General US Politics

[Tryhard]

I've been a pretty big critic of both parties, but just so we assign blame to the correct parties for the proper mistakes, Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote, so there were no concessions to win over Republican votes, because the Democrats did not need them. The Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2010.

More that the Democrats continuously changed it to try and have concessions for the Republicans even though they had the ability to not care having some misguided perception of wanting to work with the Republicans despite them clearly only being interested in obstruction when they are not in power. Trying to be diplomatic was pointless and now it didn't go far enough. I suppose it's not really the Republicans fault in that regard, but considering I believe they have proposed different healthcare plan bills in the past (90's and such), if they actually cared about it they would probably be on board. If it was them... but they've set themselves up to be anti-healthcare in opposition to the Democrats.

And partly because Democrats are too ineffectual when they actually have the ability for change according to their so-called principles.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Tryhard

[Emperor Petitt]

More that the Democrats continuously changed it to try and have concessions for the Republicans even though they had the ability to not care having some misguided perception of wanting to work with the Republicans despite them clearly only being interested in obstruction when they are not in power. Trying to be diplomatic was pointless and now it didn't go far enough. I suppose it's not really the Republicans fault in that regard, but considering I believe they have proposed different healthcare plan bills in the past (90's and such), if they actually cared about it they would probably be on board. If it was them... but they've set themselves up to be anti-healthcare in opposition to the Democrats.

And partly because Democrats are too ineffectual when they actually have the ability for change according to their so-called principles.

Actually the changes came from the senate, records show that the house passed it originally with no opposition, but then the democratic senate changed it and sent it back to the house. Then republican representatives AND DEMOCRAT representatives said no, but not enough of them. I blame Burnie Sanders more than the Republican Party since he was on board the changes that made it a problem. The Democratic Party cares as much for the common man as the stuck up GOP

[Phoenix Wright]

are we still talking about the democratic party being weak and shitty? yes, the democrats made compromises because of imagined opposition. yes, this ruined the bill.

Most of the people who are on welfare for a long time are there for a reason. This is virtually always a variation on a theme of pervasive and severe problems that make life and enjoying it very challenging, if not impossible. These are people who are not helped by well paid work, because work in itself is not possible (or at least not in anything close to fulltime employment)

can you expand on these ideas a bit? source on "most," or at least what "reasons" you're referring to?

though, i cannot disagree with the overall point, i am a bit confused. i would be shocked if most people on welfare didn't want to just work, to find something that makes them feel independent. pemn, but my mom was on it for a bit and got multiple jobs (eventually) to stay afloat for a little while instead. adults don't typically like to feel reliant.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Augestein]

though, i cannot disagree with the overall point, i am a bit confused. i would shocked if most people on welfare didn't want to just work, to find something that makes them feel independent. pemn, but my mom was on it for a bit and got multiple jobs (eventually) to stay afloat for a little while instead. adults don't typically like to feel reliant.

Specifically when such a system isn't guaranteed to remain forever. Or at the very least, people aren't guaranteed to keep it.

[Excellen Browning]

can you expand on these ideas a bit? source on "most," or at least what "reasons" you're referring to?

though, i cannot disagree with the overall point, i am a bit confused. i would be shocked if most people on welfare didn't want to just work, to find something that makes them feel independent. pemn, but my mom was on it for a bit and got multiple jobs (eventually) to stay afloat for a little while instead. adults don't typically like to feel reliant.

I think giving you the (dutch) numbers will be difficult, because afaik the statistics are not kept in detail, but I can give you the numbers on the various disability pays we have, the requirements to get them, and how many receive it.

The Netherlands has a total (possible) working force of about 9 million people. The unemployment rate right now is 5,7%(people who do not work at least 12 hours per week), about 512,000 people in total. In total about 800,000 people receive disability pay. Note that some people who are on disability pay work at least 12 hour weeks, so they are counted to the working population.

First off is the WAO, wet arbeidsongeschiktheid (law for work incapability), which was replaced by a new law in 2005. People who already had WAO kept it. There are about 300,000 recipients. You could get it if you had a working disability, usually a medical condition. A medical exam by a doctorfollowed and then it was decided what would happen. You could either be exempted entirely from work and get full benefits, or get an indication that you wouldn't be allowed to work more than a certain amount of hours, and the difference in pay would be (partially) made up by the government. I couldn't find further statistics.

Second is WIA, wet werk en inkomen naar arbeidsvermogen(law work and income according to capability). This followed up the WAO in 2005, fulfills the same function, and knows three subdivisions. There are currently about 250,000 recipients in total. You can get WIA if you've been out of the workforce for two years, usually due to medical reasons. Up until that time your employer will have to pay 170% of your last full yearly income, spread out over those two years. You will get examined by a doctor and someone who is more or less a layman, but has been educated to know a lot about what sort of things people with disability need or can get to keep working. If you're less than 35% work incapable long term, you will not receive WIA but they'll usually look to help you out in other ways. If you're 35-80% incapable long term, or at least 80% but not long term, you get WGA. If you're at least 80% incapable long term, you can apply to get examined before two years, you get IVA.

WGA is subdivided into three payouts, which one you get depending on the circumstances. The first payout is related to your income. You get 70% of your last known income if you don't work, but if you do, you get 70% of the difference between your old income and your new one (which is virtually always lower). This way you will always earn more if you work. The second payout is also related to your income. You have to earn at least your previous income multiplied by incapability%, and you again get 70% of the difference between your old and new income. The final WGA payout, I'm not sure how it works. About 167,000 receive WGA.

IVA is a flat 75% of your last known income. About 82,000 receive it.

One important thing to note here is that WAO and WIA are for people who have worked and then became disabled. If you're disabled by the time you're 18, you can get Wajong. Wajong generally works the same way as WIA. They're focused on you using as much of your working capabilities as possible.

If you don't fall into either of these categories you're thrown into the bijstand. I had a burnout in university, from which I'm still recovering, and I'm on bijstand. The focus of bijstand is again to get you working, and before you can get bijstand, you have to spend 4 weeks applying to every sort of job that will pay the bills, and you have to make tons of applications per day/week. And you have to take it. Unless you get waivered for medical reasons, like me. Reasons for ending up in the bijstand vary. You could have something happen to you between your 18th and the start of your working life (aka during trade school/college/uni/jobcorp) like an accident that disables you, or a burnout like me. People with undiagnosed mental problems have a habit of falling into bijstand, and those who fall through the nets of WIA. How many are on bijstand for a really long time is unknown.

You can find relevant numbers here: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/?LA=en

You might also find information on eurostat.

[Rezzy]

It looks like zombie John Kennedy has been elected to the US Senate for Louisiana, giving the GOP a 52-46-2 edge. It was probably a lost cause, but it was sad that the Dems didn't even try to win the run-off election. It would have been a more worthwhile effort than the recounts.

[Tryhard]

in light of all the cabinet picks most of which I think are irredeemably awful, claims of russian hacking or such, wouldn't it be pretty funny if electors did decide to shun trump? I'm not putting any faith in it because I don't think it will happen at all but I think it would be pretty hilarious for the people that have been defending the electoral college system (on the account of Trump winning) to then turn around and criticize and bemoan a part of it as undemocratic, i.e the electors as far as I know.

still, ain't going to happen, but it was a fun musing.

by the way, and this is just a tangent I was thinking of, to pre-empt any argument about how trump defeated ISIS before it occurs, as the collapse of them is looking fairly likely over his presidency period, it's worth noting that according to a US official 75% of ISIS fighters have been killed in the last 24 months. They are pretty much decimated, and what I suspect will happen is that Trump will take credit for this even though he likely will do little to cause it... though i do worry if a terrorist attack on US soil will be grounds to crack down on civil liberties.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/14/politics/white-house-isis-numbers/

(yes, CNN, the important part is that it is indeed US officials making these claims.)

Edited December 15, 2016 by Tryhard

[Excellen Browning]

American intelligence has consistently been atrocious since world war 2. Why anyone would listen to Americans on intelligence matters is beyond me.

[Tryhard]

American intelligence has consistently been atrocious since world war 2. Why anyone would listen to Americans on intelligence matters is beyond me.

Sure, but that doesn't mean ISIS hasn't been severely devastated. It's just to pre-empt the whole "Trump defeated ISIS" that will happen if they do collapse under his reign. Because unless Trump's 'secret' plan to defeat ISIS is somehow brilliant (i'm doubting here), he probably isn't going to have much hand in doing so without just continuing what the US has been doing. Still, the way that the US provokes hostility, the next extremist group probably isn't far away. Edited December 15, 2016 by Tryhard

[Res]

in light of all the cabinet picks most of which I think are irredeemably awful

Every time I think it can't get any worse, it does. I've heard next to no chatter because I think too many people are just too flabbergasted to know what to say.

[Phoenix Wright]

i think it started as bad as it could get. trump pres, with pence vice, and bannon as chief advisor. perry for dept of energy (who wasn't aware in what capacity the dept existed, and i'd almost wager he wasn't aware of its existence at all) was icing on the cake. and then you've got lots of generals in the cabinet.

these are people that objectively do not belong as guests in the white house (except the generals of course), let alone employees of it.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Rezzy]

I'm worries about what all this contesting the election will mean for future elections. First you had people trying to get the electoral college to go faithless, then the recount efforts, and then trying to flip the college again. I foresee a crackdown on both before next election cycle, and if not, I bet whoever loses the next election tries the exact same thing again. I think it's distracting the Democrats from the real issue, which is that they need to start appealing to people in fly-over country, since they need to appeal to the whole country to be successful in the next presidential election.

For the hacking, it really just shined a light on stuff that we should have known from whistle-blowers or investigative journalists. Hillary royally screwed over Sanders in the primary and colluded with the DNC and the media, getting leaked debate questions, there were even leaked emails that showed they wanted Trump to be her opponent, because they thought he would be the easiest to beat. And I honestly think he was probably the weakest possible opponent. The fact that she couldn't even beat him is a sign of how bad a candidate she was. The hacks may or may not have come from Russia, it seems the CIA and FBI don't agree at this point, but the fact is that all the leaked info has not been dismissed as untrue. The Democrats should give us a candidate that doesn't have more dirt on her than Pig-Pen.

I'm not happy that Trump won, but it was two bad outcomes, and Trump won per the rules of our election, and I think that should be respected. I don't like the loser looking for whatever technicality they can to overturn the results. If Trump had tried the same thing, I'd be calling him out. I honestly just want the election to be over at this point.

If Trump screws up as much as people say he will, he can be impeached.

I don't really have an issue with Generals being in the cabinet, especially Defense, but picks like the CEO of Exxon as State are perplexing.

[Res]

There's currently political unrest happening in NC which looks to set an important precedent.

[Rezzy]

There's currently political unrest happening in NC which looks to set an important precedent.

Why can't anyone lose gracefully this election? All these antics are just going to come back to bite them.

[Phoenix Wright]

i mean, look at the cabinet that's been chosen. democracy be damned, we have every right to be angry about the results.

[Dark Holy Elf]

This election is notably less contested than 2000 was (though social media kicking around every tiny thing that partisans on either side can latch onto may make it seem otherwise), and we survived that. Although you can argue it set the stage for partisanship to reach a new high? Trump (and you can argue Clinton too, sure, for all that I don't personally agree) being a uniquely awful choice for president was going to make problems of this sort regardless, I think.

Calls for the electoral college to vote faithlessly are ludicrous and are largely being treated as such, as far as I've seen. It's not gonna happen since it would be ruinous for American democracy.

If Trump screws up as much as people say he will, he can be impeached.

Which just means his hand-picked successor becomes president instead.

Mind, I'm for this in general, otherwise congress could impeach the president for purely political reasons. But... yeah, you'll forgive Trump's detractors for not being especially cheered up by this option.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I don't really have an issue with Generals being in the cabinet, especially Defense, but picks like the CEO of Exxon as State are perplexing.

So much for drain the swamp.

Despite the part of me that loves schadenfreude, I'm not looking forward to the reactions of all the Trump supporters when he starts breaking promises.

[Sunwoo]

It's like there's so much shit going on that you don't even know what to react to first.

[Tryhard]

So much for drain the swamp.

Despite the part of me that loves schadenfreude, I'm not looking forward to the reactions of all the Trump supporters when he starts breaking promises.

Well yeah, expect the wall and others to drift into the realms of "campaign device" as has already happened just as prosecuting Hillary "played great before the election, but we don't care now." Still the Republicans are probably completely dedicated to cutting social programs that even most Republican voters tend to be in favour of so unless Donny has some spine to go against them, I'm sure they'll enjoy that.

I said before the election that I was kinda hoping Trump wins because the adamant people who voted for him would never see how incompetent and poor their choice is if Hillary won and have a common enemy to rally against for the foreseeable future. Still, I imagine a great deal of them probably still won't admit it when the chickens come home to roost.

The guy recently exploded on twitter against a bad review a site gave on 'Trump Grill'. How does anyone expect him to have any tact in diplomatic negotiations.

I know John Bolton was being touted for Deputy State, one of the most aggressive bush-era neo-conservatives that wants war with Iran right now, but even Rex Tillerson and members of the GOP don't want him. Rick Perry is just a satire too.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Tryhard

[tuvarkz]

I do not have much against having the CEO of a large company nominated for Secretary of State. If anything, if corruption appears and it favors Exxon, it will be far more obvious where it comes from, rather than some politician that has been funded by a myriad of different companies.

Also, tact in diplomatic negotiations? The US should always negotiate from a position of power as is their capability to do so, particularly now that the relationship with Russia is set to be normalized. It shouldn't have to need tact.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I do not have much against having the CEO of a large company nominated for Secretary of State. If anything, if corruption appears and it favors Exxon, it will be far more obvious where it comes from, rather than some politician that has been funded by a myriad of different companies.

I don't follow this logic. If one dislikes companies buying out politicians, how is giving those companies power any better?

The US should always negotiate from a position of power as is their capability to do so, particularly now that the relationship with Russia is set to be normalized. It shouldn't have to need tact.

Please explain this.

[Tryhard]

I highly doubt that Russia is going to be the only diplomatic challenge over the next four years. He'll probably fly off the handle at the first foreign diplomat or leader that criticizes him. Doubly so considering that Trump has already pissed off China, who as their biggest trading partner, if it comes to it, is willing to burn everything to cripple the US if they get into a trade war. And even then, if Trump has as many ties and conflicts of interest leading to Russia as he does, that relationship is far from normalized.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Tryhard

[tuvarkz]

I don't follow this logic. If one dislikes companies buying out politicians, how is giving those companies power any better?

Please explain this.

My point is: First, we cannot necessarily assume that Tillerson will make moves to benefit Exxon, and in the case he does, it will be far more obvious where the source of corruption is, rather than banking on a politician that might be bought by a myriad of different companies. It's the same reason why I don't have a problem with Trump owning a variety of companies on his own.

Regarding a position of power: It is fairly clear that the US has a bigger economy and military than any other countries, overwhelmingly so in many cases. In any negotiation, the US has the capability to exert those powers if needed as a reminder that they can crush the other country, which places the US in an advantageous position in most situations.

Also, regarding a trade war with China? They have already done their own shady movements with the devaluation of the yuan; and honestly, it might just be the reason needed to help the multiple separatist movements (and Taiwan) and crush the communist regime while they are at it.

[Tryhard]

Also, regarding a trade war with China? They have already done their own shady movements with the devaluation of the yuan; and honestly, it might just be the reason needed to help the multiple separatist movements (and Taiwan) and crush the communist regime while they are at it.

China aren't communist. I don't care what their name says or that they have a cool red flag, communism has waned there since like 1978, and the government manages to out-capitalist aspects of even the US - more specifically, fervently controlling and colluding with big business. They are authoritarian and more accurately corporatist/crony capitalism, closer to Russia, actually. Which makes me wonder about the rhetoric about Russia = good, China = bad when they have almost identically horrible authoritarian governance. Yes, you can say what you want about Clinton wanting to escalate with Russia, and I'd probably agree, but it would be unwise for the US to escalate with either, considering China are fanatical and would be willing to burn both the US and Chinese economies to protect their own interests (not to mention that the US imports far exceed the exports to China.)

Edited December 16, 2016 by Tryhard

[Time the Crestfallen]

My point is: First, we cannot necessarily assume that Tillerson will make moves to benefit Exxon, and in the case he does, it will be far more obvious where the source of corruption is, rather than banking on a politician that might be bought by a myriad of different companies. It's the same reason why I don't have a problem with Trump owning a variety of companies on his own.

Yeah, I'm not buying this. All this does is cut out the middleman and save said corporations the money they otherwise would've spent on donations.

Regarding Trump, I thought he was supposed to be handing his business empire over to his children to prevent conflict of interest. Something he's already compromised, but still.

Regarding a position of power: It is fairly clear that the US has a bigger economy and military than any other countries, overwhelmingly so in many cases. In any negotiation, the US has the capability to exert those powers if needed as a reminder that they can crush the other country, which places the US in an advantageous position in most situations.

So your idea of diplomacy is threatening other countries if they don't fall in line? When exactly are you going to advocate for this? I hope this isn't your idea of keeping good relations with allies.

Also, regarding a trade war with China? They have already done their own shady movements with the devaluation of the yuan; and honestly, it might just be the reason needed to help the multiple separatist movements (and Taiwan) and crush the communist regime while they are at it.

What do you mean by 'help'? History has me very wary of the thought of the US getting involved in another country's government in such a manner.