|
On January 12 2011 16:10 Balthasar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 06:08 DoubleReed wrote:OLITICS" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-09/politics/obama.paygo_1_paygo-blue-dogs-proposal?_s=PM OLITICSJust google Obama and Pay-As-You-Go. It was a policy instituted while Clinton was president and republicans had the congress. Many say it helped with balancing the budget during those years in office (which is debatable, but it certainly doesn't hurt). It was abandoned by Bush because the republicans roamed free spending money on everything with little oversight. Obama wants Pay-As-You-Go actually to be signed into law. Almost all of Obama's spending initiatives actually outline how they're being paid for, including the stimulus plan and things like that. They have openly said that short term spending is necessary, but the actual bills signed and everything actually declare how they are going to get that money back. Obama is not actually "spending like there's no tomorrow," because additionally he plans on getting that money. For instance, we did kind of have a huge bank crisis... Republicans are literally taking Pay-As-You-Go and saying "Okay, sounds good, except for tax cuts." THAT is fiscally stupid. That doesn't make sense. If you have a tax cut, you should still plan where you're going to get that money. Otherwise, we're not actually reducing government spending! It's as simple as that.. Yeah, I give props for Paygo to a Democratic Legislature and Republic Executive for enacting it. But, the Reps never got rid of it, it expired. Obama has no way of paying for anything. I don't want to bash on Obama too much, but his administration is already full of missteps. Personally, I'm annoyed we still have troops in Iraq which was a campaign promise to start removal August 2010 (also a key reason why many Americans voted for him). As for spending he's on pace to outspend every president before him. As for Republicans, who walk the walk and talk the talk: Governor Christie and Representative Ron Paul who have had excellent track records for just that. In the state of Washington the Democratic party controlled assembly and governor got rid of Washington's paygo last year by voting it out which was greatly opposed by the public at large. Also why are you so confused Libertarians prefer Reps in general? Don't you know a key principle of libertarianism is low taxes and low spending? Many who prefer no income taxes altogether. Again, I'm not saying all Reps are good. Those neo-cons need to go.
Well the main part of this is all pretty rational, I agree with most of that.
But Libertarians are for low taxes and low spending. The Republicans have certainly not impressed me with that. And definitely not in this specific case.
And of course there are all the social issues, which libertarian ideals almost universally go against republican policy in general.
In general I get the idea that the republicans are much more united and homogeneous than the democrats, so that also plays a strong role in my opinion btw. I feel like the democrats disagree with each other a lot and have a lot of differing opinions, but the republicans don't. So the democrats has always seemed much more on the libertarian side of things to be honest.
|
On January 13 2011 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
In general I get the idea that the republicans are much more united and homogeneous than the democrats, so that also plays a strong role in my opinion btw. I feel like the democrats disagree with each other a lot and have a lot of differing opinions, but the republicans don't. So the democrats has always seemed much more on the libertarian side of things to be honest.
Libertarians like fiscal conservative message of Republicans. Although most Republicans (not all mind you) in the Bush Administration sucked since they supported his policies. But, a Democrat was in control of the legislative branch at the time, so, they are also equally to blame.
What really pisses me off at the Democratic party in general is there failure to adhere to their own principles. They were supposed to be for civil liberties, but they went along with the patriot act and even voted to extend it. They voted for the wars.
Even in health-care where they were supposed to give a public option, failed to give us one. The health-care bill that came out Democratic Legislative and Executive branch is a total mess where everyone has to buy into private insurance. It was a win for private insurers, not the American people. There is no controls or negotiated premiums. I'm not for social health-care in the least, but at least they can be consistent in their politics and principles.
For the last two years, the Democrats essentially had a blank check. They had control of the legislative and the presidency. They could of gotten any bill they wanted, but what did they give us: a ****ed up stimulus bill and equally ****ed up health care bill.
Geez... no wonder, Republicans took control of Congress.
|
On January 13 2011 07:00 Balthasar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
In general I get the idea that the republicans are much more united and homogeneous than the democrats, so that also plays a strong role in my opinion btw. I feel like the democrats disagree with each other a lot and have a lot of differing opinions, but the republicans don't. So the democrats has always seemed much more on the libertarian side of things to be honest. Libertarians like fiscal conservative message of Republicans. Although most Republicans (not all mind you) in the Bush Administration sucked since they supported his policies. But, a Democrat was in control of the legislative branch at the time, so, they are also equally to blame. What really pisses me off at the Democratic party in general is there failure to adhere to their own principles. They were supposed to be for civil liberties, but they went along with the patriot act and even voted to extend it. They voted for the wars. Even in health-care where they were supposed to give a public option, failed to give us one. The health-care bill that came out Democratic Legislative and Executive branch is a total mess where everyone has to buy into private insurance. It was a win for private insurers, not the American people. There is no controls or negotiated premiums. I'm not for social health-care in the least, but at least they can be consistent in their politics and principles. For the last two years, the Democrats essentially had a blank check. They had control of the legislative and the presidency. They could of gotten any bill they wanted, but what did they give us: a ****ed up stimulus bill and equally ****ed up health care bill. Geez... no wonder, Republicans took control of Congress.
To be fair to the Democrats in the legislature, they didn't want to push their principles so far they wouldn't get reelected.
And also some Democrats have different principles than others... there are some Democrats for whom that health care bill and/or stimulus was an almost perfect embodiment of their principles.
Republicans took control because some Democrats pushed too hard (for their district) and some didn't press hard enough (so they lost support for their district)
|
On January 11 2011 02:34 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 16:28 Tasteful123 wrote:
Lefnui, is this your idea of fun? Using your time to feed right wing trolls who came here without any willingness to budge on their ignorance? You can reason all you want with them but in the end it's going to end up with the right wingers equivocating the faults of the right with faults of the left. That is the best you're going to get out of them, if at all.
Yeah, I guess the Republican party is pretty bad - but the Democrats are bad too! Yeah, Fox news is pretty biased - but MSNBC is too!
Any sane person should know the massive difference in the amount and quality of bullshit pouring out of either side... too bad everyone always tries to make it look like both sides are equally bad.
Scruffy, just admit to being a racist. It'll make it easier to believe that you're an actual right winger instead of a troll. Anyone want to get a bet going that Lefnui and this new guy will/will not call me a racist to my face at the next big U.S. tournament? (they wouldn't show).
Oh brother.
|
On January 13 2011 07:43 Krikkitone wrote:
To be fair to the Democrats in the legislature, they didn't want to push their principles so far they wouldn't get reelected.
That's the problem with these politicians. They worry too much about getting reelected and not stay true to their own principles. Politicians should vote for bills that best serve the nation, not their political careers.
|
On January 13 2011 09:05 Balthasar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 07:43 Krikkitone wrote:
To be fair to the Democrats in the legislature, they didn't want to push their principles so far they wouldn't get reelected.
That's the problem with these politicians. They worry too much about getting reelected and not stay true to their own principles. Politicians should vote for bills that best serve the nation, not their political careers.
The Politicians that do that don't stay long in office. Its a race to the bottom
|
On January 13 2011 09:05 Balthasar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 07:43 Krikkitone wrote:
To be fair to the Democrats in the legislature, they didn't want to push their principles so far they wouldn't get reelected.
That's the problem with these politicians. They worry too much about getting reelected and not stay true to their own principles. Politicians should vote for bills that best serve the nation, not their political careers.
If a politician can't convince voters that their plans/actions/principles are best for the nation, then that politician is not suited for democratic government. They would do better as warlords/despots.
Just like a prosecuter that can't convince a jury the accused is guilty, is not suited for a free government.
|
GOP argues laffer curve.
Laffer curve was created by Arthur Laffer, Reagan economic advisor.
Laffer currently teaches at the Stanford School of Business and Economics.
The curve certainly is somewhat inaccurate, but the GOP doesn't argue that large tax cuts will increase revenue: the curve is a parabola instead of a linear line
|
On January 13 2011 09:10 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 09:05 Balthasar wrote:On January 13 2011 07:43 Krikkitone wrote:
To be fair to the Democrats in the legislature, they didn't want to push their principles so far they wouldn't get reelected.
That's the problem with these politicians. They worry too much about getting reelected and not stay true to their own principles. Politicians should vote for bills that best serve the nation, not their political careers. The Politicians that do that don't stay long in office. Its a race to the bottom
You think most politicians keep true to their campaign promises? You think politicians are honest and don't get re-elected? Do you live on an island? Are you delusional? Do I have to even give evidence to the contrary? Howabout Pelosi, who lied about not knowing the use of torture, who promised fiscal conservative ideals and had a private plane fly her back and forth.
On January 13 2011 10:27 Krikkitone wrote:
If a politician can't convince voters that their plans/actions/principles are best for the nation, then that politician is not suited for democratic government. They would do better as warlords/despots.
Just like a prosecuter that can't convince a jury the accused is guilty, is not suited for a free government.
The problem isn't that they aren't convincing. They say one thing during election period and act totally different when in power.
|
On January 13 2011 11:00 Balthasar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 09:10 LSB wrote:On January 13 2011 09:05 Balthasar wrote:On January 13 2011 07:43 Krikkitone wrote:
To be fair to the Democrats in the legislature, they didn't want to push their principles so far they wouldn't get reelected.
That's the problem with these politicians. They worry too much about getting reelected and not stay true to their own principles. Politicians should vote for bills that best serve the nation, not their political careers. The Politicians that do that don't stay long in office. Its a race to the bottom You think most politicians keep true to their campaign promises? You think politicians are honest and don't get re-elected? Do you live on an island? Are you delusional? Do I have to even give evidence to the contrary? Howabout Pelosi, who lied about not knowing the use of torture, who promised fiscal conservative ideals and had a private plane fly her back and forth. Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 10:27 Krikkitone wrote:
If a politician can't convince voters that their plans/actions/principles are best for the nation, then that politician is not suited for democratic government. They would do better as warlords/despots.
Just like a prosecuter that can't convince a jury the accused is guilty, is not suited for a free government. The problem isn't that they aren't convincing. They say one thing during election period and act totally different when in power.
Then the problem isnt the politicians it is the people who are stupid for reelecting them.
(or perhaps the people are compromising on the politicians, just like the politicians are compromising on the laws... a Democratic Congressman figures voting for a law they don't like much is better than not getting that law at all... a Democratic voter figures the Democratic candidate will represent their individual interests better than any other candidate that might actually get elected)
Part of it is the nature of compromise... the only time principles are undefiled when making laws is when someone has absolute power.
In a democratic government with a population>1 we have to compromise. (that doesn't mean that politicians aren't scum and voters aren't stupid, but it opens up that possibility)
|
On January 13 2011 05:47 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 20:54 Mayfly wrote:On January 12 2011 19:47 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 12 2011 16:10 Balthasar wrote:
Also why are you so confused Libertarians prefer Reps in general? Don't you know a key principle of libertarianism is low taxes and low spending? Many who prefer no income taxes altogether.
Again, I'm not saying all Reps are good. Those neo-cons need to go. Reps are more economically liberal and more in favor of small government (with the exception of external and internal security) Kind of a big exception. On January 12 2011 18:11 Rflcrx wrote:
First it was a joke (ofc!), than you are for real. Maybe pick one before you post?
I mean, you have to decide. Oh and: Correcting your mistakes != trolling Yep, I was joking and I was later serious. Wow. A person capable of both joking and being serious, how can that be? The "outspent every other president combined" thing was a common bullshit line for a while that was quoted in various anti-Obama camps. That he outspent every other president (since WW2; not combined) if you look at spending total AND spending/gdp is true (if you extrapolate the remaining years or just compare year per year). I just want to see real solutions in government. Don't care if there is an R, D, I, or L by their names (we've seen that they ALL like spending that cheese, and not their cheese, mind you, OUR cheese)
That is an extremely stupid thing to point out. That's how the country works. That's how it's designed, organized, everything. They are meant to use our tax money, that's not a problem.
|
On January 11 2011 14:44 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 12:21 misaTO wrote:
Idiots argue over semantics.
Reps have stated that Tax cuts repay themselves. If that is the case, why shouldn't we abolish taxation. It pays itself right? That's a completely fallacious argument, I'm pretty sure the gop doesn't say all tax cuts pay for themselves. You should really read Paul Krugman's collumn. He explains it much better than I do. We just follow Rep Logic. At first they were anti-deficit, and then they went all crazy over tax cuts. The reps are fallacious, and Im not even liberal. Just logical sense. Show nested quote +
Economically speaking, Tax cuts & Public spending are not bad for the economy per se. Both can benefit a depressed economy. The problem is that when this Expenditures & the Tax cuts don't create future benefits.
American economy needs a jump-start so Private capitals can take over from there.
My question for you the forumers is : Are we cutting where we should?
Ideologicaly speaking, both parties are very flexible as Political Institutions it terms of the people's Demands they channel into the Political Agenda. The truth is there is no much difference between a Rep & a Dem. There is also what we see on TV that has little to do with reality. Every single Media producer is lying to you.
The rest of this post makes little sense and then goes off into another strawman: the media. All reps and dems are the same? What kind of world are you living in? I'll agree that party politics is bogged with stuff that doesn't have to do with the ideologies of either side, but making sensationalist statements like that is just as bad. I'm sorry but I don't want posters like you representing the liberal side. (or any side for that matter)
How do you explain that in the most socially diverse enviroment, you only need two parties?
Just tell me. How can we scientifically explain it?
|
On January 13 2011 22:21 misaTO wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 14:44 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On January 11 2011 12:21 misaTO wrote:
Idiots argue over semantics.
Reps have stated that Tax cuts repay themselves. If that is the case, why shouldn't we abolish taxation. It pays itself right? That's a completely fallacious argument, I'm pretty sure the gop doesn't say all tax cuts pay for themselves. You should really read Paul Krugman's collumn. He explains it much better than I do. We just follow Rep Logic. At first they were anti-deficit, and then they went all crazy over tax cuts. The reps are fallacious, and Im not even liberal. Just logical sense.
Economically speaking, Tax cuts & Public spending are not bad for the economy per se. Both can benefit a depressed economy. The problem is that when this Expenditures & the Tax cuts don't create future benefits.
American economy needs a jump-start so Private capitals can take over from there.
My question for you the forumers is : Are we cutting where we should?
Ideologicaly speaking, both parties are very flexible as Political Institutions it terms of the people's Demands they channel into the Political Agenda. The truth is there is no much difference between a Rep & a Dem. There is also what we see on TV that has little to do with reality. Every single Media producer is lying to you.
The rest of this post makes little sense and then goes off into another strawman: the media. All reps and dems are the same? What kind of world are you living in? I'll agree that party politics is bogged with stuff that doesn't have to do with the ideologies of either side, but making sensationalist statements like that is just as bad. I'm sorry but I don't want posters like you representing the liberal side. (or any side for that matter) How do you explain that in the most socially diverse enviroment, you only need two parties? Just tell me. How can we scientifically explain it?
We have way more than 2 parties. There are 2 major ones, but that's just how our political system has evolved over the years. Despite the fact that there are 2 major parties, each party is diverse enough that they represent the majority of political beliefs in this country.
|
On January 13 2011 22:41 LegendaryZ wrote:
We have way more than 2 parties. There are 2 major ones, but that's just how our political system has evolved over the years. Despite the fact that there are 2 major parties, each party is diverse enough that they represent the majority of political beliefs in this country.
Hehe, maybe you should just start voting Green. Would be some sort of shock if they got like 50% of the votes. :D Or vote Pirates! Harr.
|
On January 13 2011 21:19 Lefnui wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 05:47 Scruffy wrote:On January 12 2011 20:54 Mayfly wrote:On January 12 2011 19:47 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 12 2011 16:10 Balthasar wrote:
Also why are you so confused Libertarians prefer Reps in general? Don't you know a key principle of libertarianism is low taxes and low spending? Many who prefer no income taxes altogether.
Again, I'm not saying all Reps are good. Those neo-cons need to go. Reps are more economically liberal and more in favor of small government (with the exception of external and internal security) Kind of a big exception. On January 12 2011 18:11 Rflcrx wrote:
First it was a joke (ofc!), than you are for real. Maybe pick one before you post?
I mean, you have to decide. Oh and: Correcting your mistakes != trolling Yep, I was joking and I was later serious. Wow. A person capable of both joking and being serious, how can that be? The "outspent every other president combined" thing was a common bullshit line for a while that was quoted in various anti-Obama camps. That he outspent every other president (since WW2; not combined) if you look at spending total AND spending/gdp is true (if you extrapolate the remaining years or just compare year per year). I just want to see real solutions in government. Don't care if there is an R, D, I, or L by their names (we've seen that they ALL like spending that cheese, and not their cheese, mind you, OUR cheese) That is an extremely stupid thing to point out. That's how the country works. That's how it's designed, organized, everything. They are meant to use our tax money, that's not a problem.
If you would stop trying to troll me and actually read what I wrote, you would see that I meant they are spending too much of our money. Guessing the trillions of debt is a non-issue for you anyways.
|
On January 13 2011 22:21 misaTO wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 14:44 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On January 11 2011 12:21 misaTO wrote:
Idiots argue over semantics.
Reps have stated that Tax cuts repay themselves. If that is the case, why shouldn't we abolish taxation. It pays itself right? That's a completely fallacious argument, I'm pretty sure the gop doesn't say all tax cuts pay for themselves. You should really read Paul Krugman's collumn. He explains it much better than I do. We just follow Rep Logic. At first they were anti-deficit, and then they went all crazy over tax cuts. The reps are fallacious, and Im not even liberal. Just logical sense.
Economically speaking, Tax cuts & Public spending are not bad for the economy per se. Both can benefit a depressed economy. The problem is that when this Expenditures & the Tax cuts don't create future benefits.
American economy needs a jump-start so Private capitals can take over from there.
My question for you the forumers is : Are we cutting where we should?
Ideologicaly speaking, both parties are very flexible as Political Institutions it terms of the people's Demands they channel into the Political Agenda. The truth is there is no much difference between a Rep & a Dem. There is also what we see on TV that has little to do with reality. Every single Media producer is lying to you.
The rest of this post makes little sense and then goes off into another strawman: the media. All reps and dems are the same? What kind of world are you living in? I'll agree that party politics is bogged with stuff that doesn't have to do with the ideologies of either side, but making sensationalist statements like that is just as bad. I'm sorry but I don't want posters like you representing the liberal side. (or any side for that matter) How do you explain that in the most socially diverse enviroment, you only need two parties? Just tell me. How can we scientifically explain it?
Very easily... just like you can only have one set of laws passed by a diverse Congress, a given District only has 1 representative... so Nationally there are only 2 general groupings that can get enough to beat the others.
People don't for the Democrat/Repupblican candidate because they best represent their views (the only way to best represent your views is to be the Congressman yourself) instead they vote for that candidate because they Represent their views better than any other Viable* candidate
*Viable.. meaning can win because the more people you have agreeing on the candidate the better.. so candidates are compromises made by the voter.
With many Europeans having the proportional representation mechanism, You still end up with "two parties" ie the ruling party and the 'others' but the representatives choose whether Green will support the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party... since you need one set of laws.
In the US the individual Green voter decides whether to
1. Vote Democrat
2. Vote Republican
3. Vote Green so as to encourage the Republicans/Democrats running in their district to try and get more Green votes next election. (that's really the only impact of voting for/having a third party.. altough it is a real impact, Pay as you go was largely a result of Ross Perot running.. who didn't win anything, but let the parties know that the american people were interested in the deficit/debt by the way they voted)
Now I think a good way to capture this would be in a bicameral system where one house was winner take all (for the district) and one house where it was proportional representation.
In that case you would only have 2 parties in the first house (it would be better for making compromises), and there would be multiple parties in the second house.
|
On January 13 2011 23:57 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 21:19 Lefnui wrote:On January 13 2011 05:47 Scruffy wrote:On January 12 2011 20:54 Mayfly wrote:On January 12 2011 19:47 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 12 2011 16:10 Balthasar wrote:
Also why are you so confused Libertarians prefer Reps in general? Don't you know a key principle of libertarianism is low taxes and low spending? Many who prefer no income taxes altogether.
Again, I'm not saying all Reps are good. Those neo-cons need to go. Reps are more economically liberal and more in favor of small government (with the exception of external and internal security) Kind of a big exception. On January 12 2011 18:11 Rflcrx wrote:
First it was a joke (ofc!), than you are for real. Maybe pick one before you post?
I mean, you have to decide. Oh and: Correcting your mistakes != trolling Yep, I was joking and I was later serious. Wow. A person capable of both joking and being serious, how can that be? The "outspent every other president combined" thing was a common bullshit line for a while that was quoted in various anti-Obama camps. That he outspent every other president (since WW2; not combined) if you look at spending total AND spending/gdp is true (if you extrapolate the remaining years or just compare year per year). I just want to see real solutions in government. Don't care if there is an R, D, I, or L by their names (we've seen that they ALL like spending that cheese, and not their cheese, mind you, OUR cheese) That is an extremely stupid thing to point out. That's how the country works. That's how it's designed, organized, everything. They are meant to use our tax money, that's not a problem. If you would stop trying to troll me and actually read what I wrote, you would see that I meant they are spending too much of our money. Guessing the trillions of debt is a non-issue for you anyways.
You stressed that they are spending "OUR cheese".
Again, for the millionth time, calling racist statements racist is not trolling.
|
On January 13 2011 07:00 Balthasar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
In general I get the idea that the republicans are much more united and homogeneous than the democrats, so that also plays a strong role in my opinion btw. I feel like the democrats disagree with each other a lot and have a lot of differing opinions, but the republicans don't. So the democrats has always seemed much more on the libertarian side of things to be honest. Libertarians like fiscal conservative message of Republicans. Although most Republicans (not all mind you) in the Bush Administration sucked since they supported his policies. But, a Democrat was in control of the legislative branch at the time, so, they are also equally to blame. What really pisses me off at the Democratic party in general is there failure to adhere to their own principles. They were supposed to be for civil liberties, but they went along with the patriot act and even voted to extend it. They voted for the wars. Even in health-care where they were supposed to give a public option, failed to give us one. The health-care bill that came out Democratic Legislative and Executive branch is a total mess where everyone has to buy into private insurance. It was a win for private insurers, not the American people. There is no controls or negotiated premiums. I'm not for social health-care in the least, but at least they can be consistent in their politics and principles. For the last two years, the Democrats essentially had a blank check. They had control of the legislative and the presidency. They could of gotten any bill they wanted, but what did they give us: a ****ed up stimulus bill and equally ****ed up health care bill. Geez... no wonder, Republicans took control of Congress.
Honestly, this sounds like more what I'm saying. The Democrats often disagree with one another. There are many fiscally conservative democrats who go against the big government thing and want to mostly encourage private enterprise. That's precisely what I mean. Democrats went against the public option thing BECAUSE of their principles. Otherwise, they would have gone down party lines.
Republicans on the other hand, tend to stick together, and vote much harder along party lines. Not necessarily because that's what they believe, but because they want party support. Take Healthcare. The republicans pretty much stalemated the entire thing throughout. No compromise. Nothing. They just kept voting hard party lines. The Democrats were NOT voting hard party lines, and were trying to compromise something that did not destroy free enterprise blah blah blah.
If anything, that says to me that the republicans are more full of shit.
Politicians SHOULD be disagreeing with each other a lot! They SHOULD be compromising. These are complicated issues with multiple sides. The idea that all the republicans vote so much with the party is not comforting in the least.
|
On January 14 2011 00:08 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 22:21 misaTO wrote:On January 11 2011 14:44 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On January 11 2011 12:21 misaTO wrote:
Idiots argue over semantics.
Reps have stated that Tax cuts repay themselves. If that is the case, why shouldn't we abolish taxation. It pays itself right? That's a completely fallacious argument, I'm pretty sure the gop doesn't say all tax cuts pay for themselves. You should really read Paul Krugman's collumn. He explains it much better than I do. We just follow Rep Logic. At first they were anti-deficit, and then they went all crazy over tax cuts. The reps are fallacious, and Im not even liberal. Just logical sense.
Economically speaking, Tax cuts & Public spending are not bad for the economy per se. Both can benefit a depressed economy. The problem is that when this Expenditures & the Tax cuts don't create future benefits.
American economy needs a jump-start so Private capitals can take over from there.
My question for you the forumers is : Are we cutting where we should?
Ideologicaly speaking, both parties are very flexible as Political Institutions it terms of the people's Demands they channel into the Political Agenda. The truth is there is no much difference between a Rep & a Dem. There is also what we see on TV that has little to do with reality. Every single Media producer is lying to you.
The rest of this post makes little sense and then goes off into another strawman: the media. All reps and dems are the same? What kind of world are you living in? I'll agree that party politics is bogged with stuff that doesn't have to do with the ideologies of either side, but making sensationalist statements like that is just as bad. I'm sorry but I don't want posters like you representing the liberal side. (or any side for that matter) How do you explain that in the most socially diverse enviroment, you only need two parties? Just tell me. How can we scientifically explain it? Very easily... just like you can only have one set of laws passed by a diverse Congress, a given District only has 1 representative... so Nationally there are only 2 general groupings that can get enough to beat the others. People don't for the Democrat/Repupblican candidate because they best represent their views (the only way to best represent your views is to be the Congressman yourself) instead they vote for that candidate because they Represent their views better than any other Viable* candidate *Viable.. meaning can win because the more people you have agreeing on the candidate the better.. so candidates are compromises made by the voter. With many Europeans having the proportional representation mechanism, You still end up with "two parties" ie the ruling party and the 'others' but the representatives choose whether Green will support the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party... since you need one set of laws. In the US the individual Green voter decides whether to 1. Vote Democrat 2. Vote Republican 3. Vote Green so as to encourage the Republicans/Democrats running in their district to try and get more Green votes next election. (that's really the only impact of voting for/having a third party.. altough it is a real impact, Pay as you go was largely a result of Ross Perot running.. who didn't win anything, but let the parties know that the american people were interested in the deficit/debt by the way they voted) Now I think a good way to capture this would be in a bicameral system where one house was winner take all (for the district) and one house where it was proportional representation. In that case you would only have 2 parties in the first house (it would be better for making compromises), and there would be multiple parties in the second house.
See answer to the other guy I quoted
On January 13 2011 22:41 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 22:21 misaTO wrote:On January 11 2011 14:44 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On January 11 2011 12:21 misaTO wrote:
Idiots argue over semantics.
Reps have stated that Tax cuts repay themselves. If that is the case, why shouldn't we abolish taxation. It pays itself right? That's a completely fallacious argument, I'm pretty sure the gop doesn't say all tax cuts pay for themselves. You should really read Paul Krugman's collumn. He explains it much better than I do. We just follow Rep Logic. At first they were anti-deficit, and then they went all crazy over tax cuts. The reps are fallacious, and Im not even liberal. Just logical sense.
Economically speaking, Tax cuts & Public spending are not bad for the economy per se. Both can benefit a depressed economy. The problem is that when this Expenditures & the Tax cuts don't create future benefits.
American economy needs a jump-start so Private capitals can take over from there.
My question for you the forumers is : Are we cutting where we should?
Ideologicaly speaking, both parties are very flexible as Political Institutions it terms of the people's Demands they channel into the Political Agenda. The truth is there is no much difference between a Rep & a Dem. There is also what we see on TV that has little to do with reality. Every single Media producer is lying to you.
The rest of this post makes little sense and then goes off into another strawman: the media. All reps and dems are the same? What kind of world are you living in? I'll agree that party politics is bogged with stuff that doesn't have to do with the ideologies of either side, but making sensationalist statements like that is just as bad. I'm sorry but I don't want posters like you representing the liberal side. (or any side for that matter) How do you explain that in the most socially diverse enviroment, you only need two parties? Just tell me. How can we scientifically explain it? We have way more than 2 parties. There are 2 major ones, but that's just how our political system has evolved over the years. Despite the fact that there are 2 major parties, each party is diverse enough that they represent the majority of political beliefs in this country.
Exactly my point. It doesn't matter how many parties you have. You only need the 2 main ones to work efficiently. The two parties are flexible enough to handle diverse POVS but they do not necesarilly represent the interest of the people. THey just acknowledge some of the Demands (needs) of the american people.
They are both Liberal parties, run by the USA's Elite (or richest guys in America if you like) that can channel the most broad expectrum of Demands into the Public Agenda.
and this is not just my opinion. If you are interested search any Politcal Science Books about Bipartidism in America. Specially the ones that were written @ Harvard.
|
On January 14 2011 01:02 Lefnui wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 23:57 Scruffy wrote:On January 13 2011 21:19 Lefnui wrote:On January 13 2011 05:47 Scruffy wrote:On January 12 2011 20:54 Mayfly wrote:On January 12 2011 19:47 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 12 2011 16:10 Balthasar wrote:
Also why are you so confused Libertarians prefer Reps in general? Don't you know a key principle of libertarianism is low taxes and low spending? Many who prefer no income taxes altogether.
Again, I'm not saying all Reps are good. Those neo-cons need to go. Reps are more economically liberal and more in favor of small government (with the exception of external and internal security) Kind of a big exception. On January 12 2011 18:11 Rflcrx wrote:
First it was a joke (ofc!), than you are for real. Maybe pick one before you post?
I mean, you have to decide. Oh and: Correcting your mistakes != trolling Yep, I was joking and I was later serious. Wow. A person capable of both joking and being serious, how can that be? The "outspent every other president combined" thing was a common bullshit line for a while that was quoted in various anti-Obama camps. That he outspent every other president (since WW2; not combined) if you look at spending total AND spending/gdp is true (if you extrapolate the remaining years or just compare year per year). I just want to see real solutions in government. Don't care if there is an R, D, I, or L by their names (we've seen that they ALL like spending that cheese, and not their cheese, mind you, OUR cheese) That is an extremely stupid thing to point out. That's how the country works. That's how it's designed, organized, everything. They are meant to use our tax money, that's not a problem. If you would stop trying to troll me and actually read what I wrote, you would see that I meant they are spending too much of our money. Guessing the trillions of debt is a non-issue for you anyways. You stressed that they are spending "OUR cheese". Again, for the millionth time, calling racist statements racist is not trolling.
Oh get over yourself you hippie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
