|
|
On May 01 2012 19:57 kwizach wrote:Have you studied economics? Because if you had, you would not that is not a "historical fact", regardless of the article you just quoted.
Indeed.
The first paragraph to the article says this:
"What's clear is that to avoid a crisis, the federal government must undergo a significant retrenchment, or fiscal consolidation."
Why is that clear?
|
On May 01 2012 19:58 AcuWill wrote:
Having an economic discussion with people that think FDR pulled the US out of the Great Depression is completely useless. The data actually shows FDR extended it and it only resolved when interventions were removed. I won't bother trying to post a simple link for it, but you have a line of research to work from to educate yourself. Either way, as you will see below, it is irrelevant to the thesis being supplied that an interventionist economy provides growth and stability.
This is because nobody has bothered to look at WHY we had a Great Depression. It was the FEDERAL RESERVES INTERVENTIONIST POLICIES THAT CAUSED IT.
So even if it were true that interventionist economics pulled the country out of the Great Depression (which it didn't), citing interventionist policies for providing a stable, growing, healthy economy with ANY discussion of the Great Depression is hardly foundation for the arguement that interventionsionist economic policies cause said economic stability and growth as the interventions CAUSED the worst economic situation during the 20th century it in the first place.
The Fed did not cause the Great Depression.
The cause of the Great Depression was the burst of a massive bubble in stock prices, which led to the crash at the NYSE. The Fed's policy of keeping the interest rates high prolonged the depression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_great_depression
The Great Depression was 2 recessions in a row, the first started in 1929 and was caused by the stock market crash, and the recovery was caused by FDR's public spending and policies like deposit insurance and ending the gold standard. The second started in 1937 and was caused by FDR trying to balance the budget, and the recovery from this was caused by World War II: the largest fiscal stimulus in history.
So FDR did fix it, then stuffed it up, then WWII came.
|
Thanks but I actually have an education in economy. The article referenced here does not blame government intervention in the form of economic stimulus plans/keynesian policies, it blames anti-competition policies. Even if we take the article for granted (I haven't looked into whether or not it has been criticized by others), presenting the removal of all "government interventions" as the solution to the Great Depression is therefore fallacious. Cute try, though.
|
On May 01 2012 19:33 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 18:28 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 11:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 10:04 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:On May 01 2012 09:55 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 09:37 zachMEISTER wrote:On May 01 2012 09:21 Chytilova wrote:On May 01 2012 07:37 kwizach wrote:Very good article in the Washington Post summing up what most people already know: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/0/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.htmlWe 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!! The GOP is the party of stupid. The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics. They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics. Hmmm... I work for the GOP. I earn my doctorate in less than a year. I acknowledge global warming is happening. I believe in evolution as applied to nearly every facet of life. Creationism is a joke. I have an undergraduate degree in science. I am not religious at all (I was raised Catholic, but I have zero desire to practice/believe). I would be best classified as agnostic. I support gay marriage. I support stem-cell research and early-term abortions. I believe economics works best in a lightly regulated environment. The more rules you add, the more that those who are educated about the rules can take advantage of others. It's amazing what people will accuse you of when they don't know anything about you or your beliefs. You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above).
I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican.
Let's be blunt here, I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold.
My point was this: You are assuming all Republicans fall under a single banner. This is just as insulting if I were to label all Democrats as communists, socialists, and federal power-grabbers. I know it's not true, but if I just did what you did and extrapolated an "official" stance proposed by only a handful of people as your own personal beliefs, I would be able to label anyone who disagrees with me in terms that are unsavory.
And you can't say "well the party says that and I'm only referring to the party." Because of the duality of our system, we're forced to make alliances we don't all enjoy having. Moderates such as myself don't HAVE a valid option that 100% goes with my beliefs. So we align ourselves with a party and do NOT adopt all of the "official" party stance. Just as I'm sure a lot of Democrats don't stand fully behind everything their party espouses.
|
On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 19:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 18:28 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 11:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 10:04 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:On May 01 2012 09:55 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 09:37 zachMEISTER wrote:On May 01 2012 09:21 Chytilova wrote: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!! The GOP is the party of stupid. The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics. They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics. Hmmm... I work for the GOP. I earn my doctorate in less than a year. I acknowledge global warming is happening. I believe in evolution as applied to nearly every facet of life. Creationism is a joke. I have an undergraduate degree in science. I am not religious at all (I was raised Catholic, but I have zero desire to practice/believe). I would be best classified as agnostic. I support gay marriage. I support stem-cell research and early-term abortions. I believe economics works best in a lightly regulated environment. The more rules you add, the more that those who are educated about the rules can take advantage of others. It's amazing what people will accuse you of when they don't know anything about you or your beliefs. You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above). I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican. Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold.
You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner.
I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 19:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 18:28 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 11:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 10:04 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:On May 01 2012 09:55 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 09:37 zachMEISTER wrote:On May 01 2012 09:21 Chytilova wrote:
[quote]
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!! The GOP is the party of stupid. The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics. They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics. Hmmm... I work for the GOP. I earn my doctorate in less than a year. I acknowledge global warming is happening. I believe in evolution as applied to nearly every facet of life. Creationism is a joke. I have an undergraduate degree in science. I am not religious at all (I was raised Catholic, but I have zero desire to practice/believe). I would be best classified as agnostic. I support gay marriage. I support stem-cell research and early-term abortions. I believe economics works best in a lightly regulated environment. The more rules you add, the more that those who are educated about the rules can take advantage of others. It's amazing what people will accuse you of when they don't know anything about you or your beliefs. You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above). I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican. Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold. You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner. I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America.
It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently.
|
On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 19:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 18:28 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 11:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 10:04 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:On May 01 2012 09:55 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 09:37 zachMEISTER wrote:
[quote]
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!! The GOP is the party of stupid. The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics. They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics. Hmmm... I work for the GOP. I earn my doctorate in less than a year. I acknowledge global warming is happening. I believe in evolution as applied to nearly every facet of life. Creationism is a joke. I have an undergraduate degree in science. I am not religious at all (I was raised Catholic, but I have zero desire to practice/believe). I would be best classified as agnostic. I support gay marriage. I support stem-cell research and early-term abortions. I believe economics works best in a lightly regulated environment. The more rules you add, the more that those who are educated about the rules can take advantage of others. It's amazing what people will accuse you of when they don't know anything about you or your beliefs. You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above). I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican. Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold. You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner. I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently.
I don't know where you got your crystal ball, but I'd like to buy one.
Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America".
I didn't know he was a libertarian, he said he was a liberal. But does it matter? The GOP have a habit of labeling everything other than conservatism as socialism.
You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base.
|
On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 19:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 18:28 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 11:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 10:04 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:On May 01 2012 09:55 Smat wrote:
[quote]
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!! The GOP is the party of stupid. The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics. They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics. Hmmm... I work for the GOP. I earn my doctorate in less than a year. I acknowledge global warming is happening. I believe in evolution as applied to nearly every facet of life. Creationism is a joke. I have an undergraduate degree in science. I am not religious at all (I was raised Catholic, but I have zero desire to practice/believe). I would be best classified as agnostic. I support gay marriage. I support stem-cell research and early-term abortions. I believe economics works best in a lightly regulated environment. The more rules you add, the more that those who are educated about the rules can take advantage of others. It's amazing what people will accuse you of when they don't know anything about you or your beliefs. You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above). I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican. Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold. You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner. I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. I didn't know he was a libertarian, he said he was a liberal. But does it matter? The GOP have a habit of labeling everything other than conservatism as socialism. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base.
I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues.
When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action.
Edit: the comment about me being libertarian. I am to a degree. I hate to use the term "moderate libertarian", but in the current political climate that's probably the best way to describe me. A far more sane version of Ron Paul (notice which party he is part of btw).
I only called myself a liberal because you did... and you're right, I am. But liberal doesn't mean "liberal" in American politics, which is why I didn't use it earlier and why you might be confusing yourself. True liberals are split between the parties based on whether they place more emphasis on economic liberalism (Reps) or civil liberalism (Dems). It's a paradigm shift that will likely change in the next generation as those two coalesce into a single party. Which that will be or when it will be I cannot say. There is a good chance a political schism happens in the US in the next 15 years or so if a frontrunner candidate of one of these two decides to run as an independent. It will tear the parties apart in a major election and set the stage for either new parties to form, or for the existing parties to rework their platform.
|
On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 19:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 18:28 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 11:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 10:04 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:
[quote]
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!! The GOP is the party of stupid. The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics. They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics. Hmmm... I work for the GOP. I earn my doctorate in less than a year. I acknowledge global warming is happening. I believe in evolution as applied to nearly every facet of life. Creationism is a joke. I have an undergraduate degree in science. I am not religious at all (I was raised Catholic, but I have zero desire to practice/believe). I would be best classified as agnostic. I support gay marriage. I support stem-cell research and early-term abortions. I believe economics works best in a lightly regulated environment. The more rules you add, the more that those who are educated about the rules can take advantage of others. It's amazing what people will accuse you of when they don't know anything about you or your beliefs. You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above). I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican. Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold. You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner. I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action.
1) Keep dreaming. The GOP are NOT your friends.
2) What's wrong with the Democrats? The party which isn't out on a mission to destroy science.
|
On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 19:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 18:28 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 11:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 10:04 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:
[quote]
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!! The GOP is the party of stupid. The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics. They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics. Hmmm... I work for the GOP. I earn my doctorate in less than a year. I acknowledge global warming is happening. I believe in evolution as applied to nearly every facet of life. Creationism is a joke. I have an undergraduate degree in science. I am not religious at all (I was raised Catholic, but I have zero desire to practice/believe). I would be best classified as agnostic. I support gay marriage. I support stem-cell research and early-term abortions. I believe economics works best in a lightly regulated environment. The more rules you add, the more that those who are educated about the rules can take advantage of others. It's amazing what people will accuse you of when they don't know anything about you or your beliefs. You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above). I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican. Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold. You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner. I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. I didn't know he was a libertarian, he said he was a liberal. But does it matter? The GOP have a habit of labeling everything other than conservatism as socialism. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. Edit: the comment about me being libertarian. I am to a degree. I hate to use the term "moderate libertarian", but in the current political climate that's probably the best way to describe me. A far more sane version of Ron Paul (notice which party he is part of btw). I only called myself a liberal because you did... and you're right, I am. But liberal doesn't mean "liberal" in American politics, which is why I didn't use it earlier and why you might be confusing yourself. True liberals are split between the parties based on whether they place more emphasis on economic liberalism (Reps) or civil liberalism (Dems). It's a paradigm shift that will likely change in the next generation as those two coalesce into a single party. Which that will be or when it will be I cannot say. There is a good chance a political schism happens in the US in the next 15 years or so if a frontrunner candidate of one of these two decides to run as an independent. It will tear the parties apart in a major election and set the stage for either new parties to form, or for an existing parties to rework their platform.
And look at what position Ron Paul is in. Completely on the fringe of the GOP and rejected by the GOP base.
Again, all these unsubstantiated claims about what will happen in 15 years is complete bullshit. Stop the crystal ball gazing already. It doesn't make you look rational, which is what you claim to be.
The whole idea of economic liberalism is quite puzzling to me. Firstly, the optimal amount of economic liberalism is not a matter of subjective opinion, unlike social liberalism. The optimal amount of economic liberalism, is quantifiable, and is based on economic theory.
Therefore, as a rational person, the amount of economic liberalism I want isn't really a personal choice (whereas the amount of social liberalism I want is a personal subjective choice), it's just whatever number pops out of a model, or as determined by some consensus of academic economists.
|
On May 01 2012 22:00 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 19:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 18:28 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 11:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 10:04 Smat wrote:
[quote]
Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!! The GOP is the party of stupid. The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics. They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics. Hmmm... I work for the GOP. I earn my doctorate in less than a year. I acknowledge global warming is happening. I believe in evolution as applied to nearly every facet of life. Creationism is a joke. I have an undergraduate degree in science. I am not religious at all (I was raised Catholic, but I have zero desire to practice/believe). I would be best classified as agnostic. I support gay marriage. I support stem-cell research and early-term abortions. I believe economics works best in a lightly regulated environment. The more rules you add, the more that those who are educated about the rules can take advantage of others. It's amazing what people will accuse you of when they don't know anything about you or your beliefs. You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above). I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican. Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold. You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner. I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action. 1) Keep dreaming. The GOP are NOT your friends. 2) What's wrong with the Democrats? The party which isn't out on a mission to destroy science.
1. You know less about American politics than you think you do.
2. Unions.
|
On May 01 2012 22:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
And look at what position Ron Paul is in. Completely the fringe of the GOP and rejected by the GOP base.
Again, all these unsubstantiated claims about what will happen in 15 years is complete bullshit. Stop the crystal ball gazing already. It doesn't make you look rational, which is what you claim to be.
Ron Paul is an extremist. I merely pointed to him as the most libertarian congressman in our country placing himself squarely in the Republican camp.
|
On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues.
Many agree with you on a lof stuff already... On the other side of the political spectrum.
You seem to think changing the Republican base's views on climate change, the existence of God, homophobia and probably a dozen other core issues is going to be easier than changing the one thing about the Democrats you dislike (in this case, unions), while they agree with you on the other 90% of things. It's like saying you're willing to enter into a gay relationship because you would rather have sex with men and be willing to put up with the fact that you dislike penises, facial hear, testostrone, etc. In the hope that one day you will develop homosexual feelings, just because you dislike the fact that women get periods but are otherwise 90% perfectly attractive to you.
|
On May 01 2012 23:16 Jon Huntsman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. Many agree with you on a lof stuff already... On the other side of the political spectrum. You seem to think changing the Republican base's views on climate change, the existence of God, homophobia and probably a dozen other core issues is going to be easier than changing the one thing about the Democrats you dislike (in this case, unions), while they agree with you on the other 90% of things. It's like saying you're willing to enter into a gay relationship because you would rather have sex with men and be willing to put up with the fact that you dislike penises, facial hear, testostrone, etc. In the hope that one day you will develop homosexual feelings, just because you dislike the fact that women get periods but are otherwise 90% perfectly attractive to you.
ahahah, that was quite the analogy :-D
|
On May 01 2012 22:07 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 22:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 19:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 18:28 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 11:33 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
The GOP is the party of stupid.
The party of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and anti-academics.
They don't believe in global warming. They don't believe in evolution. They hate science. They cling to religion. As a result they are anti-gays and anti-stem cell research. They don't believe in mainstream economics. Hmmm... I work for the GOP. I earn my doctorate in less than a year. I acknowledge global warming is happening. I believe in evolution as applied to nearly every facet of life. Creationism is a joke. I have an undergraduate degree in science. I am not religious at all (I was raised Catholic, but I have zero desire to practice/believe). I would be best classified as agnostic. I support gay marriage. I support stem-cell research and early-term abortions. I believe economics works best in a lightly regulated environment. The more rules you add, the more that those who are educated about the rules can take advantage of others. It's amazing what people will accuse you of when they don't know anything about you or your beliefs. You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above). I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican. Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold. You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner. I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action. 1) Keep dreaming. The GOP are NOT your friends. 2) What's wrong with the Democrats? The party which isn't out on a mission to destroy science. 1. You know less about American politics than you think you do. 2. Unions.
Unions are generally good, they prevent workers from being treated as serfs.
Of course too much union power is bad, because they reduce economic efficiency.
|
On May 01 2012 23:44 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 22:07 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 22:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 19:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 18:28 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Hmmm... I work for the GOP.
I earn my doctorate in less than a year.
I acknowledge global warming is happening.
I believe in evolution as applied to nearly every facet of life. Creationism is a joke.
I have an undergraduate degree in science.
I am not religious at all (I was raised Catholic, but I have zero desire to practice/believe). I would be best classified as agnostic.
I support gay marriage.
I support stem-cell research and early-term abortions.
I believe economics works best in a lightly regulated environment. The more rules you add, the more that those who are educated about the rules can take advantage of others.
It's amazing what people will accuse you of when they don't know anything about you or your beliefs. You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above). I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican. Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold. You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner. I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action. 1) Keep dreaming. The GOP are NOT your friends. 2) What's wrong with the Democrats? The party which isn't out on a mission to destroy science. 1. You know less about American politics than you think you do. 2. Unions. Unions are generally good, they prevent workers from being treated as serfs. Of course too much union power is bad, because they reduce economic efficiency.
"Reduce economic efficiency" is a huge understatement. The public sector unions in particular in the United States have far too much economic and political control, and are willing to put their own salaries before the good of the public or the economic sustainability of the government. For example, school choice and vouchers are a progressive idea. The progressives should be 100% behind it and pushing for it. And yet you see the Democrat party supporting the completely broken educational system status quo because they need the power and the money of the unions backing them. It's the epitome of corruption.
|
On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:
It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently.
I hope you're right about that. But I dunno, people change as they get older. Society and pop culture start scaring them. People become parents and suddenly lose their concern for individual liberties when they want laws to make the world a safe/sterile place for their kids to grow up in, or to make parenting easier. Lots of people who are socially conservative now were probably socially moderate or liberal when they were in their 20s.
I can't say what will happen for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if today's young adults become more conservative in their 40s and beyond.
Also kinda pessimistic about the state the country will be in by the time the next generation is even in a position of power.
|
On May 02 2012 00:01 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:
It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I hope you're right about that. But I dunno, people change as they get older. Society and pop culture start scaring them. People become parents and suddenly lose their concern for individual liberties when they want local laws to make the world a safe/sterile place for their kids to grow up in. Lots of people who are socially conservative now were probably socially moderate or liberal when they were in their 20s. I can't say what will happen for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if today's young adults become more conservative in their 40s and beyond. Also kinda pessimistic about the state the country will be in by the time the next generation is even in a position of power.
The way I see it, each generation gets more and more socially progressive, which is something that libertarians also adhere to. Opinions on gay marriage, legalization, etc. all become consistently more progressive over time, and I doubt that trend is going to shift. Which means you are going to have socially progressive/ economically conservative individuals against socially progressive/economically left individuals, which is a pretty good description for a "libertarian vs. progressive" dichotomy. So I think method's prediction is very likely correct, and I hope it is so because social conservatism is simply backward and harmful.
|
On May 01 2012 23:59 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 23:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 22:07 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 22:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 19:33 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above). I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican. Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold. You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner. I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action. 1) Keep dreaming. The GOP are NOT your friends. 2) What's wrong with the Democrats? The party which isn't out on a mission to destroy science. 1. You know less about American politics than you think you do. 2. Unions. Unions are generally good, they prevent workers from being treated as serfs. Of course too much union power is bad, because they reduce economic efficiency. "Reduce economic efficiency" is a huge understatement. The public sector unions in particular in the United States have far too much economic and political control, and are willing to put their own salaries before the good of the public or the economic sustainability of the government. For example, school choice and vouchers are a progressive idea. The progressives should be 100% behind it and pushing for it. And yet you see the Democrat party supporting the completely broken educational system status quo because they need the power and the money of the unions backing them. It's the epitome of corruption.
Just like preserving the status quo because they need the power and the money of the corporations backing them?
Face it, corruption is not something limited to the Democrats in American politics.
|
On May 01 2012 23:59 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 23:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 22:07 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 22:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 21:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 21:23 MethodSC wrote:On May 01 2012 21:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 01 2012 20:58 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 19:33 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
You're a liberal, your beliefs are polar to the "official" GOP position (at least on the list of issues above). I'm very liberal, and I consider myself an independent. But when I run for office, it will -without a doubt- be as a Republican. Let's be blunt here: I'm choosing from the lesser of two evils. And honestly, the next generation Republicans are not your parents. They are people like me with far more liberal views than the current establishment. It takes time for the process to take hold. You're a liberal that wants to run as a Republican... have fun getting ostracized and being a loner. I'm very confident they would want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America. It's called classical liberalism aka libertarianism, something far from socialism. I don't know if you knew or not but the next generation will be libertarian vs progressive, not the fake left right paradigm that has consumed you and continues to make you show your ass on the internet. You have to become an adult some day, just not today apparently. I don't know you got your crystal ball, I'd like to buy one. Also, that was sarcasm. That's what the GOP is going to say to him when he wants to join the party: "we want nothing to do with your socialist liberal agenda that is going to DESTROY America". You can't believe in global warming and run as a GOP candidate. Mitt Romney proved it when he was force to flip-flop on global warming to appeal to the anti-science base. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. When I run, I fully intend to make it clear that I'm a moderate Republican. I'm even debating attempting to unseat the social conservatives that now hold my districts in a primary. There is a lot of widespread support for moderates on both sides, the problem is that they aren't very good at taking action. 1) Keep dreaming. The GOP are NOT your friends. 2) What's wrong with the Democrats? The party which isn't out on a mission to destroy science. 1. You know less about American politics than you think you do. 2. Unions. Unions are generally good, they prevent workers from being treated as serfs. Of course too much union power is bad, because they reduce economic efficiency. "Reduce economic efficiency" is a huge understatement. The public sector unions in particular in the United States have far too much economic and political control, and are willing to put their own salaries before the good of the public or the economic sustainability of the government. For example, school choice and vouchers are a progressive idea. The progressives should be 100% behind it and pushing for it. And yet you see the Democrat party supporting the completely broken educational system status quo because they need the power and the money of the unions backing them. It's the epitome of corruption.
It's almost as sickening as the influence that business holds over (international) politics. Luckily we have Mitt 'corporations are people, my friend' Romney standing up for the little guy. Unions have downsides, but are also responsible for most of the advances in workplace regulation. If anything, unions are becoming more and more marginalized, due to their demographic make-up and the vast expansion of corporate power.
(Vouchers are not a progressive idea. A progressive idea would be setting up an education system where no matter the income of your parents, you enjoy the same shot at a quality education as everyone else. The way voucher systems are currently implemented leads to a situation where the vouchers do not cover the cost of private schools, and it benefits children to richer parents more than poor ones. School vouchers won't make a poor student capable of attending a private school. Progressive would be creating an education system based on merit rather than social class.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
