|
United States7483 Posts
On August 19 2011 07:58 Krehlmar wrote:
I read the Swedish newspaper regarding the republican candidates, and frankly Paul doesn't seem like the biggest asshole ever although most republicans have sold out their souls to capitalism and bullshit ideals to get power ("god", "constitution" and "liberty" are warningsigns here, anyone who uses them more than once in every speech is a loony true and whole.)
He has some ok idea's, like changing taxes to pre-bush era, raising them. I don't agree on removing the education ministry aswell as healthcare etc. because that's fucking retarded and anyone who says differently should just rework their thought by exchanging the word "remove" with "improve/change": It's ok to change the education ministry or healthcare, but removing them? Christ Texas spends 100 000 on public libraries, a state with 26+ million people, you really want to make people even dumber than that?
Also this is not ment as an insult, but people do get dumber if you don't educate them and then fill them with fear, prejudice and stupid dogmas.
Sigh I sound like an anti-american but really I'm not, I really wish they'd pull themselves togheter, the Tea Party is a bullshit populist move, the idea is right; Power to the people, the execution is wrong because rightwing in the US is always founded and governed by extremely capitalist and monetary-gain interests that don't give two shit about wealth distribution.
Hey, someone I completely agree with. Don't worry, you don't sound un-American.
|
Im not the most informed person out here, so can someone please explain why everyone is hating on Obama? It seems to me like the only reason why his presidency has been so ineffective is because the Republicans have been shitting on him from day one. What is he supposed to do, get rid of the House and declare himself a dictator?
The main things I can think of are 1) the "failed" economic stimulus and 2) Obamacare. I'm not sure you can really consider economic stimulus to have "failed", as no one can tell whether the situation would have been worse without Government intervention. Most experts believe that the stimulus was a necessary evil to prevent the country from entering a new Great Depression.
As for Obamacare, I don't understand why people are screaming as if the world has ended. For goodnesses sake, the only groups that should be upset are the insurance companies and private hospitals. Having lived in America for the past 3 years, I must say that I have a horrible opinion of the American healthcare system. It needed to be changed. Give the new system some time before passing judgement on whether it is a bad or good thing.
In any case, if you think he's a bad president, you should definitely vote for someone else. Bachmann would be great. The number of spoof and memes she would inspire could be unparalleled. And I don't know about you but I love laughing at American presidents (well, so far only Bush).
|
As an American reaching the age of majority in these times, I have to say I cannot personally understand how any sane person can vote Republican. The hypocrisy involved is ridiculous. Frankly, to solve most of the United States' economic problems, one simply needs to look back to the great depression: unemployment caused by unsustainable investments and gigantic economic inefficiencies quickly forced up to 25% of Americans out of work. Herbert Hoover, in his "infinite" wisdom, foresaw the only way to reduce unemployment which is the most tangible measurement of economic recovery by reducing the deficit. As a result, unemployment spiked, hitting an all-time high circa 1932. I don't know about anyone else, but this folly seems to follow exactly what happened with this whole debt-ceiling debacle. In fact, unemployment only sank following FDR's New Deal which follows Keynesian economics, almost to the letter. When FDR attempted to cut back in 1937, well, Unemployment again rose. The Depression did not truly end until World War 2, which can be viewed almost entirely as gigantic economic stimulus. And that is where Paul Krugman is correct: the stimulus package was entirely far to small. Additionally, while many individuals may disagree on a personal basis, it is almost empirical that tax-cuts are very ineffective at producing economic growth compared to direct spending by the government. This is due to an individual's propensity to save: tax income returned will inevitably be split between new savings and spending. the savings will be essentially removed from circulation. When the Government spends money, it is entirely spent and therefore added to the GDP and not removed from circulation until it becomes an individual's income.
Now I get into my personal opinion:
It is hard to say that my ideas are not essentially socialist, especially after watching the abuse perpetrated by large corporations against the average consumer for the sake of profit. Just look at BP following the Oil Spill debacle last year, the many oligopolies such as airlines, the predatory lending practices by large Wall Street banks, etc… IN truth, many of these problems date back to Reaganomics or "supply-side economics," which works by trying to alter the Aggregate supply curve rather than the more traditional Aggregate Demand curve. While this in theory (in a perfectly competitive economy at least) appears to increase employment, increase income, and reduce inflation, the US Economy and indeed most of the world economy cannot be regarded as truly competitive. It is rather a conglomeration of Oligopolies, Monopolistically competitive markets, Local Monopolies, etc… Essentially, the consumer has little say in everyday business. As the son of 2 doctors, I, this can be seen very well in Insurance Corporations which have an exemption to the Sherman and other Antitrust acts. In addition to the fact that doctors are not allowed to unionize (this is, albeit something hard to disagree with) doctors cannot control billing practices. One of my parents is in primary care, and, as such earns far less than specialists who are able to pick and choose customers and in fact ignore insurance altogether at times. Essentially, these insurance companies can charge whatever they what for any procedures they want. But I digress. Most of the problem from US healthcare comes from unsubstantiated costs. Doctors are not allowed to deny care (as per the Hippocratic Oath) and thus much of the cost from certain procedures are passed on to the hospital. These doctors are therefore essentially doing charity work on paid time. That is why I support a public healthcare option: it competitively drives down prices while ensuring that everyone has insurance. It also (in theory) removes the advantage for the oligopolistic effect that insurance companies have.
Corporate abuse can also be seen in the area of military procurement: c.f. the KC-767 debacle in the early 21st century and the cost overruns for programs such as the F-35 and EFV. (on a personal note, what really angers me is the talk of cutting NASA spending: The US military budget is almost 1/3 of all US Federal spending: if we didn't spend a dime on the military for 1 year, we could pay off our entire debt owed to China). Following on that, long-term federal debt simply DOES NOT MATTER. What does matter is the level of the national deficit vis-a-vis the GDP. and right now, it is MUCH lower than it was at a comparable historic time: post-WW2. And we paid that down by the 1950s. I simply fail to see how cutting the deficit right now is sensible, especially with unemployment that rose last quarter. Put simply: cutting the deficit may lead to a double-dip recession. And we can pay it off afterwards, when we have employment back on its way to the standard Full Employment Output of circa 5%. (I.E. Raise taxes and cut spending during strong economic growth not during a recession or in a weak economy).
Anyways, that was my daily rant, as to why I will vote Democrat even though they aren't even liberal enough for my taste. Feel free to disagree; economics is no nearly as universal as we might like.
|
On August 18 2011 14:21 Uncultured wrote:
Can someone explain to me what these polls are divided by? Wouldn't one large poll make more sense?
You try making the poll then. Then you'll see why one large poll was not made.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 19 2011 15:17 liepzig wrote:
Im not the most informed person out here, so can someone please explain why everyone is hating on Obama? It seems to me like the only reason why his presidency has been so ineffective is because the Republicans have been shitting on him from day one. What is he supposed to do, get rid of the House and declare himself a dictator?
The main things I can think of are 1) the "failed" economic stimulus and 2) Obamacare. I'm not sure you can really consider economic stimulus to have "failed", as no one can tell whether the situation would have been worse without Government intervention. Most experts believe that the stimulus was a necessary evil to prevent the country from entering a new Great Depression.
As for Obamacare, I don't understand why people are screaming as if the world has ended. For goodnesses sake, the only groups that should be upset are the insurance companies and private hospitals. Having lived in America for the past 3 years, I must say that I have a horrible opinion of the American healthcare system. It needed to be changed. Give the new system some time before passing judgement on whether it is a bad or good thing.
In any case, if you think he's a bad president, you should definitely vote for someone else. Bachmann would be great. The number of spoof and memes she would inspire could be unparalleled. And I don't know about you but I love laughing at American presidents (well, so far only Bush).
No, you've pretty much got it right, Obama hasn't really done much of anything wrong, most of his decisions in review have turned out to be good decisions (see studies conducted by the Princeton Review etc.). He's just the president right now, so people just so happen to blame him. To be honest, it's almost entirely Bush's fault and congress's fault. Remember that the president doesn't have as much power as people seem to think he does.
But as people say "The Buck Stops Here". People blame him for current problems because he's the president. The fact that it's not his fault doesn't occur to them, most people just don't think.
|
On August 19 2011 15:17 liepzig wrote:
Im not the most informed person out here, so can someone please explain why everyone is hating on Obama? It seems to me like the only reason why his presidency has been so ineffective is because the Republicans have been shitting on him from day one. What is he supposed to do, get rid of the House and declare himself a dictator?
The main things I can think of are 1) the "failed" economic stimulus and 2) Obamacare. I'm not sure you can really consider economic stimulus to have "failed", as no one can tell whether the situation would have been worse without Government intervention. Most experts believe that the stimulus was a necessary evil to prevent the country from entering a new Great Depression.
As for Obamacare, I don't understand why people are screaming as if the world has ended. For goodnesses sake, the only groups that should be upset are the insurance companies and private hospitals. Having lived in America for the past 3 years, I must say that I have a horrible opinion of the American healthcare system. It needed to be changed. Give the new system some time before passing judgement on whether it is a bad or good thing.
In any case, if you think he's a bad president, you should definitely vote for someone else. Bachmann would be great. The number of spoof and memes she would inspire could be unparalleled. And I don't know about you but I love laughing at American presidents (well, so far only Bush).
The hospitals and private insurance companies aren't exactly working furiously to revoke the legislation for the very reason it benefits them a lot.
1) people are now forced to buy healthcare insurance
2) there are more subsidies for people that can't afford to buy health insurance
The obvious result is they make more money than ever, since the government has essentially guaranteed them a lot of customers.
Now if there were only meaningful cost controls in 'Obamacare' it wouldn't be so bad, but Obama made sure there was no government alternative that could keep costs low, since having that would actually be detrimental for the private industry. see here and here
Foreign policy and civil liberties are areas where the the administration can act pretty much no matter what congress thinks, and in those cases the Obama administration was essentially a straight continuation of the Bush administration, albeit rhetorically nicer.
I would also not be so glum to see the American presidency as something to laugh about. Having Bush in the White House proved to be destructive on a global scale. Make fun of his mannerisms all you want, but don't forget he had actual power he used quite badly. The same might go for Michelle Bachmann, I don't know, but at least take the danger they represent seriously.
|
On August 19 2011 07:58 Krehlmar wrote:
I read the Swedish newspaper regarding the republican candidates, and frankly Paul doesn't seem like the biggest asshole ever although most republicans have sold out their souls to capitalism and bullshit ideals to get power ("god", "constitution" and "liberty" are warningsigns here, anyone who uses them more than once in every speech is a loony true and whole.)
He has some ok idea's, like changing taxes to pre-bush era, raising them. I don't agree on removing the education ministry aswell as healthcare etc. because that's fucking retarded and anyone who says differently should just rework their thought by exchanging the word "remove" with "improve/change": It's ok to change the education ministry or healthcare, but removing them? Christ Texas spends 100 000 on public libraries, a state with 26+ million people, you really want to make people even dumber than that?
Also this is not ment as an insult, but people do get dumber if you don't educate them and then fill them with fear, prejudice and stupid dogmas.
Sigh I sound like an anti-american but really I'm not, I really wish they'd pull themselves togheter, the Tea Party is a bullshit populist move, the idea is right; Power to the people, the execution is wrong because rightwing in the US is always founded and governed by extremely capitalist and monetary-gain interests that don't give two shit about wealth distribution.
Your just as ignorant as all other Swedish people if met regarding politics, I am born and raised in Sweden and here we have no concept of what liberalism really is. We are not thought properly about in school and there are no parties with more than a few thousand at most voters for any parties that are even remotely libertarian. I have since long forgotten my dream of a future Sweden were people have their own freedom and can make their own decisions about there life. Try to study the politics and try not to base opinions on what your read in Swedish newspaper regarding American politics because they are most of the time dead wrong. I've followed Ron Paul since his campaign in 2008 and I would have voted for him if I could, but I hope that those who can does this world could use a major power were libertarian principles are followed.
|
It seems to me, that Ron Paul as a lot of popular general ideas, but not a whole lot in the way of practical execution. At least none that would not be extremely messy or inflate the issue. If he could actually talk about his ideas with the depth and insight needed to further them, perhaps he would be voted for, but as it is now, it seems like he is just a bundle of popular and hopeful ideas that react well with the disillusioned population. But not necessarily effective or good ideas on the whole.
|
A pledge from, I think, most swedes and the world is that if you are gonna vote for the reps, vote for Ron Paul. I'm pretty sure that if Bachmann gets elected there will be more wars and the economy of the world will be even worse. You guys have to remember that what you vote for are gonna have an impact on the whole world...
<3 <3 <3 <3
And i just want to clarify that I'm not anti-US, I'm just a bit concerned about the world. lol
|
+ Show Spoiler +As an American reaching the age of majority in these times, I have to say I cannot personally understand how any sane person can vote Republican. The hypocrisy involved is ridiculous. Frankly, to solve most of the United States' economic problems, one simply needs to look back to the great depression: unemployment caused by unsustainable investments and gigantic economic inefficiencies quickly forced up to 25% of Americans out of work. Herbert Hoover, in his "infinite" wisdom, foresaw the only way to reduce unemployment which is the most tangible measurement of economic recovery by reducing the deficit. As a result, unemployment spiked, hitting an all-time high circa 1932. I don't know about anyone else, but this folly seems to follow exactly what happened with this whole debt-ceiling debacle. In fact, unemployment only sank following FDR's New Deal which follows Keynesian economics, almost to the letter. When FDR attempted to cut back in 1937, well, Unemployment again rose. The Depression did not truly end until World War 2, which can be viewed almost entirely as gigantic economic stimulus. And that is where Paul Krugman is correct: the stimulus package was entirely far to small. Additionally, while many individuals may disagree on a personal basis, it is almost empirical that tax-cuts are very ineffective at producing economic growth compared to direct spending by the government. This is due to an individual's propensity to save: tax income returned will inevitably be split between new savings and spending. the savings will be essentially removed from circulation. When the Government spends money, it is entirely spent and therefore added to the GDP and not removed from circulation until it becomes an individual's income.
Now I get into my personal opinion:
It is hard to say that my ideas are not essentially socialist, especially after watching the abuse perpetrated by large corporations against the average consumer for the sake of profit. Just look at BP following the Oil Spill debacle last year, the many oligopolies such as airlines, the predatory lending practices by large Wall Street banks, etc… IN truth, many of these problems date back to Reaganomics or "supply-side economics," which works by trying to alter the Aggregate supply curve rather than the more traditional Aggregate Demand curve. While this in theory (in a perfectly competitive economy at least) appears to increase employment, increase income, and reduce inflation, the US Economy and indeed most of the world economy cannot be regarded as truly competitive. It is rather a conglomeration of Oligopolies, Monopolistically competitive markets, Local Monopolies, etc… Essentially, the consumer has little say in everyday business. As the son of 2 doctors, I, this can be seen very well in Insurance Corporations which have an exemption to the Sherman and other Antitrust acts. In addition to the fact that doctors are not allowed to unionize (this is, albeit something hard to disagree with) doctors cannot control billing practices. One of my parents is in primary care, and, as such earns far less than specialists who are able to pick and choose customers and in fact ignore insurance altogether at times. Essentially, these insurance companies can charge whatever they what for any procedures they want. But I digress. Most of the problem from US healthcare comes from unsubstantiated costs. Doctors are not allowed to deny care (as per the Hippocratic Oath) and thus much of the cost from certain procedures are passed on to the hospital. These doctors are therefore essentially doing charity work on paid time. That is why I support a public healthcare option: it competitively drives down prices while ensuring that everyone has insurance. It also (in theory) removes the advantage for the oligopolistic effect that insurance companies have.
Corporate abuse can also be seen in the area of military procurement: c.f. the KC-767 debacle in the early 21st century and the cost overruns for programs such as the F-35 and EFV. (on a personal note, what really angers me is the talk of cutting NASA spending: The US military budget is almost 1/3 of all US Federal spending: if we didn't spend a dime on the military for 1 year, we could pay off our entire debt owed to China). Following on that, long-term federal debt simply DOES NOT MATTER. What does matter is the level of the national deficit vis-a-vis the GDP. and right now, it is MUCH lower than it was at a comparable historic time: post-WW2. And we paid that down by the 1950s. I simply fail to see how cutting the deficit right now is sensible, especially with unemployment that rose last quarter. Put simply: cutting the deficit may lead to a double-dip recession. And we can pay it off afterwards, when we have employment back on its way to the standard Full Employment Output of circa 5%. (I.E. Raise taxes and cut spending during strong economic growth not during a recession or in a weak economy).
Anyways, that was my daily rant, as to why I will vote Democrat even though they aren't even liberal enough for my taste. Feel free to disagree; economics is no nearly as universal as we might like.
Tax cuts are only inefficient at producing growth when there is a great deal of uncertainty pertaining to the general market. No one outside of expert investors has confidence to throw money around in a market like this. People are quite scared of what the future holds because...
a) Everyone else is sitting on their money, not willing to spend at all.
b) European countries like Greece and to a lesser extent Spain are in very bad fiscal shape, worrying people / businesses with overseas investments.
c) US credit was downgraded, and there seems to be no immediate sign of improvement.
d) From a business perspective, No one knows what the new Health legislation from Obama holds, so they don't know what costs will result from it.
e) The stimulus was largely evaluated as a failure, and many people are scared of more government spending / waste.
f) Our labor force is unwilling to compete at the global level, and many corporations find it quite hard to set up shop in states that additionally have alot of red tape regarding their operations.
g) Tax loopholes for corporations are not being closed anytime soon, resulting in unfair competition within the market (see also cap and trade). (This goes for both sides of the aisle.)
h) Entitlement reform is not being utilized, potentially saving billions without adjusting government revenues whatsoever.
Moving along, Supply Side economics can work. Businesses just need common sense rules and regulations so they can figure out exactly where to draw the bottom line, which is the opposite of the current mess they face from the present administration. The method worked for Reagan, It'll work again. It also worked for Bush Jr too (even though he spent too much for my liking), netting 54 straight months of job creation before the housing bubble blew up and all of the invesment bankers and hedge fund guys lost money.
Essentially, the consumer has little say in everyday business.
This fundamentally isn't true (The problem is people don't care enough to change their buying habits). Thousands of people boycott businesses for every reason under the sun. I know plenty of people that refuse to set foot in a Walmart or a Target. The bottom line is the consumer controls the money, and if the company #%$^& up big time, they can choose to spend the almighty dollar elsewhere. (See BP oil spill) I also don't believe that corporations have a death grip on the market which hurts competition badly. Competing business simply need to find their comparative advantage and make money from there (easier said than done I will concede).
Healthcare does have its problems, however I don't approve of the current method of fixing it. I'd rather see medicare and medicaid thinned, while providing subsidies to insurance companies for certain thresholds they obtain. Basically when you put X people from income bracket Y on a plan, you get Z dollars to help you out. I feel this would be more streamlined than the current plan of creating an inferior, government service. Companies will also be competing heavily for these subsidies, resulting in more people being placed on plans for healthcare. (Obviously the system will have to be well designed to prevent abuse.)
There are better ways than creating more red tape / inefficient programs to fix this mess. One simply needs to have government work along side business to promote an environment of high competition for businesses large to small. Entitlements / Welfare fraud and abuse can be cracked down on to save hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue. The list goes on, and under no circumstances do I believe government needs to be expanded to fix this problem, and I fundamentally believe no Liberal will adhere to that. So I will vote for conservatives.
|
On August 19 2011 17:47 Hetairoi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 07:58 Krehlmar wrote:
I read the Swedish newspaper regarding the republican candidates, and frankly Paul doesn't seem like the biggest asshole ever although most republicans have sold out their souls to capitalism and bullshit ideals to get power ("god", "constitution" and "liberty" are warningsigns here, anyone who uses them more than once in every speech is a loony true and whole.)
He has some ok idea's, like changing taxes to pre-bush era, raising them. I don't agree on removing the education ministry aswell as healthcare etc. because that's fucking retarded and anyone who says differently should just rework their thought by exchanging the word "remove" with "improve/change": It's ok to change the education ministry or healthcare, but removing them? Christ Texas spends 100 000 on public libraries, a state with 26+ million people, you really want to make people even dumber than that?
Also this is not ment as an insult, but people do get dumber if you don't educate them and then fill them with fear, prejudice and stupid dogmas.
Sigh I sound like an anti-american but really I'm not, I really wish they'd pull themselves togheter, the Tea Party is a bullshit populist move, the idea is right; Power to the people, the execution is wrong because rightwing in the US is always founded and governed by extremely capitalist and monetary-gain interests that don't give two shit about wealth distribution. Your just as ignorant as all other Swedish people if met regarding politics, I am born and raised in Sweden and here we have no concept of what liberalism really is. We are not thought properly about in school and there are no parties with more than a few thousand at most voters for any parties that are even remotely libertarian. I have since long forgotten my dream of a future Sweden were people have their own freedom and can make their own decisions about there life. Before you come here with your whining about politics (which you clearly know nothing about), try to study the person and try not to base opinions on what your read in Swedish newspaper regarding American politics because they are wrong. I've followed Ron Paul since his campaign in 2008 and I would have voted for him if I could, but I hope that those who can does.
Huh? Why does having a different opinion than you=ignorant? Frankly you are not giving any argument for your sake at all in your post, instead you're just bashing someone who thinks differently than you do, and tell him that he knows nothing and is whining.
Even if I would have a similar political opinion to that one you seem to have, I wouldn't have approved of your post.
Also freedom is percieved differently for different people. You could for example think that freedom is to not have to worry about getting sick/hurt when you are unemployed, and not have enough money to see a doctor.
Really I'm not interested in going into any kind of political debate, but it just frustrates me with people who seemingly thinks that everyone who disagrees with them are ignorant fools who doesn't know what they are talking about.
|
I see alot of people here thinking Ron Paul is a reasonable guy. He isn't.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in seperation of chuch and state, he is a creationist and doesn't believe in womens rights or gay rights. With him as a president you will lose all social progress made and fall behind the rest of the world.
|
On August 19 2011 17:59 Theovide wrote:
Huh? Why does having a different opinion than you=ignorant? Frankly you are not giving any argument for your sake at all in your post, instead you're just bashing someone who thinks differently than you do, and tell him that he knows nothing and is whining.
Even if I would have a similar political opinion to that one you seem to have, I wouldn't have approved of your post.
Also freedom is percieved differently for different people. You could for example think that freedom is to not have to worry about getting sick/hurt when you are unemployed, and not have enough money to see a doctor.
Really I'm not interested in going into any kind of political debate, but it just frustrates me with people who seemingly thinks that everyone who disagrees with them are ignorant fools who doesn't know what they are talking about.
More than anything I think getting your opinion from a Swedish newspaper is rather ignorant, that is nothing personal against that person but I would consider that ignorant. I can respects other people opinion if they actually base them on something, if he were to read on the subject thoroughly and then make up his opinion then and only then can I respect his opinion on the subject. People have the right to disagree with me and quite frankly in would be boring if nobody ever did, however people have to be able to make their own opinion on subject and not base your opinion that you read in a newspaper. Freedom is indeed perceived differently but there is a limit to what you can say and define it as freedom, something many people in Sweden can't comprehend. I might have gotten a bit to harsh regarding what I called him and for that I apologize.
|
Double, sorry can mod please delete.
|
On August 19 2011 16:42 alexbstl wrote:
As an American reaching the age of majority in these times, I have to say I cannot personally understand how any sane person can vote Republican. The hypocrisy involved is ridiculous. Frankly, to solve most of the United States' economic problems, one simply needs to look back to the great depression: unemployment caused by unsustainable investments and gigantic economic inefficiencies quickly forced up to 25% of Americans out of work. Herbert Hoover, in his "infinite" wisdom, foresaw the only way to reduce unemployment which is the most tangible measurement of economic recovery by reducing the deficit. As a result, unemployment spiked, hitting an all-time high circa 1932. I don't know about anyone else, but this folly seems to follow exactly what happened with this whole debt-ceiling debacle. In fact, unemployment only sank following FDR's New Deal which follows Keynesian economics, almost to the letter. When FDR attempted to cut back in 1937, well, Unemployment again rose. The Depression did not truly end until World War 2, which can be viewed almost entirely as gigantic economic stimulus. And that is where Paul Krugman is correct: the stimulus package was entirely far to small. Additionally, while many individuals may disagree on a personal basis, it is almost empirical that tax-cuts are very ineffective at producing economic growth compared to direct spending by the government. This is due to an individual's propensity to save: tax income returned will inevitably be split between new savings and spending. the savings will be essentially removed from circulation. When the Government spends money, it is entirely spent and therefore added to the GDP and not removed from circulation until it becomes an individual's income.
Now I get into my personal opinion:
It is hard to say that my ideas are not essentially socialist, especially after watching the abuse perpetrated by large corporations against the average consumer for the sake of profit. Just look at BP following the Oil Spill debacle last year, the many oligopolies such as airlines, the predatory lending practices by large Wall Street banks, etc… IN truth, many of these problems date back to Reaganomics or "supply-side economics," which works by trying to alter the Aggregate supply curve rather than the more traditional Aggregate Demand curve. While this in theory (in a perfectly competitive economy at least) appears to increase employment, increase income, and reduce inflation, the US Economy and indeed most of the world economy cannot be regarded as truly competitive. It is rather a conglomeration of Oligopolies, Monopolistically competitive markets, Local Monopolies, etc… Essentially, the consumer has little say in everyday business. As the son of 2 doctors, I, this can be seen very well in Insurance Corporations which have an exemption to the Sherman and other Antitrust acts. In addition to the fact that doctors are not allowed to unionize (this is, albeit something hard to disagree with) doctors cannot control billing practices. One of my parents is in primary care, and, as such earns far less than specialists who are able to pick and choose customers and in fact ignore insurance altogether at times. Essentially, these insurance companies can charge whatever they what for any procedures they want. But I digress. Most of the problem from US healthcare comes from unsubstantiated costs. Doctors are not allowed to deny care (as per the Hippocratic Oath) and thus much of the cost from certain procedures are passed on to the hospital. These doctors are therefore essentially doing charity work on paid time. That is why I support a public healthcare option: it competitively drives down prices while ensuring that everyone has insurance. It also (in theory) removes the advantage for the oligopolistic effect that insurance companies have.
Corporate abuse can also be seen in the area of military procurement: c.f. the KC-767 debacle in the early 21st century and the cost overruns for programs such as the F-35 and EFV. (on a personal note, what really angers me is the talk of cutting NASA spending: The US military budget is almost 1/3 of all US Federal spending: if we didn't spend a dime on the military for 1 year, we could pay off our entire debt owed to China). Following on that, long-term federal debt simply DOES NOT MATTER. What does matter is the level of the national deficit vis-a-vis the GDP. and right now, it is MUCH lower than it was at a comparable historic time: post-WW2. And we paid that down by the 1950s. I simply fail to see how cutting the deficit right now is sensible, especially with unemployment that rose last quarter. Put simply: cutting the deficit may lead to a double-dip recession. And we can pay it off afterwards, when we have employment back on its way to the standard Full Employment Output of circa 5%. (I.E. Raise taxes and cut spending during strong economic growth not during a recession or in a weak economy).
Anyways, that was my daily rant, as to why I will vote Democrat even though they aren't even liberal enough for my taste. Feel free to disagree; economics is no nearly as universal as we might like.
Your analysis of the great depression is a great simplification. A lot of the abuse to consumers causing the great depression was done by traditional banks, which were then regulated in the 1930s. Presently there is an unregulated shadowy banking system (Insurance Companies, etc...) which made stupid loans and didn't get payed back. People started putting record quantities of money into the shadowy banking system in the early 2000s. These shadowy banks are largely blamed by economists for the economic crisis of the 2000s. I can just as easily argue simply making an umbrella of regulations under all financial intermediaries is the solution to fix an economic crisis.
Also, historically there have been income tax cuts that have increased federal tax revenues (Joint Economic Committee, The Mellon and Kennedy Tax Cuts: A Review and Analysis, 1982).
Also see: Feldstein, Martin and Daniel Feenberg, The Effect of Increased Tax Rates on Taxable Income and Economic Efficiency: A Preliminary Analysis of the 1993 Tax Rate Increases, NBER, 1995.
|
On August 19 2011 18:15 Netolip wrote:
I see alot of people here thinking Ron Paul is a reasonable guy. He isn't.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in seperation of chuch and state, he is a creationist and doesn't believe in womens rights or gay rights. With him as a president you will lose all social progress made and fall behind the rest of the world.
Isn't this true about all of the republican candidates?
Seriously though, from an outside observer's viewpoint Ron Paul seems like the only one of these choices I could possibly see myself supporting even though I'm probably a total hippie and a communist by american standards, mainly because of his foreign policy and ending the war on drugs. If the US finally ended the stupid and destructive drug war maybe the rest of the world would follow and stop this complete foolishness and start on the path to legalization and education instead of prohibition. Overall like someone said earlier it seems like the republicans are on a quest to find the least smelly turd in a pile of crap.
On the other side of the aisle it doesn't seem so rosy either though. Does anyone else think it's somewhat foolish to give the sitting president pretty much a free pass to candidacy when it seems many people are not happy with him even inside his own party? I'm not all that familiar with the history of the presidency, but has it ever happened that the sitting president has not been nominated as the candidate? Is it in any shape or form possible for an independent candidate to make any kind of impact on the presidential race?
Speaking of the aisle, are americans (and maybe brits and others can give their view also) generally happy with the two party system and what would it take to change it? To me it seems like it only promotes this "us vs them" mentality that is very detrimental to actually getting anything meaninful done. Everything just degenerates to how much can we fuck with the other side to spin this in our favor instead of actually focusing on making things better for the country.
|
Such a weak line-up T_T. Good thing i cant vote US...
|
|
|
On August 19 2011 17:47 Hetairoi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 07:58 Krehlmar wrote:
I read the Swedish newspaper regarding the republican candidates, and frankly Paul doesn't seem like the biggest asshole ever although most republicans have sold out their souls to capitalism and bullshit ideals to get power ("god", "constitution" and "liberty" are warningsigns here, anyone who uses them more than once in every speech is a loony true and whole.)
He has some ok idea's, like changing taxes to pre-bush era, raising them. I don't agree on removing the education ministry aswell as healthcare etc. because that's fucking retarded and anyone who says differently should just rework their thought by exchanging the word "remove" with "improve/change": It's ok to change the education ministry or healthcare, but removing them? Christ Texas spends 100 000 on public libraries, a state with 26+ million people, you really want to make people even dumber than that?
Also this is not ment as an insult, but people do get dumber if you don't educate them and then fill them with fear, prejudice and stupid dogmas.
Sigh I sound like an anti-american but really I'm not, I really wish they'd pull themselves togheter, the Tea Party is a bullshit populist move, the idea is right; Power to the people, the execution is wrong because rightwing in the US is always founded and governed by extremely capitalist and monetary-gain interests that don't give two shit about wealth distribution. Your just as ignorant as all other Swedish people if met regarding politics, I am born and raised in Sweden and here we have no concept of what liberalism really is. We are not thought properly about in school and there are no parties with more than a few thousand at most voters for any parties that are even remotely libertarian. I have since long forgotten my dream of a future Sweden were people have their own freedom and can make their own decisions about there life. Try to study the politics and try not to base opinions on what your read in Swedish newspaper regarding American politics because they are most of the time dead wrong. I've followed Ron Paul since his campaign in 2008 and I would have voted for him if I could, but I hope that those who can does this world could use a major power were libertarian principles are followed.
Wow I think you're the ignorant one here. You're confusing liberalism with libertarianism. A liberal believes that the state should grant everyone equal opportunities and uphold human rights. A libertarian believes that the state should leave everyone the fuck alone and let society/individuals make their own choice. Norway is liberal, not libertarian. Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a liberal. He's conservative, which is the opposite of liberal.
|
The funny thing isn't that all of those politicians are stupid. The funniest thing is that America seriously has a party which people generally consider to be mainly creationist and non-believers of global warming.
A party like that. In the US. In the year 2011. It's fricking hilarious, the most powerful country in the world has two political parties, of which one is actually seriously a joke. Literally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
