2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427648]I don't think the two sides really have different positions on Syria, although they claim to.[/quote]Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you but, where has anyone from Team Obama articulated a strategy for Syria?

[quote]And agree that Syria and Libya aren't big issues[/quote]I agree and I disagree. The civil wars in Libya and Syria are one thing. Don't forget, Obama got us involved in the Libyan civil war. However, where I disagree is with regard to Benghazi, which is something completely different. Libya, as it relates to Obama's failure to protect the diplomatic detail and secure the facility (particularly the intelligence) , post attack and the subsequent cover up should be dealt with by Congress. Obama, Clinton and Rice should all be out of a job for what appears to have transpired. I hope that folks in the Congress will have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing.

[quote=]compared to the economic ones, and defense should be cut.[/QUOTE]I am on the fence on cutting defense. It isn't that there isn't room to cut so much as it is that when politicians cut defense they tend to do a piss-poor job. Regardless, Obama is the last person who should be entrusted with out military, let alone cutting it. The only DOD Obama loves is his dereliction of duty.

The president, 50% of the House members, 60% of senators, and a majority of Supreme Court Justices must agree with legislation. Not an easy thing.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427657]II think it was Tiny who said gridlock is good and under our political system, the chief executive can't just simply implement his program (then it would be Argentina). What truly memorable achievements did Bush II have? Clinton? Bush I? Do you see a pattern here?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427657]I am curious as to whether you have read Marx. I haven't heard anything from Obama about workers receiving the full marginal product of their labor,[/quote]Isn't that what he's talking about with Joe the Plumber, backing the Occupy movement and "making sure everyone gets their fair share?" How else should one interpret those (amongst many similar) data points?

[quote=]owning the means of production, or inevitably revolting.[/quote]You missed the part about fundamentally transforming America. I thought Obama was the only thing between republicans and the masses with pitchforks and torches. Sun Tzu meets 21st century Marxist, the threat of revolt has been trotted out many times by this lot of malcontents. Buses of rabble-rousers going to the private homes of AIG executives? Long-term, illegal occupation of private property (Occupy)? You don't see a revolutionary nature of this community organizer?

[quote=]He has some socialist leanings but not Marxist leanings.[/quote]You say tomato, I say Marxist.

[quote=]Who has Marxist leanings any more anyway?[/quote]Obama.

[quote=]Shit's been discredited.[/quote]Not from where I am sitting.

[quote=]Passing a national health care law is a major achievement, regardless of whether one is for or against the law.[/quote]That is what Hitler said. Of course, before long, being against his policies could turn out to be fatal.

[quote=]I'm not even sure whether I am for or against it, but it's a memorable achievement. I think it was Tiny who said gridlock is good and under our political system,[/quote]I have said that in that past, especially when discussing profligate spenders in the Oval Office (I wish we had some spending gridlock during the Bush years).

[quote=]the chief executive can't just simply implement his program[/quote]When the chief executive's program is bad for the country, I am perfectly comfortable with my representatives doing all that they can to prevent him from implementing it.

[quote=](then it would be Argentina).[/quote]I would agree, to some extent. However, Argentina is the version in which more than 50% of the populace are dependent upon government largess, in one form or another (in one form or another, not necessarily for subsistence).

[quote=]What truly memorable achievements did Bush II have?[/quote]

Kept us safe, post 9-11. Tax cuts. Spending way too much.

[quote=]Clinton?[/quote]He had a Republican congress that gave him his biggest accomplishments.

[quote=]Bush I?[/quote]We read his lips, oops.

[quote=]Do you see a pattern here?[/QUOTE]Yes. We should not elect presidents who will spend too much or increase taxes.

Please see the photo attached to post #1520. That book has been in my possession since the Spring of 1984.

[url]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Administration/page152[/url]

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;427661]The president, 50% of the House members, 60% of senators, and a majority of Supreme Court Justices must agree with legislation. Not an easy thing.[/QUOTE]In the absence of a fiscally conservative president, Senate and House, gridlock is good.

You have proven to my satisfaction that you don't know the difference between socialism and communism."Fair share" is a socialist concept. Marx would reject it out of hand (you haven't read him) because "fair" is nowhere near the same concept as "marginal product." Maybe you were sick that day but a guy with an econ degree who hasn't read Marx does leave a bit to be desired.

"Implementation" of the programs are done by the federal bureaucracy, and the president, chief executive, is the boss. Nobody can stop implementation of the programs, except Judicial Review by the supreme court or a successful lawsuit by a third party. Your "representative" (should be singular) and senators of your state are in the legislative branch. Their power is only for passing or rejecting legislative agendas, subject to presidential veto. They can't stop implementation by the executive branch.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 427662]When the chief executive's program is bad for the country, I am perfectly comfortable with my representatives doing all that they can to prevent him from implementing it.

][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427664]You have proven to my satisfaction that you don't know the difference between socialism and communism."Fair share" is a socialist concept. Marx would reject it out of hand (you haven't read him) because "fair" is nowhere near the same concept as "marginal product." Maybe you were sick that day but a guy with an econ degree who hasn't read Marx does leave a bit to be desired.[/QUOTE]I'm not trying to start an argument, I respect both you and Walleye. The little bit of educational background in economics that I have is mostly in project economics. I did have a Marxist government professor, in one of the four liberal arts classes I took, and understand at one time Marxist professors were very common and even dominated some University programs in economics and political science. Even 30 years ago, given the examples of East Germany and West Germany, North Korea and South Korea, etc, it should have been thoroughly discredited. Why would they bother to teach it at universities? And how did Marxist professors manage to get tenure? Do they still teach it, outside of history classes?

Btw, I'm not sure whether the students in my government class were sucking up to the professor or whether they really believed the B.S., but there were quite a few that appeared to be fellow travelers. I was tempted to fake it, some of the revolutionary women were hot, although they had hairy armpits.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427664]You have proven to my satisfaction that you don't know the difference between socialism and communism."Fair share" is a socialist concept. Marx would reject it out of hand (you haven't read him) because "fair" is nowhere near the same concept as "marginal product." Maybe you were sick that day but a guy with an econ degree who hasn't read Marx does leave a bit to be desired.[/QUOTE]Good thing I'm not too concerned what you think. Would you really expect a Marxist with the dumb luck to get elected president of the USA to come right out and say what he is? All of those things are toes in the water, mere tips of the iceberg.

I picked up a degree in economics in '87 from a fairly well-known program. Had many Keynesian professors, some were ardent believers in Keynes, others were just masquerading Marxists. I wrote a thesis on environmental economics and another on the economics of labor (as in organized labor) so, my exposure is not purely what you might want to label as right-wing. Even without that background, I am pretty sure that I could spot a Marxist, when I see one. I guess my performance in econ was good enough since it played a decent role in getting into a top be-school. I partied a lot but, I didn't miss many classes.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;427668]Would you really expect a Marxist with the dumb luck to get elected president of the USA to come right out and say what he is? All of those things are toes in the water, mere tips of the iceberg.[/QUOTE]One thing is indisputable, he has grown the size of federal government so that it's 24% of GDP. Combined with state and local government, which unlike the federal government actually provide significant useful services, government expenditures are 41% of GDP. Add what we spend on excess regulation, filling out tax forms, etc., and you're probably over 45%. That's too much.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427667]Even 30 years ago, given the examples of East Germany and West Germany, North Korea and South Korea, etc, it should have been thoroughly discredited. Why would they bother to teach it at universities? And how did Marxist professors manage to get tenure?[/quote]During my studies, I'd say the question is "how many teachers that get tenure are not Marxists?"

[quote=]Do they still teach it, outside of history classes?[/quote]Yes. It is of great importance to understand Marxism and the abject and perpetual failure of the command economy. The memory of the American public is pretty short, after all, they elected Obama a relatively short time after selecting Jimmy Carter. Know thy enemy.

[quote=]Btw, I'm not sure whether the students in my government class were sucking up to the professor or whether they really believed the B.S., but there were quite a few that appeared to be fellow travelers.[/quote]Most students are dumber than a bag of rocks and soft-minded, even the smart ones. They are very susceptible to the influences of college professors, whom they expect to possesses infinite, unimpeachable knowledge. They are primed for indoctrination and before too long, you can't get through to them (Esten, Member [whatever his number is] and Dickhead). It doesn't make them bad people, some of my best friends are hopeless liberals.

[quote=]I was tempted to fake it, some of the revolutionary women were hot, although they had hairy armpits.[/QUOTE]One term, I had the brilliant idea to follow that line of thought (I. E. Chase tail via class selection). So I picked "The Politics of Language." What a f*cking train wreck. First class, the professor (diesel dike) lays out the premise of the class: men are the bane of all political discourse. Right or wrong, I dropped that class like a hot stone.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Obama is doing to us what we did to the Soviet Union, to end the cold war. We forced them to collapse under the weight of their own spending. If our economy doesn't grow at an average of at least 7. 5, every year into perpetuity, we will collapse under the weight of our own spending (don't forget the trillions of unfunded liabilities that don't get included in the debt numbers).

It is indeed important to study failed economic strategies. Not just communism but mercantilism and bullionism, to name a couple. I am not a liberal but a moderate (I must be since conservatives accuse me of being liberal and liberals accuse me of being conservative), so I study both sides. Politics is not a main interest for me; I look at it as a branch of economics and a sub-set of the study of history. To quote Santayana, those who don't understand history are condemned to repeat it. Studying failure is to avoid it. When Álvaro Obregón was figuring out how to defeat Pancho Villa, he studied the battles that had recently taken place in Europe. He looked at both the ineffective techniques and the effective techniques before he came up with his barbed wire strategy, a new strategy he would have been unlikely to develop had he not studied both successful and unsuccessful cavalry charges. I am of the opinion that much of life is guerrilla warfare and so you have to study both what you believe in and what you don't believe in. To the extent the US can get away from liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican and start studying what has and HAS NOT worked in the past, everyone will be better off. For example, how about a bi-partisan, empirical Congressional study about what increases or decreases in individual tax rates does to the economy, similar to what I posted about the corporate tax rate? Politics is so polarizing for many people (but not for me because I will just concentrate on beating whatever system is in place), it's hard to get people to shut up and look at empirical research. And, there is a lot of shit research out there.

But the concept of not studying something because it is a proven failure is not a good one. We must understand how and why these things fail. Why did the 'Great Leap Forward' fail? Lack of understanding of the economic concepts of economies of scale and the learning curve, among other factors. Why did the Spanish empire decline? Bullionism and protectionism, among other factors. Why do governments continue to use tariffs when they have conclusively been proven to decrease world-wide wealth and would thus perhaps appear to be failures? Because they can benefit one party at the (greater) expense of another. If no one had studied why the early attempts at building the Panamá Canal failed, the successful undertaking would have been impossible.

Failure is very instructive. Even with chicas.

[QUOTE=Dickhead; 427677]It is indeed important to study failed economic strategies. Not just communism but mercantilism and bullionism, to name a couple. I am not a liberal but a moderate (I must be since conservatives accuse me of being liberal and liberals accuse me of being conservative) , so I study both sides. Politics is not a main interest for me; I look at it as a branch of economics and a sub-set of the study of history. To quote Santayana, those who don't understand history are condemned to repeat it. Studying failure is to avoid it. When Álvaro Obregóand was figuring out how to defeat Villa, he studied the battles that had recently taken place. He looked at both the ineffective techniques and the effective techniques before he came up with his barbed wire strategy. I am of the opinion that much of life is guerrilla warfare and so you have to study both what you believe in and what you don't believe in. To the extent the US can get away from liberal vs. Conservative, Democrat vs. Republican and start studying what has and HAS NOT worked in the past, everyone will be better off. For example, how about a bi-partisan, empirical Congressional study about what increases or decreases in individual tax rates does to the economy, similar to what I posted about the corporate tax rate? Politics is so polarizing for many people (but not for me because I will just concentrate on beating whatever system is in place) , it's hard to get people to shut up and look at empirical research. And, there is a lot of shit research out there.

But the concept of not studying something because it is a proven failure is not a good one. We must understand how and why these things fail. Why did the 'Great Leap Forward' fail? Lack of understanding of the economic concepts of economies of scale and the learning curve, among other factors. Why did the Spanish empire decline? Bullionism and protectionism, among other factors. Why do governments continue to use tariffs when they have conclusively been proven to decrease world-wide wealth and would thus perhaps appear to be failures? Because they can benefit one party at the (greater) expense of another. If no one had studied why the early attempts at building the Panamá Canal failed, the successful undertaking would have been impossible.

Failure is very instructive. Even with chicas.[/QUOTE]
Dickhead is correct - one must learn from tragic mistakes to avoid repeating them, and it's fascinating to see someone like Tiny12 advocate wanton ignorance about such things as communism. Of course, we see that those who advocate ignorance about what they disagree with tend to be ignorant about a whole lot of stuff, as apparently, this makes it easier to regurgitate talking points without worrying if they have any actual merits to them, rather than soothe their need for simplistic answers to complex questions and problems.

It's most amusing that our Republican friends are very quick to note - Correctly, I might add - that communist policies have failed in the past, but they are unwilling or unable to do the same with their own favorite dogma, I. E. That tax cuts for the wealthy as a means of stimulating economic opportunity for the middle and poorer classes do not in fact work, but rather, simply contribute to the overall inequality of wealth. I've posted this study before, but none of our conservative friends on this forum was either willing or capable of addressing it's substance:

[url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf[/url]

I do feel compelled to note that Mitt Romney has been endorsed by that well known deep thinker with concern over how to best reinvigorate the middle class, with a compelling track record of learning from her mistakes, one Lindsay Lohan

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427677]Failure is very instructive. Even with chicas.[/QUOTE]Sometimes, failure is more instructive than success.

Success is just delayed failure. Ask the trickle-down advocates. Or Tiger Woods.