Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 16.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I feel this needs to be shared.  

You remember 4, 8, and 12 years ago a candidate going so far beyond the pale that their own party disavowed their statements? You remember former Presidents from the candidate's own party refusing to

Posted Images

There are two main problems with the stimulus:

 

1. If you actually need it (i.e. are unemployed), it's probably not enough to cover more than a month of expenses.

2. It's painfully obvious that the GOP-controlled Senate only passed it to keep the economy moving, not to actually help people make it through the pandemic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Man said:

There are two main problems with the stimulus:

 

1. If you actually need it (i.e. are unemployed), it's probably not enough to cover more than a month of expenses.

2. It's painfully obvious that the GOP-controlled Senate only passed it to keep the economy moving, not to actually help people make it through the pandemic.

 

A month of expenses really isn't enough, but if it keeps the wolves away from the door that long, a lot can happen in a month. Especially when that distraction is eased.

Doing something right for the wrong reasons is still doing something right. If I were eligible I wouldn't hesitate to take that money, and that wouldn't change my political judgement next election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Old Man said:

It never ceases to amaze me how little Americans are willing to settle for when it comes to their elected leaders.  ;)

 

I noticed two things in our last election here in Canada.

 

First, it seemed like any pretense that my vote would be cast based on anything other than who promised me the biggest cheque in the shortest time had vanished.

 

Second, the price of a vote seemed to have undergone a marked decline. *

 

I'm not sure why we can't figure out we are being bribed with a portion of our own money, but it has not improved in my lifetime.

 

* I think it may move in step with the market for souls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I get the impression Americans have become quite disillusioned and cynical when it comes to their politicians. They no longer expect any better conduct from them.

 

Remember how different things were going to be after we elected a government on a platform including no more huge omnibus bills that disguise the stuff the gov't wants to sneak through (we blew away all historical records in that regard), greater transparency (so, why can't the former Justice Minister be freed of her confidentiality obligations to testify to government committees, again?) and more independence/free votes for MPs (anyone remember a free vote; I do remember elected members being forced or kicked out of caucus for failure to toe the party line).  Oh, and of course, diversity and inclusivity like a 50% female Cabinet.

 

Oh, boy!  No more scandals!

 

What did we get?  A Finance Minister who can't remember he owns a French villa through a corporation, or answer when asked whether he and his family still own a big chunk of a company that makes a lot of money on things squarely under his portfolio.  A leader who has to be told by the Ethics Commissioner that accepting expensive vacations from someone who is constantly lobbying the government is outside the lines.  Political interference in the decision whether to criminally charge a corporation that results in one (female) cabinet minister being ostracized from the party and a second resigning from caucus because she just can't support the treatment of the first one.  Three (or more?) provinces taking their case that the government overstepped its bounds and implemented a regime from which they will not back down which is outside their constitutional powers (the three Appellate Court decisions to date being split 8-7 in total suggests that could go either way - but there;s the little matter of a pandemic to deal with before we hear what the Supreme Court has to say).

 

And after all that, we re-elect them, albeit in a minority position, after the most divisive political campaign in living memory, leaving a big chunk of the country asking whether separation may not be that bad an idea while watching how well that's working for the UK.

 

It's nothing short of miraculous that even this pandemic could get the various leaders working as a team again.  After that necessity passes...who knows?

 

To LL's point, however, it is truly disturbing that, for all that is wrong up here, it's STILL at least an order of magnitude or three better than it is south of the border.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Badger, there is a lot of ill will from many business owners that much of the Canadian relief measures facilitate loans, rather than outright subsidies (although there are some pretty hefty wage subsidies - the big one passed into law in under 12 hours yesterday).  It seems we cannot figure out that, whatever we call it, it IS a loan.  Either we're borrowing directly from the bank or indirectly by boosting the deficit and the debt to pay subsidies.

 

Unfortuunately, the cost of NOT making these investments is greater than their huge costs.  I've seen a few reporters ask "well, do we know the cost this will have?", and I try not to wonder whether, in 1939, the question would have been "Well, I know it's a war and all, but have we figured out how much it's going to cost?". 

 

The COVID-19 crisis has been compared to WW II a lot in recent days.  But in WW II, the actual fighting never hit our continent.  COVID-19 is right here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Badger, there is a lot of ill will from many business owners that much of the Canadian relief measures facilitate loans, rather than outright subsidies (although there are some pretty hefty wage subsidies - the big one passed into law in under 12 hours yesterday).  It seems we cannot figure out that, whatever we call it, it IS a loan.  Either we're borrowing directly from the bank or indirectly by boosting the deficit and the debt to pay subsidies.

 

Unfortuunately, the cost of NOT making these investments is greater than their huge costs.  I've seen a few reporters ask "well, do we know the cost this will have?", and I try not to wonder whether, in 1939, the question would have been "Well, I know it's a war and all, but have we figured out how much it's going to cost?". 

 

The COVID-19 crisis has been compared to WW II a lot in recent days.  But in WW II, the actual fighting never hit our continent.  COVID-19 is right here.

 

Yeah, I understand, and didn't mean to be combative.  I was just saying that in general, a lot of program proposals work like that in that, we are essentially being promised a portion of the tax money we give them, back, in effect.  When we actually think about it. :(

 

Note: And not saying it be wrong or right.   Just is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

George Carlin used to be one of my favorite comedians. His earlier social commentary was seasoned with wry humor and clever whimsy; but as he got older he became increasingly bitter and nasty. I'm not saying he didn't have cause, and ripping fools and reprobates a new one is a valid activity; but IMO it doesn't belong on an entertainer's stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lord Liaden said:

George Carlin used to be one of my favorite comedians. His earlier social commentary was seasoned with wry humor and clever whimsy; but as he got older he became increasingly bitter and nasty. I'm not saying he didn't have cause, and ripping fools and reprobates a new one is a valid activity; but IMO it doesn't belong on an entertainer's stage.

 

Look at the material he had to work with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Badger said:

 

Yeah, I understand, and didn't mean to be combative.  I was just saying that in general, a lot of program proposals work like that in that, we are essentially being promised a portion of the tax money we give them, back, in effect.  When we actually think about it. :(

 

Note: And not saying it be wrong or right.   Just is.

 

I didn't find it combative.  It is frustrating to see people look at these programs from the perspective of "how much can I get" rather than "am I the one truly in need", though.

 

Generally, there are no "perfect right" answers in broad government programs.  Having to design programs that should take months of drafting, review, consultation and more drafting and review over a long weekend does not improve the process.  All they can do is the best they can to reach those in need as fast as they can, and patch the cracks as we discover them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party." :rolleyes:  Sanders didn't fall into line as soon as some Democrats wanted him to, particularly the party kingmakers. Seeing as how those same kingmakers aligned in opposition to his nomination, they should be grateful he came around at all.

 

But this time Biden seems to have outpaced Bernie fair and square. And they sound like they have much less antipathy, and more willingness to cooperate, than Sanders did with Clinton.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...