Look at the policies of the Obama administration. Look at the debt. Look at the continued job losses.
You cannot simply say "Obama is trying so hard but republicans aren't letting them do anything!"
Obama did try. He failed. His policies have no academic merit and are completely political moves, designed to make him look better by throwing money at the problem. Such is the hyperliberal way. People just don't seem to grasp that you can't spend money forever with no consequence.
Er, no. Don't act like he did not inherit a huge disaster that was not something anyone was sure could be fixed.
The so called fiscal responsibility policy (not that your party EVER follows them) has led to huge federal deficit, shrinking middle class/concentration of wealth in a small group, and stagnation every time since Reagan, it is pretty audacious to run on that over and over. Still peddling the same bullshit about less taxes for rich = better economy no matter how many times it fails. Almost all economists support a rising tax with income (progressive tax) system, yet you make such obvious lies like his ideas "have no academic merit" (k, genius). Not sure how someone can be so oblivious; the failure of your ideology did not just happen long ago it is directly what led to this recent economic disaster.
Man, how unrealistically insane. You guys should realize it's not just your life you ruin by your obstinacy, you know.
On September 27 2010 21:17 Floophead_III wrote: Obama almost certainly will not be elected to a second-term. He's losing control of his own party as the far left complains he does nothing and the moderates realize they've elected a socialist elitist who cares nothing about the average joe.
Democrats are becoming very fragmented as the white house seeks to turtle in its own shell directing blame for its faults at everyone else, leaving congressmen to fend for themselves for this upcoming election.
Look at the policies of the Obama administration. Look at the debt. Look at the continued job losses.
You cannot simply say "Obama is trying so hard but republicans aren't letting them do anything!"
Obama did try. He failed. His policies have no academic merit and are completely political moves, designed to make him look better by throwing money at the problem. Such is the hyperliberal way. People just don't seem to grasp that you can't spend money forever with no consequence.
Fiscal conservatism, responsibility, and no more free handouts - that's the true republican party. If someone runs on that, they will win 100%. They don't even have to be well qualified politically. It's about returning this country from a hyperliberal track to its roots.
I believe that people need to value hard work and smart choices. I don't like affirmative action, bailouts, and welfare. I don't like free healthcare. I don't like handouts. I don't think any hard working American does. People don't like to work hard and see other people slack off and get the same benefits. It's not what America is about and it's not what we stand for as a country. Welfare has its place, but it's gone overboard and gotten out of hand, and no long does the gov't serve to protect, but it serves to provide.
TLDR: Gov't is too big spends too much.
What are you on about? Your post smacks of ignorance. Let's pick it apart: "Socialist elitist" - throwing around completely nonsensical bandwagon slogans without giving evidence or saying why it's a bad thing. Evidently you probably just define socialism as everything you don't think America should stand for.
His policies having no academic merit - Firstly this is completely wrong, if there is any truth to your "socialist elitist" branding it is in that Obama employs intelligent academic types to advise him particularly in economic policy. Paul Krugman and Stiglitz have been pushing the stimulus the whole time. Secondly how on earth can it be a completely political move if the stimulus act was opposed by so many, think of how angry the people were at the bailouts of investment banks, if anything this was anti-political.
"Hyperliberal track" - Do you have any idea how other countries in the world are run? America is really an exceedingly backward country in terms of social policy and to call it "hyperliberal" is really quite amusing. And again, you fail to point out why being liberal is bad, you just say the fiscal conservatism , "responsibility" and no free handouts are good things, repeating your oft heard mantra with no evidence or reasoning.
"I don't like affirmative action, bailouts, and welfare. I don't like free healthcare. I don't like handouts." - Thanks again for just saying what you don't like. The whole purpose of political debate and discussion seems to elude you.
"Welfare has its place, but it's gone overboard and gotten out of hand, and no long does the gov't serve to protect, but it serves to provide." - I don't think anyone in the entire world thinks that hard work shouldn't be rewarded, and that people should slack off and receive the same benefits. Please realize that all liberals agree with you on this point. The point of things like affirmative action and handouts and healthcare is that while you should reward hard work, you shouldn't reward luck or punish bad luck. You shouldn't punish people who are born with or come to suffer from diseases beyond their control (hence healthcare), you shouldn't punish people for having fewer opportunities because of their social strata they're born into (hence affirmative action, welfare for the poorest etc). Of course as you say things can go too far, and they have in other countries. But if someone cannot afford health insurance he or she is forever vulnerable to being punished by luck, surely that is a wrong in society that shouldn't exist in the modern world. By not having universal healthcare you are denying the poorest people a fundamental human right.
Finally with regards to handouts and stimulus it has been proved in practice and theory (to the extent that anything can be "proved" in economic theory) that stimulus can have a regenerative effect on an ailing economy. Considering many of the world's most intelligent economists are still debating the merits of stimulus in this situation one cannot simply say it is bad. In fact, since you know nowhere near enough economics (neither do I) to engage at the most serious level of debate, you should not have an opinion on it at all.
Essentially, some of your views are wrong, and some may be right. But what you have done is simply state most of them without evidence and justification, and most likely you are in no position to provide that until you do a lot more reading and learning.
On September 27 2010 21:17 Floophead_III wrote: Obama almost certainly will not be elected to a second-term. He's losing control of his own party as the far left complains he does nothing and the moderates realize they've elected a socialist elitist who cares nothing about the average joe.
So the left realises that they elected a centrist, while the right realises they elected a centrist? Terrible, I know.
Democrats are becoming very fragmented as the white house seeks to turtle in its own shell directing blame for its faults at everyone else, leaving congressmen to fend for themselves for this upcoming election.
Look at the policies of the Obama administration. Look at the debt. Look at the continued job losses.
You cannot simply say "Obama is trying so hard but republicans aren't letting them do anything!"
Obama did try. He failed. His policies have no academic merit and are completely political moves, designed to make him look better by throwing money at the problem. Such is the hyperliberal way. People just don't seem to grasp that you can't spend money forever with no consequence.
His policies do have academic merit, you are simply libertarian and hence completely ignore mainstream economics. Something about countercyclical fiscal/monetary policy.
FYI, debt isn't bad when its used to fund investment. And thats what stimulus/deficit spending is. With effective fiscal policy, you ideally avoid recession altogether. And that way, you don't have to worry about 10% unemployment, 25% underemployment. You get to worry about capacity constraints instead. See Australia.
Now of course, when you run deficits during a boom, now thats something completely else. That is irresponsible. Of course, the deficit during the boom was obama's fau... oh wait.
Fiscal conservatism, responsibility, and no more free handouts - that's the true republican party. If someone runs on that, they will win 100%. They don't even have to be well qualified politically. It's about returning this country from a hyperliberal track to its roots.
I believe that people need to value hard work and smart choices. I don't like affirmative action, bailouts, and welfare. I don't like free healthcare. I don't like handouts. I don't think any hard working American does. People don't like to work hard and see other people slack off and get the same benefits. It's not what America is about and it's not what we stand for as a country. Welfare has its place, but it's gone overboard and gotten out of hand, and no long does the gov't serve to protect, but it serves to provide.
TLDR: Gov't is too big spends too much.
Bullshit. Any republican that campaigns on abolishing medicare/social security wouldn't even get through the primaries, let alone be able to sell it to the populace at large. Can't have welfare and free healthcare, after all.
On September 27 2010 03:25 Kimaker wrote: The situation is far too complex to be able to sum up with "uneducated American's joined the Tea Party Movement", that is both unfair, and highly inaccurate.
Ugh, that was painful to watch. I was going to go to that for a cheap trip to DC to see the monuments too, then I found out it was a 16 hour bus ride for a few hours of standing around.
"You're not allowed to pray at the Lincoln monument anymore."
"When did that happen?"
"They just told us about it the other day... on the news."
Where the fuck do people come up with this shit? As someone who has FOX News playing all day at his house (not by choice, I change it when possible), I can actually say that I have never heard that on FOX.
"Barrack Obama is a racist. You have to read his books, it tells you all about it in them." (Like that dude reads books.)
I was waiting for him to say "You know his mom is white, right?"
This nonsense about not allowing Mosques (although I don't particularly like the religion, because it opposes my own.. I don't hate them by any means) is.. well.. nonsense. People say "We have freedom of speech, and freedom of religion!" Until an opposing view point is brought up, then all that goes out the window. Where the fuck do these people get off?
"Immigrants are coming for a free ride!"
Really? Is that why they work third shift jobs at fucking gas stations. Like 99% of the immigrants I know love that they're out of their original country and have more opportunity to support/progress their family financially than they did back home (immigrants make up the majority of our customers), and almost all of them speak English to a reasonable level.
The one thing I'll give the slightest credence to is the idea of him being Christian. He sounds more like a monotheist from what I've heard from him, but there are a lot of people that call themselves Christian that are monotheists, so he's not all that different from a lot of people if that is the case.
To be fair, though, the rally did have Muslim leaders at the assembly. It had Jewish leaders and Christian leaders too. It was actually very much a support of monotheism. You can gather this if you saw Glen Beck's comments on the rally shortly after, or saw some of the speeches made. Also, in fairness, they seem to have gone to the most redneck looking people in the crowd to get interviews from... but the people I know that are Tea Party supporters and aren't rednecks, would likely have answered in the same way. The only problem is that this level of stupidity isn't exclusive to Tea Partiers, or Republicans, or any one group... there are just a lot of very unintelligent people in the world.
I personally try to stay out of political arguments, because I don't bother to keep myself informed well-enough, but some of these people are so out there it's completely obvious that they're wrong, even to uninformed people such as myself.
Look at the policies of the Obama administration. Look at the debt. Look at the continued job losses.
You cannot simply say "Obama is trying so hard but republicans aren't letting them do anything!"
Obama did try. He failed. His policies have no academic merit and are completely political moves, designed to make him look better by throwing money at the problem. Such is the hyperliberal way. People just don't seem to grasp that you can't spend money forever with no consequence.
Er, no. Don't act like he did not inherit a huge disaster that was not something anyone was sure could be fixed.
The so called fiscal responsibility policy (not that your party EVER follows them) has led to huge federal deficit, shrinking middle class/concentration of wealth in a small group, and stagnation every time since Reagan, it is pretty audacious to run on that over and over. Still peddling the same bullshit about less taxes for rich = better economy no matter how many times it fails. Almost all economists support a rising tax with income (progressive tax) system, yet you make such obvious lies like his ideas "have no academic merit" (k, genius). Not sure how someone can be so oblivious; the failure of your ideology did not just happen long ago it is directly what led to this recent economic disaster.
Man, how unrealistically insane. You guys should realize it's not just your life you ruin by your obstinacy, you know.
Spending was out of control under the Reagan administration. That's well-known. The problem is that the Repubs are full of shit when they claim to run of fiscal conservativeness. It's a flat-out lie, and people keep buying it.
On September 27 2010 04:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote: biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets.
At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone.
The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for.
Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned.
Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud.
so defensive, and quick to jump hehe.
The financial crisis in America was not the work of liberal economic policies, that may have caused it to get worse, but it certainly was not the root cause of the problem. Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies.
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
also show me in writing where the world hates the republican party. A fact is something that supposedly can be backed through empirical evidence, and i have yet to see any.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
L O L
Obviously if you compare a country like Finland with its 4 million people and America and its 270 millions, well, America is richer. How fucking surprising.
I don't support what has been done in Russia and China. If you talk to Russian people, though, they would tell you that life in Russia is worse now than 30 years ago, during a hatred dictature. So really, not a great success.
And I am not defensive. you just don't realize how absurdly agressive you are.
You have nothing but lol to answer? That's the answer of a great mind, and a highly educated person, really. The point is you make assumptions based on nothing other people, you realize that you couldn't have gone more wrong and you expect to get out with it just with your uber-agressive standpoint.
Well it doesn't work.
lol is simply my answer to something that has no bearing on this topic of conversation, i don't want to derail the thread. All i saw in the last paragraph was pompous intellectual posturing. Clearly you needed to show that you are far superior to me. I don't need to answer any of that.
Finland (which has a population of about 5mil not 4), great- Kentucky has about the same number of people (population 4.3 mil or something), still has a higher gdp. Whats the point? also americas population is not 270million. it's just a bit over 300mil.
And you also don't support what has been done in Russia or in China? why? millions of people are beginning to make more money, and are starting to have a better quality of life. I don't understand what is so bad about this?
As for the Russians, once again can i see the evidence that the majority of the populace thought life was better 30 years ago?
if you can bring some data into your 'facts' i would rally appreciate it. I may stand corrected, but for now- I'm just feeling really confused. All of your population estimates are way off the mark, and i am still wondering why so many of these 'facts' you use, don't have any evidence to support your claim.
Also how am i being aggressive? none of the other posts that i had pointed out to you don't seem the least bit obtuse and overbearing? When i see things like, it annoys me. So i am sharing my opinion back. How is that aggressive?
lol should have been my answer to your statement saying that I was uneducated when you clearly don't know fuck about what you're talking about (socialism / communism etc...) I don't try to show that I know more than other, because I don't have a clue about if it's true or not, except when someone start a post saying I am an ignorant. Unnacceptable, sorry.
Here GDP per capita. You are behind the most socialist country of Europ. And your wealth is immensely less well distributed than any of the countries we talked about. Very good to have money, but if it's billioniares and companies who make your statistics, it's a bit useless.
I don't support Soviet dictatorship, that's what I meant. Life of Russian citizen is much worst now than before. Life hope is still decreasing. People don't get job etc...
Sorry for not knowing exactly how many people there are in the US. I'm not sure you could tell me without checking how many people there are in France at +/- 15 %. So don't try this one.
You are agressive by starting a post with a whole paragraph dismissing someone you have no clue about.
Anything else?
I just wanted to point out how retarded this part is. You can't compare Norway with the United States like that for about a thousand different reasons.
On September 27 2010 04:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:23 Ramiel wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote: biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets.
At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone.
The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for.
Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned.
Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud.
so defensive, and quick to jump hehe.
The financial crisis in America was not the work of liberal economic policies, that may have caused it to get worse, but it certainly was not the root cause of the problem. Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies.
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
also show me in writing where the world hates the republican party. A fact is something that supposedly can be backed through empirical evidence, and i have yet to see any.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
L O L
Obviously if you compare a country like Finland with its 4 million people and America and its 270 millions, well, America is richer. How fucking surprising.
I don't support what has been done in Russia and China. If you talk to Russian people, though, they would tell you that life in Russia is worse now than 30 years ago, during a hatred dictature. So really, not a great success.
And I am not defensive. you just don't realize how absurdly agressive you are.
You have nothing but lol to answer? That's the answer of a great mind, and a highly educated person, really. The point is you make assumptions based on nothing other people, you realize that you couldn't have gone more wrong and you expect to get out with it just with your uber-agressive standpoint.
Well it doesn't work.
lol is simply my answer to something that has no bearing on this topic of conversation, i don't want to derail the thread. All i saw in the last paragraph was pompous intellectual posturing. Clearly you needed to show that you are far superior to me. I don't need to answer any of that.
Finland (which has a population of about 5mil not 4), great- Kentucky has about the same number of people (population 4.3 mil or something), still has a higher gdp. Whats the point? also americas population is not 270million. it's just a bit over 300mil.
And you also don't support what has been done in Russia or in China? why? millions of people are beginning to make more money, and are starting to have a better quality of life. I don't understand what is so bad about this?
As for the Russians, once again can i see the evidence that the majority of the populace thought life was better 30 years ago?
if you can bring some data into your 'facts' i would rally appreciate it. I may stand corrected, but for now- I'm just feeling really confused. All of your population estimates are way off the mark, and i am still wondering why so many of these 'facts' you use, don't have any evidence to support your claim.
Also how am i being aggressive? none of the other posts that i had pointed out to you don't seem the least bit obtuse and overbearing? When i see things like, it annoys me. So i am sharing my opinion back. How is that aggressive?
lol should have been my answer to your statement saying that I was uneducated when you clearly don't know fuck about what you're talking about (socialism / communism etc...) I don't try to show that I know more than other, because I don't have a clue about if it's true or not, except when someone start a post saying I am an ignorant. Unnacceptable, sorry.
Here GDP per capita. You are behind the most socialist country of Europ. And your wealth is immensely less well distributed than any of the countries we talked about. Very good to have money, but if it's billioniares and companies who make your statistics, it's a bit useless.
I don't support Soviet dictatorship, that's what I meant. Life of Russian citizen is much worst now than before. Life hope is still decreasing. People don't get job etc...
Sorry for not knowing exactly how many people there are in the US. I'm not sure you could tell me without checking how many people there are in France at +/- 15 %. So don't try this one.
You are agressive by starting a post with a whole paragraph dismissing someone you have no clue about.
Anything else?
I just wanted to point out how retarded this part is. You can't compare Norway with the United States like that for about a thousand different reasons.
I'm not arguing the validity of the statement, but if there are a thousand reasons, you should be able to name at least one or two. It really bothers me when people make statements like this with no backing.
There are just so many other factors to consider when you're comparing two countries of vastly different size, density, history, ethnicity, etc... you can't boil it down to a simple "Country X has more socialism and a stronger economy" and then go on to make conclusions about how the two have affected each other.
He follows that up with a sentence that implies that our statistics are worthless because they're made by "billionaires and companies," which reminds me of all the anti-vax loons that automatically discard any research funded by "big pharma."
I don't think he meant that companies and billionaires invent the statistics. I think he means that the high per capita wealth in the US is because you have a lot of poor people and a bunch of billionaires.
Country A has 10 people with a $1 income. (at PPP) Country B has 9 people with a 10c income and one person with a $10 income. (at PPP) Country A therefore has a GDP of $10 and a GDP/capita of $1. Country B has a GDP of $10.9 and a GDP/capita of $10.9.
Liberals view country A as preferable and believe that republican policies will lead to B.
On September 28 2010 01:01 vetinari wrote: I don't think he meant that companies and billionaires invent the statistics. I think he means that the high per capita wealth in the US is because you have a lot of poor people and a bunch of billionaires.
Country A has 10 people with a $1 income. (at PPP) Country B has 9 people with a 10c income and one person with a $10 income. (at PPP) Country A therefore has a GDP of $10 and a GDP/capita of $1. Country B has a GDP of $10.9 and a GDP/capita of $10.9.
Liberals view country A as preferable and believe that republican policies will lead to B.
I don't believe liberals want a 1:1 ratio to income equality. They want a fairer distribution as even liberals believe those who deserve it should make more money, not the obscene amounts seen currently.
So basically, liberals are arrogant enough to think they know better than everyone else about what is a fair distribution of income and what isn't.
Income redistribution is both massively hypocritical, coming from liberals, and completely indefensible given a realistic understanding of how economies work.
On September 28 2010 03:47 Fraidnot wrote: When you can only vote for either a douche bag or a turd that's when you should join the majority of Americans and stay home on election day.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Thats the reason said people get elected. Not every politician is bad, just most.
On September 28 2010 01:01 vetinari wrote: I don't think he meant that companies and billionaires invent the statistics. I think he means that the high per capita wealth in the US is because you have a lot of poor people and a bunch of billionaires.
Country A has 10 people with a $1 income. (at PPP) Country B has 9 people with a 10c income and one person with a $10 income. (at PPP) Country A therefore has a GDP of $10 and a GDP/capita of $1. Country B has a GDP of $10.9 and a GDP/capita of $10.9.
Liberals view country A as preferable and believe that republican policies will lead to B.
By my math it's a $1.09 GDP/capita of Country B. (.1x9+10)/10 = 10.9/10 = 1.09/Capita
I could be wrong, though, I was never good at making formulas.
On September 28 2010 03:33 kzn wrote: So basically, liberals are arrogant enough to think they know better than everyone else about what is a fair distribution of income and what isn't.
Income redistribution is both massively hypocritical, coming from liberals, and completely indefensible given a realistic understanding of how economies work.
Ugh, income distribution is literally one of the greatest achievements of the western world and is one of the main factors for it having mostly peace and prosperity. This is so ignorant it just has to be either stupidity or provocation. Those evil liberals, fighting for social security and single-payer healthcare - things that have an enormously positive effect on a country's economy by the way and also improve well-being, reduce misery - thinking that they know better than kzn on what to spend money on. He should be allowed to not pay taxes so his money doesn't have to go to the sick and needy (they should have been more lucky, it's their fault). Obviously government can be incredibly incompetent and a lot of money will be wasted, but this is the same for private companies, and government isn't going away anyway, so it's just a lot better if you fight instead for competent and non-corrupt government, instead of being diverted by "omg, unworthy people using my moneyz".
Look at the policies of the Obama administration. Look at the debt. Look at the continued job losses.
You cannot simply say "Obama is trying so hard but republicans aren't letting them do anything!"
Obama did try. He failed. His policies have no academic merit and are completely political moves, designed to make him look better by throwing money at the problem. Such is the hyperliberal way. People just don't seem to grasp that you can't spend money forever with no consequence.
Er, no. Don't act like he did not inherit a huge disaster that was not something anyone was sure could be fixed.
The so called fiscal responsibility policy (not that your party EVER follows them) has led to huge federal deficit, shrinking middle class/concentration of wealth in a small group, and stagnation every time since Reagan, it is pretty audacious to run on that over and over. Still peddling the same bullshit about less taxes for rich = better economy no matter how many times it fails. Almost all economists support a rising tax with income (progressive tax) system, yet you make such obvious lies like his ideas "have no academic merit" (k, genius). Not sure how someone can be so oblivious; the failure of your ideology did not just happen long ago it is directly what led to this recent economic disaster.
Man, how unrealistically insane. You guys should realize it's not just your life you ruin by your obstinacy, you know.
Iono why anyone would defend tax cuts for the wealthy when you can't find an economist that will say that keeping the tax cuts for those wealthy would create jobs, along with the top bracket even after the taxes are raised will still, someone check me on this, have lower income taxes then in the past 30 years. Also this would still be the lowest income tax ever during a war period.
Just to put things into prospective the wealth distribution in this country has not been so lob sided to the wealthy sense the 1920's before the great depression.
It is the middle class who make enough money to buy the things they very well make that drive the economy. I do not see republicans actually playing to that base on a fiscal level. They seem to still rely on using social alignment to hold onto voters who aren't exactly well off.
Personally i blame union busting, after WWII and the decline of unions the fall of people getting pay for what they work also occurred. It used to be if you had an increase of productivity the profits would be passed along the whole company, now you readily see just the top of the companies absorbing that profit and passing none on to the workers to helped.
I don't think republicans need to change their social alignment, they will always have that base but their economical standpoint needs to be atleast reworded, atleast if they ever want to appeal to those who aren't completely well off.
Personally i never liked the idea of party politics esp this left vs right. I would fully support a rework of the system to discourage the idea of party alignment.
Esp when issues of the wallet are not always the same as issues socially.
Also like the green party the tea party will likely just undercut the power of the republican party during the elections.
On September 28 2010 03:33 kzn wrote: So basically, liberals are arrogant enough to think they know better than everyone else about what is a fair distribution of income and what isn't.
Income redistribution is both massively hypocritical, coming from liberals, and completely indefensible given a realistic understanding of how economies work.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society.
On September 27 2010 08:05 thedeadhaji wrote: If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
It would be miraculous if everything was fixed in 2 years given the situation when he took office.
I think what thedeadhaji was saying was that it would be nice if he had fixed ANYTHING. Fixing everything is way too much but fixing something would be nice.
Secondly, he has the most full blown partisan opposition imaginable. Republicans are currently filibustering his every proposal, despite his centrist positions. Yet Obama is the one to take the political blame for things not being accomplished.
Why could Bill Clinton get 10 times more accomplished with a Republican-controlled congress than Obama could while he held a filibuster proof majority?
The GOP has taken the blame everything on Obama position, while opposing almost all Obama legislation. This is why nothing has happened.
Bad economy? Obama Bad health care? Obama No jobs? Obama Oil spill? Obama Herpes? Obama
Are you suggesting that wasn't the case for President Bush? Or any president during the last century. That is part of the job. People will make you take the blame for bad things that are happening (like the BP oil spill...its not like Obama caused it but it hurt him) and give you credit for things that went well (big economic boom driven by internet business proliferation during the Clinton years).
Certainly nothing new here.
And I don't think anyone who paid any attention at all in the '90s would say that Republicans were nicer to Clinton than they are to Obama. Clinton's presidency was failing (it appeared in many ways like Obama's right now), and they lost control of congess in the midterms (a possibility in 2010 as well) and Clinton responded by moving significantly to the middle and passing a lot of moderate/conservative bills.
Whether Obama will do that or not will, I think, decide whether or not he will be a 2 term President. Because he certainly isn't on the "2-term" path right now.
Bush definitely got that and so did Clinton before him, but no one got it even close to Obama. Even with Bush, that was more the public than other politicians (even though that surely happened as well). With Obama, it's not just the public that blames him, but virtually all of the Red politicians as well.
Overall, with his term so far, I'm not happy but I am not disappointed. It's more of like, 'eh, he's ok' which I feel is probably better than what I would have gotten out of a republican administration (for the record, I'm probably best described as a left leaning moderate or something along those lines, so I did entertain the though of voting for McCain)
I did not care for Obama's handling of bailouts (how hard would it have been to say no bonuses or whatever?) and the stimulous, but that was coming no matter who was there. Republicans can bitch all they want about small govt., but both sides would have been forced to bail out those companies.
I am not crazy about how and when healthcare was implemented, but it's probably best for the country. I just don't think it was smart to do it in the middle of a recession.
His biggest asset by far is that he viewed favorably by the rest of the world, who we ultimately rely on for trade, oil, etc.
but yeah, anywho, enough about that. I don't get why everyone is so sure that the GOP is gonna spank people at the polls. There is always a backlash against the group in power, esp in times of economic crisis (even if people are too stupid to recognize that the crisis predated his tenure but I digress). But I really don't see it nearly as hard as people think.
What is the other side of the coin?? A GOP that has gone even further from it's true conservative roots and gotten even crazier?? If the party actually stuck to its roots, it's a totally different story. Hell, a person who just went on a true fiscal conservative platform would probably dominate at the polls... but the party is shifting towards super whacky religious neo-cons or even worse, those goddamn Tea Partiers.
It started with Palin. McCain himself wasn't a bad pick. But the fuck I I'd ever use a vote to put someone so fucking dumb and naive into a position of power, even if she'd really only have something truly meaningful if McCain died in office (a real posibility) I don't care how elitist it sounds, but someone from a backwater, culturally isolated area should not be making decision for the country as a whole, ever.
Everything snowballed after that. The Tea Party is the worst goddamn thing to happen to politics in this country in years. It does absolutely no good to be pissed as hell, yell at everyone and not know why.
For the lazy, it's NJ Gov. Christie engaging some dipshit who shits up a rally by yelling. “Hey, listen. You know what. You want to yell, yell at me,” Christie said, shutting down Buck as Christie’s bodyguards calmly but quickly approached the two men. “It’s people who raise their voices and yell and scream like you who are dividing this country. We’re here to bring this country together.”
Have you ever talked to a Tea Party member?? There is no cohesion, no plan, no nothing. No one has any clue what they are mad at. But politics is always about playing to the lowest common denominator, and that shit is working. It is fucking terrifying that that idiot in Delaware even surprised in primaries. The best part is that the dolts who elected her were probably foaming at the mouth about Obama's inexperience a little over two years ago...
That is your average Tea Partier: Mad, but no clue what they're mad at. Anyone remotely intelligent left that group a while ago. Right wingers that aren't crazy (there are some) hate them. Dems and moderates hate them. They're the idiots who yell and raise hell at meetings but never, ever offer a solution.
I hate these opinion politics threads. Everyone makes sweeping generalities and when somebody says something that disagrees with their sweeping generalities they go ape shit and the thread invariably develops into "your full of shit," "no, you are."
Anyone remotely intelligent left that group a while ago.
Not a huge fan of Ann Coulter, but this certainly evokes her writing that eliminating "you're stupid!" would eliminate a good half of liberal arguments.
Yes, there are idiots in every political group.
No, this does not absolve you from having to back up your claims.
Right wingers that aren't crazy
Thank you for your vote of confidence.
(there are some) hate them.
No, while a good amount of people (me included) think that some elements of the Tea Party platform are unrealistic (for example, hardline w/ regards to immigration policy and entitlement elimination), I'm pretty sure we don't wish to burn their homes and kill their families.
In fact, you can engage in substantive policy disputes with people without calling them idiots, racists, or hating them personally. What a novel idea!
Dems and moderates hate them.
While I have no doubt about the validity of the Dems part of this statement, Rasmussen the pollster reports that the percentage of Americans favoring healthcare repeal vs those opposing is at a 57-35 spread.
Of course its impossible to quantitatively estimate how many people hate the Tea Party. But a good percentage of Americans agree with one of the central points of their platform.
They're the idiots who yell and raise hell at meetings but never, ever offer a solution.
This is the problem with reading Kos, Mediamatters, or HuffPo exclusively for political information (or equivalently, FreeRepublic on the right). You begin to think making sweeping generalizations constitutes good and witty argument.
There are a lot of minds on the right, both in the libertarian and traditional conservative wings, that have provided pretty detailed plans for solutions (Cato/Heritage are pretty good think tanks for this sort of stuff). But on a more general level--do you seriously expect every voter to have a detailed policy plan on every issue they care about? Invasive wealth redistribution is a perfectly valid issue to cast your vote on, just like the government giving you free stuff and higher pay via fiat.
I hate these opinion politics threads. Everyone makes sweeping generalities and when somebody says something that disagrees with their sweeping generalities they go ape shit and the thread invariably develops into "your full of shit," "no, you are."
I will happily acknowledge that this is the smartest poster in this thread, and that you have inspired me to do something productive with my afternoon.
EPT
