Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

US election 2012

What social violence do you forsee?
Racist attacks, maybe. Also there are existing anti-immigrant far right groups like the Minutemen which might broaden their activity, various militia which may get energised, etc. Plus the fact that more and more people in the USA are in poverty is going to cause some social unrest simply by itself; which can then be blamed on BHO.

TBH I'm half just hoping that the extreme right nutters go too far and get crushed or give their cause a bad name. I've not got any real insight into the far right in the USA.
 
Seriously. It's not 1995 and the militia panic again. When you say racist violence what do you mean and how would an Obama victory increase it?
 
the only one I remember from lst time was those four erm......unstable individuals who were off their tits on crystal meth and had automatic weapons. Who got rubled before they got anywhere near the prez
 
Seriously. It's not 1995 and the militia panic again. When you say racist violence what do you mean and how would an Obama victory increase it?
Attacks on blacks by threatened right-wingers who think that there's a black/socialist seizure of power maybe.
 
I was amused to read that American Mormons are emailing each other asking that they fast and pray for Romney on Sunday in preparation for an election debate he will be having on October 3rd. They are wanting a miracle to restore Romney's chances. :D
 
1: the contested election was in 2000, that was the one won in the vote by gore
2: there will likely be no upsurge in violence imo. it was bad enough after the last election, and ultimately the police are on the side of the state and rightwingers would be crushed if they ever got seriously organized. there may be more action - not violence (e.g. riots) - from workers. i've been surprised at how much more there has been in very recent years, considering how exhausted the body politic seems to be.
 
There are little self-styled militias all over the US. It's not a new phenomena though, and whether their activity is any greater today than it was say 20 years ago is something I don't know. The frothing rhetoric about just how dangerous the great evil Obama is that circulates various sectors of the right wing will certainly give flavour to those back yard militias, but it's difficult to know for sure whether it will increase their incentive to actually do anything.

For example, this lot were founded before Obama was elected, and allegedly ramped up their activity (and/or 'planning') in recent years. It's unlikely that it's Obama himself that is a catalyst for their kind of issues, since they and their sort tend to be very much in the general anti-government mould that can easily rail against anyone in power if they overstep the boundaries of how they interpret what America is supposed to be. That's not to say the presence of Obama and the intensely fucked up shit some sections of the GOP spout about him won't have an effect. The emotive language couched in terms of faith and betrayal and all the evil things Americans have been taught to hate and be distrustful of clearly has the possibility to make him a hook from which to hang an already deep-seated distrust of government (and the Dems in particular, I suppose). It's a bit of a generalisation and a stretch to say that these militias (or individuals not affiliated to a militia, but like minded) only exist or will only be spurred into action because of the rhetoric against Obama that the likes of the Tea Party, Chuck Norris, and so on come out with, though. They've been around since forever, and are a sad, twisted part of America's make up, a product of its own making.
 
How much does the US spend on welfare vs military in a year?

My US associate was positive they spent more on welfare.... Some % figures please Urban. (OF the FED)
 
I'm almost certain there'll be no increase in violence if the Democrats win. However, there may be efforts to disenfranchise minorities on the State level.
 
Thank you Co-op and N-igma

but both of your data seem pretty shite....

How much does the USA spend on welfare vs military in % of Tax?

Why thank you.

"Both of our data" is the identical website, where you will read that welfare takes 11% of the federal budget and military spending takes 14%. If you need any help wiping your bottom, just let me know.
 
Why thank you.

"Both of our data" is the identical website, where you will read that welfare takes 11% of the federal budget and military spending takes 14%. If you need any help wiping your bottom, just let me know.

Thank you, my arse is clean, I've just spent four hours arguing with an American that doesn't believe both of you
 
um...I would not trust that site or that chart. What are they considering "welfare"?
In almost any chart you look at, defense is a very large (usually the largest) percentage

The problem with most of these charts is that they all list social security (what is labelled "welfare" on this chart) as on par with defense spending.
Social security is a payroll tax. People pay into it their whole lives, and it covers pensions, disability/worker's compensation, unemployment, temporary assistance, medicare/medicaid, and a whole long list of other programs.
I can't find a break down of the amount spent per program, but the pensions, medicare/medicaid are the largest amounts. And I can't see how they're considered "welfare" in the first place - they're a pension plan in which people are being repaid what they put in + interest for the most part. :confused:

I don't know if this a cause of or a symptom of the widespread myth that we spend huge amounts on "welfare" meaning unemployment and other benefits to "people who don't want to work"
As far as other data I've seen, spending for social programs for the poor is a very small piece of the pie.
 
sorry, it seems that chart does actually break it down. Still don't believe it. Defense spending is massive, generally about 20% of the budget.
 
Defence.. such a loaded word. It has been a long time since America had to defend its soil, Ministry of War would be a better description.
 
sorry, it seems that chart does actually break it down. Still don't believe it. Defense spending is massive, generally about 20% of the budget.

You might well be right, I was really querying N_igma's link - or rather his interpretation of it, because it clearly shows "defense" as taking a larger share than welfare not the other way round as he stated it. This wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_breakdown_for_2012 makes US military spending to be "up to" US $1.415 trillion, which is about 50% more than the figure cited on N_igma's link and would take it to around your 20% guestimate.
 
Is the UK at war with france?
What definition of "war" do you mean?

war

1   [wawr] Show IPA noun, verb, warred, war·ring,adjective
noun
1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations orbetween parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, orair.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active militaryoperations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battlesor campaigns: the War of 1812.
4.
active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5.
aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting inthe same industry or any other means of underminingcompetitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war betweennations.
 
Interesting comment here:
There is not one rational voice in the lot of candidates or the media pundits who comment on the races. Neoclassical economists still hold sway over the rhetoric and what passes as policy deliberations. The Republicans (and Libertarians) remain dumbfoundingly irrational in their beliefs that tax reductions (especially for the already rich) are the route to prosperity for all. We have collected so much evidence that this is not the case but they stubbornly cling to that mantra. Of course the party was taken over by the anti-science, anti-intellectual crowd a while back so I guess this isn't terribly surprising. Santorum's recent comment about how the “smart people will never support” US is so revealing and so terribly sad. But it seems to very much reflect the current state of the Republican party members' minds. They have become masters of rationalization in turning greed and selfishness into a virtue. All that brain power going to support what is probably the most destructive force on the planet.
Democrats don't get a pass either. Here we see someone like Energy Secretary Stephan Chu, a Nobel physicist, still playing as if technology (like clean coal) will win the day and we can get the economy going again. Economic growth is physically impossible and somewhere in that man's mind he has to grasp that. Real economic growth depends on increasingly turning physical resources into assets that humans use (and use up). It depends on increasingly available energy to do useful work. It is NOT increasingly printing money just to say we have liquidity! In my mind that fellow is guilty of criminal deceit in not declaring the physical truth.
 
A bit late this one, but I still found it un peu amusant:

03158.png
 
Anyone watching the first debate?

Romney's presenting reasonably well so far in terms of confidence, but his smirking is annoying. He's certainly not going to let his campaign be dictated to by facts though. "Studies? I don't care about studies. Studies mean nothing. Just listen to my words. They are better than studies. Here, have another list. Did I mention Obama is just like one of my 5 boys?"

Lots of that tedious "I met a person the other day who asked me..." shit.
 
Back
Top Bottom