|
|
He wants to use public power to force "good" actions or behavior. This is fundamentally leftist.
That isn't fundamentally leftist, that's fundamentally totalitarian.
Edit: quote wrongly attributed
|
On August 21 2012 03:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 02:49 aksfjh wrote:On August 21 2012 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2012 21:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
I'm definitely not opposed to redirecting "poor quality government spending" to better uses. You say that this is the main thing you're advocating for, but it's not obvious from any of your writings that that's your view. The standard Republican view is to gut all spending (apart from tax cuts to the rich, of course).
The "making stuff up" comment was directed at your factoid that stimulus is ineffective when debt is high. I can't accuse you of making stuff up now that you have given a source (probably the most random and no-name source that's been linked this thread). However, I still don't agree with the content in your link. If it seems random and no-name it was mentioned on CNBC a few weeks back (randomly) and so I took a look at it then. It is also reflective of the views and opinions of quite a few guests they have had on the channel over the last couple years. It is not wise to ignore what market participants are telling you. Plenty are saying that the high level of government debt and deficits are leading to less investment - that's not a good thing and it needs to be noted. Now, while you're source is quite no-name, it does cite some more reputable studies (in the "Recent Academic Evidence" section) to come to the view quoted above, that being Reinhart, Reinhart, Rogoff. But your source has misinterpreted the finding of this paper, which is that recessions caused by debt overhangs are long, and that high debt (the magical 90% number) is correlated with slow economic growth. It even calls it a "corollary", because it's the implication they drew from the evidence. But it does not follow from the Reinhart, Reinhart, Rogoff paper that was cited, that even higher debt, in the form of stimulus, will cause even slower economic growth. This Hoisington paper confuses correlation with causation. The original source says that prolonged levels of high debt is correlated with slow economic growth. Now there has been some criticism of the Reinhart, Rogoff work, such as the 90% number being arbitrary and hand-picked, and also this from Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/notes-on-rogoff-wonkish/They are not arguing that stimulus is causing slow growth. The argument is that government stimulus is far less effective following a debt overhang than normal and that high levels of government debt (in general) leads to slower growth. Because of that higher and higher levels of stimulus will not lead to added growth (or very little of it) because the added growth from stimulus will be offset by the private sector reacting negatively towards it. We know that excessive debt is an issue for both households and businesses and leads to lower economic growth. Now, government debt is a bit different but not exceedingly so. Ultimately the cost of that debt will be paid for by households and businesses through higher taxes or lower government spending or a prolonged period of negative real rates. So it is not a huge leap in logic to say that a huge pile of government debt will have a similar impact as private debt. Maybe the 90% number isn't a good number. But according to usgovernmentspending.com we'll be at 122% of GDP this year. To a lot of people in the economy that's a scary number, and because of that many have already pared back their spending and investment plans... which has slowed growth. But, let's see what Reinhart and Rogoff actually have to say about stimulus: The U.S. must reduce its debt or suffer economic stagnation, they said in interviews with McClatchy, but in the short term they also favor more government stimulus to boost the economy, even if that raises the debt a bit more. "We may need another stimulus bill just to decompress from the previous one, a smaller one to cushion the landing," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economist and a co-author of the book. Added his fellow co-author, Carmen Reinhart, a University of Maryland economist: "I'm not one of those deficit hawks. ... I'm not saying you run out and pull the plug and have an adjustment that could derail what fragile recovery we do have." However, she cautioned, "the whole thing that we can disregard debt because we're the U.S. is really grasping at straws. Taxpayers need to understand the tradeoff, and that is, we're going to be paying for this in terms of lower growth in the future." Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/17/99285/what-should-we-do-about-national.htmlAnd then there's this from Reinhart (again): This seems to be a very reasonable economic position: stimulus now, cut spending later. In fact, it's pretty much the position of Barrack Obama. Note that the first link is from 2010, these days I believe Rogoff has become a typical "cut everything, now, now, now!!" Republican. Sure they praise the stimulus back during the recession and at first into the recovery. But that was years ago. We're now talking about continued stimulus, and even added stimulus years after growth resumed and government debt has piled up to higher levels. We're getting to the point where perpetual stimulus is being called for as has happened in Japan over the past few decades. I think Obama's plan is to spend more now, and cut more later. He wants additional stimulus like the American Jobs Act. I don't think the cost of new stimulus like that is worth the benefits. We might get a bit more growth now, but it will just set us up for a new fiscal cliff in the future and then need a new stimulus plan to offset it. Now, maybe additional stimulus is the best plan out there. But there's no 100% certainty to that. There's a risk that the added stimulus won't be very effective and will just make the future more painful. In light of that risk the prudent thing to do is redirect the garbage spending. People are cutting back their investments because there is little to invest in. Consumers stopped trying to borrow money while they attempt to lower their debt levels. Businesses don't want to invest in increasing output because people are using their income to pay off debt, meaning there isn't rising demand. Then, there's no strong economy out there to carry the torch. EU has touched into another recession, China's growth has slowed tremendously (since its exports have slowed), and South America is being South America. The result? Shove your money into countries that can't or won't realistically default. AKA, countries that print their own money and have a diversified economy. Or shove your money into gold and "safe" businesses. If we use government borrowing to put idle private sector workers back to work, we're investing in a better chance to pay off any extra debt. By sitting on high unemployment and an unvoluntary mass exodus from the workforce, we're eroding worker skills and experience and lowering the potential for growth in the long run, which takes a dump over any plan to repay debt we have. There are many reasons why people aren't investing. Fear of government debt and deficits is just one them. But just because it is one of many factors doesn't mean you get to ignore it. Using government money to put idle workers to work is only worthwhile if it is spent on useful things. China is struggling with bad loans from its stimulus program and Japan is trapped in perpetual stimulus mode (government debt 230% of GDP and counting!) in part due to wasteful spending. So no, just because we have idle workers doesn't mean that the government gets a blank check and a free pass to blow money on whatever the heck it wants.
Nobody is asking for a blank check. You're trying to paint stabilizer spending as stimulus investment. It's funny, because the article you linked even stated that the proposals being made in the U.S. DO learn from Japan's mistakes by making investments that are more needed. We have good data stating what the government could invest in.
|
On August 21 2012 03:52 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 22:06 DoubleReed wrote:
He wants to use public power to force "good" actions or behavior. This is fundamentally leftist. That isn't fundamentally leftist, that's fundamentally totalitarian.
What's the difference?
|
On August 21 2012 04:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 03:52 screamingpalm wrote:On August 20 2012 22:06 DoubleReed wrote:
He wants to use public power to force "good" actions or behavior. This is fundamentally leftist. That isn't fundamentally leftist, that's fundamentally totalitarian. What's the difference?
LOL that does seem to be the popular view in America.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Oh wait, I thought it was conservatives who wanted to use public power to force "good" action, (i.e., abortion, capital punishment, creationism, not supporting the legalization of marijuana or assisted suicide/euthanasia, tough-on-crime conservatism).
Leftists do not want to use public power to force "good" action on the public, they want to use public power to help the public by regulating the private. It's about time you understand that distinction.
|
On August 21 2012 04:31 Souma wrote:
Oh wait, I thought it was conservatives who wanted to use public power to force "good" action, (i.e., abortion, capital punishment, creationism, not supporting the legalization of marijuana or assisted suicide/euthanasia, tough-on-crime conservatism).
Leftists do not want to use public power to force "good" action on the public, they want to use public power to help the public by regulating the private. It's about time you understand that distinction.
As to your first point, yes... Conservatives have a tendency to stifle civil or social rights and liberals have a tendency to stifle economic rights. Whether you go extreme right into fascism or extreme left into communism you end up with totalitarianism either way, which is why people believe in a limited moderate government.
Your second point is just semantics... You can call welfare "help" or you can call it "forced charity" it doesn't really change anything because it's just spin.
|
On August 21 2012 04:17 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 03:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 21 2012 02:49 aksfjh wrote:On August 21 2012 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2012 21:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
I'm definitely not opposed to redirecting "poor quality government spending" to better uses. You say that this is the main thing you're advocating for, but it's not obvious from any of your writings that that's your view. The standard Republican view is to gut all spending (apart from tax cuts to the rich, of course).
The "making stuff up" comment was directed at your factoid that stimulus is ineffective when debt is high. I can't accuse you of making stuff up now that you have given a source (probably the most random and no-name source that's been linked this thread). However, I still don't agree with the content in your link. If it seems random and no-name it was mentioned on CNBC a few weeks back (randomly) and so I took a look at it then. It is also reflective of the views and opinions of quite a few guests they have had on the channel over the last couple years. It is not wise to ignore what market participants are telling you. Plenty are saying that the high level of government debt and deficits are leading to less investment - that's not a good thing and it needs to be noted. Now, while you're source is quite no-name, it does cite some more reputable studies (in the "Recent Academic Evidence" section) to come to the view quoted above, that being Reinhart, Reinhart, Rogoff. But your source has misinterpreted the finding of this paper, which is that recessions caused by debt overhangs are long, and that high debt (the magical 90% number) is correlated with slow economic growth. It even calls it a "corollary", because it's the implication they drew from the evidence. But it does not follow from the Reinhart, Reinhart, Rogoff paper that was cited, that even higher debt, in the form of stimulus, will cause even slower economic growth. This Hoisington paper confuses correlation with causation. The original source says that prolonged levels of high debt is correlated with slow economic growth. Now there has been some criticism of the Reinhart, Rogoff work, such as the 90% number being arbitrary and hand-picked, and also this from Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/notes-on-rogoff-wonkish/They are not arguing that stimulus is causing slow growth. The argument is that government stimulus is far less effective following a debt overhang than normal and that high levels of government debt (in general) leads to slower growth. Because of that higher and higher levels of stimulus will not lead to added growth (or very little of it) because the added growth from stimulus will be offset by the private sector reacting negatively towards it. We know that excessive debt is an issue for both households and businesses and leads to lower economic growth. Now, government debt is a bit different but not exceedingly so. Ultimately the cost of that debt will be paid for by households and businesses through higher taxes or lower government spending or a prolonged period of negative real rates. So it is not a huge leap in logic to say that a huge pile of government debt will have a similar impact as private debt. Maybe the 90% number isn't a good number. But according to usgovernmentspending.com we'll be at 122% of GDP this year. To a lot of people in the economy that's a scary number, and because of that many have already pared back their spending and investment plans... which has slowed growth. But, let's see what Reinhart and Rogoff actually have to say about stimulus: The U.S. must reduce its debt or suffer economic stagnation, they said in interviews with McClatchy, but in the short term they also favor more government stimulus to boost the economy, even if that raises the debt a bit more. "We may need another stimulus bill just to decompress from the previous one, a smaller one to cushion the landing," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economist and a co-author of the book. Added his fellow co-author, Carmen Reinhart, a University of Maryland economist: "I'm not one of those deficit hawks. ... I'm not saying you run out and pull the plug and have an adjustment that could derail what fragile recovery we do have." However, she cautioned, "the whole thing that we can disregard debt because we're the U.S. is really grasping at straws. Taxpayers need to understand the tradeoff, and that is, we're going to be paying for this in terms of lower growth in the future." Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/17/99285/what-should-we-do-about-national.htmlAnd then there's this from Reinhart (again): This seems to be a very reasonable economic position: stimulus now, cut spending later. In fact, it's pretty much the position of Barrack Obama. Note that the first link is from 2010, these days I believe Rogoff has become a typical "cut everything, now, now, now!!" Republican. Sure they praise the stimulus back during the recession and at first into the recovery. But that was years ago. We're now talking about continued stimulus, and even added stimulus years after growth resumed and government debt has piled up to higher levels. We're getting to the point where perpetual stimulus is being called for as has happened in Japan over the past few decades. I think Obama's plan is to spend more now, and cut more later. He wants additional stimulus like the American Jobs Act. I don't think the cost of new stimulus like that is worth the benefits. We might get a bit more growth now, but it will just set us up for a new fiscal cliff in the future and then need a new stimulus plan to offset it. Now, maybe additional stimulus is the best plan out there. But there's no 100% certainty to that. There's a risk that the added stimulus won't be very effective and will just make the future more painful. In light of that risk the prudent thing to do is redirect the garbage spending. People are cutting back their investments because there is little to invest in. Consumers stopped trying to borrow money while they attempt to lower their debt levels. Businesses don't want to invest in increasing output because people are using their income to pay off debt, meaning there isn't rising demand. Then, there's no strong economy out there to carry the torch. EU has touched into another recession, China's growth has slowed tremendously (since its exports have slowed), and South America is being South America. The result? Shove your money into countries that can't or won't realistically default. AKA, countries that print their own money and have a diversified economy. Or shove your money into gold and "safe" businesses. If we use government borrowing to put idle private sector workers back to work, we're investing in a better chance to pay off any extra debt. By sitting on high unemployment and an unvoluntary mass exodus from the workforce, we're eroding worker skills and experience and lowering the potential for growth in the long run, which takes a dump over any plan to repay debt we have. There are many reasons why people aren't investing. Fear of government debt and deficits is just one them. But just because it is one of many factors doesn't mean you get to ignore it. Using government money to put idle workers to work is only worthwhile if it is spent on useful things. China is struggling with bad loans from its stimulus program and Japan is trapped in perpetual stimulus mode (government debt 230% of GDP and counting!) in part due to wasteful spending. So no, just because we have idle workers doesn't mean that the government gets a blank check and a free pass to blow money on whatever the heck it wants. Nobody is asking for a blank check. You're trying to paint stabilizer spending as stimulus investment. It's funny, because the article you linked even stated that the proposals being made in the U.S. DO learn from Japan's mistakes by making investments that are more needed. We have good data stating what the government could invest in.
Stabilizer spending is stimulative.
There's plenty of government spending that is wasteful.
I don't know why you want to argue with these two points.
|
On August 21 2012 03:52 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 22:06 DoubleReed wrote:
He wants to use public power to force "good" actions or behavior. This is fundamentally leftist. That isn't fundamentally leftist, that's fundamentally totalitarian.
That is fundamentally anything other than anarchy.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 21 2012 04:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 04:31 Souma wrote:
Oh wait, I thought it was conservatives who wanted to use public power to force "good" action, (i.e., abortion, capital punishment, creationism, not supporting the legalization of marijuana or assisted suicide/euthanasia, tough-on-crime conservatism).
Leftists do not want to use public power to force "good" action on the public, they want to use public power to help the public by regulating the private. It's about time you understand that distinction. As to your first point, yes... Conservatives have a tendency to stifle civil or social rights and liberals have a tendency to stifle economic rights. Whether you go extreme right into fascism or extreme left into communism you end up with totalitarianism either way, which is why people believe in a limited moderate government. Your second point is just semantics... You can call welfare "help" or you can call it "forced charity" it doesn't really change anything because it's just spin.
It's not semantics, it's how it is in respect to social and regulatory matters.
Now, if you want to talk about taxes, that is a whole different story. I would say yes, we are essentially taking money from the rich to "help" out the poor by "forcing" them to give charity. The only difference here is most people are not against programs such as welfare, unemployment, social security, Medicare, etc. - taxes are a given, though how much is what splits liberals and conservatives apart, but both sides agree that those programs are vital to the country so I feel the point is moot. In essence liberals just want to help more (force more charity), while conservatives just want to help less (give less charity... or do they, I'm not sure nowadays with Romney/Ryan all over the place).
|
On August 21 2012 05:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 04:17 aksfjh wrote:On August 21 2012 03:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 21 2012 02:49 aksfjh wrote:On August 21 2012 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2012 21:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
I'm definitely not opposed to redirecting "poor quality government spending" to better uses. You say that this is the main thing you're advocating for, but it's not obvious from any of your writings that that's your view. The standard Republican view is to gut all spending (apart from tax cuts to the rich, of course).
The "making stuff up" comment was directed at your factoid that stimulus is ineffective when debt is high. I can't accuse you of making stuff up now that you have given a source (probably the most random and no-name source that's been linked this thread). However, I still don't agree with the content in your link. If it seems random and no-name it was mentioned on CNBC a few weeks back (randomly) and so I took a look at it then. It is also reflective of the views and opinions of quite a few guests they have had on the channel over the last couple years. It is not wise to ignore what market participants are telling you. Plenty are saying that the high level of government debt and deficits are leading to less investment - that's not a good thing and it needs to be noted. Now, while you're source is quite no-name, it does cite some more reputable studies (in the "Recent Academic Evidence" section) to come to the view quoted above, that being Reinhart, Reinhart, Rogoff. But your source has misinterpreted the finding of this paper, which is that recessions caused by debt overhangs are long, and that high debt (the magical 90% number) is correlated with slow economic growth. It even calls it a "corollary", because it's the implication they drew from the evidence. But it does not follow from the Reinhart, Reinhart, Rogoff paper that was cited, that even higher debt, in the form of stimulus, will cause even slower economic growth. This Hoisington paper confuses correlation with causation. The original source says that prolonged levels of high debt is correlated with slow economic growth. Now there has been some criticism of the Reinhart, Rogoff work, such as the 90% number being arbitrary and hand-picked, and also this from Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/notes-on-rogoff-wonkish/They are not arguing that stimulus is causing slow growth. The argument is that government stimulus is far less effective following a debt overhang than normal and that high levels of government debt (in general) leads to slower growth. Because of that higher and higher levels of stimulus will not lead to added growth (or very little of it) because the added growth from stimulus will be offset by the private sector reacting negatively towards it. We know that excessive debt is an issue for both households and businesses and leads to lower economic growth. Now, government debt is a bit different but not exceedingly so. Ultimately the cost of that debt will be paid for by households and businesses through higher taxes or lower government spending or a prolonged period of negative real rates. So it is not a huge leap in logic to say that a huge pile of government debt will have a similar impact as private debt. Maybe the 90% number isn't a good number. But according to usgovernmentspending.com we'll be at 122% of GDP this year. To a lot of people in the economy that's a scary number, and because of that many have already pared back their spending and investment plans... which has slowed growth. But, let's see what Reinhart and Rogoff actually have to say about stimulus: The U.S. must reduce its debt or suffer economic stagnation, they said in interviews with McClatchy, but in the short term they also favor more government stimulus to boost the economy, even if that raises the debt a bit more. "We may need another stimulus bill just to decompress from the previous one, a smaller one to cushion the landing," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economist and a co-author of the book. Added his fellow co-author, Carmen Reinhart, a University of Maryland economist: "I'm not one of those deficit hawks. ... I'm not saying you run out and pull the plug and have an adjustment that could derail what fragile recovery we do have." However, she cautioned, "the whole thing that we can disregard debt because we're the U.S. is really grasping at straws. Taxpayers need to understand the tradeoff, and that is, we're going to be paying for this in terms of lower growth in the future." Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/17/99285/what-should-we-do-about-national.htmlAnd then there's this from Reinhart (again): This seems to be a very reasonable economic position: stimulus now, cut spending later. In fact, it's pretty much the position of Barrack Obama. Note that the first link is from 2010, these days I believe Rogoff has become a typical "cut everything, now, now, now!!" Republican. Sure they praise the stimulus back during the recession and at first into the recovery. But that was years ago. We're now talking about continued stimulus, and even added stimulus years after growth resumed and government debt has piled up to higher levels. We're getting to the point where perpetual stimulus is being called for as has happened in Japan over the past few decades. I think Obama's plan is to spend more now, and cut more later. He wants additional stimulus like the American Jobs Act. I don't think the cost of new stimulus like that is worth the benefits. We might get a bit more growth now, but it will just set us up for a new fiscal cliff in the future and then need a new stimulus plan to offset it. Now, maybe additional stimulus is the best plan out there. But there's no 100% certainty to that. There's a risk that the added stimulus won't be very effective and will just make the future more painful. In light of that risk the prudent thing to do is redirect the garbage spending. People are cutting back their investments because there is little to invest in. Consumers stopped trying to borrow money while they attempt to lower their debt levels. Businesses don't want to invest in increasing output because people are using their income to pay off debt, meaning there isn't rising demand. Then, there's no strong economy out there to carry the torch. EU has touched into another recession, China's growth has slowed tremendously (since its exports have slowed), and South America is being South America. The result? Shove your money into countries that can't or won't realistically default. AKA, countries that print their own money and have a diversified economy. Or shove your money into gold and "safe" businesses. If we use government borrowing to put idle private sector workers back to work, we're investing in a better chance to pay off any extra debt. By sitting on high unemployment and an unvoluntary mass exodus from the workforce, we're eroding worker skills and experience and lowering the potential for growth in the long run, which takes a dump over any plan to repay debt we have. There are many reasons why people aren't investing. Fear of government debt and deficits is just one them. But just because it is one of many factors doesn't mean you get to ignore it. Using government money to put idle workers to work is only worthwhile if it is spent on useful things. China is struggling with bad loans from its stimulus program and Japan is trapped in perpetual stimulus mode (government debt 230% of GDP and counting!) in part due to wasteful spending. So no, just because we have idle workers doesn't mean that the government gets a blank check and a free pass to blow money on whatever the heck it wants. Nobody is asking for a blank check. You're trying to paint stabilizer spending as stimulus investment. It's funny, because the article you linked even stated that the proposals being made in the U.S. DO learn from Japan's mistakes by making investments that are more needed. We have good data stating what the government could invest in. Stabilizer spending is stimulative. There's plenty of government spending that is wasteful. I don't know why you want to argue with these two points.
So, you want to stop stabilization spending? What government spending do you find wasteful right now?
|
On August 21 2012 05:10 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 03:52 screamingpalm wrote:On August 20 2012 22:06 DoubleReed wrote:
He wants to use public power to force "good" actions or behavior. This is fundamentally leftist. That isn't fundamentally leftist, that's fundamentally totalitarian. That is fundamentally anything other than anarchy.
Good point. :D I suppose it depends on circumstance and degree of force.
On August 21 2012 04:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:
As to your first point, yes... Conservatives have a tendency to stifle civil or social rights and liberals have a tendency to stifle economic rights. Whether you go extreme right into fascism or extreme left into communism you end up with totalitarianism either way, which is why people believe in a limited moderate government.
Your second point is just semantics... You can call welfare "help" or you can call it "forced charity" it doesn't really change anything because it's just spin.
I would also offer that totalitarianism isn't only limited to the far wings of either side. A centrist could just as easily become totalitaian and abuse power as anyone else. I see many of Obama's policies and actions as Orwellian (spying on peace groups, NDAA, etc) and I also see him as a centrist.
|
On August 21 2012 04:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 04:31 Souma wrote:
Oh wait, I thought it was conservatives who wanted to use public power to force "good" action, (i.e., abortion, capital punishment, creationism, not supporting the legalization of marijuana or assisted suicide/euthanasia, tough-on-crime conservatism).
Leftists do not want to use public power to force "good" action on the public, they want to use public power to help the public by regulating the private. It's about time you understand that distinction. As to your first point, yes... Conservatives have a tendency to stifle civil or social rights and liberals have a tendency to stifle economic rights. Whether you go extreme right into fascism or extreme left into communism you end up with totalitarianism either way, which is why people believe in a limited moderate government. Your second point is just semantics... You can call welfare "help" or you can call it "forced charity" it doesn't really change anything because it's just spin. I hate this bifarcated kind of political spectrum. The "extreme right" is hardly close to the extreme left, necessarily. I'm pretty damn socially conservative and I'm VERY economically right wing, yet I'd call myself a Libertarian- nearly an anarchist- which randomly makes me "left" wing socially and rather incoherent on that whole axis. Really, as far as what is called right and left in america [and canada] they both stifle economic and social rights. The left tries to inhibit free speech, video game violence, free association in business etc, the right intervenes in marriage [and they both intervene massively on matters of "security"]. Both have favoured business they attempt to grant monopolistic privilege to.
|
On August 21 2012 05:50 whatevername wrote:
The left tries to inhibit free speech [...]
That sounds bifarcated to me. Why do you determine that this is partisan? (I'm looking at you, Pussy Riot thread!)
I'm leftist, and it made me nauseous when I tuned into Fox Sports and they lambasted Olympians for things they tweeted and so happy they were punished. I certainly don't agree with what was tweeted, but became sympathetic with the Olympians who were banned for it.
I take liberty very seriously... I even terminated my Blizzard account when I was banned from their forum.
The left is trying to censor video game violence? See: Stephen King.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
In all honesty I don't care what people label things as I'm a person who focuses on individual issues, but I cannot stand it when people try their very hardest to make one group look like crazed dictators.
|
On August 20 2012 21:24 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 02:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On August 20 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 01:04 whatevername wrote:On August 20 2012 00:56 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 00:47 whatevername wrote:On August 19 2012 23:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 19 2012 23:29 OsoVega wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? His supposedly radical, draconian plan is to not grow the government quite as much as Obama plans to. Certainly better than Obama, but it also shows how weak the right and how far left the left is when not growing the government enough is considered radical. Are you joking? America has moved so far to the right that even someone as centrist and corporatist as Obama is considered a radical leftist and socialist. Obama is the most left wing president ever. Hes the most Authoritarian since Wilson. He's never done a single centrist thing in his life, on any stage of politics. Name a single leftist thing he's done? Financial Reform? Healthcare Reform? Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Foreign Policy? Repeal of DADT? Are any of these things leftist to you? Pick any of his policies, and we can discuss why you're wrong. Sorry, I consider you about as reasonable and worthy of a discussion as you take that "obama is a fascist" guy. Anyone who imagines Obama is a centrist in the American political spectrum is hilariously delusional. Care to elaborate? I'm always very confused in this regard. Some of those policies are completely bipartisan. Healthcare Reform is probably the most centrist things he's done, because it's basically a massive compromise between trying to keep healthcare viciously corporate but still trying to reduce the absolute absurd costs to the consumer. I'm not sure why people think that Obama is a "socialist," or a "leftist." He's been in favor of corporatism and corporate interests since he got into office. It all seems like strange hollow rhetoric against the insane anarcho-capitalist conservatives. Can someone explain to me where this attitude is coming from? Um.... lol? If you fail to see how Obama is a leftist, you clearly don't have any understanding of American politics. I didn't say Healthcare was bipartisan, because the Republicans were blocking everything (even conservative things like the mandate). Repealing of DADT was. I'm not sure about financial reform. Care you explain how he's a leftist though? Go for a policy. I mean I'm sure if it's so blatantly obvious you should be able to come up with SOMETHING of his that's not totally centrist. The whole "you didn't build that" is a perfect example. He hasn't gotten anything through congress because of the republicans blocking him. However, he views the world in a very "commune" type way. He wants to use public power to force "good" actions or behavior. This is fundamentally leftist.
![[image loading]](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/480325_487787201234051_1784609593_n.jpg)
Now, can we stop this "you didn't build that" nonsense?
EDIT: I did not make this picture.
|
On August 21 2012 05:25 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 05:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 21 2012 04:17 aksfjh wrote:On August 21 2012 03:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 21 2012 02:49 aksfjh wrote:On August 21 2012 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2012 21:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
I'm definitely not opposed to redirecting "poor quality government spending" to better uses. You say that this is the main thing you're advocating for, but it's not obvious from any of your writings that that's your view. The standard Republican view is to gut all spending (apart from tax cuts to the rich, of course).
The "making stuff up" comment was directed at your factoid that stimulus is ineffective when debt is high. I can't accuse you of making stuff up now that you have given a source (probably the most random and no-name source that's been linked this thread). However, I still don't agree with the content in your link. If it seems random and no-name it was mentioned on CNBC a few weeks back (randomly) and so I took a look at it then. It is also reflective of the views and opinions of quite a few guests they have had on the channel over the last couple years. It is not wise to ignore what market participants are telling you. Plenty are saying that the high level of government debt and deficits are leading to less investment - that's not a good thing and it needs to be noted. Now, while you're source is quite no-name, it does cite some more reputable studies (in the "Recent Academic Evidence" section) to come to the view quoted above, that being Reinhart, Reinhart, Rogoff. But your source has misinterpreted the finding of this paper, which is that recessions caused by debt overhangs are long, and that high debt (the magical 90% number) is correlated with slow economic growth. It even calls it a "corollary", because it's the implication they drew from the evidence. But it does not follow from the Reinhart, Reinhart, Rogoff paper that was cited, that even higher debt, in the form of stimulus, will cause even slower economic growth. This Hoisington paper confuses correlation with causation. The original source says that prolonged levels of high debt is correlated with slow economic growth. Now there has been some criticism of the Reinhart, Rogoff work, such as the 90% number being arbitrary and hand-picked, and also this from Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/notes-on-rogoff-wonkish/They are not arguing that stimulus is causing slow growth. The argument is that government stimulus is far less effective following a debt overhang than normal and that high levels of government debt (in general) leads to slower growth. Because of that higher and higher levels of stimulus will not lead to added growth (or very little of it) because the added growth from stimulus will be offset by the private sector reacting negatively towards it. We know that excessive debt is an issue for both households and businesses and leads to lower economic growth. Now, government debt is a bit different but not exceedingly so. Ultimately the cost of that debt will be paid for by households and businesses through higher taxes or lower government spending or a prolonged period of negative real rates. So it is not a huge leap in logic to say that a huge pile of government debt will have a similar impact as private debt. Maybe the 90% number isn't a good number. But according to usgovernmentspending.com we'll be at 122% of GDP this year. To a lot of people in the economy that's a scary number, and because of that many have already pared back their spending and investment plans... which has slowed growth. But, let's see what Reinhart and Rogoff actually have to say about stimulus: The U.S. must reduce its debt or suffer economic stagnation, they said in interviews with McClatchy, but in the short term they also favor more government stimulus to boost the economy, even if that raises the debt a bit more. "We may need another stimulus bill just to decompress from the previous one, a smaller one to cushion the landing," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economist and a co-author of the book. Added his fellow co-author, Carmen Reinhart, a University of Maryland economist: "I'm not one of those deficit hawks. ... I'm not saying you run out and pull the plug and have an adjustment that could derail what fragile recovery we do have." However, she cautioned, "the whole thing that we can disregard debt because we're the U.S. is really grasping at straws. Taxpayers need to understand the tradeoff, and that is, we're going to be paying for this in terms of lower growth in the future." Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/17/99285/what-should-we-do-about-national.htmlAnd then there's this from Reinhart (again): This seems to be a very reasonable economic position: stimulus now, cut spending later. In fact, it's pretty much the position of Barrack Obama. Note that the first link is from 2010, these days I believe Rogoff has become a typical "cut everything, now, now, now!!" Republican. Sure they praise the stimulus back during the recession and at first into the recovery. But that was years ago. We're now talking about continued stimulus, and even added stimulus years after growth resumed and government debt has piled up to higher levels. We're getting to the point where perpetual stimulus is being called for as has happened in Japan over the past few decades. I think Obama's plan is to spend more now, and cut more later. He wants additional stimulus like the American Jobs Act. I don't think the cost of new stimulus like that is worth the benefits. We might get a bit more growth now, but it will just set us up for a new fiscal cliff in the future and then need a new stimulus plan to offset it. Now, maybe additional stimulus is the best plan out there. But there's no 100% certainty to that. There's a risk that the added stimulus won't be very effective and will just make the future more painful. In light of that risk the prudent thing to do is redirect the garbage spending. People are cutting back their investments because there is little to invest in. Consumers stopped trying to borrow money while they attempt to lower their debt levels. Businesses don't want to invest in increasing output because people are using their income to pay off debt, meaning there isn't rising demand. Then, there's no strong economy out there to carry the torch. EU has touched into another recession, China's growth has slowed tremendously (since its exports have slowed), and South America is being South America. The result? Shove your money into countries that can't or won't realistically default. AKA, countries that print their own money and have a diversified economy. Or shove your money into gold and "safe" businesses. If we use government borrowing to put idle private sector workers back to work, we're investing in a better chance to pay off any extra debt. By sitting on high unemployment and an unvoluntary mass exodus from the workforce, we're eroding worker skills and experience and lowering the potential for growth in the long run, which takes a dump over any plan to repay debt we have. There are many reasons why people aren't investing. Fear of government debt and deficits is just one them. But just because it is one of many factors doesn't mean you get to ignore it. Using government money to put idle workers to work is only worthwhile if it is spent on useful things. China is struggling with bad loans from its stimulus program and Japan is trapped in perpetual stimulus mode (government debt 230% of GDP and counting!) in part due to wasteful spending. So no, just because we have idle workers doesn't mean that the government gets a blank check and a free pass to blow money on whatever the heck it wants. Nobody is asking for a blank check. You're trying to paint stabilizer spending as stimulus investment. It's funny, because the article you linked even stated that the proposals being made in the U.S. DO learn from Japan's mistakes by making investments that are more needed. We have good data stating what the government could invest in. Stabilizer spending is stimulative. There's plenty of government spending that is wasteful. I don't know why you want to argue with these two points. So, you want to stop stabilization spending? What government spending do you find wasteful right now?
No, I don't want to stop stabilization spending. Never said I did.
Ethanol subsidies are wasteful.
A lot of agriculture subsidies are wasteful.
The military has complained about getting equipment it doesn't want.
The government owns a bunch of buildings and land it doesn't use or under-utilizes.
There's a lot of government waste out there. Redirecting it to useful endeavors is the low hanging fruit we should be after.
|
On August 20 2012 21:24 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 02:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On August 20 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 01:04 whatevername wrote:On August 20 2012 00:56 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 00:47 whatevername wrote:On August 19 2012 23:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 19 2012 23:29 OsoVega wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? His supposedly radical, draconian plan is to not grow the government quite as much as Obama plans to. Certainly better than Obama, but it also shows how weak the right and how far left the left is when not growing the government enough is considered radical. Are you joking? America has moved so far to the right that even someone as centrist and corporatist as Obama is considered a radical leftist and socialist. Obama is the most left wing president ever. Hes the most Authoritarian since Wilson. He's never done a single centrist thing in his life, on any stage of politics. Name a single leftist thing he's done? Financial Reform? Healthcare Reform? Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Foreign Policy? Repeal of DADT? Are any of these things leftist to you? Pick any of his policies, and we can discuss why you're wrong. Sorry, I consider you about as reasonable and worthy of a discussion as you take that "obama is a fascist" guy. Anyone who imagines Obama is a centrist in the American political spectrum is hilariously delusional. Care to elaborate? I'm always very confused in this regard. Some of those policies are completely bipartisan. Healthcare Reform is probably the most centrist things he's done, because it's basically a massive compromise between trying to keep healthcare viciously corporate but still trying to reduce the absolute absurd costs to the consumer. I'm not sure why people think that Obama is a "socialist," or a "leftist." He's been in favor of corporatism and corporate interests since he got into office. It all seems like strange hollow rhetoric against the insane anarcho-capitalist conservatives. Can someone explain to me where this attitude is coming from? Um.... lol? If you fail to see how Obama is a leftist, you clearly don't have any understanding of American politics. I didn't say Healthcare was bipartisan, because the Republicans were blocking everything (even conservative things like the mandate). Repealing of DADT was. I'm not sure about financial reform. Care you explain how he's a leftist though? Go for a policy. I mean I'm sure if it's so blatantly obvious you should be able to come up with SOMETHING of his that's not totally centrist. The whole "you didn't build that" is a perfect example. He hasn't gotten anything through congress because of the republicans blocking him. However, he views the world in a very "commune" type way. He wants to use public power to force "good" actions or behavior. This is fundamentally leftist.
If your definition of "leftist" would include people like Richard Nixon and Otto von Bismarck then it's probably not a terribly useful definition and you might as well call him a Zarbloqueckian and explain why that's a bad thing.
|
On August 21 2012 05:50 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 04:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 21 2012 04:31 Souma wrote:
Oh wait, I thought it was conservatives who wanted to use public power to force "good" action, (i.e., abortion, capital punishment, creationism, not supporting the legalization of marijuana or assisted suicide/euthanasia, tough-on-crime conservatism).
Leftists do not want to use public power to force "good" action on the public, they want to use public power to help the public by regulating the private. It's about time you understand that distinction. As to your first point, yes... Conservatives have a tendency to stifle civil or social rights and liberals have a tendency to stifle economic rights. Whether you go extreme right into fascism or extreme left into communism you end up with totalitarianism either way, which is why people believe in a limited moderate government. Your second point is just semantics... You can call welfare "help" or you can call it "forced charity" it doesn't really change anything because it's just spin. I hate this bifarcated kind of political spectrum. The "extreme right" is hardly close to the extreme left, necessarily. I'm pretty damn socially conservative and I'm VERY economically right wing, yet I'd call myself a Libertarian- nearly an anarchist- which randomly makes me "left" wing socially and rather incoherent on that whole axis. Really, as far as what is called right and left in america [and canada] they both stifle economic and social rights. The left tries to inhibit free speech, video game violence, free association in business etc, the right intervenes in marriage [and they both intervene massively on matters of "security"]. Both have favoured business they attempt to grant monopolistic privilege to.
Whaaaa???
The "left" is not inhibiting free speech, video game violence, free association, or marriage. What are you talking about? Conservative organizations like the Family Research Council and such are doing things like that.
The ACLU is probably one of the biggest defenders of civil rights in the country. And it's often been labeled as a far-left liberal organization (even though they've defended Rush Limbaugh and they defend other 'right-wing' people and organizations all the time).
|
On August 21 2012 06:01 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 05:50 whatevername wrote:
The left tries to inhibit free speech [...]
That sounds bifarcated to me. Why do you determine that this is partisan? (I'm looking at you, Pussy Riot thread!) I'm leftist, and it made me nauseous when I tuned into Fox Sports and they lambasted Olympians for things they tweeted and so happy they were punished. I certainly don't agree with what was tweeted, but became sympathetic with the Olympians who were banned for it. I take liberty very seriously... I even terminated my Blizzard account when I was banned from their forum. The left is trying to censor video game violence? See: Stephen King. Well, fair. But In Canada it [generally] is a left wing thing, hate speech and "human right tribunals" shit of that nature.
|
On August 21 2012 08:49 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 06:01 screamingpalm wrote:On August 21 2012 05:50 whatevername wrote:
The left tries to inhibit free speech [...]
That sounds bifarcated to me. Why do you determine that this is partisan? (I'm looking at you, Pussy Riot thread!) I'm leftist, and it made me nauseous when I tuned into Fox Sports and they lambasted Olympians for things they tweeted and so happy they were punished. I certainly don't agree with what was tweeted, but became sympathetic with the Olympians who were banned for it. I take liberty very seriously... I even terminated my Blizzard account when I was banned from their forum. The left is trying to censor video game violence? See: Stephen King. Well, fair. But In Canada it [generally] is a left wing thing, hate speech and "human right tribunals" shit of that nature.
Ah... I think I know the type you refer to. I refer to them as "liberals" lol. The difference between leftists and liberals are one group champions the working class and poor, the other does too, but can't stand the smell of them. :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
