> Anyway, these “socialist”/”left” epithets are
> silly. The hallmark of socialism is government
> ownership (not 20% capital gains taxes for god’s
> sake). We just had a Republican president take a
> serious step toward nationalizing banks and
> everyone points a finger at Obama and says he’s a
> socialist?
>
>
I would like to learn more about this. Is this not what Obama stands for below?
“Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society.”
Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. The usual argument for socialism is that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society.
However, it is possible to believe that “capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society,” without concluding that the solution is government ownership of the means of production.
We are almost 20 years from the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and over 30 years from the re-introduction of market system reforms in China. So we have about a generation and a half of people who have grown up without knowing about what real socialism is and why it is a problem. They think that a 5% hike in the capital gains rate is socialism because a pretty lady from Alaska told them so.
You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???
FINforLIL Wrote:
——————————————————-
> We don’t live in a democracy.
The distinction is minute. From a Federal perspective it is a republic of states. The laws of the Federal government are passed by the state’s representatives of the people.
To bandy about definitions like this is ridiculous. The idea that states rights are the absolute end-all-and-be-all of government is silly. Even the founding fathers recognized that the Constitution was a document of the living, not the dead, and it was meant to provide a foundation of freedom, not an absolute document to be followed in strict interpretation for all items. A foundation is not a house, it is merely the base you build the house on top of.
The Constitution hasn’t changed, the house has, and you must accept that.
Modern governments cannot fixate themselves to old beliefs because of momentum of slavish adherance to write and ritual.
I am sure being a pig farmer and nail maker, might be appealing to many, but in reality, we live in a world that wasn’t even remotely considered by the creators of self-rule in the 18th century.
The conservatives here are engaging in what conservatives do best: Fear mongering. Pay them no mind.
For example, I’m already hearing the gun nuts say “buy your firearms now, Obama will ban them”. Mindless fear mongering - Obama was endorsed by the American Hunters and Shooters Association. Think of them as the ASPCA to the NRA’s PETA.
Anyway, projectplatnyc the only word in your sentence that anybody can argue about is “unfairly” (since without that word the sentence is just true). So on the basis of whether or not we think Obama would agree with that one word, we are declaring him a “socialist”? I think that intelligent discourse about Obama and his policies ought to be much deeper than that.
I’m Da Church of the faithful, I’m Liao Fengyi, clergywoman mother should have to introduce you to me, I have seen you twice, in which time you are more impressed with everyone I guess in the back of the church at noon to eat noodle face!
JoeyDVivre Wrote:
——————————————————-
> bchadwick sounds about right to me.
>
> Anyway, projectplatnyc the only word in your
> sentence that anybody can argue about is
> “unfairly” (since without that word the sentence
> is just true). So on the basis of whether or not
> we think Obama would agree with that one word, we
> are declaring him a “socialist”? I think that
> intelligent discourse about Obama and his policies
> ought to be much deeper than that.
Sorry - I should have been more clear. I did not mean to imply that I declare him an outright socialist, but it seems like some of his tendencies are leaning in that direction.
projectplatnyc Wrote:
——————————————————-
> JoeyDVivre Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > bchadwick sounds about right to me.
> >
> > Anyway, projectplatnyc the only word in your
> > sentence that anybody can argue about is
> > “unfairly” (since without that word the
> sentence
> > is just true). So on the basis of whether or
> not
> > we think Obama would agree with that one word,
> we
> > are declaring him a “socialist”? I think that
> > intelligent discourse about Obama and his
> policies
> > ought to be much deeper than that.
>
>
> Sorry - I should have been more clear. I did not
> mean to imply that I declare him an outright
> socialist, but it seems like some of his
> tendencies are leaning in that direction.
What tendencies specifically?
Healthcare? Society already bears the cost in one way or another. Whether that is increased absence without production causing losses, or other issues around that. Besides, overall, providing a service for the betterment of society isn’t wrong.
More taxes for the wealthier? Do you make 600K+ for it to really matter? I don’t. The idea that the wealthy will just suddenly say “well, screw it, I won’t make that extra buck because I have to pay .05 more to the government” is just plain stupid. Laffer curves have been refuted many times.
What’s funny is how hard people fight for the “rich”, when it’s such a small sliver of the population and they largely don’t give a rats ass about the people fighting for them.
And as far as anything else. Haven’t “republicans” (used very loosely), created more corporate socialism than any other party in history. Hasn’t only one sector really benefitted from over $1TR in spending in the last 8 years?
Seems to me people really don’t even know what socialism is, but only selectively apply the label when they want to highlight something and don’t apply it when they want to ignore their own ideology.
spierce Wrote:
——————————————————-
> projectplatnyc Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > JoeyDVivre Wrote:
> >
> ————————————————–
>
> > —–
> > > bchadwick sounds about right to me.
> > >
> > > Anyway, projectplatnyc the only word in your
> > > sentence that anybody can argue about is
> > > “unfairly” (since without that word the
> > sentence
> > > is just true). So on the basis of whether or
> > not
> > > we think Obama would agree with that one
> word,
> > we
> > > are declaring him a “socialist”? I think
> that
> > > intelligent discourse about Obama and his
> > policies
> > > ought to be much deeper than that.
> >
> >
> > Sorry - I should have been more clear. I did
> not
> > mean to imply that I declare him an outright
> > socialist, but it seems like some of his
> > tendencies are leaning in that direction.
>
>
> What tendencies specifically?
>
> Healthcare? Society already bears the cost in one
> way or another. Whether that is increased absence
> without production causing losses, or other issues
> around that. Besides, overall, providing a
> service for the betterment of society isn’t
> wrong.
>
> More taxes for the wealthier? Do you make 600K+
> for it to really matter? I don’t. The idea that
> the wealthy will just suddenly say “well, screw
> it, I won’t make that extra buck because I have to
> pay .05 more to the government” is just plain
> stupid. Laffer curves have been refuted many
> times.
>
> What’s funny is how hard people fight for the
> “rich”, when it’s such a small sliver of the
> population and they largely don’t give a rats ass
> about the people fighting for them.
>
> And as far as anything else. Haven’t
> “republicans” (used very loosely), created more
> corporate socialism than any other party in
> history. Hasn’t only one sector really benefitted
> from over $1TR in spending in the last 8 years?
>
> Seems to me people really don’t even know what
> socialism is, but only selectively apply the label
> when they want to highlight something and don’t
> apply it when they want to ignore their own
> ideology.
Sure - the $1TR bailout can definitely be labeled as that as well.
The main tendencies I was thinking about was fair trade (stepping away from free trade) and income redistribution.
You do know that left and right come from the National Assembly during French Revolution. The most honored and respected people traditionally sat to the right of the King, so when the king was deposed in favor of a president, the most respected members of the assembly sat to the right.
These “most respected members” tended to be people with property, and since they had property, they tended to be more conservative in terms of how much change they wanted to existing laws.
Those who were more radical and wanted the most change tended to sit as far away from the conservatives as possible, which meant the left side of the speaker, and those who were more moderate would sit in between the two extremes.
That’s where the terms “left” and “right” come from.
These days, political discussions tend to run on two separate dimensions: the economic agenda, and the social/rights agenda. Economic conservatives favor balanced budgets reduced spending and usually a fairly small role for government. Economic liberals do not mind higher taxation or government involvement in redistributing some of the more excessive concentrations that can happen under capitalism.
Social conservatives tend to favor traditional values, traditional marriage, church attendance, the criminalization of abortion, etc., these are based mostly on the idea that such policies create a community that can be degraded by too much focus on individualism. Social liberals tend to feel that anything that is mutually contracted between consenting adults and does not damage third parties should be allowed and supported.
In the financial industry, the most common combination is economic conservatism and social liberalism. This makes a certain amount of sense, because many financial industry practitioners want the maximum freedom to make money without interference from the government, and the maximum freedom to spend it as they choose without interference from the government. Thus, financial industry practitioners tend to be libertarian in their views and can switch from supporting Republicans to Democrats depending on whether they are more concerned about economic freedoms or social freedoms.
You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???
In general, most people in the United States are not socially liberal. Most people are conservative. However, there is often a disconnect between a person’s believes and who they vote for.
Often times, people really just don’t know anything about politics or government and vote for people who really don’t represent them due to how they were raised (i.e. their parents voted a certain way), peer pressure, school affiliation, labor affiliation, political advertising, etc.
People should be learning more about the constitution and voting based upon that rather than their want to get something from the government for “nothing.”
The American electorate (no matter what the affiliation) is rather dim. However, that is not in contrast to what you see in the rest of the world.
projectplatnyc Wrote:
——————————————————-
> spierce Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > projectplatnyc Wrote:
> >
> ————————————————–
>
> > —–
> > > JoeyDVivre Wrote:
> > >
> >
> ————————————————–
>
> >
> > > —–
> > > > bchadwick sounds about right to me.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, projectplatnyc the only word in
> your
> > > > sentence that anybody can argue about is
> > > > “unfairly” (since without that word the
> > > sentence
> > > > is just true). So on the basis of whether
> or
> > > not
> > > > we think Obama would agree with that one
> > word,
> > > we
> > > > are declaring him a “socialist”? I think
> > that
> > > > intelligent discourse about Obama and his
> > > policies
> > > > ought to be much deeper than that.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry - I should have been more clear. I did
> > not
> > > mean to imply that I declare him an outright
> > > socialist, but it seems like some of his
> > > tendencies are leaning in that direction.
> >
> >
> > What tendencies specifically?
> >
> > Healthcare? Society already bears the cost in
> one
> > way or another. Whether that is increased
> absence
> > without production causing losses, or other
> issues
> > around that. Besides, overall, providing a
> > service for the betterment of society isn’t
> > wrong.
> >
> > More taxes for the wealthier? Do you make
> 600K+
> > for it to really matter? I don’t. The idea
> that
> > the wealthy will just suddenly say “well, screw
> > it, I won’t make that extra buck because I have
> to
> > pay .05 more to the government” is just plain
> > stupid. Laffer curves have been refuted many
> > times.
> >
> > What’s funny is how hard people fight for the
> > “rich”, when it’s such a small sliver of the
> > population and they largely don’t give a rats
> ass
> > about the people fighting for them.
> >
> > And as far as anything else. Haven’t
> > “republicans” (used very loosely), created more
> > corporate socialism than any other party in
> > history. Hasn’t only one sector really
> benefitted
> > from over $1TR in spending in the last 8 years?
> >
> > Seems to me people really don’t even know what
> > socialism is, but only selectively apply the
> label
> > when they want to highlight something and don’t
> > apply it when they want to ignore their own
> > ideology.
>
>
> Sure - the $1TR bailout can definitely be labeled
> as that as well.
>
> The main tendencies I was thinking about was fair
> trade (stepping away from free trade) and income
> redistribution.
I wasn’t talking about the bailout. I was talking about the 600bn we spend in annual defense. The $1TR+ we spent in Iraq. Or the trillions wasted in the last 30 years under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. to every “star wars” and other crap program.
The Federal Government’s only true responsilibity relates to the military. I have no problem with military spending. Though of course a lot of that spending could be more efficient and transparent.
>You do know that left and right come from the National Assembly during French Revolution. The most honored and respected people traditionally sat to the right of the King, so when the king was deposed in favor of a president, the most respected members of the assembly sat to the right.
These “most respected members” tended to be people with property, and since they had property, they tended to be more conservative in terms of how much change they wanted to existing laws.
Those who were more radical and wanted the most change tended to sit as far away from the conservatives as possible, which meant the left side of the speaker, and those who were more moderate would sit in between the two extremes.
That’s where the terms “left” and “right” come from. <
So when people are in the middle, does that mean they sat on the Kings lap?
FINforLIL Wrote:
——————————————————-
> The Federal Government’s only true responsilibity
> relates to the military. I have no problem with
> military spending. Though of course a lot of that
> spending could be more efficient and transparent.
Strict constitutionalists live in a vacuum of absolutes. I’ve debated with many and they cannot even begin to explain how a US, run as a strict constitutionalist Republic, would survive in a modern world. There is simply no way it can.
People need to realize that the Consitition is no more than a guide, not an absolute document. It was never intended to absolutely rule all facets of the country, which is why it doesn’t specify everything that you find to be more state-based and also allows Congress and the President to govern outside of it.
it was plainly evident that scholars at the time, such as Jefferson, never intended it to set a concrete rule of living, but a set of “dos and donts” to help govern. additionally, it was never meant to have that guide of government to be static.
Times change. Provided we maintain our freedom of speech, representation, due process, property rights, and other basic rights, we are fine. The remainder of the 17th century items can and should be altered to fit the times through the proper processes.
it is just good to see the far right wingers squirm now. very nice.
yes, shut up, stand in the corner, and squirm. cos you had your 8 years, and you destroyed the center right and the republican party. that was the needed check and balance.
the karl rove era is over. the centrist republicans will retake the party, and thankfully so.
FINforLIL Wrote:
——————————————————-
> In general, most people in the United States are
> not socially liberal. Most people are
> conservative.
people from the USA are the most socially liberal anywhere in the world. what are you smoking? this is the nation built by immigrants, the source of the political correctness movement, the civil rights movement, separation of religion and state, etc.
yes, your family may not be liberal, and maybe even your neighborhood, or state. but this is a centrist nation.
America is progressive, certainly, but that doesn’t equate with social liberalism.
Europe, while not as progressive as the United States, is much more socially liberal. Its a bit of a contradiction. Europe is a much more prejudiced/racist place than the U.S. is, however their policies elsewhere in the social/political/fiscal realm are certainly liberal.
Deleted User
I love it when people state that an increase in taxes for some and a decrease in taxes for others is a ‘redistribution’ of wealth.
Should the proposed tax scheme already be in place, it would not be a ‘redistribution’ would it.
By this logic, you will have opposed every tax cut and tax hike in history as they all are ‘redistributions’ in wealth.
A 1% decrease for the poor and a 1% decrease to the wealthy, means more to the wealthy on a nominal basis and on a discretionary basis, so an equal cut favours the rich. So all broad cuts that have taken place ever, have been in favour of those with capital and against those without it (as higher taxes typically assist all peoples instead of just the rich). And the more people with capital are taxed, the harder it is to grow that to incredible amounts. That said, I fully back the estate tax and other taxes that redistribute wealth as this country made you, so shall you give back. Having it any other way is, in a tie-in for this recent campaign, ‘un-American’.
Deleted User
and to respond to rohufish, there is no way in hell that Americans are the most socially liberal. If I remember correctly, the underground railroad led right into Canada and if you look at politics, all Canadian parties are central or left and all American parties are cental or right.
So i’d say, compared to the middle east and asia, yes you are liberal, but compared to Canada, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, the UK, Ireland, Scotland, France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Norway, Germany, Austria, Hungary, South Africa, Holland, Monaco and Japan… America is conservative.
If Obama’s plan is fully enacted (which I doubt it will) 49% of the populace would not pay any taxes. History has shown that serious problems occur when one half of society pays for the government and the other doesn’t. This is a serious departure from the the basis of the founding of the United States.
‘If Obama’s plan is fully enacted (which I doubt it will) 49% of the populace would not pay any taxes. History has shown that serious problems occur when one half of society pays for the government and the other doesn’t. This is a serious departure from the the basis of the founding of the United States.’
Can you feed me some examples so I can refute them?
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote:
——————————————————-
> ‘If Obama’s plan is fully enacted (which I doubt
> it will) 49% of the populace would not pay any
> taxes. History has shown that serious problems
> occur when one half of society pays for the
> government and the other doesn’t. This is a
> serious departure from the the basis of the
> founding of the United States.’
>
> Can you feed me some examples so I can refute
> them?
I think the problem is not that half of society pays for the government and the other doesn’t. The problem is that 5% of society buys the government and the rest doesn’t.
You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???
thats a good point bchadwick. the remarkable thing about obama’s campaign is how he essentially ‘community organized’ his way to the win. small $5 donors who otherwise would be totally cut out of the whole lobbying game funded him. its a new paradigm really.
JoeyDVivre Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Anyway, these “socialist”/”left” epithets are
> silly. The hallmark of socialism is government
> ownership (not 20% capital gains taxes for god’s
> sake). We just had a Republican president take a
> serious step toward nationalizing banks and
> everyone points a finger at Obama and says he’s a
> socialist?
>
>
I would like to learn more about this. Is this not what Obama stands for below?
“Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society.”
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Funny, whenever Bush was raging against the terrorists I kept on hearing how much he hated tourists. I almost canceled my trip to the US.
Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. The usual argument for socialism is that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society.
However, it is possible to believe that “capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society,” without concluding that the solution is government ownership of the means of production.
We are almost 20 years from the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and over 30 years from the re-introduction of market system reforms in China. So we have about a generation and a half of people who have grown up without knowing about what real socialism is and why it is a problem. They think that a 5% hike in the capital gains rate is socialism because a pretty lady from Alaska told them so.
You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???
FINforLIL Wrote:
——————————————————-
> We don’t live in a democracy.
The distinction is minute. From a Federal perspective it is a republic of states. The laws of the Federal government are passed by the state’s representatives of the people.
To bandy about definitions like this is ridiculous. The idea that states rights are the absolute end-all-and-be-all of government is silly. Even the founding fathers recognized that the Constitution was a document of the living, not the dead, and it was meant to provide a foundation of freedom, not an absolute document to be followed in strict interpretation for all items. A foundation is not a house, it is merely the base you build the house on top of.
The Constitution hasn’t changed, the house has, and you must accept that.
Modern governments cannot fixate themselves to old beliefs because of momentum of slavish adherance to write and ritual.
I am sure being a pig farmer and nail maker, might be appealing to many, but in reality, we live in a world that wasn’t even remotely considered by the creators of self-rule in the 18th century.
The conservatives here are engaging in what conservatives do best: Fear mongering. Pay them no mind.
For example, I’m already hearing the gun nuts say “buy your firearms now, Obama will ban them”. Mindless fear mongering - Obama was endorsed by the American Hunters and Shooters Association. Think of them as the ASPCA to the NRA’s PETA.
bchadwick sounds about right to me.
Anyway, projectplatnyc the only word in your sentence that anybody can argue about is “unfairly” (since without that word the sentence is just true). So on the basis of whether or not we think Obama would agree with that one word, we are declaring him a “socialist”? I think that intelligent discourse about Obama and his policies ought to be much deeper than that.
I’m Da Church of the faithful, I’m Liao Fengyi, clergywoman mother should have to introduce you to me, I have seen you twice, in which time you are more impressed with everyone I guess in the back of the church at noon to eat noodle face!
JoeyDVivre Wrote:
——————————————————-
> bchadwick sounds about right to me.
>
> Anyway, projectplatnyc the only word in your
> sentence that anybody can argue about is
> “unfairly” (since without that word the sentence
> is just true). So on the basis of whether or not
> we think Obama would agree with that one word, we
> are declaring him a “socialist”? I think that
> intelligent discourse about Obama and his policies
> ought to be much deeper than that.
Sorry - I should have been more clear. I did not mean to imply that I declare him an outright socialist, but it seems like some of his tendencies are leaning in that direction.
projectplatnyc Wrote:
——————————————————-
> JoeyDVivre Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > bchadwick sounds about right to me.
> >
> > Anyway, projectplatnyc the only word in your
> > sentence that anybody can argue about is
> > “unfairly” (since without that word the
> sentence
> > is just true). So on the basis of whether or
> not
> > we think Obama would agree with that one word,
> we
> > are declaring him a “socialist”? I think that
> > intelligent discourse about Obama and his
> policies
> > ought to be much deeper than that.
>
>
> Sorry - I should have been more clear. I did not
> mean to imply that I declare him an outright
> socialist, but it seems like some of his
> tendencies are leaning in that direction.
What tendencies specifically?
Healthcare? Society already bears the cost in one way or another. Whether that is increased absence without production causing losses, or other issues around that. Besides, overall, providing a service for the betterment of society isn’t wrong.
More taxes for the wealthier? Do you make 600K+ for it to really matter? I don’t. The idea that the wealthy will just suddenly say “well, screw it, I won’t make that extra buck because I have to pay .05 more to the government” is just plain stupid. Laffer curves have been refuted many times.
What’s funny is how hard people fight for the “rich”, when it’s such a small sliver of the population and they largely don’t give a rats ass about the people fighting for them.
And as far as anything else. Haven’t “republicans” (used very loosely), created more corporate socialism than any other party in history. Hasn’t only one sector really benefitted from over $1TR in spending in the last 8 years?
Seems to me people really don’t even know what socialism is, but only selectively apply the label when they want to highlight something and don’t apply it when they want to ignore their own ideology.
spierce Wrote:
——————————————————-
> projectplatnyc Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > JoeyDVivre Wrote:
> >
> ————————————————–
>
> > —–
> > > bchadwick sounds about right to me.
> > >
> > > Anyway, projectplatnyc the only word in your
> > > sentence that anybody can argue about is
> > > “unfairly” (since without that word the
> > sentence
> > > is just true). So on the basis of whether or
> > not
> > > we think Obama would agree with that one
> word,
> > we
> > > are declaring him a “socialist”? I think
> that
> > > intelligent discourse about Obama and his
> > policies
> > > ought to be much deeper than that.
> >
> >
> > Sorry - I should have been more clear. I did
> not
> > mean to imply that I declare him an outright
> > socialist, but it seems like some of his
> > tendencies are leaning in that direction.
>
>
> What tendencies specifically?
>
> Healthcare? Society already bears the cost in one
> way or another. Whether that is increased absence
> without production causing losses, or other issues
> around that. Besides, overall, providing a
> service for the betterment of society isn’t
> wrong.
>
> More taxes for the wealthier? Do you make 600K+
> for it to really matter? I don’t. The idea that
> the wealthy will just suddenly say “well, screw
> it, I won’t make that extra buck because I have to
> pay .05 more to the government” is just plain
> stupid. Laffer curves have been refuted many
> times.
>
> What’s funny is how hard people fight for the
> “rich”, when it’s such a small sliver of the
> population and they largely don’t give a rats ass
> about the people fighting for them.
>
> And as far as anything else. Haven’t
> “republicans” (used very loosely), created more
> corporate socialism than any other party in
> history. Hasn’t only one sector really benefitted
> from over $1TR in spending in the last 8 years?
>
> Seems to me people really don’t even know what
> socialism is, but only selectively apply the label
> when they want to highlight something and don’t
> apply it when they want to ignore their own
> ideology.
Sure - the $1TR bailout can definitely be labeled as that as well.
The main tendencies I was thinking about was fair trade (stepping away from free trade) and income redistribution.
Oh political threads…this entire concept of left and right is a complete mystery to me.
Who thinks this crap up?
You do know that left and right come from the National Assembly during French Revolution. The most honored and respected people traditionally sat to the right of the King, so when the king was deposed in favor of a president, the most respected members of the assembly sat to the right.
These “most respected members” tended to be people with property, and since they had property, they tended to be more conservative in terms of how much change they wanted to existing laws.
Those who were more radical and wanted the most change tended to sit as far away from the conservatives as possible, which meant the left side of the speaker, and those who were more moderate would sit in between the two extremes.
That’s where the terms “left” and “right” come from.
These days, political discussions tend to run on two separate dimensions: the economic agenda, and the social/rights agenda. Economic conservatives favor balanced budgets reduced spending and usually a fairly small role for government. Economic liberals do not mind higher taxation or government involvement in redistributing some of the more excessive concentrations that can happen under capitalism.
Social conservatives tend to favor traditional values, traditional marriage, church attendance, the criminalization of abortion, etc., these are based mostly on the idea that such policies create a community that can be degraded by too much focus on individualism. Social liberals tend to feel that anything that is mutually contracted between consenting adults and does not damage third parties should be allowed and supported.
In the financial industry, the most common combination is economic conservatism and social liberalism. This makes a certain amount of sense, because many financial industry practitioners want the maximum freedom to make money without interference from the government, and the maximum freedom to spend it as they choose without interference from the government. Thus, financial industry practitioners tend to be libertarian in their views and can switch from supporting Republicans to Democrats depending on whether they are more concerned about economic freedoms or social freedoms.
You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???
In general, most people in the United States are not socially liberal. Most people are conservative. However, there is often a disconnect between a person’s believes and who they vote for.
Often times, people really just don’t know anything about politics or government and vote for people who really don’t represent them due to how they were raised (i.e. their parents voted a certain way), peer pressure, school affiliation, labor affiliation, political advertising, etc.
People should be learning more about the constitution and voting based upon that rather than their want to get something from the government for “nothing.”
The American electorate (no matter what the affiliation) is rather dim. However, that is not in contrast to what you see in the rest of the world.
Yeah it’d be interesting to see a breakdown of voting tendencies versus education…oh wait…
Also in your second paragraph you might want to add “religion”, as I heard it’s occasionally a factor.
projectplatnyc Wrote:
——————————————————-
> spierce Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > projectplatnyc Wrote:
> >
> ————————————————–
>
> > —–
> > > JoeyDVivre Wrote:
> > >
> >
> ————————————————–
>
> >
> > > —–
> > > > bchadwick sounds about right to me.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, projectplatnyc the only word in
> your
> > > > sentence that anybody can argue about is
> > > > “unfairly” (since without that word the
> > > sentence
> > > > is just true). So on the basis of whether
> or
> > > not
> > > > we think Obama would agree with that one
> > word,
> > > we
> > > > are declaring him a “socialist”? I think
> > that
> > > > intelligent discourse about Obama and his
> > > policies
> > > > ought to be much deeper than that.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry - I should have been more clear. I did
> > not
> > > mean to imply that I declare him an outright
> > > socialist, but it seems like some of his
> > > tendencies are leaning in that direction.
> >
> >
> > What tendencies specifically?
> >
> > Healthcare? Society already bears the cost in
> one
> > way or another. Whether that is increased
> absence
> > without production causing losses, or other
> issues
> > around that. Besides, overall, providing a
> > service for the betterment of society isn’t
> > wrong.
> >
> > More taxes for the wealthier? Do you make
> 600K+
> > for it to really matter? I don’t. The idea
> that
> > the wealthy will just suddenly say “well, screw
> > it, I won’t make that extra buck because I have
> to
> > pay .05 more to the government” is just plain
> > stupid. Laffer curves have been refuted many
> > times.
> >
> > What’s funny is how hard people fight for the
> > “rich”, when it’s such a small sliver of the
> > population and they largely don’t give a rats
> ass
> > about the people fighting for them.
> >
> > And as far as anything else. Haven’t
> > “republicans” (used very loosely), created more
> > corporate socialism than any other party in
> > history. Hasn’t only one sector really
> benefitted
> > from over $1TR in spending in the last 8 years?
> >
> > Seems to me people really don’t even know what
> > socialism is, but only selectively apply the
> label
> > when they want to highlight something and don’t
> > apply it when they want to ignore their own
> > ideology.
>
>
> Sure - the $1TR bailout can definitely be labeled
> as that as well.
>
> The main tendencies I was thinking about was fair
> trade (stepping away from free trade) and income
> redistribution.
I wasn’t talking about the bailout. I was talking about the 600bn we spend in annual defense. The $1TR+ we spent in Iraq. Or the trillions wasted in the last 30 years under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. to every “star wars” and other crap program.
All corporate welfare.
The Federal Government’s only true responsilibity relates to the military. I have no problem with military spending. Though of course a lot of that spending could be more efficient and transparent.
>You do know that left and right come from the National Assembly during French Revolution. The most honored and respected people traditionally sat to the right of the King, so when the king was deposed in favor of a president, the most respected members of the assembly sat to the right.
These “most respected members” tended to be people with property, and since they had property, they tended to be more conservative in terms of how much change they wanted to existing laws.
Those who were more radical and wanted the most change tended to sit as far away from the conservatives as possible, which meant the left side of the speaker, and those who were more moderate would sit in between the two extremes.
That’s where the terms “left” and “right” come from. <
So when people are in the middle, does that mean they sat on the Kings lap?
FINforLIL Wrote:
——————————————————-
> The Federal Government’s only true responsilibity
> relates to the military. I have no problem with
> military spending. Though of course a lot of that
> spending could be more efficient and transparent.
Strict constitutionalists live in a vacuum of absolutes. I’ve debated with many and they cannot even begin to explain how a US, run as a strict constitutionalist Republic, would survive in a modern world. There is simply no way it can.
People need to realize that the Consitition is no more than a guide, not an absolute document. It was never intended to absolutely rule all facets of the country, which is why it doesn’t specify everything that you find to be more state-based and also allows Congress and the President to govern outside of it.
it was plainly evident that scholars at the time, such as Jefferson, never intended it to set a concrete rule of living, but a set of “dos and donts” to help govern. additionally, it was never meant to have that guide of government to be static.
Times change. Provided we maintain our freedom of speech, representation, due process, property rights, and other basic rights, we are fine. The remainder of the 17th century items can and should be altered to fit the times through the proper processes.
it is just good to see the far right wingers squirm now. very nice.
yes, shut up, stand in the corner, and squirm. cos you had your 8 years, and you destroyed the center right and the republican party. that was the needed check and balance.
the karl rove era is over. the centrist republicans will retake the party, and thankfully so.
rohufish Wrote:
——————————————————-
> the karl rove era is over. the centrist
> republicans will retake the party, and thankfully
> so.
the karl rove era is thankfully over (as it was some months ago)…here’s just hoping that the karl marx era isn’t about to begin
Career Coach -- www.linkedin.com/in/numicareerconsulting
How to Break Into Equity Research -- www.mergersandinquisitions.com/equity-research-recruiting
FINforLIL Wrote:
——————————————————-
> In general, most people in the United States are
> not socially liberal. Most people are
> conservative.
people from the USA are the most socially liberal anywhere in the world. what are you smoking? this is the nation built by immigrants, the source of the political correctness movement, the civil rights movement, separation of religion and state, etc.
yes, your family may not be liberal, and maybe even your neighborhood, or state. but this is a centrist nation.
America is progressive, certainly, but that doesn’t equate with social liberalism.
Europe, while not as progressive as the United States, is much more socially liberal. Its a bit of a contradiction. Europe is a much more prejudiced/racist place than the U.S. is, however their policies elsewhere in the social/political/fiscal realm are certainly liberal.
I love it when people state that an increase in taxes for some and a decrease in taxes for others is a ‘redistribution’ of wealth.
Should the proposed tax scheme already be in place, it would not be a ‘redistribution’ would it.
By this logic, you will have opposed every tax cut and tax hike in history as they all are ‘redistributions’ in wealth.
A 1% decrease for the poor and a 1% decrease to the wealthy, means more to the wealthy on a nominal basis and on a discretionary basis, so an equal cut favours the rich. So all broad cuts that have taken place ever, have been in favour of those with capital and against those without it (as higher taxes typically assist all peoples instead of just the rich). And the more people with capital are taxed, the harder it is to grow that to incredible amounts. That said, I fully back the estate tax and other taxes that redistribute wealth as this country made you, so shall you give back. Having it any other way is, in a tie-in for this recent campaign, ‘un-American’.
and to respond to rohufish, there is no way in hell that Americans are the most socially liberal. If I remember correctly, the underground railroad led right into Canada and if you look at politics, all Canadian parties are central or left and all American parties are cental or right.
So i’d say, compared to the middle east and asia, yes you are liberal, but compared to Canada, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, the UK, Ireland, Scotland, France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Norway, Germany, Austria, Hungary, South Africa, Holland, Monaco and Japan… America is conservative.
If Obama’s plan is fully enacted (which I doubt it will) 49% of the populace would not pay any taxes. History has shown that serious problems occur when one half of society pays for the government and the other doesn’t. This is a serious departure from the the basis of the founding of the United States.
I nominate Chadwick for some sort of an award for the interesting history of the “left/right” he provided.
you guys might wanna save this thread before it gets deleted…of course, i don’t think it should be, but you just never know in this communist state
Career Coach -- www.linkedin.com/in/numicareerconsulting
How to Break Into Equity Research -- www.mergersandinquisitions.com/equity-research-recruiting
‘If Obama’s plan is fully enacted (which I doubt it will) 49% of the populace would not pay any taxes. History has shown that serious problems occur when one half of society pays for the government and the other doesn’t. This is a serious departure from the the basis of the founding of the United States.’
Can you feed me some examples so I can refute them?
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote:
——————————————————-
> ‘If Obama’s plan is fully enacted (which I doubt
> it will) 49% of the populace would not pay any
> taxes. History has shown that serious problems
> occur when one half of society pays for the
> government and the other doesn’t. This is a
> serious departure from the the basis of the
> founding of the United States.’
>
> Can you feed me some examples so I can refute
> them?
+1
I think the problem is not that half of society pays for the government and the other doesn’t. The problem is that 5% of society buys the government and the rest doesn’t.
You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???
thats a good point bchadwick. the remarkable thing about obama’s campaign is how he essentially ‘community organized’ his way to the win. small $5 donors who otherwise would be totally cut out of the whole lobbying game funded him. its a new paradigm really.
Pages