Incredibly misleading source - whilst it is tempting to just look at the line go down, go "oooooo", and point fingers - its always worthwhile to notice it says projected deficits as of 2008
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.
Republican certainly have not outspent the democrats, but they have increased the national debt--but that was primarily because they cut taxes and therefore government revenue. That is the largest reason the deficit rose under Bush.
Also, it is my understanding that domestic spending did shrink under Reagan. Overall spending did not shrink because of much larger military spending. The debt also grew but mostly due to tax cuts. And no matter what people say about his military spending the fact remains that before Reagan there was the USSR and cold war. After Reagan there was Russia and no cold war. Younger people like me and most of you don't even know what it was like to live in the cold war era and face the possibility of nuclear holocaust. We have it pretty nice now. And though you can't say that Reagan did it single handedly, you can't ignore him either.
Whatever, Reagan did, the people certainly liked it: + Show Spoiler +
"Ronald Reagan sought--and won--more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last forty years to cut inflation-adjusted nondefense outlays, which fell by 9.7 percent during his first term"
Bush actually did a TON to hurt Republicans reputation as being fiscally conservative. By the end, even people like me disliked him for the damage he did to conservative fiscal policy.
Actually in honesty, I think the GOP NEEDED a hard kick in the pants after the Bush years. They essentially became Democrats and yet still expected to keep their reputation as fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately, we had to elect democrat majority and president to deliver that kick, but if it works and the GOP actually shapes up, it could be completely worth it.
If the Republicans in Washington don't wanna constrain government spending then who will?
1. Did the GOP abandon social issues and aggressive foreign policy? Was there a major realignment?
GOP is centered (almost exclusively) right now, on debunking the "democratic agenda" and spreading ignorance/hate about Obama, so that in the future, the tide may change for their favor.
2. What did the GOP do and why are they polling so well now?
Typical collectivism combined with herd mentality conservative arguments - "Obama the black terrorist." "Obama the baby killer." "Obama the socialist/facist." sort of regime speak.
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?
GOP will be strong, and barring a big win in the current administration, will once again dominate the political sphere in the next presidential election; and then when they screw the pooch, the tide may change again.
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?
Disappear, like any other niche political fad, brought upon by a collective mentality that situates at the right time.
2. Will it be a dominate force in the GOP?
No, but the ideals (ultra conservatism mixed with a strict emphasis on rogue "trickle down" social and economical issues; the pro-business slant, and anti-government one-traditionalism), will remain situated in the republican agenda for years to come; until something more juicy and ripe for the taking comes along.
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.
What a silly thing to say. I might as well say that regardless of "reality" and "facts", you're wrong!
On September 28 2010 09:00 Savio wrote: And no matter what people say about his military spending the fact remains that before Reagan there was the USSR and cold war. After Reagan there was Russia and no cold war. Younger people like me and most of you don't even know what it was like to live in the cold war era and face the possibility of nuclear holocaust. We have it pretty nice now. And though you can't say that Reagan did it single handedly, you can't ignore him either.
At the very least, you should check out the USSR's budget numbers before you link its collapse in late 1991 with Reagan's fiscal irresponsibility.
Then you should turn your attention to the USSR's myriad of domestic issues.
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.
I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
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.
What a silly thing to say. I might as well say that regardless of "reality" and "facts", you're wrong!
On September 28 2010 10:31 Mortality wrote: I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
There are some very interesting comparisons here, and understanding of things not with hindsight but by assuming you don't know what the future holds (aka living in the era).
One thought I'd like to mention about FDR is that paying someone to dig and another to fill it up is net zero gain for the economy. It's the equivalent of paying people unemployment checks (digging ditches and filling them add nothing just like the unemployed add nothing). Doing the same thing as FDR and expecting different results is insanity (the great depression). By UCLA's estimates FDR's policies extended the great depression by 6-8 years.
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.
even if that is true the huge difference is that democrats spend money on the country, on the people, on infrastructure while republicans spend it on tax cuts for the richest few and on wars.
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.
[...] 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.
i just got an update on the economic might of america and what it means (nothing).
On September 28 2010 10:31 Mortality wrote: I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
There are some very interesting comparisons here, and understanding of things not with hindsight but by assuming you don't know what the future holds (aka living in the era).
One thought I'd like to mention about FDR is that paying someone to dig and another to fill it up is net zero gain for the economy. It's the equivalent of paying people unemployment checks (digging ditches and filling them add nothing just like the unemployed add nothing). Doing the same thing as FDR and expecting different results is insanity (the great depression). By UCLA's estimates FDR's policies extended the great depression by 6-8 years.
There's a lot about economics we simply don't understand. Most of the economic theory prior to the 1900's was people making enormous assumptions about human behavior and fitting a theory to the assumption.
People need to realize that while current economic theories may represent the most we know right now, they don't represent an ultimate and unchanging truth. Supply side economics, Keynesian economics, Communism -- all of these ideas may influence generations to come, but in their current incarnations they are nothing more than passing fads that will be outright mocked by our descendants in the same way that we mock the notion of the earth being the center of the universe.
And regarding FDR, I'd argue that paying a man to dig then fill a ditch for no purpose other than to give him a job is actually a net loss due to the time and resources dedicated. You honestly would be better off giving the man a check for doing nothing. However, this laughable idea was considered a valid economic theory in its day. FDR's policies hurt us, but that makes him no less of a hero in my eyes.
Regarding modern times, I think many conservatives fear that Obama is trying to be FDR, but his policies have been a bit different. To be honest, I am not at all sure what exactly Obama is trying to do and I can't help but feel that his administration has not been forthcoming, which is especially disconcerting when you consider that his platform was heavily based on increasing government transparency.
Europeans often scratch their heads at why we think they are crazy for putting so much trust in their government on domestic issues, but I feel very strongly that their governments better represent the collective will of the people. Maybe I am wrong in that regard (it is only my opinion, after all), but I can't help but feel caught between a rightist elite and a leftist elite, neither one representing me.
On September 28 2010 10:31 Mortality wrote: I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
There are some very interesting comparisons here, and understanding of things not with hindsight but by assuming you don't know what the future holds (aka living in the era).
One thought I'd like to mention about FDR is that paying someone to dig and another to fill it up is net zero gain for the economy. It's the equivalent of paying people unemployment checks (digging ditches and filling them add nothing just like the unemployed add nothing). Doing the same thing as FDR and expecting different results is insanity (the great depression). By UCLA's estimates FDR's policies extended the great depression by 6-8 years.
There's a lot about economics we simply don't understand. Most of the economic theory prior to the 1900's was people making enormous assumptions about human behavior and fitting a theory to the assumption.
People need to realize that while current economic theories may represent the most we know right now, they don't represent an ultimate and unchanging truth. Supply side economics, Keynesian economics, Communism -- all of these ideas may influence generations to come, but in their current incarnations they are nothing more than passing fads that will be outright mocked by our descendants in the same way that we mock the notion of the earth being the center of the universe.
And regarding FDR, I'd argue that paying a man to dig then fill a ditch for no purpose other than to give him a job is actually a net loss due to the time and resources dedicated. You honestly would be better off giving the man a check for doing nothing. However, this laughable idea was considered a valid economic theory in its day. FDR's policies hurt us, but that makes him no less of a hero in my eyes.
Regarding modern times, I think many conservatives fear that Obama is trying to be FDR, but his policies have been a bit different. To be honest, I am not at all sure what exactly Obama is trying to do and I can't help but feel that his administration has not been forthcoming, which is especially disconcerting when you consider that his platform was heavily based on increasing government transparency.
Europeans often scratch their heads at why we think they are crazy for putting so much trust in their government on domestic issues, but I feel very strongly that their governments better represent the collective will of the people. Maybe I am wrong in that regard (it is only my opinion, after all), but I can't help but feel caught between a rightist elite and a leftist elite, neither one representing me.
I agree with most of this post although on the point about transparency, I think the administration is finding that transparency isn't always a good thing. What's that old adage about politics and sausage making? People will never understand why their congress people make certain sacrifices in order to get other things passed.
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.
even if that is true the huge difference is that democrats spend money on the country, on the people, on infrastructure while republicans spend it on tax cuts for the richest few and on wars.
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.
[...] 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.
Tax cuts aren't a government expenditure and while it's true that military expenditures under Republican Presidents has been higher in the past 30 years, I'd like to point out that the FOUR biggest wars of the 20th Century were all joined by Democrats: World War I -- Woodrow Wilson (D) World War II -- FDR (D) Korean War -- Harry S. Truman (D) Vietnam War -- Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
Of these, only WWII stands out as being truly unavoidable.
And regarding your video, I'd like to point out that in a developed nation, the standards of living in rural regions always lags behind the standard of living in urban and suburban regions. The fact that many so-called "red states" have large rural areas is something of a confounding variable.
On the matter of socialism, I personally do not wish to see it in this country, but not because I think it's necessarily "inferior," but because I do not wish to see a government as corrupt as our own acquire yet more power over my life. This is why I, on a personal level, advocate small government.
On September 28 2010 10:31 Mortality wrote: I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
There are some very interesting comparisons here, and understanding of things not with hindsight but by assuming you don't know what the future holds (aka living in the era).
One thought I'd like to mention about FDR is that paying someone to dig and another to fill it up is net zero gain for the economy. It's the equivalent of paying people unemployment checks (digging ditches and filling them add nothing just like the unemployed add nothing). Doing the same thing as FDR and expecting different results is insanity (the great depression). By UCLA's estimates FDR's policies extended the great depression by 6-8 years.
There's a lot about economics we simply don't understand. Most of the economic theory prior to the 1900's was people making enormous assumptions about human behavior and fitting a theory to the assumption.
People need to realize that while current economic theories may represent the most we know right now, they don't represent an ultimate and unchanging truth. Supply side economics, Keynesian economics, Communism -- all of these ideas may influence generations to come, but in their current incarnations they are nothing more than passing fads that will be outright mocked by our descendants in the same way that we mock the notion of the earth being the center of the universe.
And regarding FDR, I'd argue that paying a man to dig then fill a ditch for no purpose other than to give him a job is actually a net loss due to the time and resources dedicated. You honestly would be better off giving the man a check for doing nothing. However, this laughable idea was considered a valid economic theory in its day. FDR's policies hurt us, but that makes him no less of a hero in my eyes.
Regarding modern times, I think many conservatives fear that Obama is trying to be FDR, but his policies have been a bit different. To be honest, I am not at all sure what exactly Obama is trying to do and I can't help but feel that his administration has not been forthcoming, which is especially disconcerting when you consider that his platform was heavily based on increasing government transparency.
Europeans often scratch their heads at why we think they are crazy for putting so much trust in their government on domestic issues, but I feel very strongly that their governments better represent the collective will of the people. Maybe I am wrong in that regard (it is only my opinion, after all), but I can't help but feel caught between a rightist elite and a leftist elite, neither one representing me.
I agree with most of this post although on the point about transparency, I think the administration is finding that transparency isn't always a good thing. What's that old adage about politics and sausage making? People will never understand why their congress people make certain sacrifices in order to get other things passed.
Maybe this is true. And in hindsight, 20 years from now, we will have a better grasp of what's been going on. But I think, considering that our country is still plagued by many troubles both domestically and abroad, that people have a right for concern, especially when our President has been running this country differently than he said he would. Did he learn things he cannot share with us? Maybe. But if the problems continue for too much longer (sticking to the 1.5 to 2 years rule), we both know that Obama will be blamed and that the people will be right to do so.
On September 28 2010 10:31 Mortality wrote: I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
There are some very interesting comparisons here, and understanding of things not with hindsight but by assuming you don't know what the future holds (aka living in the era).
One thought I'd like to mention about FDR is that paying someone to dig and another to fill it up is net zero gain for the economy. It's the equivalent of paying people unemployment checks (digging ditches and filling them add nothing just like the unemployed add nothing). Doing the same thing as FDR and expecting different results is insanity (the great depression). By UCLA's estimates FDR's policies extended the great depression by 6-8 years.
There's a lot about economics we simply don't understand. Most of the economic theory prior to the 1900's was people making enormous assumptions about human behavior and fitting a theory to the assumption.
People need to realize that while current economic theories may represent the most we know right now, they don't represent an ultimate and unchanging truth. Supply side economics, Keynesian economics, Communism -- all of these ideas may influence generations to come, but in their current incarnations they are nothing more than passing fads that will be outright mocked by our descendants in the same way that we mock the notion of the earth being the center of the universe.
And regarding FDR, I'd argue that paying a man to dig then fill a ditch for no purpose other than to give him a job is actually a net loss due to the time and resources dedicated. You honestly would be better off giving the man a check for doing nothing. However, this laughable idea was considered a valid economic theory in its day. FDR's policies hurt us, but that makes him no less of a hero in my eyes.
Regarding modern times, I think many conservatives fear that Obama is trying to be FDR, but his policies have been a bit different. To be honest, I am not at all sure what exactly Obama is trying to do and I can't help but feel that his administration has not been forthcoming, which is especially disconcerting when you consider that his platform was heavily based on increasing government transparency.
Europeans often scratch their heads at why we think they are crazy for putting so much trust in their government on domestic issues, but I feel very strongly that their governments better represent the collective will of the people. Maybe I am wrong in that regard (it is only my opinion, after all), but I can't help but feel caught between a rightist elite and a leftist elite, neither one representing me.
I agree with most of this post although on the point about transparency, I think the administration is finding that transparency isn't always a good thing. What's that old adage about politics and sausage making? People will never understand why their congress people make certain sacrifices in order to get other things passed.
Maybe this is true. And in hindsight, 20 years from now, we will have a better grasp of what's been going on. But I think, considering that our country is still plagued by many troubles both domestically and abroad, that people have a right for concern, especially when our President has been running this country differently than he said he would. Did he learn things he cannot share with us? Maybe. But if the problems continue for too much longer (sticking to the 1.5 to 2 years rule), we both know that Obama will be blamed and that the people will be right to do so.
it is a democracy... and even though obama is the president and arguably could have put up more of a fight, he does not have unlimited power. a certain amount of people of your country casted their vote for the republicans, and the power of his political opposition does not go away by simply wishing for it, nor should he be able to ignore the wishes of the people who voted for republicans. the latter probably is the biggest reason for why the reforms have been as weak as they are and if you look at how obama treats other nations you will easily see that he always looks for things both sides can agree on instead of imposing his beliefs on them. at least thats the message he got the peace prize for. either that, or he is just as much of a sellout as most of the republican party and some very peculiar "democrats", but has been marketed so well that we totally fell for his great speeches.
I'm not a great supporter of Obama, or Democrats in general. I vote that way, simply because the alternative is worse, but not because I'm happy. I hate that I have to vote for the lesser of two evils, and that we can't have rational discussions/discourse in America, but I'm realist enough to realize that the unwashed masses are the majority reason and they are the majority voice.
That said, the Republicans are playing the long-game. Obama and Democrats in general had earlier on, tried to engage and speak with the Republicans, compromise to get shit done and our country back on-track. Republicans though, see this as an opportunity to look good, by making the others look bad. Why play ball, why try and do anything, when you can simply wait out the clock? To hell with the people who need help now, we'll make our agenda in 2/4/6 years (which largely screws the majority of Americans any chance they can).
Better yet, their compromises are anything but. Give a penny and Republicans will take a pound, and then STILL vote against it. Hell, they've voted against more than a few of their own initiative that garnered Democrat support simply to deny the current administration any semblance of a victory.
It's hard to talk with a group that would like nothing better than to see you kicked out, or even stoned in the courtyard, for little more reason than that they aren't in your shoes.
Democrats in general are a pissant-cowardly bunch unable/unwilling to actually stand up for their beliefs and espouse them loudly. Liberal is a perceived as a dirty word largely due to the Democrat's own failings. That they haven't called the Republicans out on their MANY hypocrisies is my greatest disappointment in politics.
On September 29 2010 03:47 Obsidian wrote: I'm not a great supporter of Obama, or Democrats in general. I vote that way, simply because the alternative is worse, but not because I'm happy. I hate that I have to vote for the lesser of two evils, and that we can't have rational discussions/discourse in America, but I'm realist enough to realize that the unwashed masses are the majority reason and they are the majority voice.
That said, the Republicans are playing the long-game. Obama and Democrats in general had earlier on, tried to engage and speak with the Republicans, compromise to get shit done and our country back on-track. Republicans though, see this as an opportunity to look good, by making the others look bad. Why play ball, why try and do anything, when you can simply wait out the clock? To hell with the people who need help now, we'll make our agenda in 2/4/6 years (which largely screws the majority of Americans any chance they can).
Better yet, their compromises are anything but. Give a penny and Republicans will take a pound, and then STILL vote against it. Hell, they've voted against more than a few of their own initiative that garnered Democrat support simply to deny the current administration any semblance of a victory.
It's hard to talk with a group that would like nothing better than to see you kicked out, or even stoned in the courtyard, for little more reason than that they aren't in your shoes.
Democrats in general are a pissant-cowardly bunch unable/unwilling to actually stand up for their beliefs and espouse them loudly. Liberal is a perceived as a dirty word largely due to the Democrat's own failings. That they haven't called the Republicans out on their MANY hypocrisies is my greatest disappointment in politics.
This is so true. I.....ugh.....it depresses me just thinking about it.
And for everyone talking about job losses/etc get rid of nafta and see what happens
I'll eat my own fecal matter if you can find even 5 members of Congress -- on either side of the aisle -- who are truly honorable.
And it always surprises me how people on this forum claim that "liberal" is viewed as a dirty word. Where the hell do you people live? Because everywhere I go "conservative" is the word that's taboo. "Conservative" gets equated with ultra-religious fundamentalist lunatic evangelists and utter morons like Glenn Beck who make such retarded arguments that you cannot help but wonder if they are secretly playing for the other team. That's not what defines a conservative anymore than the most extreme animal liberation groups and literal tree-hugging hippies represent being a liberal. But on this board, "conservative" seems to be interpreted as "Glenn Beck wannabe."
To enzym: regarding opposition to Obama and his supposed ability to always find common ground... I don't know whether to laugh or to cry that you believe all of that.
To Sadist: regarding job loss, you know that CLINTON (D) signed NAFTA, right? And quite frankly, I agree with Clinton's decision and find it silly to blame our current economic problems on a treaty signed 20 years ago that helped America reach the height of its power. The short-sightedness of America's leaders in DC and NY today is the matter that concerns me.
On September 29 2010 08:05 Mortality wrote: To enzym: regarding opposition to Obama and his supposed ability to always find common ground... I don't know whether to laugh or to cry that you believe all of that.
you must have misread. i said he was looking for common ground as a basis of action, not that he always finds it. republicans are not exactly a party you can cooperate with. yet even so they still have gotten the votes of many people and represent these people on the united states government and ignoring the power they hold on the behalf of these people would arguably go against the very principle that is democracy. if there is still a misunderstanding or disagreement from your side id like to straighten it out, but youd have to be more specific than you were with the above.
On September 28 2010 10:31 Mortality wrote: I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
There are some very interesting comparisons here, and understanding of things not with hindsight but by assuming you don't know what the future holds (aka living in the era).
One thought I'd like to mention about FDR is that paying someone to dig and another to fill it up is net zero gain for the economy. It's the equivalent of paying people unemployment checks (digging ditches and filling them add nothing just like the unemployed add nothing). Doing the same thing as FDR and expecting different results is insanity (the great depression). By UCLA's estimates FDR's policies extended the great depression by 6-8 years.
There's a lot about economics we simply don't understand. Most of the economic theory prior to the 1900's was people making enormous assumptions about human behavior and fitting a theory to the assumption.
People need to realize that while current economic theories may represent the most we know right now, they don't represent an ultimate and unchanging truth. Supply side economics, Keynesian economics, Communism -- all of these ideas may influence generations to come, but in their current incarnations they are nothing more than passing fads that will be outright mocked by our descendants in the same way that we mock the notion of the earth being the center of the universe.
And regarding FDR, I'd argue that paying a man to dig then fill a ditch for no purpose other than to give him a job is actually a net loss due to the time and resources dedicated. You honestly would be better off giving the man a check for doing nothing. However, this laughable idea was considered a valid economic theory in its day. FDR's policies hurt us, but that makes him no less of a hero in my eyes.
Regarding modern times, I think many conservatives fear that Obama is trying to be FDR, but his policies have been a bit different. To be honest, I am not at all sure what exactly Obama is trying to do and I can't help but feel that his administration has not been forthcoming, which is especially disconcerting when you consider that his platform was heavily based on increasing government transparency.
Europeans often scratch their heads at why we think they are crazy for putting so much trust in their government on domestic issues, but I feel very strongly that their governments better represent the collective will of the people. Maybe I am wrong in that regard (it is only my opinion, after all), but I can't help but feel caught between a rightist elite and a leftist elite, neither one representing me.
I agree with most of this post although on the point about transparency, I think the administration is finding that transparency isn't always a good thing. What's that old adage about politics and sausage making? People will never understand why their congress people make certain sacrifices in order to get other things passed.
Yet its an incredibly arrogant assumption by the political class: that the people cannot possibly hope to understand the complexities of politics, and thus a special set of people must be designated to explain to them what it all means. Give some credit to the people: overall they've done a better job managing their budgets than the government (both parties) has its own.
The mindset exemplified by statements from a distinguished senator from Massachusetts like:
We have an electorate that doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening...
And then, when saying this eventually backfires in elections, this is held up as proof of the central thesis that Americans are too stupid to understand politics, and the disconnect widens, creating a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm afraid I'm being too idealistic if I believe that there's going to be a reversal of this trend. For example, there are plenty of (successful) pundits/talk-show/tv-show hosts who are, to put it bluntly, morons. I don't see that section of the industry going out of business anytime soon.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2008/us-deficit-forecast-dec08.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://uspoliticsguide.com/images/Presidents-history/1980-electoral-map.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.aei.org/imgLib/20040609_Table1_350.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.aei.org/imgLib/20040609_Table2.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.aei.org/imgLib/20040609_Table3.gif)
