On September 09 2012 02:12 frogrubdown wrote: It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
Yes I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's not even the case that "most" pro-choice voters necessarily support state-funded abortions. Let me see if I can find some data to back this up.
Here is a survey of Canadians. About 44% want the state to fund abortions in all cases, while about 40 percent say it should fund abortions only in the case of emergencies. About 10% say it should never fund abortions.
Question number 37: are you in favor of public funds for abortions? 61% oppose, 37% in favor. Contrast that 61% with only about 24% of people saying that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (see question 35).
I think this illustrates that a lot of the people who agree that abortions should be legal still do not support government funding.
Maybe "a lot" don't, but doesn't that data pretty clearly back up my claim that most do? Unless you want to claim that to be pro life you have to believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, but that definitely is not how 'pro life' is typically used. Under the normal definition, around half of Americans are pro life, meaning, by your own data, most of the rest must be supporting public funds for abortions.
The question in this poll is probably not specific enough. The problem is that people who say that government money can fund abortions are not asked in what circumstances that would be acceptable. For example, even I would not oppose government funding of abortions when the mother's life is in danger. Many people might be okay with government funding of abortions in cases of incest or rape but be very unhappy about funding all abortions no matter what the circumstances.
This has all been a bit of a digression. Regardless of the actual numbers the bottom line I think is this:
- If the most important issue for a voter is that the state should fund abortions, then that voter should definitely vote democrat because there is a big difference between the parties on this issue
- If the most important issue for a voter is that abortion should be legal, then that voter should go on to consider other issues, because abortion will continue to be legal no matter which party wins.
I think that people should always consider multiple issues. That said, it's important to not downplay how important many on the left feel funding for this type of thing is. They view it as not simply an issue of health care but also one of equality. Without easy access to birth control and other forms of family planning, they don't think that women can be equal members of society and imposing a heavy cost on women to obtain these things would merely perpetuate the inequality. You're free to disagree, but that's why many care not just about the right but the ease of access.
On September 09 2012 03:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Also, who looks to be winning? I keep hearing that the Republicans completely fucked the debate while Democrats (especially Clinton) were on point.
No one really knows. Most people would agree that Obama is the favorite but it's hard to say by how much. The source I like to look at is the Intrade prediction markets where people put down real money to try to profit off their opinions. I've been watching this for months and the chance of Obama winning has stayed between 55% and 60% ever since I've started paying attention. Which is interesting because it suggests that none of the stuff that we've all been talking about here has actually made any significant difference.
On September 09 2012 01:33 frogrubdown wrote: [quote]
You don't have to go very far back in this thread to see you doing exactly what I describe you as doing.
[quote]
Democratic rhetoric on abortion would only be a "big lie" if Republicans weren't trying to do an absurd number of abortion-related things that pro choice voters care about, the funding related ones being things that Republicans could very realistically accomplish. When sunprince gave a litany of examples of Republicans threatening things pro choice voters care about, your response to half of them appealed to your own views of the proper role of government in funding services. A complete non sequitur.
There is a huge difference in my view between wanting abortion to be legal and wanting the government to use tax money to pay for abortions. As a libertarian I think abortion should be legal because I don't think it's any of the government's business. But I strongly oppose the idea that the state would forcibly take money from me and use it to pay for these procedures.
I think a lot of voters would feel the same way. So when you say that "pro-choice voters" care a bout funding that is a pretty big exaggeration.
I never stated there wasn't a huge difference. I just stated that it is disingenuous to claim that Demotcratic rhetoric on abortion is a lie on the basis of the fact that Republicans can only realistically harm funding for abortions and birth control, which most pro choice people care about but xdaunt considers unimportant (for the record, I think they can harm more than just funding, but that's beside the point).
This ties into your last point. I was generally careful to use words like 'most' throughout my posts here and it would be absurd for anyone to read me as saying that all pro choicers are in favor of funding on the basis of one place where I didn't. Clearly most are though. Look at the party identification of people who identify as pro choice, and what that party supports in terms of abortion.
edit: I should also note that present tense indicative sentences with plural subjects are not generally used to express universal quantifications. They are more often habituals. Consider:
(1) Dogs have four legs.
(1) is true. It does not express the claim that all dogs have four legs (which is false), but rather a claim more along the lines of it being characteristic of dogs to four legs. Similarly:
(2) Pro choice voters care about x.
It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
But you're asserting that most pro-choice people care about government funded abortions, which I find highly dubious. Can you provide a source please? I think most politically moderate people are pro choice but would laugh at the idea that they should pay for someone else's abortion.
I don't have a direct source (i.e., a response to a 'do you believe in government funded abortions?' survey), but was rather extrapolating from other statistics that maybe I can muster up in a little bit. Namely that,
(1) pro choice people are pretty generally Democrats, (2) Democrats pretty generally think that everyone should be insured and that those who can't afford it should be provided with it by the government, and (3) such insurance should cover abortions.
I'd be surprised if any of these steps went wrong, but maybe it does. Also, it's worth noting that xdaunt is also arguing against funding of birth control, which surely has even more support the pro choice and is very seriously threatened by Republicans.
Only 31% of Americans are Democrats. 35% of Americans think abortion should always be legal, and 47% think it should sometimes be legal.
Well, being a registered Democrat is a pretty different thing than consistently supporting Democrats in elections and I probably should have been clear about that in my argument (if only 31% of people consistently supported Democrats, they'd never win elections). That said, you're data does not really directly speak to any of my premises.
edit: in any case, it'd probably be more clear to simply argue directly using data on support in general for tax funded abortions, as Ziggurat and I have started doing. It's not too big a leap to assume that practically anyone who favors tax-payer funded abortions is pro choice, and the percent that do favor it is not that much less than the percent of people who are pro choice.
Is it just entirely foreign to you partisan folks that unaffiliated voters (and non-voters) can side with one party or the other or neither, all depending on the issue at hand? You still bunch us up as generally supporting one side or the other. We're not a part of your silly little game that's hijacked and made a mockery of our nations political system.
Who on earth are you even talking to? I'm not a Democrat and have never voted for a Democratic candidate in my life.
You're partisan though, right? I can't imagine someone who isn't insisting that someone who has not affiliated themselves with a party must surely still consistently support one or the other. Its insulting honestly.
I never insisted that. I only claimed that election results indicate that a sizable portion of non-registered-Democrats must be voting consistently for Democrats.
On September 09 2012 03:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Also, who looks to be winning? I keep hearing that the Republicans completely fucked the debate while Democrats (especially Clinton) were on point.
No one really knows. Most people would agree that Obama is the favorite but it's hard to say by how much. The source I like to look at is the Intrade prediction markets where people put down real money to try to profit off their opinions. I've been watching this for months and the chance of Obama winning has stayed between 55% and 60% ever since I've started paying attention. Which is interesting because it suggests that none of the stuff that we've all been talking about here has actually made any significant difference.
Despite all the talk about Obama being in trouble, 538 has his chances increasing slowly but surely overall. I'd argue that intrade is a more cautious estimate (I don't know if that means accurate) that 538 because there are few stakes for 538 while people on intrade are actually betting cash.
On September 07 2012 23:09 xDaunt wrote: I agree with Peggy Noonan's take on the convention.
On Obama:
Barack Obama is deeply overexposed and often boring. He never seems to be saying what he's thinking. His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There's too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal: We've done better than you think. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
There were many straw men. There were phrases like "the shadow of a shuttered steel mill," which he considers writerly. But they sound empty and practiced now, like something you've heard in a commercial or an advertising campaign.
It was stale and empty. He's out of juice.
On the tone of the convention and the delegates:
Beneath the funny hats, the sweet-faced delegates, the handsome speakers and the babies waving flags there was something disquieting. All three days were marked by a kind of soft, distracted extremism. It was unshowy and unobnoxious but also unsettling.
There was the relentless emphasis on Government as Community, as the thing that gives us spirit and makes us whole. But government isn't what you love if you're American, America is what you love. Government is what you have, need and hire. Its most essential duties—especially when it is bankrupt—involve defending rights and safety, not imposing views and values. We already have values. Democrats and Republicans don't see all this the same way, and that's fine—that's what national politics is, the working out of this dispute in one direction or another every few years. But the Democrats convened in Charlotte seemed more extreme on the point, more accepting of the idea of government as the center of national life, than ever, at least to me.
The fight over including a single mention of God in the platform—that was extreme. The original removal of the single mention by the platform committee—extreme. The huge "No!" vote on restoring the mention of God, and including the administration's own stand on Jerusalem—that wasn't liberal, it was extreme. Comparing the Republicans to Nazis—extreme. The almost complete absence of a call to help education by facing down the powers that throw our least defended children under the school bus—this was extreme, not mainstream.
On Fluke (just because I don't think this woman can ever get enough scorn):
The sheer strangeness of all the talk about abortion, abortion, contraception, contraception. I am old enough to know a wedge issue when I see one, but I've never seen a great party build its entire public persona around one. Big speeches from the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, HHS Secretary and abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius and, of course, Sandra Fluke.
"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim? What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too.
Here's the most important part that dovetails with the "poisoning the well" conversation that we have had on and off in this thread:
Something else, and it had to do with tone. I remember the Republicans in Tampa bashing the president, hard, but not the entire Democratic Party. In Charlotte they bashed Mitt Romney, but they bashed the Republican Party harder. If this doesn't strike you as somewhat unsettling, then you must want another four years of all war all the time between the parties. I don't think the American people want that. Because, actually, they're not extreme.
And finally, on Slick Willy:
Bill Clinton is The Master. That is stipulated. Almost everyone in the media was over the moon about his speech. It was a shrewd and superb moment of political generosity, his hauling into town to make the case, but it was a hack speech. It was the speech of a highly gifted apparatchik. All great partisan speeches include some hard and uncomfortable truths, but Mr. Clinton offered none. He knows better than so much of what he said. In real life he makes insightful statements on the debt, the deficit and the real threat they pose. He knows more about the need for and impediments to public-school reform than half the reformers do. He knows exactly why both parties can't reach agreement in Washington, and what each has done wrong along the way. But Wednesday night he stuck to fluid fictions and clever cases. It was smaller than Bill Clinton is.
Still, he gave the president one great political gift: He put Medicaid on the table. He put it right there next to the pepper shaker and said Look at that! People talk Medicare and Social Security, but, as Mr. Clinton noted, more than half of Medicaid is spent on nursing-home care for seniors and on those with disabilities such as Down syndrome and autism. Will it be cut? .... Romney-Ryan take note: this will arrive as an issue.
Ultimately, she predicts a dead-cat bounce for Obama just like the one that Romney got. Most of the article is above, but you can read the rest here.
The fact that she considers anything in the Democratic party "extreme" or "extremism" questions the validity of anything she writes. There is nothing extreme about the Democratic party or anything they're doing or saying.
Except for the platform's stance on abortion:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay
Which means government funded abortion with no restrictions. A departure from previous DNC platforms that stated that abortion should be, "Legal, safe, and rare".
Now let's look at the polling. 20% say abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, 25% legal under any circumstance and 52% legal under only certain circumstances (Source).
By definition, among the American electorate, BOTH parties platform stance on abortion is extreme.
Am I missing something? Where does it say 'no restrictions'?
I thought the Roe v Wade decision set these ground rules:
First trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor. Second trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor, but states may intervene in the interest of the mother's health.
Once the fetus is capable of surviving the outside world (dunno when this is), the state can choose to regulate abortion.
So it's not without restrictions...
Indeed. As the DNC stated, they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade."
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]
As for partial-birth abortion there was a debate about that earlier... I suppose you can say the abortion stance is more extreme now but not without valid reason.
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
It's because the DNC platform isn't extreme. Democrats are very moderate on just about everything; there's not even a hint of socializing anything coming from the entire party, and access to birth control and early abortions is very moderate. Basically every issue is handled half-assedly by the party because they don't want to alienate anyone who is even remotely conservative by suggesting socializing anything, seriously tackling climate change, overhauling education/healthcare/the tax code, actually separating church and state, etc. Republicans, on the other hand, are one of the most right-wing, extremist political parties in any developed, first world nation.
For someone looking at this from the outside i agree. Democrats are more right leaning than anything we have in sweden. Our two most right leaning parties would place to the left of the scale in the US, and i think this goes for almost all of europe.
What americans call socialist/communist is what people here consider quite moderate stuff. Our left leaning parties want controlled pharmacies, alcohol only sold at government run stores, no profit for businesses running private schools, even stronger unions and worker rights (which are already way stronger than those in the US), increased and forced split of parent leave, and much more.
It's just really weird when people talk about the "threat" of socialism when most right wing europe is more left leaning than democrats in the US.
it's all a matter of perspective. from my perspective, the idea of the Democrats being anywhere near right-wing is silliness, no matter how left someone else can get. i mean, it seems obvious to me that the Democrat party is much more extreme-left in its views than the majority of their base (and the country), and therefore they have to hide their real intentions a lot. also, they are pretty left-wing when you take into account the majority opinions of the US.
most of "right-wing europe" is what I would start to call "socialist". not as a literal definition, like I'm not actually saying that they are socialists, but more as a hyperbolic half-joke with some elements of truth. definitely the radical left though, if not actually socialistic in a lot of ways.
For someone looking at this from the outside i agree. Democrats are more right leaning than anything we have in sweden. Our two most right leaning parties would place to the left of the scale in the US, and i think this goes for almost all of europe.
What americans call socialist/communist is what people here consider quite moderate stuff. Our left leaning parties want controlled pharmacies, alcohol only sold at government run stores, no profit for businesses running private schools, even stronger unions and worker rights (which are already way stronger than those in the US), increased and forced split of parent leave, and much more.
It's just really weird when people talk about the "threat" of socialism when most right wing europe is more left leaning than democrats in the US.
I do not agree with you, but not saying you are wrong either. It is all about perspective.
If USA had been a country with european level gun-control for 20 years, it is very unlikely that more than half the people would want less/no gun-control, than what they have today. If USA had as strong a worker-protection as europe they would not hate unions with a passion. If USA had more moderate churches, it would not call for no abortion and no gay marriage.
What I am saying is that context changes what you wish for. People are very conservative (not the political term. Oh no!) when it comes to changes. Since Sweden has had some of the worlds harshest alcohol-restriction before and had very high prizes on sprit-bolaget as it was called, it is not as much of a stretch as it sounds like to have it returned. Controlled pharmacies is again a question of it working untill 2009. Private schools were very seldom in Sweden before the 1990's but I am unsure about the exact intentions they have with non-profit, union and worker rights are and has always been the left parties bread and butter for collecting votes and with the crumbling middle class they will struggle to redefine themself as independent! Parental leave is, well, less interesting.
When you look at these things, the socialists are trashtruck conservatives, digging up old social laws from up to 20 years ago and selling it as new. Now who in USA would do something like that?
On one area there is somewhat agreement between USA and EU and that is in single state vs confederation. In EU, the far left and far right are fighting for independence from EU, which is not on the table in USA anymore. However, a significant part of the conservative EU parliament are sceptics. All the way across the middle, we are seeing a striking unity about EU being top of cake and wanting all parts of life controlled by common EU acquis communautaire.
The politicians are not that creative people. they dumpster dives for ideas or looks abroad. Ideology is not restricted to what exact laws they want implemented. They want to pull the nation in a specific direction and they keep pulling in that direction untill they get punished for it and another government with another ideology is elected. When that happens they dumpster dive, look abroad and throw dirt untill their opponents loose and they again can sculp the world around their dream.
It is not politicians being left- or right-wing in a country: It is the society they govern being more or less right- or left-leaning in structure!
On September 09 2012 02:03 naastyOne wrote: The totaly unlimited abortion is as extreeme, as totally banned abourtion.
We've been over this. Democrats do not support totally unlimited abortion (rule #4: FACT CHECK).
The Republicans are hardly extreme either. The idea that persons should get as much as they earn, and should pay for the things that they consume themselves, are not extreeme, at all.
Get as much as they earn? So no taxes? Seems pretty extreme to me (and for the record, marginal tax rates at 28% for the top bracket is also extreme).
The idea that the goverment should be kept efficent, and should only do what it can do best(better than states and private enterprises) is not extreeme.
Democrats agree. What they don't agree with is what the government can do better and how it can do it better.
The idea that religious freedom is importaint, is not extreeme.
You can have your religious freedom - just get it out of my politics. As much as freedom of religion is important, freedom from religion is just as important if not more. Trampling over the principles of separation of state and church is extreme.
On the health care, again, they do not want to ban birthcontrol, they just want people that actually have sex pay for that, not the society. Which again, is kind of fair, since not everyone has same amount of sex, and needs equal quantity of birth controll madications/condomes/whatever.
Birth control is not used only to prevent being pregnant but is also used to treat medical complications:
Oral contraceptives reduce the risk of ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer without increasing the risk for breast cancer. They can lower body weight by reducing water retention (not loss of fat), and several are used to treat mild to moderate acne. Many women of childbearing age experience adverse physical and emotional symptoms prior to menstruation, including heavy menstrual bleeding, headache, dysmenorrhea and sometimes behavioral, emotional, and physical symptoms associated with premenstrual dysphoric disorder; combination hormonal contraceptives often ameliorate or effectively treat these problems. Lower doses of estrogen required by vaginal administration (i.e., the vaginal ring) may reduce the effects associated with higher oral doses such as breast tenderness, nausea, and headache.[21]
Progestogen-only pills and intrauterine devices are not associated with an increased risk of thromboses and may be used by women with previous venous thrombosis, or hepatitis.[22][23][24] In those with a history of arterial thrombosis, non-hormonal birth control should be used.[23] Progestogen-only pills may improve menstrual symptoms such as dysmenorrhea, menorrhagia, premenstrual syndrome, and anemia, and are recommended for breast-feeding women because they do not affect lactation.
And anyway, some people get the flu more often than others. Does not mean their insurance can deny them just because.
Again, the idea of personal responsibility for your life, is not extreeme.
The idea of letting people rot on the streets is extreme.
Anyway, this is just nitpicking. If you want to see really extreme views just glance through their platform.
I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions.
you know, depending on how you are defining "extreme" than one could say that the Dems are, arguably, more extreme than the Reps, or at least just as extreme.
the whole God and Jerusalem part of their convention was an example. the vast majority of people in the US are Christian/Theistic and a majority of them support Israel. the Democratic party took mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel out of their platform, and kind of had to force it back in, because the majority of the delegates didn't want it back in. in relation to the majority, their opinions on God and Israel are extreme. (extreme being defined as being on the fringe, not in the majority)
they are left-of-center on things like abortion, just as the Republican party is right-of-center. as such, both could be called extreme on that issue.
tax and spend: they are definitely left-of-center. (possibly further away from the majority opinion than even the Tea-Party Republicans are).
healthcare: they are left-of-center here too, though perhaps not so much as on other issues. still, they could be considered relatively extreme on this issue.
immigration: again, left of the majority (in some cases FAR to the left of the majority)
voter ID laws: well to the left-of-center.
now, if I don't personally consider these positions to be "extreme", than obviously i won't call them extreme. but then i've turned "extreme" into a codeword for "what I don't agree with." if we define "extreme" as being outside the center of popular opinion, than the Democrats are certainly extreme, and so are the Republicans.
at the end of the day, its a moot point. mere name-calling for the sake of name-calling.
On September 09 2012 05:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: you know, depending on how you are defining "extreme" than one could say that the Dems are, arguably, more extreme than the Reps, or at least just as extreme.
the whole God and Jerusalem part of their convention was an example. the vast majority of people in the US are Christian/Theistic and a majority of them support Israel. the Democratic party took mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel out of their platform, and kind of had to force it back in, because the majority of the delegates didn't want it back in. in relation to the majority, their opinions on God and Israel are extreme. (extreme being defined as being on the fringe, not in the majority)
they are left-of-center on things like abortion, just as the Republican party is right-of-center. as such, both could be called extreme on that issue.
tax and spend: they are definitely left-of-center. (possibly further away from the majority opinion than even the Tea-Party Republicans are).
healthcare: they are left-of-center here too, though perhaps not so much as on other issues. still, they could be considered relatively extreme on this issue.
immigration: again, left of the majority (in some cases FAR to the left of the majority)
voter ID laws: well to the left-of-center.
now, if I don't personally consider these positions to be "extreme", than obviously i won't call them extreme. but then i've turned "extreme" into a codeword for "what I don't agree with." if we define "extreme" as being outside the center of popular opinion, than the Democrats are certainly extreme, and so are the Republicans.
at the end of the day, its a moot point. mere name-calling for the sake of name-calling.
Even though I disagree with some of your points here, in any case, being 'left of center' or 'right of center' is not extreme. Being far left or far right is extreme.
On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote: I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions.
One man's distraction is another's life long struggle; that we have the right to vote in accordance with our own belief set is one of the reasons this country is great, imo.
On September 09 2012 05:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: you know, depending on how you are defining "extreme" than one could say that the Dems are, arguably, more extreme than the Reps, or at least just as extreme.
the whole God and Jerusalem part of their convention was an example. the vast majority of people in the US are Christian/Theistic and a majority of them support Israel. the Democratic party took mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel out of their platform, and kind of had to force it back in, because the majority of the delegates didn't want it back in. in relation to the majority, their opinions on God and Israel are extreme. (extreme being defined as being on the fringe, not in the majority)
they are left-of-center on things like abortion, just as the Republican party is right-of-center. as such, both could be called extreme on that issue.
tax and spend: they are definitely left-of-center. (possibly further away from the majority opinion than even the Tea-Party Republicans are).
healthcare: they are left-of-center here too, though perhaps not so much as on other issues. still, they could be considered relatively extreme on this issue.
immigration: again, left of the majority (in some cases FAR to the left of the majority)
voter ID laws: well to the left-of-center.
now, if I don't personally consider these positions to be "extreme", than obviously i won't call them extreme. but then i've turned "extreme" into a codeword for "what I don't agree with." if we define "extreme" as being outside the center of popular opinion, than the Democrats are certainly extreme, and so are the Republicans.
at the end of the day, its a moot point. mere name-calling for the sake of name-calling.
Even though I disagree with some of your points here, in any case, being 'left of center' or 'right of center' is not extreme. Being far left or far right is extreme.
then it depends on how one defines the word "far", and i suspect most people would just define it the same way they usually define "extreme", which seems to be based entirely on: do i like it or not?
i could argue that the Democrat platform is far to left on a lot of issues. a Democrat may then turn around and say that the Republican platform is far to the right and that the Democrats are not far to the left, but are only slightly left-of-center. who is right? obviously the answer will almost certainly depend on who is being asked. a fellow Republican would say that I am right, a fellow Democrat would say that he is right. a purely objective person (does not exist) would probably say that we're both right and wrong.
like i said, it serves no real purpose other than to demonize the opponent. i understand the inevitability of these kinds of attacks in politics, but i still think we should keep it to a minimum if we can. does it really change the argument if someone considers one side to be more "extreme" than the other side? is it relevant in any way other than as an ad hominem? i dont think so, but hey, i could be wrong.
On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote: I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions.
It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others.
On September 09 2012 05:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: you know, depending on how you are defining "extreme" than one could say that the Dems are, arguably, more extreme than the Reps, or at least just as extreme.
the whole God and Jerusalem part of their convention was an example. the vast majority of people in the US are Christian/Theistic and a majority of them support Israel. the Democratic party took mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel out of their platform, and kind of had to force it back in, because the majority of the delegates didn't want it back in. in relation to the majority, their opinions on God and Israel are extreme. (extreme being defined as being on the fringe, not in the majority)
they are left-of-center on things like abortion, just as the Republican party is right-of-center. as such, both could be called extreme on that issue.
tax and spend: they are definitely left-of-center. (possibly further away from the majority opinion than even the Tea-Party Republicans are).
healthcare: they are left-of-center here too, though perhaps not so much as on other issues. still, they could be considered relatively extreme on this issue.
immigration: again, left of the majority (in some cases FAR to the left of the majority)
voter ID laws: well to the left-of-center.
now, if I don't personally consider these positions to be "extreme", than obviously i won't call them extreme. but then i've turned "extreme" into a codeword for "what I don't agree with." if we define "extreme" as being outside the center of popular opinion, than the Democrats are certainly extreme, and so are the Republicans.
at the end of the day, its a moot point. mere name-calling for the sake of name-calling.
Even though I disagree with some of your points here, in any case, being 'left of center' or 'right of center' is not extreme. Being far left or far right is extreme.
then it depends on how one defines the word "far", and i suspect most people would just define it the same way they usually define "extreme", which seems to be based entirely on: do i like it or not?
i could argue that the Democrat platform is far to left on a lot of issues. a Democrat may then turn around and say that the Republican platform is far to the right and that the Democrats are not far to the left, but are only slightly left-of-center. who is right? obviously the answer will almost certainly depend on who is being asked. a fellow Republican would say that I am right, a fellow Democrat would say that he is right. a purely objective person (does not exist) would probably say that we're both right and wrong.
like i said, it serves no real purpose other than to demonize the opponent. i understand the inevitability of these kinds of attacks in politics, but i still think we should keep it to a minimum if we can. does it really change the argument if someone considers one side to be more "extreme" than the other side? is it relevant in any way other than as an ad hominem? i dont think so, but hey, i could be wrong.
You're basing your claim on the assumption that we're all just assuming stuff and basing it on our personal opinion. That would be wrong. What we base it on is pure historical and modern evidence. We base it on numbers and policies both from our own past and from the rest of the developed democracies.
On September 09 2012 05:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: you know, depending on how you are defining "extreme" than one could say that the Dems are, arguably, more extreme than the Reps, or at least just as extreme.
the whole God and Jerusalem part of their convention was an example. the vast majority of people in the US are Christian/Theistic and a majority of them support Israel. the Democratic party took mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel out of their platform, and kind of had to force it back in, because the majority of the delegates didn't want it back in. in relation to the majority, their opinions on God and Israel are extreme. (extreme being defined as being on the fringe, not in the majority)
they are left-of-center on things like abortion, just as the Republican party is right-of-center. as such, both could be called extreme on that issue.
tax and spend: they are definitely left-of-center. (possibly further away from the majority opinion than even the Tea-Party Republicans are).
healthcare: they are left-of-center here too, though perhaps not so much as on other issues. still, they could be considered relatively extreme on this issue.
immigration: again, left of the majority (in some cases FAR to the left of the majority)
voter ID laws: well to the left-of-center.
now, if I don't personally consider these positions to be "extreme", than obviously i won't call them extreme. but then i've turned "extreme" into a codeword for "what I don't agree with." if we define "extreme" as being outside the center of popular opinion, than the Democrats are certainly extreme, and so are the Republicans.
at the end of the day, its a moot point. mere name-calling for the sake of name-calling.
Even though I disagree with some of your points here, in any case, being 'left of center' or 'right of center' is not extreme. Being far left or far right is extreme.
then it depends on how one defines the word "far", and i suspect most people would just define it the same way they usually define "extreme", which seems to be based entirely on: do i like it or not?
i could argue that the Democrat platform is far to left on a lot of issues. a Democrat may then turn around and say that the Republican platform is far to the right and that the Democrats are not far to the left, but are only slightly left-of-center. who is right? obviously the answer will almost certainly depend on who is being asked. a fellow Republican would say that I am right, a fellow Democrat would say that he is right. a purely objective person (does not exist) would probably say that we're both right and wrong.
like i said, it serves no real purpose other than to demonize the opponent. i understand the inevitability of these kinds of attacks in politics, but i still think we should keep it to a minimum if we can. does it really change the argument if someone considers one side to be more "extreme" than the other side? is it relevant in any way other than as an ad hominem? i dont think so, but hey, i could be wrong.
You're basing your claim on the assumption that we're all just assuming stuff and basing it on our personal opinion. That would be wrong. What we base it on is pure historical and modern evidence. We base it on numbers and policies both from our own past and from the rest of the developed democracies.
well, see, there is your problem (or my problem depending on your perspective).
i don't think one should take other countries into account when discussing such things. it skews things toward the left, and anyway, even if it didn't, it's disingenuous. historical fact doesn't really matter. when discussing extremism, one can pretty much get by with simple poll numbers, anything else is dross. if the majority of Americans feel a certain way, than anything that deviates from that way by a wide margin is extreme in the context of American politics. Swedish (or whatever) majority opinion doesn't come into it, because we aren't talking about swedes, we're talking about Americans.
which is why i said it was a matter of perspective. to a Swede, many things will seem extreme that will not seem extreme to an American, and visa versa. if we try to say which is "objectively" more extreme, than the only reasonable measure would be to determine popular opinion in that specific country, and then compare the position of the party to that popular opinion.
the large majority of people talking about extreme vs. not-extreme in this thread are using personal preference to determine how they feel. everyone else seems to be comparing the Republican platform to European politics, which is pretty ridiculous in my opinion, because the Republican party isn't a European political party, they are an American political party. use American opinion and American politics as your measure. when we're discussing Europe, than we can use European opinion and European politics. otherwise its a complete mess.
On September 09 2012 05:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: you know, depending on how you are defining "extreme" than one could say that the Dems are, arguably, more extreme than the Reps, or at least just as extreme.
the whole God and Jerusalem part of their convention was an example. the vast majority of people in the US are Christian/Theistic and a majority of them support Israel. the Democratic party took mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel out of their platform, and kind of had to force it back in, because the majority of the delegates didn't want it back in. in relation to the majority, their opinions on God and Israel are extreme. (extreme being defined as being on the fringe, not in the majority)
they are left-of-center on things like abortion, just as the Republican party is right-of-center. as such, both could be called extreme on that issue.
tax and spend: they are definitely left-of-center. (possibly further away from the majority opinion than even the Tea-Party Republicans are).
healthcare: they are left-of-center here too, though perhaps not so much as on other issues. still, they could be considered relatively extreme on this issue.
immigration: again, left of the majority (in some cases FAR to the left of the majority)
voter ID laws: well to the left-of-center.
now, if I don't personally consider these positions to be "extreme", than obviously i won't call them extreme. but then i've turned "extreme" into a codeword for "what I don't agree with." if we define "extreme" as being outside the center of popular opinion, than the Democrats are certainly extreme, and so are the Republicans.
at the end of the day, its a moot point. mere name-calling for the sake of name-calling.
Even though I disagree with some of your points here, in any case, being 'left of center' or 'right of center' is not extreme. Being far left or far right is extreme.
then it depends on how one defines the word "far", and i suspect most people would just define it the same way they usually define "extreme", which seems to be based entirely on: do i like it or not?
i could argue that the Democrat platform is far to left on a lot of issues. a Democrat may then turn around and say that the Republican platform is far to the right and that the Democrats are not far to the left, but are only slightly left-of-center. who is right? obviously the answer will almost certainly depend on who is being asked. a fellow Republican would say that I am right, a fellow Democrat would say that he is right. a purely objective person (does not exist) would probably say that we're both right and wrong.
like i said, it serves no real purpose other than to demonize the opponent. i understand the inevitability of these kinds of attacks in politics, but i still think we should keep it to a minimum if we can. does it really change the argument if someone considers one side to be more "extreme" than the other side? is it relevant in any way other than as an ad hominem? i dont think so, but hey, i could be wrong.
You're basing your claim on the assumption that we're all just assuming stuff and basing it on our personal opinion. That would be wrong. What we base it on is pure historical and modern evidence. We base it on numbers and policies both from our own past and from the rest of the developed democracies.
well, see, there is your problem (or my problem depending on your perspective).
i don't think one should take other countries into account when discussing such things. it skews things toward the left, and anyway, even if it didn't, it's disingenuous. historical fact doesn't really matter. when discussing extremism, one can pretty much get by with simple poll numbers, anything else is dross. if the majority of Americans feel a certain way, than anything that deviates from that way by a wide margin is extreme in the context of American politics. Swedish (or whatever) majority opinion doesn't come into it, because we aren't talking about swedes, we're talking about Americans.
which is why i said it was a matter of perspective. to a Swede, many things will seem extreme that will not seem extreme to an American, and visa versa. if we try to say which is "objectively" more extreme, than the only reasonable measure would be to determine popular opinion in that specific country, and then compare the position of the party to that popular opinion.
the large majority of people talking about extreme vs. not-extreme in this thread are using personal preference to determine how they feel. everyone else seems to be comparing the Republican platform to European politics, which is pretty ridiculous in my opinion, because the Republican party isn't a European political party, they are an American political party. use American opinion and American politics as your measure. when we're discussing Europe, than we can use European opinion and European politics. otherwise its a complete mess.
I disagree, comparative politics is pivotal in the analysis of a country's policies. Whether it's a comparison with history or a comparison with other developed democracies, you need more than just a modern isolated perspective to gauge your frame of thought. Analyzing these factors on top of analyzing our country's political culture is the only way you can make informed decisions of what policies may or may not benefit the country. When you base your policies on just the present framework, you neither excite progress nor do you learn from your mistakes.
If you want to be relative, then sure, you can say, "I am not extreme for an American," or, "I am extreme in the eyes of Europe." But in reference to political discourse the only way you're going to get anywhere is to open your eyes to the historical and global framework that makes the world what it is today.
"I want to ban abortion with no exceptions, yet not many throughout history agree with this stance, nor do many agree with me across the globe; therefore, I am extreme." When you have no one to compare yourself to, how are you ever going to realize your faults? If you isolate yourself from the world, you can deem yourself the most beautiful, regardless of the truth. It's only once you gain some perspective do you actually notice your blemishes. So yes, we must look beyond ourselves.
On September 08 2012 02:42 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 08 2012 01:59 xDaunt wrote: Unless war with Iran breaks out, nothing is going to happen economy-wise until after the election. Businesses are going to sit on their capital reserves until then.
This is just nonsense. It's a familiar Republican story though. But where's the evidence for it?
Businesses don't just sit on their hands and do nothing leading up to a election. The amount of things that businesses produce is based on demand. Businesses also do not suddenly cease all investment in the face of policy uncertainty.
There is always uncertainty.
In fact, virtually all of the finance taught in university is about business decision making in the face of uncertainty, and there are a wide variety of methods to help businesses decide on project investments in the face of uncertainty: NPV, scenario analysis, sensitivity analysis, IRR, etc. Moreover, models used for investing on the financial markets, e.g. hedging strategies, risk neutral pricing, etc., are all about uncertainty. There is nothing more uncertain and harder to predict than the stock market, with so many of these kinds of math tools used widely by businesses for investment on the stock markets, you think they're spooked to the point of paralysis by policy uncertainty?
You're right that businesses will sit on their capital reserves, but that's mainly because of a lack of aggregate demand, not because of uncertainty caused by an election.
I'll try to write you a better response later. But the short answer is that uncertainty can be accounted for with something like NPV but not eliminated. An NPV analysis in an environment with low uncertainty may be positive (make the investment) while the same analysis in an environment with high uncertainty might be negative. Also, an NPV analysis would be more harmed by uncertainty for longer term projects than shorter term ones. Riskier projects would also be harmed as risk premiums (presumably) increase.
So you can certainly have projects that get dumped or scaled down because the added risk of policy uncertainty makes the reward not worth it.
Yes, the greater the uncertainty, the harder it is to approve an investment under NPV. But Fed rates are at the zero lower bound, so the rate at which businesses can borrow money is cheap, hence the hurdle rate to making an investment is low.
The point is that businesses have always had the tools and knowledge to make investment choices under uncertainty. I haven't seen evidence saying that policy uncertainty, to the extent that it's above its normal level, is having any significant impact on holding investments back.
As far as Fed policy goes let’s keep in mind that Fed policy is most powerful at the short end of the yield curve and with lower risk assets. The Fed dropping short term rates from 6% to 0.25% matters a great deal for short-term high quality borrowing. But for something like long-term and risky equity the Fed policy may have lowered the cost from (hypothetically here) 23% to 20% - not too important in the grand scheme of things.
It matters as well given the details of the current recession. Businesses are very profitable yet they are also complaining about a lack of demand. This is a bit of a paradox – high profits should be a signal of high demand and a reason for businesses to expand. I think that’s partially explained by the fact that demand has shifted – businesses have the capacity to meet the wrong demand – so they complain about non-existent demand while a few competitors rake in big profits.
To give an example, if bookstores see and uptick in sales then more employees and inventory will be added in response. This will be supported by Fed policy – new inventory and payroll can be easily financed by lines of credit – short term borrowing at variable rates made much cheaper by Fed policy. When demand changes from physical books to digital copies, then bookstores need to respond in an entirely different way - by creating new products and new business models. That requires a couple relevant things – long term risky equity and lots of peering into the uncertain future – and it means that the businesses that successfully adapt will do extremely well while the others will languish.
Now, how does this relate to policy uncertainty? First, the value of getting your new business model right matters a great deal - much more so than a small change in your cost of capital. So for businesses impacted by policy change, waiting for certainty (new information) can be very valuable. Secondly, when deciding to make a long term and risky investment waiting isn’t a big risk in and of itself. Waiting is only a big risk if waiting means a competitor will seize the opportunity before you. But when it comes to policy risk that doesn’t really matter. At a certain point policy risk will be resolved for everyone simultaneously. So, there’s a lot less risk in waiting – everyone else is waiting so you may as well wait yourself.
In the grand scheme of things how big a deal is all this? It’s hard to tell but measures of overall risk / uncertainty such as the VIX are still high. How much of that you want to attribute to uncertainty over policy is very squishy – yet many investors and business owners are vocally citing it as a problem so it should not be ignored.
On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote: I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions.
It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others.
Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation.
On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote: I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions.
It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others.
Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation.
I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from.
EPT
