|
|
On October 19 2012 00:42 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 00:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 00:35 mordek wrote:
What are the main criticisms of Ron Paul from a liberal's point of view? I'm asking purely for understanding the political views from that side, hopefully it's not off-topic because he's not on the ballot. Gold standard. Cool thanks. Something to look into now. In general I like his stances on issues so I want to be critical 
I'm a liberal and I generally think he's a negative on the electoral process. He unfortunately serves to a legitimize ideas like libertarianism to a lot of people who are not particularly knowledgeable or educated about economics. I think most of his policies are downright dangerous to a significant number of americans; central government plays a huge role in the sustenance of a great many people who would get quickly destroyed in a libertarian country. Unfortunately now libertarianism has become sort of intellectual hipsterdom, too amongst the less well-read which is just sort of a drag to listen to for those of us with a background in economics.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
didn't you know ryan is a policy wonk
|
On October 19 2012 01:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 00:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
EDIT: I almost forgot Ryan and Palin. I would literally crap myself if either one of them found themselves as president, and the fact that they have both been in a position where that situation is conceivable.... wtf America. wtf. Comments like this one are precisely why I don't bother explaining to liberals which conservatives are "intelligent" and why. Total waste of time.
im not even looking for intelligent. i just want a conservative senator or congressman who 'believes' in global warming, womens rights, separation of church and state etc etc. the ones you see get paraded around on TV day in day out all seem to have some idiotic notions attached, so im just wondering, from people who probably know more less famous representatives if there are any normal people serving for the GOP.
|
On October 19 2012 01:33 See.Blue wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 00:42 mordek wrote:On October 19 2012 00:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 00:35 mordek wrote:
What are the main criticisms of Ron Paul from a liberal's point of view? I'm asking purely for understanding the political views from that side, hopefully it's not off-topic because he's not on the ballot. Gold standard. Cool thanks. Something to look into now. In general I like his stances on issues so I want to be critical I'm a liberal and I generally think he's a negative on the electoral process. He unfortunately serves to a legitimize ideas like libertarianism to a lot of people who are not particularly knowledgeable or educated about economics. I think most of his policies are downright dangerous to a significant number of americans; central government plays a huge role in the sustenance of a great many people who would get quickly destroyed in a libertarian country. Unfortunately now libertarianism has become sort of intellectual hipsterdom, too amongst the less well-read which is just sort of a drag to listen to for those of us with a background in economics.
You see, libertarians actually respect normal people and believe that they can function in the world just find without a huge government to hold their hand. Your philosophy is founded on the belief that normal people are like children.
|
On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 01:21 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 00:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
EDIT: I almost forgot Ryan and Palin. I would literally crap myself if either one of them found themselves as president, and the fact that they have both been in a position where that situation is conceivable.... wtf America. wtf. Comments like this one are precisely why I don't bother explaining to liberals which conservatives are "intelligent" and why. Total waste of time. Liberals mostly believe that the best way to make the world a better place is to have a sophisticated and powerful government that will make lots of decisions for ordinary people who lack that ability to make those decisions for themselves. Obamacare is the most obvious example. But in order to believe this one has to have a pretty low opinion of "normal" people. I think this is why so many liberals seem to think of themselves as way smarter than the average voter. I think this is also why liberals always seem to be caught up in talking about how right wing politicians are stupid. Even in the case of obviously intelligent people like Paul Ryan, your average poster on team liquid is somehow able to believe that he's an idiot in order to avoid cognitive dissonance with the rest of his deeply held belief system. What has Paul Ryan done to make you think he's smart? His budget is basically, assume that government spending is x% of GDP, tax revenue is y% of GDP, and voucherize Medicare, now lets calculate the deficit. It's a scam. It's as void of details as Romney's tax plan. Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin?
No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible.
|
On October 19 2012 01:39 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:33 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 00:42 mordek wrote:On October 19 2012 00:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 00:35 mordek wrote:
What are the main criticisms of Ron Paul from a liberal's point of view? I'm asking purely for understanding the political views from that side, hopefully it's not off-topic because he's not on the ballot. Gold standard. Cool thanks. Something to look into now. In general I like his stances on issues so I want to be critical I'm a liberal and I generally think he's a negative on the electoral process. He unfortunately serves to a legitimize ideas like libertarianism to a lot of people who are not particularly knowledgeable or educated about economics. I think most of his policies are downright dangerous to a significant number of americans; central government plays a huge role in the sustenance of a great many people who would get quickly destroyed in a libertarian country. Unfortunately now libertarianism has become sort of intellectual hipsterdom, too amongst the less well-read which is just sort of a drag to listen to for those of us with a background in economics. You see, libertarians actually respect normal people and believe that they can function in the world just find without a huge government to hold their hand. Your philosophy is founded on the belief that normal people are like children.
It's very easy to attack a position when you define it so childishly. Here's a question for ya. Do you know what induction and deduction are, and how they work in economic thinking?
|
On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 01:21 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 00:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
EDIT: I almost forgot Ryan and Palin. I would literally crap myself if either one of them found themselves as president, and the fact that they have both been in a position where that situation is conceivable.... wtf America. wtf. Comments like this one are precisely why I don't bother explaining to liberals which conservatives are "intelligent" and why. Total waste of time. Liberals mostly believe that the best way to make the world a better place is to have a sophisticated and powerful government that will make lots of decisions for ordinary people who lack that ability to make those decisions for themselves. Obamacare is the most obvious example. But in order to believe this one has to have a pretty low opinion of "normal" people. I think this is why so many liberals seem to think of themselves as way smarter than the average voter. I think this is also why liberals always seem to be caught up in talking about how right wing politicians are stupid. Even in the case of obviously intelligent people like Paul Ryan, your average poster on team liquid is somehow able to believe that he's an idiot in order to avoid cognitive dissonance with the rest of his deeply held belief system. What has Paul Ryan done to make you think he's smart? His budget is basically, assume that government spending is x% of GDP, tax revenue is y% of GDP, and voucherize Medicare, now lets calculate the deficit. It's a scam. It's as void of details as Romney's tax plan. Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin? No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible.
So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach?
|
On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 01:21 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 00:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
EDIT: I almost forgot Ryan and Palin. I would literally crap myself if either one of them found themselves as president, and the fact that they have both been in a position where that situation is conceivable.... wtf America. wtf. Comments like this one are precisely why I don't bother explaining to liberals which conservatives are "intelligent" and why. Total waste of time. Liberals mostly believe that the best way to make the world a better place is to have a sophisticated and powerful government that will make lots of decisions for ordinary people who lack that ability to make those decisions for themselves. Obamacare is the most obvious example. But in order to believe this one has to have a pretty low opinion of "normal" people. I think this is why so many liberals seem to think of themselves as way smarter than the average voter. I think this is also why liberals always seem to be caught up in talking about how right wing politicians are stupid. Even in the case of obviously intelligent people like Paul Ryan, your average poster on team liquid is somehow able to believe that he's an idiot in order to avoid cognitive dissonance with the rest of his deeply held belief system. What has Paul Ryan done to make you think he's smart? His budget is basically, assume that government spending is x% of GDP, tax revenue is y% of GDP, and voucherize Medicare, now lets calculate the deficit. It's a scam. It's as void of details as Romney's tax plan. Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin?
Yes.
Any random schmuck can make colorful Microsoft Word documents, attach some graphs to talk about debt in apocalyptic terms, and then specify that spending will be x, and revenues will be y, where x and y are radical, completely infeasible and pulled out of their ass.
And then the CBO comes back with this:
The path for all other federal spending excluding interest—that is, for discretionary spending and mandatory spending apart from that for Social Security and the major mandatory health care programs—was specified by Chairman Ryan’s staff. The remaining part of mandatory spending includes such programs as federal civilian and military retirement, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, and most veterans’ programs. Discretionary spending includes both defense spending and nondefense spending—in roughly equal amounts currently. That combination of other mandatory and discretionary spending was specified to decline from 12 percent of GDP in 2010 to about 6 percent in 2021 and then move in line with the GDP price deflator beginning in 2022, which would gen- erate a further decline relative to GDP. No proposals were specified that would generate
that path.[...] Revenues The path for revenues as a percentage of GDP was specified by Chairman Ryan’s staff. The path rises steadily from about 15 percent of GDP in 2010 to 19 percent in 2028 and remains at that level thereafter. There were no specifications of particular revenue provisions that would generate that path. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf
|
On October 19 2012 01:39 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:33 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 00:42 mordek wrote:On October 19 2012 00:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 00:35 mordek wrote:
What are the main criticisms of Ron Paul from a liberal's point of view? I'm asking purely for understanding the political views from that side, hopefully it's not off-topic because he's not on the ballot. Gold standard. Cool thanks. Something to look into now. In general I like his stances on issues so I want to be critical I'm a liberal and I generally think he's a negative on the electoral process. He unfortunately serves to a legitimize ideas like libertarianism to a lot of people who are not particularly knowledgeable or educated about economics. I think most of his policies are downright dangerous to a significant number of americans; central government plays a huge role in the sustenance of a great many people who would get quickly destroyed in a libertarian country. Unfortunately now libertarianism has become sort of intellectual hipsterdom, too amongst the less well-read which is just sort of a drag to listen to for those of us with a background in economics. You see, libertarians actually respect normal people and believe that they can function in the world just find without a huge government to hold their hand. Your philosophy is founded on the belief that normal people are like children.
Your belief is founded on ignorance of economics.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 19 2012 01:47 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 01:21 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 00:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
EDIT: I almost forgot Ryan and Palin. I would literally crap myself if either one of them found themselves as president, and the fact that they have both been in a position where that situation is conceivable.... wtf America. wtf. Comments like this one are precisely why I don't bother explaining to liberals which conservatives are "intelligent" and why. Total waste of time. Liberals mostly believe that the best way to make the world a better place is to have a sophisticated and powerful government that will make lots of decisions for ordinary people who lack that ability to make those decisions for themselves. Obamacare is the most obvious example. But in order to believe this one has to have a pretty low opinion of "normal" people. I think this is why so many liberals seem to think of themselves as way smarter than the average voter. I think this is also why liberals always seem to be caught up in talking about how right wing politicians are stupid. Even in the case of obviously intelligent people like Paul Ryan, your average poster on team liquid is somehow able to believe that he's an idiot in order to avoid cognitive dissonance with the rest of his deeply held belief system. What has Paul Ryan done to make you think he's smart? His budget is basically, assume that government spending is x% of GDP, tax revenue is y% of GDP, and voucherize Medicare, now lets calculate the deficit. It's a scam. It's as void of details as Romney's tax plan. Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin? No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible. So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach? instead of not figuring out anything and believing in ryan? pretty sure experts are better.
your position is akin to a guy who goes to a witch doctor you found based on "internet research" and disregard medical advice.
|
On October 19 2012 01:47 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 01:21 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 00:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
EDIT: I almost forgot Ryan and Palin. I would literally crap myself if either one of them found themselves as president, and the fact that they have both been in a position where that situation is conceivable.... wtf America. wtf. Comments like this one are precisely why I don't bother explaining to liberals which conservatives are "intelligent" and why. Total waste of time. Liberals mostly believe that the best way to make the world a better place is to have a sophisticated and powerful government that will make lots of decisions for ordinary people who lack that ability to make those decisions for themselves. Obamacare is the most obvious example. But in order to believe this one has to have a pretty low opinion of "normal" people. I think this is why so many liberals seem to think of themselves as way smarter than the average voter. I think this is also why liberals always seem to be caught up in talking about how right wing politicians are stupid. Even in the case of obviously intelligent people like Paul Ryan, your average poster on team liquid is somehow able to believe that he's an idiot in order to avoid cognitive dissonance with the rest of his deeply held belief system. What has Paul Ryan done to make you think he's smart? His budget is basically, assume that government spending is x% of GDP, tax revenue is y% of GDP, and voucherize Medicare, now lets calculate the deficit. It's a scam. It's as void of details as Romney's tax plan. Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin? No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible. So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach?
I dont have degrees in economics so no i dont try to understand the US economic system myself. I trust the institution that was created to check these things as posted by paralleluniverse a few posts above.
Do you actually believe you can understand the situation without the data and education/experience that those people have?
Who really is the greater fool here.
|
On October 19 2012 01:47 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 01:21 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 00:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
EDIT: I almost forgot Ryan and Palin. I would literally crap myself if either one of them found themselves as president, and the fact that they have both been in a position where that situation is conceivable.... wtf America. wtf. Comments like this one are precisely why I don't bother explaining to liberals which conservatives are "intelligent" and why. Total waste of time. Liberals mostly believe that the best way to make the world a better place is to have a sophisticated and powerful government that will make lots of decisions for ordinary people who lack that ability to make those decisions for themselves. Obamacare is the most obvious example. But in order to believe this one has to have a pretty low opinion of "normal" people. I think this is why so many liberals seem to think of themselves as way smarter than the average voter. I think this is also why liberals always seem to be caught up in talking about how right wing politicians are stupid. Even in the case of obviously intelligent people like Paul Ryan, your average poster on team liquid is somehow able to believe that he's an idiot in order to avoid cognitive dissonance with the rest of his deeply held belief system. What has Paul Ryan done to make you think he's smart? His budget is basically, assume that government spending is x% of GDP, tax revenue is y% of GDP, and voucherize Medicare, now lets calculate the deficit. It's a scam. It's as void of details as Romney's tax plan. Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin? No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible. So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach?
this is exactly the best approach?
the worlds knowledge is far too vast for any one person to know much about anything, so how do you make choices on economics, safety, politics? you have to trust experts. but how do you know which experts to trust? you trust in their methods, reputation and peer review.
an expert has nothing to gain from being right than being right itself. a professor of economics, or a scientist rarely gets any monetary benefit of proving that global warming exists, their only interest is in getting the right answer, so for them to try and sway the facts or data to push their own view point is self destructive.
when mcdonalds tells you their food can be part of a healthy life style they have their own benefit and profits in mind. when a dietitian tells you its bad for you, you can take it or leave it, they arent making any money from you. this is a crucial factor in weighing evidence. you judge who it is coming from, and what they have to gain from getting you to agree.
this is like entry level critical thinking.
|
On October 19 2012 01:51 See.Blue wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:39 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:33 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 00:42 mordek wrote:On October 19 2012 00:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 00:35 mordek wrote:
What are the main criticisms of Ron Paul from a liberal's point of view? I'm asking purely for understanding the political views from that side, hopefully it's not off-topic because he's not on the ballot. Gold standard. Cool thanks. Something to look into now. In general I like his stances on issues so I want to be critical I'm a liberal and I generally think he's a negative on the electoral process. He unfortunately serves to a legitimize ideas like libertarianism to a lot of people who are not particularly knowledgeable or educated about economics. I think most of his policies are downright dangerous to a significant number of americans; central government plays a huge role in the sustenance of a great many people who would get quickly destroyed in a libertarian country. Unfortunately now libertarianism has become sort of intellectual hipsterdom, too amongst the less well-read which is just sort of a drag to listen to for those of us with a background in economics. You see, libertarians actually respect normal people and believe that they can function in the world just find without a huge government to hold their hand. Your philosophy is founded on the belief that normal people are like children. Your belief is founded on ignorance of economics.
Libertarians are the only people who truly understand economics. Both Deomcrats and Republicans are obsessed with distorting the market for their own goals, even if they think those goals are somehow moral or ethical, they are still just market distortion.
|
On October 19 2012 02:00 Zaqwert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:51 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 01:39 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:33 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 00:42 mordek wrote:On October 19 2012 00:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 00:35 mordek wrote:
What are the main criticisms of Ron Paul from a liberal's point of view? I'm asking purely for understanding the political views from that side, hopefully it's not off-topic because he's not on the ballot. Gold standard. Cool thanks. Something to look into now. In general I like his stances on issues so I want to be critical I'm a liberal and I generally think he's a negative on the electoral process. He unfortunately serves to a legitimize ideas like libertarianism to a lot of people who are not particularly knowledgeable or educated about economics. I think most of his policies are downright dangerous to a significant number of americans; central government plays a huge role in the sustenance of a great many people who would get quickly destroyed in a libertarian country. Unfortunately now libertarianism has become sort of intellectual hipsterdom, too amongst the less well-read which is just sort of a drag to listen to for those of us with a background in economics. You see, libertarians actually respect normal people and believe that they can function in the world just find without a huge government to hold their hand. Your philosophy is founded on the belief that normal people are like children. Your belief is founded on ignorance of economics. Libertarians are the only people who truly understand economics. Both Deomcrats and Republicans are obsessed with distorting the market for their own goals, even if they think those goals are somehow moral or ethical, they are still just market distortion.
everyone from a small business owner up distorts the markets, nothing you just said makes any sense.
|
On October 19 2012 02:00 Zaqwert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:51 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 01:39 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:33 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 00:42 mordek wrote:On October 19 2012 00:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 00:35 mordek wrote:
What are the main criticisms of Ron Paul from a liberal's point of view? I'm asking purely for understanding the political views from that side, hopefully it's not off-topic because he's not on the ballot. Gold standard. Cool thanks. Something to look into now. In general I like his stances on issues so I want to be critical I'm a liberal and I generally think he's a negative on the electoral process. He unfortunately serves to a legitimize ideas like libertarianism to a lot of people who are not particularly knowledgeable or educated about economics. I think most of his policies are downright dangerous to a significant number of americans; central government plays a huge role in the sustenance of a great many people who would get quickly destroyed in a libertarian country. Unfortunately now libertarianism has become sort of intellectual hipsterdom, too amongst the less well-read which is just sort of a drag to listen to for those of us with a background in economics. You see, libertarians actually respect normal people and believe that they can function in the world just find without a huge government to hold their hand. Your philosophy is founded on the belief that normal people are like children. Your belief is founded on ignorance of economics. Libertarians are the only people who truly understand economics. Both Deomcrats and Republicans are obsessed with distorting the market for their own goals, even if they think those goals are somehow moral or ethical, they are still just market distortion.
Yeah because "the freest the market the best."
That free market religion is a dogma. It doesn't match one little bit with reality, but who cares?
Of course, free market = good, state intervention = bad is something everybody can understand. Pity that the world is not binary and that usually the best in any field is always a balance and a compromise. We are supposed to know that since Aristotles, but hey, extremism is so much fun. Look at the other end of the spectrum and you have idiots who believe that if the state own the whole economy things will be good. Idealism doesn't work, whether it's about far right or far left. We live in reality not in the fantasy world of randian principles.
|
I love all the people attacking Romney's plan
"The numbers don't add up!"
"It wont' fix the deficit!"
etc.
As though Obama has been doing such a great job at those things.
Obama's fiscal policy has been a disaster and will continue to be a disaster.
Romney's will be pretty bad too.
What people here don't understand is that this has nothing to do with truth, an election isn't a math problem, this is about getting votes, you have to view it through that prism.
Pointing out the flaws in Romney's numbers as some sort of GOTCHA! is like picking up the National Enquirer and being like "HAHA! I can prove this isn't wrong! I beat the National Enquirer!"
You're missing the point, while also demonstrating your bias by not applying the same standard to Obama's failed administration.
|
On October 19 2012 02:04 Zaqwert wrote:
I love all the people attacking Romney's plan
"The numbers don't add up!"
"It wont' fix the deficit!"
etc.
As though Obama has been doing such a great job at those things.
Obama's fiscal policy has been a disaster and will continue to be a disaster.
Romney's will be pretty bad too.
What people here don't understand is that this has nothing to do with truth, an election isn't a math problem, this is about getting votes, you have to view it through that prism.
Pointing out the flaws in Romney's numbers as some sort of GOTCHA! is like picking up the National Enquirer and being like "HAHA! I can prove this isn't wrong! I beat the National Enquirer!"
You're missing the point, while also demonstrating your bias by not applying the same standard to Obama's failed administration.
You can agree or disagree with Obama's budget, but you can't accuse it of not adding up.
It's a 250 page document, that's been scored by the CBO, and it adds up.
It would be good if Romney had a plan which is mathematically possible, so that it can be scored and compared with Obama's. But all we have is a plan that doesn't add up. Romney can't keep all his tax promises.
|
Businesses don't distort the market, they ARE the market.
Only the government can distort the market because they have a monopoloy on force.
GM can't FORCE you to buy one of their cars, however the government can force you to pay taxes and then give those taxes GM.
Every time the government props something or someone up, they always do so at the expense of someone else.
Ayn Rand said it best:
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." -- Ayn Rand
|
On October 19 2012 02:07 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:04 Zaqwert wrote:
I love all the people attacking Romney's plan
"The numbers don't add up!"
"It wont' fix the deficit!"
etc.
As though Obama has been doing such a great job at those things.
Obama's fiscal policy has been a disaster and will continue to be a disaster.
Romney's will be pretty bad too.
What people here don't understand is that this has nothing to do with truth, an election isn't a math problem, this is about getting votes, you have to view it through that prism.
Pointing out the flaws in Romney's numbers as some sort of GOTCHA! is like picking up the National Enquirer and being like "HAHA! I can prove this isn't wrong! I beat the National Enquirer!"
You're missing the point, while also demonstrating your bias by not applying the same standard to Obama's failed administration. You can agree or disagree with Obama's budget, but you can't accuse it of not adding up. It's a 250 page document, that's been scored by the CBO, and it adds up.
Obama: "Here's my budget that explodes the deficit and the national debt."
Romney: "Here's my budget which doesn't" (but it actually does)
big difference?
|
On October 19 2012 01:39 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:33 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 00:42 mordek wrote:On October 19 2012 00:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 00:35 mordek wrote:
What are the main criticisms of Ron Paul from a liberal's point of view? I'm asking purely for understanding the political views from that side, hopefully it's not off-topic because he's not on the ballot. Gold standard. Cool thanks. Something to look into now. In general I like his stances on issues so I want to be critical I'm a liberal and I generally think he's a negative on the electoral process. He unfortunately serves to a legitimize ideas like libertarianism to a lot of people who are not particularly knowledgeable or educated about economics. I think most of his policies are downright dangerous to a significant number of americans; central government plays a huge role in the sustenance of a great many people who would get quickly destroyed in a libertarian country. Unfortunately now libertarianism has become sort of intellectual hipsterdom, too amongst the less well-read which is just sort of a drag to listen to for those of us with a background in economics. You see, libertarians actually respect normal people and believe that they can function in the world just find without a huge government to hold their hand. Your philosophy is founded on the belief that normal people are like children.
Because grown ups have magical powers and can make anything they desire happens? As much as you may want it there are things that you can't control in a society as an individual and just because you think the government have a place there doesn't mean you think normal people are children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
