|
On January 07 2011 12:52 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 12:29 DTrain wrote:Here is a pretty graph showing the relationship between US Gross Debt and presidential terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.pngIt is interesting that Eisenhower and Nixon are the only republicans to have reduced debt during their office. While the Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton all managed to reduce debt levels. In fact Obama is the only Democrat in the last 50 years who has seen an increase in debt during his term. It's pretty obvious that modern Republicans are not fiscally responsible at all. Only if you don't know how to interpret statistics. Lets put this in perspective: Reagan raised the national debt as part of an economic war against the USSR, eventually leading to its collapse. Had he not done what he did, the USSR probably would still be around today.
Yeah, who cares about Perestroika, or Glasnost, or what the Soviet Union's actual budget numbers were, Reagan spent the USSR out of existence.
--
|
On January 07 2011 14:49 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 12:52 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 07 2011 12:29 DTrain wrote:Here is a pretty graph showing the relationship between US Gross Debt and presidential terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.pngIt is interesting that Eisenhower and Nixon are the only republicans to have reduced debt during their office. While the Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton all managed to reduce debt levels. In fact Obama is the only Democrat in the last 50 years who has seen an increase in debt during his term. It's pretty obvious that modern Republicans are not fiscally responsible at all. Only if you don't know how to interpret statistics. Lets put this in perspective: Reagan raised the national debt as part of an economic war against the USSR, eventually leading to its collapse. Had he not done what he did, the USSR probably would still be around today. Yeah, who cares about Perestroika, or Glasnost, or what the Soviet Union's actual budget numbers were, Reagan spent the USSR out of existence. --
Yet another view that Phoenix presents as fact without a scrap of evidence behind it. That is not at all an accepted or accurate historical view. I've never even heard that ridiculous defense of Reagan before.
|
To the people thinking the black vote has historically gone to Democrats because they are selfish or whatever: It's actually because the historical Republican strategy is "fuck black people." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Lefnui posted a quote from there, but I prefer this one for maximum impact
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger".
~Lee Atwater
|
On January 07 2011 12:27 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 12:22 shreepy wrote:On January 07 2011 11:52 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
Ok. I know I said I would stay out of this but this is enraging. That is NOT racism. That is actually how the democratic party works. Talk to blacks. Seriously. You find one of two views. Most blacks openly support democrats cause other blacks do it, or because they are promised a lot of shit that helps them get more for less (affirmative action) and because historically the democrats have actually pushed civil rights as their agenda and done some good.
If you could present some significant supporting evidence other than "Talk to blacks" it would help the strength of your argument significantly. As it is now it sounds like an overly generalized assertion that blankets all of the African American community into a very narrow ideology which I am not sure is correct. I am certain that the element you have outlined does exist to some extent, but I am not sure that it applies to most of the African American community. That being said I would appreciate if people could try to keep the discussion a little more civil. There is absolutely no need to ruin the potential for a decent political discussion over personal egos. Blacks vote about 90% democrat since... FDR I think. Certainly in recent years. Why else would they continually vote 1 way for 80 years in such strong numbers? Sure, until the 1980s there was a very good reason to vote democrat. What about the last 30 years? Talking to blacks is actually the best way to learn. I have black friends, worked with black people, and have seen the effects of our policies on blacks in college. Since when did talking to people stop being the best way to get to know them?
I rarely see people that have as little clue about the "black" culture and the way they vote as you have but holy crap man.
First my credentials because I obviously need them to be taken seriously by you!
I'm half black.
The reason I generally vote democratic is because I find they are less insane than republicans. Democrats are still right wing compared to the rest of the world, Republicans are pretty much breaking the scale.
It also frightens me when I hear about 55-60 year old republicans saying this isn't the country they were born in and that they want that country back. Let me explain why that frightens me.
The country they were born in had colored water fountains, forced black people to sit in the back, and was generally completely and openly racist. The country in the 1950-1960's era weren't exactly its glory days and I fail to see how anybody could POSSIBLY think that.
As it is right now congress is totally broken. It's now a political shitfest that's all about DEMO VS REPUB and nothing actually gets done. Both sides routinely lie their asses off to get into office about how they'll cut spending, save the national debt crises, and make life easier.
They all lie, they spit in your face after they extend tax cuts to the super rich ( which funny enough won't make a difference because trickle down economics is a retarded principle, thanks Republicans), and then allow people like Rush Limbough actual TV time to sway the masses into a cyclonic hysteria.
What the hell is happening to this country?
|
|
|
On January 07 2011 15:45 Jumperer wrote:
I wonder why I never see a republican win a "critical thinking" debate on teamliquid.net or other intellectual forums.
Because rarely do people use critical thinking on any internet forum.
All your contradictory evidence points to why southern blacks would vote democrat. What about northern blacks?
What you're actually saying is that all black people DO think the same because regardless of where they live they still vote democrat simply because blacks in the south vote democrat because the republicans in those states decided to alienate them.
Arguing with internet liberals is like arguing with children. Once the argument is won the name-calling begins. Once I hear "racism" dropped I'm pretty sure the argument is actually over.
|
On January 07 2011 16:35 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 15:45 Jumperer wrote:
I wonder why I never see a republican win a "critical thinking" debate on teamliquid.net or other intellectual forums. Because rarely do people use critical thinking on any internet forum. All your contradictory evidence points to why southern blacks would vote democrat. What about northern blacks? What you're actually saying is that all black people DO think the same because regardless of where they live they still vote democrat simply because blacks in the south vote democrat because the republicans in those states decided to alienate them. Arguing with internet liberals is like arguing with children. Once the argument is won the name-calling begins. Once I hear "racism" dropped I'm pretty sure the argument is actually over.
And of course you're totally unable to respond to the challenges made, just like 'Scruffy'. I know how much it annoys Republicans when the term racist is brought up, and I don't mean to annoy you. But when you state something which is blatantly racist then sorry, but I'm going to refer to it as such. Saying that black people vote for Democrats merely because they want to sit around lazily and collect cash is racist, and that is precisely what you and 'Scruffy' said.
You're completely misunderstanding the southern strategy. Clearly you weren't even aware of it, which is pretty embarrassing and would explain why you're so confused about the reasons behind black people voting overwhelmingly Democratic. It does not only apply to black people living in the south, that is not why it is the 'southern strategy'. It refers to a general alienation of black people which only began in the south, but is not limited to that area. It's about the white voters of the south who were gained through the strategy, that is why it's the 'southern strategy'.
Again, you guys have some nerve repeatedly claiming that you've won the argument when you aren't even willing to respond to the challenges made.
|
On January 07 2011 16:35 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 15:45 Jumperer wrote:
I wonder why I never see a republican win a "critical thinking" debate on teamliquid.net or other intellectual forums. Because rarely do people use critical thinking on any internet forum. All your contradictory evidence points to why southern blacks would vote democrat. What about northern blacks? What you're actually saying is that all black people DO think the same because regardless of where they live they still vote democrat simply because blacks in the south vote democrat because the republicans in those states decided to alienate them. Arguing with internet liberals is like arguing with children. Once the argument is won the name-calling begins. Once I hear "racism" dropped I'm pretty sure the argument is actually over.
Didn't you just like, lose an argument then insult someone?
|
Look, more so than republican/democrat, the big rift in this country is between politician and real person. Let's stop arguing over stupid party lines and get down to the fact that none of us are politicians and therefore there's basically nothing we can do about politics.
|
On January 07 2011 16:35 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 15:45 Jumperer wrote:
I wonder why I never see a republican win a "critical thinking" debate on teamliquid.net or other intellectual forums. Because rarely do people use critical thinking on any internet forum. All your contradictory evidence points to why southern blacks would vote democrat. What about northern blacks? What you're actually saying is that all black people DO think the same because regardless of where they live they still vote democrat simply because blacks in the south vote democrat because the republicans in those states decided to alienate them. Arguing with internet liberals is like arguing with children. Once the argument is won the name-calling begins. Once I hear "racism" dropped I'm pretty sure the argument is actually over.
Wow, man ... your posts are just hilarious!? Let me try to break it down for you: You take a neutral empirical fact - that skin color is a significant predictor for party loyalty in America - and then present your personal interpretation of the underlying reasoning, which is in a nutshell that black voters only vote what other black voters vote and/or the party which promises them to receive money without working. Your hidden assumption - which you do not spell out of course - is that white voters (or non-blacks at least) behave fundamentally different in that they are (1) not as inclined to simply do what others do and (2) that they don't fall as easily to false promises and/or don't mind working hard (if these are not your hidden assumptions, then your whole argument does not make sense in the first place). Over more you make these wild assertions without backing them up other than with anecdotal evidence. This is actually textbook racism, in that you claim that skin color is a meaningful predictor for complex psychological and social behaviour including work ethics. And when called out on that, you complain about irrational forum posters!? That just cracks me up!
This is not to say that you cannot be right in principle. It might be that skin color is in fact a good predictor for such factors. But that would just mean that racism actually had a point ... unfortunately for you, science is not on your side there ...
|
On January 07 2011 19:47 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Look, more so than republican/democrat, the big rift in this country is between politician and real person. Let's stop arguing over stupid party lines and get down to the fact that none of us are politicians and therefore there's basically nothing we can do about politics.
Politicians are not born on another planet. They are people like any of us, elected by their peers. (Personally I think anybody who WANTS to get into politics is a person who should NOT be in politics, but that's a whole other topic.) I'm reminded of the standup of George Calin.
"Real people" are as much the problem, if not more. Most people are ignorant and uninformed, and so we get ignorant and uninformed leaders. Practically all politicians are well-intentioned, but they fall into a particular trap. The public, especially these days, wants instant gratification. And yet the majority of the country's problems require long-term solutions, not bandaids. Long term solutions notoriously have short-term detriments. For this reason, politicians can not sell long-term solutions to the public without major backlash.
From the politician's perspective, he can only "make a difference" so long as he's employed. To stay employed, he's forced to hug the popular ideas, not the best ideas And so nothing meaningful gets done.
What we need is more politicians with the balls to make tough/unpopular decisions and sacrifice their careers to do what needs to be done. The alternative is to get the voting public to be better informed, but that's a lot more work and unlikely to happen in the near future due to the combination of bias in the media and general laziness of the public.
|
On January 07 2011 20:30 CheezDip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 19:47 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Look, more so than republican/democrat, the big rift in this country is between politician and real person. Let's stop arguing over stupid party lines and get down to the fact that none of us are politicians and therefore there's basically nothing we can do about politics. Politicians are not born on another planet. They are people like any of us, elected by their peers. (Personally I think anybody who WANTS to get into politics is a person who should NOT be in politics, but that's a whole other topic.) I'm reminded of the standup of George Calin. "Real people" are as much the problem, if not more. Most people are ignorant and uninformed, and so we get ignorant and uninformed leaders. Practically all politicians are well-intentioned, but they fall into a particular trap. The public, especially these days, wants instant gratification. And yet the majority of the country's problems require long-term solutions, not bandaids. Long term solutions notoriously have short-term detriments. For this reason, politicians can not sell long-term solutions to the public without major backlash. From the politician's perspective, he can only "make a difference" so long as he's employed. To stay employed, he's forced to hug the popular ideas, not the best ideas And so nothing meaningful gets done. What we need is more politicians with the balls to make tough/unpopular decisions and sacrifice their careers to do what needs to be done. The alternative is to get the voting public to be better informed, but that's a lot more work and unlikely to happen in the near future due to the combination of bias in the media and general laziness of the public.
I think you have accurately and very stringently described what most people feel about todays politics in most western democracies.
However, I think that this view is rather pessimistic and part of the problem. If you subscribe to the fact that the general public is uninformed, unable to understand the necessities of certain measures and stupid, then you partly justifiy politicians behavior. Their core argument is: me must not listen to the public because they have no ckue, anyway.
In my experience the problem is not politicians being unwilling to make unpopular decisions. As soon as they are lected, they do a lot of shit that pisses of the public. Like tax cuts for the rich, legislation that one-sidely favors big corporations at the expense of smaller businesses, the enviroentment etc.
I would say, what we need is politicians who make realisitic promises before elctions (instead of promising us heaven on earth( but who stick to there promises once they are in office. That and a public whose memory is good enough to remember who was true to their word and who was not.
|
On January 07 2011 20:44 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 20:30 CheezDip wrote:On January 07 2011 19:47 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Look, more so than republican/democrat, the big rift in this country is between politician and real person. Let's stop arguing over stupid party lines and get down to the fact that none of us are politicians and therefore there's basically nothing we can do about politics. Politicians are not born on another planet. They are people like any of us, elected by their peers. (Personally I think anybody who WANTS to get into politics is a person who should NOT be in politics, but that's a whole other topic.) I'm reminded of the standup of George Calin. "Real people" are as much the problem, if not more. Most people are ignorant and uninformed, and so we get ignorant and uninformed leaders. Practically all politicians are well-intentioned, but they fall into a particular trap. The public, especially these days, wants instant gratification. And yet the majority of the country's problems require long-term solutions, not bandaids. Long term solutions notoriously have short-term detriments. For this reason, politicians can not sell long-term solutions to the public without major backlash. From the politician's perspective, he can only "make a difference" so long as he's employed. To stay employed, he's forced to hug the popular ideas, not the best ideas And so nothing meaningful gets done. What we need is more politicians with the balls to make tough/unpopular decisions and sacrifice their careers to do what needs to be done. The alternative is to get the voting public to be better informed, but that's a lot more work and unlikely to happen in the near future due to the combination of bias in the media and general laziness of the public. I think you have accurately and very stringently described what most people feel about todays politics in most western democracies. However, I think that this view is rather pessimistic and part of the problem. If you subscribe to the fact that the general public is uninformed, unable to understand the necessities of certain measures and stupid, then you partly justifiy politicians behavior. Their core argument is: me must not listen to the public because they have no ckue, anyway. In my experience the problem is not politicians being unwilling to make unpopular decisions. As soon as they are lected, they do a lot of shit that pisses of the public. Like tax cuts for the rich, legislation that one-sidely favors big corporations at the expense of smaller businesses, the enviroentment etc. I would say, what we need is politicians who make realisitic promises before elctions (instead of promising us heaven on earth( but who stick to there promises once they are in office. That and a public whose memory is good enough to remember who was true to their word and who was not.
George Washington and many of the founding fathers believed that much of America was unfit to vote. People often forget that part because it doesn't fit in their happy fairytale of how America was born. Originally only white propertied males were given the right to vote. Why did they do this?
It's because only white propertied males were those who were receiving any sort of education, or had any business assets to protect. It was ipso facto class-ism and racism, and yes by today's standards it's an awful thing, but the reasoning behind it is actually quite sound. Uneducated people and people with no investment into society haven't the proper understanding nor perspective that is required to make intelligent voting decisions.
What has happened in the modern age of democracy is now that people who aren't learned scholars of international politics, economics, business, and gov't are outvoting those who are. Political parties have to find issues those groups do care about and use those issues to pull in the voting masses.
The republican base is motivated by social fears - abortion, gay marriage, religion, even some racism and xenophobia.
The democratic base is motivated by dangling the carrot, so to speak - welfare, healthcare, equal opportunity this and that, restraints and regulations on business which "protects" consumers.
Both are manipulation. Both are filled with lies and half truths. This is the nature of modern American politics though. All that we see now, and it's quite evident on this forum, is that both sides only see the other as the base of that party, ignorant and motivated by party propaganda. Both sides seem to the other as blissfully ignorant to the lies they've been fed by their leaders.
Both sides are right.
Until people realize that everything said is simply a bullshit argument designed to trap uneducated Americans into voting emotionally instead of logically, this country will sink ever deeper into a schism of elite and plebes - those with power, and those without.
I'm going to set the record straight. I don't actually give a damn which party I support. I don't even care what tag goes on my vote when it gets sent off. I only care about whoever makes the most logical and well reasoned argument backed up by facts. In recent years I've read a lot and see a lot of evidence supporting conservative theories and libertarian philosophy. The problem is, in this country, there is no pure conservative libertarian movement. It's all lumped up with the fear-driven republican base, and it becomes very hard to separate the gems from the bullshit in political arguments.
There are some very good points and arguments I haven't heard before and even if it looks like I'm fighting against them, I'm listening. The evidence for the southern strategy being the primary cause of alienation of black voters is something I wasn't fully aware of, and now I think my views were skewed because of misinformation. I still believe that both parties prey on racial hate and misunderstanding. Republicans do sometimes reach out to some extreme sectors of society who still believe in segregation and inequality. Democrats preach that all Republicans are racist and want to take away social programs that help blacks.
In the end, it's all tied into education. We have to foster logical thinking and make sure that people don't go by taglines and catch phrases, but by what the real platform is. Do you vote for democrats because Bush led us into an unjust war and all war is evil? Do you vote for republicans because you don't want your money taken away and given to someone who works less via taxes? Do you really understand how all that works, or are those just superficial responses that the parties tell you to have? If you want to show politicians up and prove that you're not what they think you are, then you must learn and reason your way to the proper conclusion, whatever that may be.
I apologize to those of you who are liberal leaning. I shouldn't have been so rash as to insult an entire group for the actions of a few.
|
On January 07 2011 21:15 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 20:44 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 07 2011 20:30 CheezDip wrote:On January 07 2011 19:47 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Look, more so than republican/democrat, the big rift in this country is between politician and real person. Let's stop arguing over stupid party lines and get down to the fact that none of us are politicians and therefore there's basically nothing we can do about politics.
Politicians are not born on another planet. They are people like any of us, elected by their peers. (Personally I think anybody who WANTS to get into politics is a person who should NOT be in politics, but that's a whole other topic.) I'm reminded of the standup of George Calin. "Real people" are as much the problem, if not more. Most people are ignorant and uninformed, and so we get ignorant and uninformed leaders. Practically all politicians are well-intentioned, but they fall into a particular trap. The public, especially these days, wants instant gratification. And yet the majority of the country's problems require long-term solutions, not bandaids. Long term solutions notoriously have short-term detriments. For this reason, politicians can not sell long-term solutions to the public without major backlash. From the politician's perspective, he can only "make a difference" so long as he's employed. To stay employed, he's forced to hug the popular ideas, not the best ideas And so nothing meaningful gets done. What we need is more politicians with the balls to make tough/unpopular decisions and sacrifice their careers to do what needs to be done. The alternative is to get the voting public to be better informed, but that's a lot more work and unlikely to happen in the near future due to the combination of bias in the media and general laziness of the public. I think you have accurately and very stringently described what most people feel about todays politics in most western democracies. However, I think that this view is rather pessimistic and part of the problem. If you subscribe to the fact that the general public is uninformed, unable to understand the necessities of certain measures and stupid, then you partly justifiy politicians behavior. Their core argument is: me must not listen to the public because they have no ckue, anyway. In my experience the problem is not politicians being unwilling to make unpopular decisions. As soon as they are lected, they do a lot of shit that pisses of the public. Like tax cuts for the rich, legislation that one-sidely favors big corporations at the expense of smaller businesses, the enviroentment etc. I would say, what we need is politicians who make realisitic promises before elctions (instead of promising us heaven on earth( but who stick to there promises once they are in office. That and a public whose memory is good enough to remember who was true to their word and who was not. George Washington and many of the founding fathers believed that much of America was unfit to vote. People often forget that part because it doesn't fit in their happy fairytale of how America was born. Originally only white propertied males were given the right to vote. Why did they do this? It's because only white propertied males were those who were receiving any sort of education, or had any business assets to protect. It was ipso facto class-ism and racism, and yes by today's standards it's an awful thing, but the reasoning behind it is actually quite sound. Uneducated people and people with no investment into society haven't the proper understanding nor perspective that is required to make intelligent voting decisions. What has happened in the modern age of democracy is now that people who aren't learned scholars of international politics, economics, business, and gov't are outvoting those who are. Political parties have to find issues those groups do care about and use those issues to pull in the voting masses. The republican base is motivated by social fears - abortion, gay marriage, religion, even some racism and xenophobia. The democratic base is motivated by dangling the carrot, so to speak - welfare, healthcare, equal opportunity this and that, restraints and regulations on business which "protects" consumers. Both are manipulation. Both are filled with lies and half truths. This is the nature of modern American politics though. All that we see now, and it's quite evident on this forum, is that both sides only see the other as the base of that party, ignorant and motivated by party propaganda. Both sides seem to the other as blissfully ignorant to the lies they've been fed by their leaders. Both sides are right. Until people realize that everything said is simply a bullshit argument designed to trap uneducated Americans into voting emotionally instead of logically, this country will sink ever deeper into a schism of elite and plebes - those with power, and those without.
Very Good post, unfortunetly Your words are true not only in regards to US politics but also to most European countries including mine. Sad but True.
|
On January 06 2011 15:19 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 15:11 thehitman wrote:
When the new congress cuts military spending it will be a good sign. Otherwise all these new legislation's are crap.
If the USA are to survive and all non politically engaged economists say so, they must stop the wars.
If the USA pulled out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea and Columbia it would cut the expenditure by about 15%
If USA closed all their military bases and returned all soldiers home it would cut 25% of the expenditure. And if the US cut entitlement spending by 5-15% it would have the same effect on the budget. However, I do think the idea of abandoning a conventional military is a good idea Replace with -Nukes to fight Nation states -"Police Infantry" for fighting non-nation state groups in weak nation states (with solid air/drone support)... However this would still be very expensive... as it would require multiple well trained+equipped individuals.
There would still be army personnel but a lot less and they are all home, so no spending on maintenance, oil and stuff like that!
|
My favourite arguments;
'You called me a name so I guess I won the argument'
A classic. Purely egotistical reasoning, if everyone's calling you an idiot you must be smarter than everyone else, right? Right.
'US healthcare is the best in the world because all the world's richest businessmen, royalty and presidents come here to get treatment.'
So your healthcare is the best in the world, for the world's richest people? Awesome.
'Liberals think that *insert anything*/I just love it when liberals *insert anything*/Don't you liberals realise that *insert anything*'
Dividing the whole world into two groups (liberals and normal people, or right-wingers and normal people, whichever your preference) and then calling one of said groups all mindless, thoughtless sheep. Because it's much easier to argue against somebody when you can associate them with everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Mussolini.
|
On January 07 2011 11:54 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 11:46 DoubleReed wrote:
Why are we debating socialism!!??
This is opposite of what the thread is about. Republicans are making spending standards much more lax and making it much more difficult to balance the budget and be fiscally responsible. What about that is "small government"? Why are people talking about socialism and such when very clearly, the democrats are the fiscally responsible ones in this case?
This is ridiculous. Socialism is the issue because the Republicans Are retaining limits on increased Spending (although they are avoiding Cutting Spending... since that always annoys someone more than not increasing spending) I agree what they are doing is mostly a bid for power and generally financially irresponsible. But the issue is that they are doing it in a way that it still hinders increasing government involvement in the economy. (ie socialism)
Okay, this sounds like general confusion. Obama put in the limits on spending. He retained "Pay-As-You-Go" from the Clinton era because he believes that it was instrumental in balancing the budget during Clinton's years in office (which btw, was a democrat president and republican congress). Search for the Policy and you will see Obama supports "Pay-As-You-Go" very strongly. That and Bush racked up a huge deficit with zero limits on spending and less transparency.
So Obama and the Democrats put in "Pay-As-You-Go" which is strict on how much government can spend, as it asserts you have to know where the money is coming from.
Then Republicans get Congress and say "Pay-As-You-Go-except-tax-cuts." NO. That's not fiscally responsible. I know people like tax cuts, but seriously, the money has to go somewhere. It's stupid.
But the "Pay-As-You-Go" policy is a democrat initiative. For some reason people think Obama has increased executive power and dramatically increased spending. It's not actually true, and I don't quite know why people are saying that.
----
So people saying the democrats or Obama is a socialist or whatever: They are the ones who put in strict limits on government spending. Republicans are making those limits more lax.
|
On January 06 2011 14:50 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 14:44 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 14:41 Zooper31 wrote:On January 06 2011 14:38 InvalidID wrote:On January 06 2011 14:35 Zooper31 wrote:On January 06 2011 14:09 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 14:03 Gentleman7 wrote:On January 06 2011 13:19 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 12:52 happyness wrote:On January 06 2011 11:00 funnybananaman wrote:
You can't cut the deficit AND cut taxes AND spend retarded amounts of money funding stupid wars and throwing all our taxpayer money into the military all at the same time.
Too true. I don't hate the tea party or anything. I believe we need to get out of debt and taxes should be as low as possible, but the wars we are in are by far the biggest burden to the budget. I don't see why conservatives can't see this. Look at the budgets and spending of this country and try to support your claim. Social policies such as SS, medicare, medicaid, and welfare represent substantially more spending than on defense. Allow me to point some facts out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_WarCheck out the amount of money spent on the Iraq War. The total cost of the war barely exceeds the cost of just 1 year of social security. Add in medicare, medicaid and other entitlements and compare. If you cut those programs by half you could fund over 5 Iraq wars a year! The defense budget for 2010 is listed as $664 billion. Compare this to those 3 big entitlement expenditures listed above: $1421 billion! Do you really think we're in a costly war? We could cut out entitlements for an entire year and that would cover 3 Iraqs. We haven't even been close to full war mode since WWII. If we actually had a serious war that was a direct threat to the American people, we effectively could spend dozens of times more money on it without risking inflation, simply by cutting socialist welfare policies. People don't realize it, but the US is a massive welfare state. The amount of money we spend on helping out the poor, elderly, disabled, or just outright lazy is astronomical. So, you could reduce the amount of everyone's social security checks by 10% or let a madman research nuclear devices for use on our allies. And lets not forget, any conflict in the middle east drives up oil prices and costs the US possibly even more than we'd have ever spent on this war. "The US is a massive welfare state" Really? Have you ever been outside of the country? We are one of the MOST conservative industrialized countries on the world. I'm not sure what you mean by "welfare" but if you mean unemployment benefits, you have no grasp on how economics works. Same for you social security arguments; end SS and you end spending by the elderly which hurts our econ. Not to mention the fact that the "social policies" are designed to HELP whereas Iraq did nothing but hurt. I'd also like to see a source for the 1.4kb number - is that since Roosevelt and the great depression? If so, it's a ridiculous statistic. And no, Hussein was not going after Nukes when we invaded >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budgetThere you go. Look for yourself. I don't make this stuff up. You don't believe it because you cannot hold your beliefs about gov't economics if you know it's true. Misinformation is a serious problem when it comes to our spending, and people need to wake the hell up. Oh and Hussein was definitely going after nukes when we invaded. It's fact. You should stop using wikipedia as you're only source of information. Also wheres the proof, because it seems the US, the people who invaded solely on that fact, can't seem to find it themselves. Wikipedia is pretty good for directly verifiable facts. If you dont believe something there, you can click the reference button. In the case of the US budget it is: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf . If you believe that source is inaccurate, I would challenge you to present a more reputable source for the US budget. How hard was that now. Just linking a wikipedia page shows nothing. Anyone on the internet can change information on any page and then link that page as proof of fact. Actually not true. Many pages must be verified by staff before being changed. I have a friend who does a lot of work for Wikipedia. I also have to say that it's the most accessible and well organized place for information. The article they have is really easy to read and is just a good article. Many college professors are fond of Wikipedia for objective information, because it's really really good. Is that why every teacher in every subject refused wikipedia as a source when I went to school? I do agree with the fact that its an amazingly awesome website for information, just take any information you get and double check it imo.
The reason professors don't want you to use wikipedia for assignments is because it's so damn easy, you're supposed to put some actual research in and read a book or something.
On January 06 2011 15:52 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 15:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 15:19 Krikkitone wrote:On January 06 2011 15:11 thehitman wrote:
When the new congress cuts military spending it will be a good sign. Otherwise all these new legislation's are crap.
If the USA are to survive and all non politically engaged economists say so, they must stop the wars.
If the USA pulled out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea and Columbia it would cut the expenditure by about 15%
If USA closed all their military bases and returned all soldiers home it would cut 25% of the expenditure. And if the US cut entitlement spending by 5-15% it would have the same effect on the budget. However, I do think the idea of abandoning a conventional military is a good idea Replace with -Nukes to fight Nation states -"Police Infantry" for fighting non-nation state groups in weak nation states (with solid air/drone support)... However this would still be very expensive... as it would require multiple well trained+equipped individuals. A conventional military is required for many reasons: Occupation and assistance: We cannot give aid to our allies or give aid in foreign disasters without a conventional military. We also cannot actually man our holdings in other parts of the world. If we want to push back China out of South Korea, we cannot do that with nukes. I disagree... we could definitely push China out of south Korea with Nukes... or at least the threat of nukes. provided we gave sufficient warning to China before they moved into South Korea. A full conventional military action between nuclear powers is likely to become a nuclear war anyways. A nonnuclear power would definitely be deterred. Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 15:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
You cannot rely on nukes as your only deterrent. No nation wants to commit to using them. If we have no conventional army, we have no way to deter enemeis from taking small bites at us repeatedly. We cannot respond to such aggression with nuclear force, so we'd be forced to take a loss for no reason. In addition, nukes are an awfully heavy solution to any war, and even a war hawk is going to be cautious about using one ever. "Small bites" that consist of conventional enemy forces could definitely be countered by nukes Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 15:31 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
It is really hard to take out a specific terrorist camp without leveling a city with a nuke. You need conventional forces to take out key targets and perform small scale assaults. In the end, if you wanted to only rely on nukes you'd just be blanketing a country with them to take out every military target you need to take out. That's no way to win a war (unless it's against zerg).
If the enemy is attacking in a non conventional way, ie guerilla forces/terrorists.... then conventional forces are not what you want, you want those "Police Infantry"... people that know which 'civilian' to shoot, and the way to have them shot. Basically any Country using conventional military forces can be safely handled with nukes Any Country using nukes can Only be safely handled with nukes Organizations (including countries) using non conventional warfare such as terrorism/guerilla warfare should be handled differently... and a conventional military isn't what is needed in that case. What you need is a militarized version of a police force. Why?... if it has been previously stated that that would be our response... The "local ally" South Korea would still have their own conventional forces. You wouldn't necessarily only have ICBMs either... and you wouldn't have to drop them all at once either...one per day until the survivors surrender. Both the "Nuclear" portion and the "Police" portion of the military would have many things similar to current conventional forces.... "Nuclear" would need: fighters/nuclear bombers/carriers/subs for more tactical nukes on minor conventional powers "Police" would need armored transports (in land, air, and sea), gunships, drones
Conventional forces are most definitely required in order to occupy areas, defend assets, have a physical presence etc. and so that you're only military capability isn't starting a nuclear war.
The actions of this 'police force' you speak of are exactly what's being done by the military in Afghanistan, they're not standing in a field fighting massive pitched battles, they're systematically hunting for insurgents, clearing areas of enemies and IED's, arresting suspects in towns, seizing weapons etc.
|
The main question blacks have to ask themselves is "Has my life gotten any better under Democrats?" Probably not. 50 years of social welfare programs and people aren't that much better off. Plus we have a lot of debt/non-tax paying citizens to show for it.
Pay-as-you-go might as well be a MLM marketing scheme. The President can issue "emergency funding" and the like to bypass it. If pay as you go works, then how the hell did the national debt increase by 3.1 trillion? That makes sense.
I am from Alabama, so you are right Lefnui, I MUST be racist. You don't even know me you idiot. I can call you names too, see? I'm pretty sure if I was actually racist, then I wouldn't live where I live right now. Its an upgraded SLAVE HOUSE from the 1830s by the way...
I'm sure your elitist ass wouldn't be good enough for that, would it?
|
On January 07 2011 21:15 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
What has happened in the modern age of democracy is now that people who aren't learned scholars of international politics, economics, business, and gov't are outvoting those who are. Political parties have to find issues those groups do care about and use those issues to pull in the voting masses.
The republican base is motivated by social fears - abortion, gay marriage, religion, even some racism and xenophobia.
The democratic base is motivated by dangling the carrot, so to speak - welfare, healthcare, equal opportunity this and that, restraints and regulations on business which "protects" consumers.
Both are manipulation. Both are filled with lies and half truths. This is the nature of modern American politics though. All that we see now, and it's quite evident on this forum, is that both sides only see the other as the base of that party, ignorant and motivated by party propaganda. Both sides seem to the other as blissfully ignorant to the lies they've been fed by their leaders.
Both sides are right.
Until people realize that everything said is simply a bullshit argument designed to trap uneducated Americans into voting emotionally instead of logically, this country will sink ever deeper into a schism of elite and plebes - those with power, and those without.
Props for a quality post, dude. 
I think you have very precisely described the biggest downside of a democracy. I wonder what the solution to this problem is. One drastic step might be to let people vote only if they pass a voters license test to sort out the uninformed. However, that clearly violates the idea of equality.
You may alternatively try to educate people to a level where everyone can function as an informed voter. You probabaly need to combine a good education with politicians being able to explain complicated issues in an easy-to-understand way.
But reality shows that it is much more convenient to let the people stay uninformed and use fear/carrots to achieve power. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
