Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By cosmictraveler
  • 4 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By billvon
  • 1 Post By adelady

Thread: Political goals today

  1. #1 Political goals today 
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,232
    What are the Republican and Democrat main political beliefs, goals, messages, policies, and motivations today? Who is best for the US today?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    lol... its hard to say.. mostly something in between is best for us... 8 years bush 8 years Obama... something like that


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Both parties spend, spend , spend on their constituents so those who theu give money to help them with contribitions to their re-election campaigns. They both give money to the top one percent of the population so they will always be in control.
    danhanegan likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Both parties spend, spend , spend on their constituents so those who theu give money to help them with contribitions to their re-election campaigns. They both give money to the top one percent of the population so they will always be in control.
    It is a wealthy game, that's not a big surprise in a way, despite popular revisionist histories, our founding fathers were among the wealthiest (President Washington probably THE wealthiest of all) colonist and built a system from the ground up that protected the wealthy educated while mitigating the potential damage of lower class via non-binding quasi representative voting system.

    I think where it's going off the rails is compounded in more recent times by the wealthiest ability to monopolize the airways. Unfortunately the courts continue to rules as if there's equivalence between speech of a single person on the street and a mogul who can buy up all the advertising time for a state. If ones bullhorn is so loud that no one else can be heard is that really free speech?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,035
    The Tea Party, in my opinion would be a good path for the USA to follow. "The Tea Party movement is an American decentralized political movement that is primarily known for advocating a reduction in the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes.[1][2] The movement has been called partly conservative,[3] partly libertarian,[4] and partly populist.[5] It has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[6][7][ "
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    The Tea Party, in my opinion would be a good path for the USA to follow. "The Tea Party movement is an American decentralized political movement that is primarily known for advocating a reduction in the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes.[1][2] The movement has been called partly conservative,[3] partly libertarian,[4] and partly populist.[5] It has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[6][7][ "
    These may be noble aims, but its tactics in Congress have the opposite effect. Closing the government for two weeks was very expensive - the work didn't get done, but the government workers will get their pay. Further if they had succeeded in putting the treasury in default, it would have led to much higher interest rates for Federal debt as well as possibly leading to a recession.

    Also tax reduction will increase the deficit, not reduce it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    The Tea Party, in my opinion would be a good path for the USA to follow.
    Good idea - but very poor execution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Also tax reduction will increase the deficit, not reduce it.
    Yep, unless you have some strange view about the US economies current position on the laffer curve?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    While I understand some of the Tea Party objective, much of their platform from the start was from an alternative reality. Wanting lower taxes when we already have the lowest in half a century. Wanting to lower the deficit largely by cutting things that had nothing do with the huge one-time discretionary spending from two wars. Wanting to reduce the size of government which also is the smallest it has been by capita since the mid 20th century. Complaining about "handouts" when their very demographic and the states they mostly come from are the biggest takers of federal money than any others (hell are in large part the face of the 47% Romney was speaking about).

    Their messaging was a mess and demographic hurting that messaging even worse. Predominantly white, openly bigoted, open to an entire range of conspiracy theorist. Often indistinguishable from the religious nut jobs trying to legislate doctors lie to women about abortion risk, conduct unnecessary medical rape, remove evolution from schools etc. Their astounding cultural ignorance about much of American culture--perhaps best exemplified by their hilariously funny "tea bagger" signs in early demonstrations.

    Some of their ideas, the libertarian in me sympathizes with, such bringing federal programs more in line with the US Constitution instead of half our revenues and expenditures on huge social programs not mentioned in the Constitution. (Either that or grow a pair and change the Constitution so there's direct authority)

    At this point, between their willingness to put the global economy at risk and intolerance on a range of issues---well I'd prefer we just toss the Tea Party into Boston Harbor.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    1) The law says that the US government has to pay its debts first, before paying for other things. We literally couldn't default, even if they didn't raise the debt ceiling, unless they decided to do it on purpose to hurt people, the way they closed national monuments, private businesses on public land, blocked off the sides of roads so people couldn't stop to look at mt. Rushmore from a distance, refuse to pay death benefits to widows of troops (even though military funding was approved before the shutdown and Obama signed it.), etc.
    2) Them being from states with the highest federal handouts makes sense, as they see the effects of it more strongly than the rest.
    3) The national debt isn't really about one-time discretionary spending.
    4) Claiming that you opponent is "a racist", etc, is just a way to distract from the issue.
    BTW, I heard today that Obama's policies since he took office (including Obamacare) hurt the poor, and by extension, minorities (including black people) more than they hurt the "evil rich white people" he demonizes. Go figure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Also tax reduction will increase the deficit, not reduce it.
    Yep, unless you have some strange view about the US economies current position on the laffer curve?
    It will improve the economy, increasing investments, not to mention that many companies will bring in more of their money from overseas (they have to pay taxes in both countries) if the tax rate on it went down. More investments means more jobs (something that's desperately needed), which means more GDP and more income tax collected. Also, more jobs = fewer on unemployment, medicaid, etc.
    It's a balance, really, and I'm not sure how much you could decrease it (or how quickly) before your tax revenue went down hill.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    The Tea Party, in my opinion would be a good path for the USA to follow. "The Tea Party movement is an American decentralized political movement that is primarily known for advocating a reduction in the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes.[1][2] The movement has been called partly conservative,[3] partly libertarian,[4] and partly populist.[5] It has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[6][7][ "
    These may be noble aims, but its tactics in Congress have the opposite effect. Closing the government for two weeks was very expensive - the work didn't get done, but the government workers will get their pay. Further if they had succeeded in putting the treasury in default, it would have led to much higher interest rates for Federal debt as well as possibly leading to a recession.

    Also tax reduction will increase the deficit, not reduce it.
    So you shouldn't make the government spend less because they pay their people even when they don't work (something that no business would do)? Does that make sense to you?
    Also, the idiots in congress only agreed to suspend the debt limit, not stop it, so they ran up 300 billion more in debt after they used all of the money they were allowed to spend.
    The treasury wouldn't have defaulted, as they have to make payments on debts before other expenditures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    Both parties (at least the leaders) seem to have the goals of:
    1) Exploit power for personal benefit (including Obama giving exemptions to his campaign supporters)
    2) Raise taxes to pay for pork projects.
    3) Blame the other side when things go wrong.

    Who's doing the most of each is determined by who's in power.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    many companies will bring in more of their money from overseas (they have to pay taxes in both countries) if the tax rate on it went down.
    Don't you believe it. They'll keep looking for even lower tax rates in any place they can get them or other ways to avoid taxes altogether.

    Got my eyes opened a long time ago. Went to a lecture by a bloke who was senior counsel (or somesuch) leading the investigations into some spectacular tax frauds in Australia. He was basically giving tips for investigations of any sort, of the follow the money - find the other side of the transaction style.

    One money path he followed took him into a company's office overseas. As he's looking through records looking for evidence relating to his own investigation, he came across records which clearly showed a scheme to avoid local taxes on something or other. He discussed this with the accountants/ lawyers team for the company on the basis of "Why bother? The tax involved is less than 10%!" Their response was to shrug their shoulders, "Tax is tax. We don't want to pay."

    In fact it's quite common in some organisations for the professional costs and other fees for the processes involved in starting and maintaining a scheme to avoid various fees and taxes to amount to much the same amount as what would have been paid if those transactions and documents hadn't needed legal and accounting expertise to implement and to supervise. For many people it isn't the cost that matters, it's keeping the money away from government, any government, every government. They'll even pay bribes rather than taxes.

    People who regard government taxes and imposts as onerous and burdensome will be content, even eager, to pay out the same amounts to other people, even though the rest of us might see those people as slick or overpriced or exploiters of false beliefs/ silly prejudices or encouraging bad business practices- or simply sleazy.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Both parties spend, spend , spend on their constituents so those who theu give money to help them with contribitions to their re-election campaigns. They both give money to the top one percent of the population so they will always be in control.
    The following history of Americas deficits and national debt, clearly shows that republicans spend (much) more money than democrats.
    http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...ental-Term.htm

    (Dem) B. Clinton had a balanced federal budget.
    (Rep) GW Bush gave the rich a $3 trillion dollar tax cut, and created huge deficits (and added that $3 trillion to Americas debt.)
    (Dem) B. Obama has already cut GW Bush's debt growth rate in half.


    And B. Obama has spent less money than any US president since Eisenhower.
    Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

    (The spending chart in the above source, clearly shows that republicans spend more money than democrats.)
    Last edited by chad; December 17th, 2013 at 10:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    many companies will bring in more of their money from overseas (they have to pay taxes in both countries) if the tax rate on it went down.
    Don't you believe it. They'll keep looking for even lower tax rates in any place they can get them or other ways to avoid taxes altogether.
    It's true for us. Our CEO made a public promise a while back that if he could get even a one day "tax holiday" he could bring billions back into the US.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    What are the Republican and Democrat main political beliefs, goals, messages, policies, and motivations today? Who is best for the US today?
    Democrats want to help the poor and middle class, give everyone health insurance, and pay down Americas national debt.

    And republicans want things like this,

    Romney's Economic Plan Includes $6.6 Trillion Tax Cut For The Rich And Corporations | ThinkProgress


    And the democrats are best. When republicans give the rich trillions of dollars of tax cuts, the whole cost of the tax cuts gets added to our national debt. (And the rich only use that money to build US factories in Asia, and also buy themselves new private jet airplanes.)
    Last edited by chad; December 17th, 2013 at 11:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Doesn't matter which political party you support; both of them have qualities different people prefer. The problem is that the two parties do not compromise with one another and the average American has to suffer for it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Democrats want to help the poor and middle class, give everyone health insurance, and pay down Americas national debt.

    And republicans want this:
    From watching the two parties over the years:

    Democrats in general are for the rights of minorities (including gays and religious minorities) and women.
    Republicans in general are for the rights of white Christian males.

    Democrats generally want to raise taxes because they think that government products are worth what we pay for them.
    Republicans generally want to lower taxes because they think that government products are not worth it.

    Democrats generally want to spend more because of the above reason. Thus they end up spending more.
    Republicans generally want to spend less. However, they also end up spending more.

    Democrats trust government more; Republicans trust industry more.

    Democrats typically take a less interventionist approach to foreign policy. Republicans generally take a more aggressive stance (more wars.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Democrats want to help the poor and middle class, give everyone health insurance, and pay down Americas national debt.

    And republicans want this:
    From watching the two parties over the years:

    Democrats in general are for the rights of minorities (including gays and religious minorities) and women.
    Republicans in general are for the rights of white Christian males.

    Democrats generally want to raise taxes because they think that government products are worth what we pay for them.
    Republicans generally want to lower taxes because they think that government products are not worth it.

    Democrats generally want to spend more because of the above reason. Thus they end up spending more.
    Republicans generally want to spend less. However, they also end up spending more.

    Democrats trust government more; Republicans trust industry more.

    Democrats typically take a less interventionist approach to foreign policy. Republicans generally take a more aggressive stance (more wars.)
    Great post. But republicans spend more money in every way.

    Republicans add more money to our national debt than democrats do.
    http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...ental-Term.htm

    Republican presidents spend more money than democrat presidents.
    Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

    And republican congresses spend more money than democrat congresses.
    Chart of the Day: Republican vs. Democratic Spending | Mother Jones
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Great post. But republicans spend more money in every way.
    In general, republican legislatures (the people who really hold the purse strings) spend less than democrats - although both spend a lot.

    Are Republicans Bigger Spenders Than Democrats? - Forbes

    This shouldn't be news; democrats propose more spending, and more gets passed under them. However, the difference is tiny; from the article you posted "social spending over the last 40 years grows on average around 5% a year regardless of which political party is sitting in the majority." (BTW the article you referenced talks only about SOCIAL spending, not total spending - the Democrats still eke out a win as the big spenders from a total spending perspective.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Great post. But republicans spend more money in every way.
    In general, republican legislatures (the people who really hold the purse strings) spend less than democrats - although both spend a lot.

    Are Republicans Bigger Spenders Than Democrats? - Forbes

    This shouldn't be news; democrats propose more spending, and more gets passed under them. However, the difference is tiny; from the article you posted "social spending over the last 40 years grows on average around 5% a year regardless of which political party is sitting in the majority." (BTW the article you referenced talks only about SOCIAL spending, not total spending - the Democrats still eke out a win as the big spenders from a total spending perspective.)
    The problem with that article is it's only referring to a small fraction of the budget to begin with. It's actually much worse when non-discretionary spending is considered:
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Great post. But republicans spend more money in every way.
    In general, republican legislatures (the people who really hold the purse strings) spend less than democrats - although both spend a lot.

    Are Republicans Bigger Spenders Than Democrats? - Forbes

    This shouldn't be news; democrats propose more spending, and more gets passed under them. However, the difference is tiny; from the article you posted "social spending over the last 40 years grows on average around 5% a year regardless of which political party is sitting in the majority." (BTW the article you referenced talks only about SOCIAL spending, not total spending - the Democrats still eke out a win as the big spenders from a total spending perspective.)
    The conservative writers at your above "Forbes" source are known for publishing false and untrue information.

    Example #1,

    97% of climate scientists say "man made global warming is happening."
    Climate Change: Consensus

    And many climate scientists are very scared of possible disastrous effects from man made global warming.
    A Chilling Possibility - NASA Science


    But conservative writers at Forbes imply that man made global warming is not real (and that its a hoax), and they say the Earth is in no danger from man made global warming.
    Climate Change: 'Hoax' Or Crime Of The Century? - Forbes
    That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes



    Example #2,

    All respected economists say "tax cuts do not increase government revenues."
    Economists Agree: Tax Cuts Cost Revenue - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)
    Evidence Shows That Tax Cuts Lose Revenue — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


    But conservative writers at Forbes say "tax cuts increase government revenues."
    After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes


    With the way conservative writers at Forbes publish untrue and false information about science and economics, should we trust (any) conservative writer at Forbes?


    Here are some sources that do not publish false and untrue information about science and economics, and these sources say "republicans spend more money."

    Chart of the Day: Republican vs. Democratic Spending | Mother Jones
    Republicans Spend More Than Democrats On Social Programs | Care2 Causes
    Last edited by chad; December 18th, 2013 at 07:43 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    The conservative writers at your above "Forbes" source are known for publishing false and untrue information.

    Example #1,

    97% of climate scientists say "man made global warming is happening."
    Climate Change: Consensus

    And many climate scientists are very scared of possible disastrous effects from man made global warming.
    A Chilling Possibility - NASA Science


    But conservative writers at Forbes imply that man made global warming is not real (and that its a hoax), and they say the Earth is in no danger from man made global warming.
    Climate Change: 'Hoax' Or Crime Of The Century? - Forbes
    That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes
    Uh - you do understand that those are op-eds, which are not factual articles, right?

    I warned a conservative poster about "de-skewing" facts. Doesn't work well in the long run.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Going off the last Mother Jarth article:

    ""the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, and the poor...ethnic minorities, racial minorities, and single mothers." Republicans spend it indirectly on programs that "are biased towards workers who are White, full-time, in large companies, and high-wage earners." But spend it they do."

    While it rather easy to recognize programs that benifit the "
    disabled, the unemployed, and the poor"....

    Which ones benefit the "White, full-time, in large companies, and high-wage earners"?
    I dare say, given the generality and broad swipe of the Mother Jones article, that particular article seems like garbage.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I'm white, I'm male, I was raised protestant.
    I really do not see how any of our government's policies have benefited me in any way, shape, or form.
    If anything, the government's policies have reduced the once valued meritocracy to a sham, a fiction, and a shattered dream.
    While claiming to help minorities, the government's policies have created generations of people who are trapped in poverty, and created racial tensions where their claim was to diminish those tensions.

    The old phrase "vote with a bullet not a ballot, the only good politician is a dead politician" comes to mind.
    Even the claimed "liberals" were shying away from true health care reform, claiming that they just didn't have the votes.
    Another old phrase, "If you don't try, you create your own defeat".

    Politics is a sham that we trot out every 2-4 years pretending that our votes matter.

    (wow, that's a tad more negative than normal for me, maybe I'm coming down with something? or, it's the pain in my knee?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    While claiming to help minorities, the government's policies have created generations of people who are trapped in poverty, and created racial tensions where their claim was to diminish those tensions.
    A few weeks ago I watched a documentary series on JFK. I'd seen it before years ago, but there was one point which I hadn't remembered from then.

    The commentary from one person (can't remember who it was) about JFK's insistence on civil rights and the consequences of getting those rights into legislation was fascinating. He pointed out that when the USA's black population was excluded from participation in the larger economy, they set up a parallel economy. So even though the majority of the black population were suffering badly, there was a small but significant middle class of entrepreneurs and small banks and the like. Once the barriers to the larger economy started to come down, the shops and workshops and factories and banks which had previously served an exclusively black clientele more or less faded away.

    So you finished up with fewer opportunities for African Americans to make good in business because they were not welcomed with open arms into white businesses but they had lost their foothold in their own communities. That's a clumsy way to convey what he was getting at, but I thought it was an interesting counterpoint - that access to white owned and run businesses and facilities was not an unalloyed good.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I'm white, I'm male, I was raised protestant.
    I really do not see how any of our government's policies have benefited me in any way, shape, or form.
    I'm white, male, raised catholic. I've gotten a lot of benefit.

    I benefited from public schools when I was young. Once I was out of college I benefited from public roads (driving and shipping) public airspace (learned to fly) and public utilities (power, water etc.) In my professional life I benefited from the FCC (frequency allocation) the patent office (patents of course) and NASA (one of our satellite launches.)

    If anything, the government's policies have reduced the once valued meritocracy to a sham, a fiction, and a shattered dream.
    I don't think we ever had a meritocracy. The ideal of the founders of the country were working men (and later women) running the country - taking a few years off from running their business, serving in government, then going back to work. The ideal was never lifetime politicians or leaders chosen on some objective merits.

    While claiming to help minorities, the government's policies have created generations of people who are trapped in poverty
    I think PEOPLE have created generations trapped in poverty. The US did not invent poverty, nor did it invent the concept of generations who perpetuate that poverty. The government did create that - nor can they fix that. At best they can help the poor a bit.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    thanx dad
    i wuz gettin a tad rad there
    nice to hear a voice of reason
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I'm white, I'm male, I was raised protestant.
    I really do not see how any of our government's policies have benefited me in any way, shape, or form.
    I'm white, male, raised catholic. I've gotten a lot of benefit.
    Similar. Half Euro-Ancestry, about half Native American. Raised Catholic.

    Semi-effective public school, safe town with competent law enforcement, Federal loans and grant through undergraduate school, PA State money to save my young bride from cervical cancer, Navy research grants paid for graduate school, and of course robust infrastructure that allowed extensive travel and living in multiple state unobstructed by corruption.

    If anything, the government's policies have reduced the once valued meritocracy to a sham, a fiction, and a shattered dream.
    Think that's largely a myth and comparing to a past that never was nearly as good as we tend to think it was.

    I don't think we ever had a meritocracy. The ideal of the founders of the country were working men (and later women) running the country -
    Another myth. The founding fathers were predominantly British aristocracy or from powerful and wealthy families--including the wealthiest person, George Washington.
    They did not wire the working vote into political elections at all and even to this day there's no federal requirements for electoral votes to mimic popular voting. And arguably the hardest working class of all--that of slaves, were deliberately devalued so it didn't give proportional electoral voting power to the Southern States.

    The ideal was never lifetime politicians or leaders chosen on some objective merits.
    Not true either...there were no term limits either. The presidency developed an early tradition of stepping down after a few terms...Congressmen remained for generations--as they do now.


    I think PEOPLE have created generations trapped in poverty. The US did not invent poverty, nor did it invent the concept of generations who perpetuate that poverty. The government did create that - nor can they fix that. At best they can help the poor a bit.
    In large part I agree, though I think the government (at all levels) can do better than help a "bit'.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    The conservative writers at your above "Forbes" source are known for publishing false and untrue information.

    Example #1,

    97% of climate scientists say "man made global warming is happening."
    Climate Change: Consensus

    And many climate scientists are very scared of possible disastrous effects from man made global warming.
    A Chilling Possibility - NASA Science


    But conservative writers at Forbes imply that man made global warming is not real (and that its a hoax), and they say the Earth is in no danger from man made global warming.
    Climate Change: 'Hoax' Or Crime Of The Century? - Forbes
    That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes
    Uh - you do understand that those are op-eds, which are not factual articles, right?

    I warned a conservative poster about "de-skewing" facts. Doesn't work well in the long run.
    I was only trying to discredit your sources, and I was expecting you to post other sources showing your point. But perhaps my debating style was inappropriate, and I (sincerely) apologize if I was rude in my previous post.

    But with loss of revenues from republican "supply side tax cuts" and republican military spending, I just find it hard to believe that republican congresses spend less money than democrat congresses.

    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    But with loss of revenues from republican "supply side tax cuts" and republican military spending, I just find it hard to believe that republican congresses spend less money than democrat congresses.
    I think the biggest problem with this issue - and the same thing happens in Australia and Britain - is that the Brit Tories/ US Republicans/ Oz Liberals are very resistant to the idea that the concessions and benefits they grant to middle and high income earners (and holders of assets), along with associated tax cuts, should be counted as expenditures from the public purse.
    chad likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But with loss of revenues from republican "supply side tax cuts" and republican military spending, I just find it hard to believe that republican congresses spend less money than democrat congresses.
    Oh, OK. If your point is that overall deficits increase under republican legislatures I definitely agree. In general republicans pursue tax cuts; democrats pursue tax increases. Their spending increase goals are quite similar in terms of amount, with democrats taking a slight edge. (This is due primarily to the shape of the budget; social spending, which democrats tend to increase, makes up more than 50% of our budget, while military spending, a favorite of republicans, makes up about 20%.) However, overall deficits tend to increase under republicans due to the above two factors, even correcting for the effects of natural economic cycles on income and spending.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    If the federal reserve is buying up most of our government bonds(debt) by printing more money, then does the deficit or debt have any real meaning?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If the federal reserve is buying up most of our government bonds(debt) by printing more money, then does the deficit or debt have any real meaning
    Well whilst ever the government can manage to keep the exchange rates favourable, no wild swings either way, then any newly printed money, especially being used to buy up bonds and thus giving the government more spending power can be either used for internal investment, paying down debt, external asset acquisition or exchanging for foreign currency reserves.

    It's like an all you can eat buffet only with money, you can have as much as you want, which if you could only use this in the internal economy would be a problem, since the goods and services on which to spend it would remain at the same rate/amount/supply ect..., they haven't increased at all, but the money supply has thus you have a quick recipe for inflation. This being said of course since the dollar is tradable against other currencies, you can use it to buy in foreign goods and services and pay off debts owed to foreign countries by printing as much as you want and buying the bonds to give the government the spending power to do so.

    So yes in that sense you can actually pay off real debts by creating money out of thin air, you do however run the risk of reaching a tipping point, where if you really push it to far and create to much money then the markets and most noticeably foreign currency trading might see a huge reaction and a devaluing of the currency. This would mean a real terms hit in the pocket of anyone with savings or assets in the dollar currency.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2013, 09:11 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 19th, 2012, 02:36 AM
  3. Political predictions?
    By 15uliane in forum Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 8th, 2011, 01:53 AM
  4. Political Correctness Is Often Taken Too Far...
    By dr.syntax in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 27th, 2009, 07:35 AM
  5. Thanx for today, I had some fun today
    By LeavingQuietly in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 21st, 2007, 12:56 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •