On September 28 2010 04:51 Mothxal wrote: 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.
Opinion followed by unsupported claim.
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.
Bahahaha.
You are completely wrong, about both.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society
Nothing of the sort mentioned on Wikipedia's page on the GINI Coefficient, so I'm gonna need a source or some kind of link before I can refute this.
On September 28 2010 04:51 Mothxal wrote: 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.
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.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society
Nothing of the sort mentioned on Wikipedia's page on the GINI Coefficient, so I'm gonna need a source or some kind of link before I can refute this.
Steps to being as awesome as kzn: 1) Post unsupported opinion that flames probably the majority of the site. 2) Get people who disagree with your opinion to post their opinions. 3) Laugh and be an ass towards people who post their opinions 4) Call them out for not supporting their opinions. 5) Be more assy.
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.
This video sickens me. I used to be a Republican because I couldn't stand most Democrats(still cant) but this just proves to me that I wont vote for either side in the next elections.
These nasty, fat, lazy, typical American sloths are what gives us our bad name.
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.
This video sickens me. I used to be a Republican because I couldn't stand most Democrats(still cant) but this just proves to me that I wont vote for either side in the next elections.
These nasty, fat, lazy, typical American sloths are what gives us our bad name.
I bet i could make a video That shows the idiots of the left wing too. It would probably be much easier too. I would only have to walk around college to find them.
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.
This video sickens me. I used to be a Republican because I couldn't stand most Democrats(still cant) but this just proves to me that I wont vote for either side in the next elections.
These nasty, fat, lazy, typical American sloths are what gives us our bad name.
I bet i could make a video That shows the idiots of the left wing too. It would probably be much easier too. I would only have to walk around college to find them.
No shit, but you don't see liberals holding a rally to celebrate them. WOOO! YEAH! RALLY TO RESTORE COMMUNISM MAN! No, lol. That's just retarded.
On September 28 2010 04:51 Mothxal wrote: 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.
Opinion followed by unsupported claim.
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.
Bahahaha.
You are completely wrong, about both.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society
Nothing of the sort mentioned on Wikipedia's page on the GINI Coefficient, so I'm gonna need a source or some kind of link before I can refute this.
Steps to being as awesome as kzn: 1) Post unsupported opinion that flames probably the majority of the site. 2) Get people who disagree with your opinion to post their opinions. 3) Laugh and be an ass towards people who post their opinions 4) Call them out for not supporting their opinions. 5) Be more assy.
The important distinction is that if asked, I can actually back up everything I've said.
So, now that a lot has changed we can ask: 1. Did the GOP abandon social issues and aggressive foreign policy? Was there a major realignment? 2. What did the GOP do and why are they polling so well now? 3. What will be the future of the GOP? Is this just a transient bounce-back against a true beginning of a liberal/progressive era?
Further, please also discuss the Tea Party and its effect on the GOP. 1. Is the Tea Party here to stay or will it disappear very quickly? 2. Will it be a dominate force in the GOP?
I think GOP is polling so well now because of the still ongoing economic crisis. Had unemployment not been so high the dems would be doing fine. Also, many ppl seem to be shifting towards a tea party - less govt spending - attitude and this movement has been amplified because people are seeing the national debt, the spending and their own wallets all in trouble.
In regards to the second set of questions I think the tea party will have a significant impact on the GOP. Even though they've been portrayed really bad in the media as racists and what not, their message of less govt spending and getting our fiscal policy under control is a sound one. And traditionally republicans have been for less govt in general, which is similar to tea party thought but their handling of fiscal issues has always been almost the same as the democrats. Let's hope that the tea party's msg becomes reality.
I think the results in November are obvious and that the republicans will pick up many seats. However, if they were to pick up the presidency in 2012 is largely dependent on the state of the economy at the time. Obama got a lot of votes in 08 from independents and normal middle class folk during a time of crisis and after the GOP controlled washington for a long time, but if in 2012 the unemployment numbers are unchanged I have no doubt that the republicans will take the presidency... I just hope the nominee is not Palin. If unemployment goes down, he will crush his opponent no matter who it is.
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.
This video sickens me. I used to be a Republican because I couldn't stand most Democrats(still cant) but this just proves to me that I wont vote for either side in the next elections.
These nasty, fat, lazy, typical American sloths are what gives us our bad name.
I bet i could make a video That shows the idiots of the left wing too. It would probably be much easier too. I would only have to walk around college to find them.
I could make a video that shows idiots of the right wing just by recording fox news. See left wing college crazy nuts are rather harmless. I can't say the same for a major media outlet.
Also, it's the lazy, fat, typical Americal sloth (which by your defensive claim are only right wing) that the rest of the world hates. Now to be honest I couldn't care less about what the rest of the world thinks but man we have gone so far off the deep end I don't know what to think anymore.
Fun aside I am neither Democrat nor Republican and I wish both parties would crash and burn. This country was never meant to be run on a simple by-partisan basis and our government doesn't really support that. What I wouldn't give to have a viable candidate that has a mix of both parties like the founding fathers probably wanted in the first place.
Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
On September 28 2010 08:01 HunterX11 wrote: Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
Regardless of the recent history of either party, it is massively more likely that Republicans will be outspent by Democrats.
On September 28 2010 04:51 Mothxal wrote: 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.
Opinion followed by unsupported claim.
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.
Bahahaha.
You are completely wrong, about both.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society
Nothing of the sort mentioned on Wikipedia's page on the GINI Coefficient, so I'm gonna need a source or some kind of link before I can refute this.
Steps to being as awesome as kzn: 1) Post unsupported opinion that flames probably the majority of the site. 2) Get people who disagree with your opinion to post their opinions. 3) Laugh and be an ass towards people who post their opinions 4) Call them out for not supporting their opinions. 5) Be more assy.
The important distinction is that if asked, I can actually back up everything I've said.
I probably shouldn't even participate in these discussions. I'm not too knowledgeable about the United States and I'm not qualified to really argue for the benefits for one system over the other. That's where experts are for, anyway, and I imagine it's easy enough to find opinions supporting what both of us said. You're arguing for something that has no chance of ever happening and would fundamentally change society, though. I guess that in those cases it's really up to you to provide credible sources and have well-written posts explaining what those other people are missing. After all, if your way was really better than I'd gladly agree and join that view, but if you start out with "those damn liberals, thinking they're so smart, well, they're not, and they're obviously wrong, I'm not even going to explain it, though I could" and then not provide any evidence then I don't think you'll be taken seriously.
On September 28 2010 04:51 Mothxal wrote: 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.
Opinion followed by unsupported claim.
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.
Bahahaha.
You are completely wrong, about both.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society
Nothing of the sort mentioned on Wikipedia's page on the GINI Coefficient, so I'm gonna need a source or some kind of link before I can refute this.
Steps to being as awesome as kzn: 1) Post unsupported opinion that flames probably the majority of the site. 2) Get people who disagree with your opinion to post their opinions. 3) Laugh and be an ass towards people who post their opinions 4) Call them out for not supporting their opinions. 5) Be more assy.
The important distinction is that if asked, I can actually back up everything I've said.
Yes yes, quite right. Only someone as intelligent and blessed as you could back up what you've said so no reason to do it. The others? Pah, they're just spouting a bunch of hogwash and obviously have nothing to back their claims up with.
On September 28 2010 08:01 HunterX11 wrote: Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
Regardless of the recent history of either party, it is massively more likely that Republicans will be outspent by Democrats.
How "recent" is recent?
Because for the last 30 years Republicans have WAYY outspent Democrats. In fact, the national debt didn't start to skyrocket until the days of Reagan and Bush Sr. I think after 3 decades you're going to have to live with the fact that Republicans will spend at least as much as Democrats if not a hell of a lot more...especially because the Republican party heralds Reagan as their champion.
On September 28 2010 07:49 Jayme wrote: What I wouldn't give to have a viable candidate that has a mix of both parties like the founding fathers probably wanted in the first place.
The Founding Fathers of the United States were also the Founding Fathers of the country's two-party system.
On September 28 2010 07:49 Jayme wrote: What I wouldn't give to have a viable candidate that has a mix of both parties like the founding fathers probably wanted in the first place.
The Founding Fathers of the United States were also the Founding Fathers of the country's two-party system.
The "two" parties from back then where much more muddled than they are now. Far more moderate types and the issues back then were simpler. States rights? Union Rights? and so on. The system left room for people that werent completely for one side or the other.
This quickly changed of course as the increasing friction between the North and South due to a SHITTON of issues caused people to divide sharply. That divide has continued to this day with the inclusion of a name switch.
I just finished reading this whole thing, and I noticed a gigantic change in the attitude of posts in the leap from 2008 to 2010.
It's as if the thread itself mirrors the development of rage and angst in the American political climate.
Also, what's up with everybody's obsession about Palin? I thought she wasn't planning on running for any sort of office after her term as governor expired. All she's done recently is promote tea party candidates and such, so I don't see why people keep bringing her up when considering the 2012 election.
EDIT:
On September 28 2010 07:49 Jayme wrote: This quickly changed of course as the increasing friction between the North and South due to a SHITTON of issues caused people to divide sharply. That divide has continued to this day with the inclusion of a name switch.
I don't think the change in party attitude was as much of a switch as people put it out to be.
Republicans have always been pro-industry, but it wasn't until later in the 20th century that they started trying to defend "states' rights".
On September 28 2010 04:51 Mothxal wrote: 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.
Opinion followed by unsupported claim.
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.
Bahahaha.
You are completely wrong, about both.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society
Nothing of the sort mentioned on Wikipedia's page on the GINI Coefficient, so I'm gonna need a source or some kind of link before I can refute this.
Steps to being as awesome as kzn: 1) Post unsupported opinion that flames probably the majority of the site. 2) Get people who disagree with your opinion to post their opinions. 3) Laugh and be an ass towards people who post their opinions 4) Call them out for not supporting their opinions. 5) Be more assy.
The important distinction is that if asked, I can actually back up everything I've said.
I probably shouldn't even participate in these discussions. I'm not too knowledgeable about the United States and I'm not qualified to really argue for the benefits for one system over the other. That's where experts are for, anyway, and I imagine it's easy enough to find opinions supporting what both of us said. You're arguing for something that has no chance of ever happening and would fundamentally change society, though. I guess that in those cases it's really up to you to provide credible sources and have well-written posts explaining what those other people are missing. After all, if your way was really better than I'd gladly agree and join that view, but if you start out with "those damn liberals, thinking they're so smart, well, they're not, and they're obviously wrong, I'm not even going to explain it, though I could" and then not provide any evidence then I don't think you'll be taken seriously.
I don't spend the effort to write a mini-thesis supporting my claims in my first post because 90% of the time people wouldn't even read it. However, given that you didn't flip your shit like most people do, here goes:
With regards to your claim that income redistribution is one of the main reasons for our peace and prosperity, I'd have to know more about why you think this is the case to really argue it. Peace is a bit weird, because its probably true that without redistributive policies the poor people would be angrier at the rich people (wrongly, but whatever) and thus "less" peace would be a presumable result.
As far as prosperity, however, I don't think its even possible. Income taxes, even flat rate ones, distort the price of labor and thus result in, essentially, less productivity than would exist without distortions (although the only tax that doesn't have distortions is massively regressive, so is a political impossibility).
Moreover, this kind of argument for redistribution rests on essentially utilitarian ethics, and I think this is not something most liberals actually believe in except when it suits them. If you truly believe that we should be doing things purely because the consequences are good, you must also believe that, for instance, if we could cure AIDS by killing 100 innocent people we should do so (I can craft a theoretically infinite number of such examples that I suspect liberals would not want to do). If consequences are not the only basis upon which we judge a policy, then liberals must justify the "fairness" of redistributing income, which is something that I do not believe can be done. The best effort I've encountered came from Rawls, and even his was self-destructive when the thought experiment is executed properly*.
Now, with regards to Social Security (single payer healthcare comes after this). I would honestly have little issue with Social Security if it was what it claims to be - namely, a government savings program which people cannot opt out of. I suppose there is a place for this if people are too stupid to realize they need to save on their own (although personally I'd just say fuck 'em), but thats not what Social Security is (or was). FDR marketed it that way to people, but it started paying out instantly, to people who had never paid in, and FDR also used the funds paid into SS as essentially more government money, with the end result being that SS is essentially insolvent, and one must be quite optimistic to expect even half of what is promised to them if you're in my age group. In essence, SS is a ponzi scheme. A well executed one, certainly, but a ponzi scheme nonetheless.
Single payer healthcare is more complicated. As you no doubt suspect, I do not support Universal Healthcare policies of any kind. But I grant that this is mostly opinion - I can't put forth a solid argument as to why universal healthcare is wrong (and nor can anyone else do the opposite, really). So lets grant that the country is agreed that everyone should have access to healthcare up to a certain level of care**. This does not, however, instantly justify single-payer healthcare systems, because they are flat out worse than other alternatives. If you really wanted to get everyone access to healthcare, you'd enact some kind of voucher system that gave people healthcare vouchers to purchase insurance with as they saw fit, funded by tax receipts. The end result in terms of coverage is identical, and the system will not slowly implode as it has in the UK, and as it is doing in Canada.
*This is the root of my claim that liberals are hypocritical and inconsistent. Rawls' defense of redistribution is inconsistent, and thus completely flawed, and liberals are hypocritical in that they take a utilitarian ethical position only when it suits them, and abandon it whenever it would cede the moral high ground to their opposition.
**I should hope people would agree that its rather unfair to say that everyone must purchase healthcare of the same quality regardless of their willingness to pay for higher quality care.
On September 28 2010 08:01 HunterX11 wrote: Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
Regardless of the recent history of either party, it is massively more likely that Republicans will be outspent by Democrats.
How "recent" is recent?
Because for the last 30 years Republicans have WAYY outspent Democrats. In fact, the national debt didn't start to skyrocket until the days of Reagan and Bush Sr. I think after 3 decades you're going to have to live with the fact that Republicans will spend at least as much as Democrats if not a hell of a lot more...especially because the Republican party heralds Reagan as their champion.
Reagan is not to blame for most of the spending that occurred during his Presidency - Congress is. For the most part, Congress is to blame for spending of any kind before the President is. Granted, Reagan could have vetoed budgets, but nobody has yet had the cojones to get into that kind of war with Congress. Clinton got close, but even that didn't really go on very long (and it was a reverse of what I'm talking about).
National debt is not a good measure of spending because it brings in an entirely separate category of tax rates (and receipts)*.
* Despite Reagan dropping the top rate of income tax from like 80% to 40% (or something?), tax receipts in absolute terms actually went up, and didn't change much at all as a % of GDP.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/10q07iv.jpg)
