|
On January 20 2012 03:23 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 03:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 20 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 03:08 On_Slaught wrote:On January 20 2012 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 02:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 20 2012 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 00:17 HellRoxYa wrote:On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote:
He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values. They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad. The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them. Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking. Europeans are hilarious. They zero in on a couple relatively inconsequential issues and use those to paint their perspective of an entire political party/movement. Let me phrase this in another way that may be easier to understand: WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?Oh, and in case you haven't heard, democrats aren't exactly stellar in their record of standing up for gay rights and gay marriage -- Obama included. Sure, there's a vocal segment of the party that is rabidly pro-gay rights, just as there is a large segment of the republican party that really doesn't care one way or another. Pinning this on just republicans is just willful ignorance. Pretty bold statement/hyperbole. I suppose fiscal conservative policies had absolutely nothing to do with our massive debt? When you consider that we're spending more than 40% of what we're taking in as tax revenue, it's pretty obvious that we have a spending problem because we cannot possibly raise taxes enough to cover the deficit. Considering what we're spending money on (mostly welfare / social program spending -- just pull up a pie chart), it's pretty clear that our fiscal policy is (and has been since W's administration) liberal. Are you kidding? We account for 40% of military spending done by the entire fucking planet and you're just going to ignore that and complain about welfare programs? And social spending accounts for about 2x as much of our budget as military (basically our social spending is about the same as the military budget of the entire planet) Both of them are far too high. ie fiscally liberal (and tax cuts are also fiscally liberal)
Which doesn't implicate the Democratic party at all (where this conversation started) because the Republican party is the one that is far more supportive of both tax cuts and a higher military budget. The argument about the merits of military spending vs. welfare spending is a different argument entirely.
|
Really, compared with "european leaders", yours are extreme
At least the whole GOP, democrats (and europeans for that matter) seem to halfway get that you just need to seem sane
|
On January 20 2012 03:22 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 03:08 On_Slaught wrote:On January 20 2012 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 02:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 20 2012 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 00:17 HellRoxYa wrote:On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote:
He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values. They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad. The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them. Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking. Europeans are hilarious. They zero in on a couple relatively inconsequential issues and use those to paint their perspective of an entire political party/movement. Let me phrase this in another way that may be easier to understand: WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?Oh, and in case you haven't heard, democrats aren't exactly stellar in their record of standing up for gay rights and gay marriage -- Obama included. Sure, there's a vocal segment of the party that is rabidly pro-gay rights, just as there is a large segment of the republican party that really doesn't care one way or another. Pinning this on just republicans is just willful ignorance. Pretty bold statement/hyperbole. I suppose fiscal conservative policies had absolutely nothing to do with our massive debt? When you consider that we're spending more than 40% of what we're taking in as tax revenue, it's pretty obvious that we have a spending problem because we cannot possibly raise taxes enough to cover the deficit. Considering what we're spending money on (mostly welfare / social program spending -- just pull up a pie chart), it's pretty clear that our fiscal policy is (and has been since W's administration) liberal. I get the feeling you wouldn't question your beloved tax cuts, which are, last I checked, fiscally conservative and what got the US into this mess. Not to mention the immense de-regulation that let people in power crash the economy. But....that's freedom right? Not gonna touch the military budget either, are you?
How come tax cuts has any effect (signifcant) effect on the housing market bobble. Tax cuts in it self (ignoring any dynamic effects) only decreases government income, hence they have to borrow more money from other countries to finance their defiences.).
However private spending increases and so will production. Noone says that this can go on forever. But if your referring to this mess as the housing market bubble then you cant entirely blame the tax cuts (or military spending). Obv. increased taxes will to some extent increase house prices since money suply increases (inflation), however why exactly should the housing market increase. Why wouldn't prices on all stuff rise (or perhaps primarily prices on luxury goods).
The above question makes it kinda obv. that tax cuts aren't an explanation. Tax cuts and huge military spending has increased budget deficit, and future genereations has to pay that back with interest.
Here is question for you (regarind your deregulation argument. If you assume constant money suply, why would derugulation have any negative impact on the housing bobble?
|
On January 20 2012 03:28 blomsterjohn wrote:
Really, compared with "european leaders", yours are extreme
At least the whole GOP, democrats (and europeans for that matter) seem to halfway get that you just need to seem sane
According that logic, european leaders are extreme compard to us leaders.
This debate kinda leads nowhere.
|
So Santorum actually won Iowa not Romney. Interesting.
|
On January 20 2012 03:42 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 03:22 Roe wrote:On January 20 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 03:08 On_Slaught wrote:On January 20 2012 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 02:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 20 2012 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 00:17 HellRoxYa wrote:On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote:
He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values. They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad. The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them. Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking. Europeans are hilarious. They zero in on a couple relatively inconsequential issues and use those to paint their perspective of an entire political party/movement. Let me phrase this in another way that may be easier to understand: WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?Oh, and in case you haven't heard, democrats aren't exactly stellar in their record of standing up for gay rights and gay marriage -- Obama included. Sure, there's a vocal segment of the party that is rabidly pro-gay rights, just as there is a large segment of the republican party that really doesn't care one way or another. Pinning this on just republicans is just willful ignorance. Pretty bold statement/hyperbole. I suppose fiscal conservative policies had absolutely nothing to do with our massive debt? When you consider that we're spending more than 40% of what we're taking in as tax revenue, it's pretty obvious that we have a spending problem because we cannot possibly raise taxes enough to cover the deficit. Considering what we're spending money on (mostly welfare / social program spending -- just pull up a pie chart), it's pretty clear that our fiscal policy is (and has been since W's administration) liberal. I get the feeling you wouldn't question your beloved tax cuts, which are, last I checked, fiscally conservative and what got the US into this mess. Not to mention the immense de-regulation that let people in power crash the economy. But....that's freedom right? Not gonna touch the military budget either, are you? How come tax cuts has any effect (signifcant) effect on the housing market bobble. Tax cuts in it self (ignoring any dynamic effects) only decreases government income, hence they have to borrow more money from other countries to finance their defiences.). However private spending increases and so will production. Noone denies that this can go on forever. But if your referring to this mess as the housing market bubble then you cant entirely blame the tax cuts (or military spending). Obv. increased taxes will to some extent increase house prices since money suply increases (inflation), however why exactly should the housing market increase. Why wouldn't prices on all stuff rise (or perhaps primarily prices on luxury goods). The above question makes it kinda obv. that tax cuts aren't an explanation. Tax cuts and huge military spending has increased budget deficit, and future genereations has to pay that back with interest. Here is question for you (regarind your deregulation argument. If you assume constant money suply, why would derugulation have any negative impact on the housing bobble?
I'm sorry but I can't really understand your post ><
But no, the mess is the high unemployment while the top takes in more and more money and just sits on it. The mess is the ability for the rich to make derivative bets with absolutely no rules. The mess is politicians being bought by those with money. My other points still stand.
|
On January 20 2012 03:49 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 03:42 Hider wrote:On January 20 2012 03:22 Roe wrote:On January 20 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 03:08 On_Slaught wrote:On January 20 2012 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 02:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 20 2012 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 00:17 HellRoxYa wrote:On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote:
He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values. They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad. The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them. Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking. Europeans are hilarious. They zero in on a couple relatively inconsequential issues and use those to paint their perspective of an entire political party/movement. Let me phrase this in another way that may be easier to understand: WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?Oh, and in case you haven't heard, democrats aren't exactly stellar in their record of standing up for gay rights and gay marriage -- Obama included. Sure, there's a vocal segment of the party that is rabidly pro-gay rights, just as there is a large segment of the republican party that really doesn't care one way or another. Pinning this on just republicans is just willful ignorance. Pretty bold statement/hyperbole. I suppose fiscal conservative policies had absolutely nothing to do with our massive debt? When you consider that we're spending more than 40% of what we're taking in as tax revenue, it's pretty obvious that we have a spending problem because we cannot possibly raise taxes enough to cover the deficit. Considering what we're spending money on (mostly welfare / social program spending -- just pull up a pie chart), it's pretty clear that our fiscal policy is (and has been since W's administration) liberal. I get the feeling you wouldn't question your beloved tax cuts, which are, last I checked, fiscally conservative and what got the US into this mess. Not to mention the immense de-regulation that let people in power crash the economy. But....that's freedom right? Not gonna touch the military budget either, are you? How come tax cuts has any effect (signifcant) effect on the housing market bobble. Tax cuts in it self (ignoring any dynamic effects) only decreases government income, hence they have to borrow more money from other countries to finance their defiences.). However private spending increases and so will production. Noone denies that this can go on forever. But if your referring to this mess as the housing market bubble then you cant entirely blame the tax cuts (or military spending). Obv. increased taxes will to some extent increase house prices since money suply increases (inflation), however why exactly should the housing market increase. Why wouldn't prices on all stuff rise (or perhaps primarily prices on luxury goods). The above question makes it kinda obv. that tax cuts aren't an explanation. Tax cuts and huge military spending has increased budget deficit, and future genereations has to pay that back with interest. Here is question for you (regarind your deregulation argument. If you assume constant money suply, why would derugulation have any negative impact on the housing bobble? I'm sorry but I can't really understand your post ><
Ok. I try again.
I assume that "by this mess" your referring to the housing bobble.
Claims
Tax cuts didn't have any (significant) effect on the housing bobble.
However they had an effect on the government budget deficit.
Agree/disagree??
Question
If you assume constant money suply, can you then explain how deregulation could cause the housing bobble?
|
On January 20 2012 01:29 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 01:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
So apparently Santorum actually won Iowa by 34 votes.
Santorum is... meh.
I like Paul because he sticks to his beliefs. He's got some good ideas, and some less good ones. I like his ad campaign-- the R(evol)ution thing is pretty awesome. I think in the end I would vote for him.
Huntsman was admittedly my favorite, as he seemed the most open-minded of the bunch. Sad he left and that he had no chance at winning.
Perry does nothing but make Bobby Jindal look good. Oh the irony.
Gingrich is an embarrassment. He tried to impeach Clinton while he himself was cheating on his wife. Nuff said.
Romney is alright, but him appealing to the conservatives with his fairly moderate background makes him seem like a try-hard.
Huntsman dropped his mask when he endorsed Romney, a corporate man to the bitter end..I think Huntsman would've probably been like Obama if he was elected, and if Romney gets elected...well...shit might go extreemly wrong extreemly fast. Ron Paul seems ok, but lately he's putting kind of a show everyone to be elected or something like that ... I don't know what's up recently...I actually think Ron Paul will win the nomination and the election as well..call it a hunch...noting for you to understand why I say this but...Shit's got weirder and weirder every day so I'd say Ron Paul will win 2012 ... and also my huge paranoia acting up to me is that he is set up to win the election, his term will be a complete disaster...libertarianism would be totally destroyed for a period long enough that we enter in kind of fascist world state - YES, CRAZY TALK, but it's merely my hunch..I won't like act on this...still living life the same way... Then again, if you ask me...anything is possible, as I'm getting surprised each day of some weird stuff going on... food for thought: http://twitpic.com/896eh1
Still, Huntsman as a candidate I liked. I don't know what made him endorse Romney, but I feel he did it because he figured Romney is the most likely to win and is the least scumbaggy out of the group. Might as well try and get this joke of a nomination process finished up and move on to the general election.
Ron Paul won't win, and I don't think he cares. He's old, and he's been doing this for years. He's just happy to be in the media spotlight and get his message out. And, there's always his son whose a pretty good politician with a much less controversial stance.
|
On January 20 2012 03:45 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 03:28 blomsterjohn wrote:
Really, compared with "european leaders", yours are extreme
At least the whole GOP, democrats (and europeans for that matter) seem to halfway get that you just need to seem sane
According that logic, european leaders are extreme compard to us leaders. This debate kinda leads nowhere.
Exactly.... Calling people sane or insane, moral or immoral, smart or stupid, from the limited vantage point of your own cultural convictions and conditioning, is a pointless ad hominem argument. Don't simply assume that the nation you grew up in or whose culture you've decided (or not decided) to accept is the only one that is right or that makes sense. All politicians pander to ignorant people, it doesn't make them "insane" in any way. Don't simply assume that an issue as impossibly complex as things like education or crime can simply be explained away by a policy or a cultural norm. There are a million factors which contribute to every statistic in any country.
Let's try and elevate the level of debate in this thread away from "X people are insane and Y people are destroying the country and Z country has a much worse culture than W country." And if you have some simplistic conviction such as these, try not to justify your ignorance with equally simplistic statistics across nations that are not even comparable.
xDaunt's delivery here might be very questionable, but I agree with his general notion that the most important issue in US politics is preventing economic failure. Because you can't achieve any political ends, whether liberal OR conservative, if the nation does not have the money or the means to reach them. I don't believe that having a generally balanced budget is either a Republican or a Democrat issue, it should be a common sense issue. I would support Keynesian style deficit spending in times of economic recession, but the level of deficit spending the US has reached is extreme and unsustainable. The solution can only lie in a decades long combination of tax code simplification, loophole elimination, military spending cuts, and social/public service union spending cuts. Unfortunately, when it comes to the individual voter, selfishness and self interest has trumped civic duty or public interest. We have a moral duty to not fuck up the world too much for our own children, I believe that transcends every culture.
|
What does tax code simplification mean, and why is it good?
|
On January 20 2012 04:30 Roe wrote:
What does tax code simplification mean, and why is it good?
Would you answer my question?
|
On January 20 2012 04:30 Roe wrote:
What does tax code simplification mean, and why is it good?
The US tax code I believe is tens of thousands of pages long... impossibly complicated. Creating a simpler tax code would increase total revenue, because it would reduce the tricks and loopholes that allow people to legally cheat on their taxes, and even the gathering of tax revenue would cost less because the system is simpler. Also, society as a whole would save resources by not having citizens devoting their entire career and education to making sense of US taxes.
|
On January 20 2012 04:29 liberal wrote:
xDaunt's delivery here might be very questionable, but I agree with his general notion that the most important issue in US politics is preventing economic failure. Because you can't achieve any political ends, whether liberal OR conservative, if the nation does not have the money or the means to reach them. I don't believe that having a generally balanced budget is either a Republican or a Democrat issue, it should be a common sense issue. I would support Keynesian style deficit spending in times of economic recession, but the level of deficit spending the US has reached is extreme and unsustainable. The solution can only lie in a decades long combination of tax code simplification, loophole elimination, military spending cuts, and social/public service union spending cuts. Unfortunately, when it comes to the individual voter, selfishness and self interest has trumped civic duty or public interest. We have a moral duty to not fuck up the world too much for our own children, I believe that transcends every culture.
/applauds
This guy gets it.
Let me just clarify one additional thing regarding the political parties and their approaches to fixing our fiscal issues. I honestly am not convinced that republicans (the ones in federal office) as a whole are serious about our fiscal problems. There are some that clearly are (Paul Ryan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and "tea party republicans"), but some of the other leaders such as Boehner and McConnell have done nothing to suggest to me that they are serious about fixing our fiscal problems beyond using the issue as a political tool for their own ends. This worries the hell out of me, especially because the republicans, as bad as they are on the issue as a whole, are still leagues ahead of democrats, who have done absolutely nothing to suggest that they are serious about fixing our fiscal issues. When I see democrats finally put trillions of dollars (or hundreds of billions annually) of social spending budget cuts (social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc) on the table, then I'll know that they're serious.
|
I can't believe there is some sort of mix-up with the Iowa caucus results. I hope every single person responsible is immediately fired. Voting must be taken incredibly seriously in this country.
|
This will probably be the only debate that the media ignores as ABC will air an interview with Newt Gingrich's ex-wife.
The Romney campaign is probably thanking the political gods as they seem to catch every break.
|
On January 20 2012 04:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 04:29 liberal wrote:
xDaunt's delivery here might be very questionable, but I agree with his general notion that the most important issue in US politics is preventing economic failure. Because you can't achieve any political ends, whether liberal OR conservative, if the nation does not have the money or the means to reach them. I don't believe that having a generally balanced budget is either a Republican or a Democrat issue, it should be a common sense issue. I would support Keynesian style deficit spending in times of economic recession, but the level of deficit spending the US has reached is extreme and unsustainable. The solution can only lie in a decades long combination of tax code simplification, loophole elimination, military spending cuts, and social/public service union spending cuts. Unfortunately, when it comes to the individual voter, selfishness and self interest has trumped civic duty or public interest. We have a moral duty to not fuck up the world too much for our own children, I believe that transcends every culture. /applauds This guy gets it. Let me just clarify one additional thing regarding the political parties and their approaches to fixing our fiscal issues. I honestly am not convinced that republicans (the ones in federal office) as a whole are serious about our fiscal problems. There are some that clearly are (Paul Ryan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and "tea party republicans"), but some of the other leaders such as Boehner and McConnell have done nothing to suggest to me that they are serious about fixing our fiscal problems beyond using the issue as a political tool for their own ends. This worries the hell out of me, especially because the republicans, as bad as they are on the issue as a whole, are still leagues ahead of democrats, who have done absolutely nothing to suggest that they are serious about fixing our fiscal issues. When I see democrats finally put trillions of dollars (or hundreds of billions annually) of social spending budget cuts (social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc) on the table, then I'll know that they're serious.
But according to Keynesian logic we just got trapped if we decrease spending. I mean either your a keynesian and think spendings can cure depressiosn or your not.
|
Gingrich looks like a clockwerk goblin. His face is the spitting image of hideous bigoted malice usually reserved for the antagonists of children's tales. The fact that a man like him can climb this high in one of the world's most powerful countries is both deplorable and astounding.
|
On January 20 2012 04:55 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 04:29 liberal wrote:
xDaunt's delivery here might be very questionable, but I agree with his general notion that the most important issue in US politics is preventing economic failure. Because you can't achieve any political ends, whether liberal OR conservative, if the nation does not have the money or the means to reach them. I don't believe that having a generally balanced budget is either a Republican or a Democrat issue, it should be a common sense issue. I would support Keynesian style deficit spending in times of economic recession, but the level of deficit spending the US has reached is extreme and unsustainable. The solution can only lie in a decades long combination of tax code simplification, loophole elimination, military spending cuts, and social/public service union spending cuts. Unfortunately, when it comes to the individual voter, selfishness and self interest has trumped civic duty or public interest. We have a moral duty to not fuck up the world too much for our own children, I believe that transcends every culture. /applauds This guy gets it. Let me just clarify one additional thing regarding the political parties and their approaches to fixing our fiscal issues. I honestly am not convinced that republicans (the ones in federal office) as a whole are serious about our fiscal problems. There are some that clearly are (Paul Ryan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and "tea party republicans"), but some of the other leaders such as Boehner and McConnell have done nothing to suggest to me that they are serious about fixing our fiscal problems beyond using the issue as a political tool for their own ends. This worries the hell out of me, especially because the republicans, as bad as they are on the issue as a whole, are still leagues ahead of democrats, who have done absolutely nothing to suggest that they are serious about fixing our fiscal issues. When I see democrats finally put trillions of dollars (or hundreds of billions annually) of social spending budget cuts (social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc) on the table, then I'll know that they're serious. But according to Keynesian logic we just got trapped if we decrease spending. I mean either your a keynesian and think spendings can cure depressiosn or your not.
This current economic mess is doing a number to Keynsian theory. When it's all said and done, economists are going to look far less favorable upon Keynsianism than they do now.
|
On January 20 2012 04:58 Kickboxer wrote:
Gingrich looks like a clockwerk goblin. His face is the spitting image of hideous bigoted malice usually reserved for the antagonists of children's tales. The fact that a man like him can climb this high in one of the world's most powerful countries is both deplorable and astounding.
He's actually a great person. He believes in not cheating or divorcing your spouse while they're dying of cancer. He's also a historian and a palaeontologist. He truly believes in spending little money, especially on things that are expensive and frivolous in nature.
|
On January 20 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 04:55 Hider wrote:On January 20 2012 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 04:29 liberal wrote:
xDaunt's delivery here might be very questionable, but I agree with his general notion that the most important issue in US politics is preventing economic failure. Because you can't achieve any political ends, whether liberal OR conservative, if the nation does not have the money or the means to reach them. I don't believe that having a generally balanced budget is either a Republican or a Democrat issue, it should be a common sense issue. I would support Keynesian style deficit spending in times of economic recession, but the level of deficit spending the US has reached is extreme and unsustainable. The solution can only lie in a decades long combination of tax code simplification, loophole elimination, military spending cuts, and social/public service union spending cuts. Unfortunately, when it comes to the individual voter, selfishness and self interest has trumped civic duty or public interest. We have a moral duty to not fuck up the world too much for our own children, I believe that transcends every culture. /applauds This guy gets it. Let me just clarify one additional thing regarding the political parties and their approaches to fixing our fiscal issues. I honestly am not convinced that republicans (the ones in federal office) as a whole are serious about our fiscal problems. There are some that clearly are (Paul Ryan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and "tea party republicans"), but some of the other leaders such as Boehner and McConnell have done nothing to suggest to me that they are serious about fixing our fiscal problems beyond using the issue as a political tool for their own ends. This worries the hell out of me, especially because the republicans, as bad as they are on the issue as a whole, are still leagues ahead of democrats, who have done absolutely nothing to suggest that they are serious about fixing our fiscal issues. When I see democrats finally put trillions of dollars (or hundreds of billions annually) of social spending budget cuts (social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc) on the table, then I'll know that they're serious. But according to Keynesian logic we just got trapped if we decrease spending. I mean either your a keynesian and think spendings can cure depressiosn or your not. This current economic mess is doing a number to Keynsian theory. When it's all said and done, economists are going to look far less favorable upon Keynsianism than they do now.
So we learned that increased spending actually isn't benefial, if prices are too high and are supposed to fall. Interesting who would have throught that basic logic holds yet again. I mean kensians has all these calculations and math equations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
