Obamacare down the throat of the nation and ran roughshod over Republican objections?

Obamacare raises the cost of labor. What economic moron raises the cost of labor in a depression?

Quote: (11-07-2012 02:40 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Quote: (11-07-2012 02:29 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Obama is basically a moderate Republican:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...e_gop.html

That's why he shoved Obamacare down the throat of the nation and ran roughshod over Republican objections?

Obamacare raises the cost of labor. What economic moron raises the cost of labor in a depression?

You obviously didn't even look at the article before criticizing. As it happens, "Obamacare" was originally a Republican idea.

Quote: (11-07-2012 02:42 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Quote: (11-07-2012 02:40 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Quote: (11-07-2012 02:29 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Obama is basically a moderate Republican:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...e_gop.html

That's why he shoved Obamacare down the throat of the nation and ran roughshod over Republican objections?

Obamacare raises the cost of labor. What economic moron raises the cost of labor in a depression?

You obviously didn't even look at the article before criticizing. As it happens, "Obamacare" was originally a Republican idea.

Fuck whether it's a Republican idea. I don't care whose idea it was. That article has a lot of smart points.

The point is not whose idea, it's a BAD idea. I appreciate the goal of reducing health-care costs as % of GDP. I don't believe ACA will do that. It's just going to make labor more expensive.

7 day bath for Brian.

I'm happy with the outcome, but the fact that Romney got 48% of popular vote (as any number greater than 30%) makes me worried about the future of USA politics. That's all I'm gonna say about the election.

America needs a third party, but it'll never happen. Voting for Obama or Romney...reminds me of our own elections here in the UK, there was no-one you 'wanted' to vote for out of the 3 main parties.

Quote: (11-07-2012 04:38 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

America needs a third party, but it'll never happen. Voting for Obama or Romney...reminds me of our own elections here in the UK, there was no-one you 'wanted' to vote for out of the 3 main parties.

I think America missed a great chance in the mid-nineties for a strong third party to come through.

In the '96 election 10.5% of those who voted did not vote for a Republican or Democratic presidential candidate:

Ross Perot - Reform Party - 8,085,294 votes
Ralph Nader - Green Party - 684,871 votes
Harry Browne - Libertarian Party - 485,759 votes
Howard Phillips - Taxpayers Party - 184,656 votes
John Hagelin - Natural Law Party - 113,670

That's almost 10 million people who didn't vote Republican or Democrat. Compare that to 2008 when less than two millon voted third party.

(add-on. 30 million more people voted in 2008 than did in 1996.)

I registered, but I didn't vote

So I'm a US citizen that doesn't vote!

you better not complain about shit then.

I would have voted for Gary Johnson.
Because I would absolutely consider to emigrate to the America he is trying to promote.

Kind of underwhelming. I was hoping for a three-day controversy. They always bring the nation together.

Seriously though, did anyone watch this in DC? I was in DuPont and it wasn't exactly a wild atmosphere when Obama won. Some people clapped, but mostly everyone just muttered good and went to the door. Could have been the arctic conditions outside, I suppose.

It's kind of funny, this is probably the worst outcome for the Dems.

Now they actually have to produce. When the economy tanks over the next four years due to Obamacare and other tax increases, it should be pretty funny how they will try to spin their failures on the Republicans.

Had Romney won, he would have been a 1-term president, due to bad economy and unable to enact any of the changes due to a Democratic Senate.

If things play out for the economy and the country, like I think they will, 2016 will be a repeat of 2010 except on a much larger scale.

Stimulus package please.

To all those who go on about the national debt, the deficit, the fiscal cliff etc., just remember that the way the markets see it is as so unimportant that US borrowing costs have been ridiculously low since 2008 and have been getting lower. Save the austerity for the good times.

Glad Obama won, nice to see the US can make a big show of their elections. People say its overblown and ridiculous but I kind of like it, it's like watching a football game.

To those who pointed out the disparity between popular vote share and EVs, yep thats a failing of the majoritarian electoral system in the US. More proportional systems, however, have historically tended to favour centre-left coalitions, so be careful what you wish for, Republicans!

Quote: (11-07-2012 06:51 AM)Wool Suit Wrote:  

Kind of underwhelming. I was hoping for a three-day controversy. They always bring the nation together.

Seriously though, did anyone watch this in DC? I was in DuPont and it wasn't exactly a wild atmosphere when Obama won. Some people clapped, but mostly everyone just muttered good and went to the door. Could have been the arctic conditions outside, I suppose.

It depends on what you were watching.
I turned off the TV in disgust after Ohio was announced. CBS was live from DEM HQ and it resembled a Pentecostal church service. Swear to gawd, there were people shaking in the aisles.

Newsflash:

Stimulus does not work. It's not the quantity of spending that counts, but the quality of spending performed.

The government purchases exceedingly shitty value for tax-payer money. It's much better to let households keep that money, because they'll ensure it's spent efficienty.

US economy is depressed almost solely because of high unemployment and poverty among the lower-classes, exacerbated by high-volume, low-skill immigration.

A real stimulus? Spend the 200bn it takes to send the illegals home and revoke work-visas for as many low-skill immigrants as it takes to bring employment among the lower classes to below 2 percent and make redundant most welfare programs. That'll solve excess labor supply, strengthen wage growth for lower-classes, end a large share of chronic minority unemployment, reverse the trend of rising inequality and save a good part of the public finances of many liberal states. It requires that young minorities in particular are willing to do the work the illegals were doing, but there WILL be work - and if you're desperate, you're not really in a position to be picky. Combine that with seriously means-testing entitlements and abolishing welfare for the young and healthy, and you could really do some good.

Quote: (11-07-2012 08:14 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Newsflash:

Stimulus does not work. It's not the quantity of spending that counts, but the quality of spending performed.

The government purchases exceedingly shitty value for tax-payer money. It's much better to let households keep that money, because they'll ensure it's spent efficienty.

US economy is depressed almost solely because of high unemployment and poverty among the lower-classes, exacerbated by high-volume, low-skill immigration.

A real stimulus? Spend the 200bn it takes to send the illegals home and revoke work-visas for as many low-skill immigrants as it takes to bring employment among the lower classes to below 2 percent and make redundant most welfare programs. That'll solve excess labor supply, strengthen wage growth for lower-classes, end a large share of chronic minority unemployment, reverse the trend of rising inequality and save a good part of the public finances of many liberal states. It requires that young minorities in particular are willing to do the work the illegals were doing, but there WILL be work - and if you're desperate, you're not really in a position to be picky. Combine that with seriously means-testing entitlements and abolishing welfare for the young and healthy, and you could really do some good.

There is no excess labor supply. One good indicator of that is the high unemployment rate. I don't mean to cast aspersions on you and maybe I'm dead wrong on this, but it sounds like your understanding of labor economics comes from reading Steve Sailer's blog.

Quote: (11-07-2012 08:14 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Newsflash:

Stimulus does not work. It's not the quantity of spending that counts, but the quality of spending performed.

The government purchases exceedingly shitty value for tax-payer money. It's much better to let households keep that money, because they'll ensure it's spent efficienty.

US economy is depressed almost solely because of high unemployment and poverty among the lower-classes, exacerbated by high-volume, low-skill immigration.

A real stimulus? Spend the 200bn it takes to send the illegals home and revoke work-visas for as many low-skill immigrants as it takes to bring employment among the lower classes to below 2 percent and make redundant most welfare programs. That'll solve excess labor supply, strengthen wage growth for lower-classes, end a large share of chronic minority unemployment, reverse the trend of rising inequality and save a good part of the public finances of many liberal states. It requires that young minorities in particular are willing to do the work the illegals were doing, but there WILL be work - and if you're desperate, you're not really in a position to be picky. Combine that with seriously means-testing entitlements and abolishing welfare for the young and healthy, and you could really do some good.

So apparently there's excess labour supply... yet unemployment is a lot higher than before the recession... ok that doesn't make sense unless you use the 'structural unemployment' argument, which doesn't hold because jobs haven't been lost disproportionately more in construction.

If the households keep that money they won't spend it (because they want to improve their own financial security), as opposed to the government that WILL spend money, increasing demand (inadequate demand is the main problem the US faces) while private individuals and corporations stay sufficiently capitalised (since the government are borrowing more, but not raising taxes significantly to compensate right now). This could take the US back to full employment within two years (best estimates, that particular one from Paul Krugman), and we would see the output gap shrink and significant growth happen. Add a modest amount of inflation that lowers the burden of both private and public debt and were onto a winner with our long term fiscal strategy.

I really don't give a crap about that all election thing because I am not american and because the entire concept of choosing puppet A or puppet B as if they can "change" your life is retarded. I have too much to read, learn, explore that this is nonsense.
I'm probably going to establish my own kingdom in central Africa anyway with all the knowledge I put into my head that 99% of the world doesn't know.

But I would have been glad if Romney won so all the white texans at my college would stop bitching about obama evryday while looking at me. Also all the blacks and hispanics yelling about how great Obama is for no logic reason.

Now if Obama doesn't do shit, all of those republicans will rant that he didn't do shit as if that other romney guy would have done something.

I just don't understand America.

Quote: (11-07-2012 02:38 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Brian's arguments are just weak.

But if blacks were really interested in progress and advancing up the social ladder and the American dream, they'd be backing a hard-line protectionists and anti-immigration groups. That would translate directly into hire wages for blacks, as low-skill labor becomes scarcer. This I'm very much in favor of, as are famous conservative economists like Briggs and Borjas.

Now everyone loses, because government and the tax-payers are going to be tasked with doing a job the free market would've done automatically and much, much better - and not only for blacks, but for hispanics as well. The result will be a disaster for all Americans - white, asian, black and hispanic.

There is a flaw in this argument. While you use the term "blacks" losing out to illegals for low skill labor, the fact is that the VAST majority of blacks (probably about 75%) are working and middle class and have no need for low-skill, minimum wage jobs picking fruit.

There is this image that most blacks are living in low wage poverty, but that is simply not the case. For that bottom 25%, yes, they are pretty much screwed. However, for the majority of blacks, we are doing OK. In fact, the dichotomy between how horribly that bottom 20-25% is doing and how much better the rest are doing can be seen in the fact that there is actually more income inequality within the black populace than there is within the general US population. From both an economic and a social perspective, that bottom 20-25% has been split from the larger black community. (see Eugene Robinson's book "Disintegration" for an excellent explanation of this phenomena.

This is why arguments about how blacks should be on the side of Republicans so we get the "opportunity" to pick oranges and mow lawns falls on deaf ears. Middle class blacks don't feel threatened by illegal immigrants. In fact, middle class blacks benefit from illegal immigrants. Those illegal immigrants provide services to middle class blacks that were previously only the purview of well-to-do (or at least middle class) whites.

For example, I remember the shock I experienced returning to my childhood neighborhood (typical middle class black neighborhood) and seeing El Salvadorans mowing my neighbor's lawn. While I was gone, it had become somewhat of a status symbol to have your lawn done by a professional service, rather than having to mow it yourself.

George Bush actually had a great solution for gaining more black votes when he pushed for an increase in black homeownership. Had that process not been plagued by fraud and predatory lending, It could have gone a long way in easing SOME blacks to the Republican party. Why? Because it targets the desires of working and middle class African Americans.

Keep in mind that Republicans do not need to get the majority of blacks to be successful. If a Republican presidential candidate could solidly pull 20-25% of the black vote, it would be almost IMPOSSIBLE for a Democrat to defeat them.

The only other policy I see that could do as well or better would be dealing with funding for college education (perhaps more support for state universities) and programs to increase the graduation rates of blacks. Higher education is a HUGE deal amongst middle class blacks, and anything that increases educational opportunities will be almost universally be seen as a positive.

Quote: (11-07-2012 01:44 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Obama just referred to his wife as "the woman who agreed to marry me." Why not just say, "the woman I married." God damned, that is just so beta, I cringed. See I'm not uncritical of the President.

That is just typical political pandering. Even good ole Jack Kennedy use to say that people came to see Jackie and not him on foreign trips. He was alpha as can be, but was self deprecating with the crowds when it came to his wife.

Rather than erroneously and condescendingly say nothing matters or that I don't care, I'll explain my view of what happened: It's all about demographics.

I'm an independent voter who went Romney's way this election, and I'll also admit I was a critic of Nate Silver's forecasting models. He modeled independent voters almost flawlessly. The issue was that most conservatives thought that 2008 was just such an outlier that 2012 was going to be more like 2004. This sort of thinking led to many of us ignoring the changing demographics of the country, instead expecting the "silent majority" of traditional white voters to come out in droves to vote Romney. That didn't happen to the extent it needed to, and at the same time, Mitt Romney got absolutely torched by Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and obviously Women.

Brutal, but sobering. This country for good or bad has become much more multicultural (I don't mind) and feminist (I do mind). And I don't see this trend changing anytime soon. Like it or not, these are the facts, and to win future elections the Republican Party is going to have to change a lot of the harder-line stances that turns off minority voters. If they do not, third parties (think Libertarians and Gary Johnson) will begin to have a legitimate shot at office in 2016 or 2020.

Quote: (11-07-2012 08:23 AM)j r Wrote:  

There is no excess labor supply. One good indicator of that is the high unemployment rate. I don't mean to cast aspersions on you and maybe I'm dead wrong on this, but it sounds like your understanding of labor economics comes from reading Steve Sailer's blog.

Quote: (11-07-2012 08:32 AM)Ramon Zarate Wrote:  

So apparently there's excess labour supply... yet unemployment is a lot higher than before the recession... ok that doesn't make sense unless you use the 'structural unemployment' argument, which doesn't hold because jobs haven't been lost disproportionately more in construction.

Guys, this is easy math. High immigration (especially illegal) = high unemployment.

Supply and demand. If there's more workers (supply) than jobs (demand) then there is high unemployment, more competition between workers, and lower wages.


Case in point: Japan. Lowest immigration rates in the developed world. Check their unemployment rates. Sub-6% for the last 30 years.

Why do people claim that Obama is better for blacks than Romney would be?

Quote:Quote:

While Obama's national job approval rating is a little less than 50 percent, among blacks his job approval is a whopping 88 percent. I'd like to ask people who approve of Obama's performance, "What has President Obama done during the past four years that you'd like to see more of in the next four years?"

Black support of politicians who have done little or nothing for their ordinary constituents is by no means unusual. Blacks are chief executives of major cities, such as Philadelphia, Detroit, Washington, Memphis, Atlanta, Baltimore, New Orleans, Oakland, Newark, Cleveland and Cincinnati. In most of these cities, the chief of police, the superintendent of schools and other high executives are black. But in these cities, black people, like no other sector of our population, suffer from the highest rates of homicides, assaults, robberies and shootings. Black high-school dropout rates in these cities are the highest in the nation. Even if a black youngster manages to graduate from high school, his reading, writing and computational proficiency is likely to be equivalent to that of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. That's even with school budgets per student being among the highest in the nation.

Quote:Quote:

Black people would not accept excuses upon excuses and vote to re-elect decade after decade any white politician, especially a Republican politician, to office who had the failed records of our big-city mayors. What that suggests about black people is not very flattering.

Critical thinking, by this guy: