Random Politics & Religion #18

How do you propose fixing rural areas?

Why would any business in their right mind go there short of resource extraction, which is by nature a boom/transient industry that will leave again once the resource is dried up?

It does. It lets Bush off the hook for Fiscal 2009, which was really bad, and puts all the blame on Obama, despite him not even being in office. He hadn't even won the election when FY2009 started. Fortunately, history doesn't see it that way.

It's harder to change a political viewpoint than it is to change an economical viewpoint. You had to make those changes because of your own situation.

*shrug*

Most people don't change their politics without a significant life event forcing the change. IE: a successful business turning to a struggling one, a traumatic death in the family or personal injury due to a specific circumstance that can be politicized, etc.

So, you are saying that when Obama had the option to reverse such policies and/or a friendly Congress to reverse such legislation, and he did nothing of the sort, it's still Bush's fault?

Let me ask you this then: Who's responsible for NAFTA, Bush I or Clinton?

I fail to see how any of these examples or others can happen often, or often enough.

People change their political beliefs often?

I thought that was Rav's point. Without a major incentive to change, no one is changing political belief.

I was just sort of playing the angle there. I've had significant changes in the past eight years for the better.

Super easy if implemented correctly. And you know what's shocking about this? This was done with bipartisan support (Bush II proposed it, Obama kept it). Right now it's only being targeted to very specific, very restricted, and very politically motivated. It needs to be expanded to areas other than the poorest communities in cities.

Last 8 years of implementations, it has only benefited inner cities, and even then, only heavy-democrat areas. At the very least, when it was implemented, it included a good portion of America, which also includes rural areas.

There's also expanding Section 168(k) to 100% for American made products only. That would increase demand by at least 5-fold. At least!

There's also a repatriation tax reduction down to 5% of overseas profits, which will free up a lot of capital for large companies to reinvest in American products (due to the Section 168(k) mentioned above).

Also, please don't remember any of this >.>

That was basically it. Take all the viewpoints (and most of the attitudes) of the P&R "core" from years back, compare them to now. Obviously we're not all exactly the same, but judging from the posts alone there isn't much difference.

Contextual analysis of the charts indicate a negative trend that begins at the end of the Clinton administration.

It's easy to blame one administration over the other but as a whole Obama's economic impact wasn't a negative as indicated in the Total Growth chart.

Posting this for nobody important in general.

I'm talking about your examples though.

Successful to struggling business wouldn't necessary change a political belief unless the government in involved.

Neither would a death of a family member, unless the government is involved.

All in all, there's an overlying theme to this, which is the government.

Ramy, I hope you saw that post, cause, well, you know

Reposting wrong information for no reason? Oh and didn't we just have over 3% growth in the last quarter? So much for that Hoover stat. Sure, growth has been slow, but its trending up under Obama and no Congress.
Its funny how KN tries (and fails) to discredit Clinton's economic boom, instead attempting to credit Congress. But under Obama, its all on Obama, Congress is blameless. But like I said, history doesn't see it that way.

The average growth rate since the Washington days has been 3.7% a year. Obama didn't even have a year where he broke 3%

Obama had full control to spend or not spend whatever he wanted during his first year. That spending gets attributed to his tenure.

Well, no. That's not true at all.

Let's say you're pro-immigration and then a family member is killed by an illegal immigrant.

Or say you're anti-abortion until your daughter's life is only able to be saved if she has one.

You could be staunchly anti-establishment and think all police are bad until an officer risks/loses life/limb to save your wife in a robbery situation.

The government can play a part in the business examples, true.

All I'm saying is that your deeply-held beliefs aren't going to be changed without a significant motivator or a moment of deep insight.

Those are seldom going to be found in online discussion, so expecting any sort of major change is unlikely.

cherry picking what is conducive to their argument, not being above hypocrisy in attempts to disprove obvious statistical trends, coupled with spam posting behavior to shout down opposing view points... yep some things just don't change. Some people are just way too invested I guess.

At noon all references to "climate change" were removed from the White House web site.

Sounds like the climate in the White House changed.

For the better!

I really hope that you are joking.

I know it's from the land of fedoras, doesn't change that it's funny as f...

https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/5p59im/bill_clinton_is_a_savage_got_caught_checking_out/?st=1Z141Z3&sh=f715ecf5

Just need to erase it from all the scientific journals and we're golden.

Looks like they also removed civil rights and LGBT rights from the WH page. White supremacists rejoice?

The good news is most of us can't read anyways.

If you gave me a scientific journal I'd need Bill Nye to explain it to me !