We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
Compelling argument.
you pretty much said that the reason people vote for Republicans is because they are stupid.
which is funny, because you are half-right. a big reason why A LOT of people vote for Republicans is because a lot of Democrats think that we're all stupid and aren't that shy about saying it.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Actually the Democratic party typically wins the votes of the least educated people. (they also win the most educated people) Republicans do better among people with roughly average intelligence.
Granted, "average" is still appallingly stupid. For example, I'd wager Palin's IQ is between 95 and 105.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
There's little evidence(that I know of) supporting the fact that a completely free market would lead to a stable and strong economy. If I'm wrong, though, please post it.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
There's little evidence(that I know of) supporting the fact that a completely free market would lead to a stable and strong economy. If I'm wrong, though, please post it.
Please post the evidence that an interventionist market will lead to a stable and strong economy.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
Compelling argument.
you pretty much said that the reason people vote for Republicans is because they are stupid.
which is funny, because you are half-right. a big reason why A LOT of people vote for Republicans is because a lot of Democrats think that we're all stupid and aren't that shy about saying it.
Actually, people vote Republican because:
-They feel that they are the "small government" party(which is laughably false) -Religious reasons(in which many Republicans, like Santorum, completely ignore the Bill of Rights) -They are convinced that lower taxes automatically=better economy(also laughably false) -They are convinced that lower regulations automatically=better economy(also false)
Republicans are very good at appealing to the common public with these views, because they are simple and easy to understand. But they aren't supported by evidence-one can contrast the 20s(and the depression that followed) and 50s to see that lower taxes does not necessarily mean a better economy. I'm not saying that higher taxes automatically=a better economy either. These issues aren't simple, and Republicans market them as simple, and they do it really well-that is what I mean when I say they are appealing to stupid people. It's harsh, but it's the truth. Not that Democrats don't do it either, of course, but Republicans are much much better at it.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
There's little evidence(that I know of) supporting the fact that a completely free market would lead to a stable and strong economy. If I'm wrong, though, please post it.
Please post the evidence that an interventionist market will lead to a stable and strong economy.
FDR turned the US into a command economy in World War II, hiking tax rates on the rich to well over 90 percent. Unemployment dropped from 15 percent to 1.6, averaging around 4 percent for the next 15 years. That's about as interventionist as they come. You're welcome.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If they did as you said then neither the D's or the R's would ever get elected, and the majority body would be all L's. At least the Republican's don't lie -- you know their MO. Democrats sell you a bill of false goods when they're just as rich and most times richer. So many people stuck in the false dichotomy, if GOP bad then D good, or D bad GOP good. They're both corrupt rotten parties that agree on 95% of the issues and sit back and laugh while the rest of the country fights each other over stupid wedge issues that don't matter squat and all the while they're sitting there counting the loot and all the new powers the dupes have given over to them.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
There's little evidence(that I know of) supporting the fact that a completely free market would lead to a stable and strong economy. If I'm wrong, though, please post it.
Please post the evidence that an interventionist market will lead to a stable and strong economy.
FDR turned the US into a command economy in World War II, hiking tax rates on the rich to well over 90 percent. Unemployment dropped from 15 percent to 1.6, averaging around 4 percent for the next 15 years. That's about as interventionist as they come. You're welcome.
Sure, you can completely wipe out unemployment by drafting everyone who is unemployed and sending them off to die. If that is your idea of a healthy economy and political ideal I have nothing else to say to you, but you should really reflect on what you just wrote. Never mind that all the folks back at home could only eat meat once a week or so, had to give a lot of their possessions and property to the military for 'the war effort', rationing of almost everything, price & wage controls, laborious work for not much return as all of it was going into the military. No useful items that increase our standard of living were really being built as all the factories were churning out military equipment to be blown up and destroyed, thus making everyone poorer.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
There's little evidence(that I know of) supporting the fact that a completely free market would lead to a stable and strong economy. If I'm wrong, though, please post it.
Please post the evidence that an interventionist market will lead to a stable and strong economy.
FDR turned the US into a command economy in World War II, hiking tax rates on the rich to well over 90 percent. Unemployment dropped from 15 percent to 1.6, averaging around 4 percent for the next 15 years. That's about as interventionist as they come. You're welcome.
Sure, you can completely wipe out unemployment by drafting everyone who is unemployed and sending them off to die. If that is your idea of a healthy economy and political ideal I have nothing else to say to you, but you should really reflect on what you just wrote. Never mind that all the folks back at home could only eat meat once a week or so, had to give a lot of their possessions and property to the military for 'the war effort', rationing of almost everything, price & wage controls, laborious work for not much return as all of it was going into the military. No useful items that increase our standard of living were really being built as all the factories were churning out military equipment to be blown up and destroyed, thus making everyone poorer.
Real nice.
Subtract the death, rations, and miltiary equipment part. Replace with bridges, infrastructure, and building upgrades. Tada. If anything that would improve the economic outlook.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
Our very first President, George Washington, used government revenue, tariffs, to set up poor houses.
Welfare, in other words.
Thomas Jefferson built a college that offered free tuition. Public education.
Libertarianism wasn't ever considered then as being practical. Only now, when we have the luxury of all of our infrastructure, regulations, and comfortable, government-built society, do we have the luxury of such ideologies. Libertarianism is a fad, an easy-to-understand philosophy that positively crumbles in the face of real-life nuances. I hope it dies, sooner the better.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
There's little evidence(that I know of) supporting the fact that a completely free market would lead to a stable and strong economy. If I'm wrong, though, please post it.
Please post the evidence that an interventionist market will lead to a stable and strong economy.
First off, the book "Aftershock-The Next Economy and America's Future" by economist Robert Reich is a great read on this.
Obviously, I'm not going to be able to cover every detail, but I'll go into the main points of why I believe a totally free market is a bad idea.
Let's start with the 20s. The 20s economy was for the most part a laissez-faire economy-the highest income tax rate was 25% by 1925, and there was very little regulation(Coolidge was VERY opposed to it). In the 20s, this seemed great- it was called the roaring 20s and so forth, and the economy seemed to boom. But the problem with the laissez-faire economy was that it was very volatile-and though the beginning/mid 20s saw a boom, the irresponsibility of the deregulated banks combined with a variety of other factors made the economy crash so badly that it resulted in the Great Depression.
Now let's look at the Depression. FDR's presidency brought a massive increase in tax rates on the rich(up to 63%) and new regulations on banks as well as social welfare programs(Social Security). The economy began to recover, but with the deficit increasingly massively, many freaked out about balancing the budget, and Roosevelt initiated spending cuts in 37 which led to the Roosevelt Recession in 37-38. And then the MASSIVE amounts of spending that came from WW2 brought the economy back full swing. And from WW2 up until the early 80s, the tax rates remained high, and the economy more regulated. Of course, the 70s saw stagflation, which was a major issue, but that was a result of the oil crisis, not the high taxes/regulation. Since then we've had a relatively deregulated economy compared to the 40s-70s, and our economy has been much more volatile, which is the problem with a free market.
So that's the basic gist of my argument. I don't really have time to write a massive essay going into every detail.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
There's little evidence(that I know of) supporting the fact that a completely free market would lead to a stable and strong economy. If I'm wrong, though, please post it.
Please post the evidence that an interventionist market will lead to a stable and strong economy.
FDR turned the US into a command economy in World War II, hiking tax rates on the rich to well over 90 percent. Unemployment dropped from 15 percent to 1.6, averaging around 4 percent for the next 15 years. That's about as interventionist as they come. You're welcome.
Sure, you can completely wipe out unemployment by drafting everyone who is unemployed and sending them off to die. If that is your idea of a healthy economy and political ideal I have nothing else to say to you, but you should really reflect on what you just wrote. Never mind that all the folks back at home could only eat meat once a week or so, had to give a lot of their possessions and property to the military for 'the war effort', rationing of almost everything, price & wage controls, laborious work for not much return as all of it was going into the military. No useful items that increase our standard of living were really being built as all the factories were churning out military equipment to be blown up and destroyed, thus making everyone poorer.
Real nice.
Subtract the death, rations, and miltiary equipment part. Replace with bridges, infrastructure, and building upgrades. Tada. If anything that would improve the economic outlook.
Perhaps we should put you in charge of the politburo so you can run the economy, because all of us lowly commoners are too stupid to know how to spend our own money, how to invest our own money, and how to plan for retirement ourselves. Chinese and Brazilians followed your model. They have ghost cities compltely uninhabited that they spent billions on. Good ol' central planners think they always know what is best for everyone, that they know our own individual wants and desires more than we do. The height of hubris.
Besides, what are these workers going to do after all these infrastructures are built. What work will you have them do then? Perhaps dig a few ditches and fill them back in? They all ready siphon road and infrastructure funds from the supposed taxes we pay for them to keep roads and such in working condition (Gas taxes, DMV fees, etc. etc.), and you then want to hand them more money to dole out to their friends and cronies? I am usually not so much a fan of Milton, but he's dead on here.
The fatal conceit. Thinking the State is some neutral institution, that is benevolent full of angels here to serve. What a load of bullocks in the English tone. Imagine giving say Wal-Mart the ability to tax you and to enforce such taxes they have armed thugs to haul you off to jail if you refuse to be extorted for their 'services'. You think the services they provide would improve in quality and price if they didn't need to care about the customer having to have an incentive to purchase their goods? That's the State in a shell. They don't give a flying fuck. They get your money regardless of the quality of the service, and they have a damn monopoly, which further undermines quality and price. It's ridiculous the price we pay for our shit ass roads and you then want to pay more for 'jobs programs'. They don't warrant the outrageous amount of money we are forced to pay them in the first place that most of it isn't even spent on what it's supposed to do.
That's fraud in the market, but the State has impunity.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
Our very first President, George Washington, used government revenue, tariffs, to set up poor houses.
Welfare, in other words.
Thomas Jefferson built a college that offered free tuition. Public education.
Libertarianism wasn't ever considered then as being practical. Only now, when we have the luxury of all of our infrastructure, regulations, and comfortable, government-built society, do we have the luxury of such ideologies. Libertarianism is a fad, an easy-to-understand philosophy that positively crumbles in the face of real-life nuances. I hope it dies, sooner the better.
You do realize when those two guys were President the Federal Government was a fraction of the size it is today? Very few modern day Libertarians want "no government", they just want less government. It is not a fad of sorts, it has been around for a while and probably first started with Jefferson and Adams and their push for a less-centralized national government.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
Compelling argument.
you pretty much said that the reason people vote for Republicans is because they are stupid.
which is funny, because you are half-right. a big reason why A LOT of people vote for Republicans is because a lot of Democrats think that we're all stupid and aren't that shy about saying it.
Actually, people vote Republican because:
-They feel that they are the "small government" party(which is laughably false) -Religious reasons(in which many Republicans, like Santorum, completely ignore the Bill of Rights) -They are convinced that lower taxes automatically=better economy(also laughably false) -They are convinced that lower regulations automatically=better economy(also false)
Republicans are very good at appealing to the common public with these views, because they are simple and easy to understand. But they aren't supported by evidence-one can contrast the 20s(and the depression that followed) and 50s to see that lower taxes does not necessarily mean a better economy. I'm not saying that higher taxes automatically=a better economy either. These issues aren't simple, and Republicans market them as simple, and they do it really well-that is what I mean when I say they are appealing to stupid people. It's harsh, but it's the truth. Not that Democrats don't do it either, of course, but Republicans are much much better at it.
ahh see, now we're getting somewhere.
the Republicans are the "small government" party for the most part. the problem that a lot of non-Republicans have understanding this is because they think in terms of black and white (for all that they protest to the opposite). they think "i prefer small government" means "i prefer no government in every single facet of my life" when it actually means what it says: we prefer a small, efficient, precise, government with a lot of checks and balances and we want it as cheap as possible. so people are not stupid for calling the Republicans the "small government" party, nor are they 100% wrong. they are simply speaking in generalities. generally Republicans do prefer and work for a smaller government, especially lately.
religious reasons are a big one, but this cuts into the original "stupid" point. most Democrats are religious, so why would the Republican party seem to have the hold on "religious voters"? precisely because the Democratic party, in general, treats religion like a thing that should be kept in the home, and a sizable minority of the party, a very vocal minority, treats it like a quaint and "stupid" thing. religion is extremely important to a lot of people, and contrary to popular opinion on this site, people are not generally stupid. they can tell when their beliefs are being trivialized or mocked, and they are turned off by it.
it is not that people think lower taxes=better economy, so much as people just want lower taxes and they especially want it when the economy is bad. you can scream and shout at people all day long about the need to pay more, but in general people will want to pay less and will try to find a way to pay less. when the economy is bad, your wallet starts getting slimmer and taxes start looking a lot more like something that you can do with a little less of.
it's the same thing as above with regulation. people don't think less regulation automatically means a better economy. they just don't like burdensome regulations and when the economy gets bad regulations start looking more and more burdensome and more and more expendable. the most common response is that taking away burdensome regulations and lowering taxes a bit would not "fix" the problem, and therefore are not worth it. the answer is that a small cup of water may not save a man dying of thirst, but he's still gonna want it pretty bad.
it's not harsh so much as it is elitist and misinformed. people are not so stupid as you make them out to be, nor are they so easily tricked. they just have concerns that do not necessarily coincide with yours, or even with the "good of society as a whole". when people are hurting economically or believe that they are hurting economically, they are much less tolerant of what they see as unnecessary expenditures out of the government.
it is not that people think the issues themselves are all "simple" (though they usually are), so much as that many of the solutions to the issues are relatively simple to understand, however complex the actual problem may be. most people do not want to concern themselves with every tiny little detail of solving the problem, and rightly so. this doesn't make them stupid, or even uninformed. the whole reason why we elect people to do the job is because not all of us want to do the job. Republicans don't water down their message any more than Democrats do, and neither of them is necessarily wrong in watering the message down, precisely because most people are intelligent enough to understand what they are talking about. seriously though, acting like Democrats don't do this just as much is just... i don't even know. dishonest i guess.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
There's little evidence(that I know of) supporting the fact that a completely free market would lead to a stable and strong economy. If I'm wrong, though, please post it.
Please post the evidence that an interventionist market will lead to a stable and strong economy.
First off, the book "Aftershock-The Next Economy and America's Future" by economist Robert Reich is a great read on this.
Obviously, I'm not going to be able to cover every detail, but I'll go into the main points of why I believe a totally free market is a bad idea.
Let's start with the 20s. The 20s economy was for the most part a laissez-faire economy-the highest income tax rate was 25% by 1925, and there was very little regulation(Coolidge was VERY opposed to it). In the 20s, this seemed great- it was called the roaring 20s and so forth, and the economy seemed to boom. But the problem with the laissez-faire economy was that it was very volatile-and though the beginning/mid 20s saw a boom, the irresponsibility of the deregulated banks combined with a variety of other factors made the economy crash so badly that it resulted in the Great Depression.
Now let's look at the Depression. FDR's presidency brought a massive increase in tax rates on the rich(up to 63%) and new regulations on banks as well as social welfare programs(Social Security). The economy began to recover, but with the deficit increasingly massively, many freaked out about balancing the budget, and Roosevelt initiated spending cuts in 37 which led to the Roosevelt Recession in 37-38. And then the MASSIVE amounts of spending that came from WW2 brought the economy back full swing. And from WW2 up until the early 80s, the tax rates remained high, and the economy more regulated. Of course, the 70s saw stagflation, which was a major issue, but that was a result of the oil crisis, not the high taxes/regulation. Since then we've had a relatively deregulated economy compared to the 40s-70s, and our economy has been much more volatile, which is the problem with a free market.
So that's the basic gist of my argument. I don't really have time to write a massive essay going into every detail.
So how much more money should the government spend that it doesn't have? Would adding another few trillion to the debt bring us back to the prosperous times of the 40s-70s? When does massive government spending stop helping the economy because its sinking the government?
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.
Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential.
It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it.
Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side..
The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.
If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
There's little evidence(that I know of) supporting the fact that a completely free market would lead to a stable and strong economy. If I'm wrong, though, please post it.
Please post the evidence that an interventionist market will lead to a stable and strong economy.
FDR turned the US into a command economy in World War II, hiking tax rates on the rich to well over 90 percent. Unemployment dropped from 15 percent to 1.6, averaging around 4 percent for the next 15 years. That's about as interventionist as they come. You're welcome.
EPT
