|
|
On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:28 oneofthem wrote:
not sure how much you know about ad homs but...sigh. The implication was Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. Therefore Asians don't trend towards Republicans. That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them. Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation.
Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you are being overly sensitive. republicans are the ones painting an us against them attitude against liberal elites in universities and biased scientists. take it as a cost of that 'strategy', that whne you say shit like we'll never get smart people to vote for us, it sticks.
|
|
|
On November 15 2012 03:58 oneofthem wrote:
you are being overly sensitive. republicans are the ones painting an us against them attitude against liberal elites in universities and biased scientists. take it as a cost of that 'strategy', that whne you say shit like we'll never get smart people to vote for us, it sticks.
I'm not saying Republican's don't say the same sticking points as he used, in fact that reinforces my argument that it is a logical fallacy. Just saying the other party is "elite" or "anti-intellectual" is just dumb, and both sides do it, so people naturally tend to believe their own party.
|
On November 15 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote:On November 15 2012 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:28 oneofthem wrote:
not sure how much you know about ad homs but...sigh. The implication was Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. Therefore Asians don't trend towards Republicans. That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them. Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation. Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassuming your intellect is superior to that person (or party). "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are the shit" to put it in layman's terms.
That's not at all what he said though. He said Republicans are viewed as being anti-intellectual. That may or may not be the case, but based on election results it's an issue that Republicans are going to have to deal with. Simply saying, "no we're not" doesn't change anyone's perception.
And that is what we're talking about here, how people see the party.
|
On November 15 2012 04:01 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:58 oneofthem wrote:
you are being overly sensitive. republicans are the ones painting an us against them attitude against liberal elites in universities and biased scientists. take it as a cost of that 'strategy', that whne you say shit like we'll never get smart people to vote for us, it sticks. I'm not saying Republican's don't say the same sticking points as he used, in fact that reinforces my argument that it is a logical fallacy. Just saying the other party is "elite" or "anti-intellectual" is just dumb, and both sides do it, so people naturally tend to believe their own party.
Big blocks of Republican party are "anti-intellectual", but whole American society is "anti-intellectual", so Democrats are not really that much better. And just to add America is not alone, it just leads the way. As for elitism, neither party is, as again American society is "anti-elitist". Which is actually a bad thing in many respects, because being "anti-intellectual" means that you are "anti-elitist".
|
On November 15 2012 03:46 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 02:49 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 02:47 oneofthem wrote:
they typically treat human rights as hot garbage too. it's just a lack of liberal attitudes for respect of the person Can't respect others if you can't respect your own kind I suppose :\ kind of makes it a little ridiculous when people over analyze everything here and wail on the race card over trifle statements doesn't it? Interesting that the Asian vote gains a significant jump when electing a black president, either this means that they prefer a black President over a white one, or it is simply a correlation. A ''women'' graph would be interesting to see.
Pulling from the same source and 1 mins in excel
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hCLr5.png)
|
On November 15 2012 04:09 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 04:01 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:58 oneofthem wrote:
you are being overly sensitive. republicans are the ones painting an us against them attitude against liberal elites in universities and biased scientists. take it as a cost of that 'strategy', that whne you say shit like we'll never get smart people to vote for us, it sticks. I'm not saying Republican's don't say the same sticking points as he used, in fact that reinforces my argument that it is a logical fallacy. Just saying the other party is "elite" or "anti-intellectual" is just dumb, and both sides do it, so people naturally tend to believe their own party. Big blocks of Republican party are "anti-intellectual", but whole American society is "anti-intellectual", so Democrats are not really that much better. And just to add America is not alone, it just leads the way. As for elitism, neither party is, as again American society is "anti-elitist". Which is actually a bad thing in many respects, because being "anti-intellectual" means that you are "anti-elitist".
The whole of American society is not anti-intellectual, not even close. While there may be some signs of intellectually regressive cultural phenomena in the US, there are also plenty of the opposite. Lets not over-generalize here.
|
On November 15 2012 04:14 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:46 Recognizable wrote:On November 15 2012 02:49 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 02:47 oneofthem wrote:
they typically treat human rights as hot garbage too. it's just a lack of liberal attitudes for respect of the person Can't respect others if you can't respect your own kind I suppose :\ kind of makes it a little ridiculous when people over analyze everything here and wail on the race card over trifle statements doesn't it? Interesting that the Asian vote gains a significant jump when electing a black president, either this means that they prefer a black President over a white one, or it is simply a correlation. A ''women'' graph would be interesting to see. Pulling from the same source and 1 mins in excel
Anyone else notice the nosedive of independents in both male and female demographics? That makes me sad 
|
Nevermind, I misread your post. >.<' Lack of third party votes makes me sad too....
Been working for awhile on a post regarding bipartisanship, but I was afraid I'd derail the current conversation about voting demographics. Anyone mind if I add this other topic in here?
|
On November 15 2012 02:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 01:44 PassiveAce wrote:On November 15 2012 01:42 T.O.P. wrote:
Most Asians I know don't like African Americans. Even then, Obama doesn't seem like the kind of black guy that scares you. Racists republicans scare us a lot more. What about African Africans? Do Asians like them? From my perspective as an Asian American, there's a certain amount if suspicion from both sides. Older Asians, (usually the first generation which immigrated here) don't really like Blacks. These guys (my parents included) got here with nothing and worked their way up. Now, they look down at the Blacks: they were down there, but they worked their way up but Blacks are still down there. A lot of their children look down on Blacks as well-- I have a good friend who has been complaining about Affirmative Action ever since she was rejected from Harvard. It's just so easy to say "we started in the same place as them and we uplifted ourselves". On the other hand, Blacks look at Asians as stealing their opportunities. I don't know much more about that perspective.
I've seen that point of view around...been around on a few forums, listened to a lot of people, etc...hm.
|
On November 15 2012 04:21 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 04:14 semantics wrote:On November 15 2012 03:46 Recognizable wrote:On November 15 2012 02:49 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 02:47 oneofthem wrote:
they typically treat human rights as hot garbage too. it's just a lack of liberal attitudes for respect of the person Can't respect others if you can't respect your own kind I suppose :\ kind of makes it a little ridiculous when people over analyze everything here and wail on the race card over trifle statements doesn't it? Interesting that the Asian vote gains a significant jump when electing a black president, either this means that they prefer a black President over a white one, or it is simply a correlation. A ''women'' graph would be interesting to see. Pulling from the same source and 1 mins in excel Anyone else notice the nosedive of independents in both male and female demographics? That makes me sad
It's rare for independents to garner much of the vote but 1992 and 1996 it was Ross Perot who was iirc a real independent although he garnered mostly republicans voters, due to the spoiler effect of FPTP voting you see a drop probably just due to voters remembering what happened.
|
On November 15 2012 03:46 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:23 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:13 JinDesu wrote:
I am unsure of how asians view the parties, but being from NYC, most that I know have been democratic for quite a while. Listening to the gossip, many of the voters aren't the older generation - they tend to be permanent residents than citizens. Their children are the ones voting, and young asians are very internet savvy - this combination of youth, college education, internet awareness, doing well economically, and living in blue states would be the factors I'd assign.
It doesn't help that the current republican party is viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. I agree with the trends of: younger voters and living in blue states. "Doing well economically" trends more towards the Republican party.The rest of your factors are ad hominems. Does it? I'd be interested in a source on that claim. I think the 1% vs 99% this election was silly. I don't think the top 1% votes significantly different than the other 99. My evidence is pure anecdote, though, so I'm very willing to change my mind on this. Edit: I think the top 1% tends to be more white than anything else, so my guess is that the top 1% trend Republican, but not more so than the other 99% white voters. I should have clarified that.
I don't know if it's the same in the US (most likely not) but in France, the revenue is not a good indicator of the vote, but the patrimony is. So someone who do well economically would not trend more towards the republicain (his vote is most likely undetermined by the revenue), but someone with a big patrimony would.
|
On November 15 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote:On November 15 2012 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:28 oneofthem wrote:
not sure how much you know about ad homs but...sigh. The implication was Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. Therefore Asians don't trend towards Republicans. That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them. Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation. Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/anti-intellectual?region=us&q=anti-intellectualism#anti-intellectual__6
"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods."
Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
|
(‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)
News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.
However, at least one columnist is looking forward to it.
My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock!
As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.
This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.
I've noticed this a lot on the left in this thread. So I'd like to pose a question to those with a more liberal lean to their political philosophy: what sort of right-ish proposal would you be willing to allow if the Republicans agreed with whatever the Democrats came up with, with the express purpose of balancing the budget?
My guess is it would be some form of tax cut or removal of spending. I'd like to set one condition, however: assume the Iraq and Afghanistan wars fully conclude, and we leave no occupying military force, but just enough for diplomatic relations. So keep in mind, military spending is slashed dramatically already in this hypothetical situation, and the remainder only goes to the defense of the country, though that doesn't sufficiently reduce the deficit in the budget. Basically, more spending needs to be curbed. You may use further defense cuts as a proposal, though that's not terribly conservative, nor does it appear wise even to some anti-war libertarians.
+ Show Spoiler [What would "I" agree to?] +Personally, I believe the Bush tax cuts were good for the economy, so I'd rather reinstate them for some more time. However, if Obama's really gonna stay hard-left on that issue, I'd be willing remove the cuts and even raise taxes on "the rich" by some if that meant he'd, say, repeal Obamacare for instance. I don't like agreeing to something like this, but that's what I believe "bipartisanship" is supposed to look like, so I wish that that kind of compromise would make some sort of difference.
|
On November 15 2012 04:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 04:09 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:01 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:58 oneofthem wrote:
you are being overly sensitive. republicans are the ones painting an us against them attitude against liberal elites in universities and biased scientists. take it as a cost of that 'strategy', that whne you say shit like we'll never get smart people to vote for us, it sticks. I'm not saying Republican's don't say the same sticking points as he used, in fact that reinforces my argument that it is a logical fallacy. Just saying the other party is "elite" or "anti-intellectual" is just dumb, and both sides do it, so people naturally tend to believe their own party. Big blocks of Republican party are "anti-intellectual", but whole American society is "anti-intellectual", so Democrats are not really that much better. And just to add America is not alone, it just leads the way. As for elitism, neither party is, as again American society is "anti-elitist". Which is actually a bad thing in many respects, because being "anti-intellectual" means that you are "anti-elitist". The whole of American society is not anti-intellectual, not even close. While there may be some signs of intellectually regressive cultural phenomena in the US, there are also plenty of the opposite. Lets not over-generalize here.
Of course not all as in everyone, but all as in big enough majority of the population.
|
On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:(‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.) News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut. However, at least one columnist is looking forward to it. Show nested quote +My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock! As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option. This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions ( gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals. I've noticed this a lot on the left in this thread. So I'd like to pose a question to those with a more liberal lean to their political philosophy: what sort of right-ish proposal would you be willing to allow if the Republicans agreed with whatever the Democrats came up with, with the express purpose of balancing the budget?My guess is it would be some form of tax cut or removal of spending. I'd like to set one condition, however: assume the Iraq and Afghanistan wars fully conclude, and we leave no occupying military force, but just enough for diplomatic relations. So keep in mind, military spending is slashed dramatically already in this hypothetical situation, and the remainder only goes to the defense of the country, though that doesn't sufficiently reduce the deficit in the budget. Basically, more spending needs to be curbed. You may use further defense cuts as a proposal, though that's not terribly conservative, nor does it appear wise even to some anti-war libertarians. + Show Spoiler [What would "I" agree to?] +Personally, I believe the Bush tax cuts were good for the economy, so I'd rather reinstate them for some more time. However, if Obama's really gonna stay hard-left on that issue, I'd be willing remove the cuts and even raise taxes on "the rich" by some if that meant he'd, say, repeal Obamacare for instance. I don't like agreeing to something like this, but that's what I believe "bipartisanship" is supposed to look like, so I wish that that kind of compromise would make some sort of difference.
Liberals ask for Conservatives to become more liberal because over the past two years, Conservatives have completely refused to make any liberal concessions. There hasn't been any budging whatsoever on reducing military spending, raising taxes on anyone, etc. So no, you can't claim that liberals refuse to compromise.
Liberals have consistently agreed that we can compromise by not raising taxes on any but the most well off and possibly reducing some spending in entitlements. However, this means that Conservatives need to actually compromise. Absolutely refusing to raise taxes on anyone is NOT a compromise, and neither is a refusal to see any cuts in military spending.
|
On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:(‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.) News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut. However, at least one columnist is looking forward to it. Show nested quote +My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock! As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option. This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions ( gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals. I've noticed this a lot on the left in this thread. So I'd like to pose a question to those with a more liberal lean to their political philosophy: what sort of right-ish proposal would you be willing to allow if the Republicans agreed with whatever the Democrats came up with, with the express purpose of balancing the budget?My guess is it would be some form of tax cut or removal of spending. I'd like to set one condition, however: assume the Iraq and Afghanistan wars fully conclude, and we leave no occupying military force, but just enough for diplomatic relations. So keep in mind, military spending is slashed dramatically already in this hypothetical situation, and the remainder only goes to the defense of the country, though that doesn't sufficiently reduce the deficit in the budget. Basically, more spending needs to be curbed. You may use further defense cuts as a proposal, though that's not terribly conservative, nor does it appear wise even to some anti-war libertarians. + Show Spoiler [What would "I" agree to?] +Personally, I believe the Bush tax cuts were good for the economy, so I'd rather reinstate them for some more time. However, if Obama's really gonna stay hard-left on that issue, I'd be willing remove the cuts and even raise taxes on "the rich" by some if that meant he'd, say, repeal Obamacare for instance. I don't like agreeing to something like this, but that's what I believe "bipartisanship" is supposed to look like, so I wish that that kind of compromise would make some sort of difference.
Well as Jon Stewart pointed out, Obamacare will cost employers money, single payer universal healthcare insurance system would solve all of that and save a lot of money for everyone and for the government (well insurance companies would lose). So Obama should get rid of Obamacare and just institute the single payer system 
|
On November 15 2012 04:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:(‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.) News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut. However, at least one columnist is looking forward to it. My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock! As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option. This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions ( gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals. I've noticed this a lot on the left in this thread. So I'd like to pose a question to those with a more liberal lean to their political philosophy: what sort of right-ish proposal would you be willing to allow if the Republicans agreed with whatever the Democrats came up with, with the express purpose of balancing the budget?My guess is it would be some form of tax cut or removal of spending. I'd like to set one condition, however: assume the Iraq and Afghanistan wars fully conclude, and we leave no occupying military force, but just enough for diplomatic relations. So keep in mind, military spending is slashed dramatically already in this hypothetical situation, and the remainder only goes to the defense of the country, though that doesn't sufficiently reduce the deficit in the budget. Basically, more spending needs to be curbed. You may use further defense cuts as a proposal, though that's not terribly conservative, nor does it appear wise even to some anti-war libertarians. + Show Spoiler [What would "I" agree to?] +Personally, I believe the Bush tax cuts were good for the economy, so I'd rather reinstate them for some more time. However, if Obama's really gonna stay hard-left on that issue, I'd be willing remove the cuts and even raise taxes on "the rich" by some if that meant he'd, say, repeal Obamacare for instance. I don't like agreeing to something like this, but that's what I believe "bipartisanship" is supposed to look like, so I wish that that kind of compromise would make some sort of difference. Liberals ask for Conservatives to become more liberal because over the past two years, Conservatives have completely refused to make any liberal concessions. There hasn't been any budging whatsoever on reducing military spending, raising taxes on anyone, etc. So no, you can't claim that liberals refuse to compromise. Liberals have consistently agreed that we can compromise by not raising taxes on any but the most well off and possibly reducing some spending in entitlements. However, this means that Conservatives need to actually compromise. Absolutely refusing to raise taxes on anyone is NOT a compromise, and neither is a refusal to see any cuts in military spending.
I would be willing to compromise on military spending...I just don't see tax hikes on the rich really doing anything to help the economy. In fact, I'd even be willing to compromise on most social issues, immigration, and cut spending everywhere (including the military), as long as we don't raise taxes.
|
On November 15 2012 04:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:(‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.) News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut. However, at least one columnist is looking forward to it. My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock! As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option. This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions ( gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals. I've noticed this a lot on the left in this thread. So I'd like to pose a question to those with a more liberal lean to their political philosophy: what sort of right-ish proposal would you be willing to allow if the Republicans agreed with whatever the Democrats came up with, with the express purpose of balancing the budget?My guess is it would be some form of tax cut or removal of spending. I'd like to set one condition, however: assume the Iraq and Afghanistan wars fully conclude, and we leave no occupying military force, but just enough for diplomatic relations. So keep in mind, military spending is slashed dramatically already in this hypothetical situation, and the remainder only goes to the defense of the country, though that doesn't sufficiently reduce the deficit in the budget. Basically, more spending needs to be curbed. You may use further defense cuts as a proposal, though that's not terribly conservative, nor does it appear wise even to some anti-war libertarians. + Show Spoiler [What would "I" agree to?] +Personally, I believe the Bush tax cuts were good for the economy, so I'd rather reinstate them for some more time. However, if Obama's really gonna stay hard-left on that issue, I'd be willing remove the cuts and even raise taxes on "the rich" by some if that meant he'd, say, repeal Obamacare for instance. I don't like agreeing to something like this, but that's what I believe "bipartisanship" is supposed to look like, so I wish that that kind of compromise would make some sort of difference. Liberals ask for Conservatives to become more liberal because over the past two years, Conservatives have completely refused to make any liberal concessions. There hasn't been any budging whatsoever on reducing military spending, raising taxes on anyone, etc. So no, you can't claim that liberals refuse to compromise. Liberals have consistently agreed that we can compromise by not raising taxes on any but the most well off and possibly reducing some spending in entitlements. However, this means that Conservatives need to actually compromise. Absolutely refusing to raise taxes on anyone is NOT a compromise, and neither is a refusal to see any cuts in military spending.
That's proving my point. Liberals would possibly reduce some spending in entitlements. But which ones would they be willing to nix or slash? I'd like to hear them, and by how much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pC0t4.png)
