Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election


  • Please log in to reply
502 replies to this topic

#471 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 December 2011 - 03:03 AM

itics in the US has been twisted over the last 30 years to be extremely right-wing. Bernie Sanders is as close as a politician can be to being a left-wing radical, and he's generally marginalized and ignored by the Democrats, while the right-wing fringe is given center stage in the Republican party. It's the Far-Right party against the Center-Right (with a smidgen of Center-Left) party. But all major solutions offered by either party have a rightward slant.


I disagree i have always found your politics to be more right wing than here in canada but the dems have now gone far left and are on par with our left wing party the NDP (new democratic party) As to the reps becoming more right wing i dont agree tooo much there, the right wing pundits have gone more to the right but the actual politicians have moved more to the centre. please look at where both parties were in the past, they have all moved more to the left, reps still strongly right wing but dems have left the center and racing full speed to the left, at least the vocal and prmonent ones.

Obamacare is based off a conservative idea that was floated in the '90s (and more recently from Gov. Romney's Massachusetts' Health care law). Most of the stuff in it was A-OK as far the the Republicans were concerned, until Obama proposed it. The same was true with Cap and Trade legislation. The Left wanted a straight Carbon Tax, so the conservatives offered Cap and Trade as an alternative. When Obama and the Left accepted it, it became an evil, Lefty idea.


It doesnt matter whos idea it was first it is a terribel idea.How politicians can look around the world and instead of taking the good ideas and trying to make them better they try to come up with something even worse is beyond me. Cap and trade? when were the reps behind that? i thought they were all global warming deniers? again irrelevant because both cap and trade and carbon taxes are stupid ideas based on wishful thinking instead of actual effort ot do something about the problem.

Based on their constant moving of the goalposts, I really don't see how you can call the majority of the Republican field anything other than "two-faced," "duplicitous" or "hypocritical" at the very least. Most of the ideas that President Obama and the Democrats have offered to the Republicans were their own ideas, which were perfectly acceptable when the Republicans suggested them, but as soon as they were rebranded by the Democrats, they became persona non grata to the conservatives.


retype same sentence with democrate in place of republican and it is just as true all parties in all countries swap ideas on what they believe, happened here 3-4 times on free trade over our history and we arent nearly as old as you guys are!


The same thing happened with the Super Committee. Every offer from the Democrats was rejected, no matter how acceptable it had been in the past to both parties. Eugene Robinson, who does political analysis for the Washington Post, wrote about the Super Committee's failure, and he pointed out how the Republican's positions on the committee were unrealistic and how they refused to compromise in any meaningful way.

That's why it failed, not because the Democrats refused to budge. They budged an awful lot, but the Republicans refused to move an inch. When they moved a millimeter, they wanted to be congratulated. That can hardly be considered a reasonable way to govern. If you really want to govern, you work to change the policies to your goals by degrees, not sitting by there holding your breath until you get exactly what you want. The Republicans want the Obama administration to fail. If Obama were to succeed, people might question certain Republican dogma and that would hurt their electoral prospects. So their best chance to win back the presidency (as they see it) is to scuttle the economic recovery and blame the Obama Administration and the Democrats. They aren't interested in actually governing. Like I said, they'd rather see the "Invisible Hand of the Market" do everything. And they see the best chance for that to happen is to stop Obama from doing anything. Which is not at all how the government is supposed to work.


hmm I only ever heard of any actual plans coming from the reps no plan at all from the dems and of course the dems rejected the reps plans EVEN those with tax increases because they wanted only to continue their class warfare crap and raise the top marginal rate. dang it rates are high enough attack the exemptions! (personally i think the politicians keep the exemtions because they and their friends are the major beneficiaries)
  • 0

#472 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 December 2011 - 07:15 PM

OK, so Dawh first:

1. I do realize they are conservative sources. I ignored the writing and looked at the numbers. And by saying 'who cares if they are supported by [insert]', lemme flip it: who cares if the Republicans are supported by the Koch brothers? Or corporations? I agree that school choice isnt the best idea, but why do the Dems need money from a big union like that to know that? Oh, and I'd also want to point out: http://online.wsj.co...s%3Dinteractive

I'm sure you knew that already, but it isn't a major difference between contributions to Reps vs Dems for corporations, when I cannot think of a union that'd want to give to Reps. Again, I'm not a 'unions should die' person, but the numbers don't lie.

And i went back and realized that they probably took it out of context, but Pelosi has to learn to term it better then, cause i watched that and got the same vibe.

Now, Quag:

1. I think he does actually, and I'm mad at Obama for reinserting Bernanke, but Bush chose him during the initial crisis.

2. I want to see some evidence for that Great Depression statement that shows it was slowed due to the New Deal and all that, b/c I'm pretty sure that it helped, although I do realize economists are split on it. But again, I linked a report from some economist guy some pages back that showed his evidence for it. But whatever, something seems to be working, at least that's what i assume from http://online.wsj.co...2136930544.html and http://www.ibtimes.c...rcent-obama.htm

Apparently your gov job cutting is working, but again, it isnt cut and burn, and it was a major improvement (though im left wondering where 140k jobs suddenly appeared from in the private sector). Oh, and i thought id point out (and i could be wrong in the interpretation of what you wrote), but the stimulus wasnt meant to hire people to the gov (in fact, Obama's been downsizing that for a while), but to make private sector ones and keep the economy from plummeting into a new great depression.

3. They aren't as bad as the reps (and no, I'm not a democrat, I hate political parties actually, and would rather see all independents in the gov),and they are much more moderate. The republicans are currently allowing the tea party and Grover Norquist to control their actions. This could have been solved a while ago if it wasnt for those two groups (in the mid 90's, if im right, Clinton got some stuff done with a republican congress). And actually, the way the supercommitee was set up, now their inability to do something is causing cuts in proper places, like military.

4. No no nononononono. We have NOT been moving to the left, we've been moving right. A lot of people i talk to think you guys are those idiot socialists up north (although I'm surprised how many think otherwise, but anyway). No one wants ANYTHING to do with left wing concepts, and liberal is an evil word. We are far from left., We are right. The dems are center, the repubs center to far right. I dunno how you thought otherwise, but i promise you that isnt the case. (Consider what Dawh said: A similar thing to obamacare was a conservative idea. Now its 'socialist', and no rep (although to be fair rep != conservative. EDIT: And dems != liberal.) would go near it. THAT should show you that we arent moving left.) And what vocal democrats? Obama? He's not left, hes center at most.

5. Obviously Obamacare isn't the best idea, but we couldn't do anything more 'left'. Again, the reps refused a system like Canda's, France's, England's... universal stuff. Couldn't consider it at all. So that was the best Obama could get passed. I personally think we should go with something like what the UK has: A base universal coverage with non-gov touched healthcare (vs what the US has now, gov-subsidized healthcare that costs 7200$ a person) that can be bought if wanted. France has a multi-tier system too. I'm actually not a fan of complete gov run health care with no private allowed, but i think we do need a basic thing.

6. Obama had a plan that cut 4.6 trillion from the deficit. You're right though, thats all i could think of.

Edited by gvg, 03 December 2011 - 07:16 PM.

  • 0

#473 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 December 2011 - 12:03 AM

ARGHHH!!!!!
typed a big long response then lost it all!
crap too bummed to start again will try maybe 2morrow
  • 0

#474 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 December 2011 - 11:32 PM

I hate when that happens =)

I'll be looking for it tomorrow.
  • 0

#475 dawh

dawh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1300 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 12:10 AM

OK, so Dawh first:

1. I do realize they are conservative sources. I ignored the writing and looked at the numbers. And by saying 'who cares if they are supported by [insert]', lemme flip it: who cares if the Republicans are supported by the Koch brothers? Or corporations? I agree that school choice isnt the best idea, but why do the Dems need money from a big union like that to know that? Oh, and I'd also want to point out: http://online.wsj.co...s%3Dinteractive

I'm sure you knew that already, but it isn't a major difference between contributions to Reps vs Dems for corporations, when I cannot think of a union that'd want to give to Reps. Again, I'm not a 'unions should die' person, but the numbers don't lie.

Sure, the graph shows that Labor is overwhelmingly supporting Democrats. That's not really important. What is important is how much money the parties get from each source, something that the graphs don't show. I don't know where to find that information, but if the Democrats are getting 90% of labor support, which is say $100,000,000, and Republicans are getting 60% of Financial sector support, which is $400,000,000, the financial sector is still having a far larger effect on the outcome of the election, even though the labor groups are far and away supporting the Democrats over the Republicans. So the percent of support is really only a small piece of the puzzle. Percent is a number, but it's a relative number. What's far more important is the absolute number which isn't mentioned anywhere in that graph. I don't know what those numbers are, but in general, corporations have far more capital available to them than do labor groups.

Up until recently, many of the Police and Firefighter's unions supported the conservatives as they usually are associated with being "tough on crime." Of course, the across the board cuts that Republican governors are forcing through without permitting a renegotiation of terms has soured many Law Enforcement unions to the GOP brand.

In discussion of class warfare, I like to go back to the quote from Warren Buffett back in 2006. I ran into that Op-Ed from Ben Stein (of all people) talking about taxes and deficits back in 2006. Ben Stein isn't usually my source for financial advice, but he sounded very reasonable in the article, talking about the insanity of the arguments of his conservative brethren. In the article he mentioned this quote from Warren Buffett, “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Talking about "Class Warfare" in this country is supposed to be verboten, but when you see bigger and bigger slices of the government's pie going back to the people who already have the most, it certainly seems like class warfare is happening already. Only it's the reverse of the kind invoked by anti-communists. It's the shift of wealth from the poor to the rich (more accurately the middle-class to the rich, but the MC is poor compared to the rich). That's the taboo subject that Buffett and Elizabeth Warren are arguing against. The fact that those who are already well-to-do are benefiting more from government subsidies than the real "small businesses" and "the people" they are supposed to support.

GE, one of the largest companies in the world, made record profits last year, and yet they reportedly paid no income tax. In fact, they got a refund from the government because their financial services division lost money in the market crash. In a sane financial world, one would imagine that such an immensely successful company like GE wouldn't be getting a rebate check from the government. So if you are worried about "class warfare," I would say that it's already upon us. It's just a stealth campaign moving things in the other direction than the generally expected definition. :dry:

And I reiterate that the US has been dragged to the Right, politically. When Cap and Trade and Health Insurance mandates (both conservative ideas originally) are the only remotely acceptable political position offered from the "Left," how can the political environment be described as anything but shifted to the Right? :huh: If we had shifted Left, I would expect the Republicans to be suggesting "HillaryCare" as an alternative to Universal coverage/single-payer. :rolleyes:
  • 0

#476 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 December 2011 - 02:15 PM

p yqe489tyhô
  • 0

#477 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 December 2011 - 02:16 PM

I did it again :(
  • 0

#478 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 December 2011 - 03:05 PM

and again, fortunately i had only typed about 3 lines. So Take 4

1. I misread the fed reserve site, it is the presidents that are appointed by the board. Didnt see how bernanke was appointed but if it is by the pres like i thought then Bush and Obama both have to take some responsability.

2. Great depression lasted longer in the US than anywhere else. basically 1929-1938-39' Keynsian economics and pump priming was the great experiment tried out by you guys. So if you guys tried the stimulous way of ending economic problems and took longer than the rest of the world to get out of it what conclusion could you draw from that? Yes economists are split on it but Historians are pretty much damning of it. And well i have more faith in historians than economists as well i rate economists on slightly higher than psychiatrists.

AS to it working:
1. Over 300K people have left the workforce (ie give up in despair of finding a job), and 120k found work. so almost 3X number of people have lost all hope to those who found jobs. Which had the larger impact on the jobless rate going down, Those Who found jobs or thos who gave up?
2. You imply that ther could be no recovery without govt stimulous, a ridiculous statment as there have been far far more recessions that have come and gone without govt stimulous than there have been with stimulous. (pre keynesian economics govts ALWAYS cut spending during recessions)
3. If in your opinion the stimulous worked why do you need another one? the recession is officially over (has been for a bit) so why? or should govt just do stimulous all the time and go into greek like debt levels?

Yes 120k gain is better than a loss despite the 300k giving up but i believe this is despite the govt interferecne not because of it.

3. I find dems just as bad but with better press. They refuse anything that doesnt include their precious class warfare tax increase on the rich despite that fact the rich already pay more. taxing them will not solve your problems. they are refusing any real cuts (except military, which i think we all agree on has to happen) The only thing ive seen the reps refuse to budge on is the increasing of ANY personal income tax. Somethign I gotta agree with. so perhaps Im more republican than Dem thjough if i was a yank id be an independant and look at the actual individuals more than the party. I am sure(hope) that ther are decent politicians down there. One advantage of your system is that politicans are far far more independant of the party than thay are here.

4. yes yes yes you have been moving to the left the passing of obama care is one of many proofs. It sucks and is stupid but it passed when other attemps have all failed. Look historically, not just last 8 years. Bush (wrong) premeptive strike against Saddam for (imaginary) weapons of mass destruction. is pretty mush inline with the Monroe doctrine. You have dialogue and economic ties with China adn Russia as opposed to armed (though non direct) confrontation. welfare expansion, medicare, pensions getting more and more generous (has to stop) Unions exist and have legal protection. Sex/violence/language on TV and radio. All these things are far more liberal than in the past and the farther back you go the more you see how far youve come. Yes the Tea party may bring the reps a bit more right than they have been last 8 years but if you look at policy they arent that far from JFK.

5. Obama didnt need 1 single republican to pass Obama care. the problems was that there was a few Dems who saw it for the disasater it is going to be. And passing this monstrosity will just make it near impossible to change it into a good system. BTW Canada has that private/public system as well. We call it a 2 tier system and officially it doesnt exist but well it does. And i agree that is the best way to go. Though ours like the UK's could use some fien tuning and a chainsaw taken to the bureaucracy.

6. I have never heard of this 4.6 trillion deficit cut but as the deficit is about 1 trillion how will he cut it by 4 trillion? seems to me you got some fudging of numbers or what you meant to say was cut 4.6 trillion in spending over 10 years and when you look at the actual numbers you will find that most of it is by not allowing automatic increase to happen not actual cutting. (Both sides do this when talking about the budget.
Here is alink that I hope will fighten you into understandign that the problem is mostly spending not income
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
please look at this linkas well to understand why i say the problem is mor espending that income
http://www.usgovernm...tury_chart.html
the 2 spikes are the world wars. makes sense, and during the 90s it was actually trending down but there is a real spike under obama. Even Bushs wars didnt spike it that much.

GE, one of the largest companies in the world, made record profits last year, and yet they reportedly paid no income tax. In fact, they got a refund from the government because their financial services division lost money in the market crash. In a sane financial world, one would imagine that such an immensely successful company like GE wouldn't be getting a rebate check from the government. So if you are worried about "class warfare," I would say that it's already upon us. It's just a stealth campaign moving things in the other direction than the generally expected definition. :dry:


Obama is a major beneficiary of GE contributions, though they give to republicans as well they gave more to Obama that any other politician

And I reiterate that the US has been dragged to the Right, politically. When Cap and Trade and Health Insurance mandates (both conservative ideas originally) are the only remotely acceptable political position offered from the "Left," how can the political environment be described as anything but shifted to the Right? :huh: If we had shifted Left, I would expect the Republicans to be suggesting "HillaryCare" as an alternative to Universal coverage/single-payer. :rolleyes:


Umm go back in time cap and trade would never have been considered(and it shoudlnt be) as to obama care it passed how can that not be going left? see above point 4.
  • 0

#479 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 December 2011 - 03:05 PM

YAY I got it posted!
  • 0

#480 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 December 2011 - 03:19 PM

sorry for the multi-posting

On an aside I went to my folks the other day and my dad was reading Manias Crashes and Panics a history of financial crises by Charles Kinbdleberger. its a book i read in college and i thought was very incitefull I am gonna read it again when my dad is finished. It should be interesting in light of the recent events. If ya get a chance its a heavy read but very interesting. If you do read it let me know as i have a very interesting story about the book.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users