Printable View
[QUOTE=Esten; 427602]Translation:
[i]Wahhhhhhhh. Biden won and I'm a sore loser. I can't refute that Biden repeatedly exposed Ryan's weak and dishonest talking points. So I'll just complain about his style. [/i][/QUOTE]I am just wondering who looks more ridiculous now, Biden or Esten.
[QUOTE=Member #2041;427559]Actually, It is entirely appropriate to be rude when calling someone out for lying to the American People.[/quote]I strongly disagree, being rude in a debate format is just wrong, make your case and let it stand or fall based on its merits. If everyone acted like Biden, debates would become uncontrolled screaming matches.
[i]'Unfortunately his patronizing arrogance mirrors that of many (not all) in the Democrat party today.'[/i] If the shoe fits my friend.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;427609]'While I may come off as a fire-breathing right-winger, I am not. I believe in the US and I believe in the founding documents and the intentions of the founders. I do not believe that those values are irrelevant, today. I don't accept disinformation or dissembling from our govt, regardless of who is in power.[snip][/QUOTE][B][size=+2]Hear Hear! [/size][/B]
[QUOTE=Esten; 427602]Translation:
[i]Wahhhhhhhh. Biden won and I'm a sore loser. I can't refute that Biden repeatedly exposed Ryan's weak and dishonest talking points. So I'll just complain about his style. [/i][/QUOTE]Translation:
[i]Wahhhhhhhh. I can't really defend Biden's rude and crude behavior so I'll just do like I've done so many times before and try to 'kill the messenger'. [/i]
[QUOTE=Punter 127; 427617]I strongly disagree, being rude in a debate format is just wrong, make your case and let it stand or fall based on its merits. If everyone acted like Biden, debates would become uncontrolled screaming matches.
[i]'Unfortunately his patronizing arrogance mirrors that of many (not all) in the Democrat party today. '[/i] If the shoe fits my friend.[/QUOTE]That's your opinion only. One that has exactly as much merit as mine. Every voter gets exactly one. Frankly, I consider the problem is that there is not enough aggressive calling out of lying in these debates and discussions. And as a result, the lies have become a far greater portion of discourse than they ever have been before, because the perpetrators are not being called out for it in the strongest possible manner.
This is a tough election for me. Even if I think that Romney's policies are better for the economy, I am the minority in that I have done exceptionally well under Obama's policies. If you compare 4 years of Obama to 8 years of Bush, I have far superior performance. Under both administrations, I will receive a tax hike. In any revenue neutral tax policy change as Romney is proposing there will be winners and losers. In the Reagan tax example that Ryan pointed to in the debate, my taxes were raised because I was using a preference that was eliminated.
Actually agree with Obama that Defense should be on the table for budget purposes. For example, I do not think reducing the number of ships in the Navy from 330 to 300 will weaken US image in the world as Romney proposes.
I thought that Ryan's view on Syria were naive. 30, 000 dead in a civil war are not that many. In America's Revolutionary war, there were 25, 000 dead according to Wikipedia. In US Civil war there are estimates of 750, 000 combat deaths alone. I listen to NPR which I know is anathema to most of you but NPR regularly reports that Americans are on the ground in Syria distributing weapons to the rebels.
All Presidents in my lifetime have had incidents similar to Liberia. If we would have reinforced the embassy, there would have been 25 dead Americans instead of 4. Here is a list of embassy attacks. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions[/url] I doubt Republicans will be able to prevent them in the future. It is a very high standard Romney is setting for himself. One prediction. Issa will not hold a congressional hearing when an embassy attack occurs under Romney.
[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 427637]This is a tough election for me. Even if I think that Romney's policies are better for the economy, I am the minority in that I have done exceptionally well under Obama's policies. If you compare 4 years of Obama to 8 years of Bush, I have far superior performance. Under both administrations, I will receive a tax hike. In any revenue neutral tax policy change as Romney is proposing there will be winners and losers. In the Reagan tax example that Ryan pointed to in the debate, my taxes were raised because I was using a preference that was eliminated.
Actually agree with Obama that Defense should be on the table for budget purposes. For example, I do not think reducing the number of ships in the Navy from 330 to 300 will weaken US image in the world as Romney proposes.
I thought that Ryan's view on Syria were naive. 30, 000 dead in a civil war are not that many. In America's Revolutionary war, there were 25, 000 dead according to Wikipedia. In US Civil war there are estimates of 750, 000 combat deaths alone. I listen to NPR which I know is anathema to most of you but NPR regularly reports that Americans are on the ground in Syria distributing weapons to the rebels.
All Presidents in my lifetime have had incidents similar to Liberia. If we would have reinforced the embassy, there would have been 25 dead Americans instead of 4. Here is a list of embassy attacks.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions[/url]
I doubt Republicans will be able to prevent them in the future. It is a very high standard Romney is setting for himself. One prediction. Issa will not hold a congressional hearing when an embassy attack occurs under Romney.[/QUOTE]Big Boss Man, I hope that you realize that there is no place for a reasonable viewpoint in the center here. Don't you realize that it's not sufficient to argue that Obama may simply have had some policy and execution failings, but rather, you must demonize him as a Marxist who does not hold core American values? But my compliments for using a word such as "anathema" which will either blow right by the righties who dominate this board, or send them scurrying to the dictionary if they actually want to know what you said (admittedly doubtful).
Paul Ryan is an articulate and intelligent guy. But whether he is honest is an entirely separate question. A few points from the debate.
1. Ryan has panned the Stimulus over and over. But we learn he wrote the DOE several letters, requesting Stimulus funds for Wisconsin businesses. Ryan claimed the Stimulus funds would create growth and jobs, and help promote green energy.
2. Ryan portrayed stimulus spending as full of cronyism. But we learn an investigation found no evidence of cronyism.
3. Ryan says we are putting American soldiers at risk in Afghanistan by leaving fewer and fewer of them in dangerous places. But we learn American soldiers are being replaced one-for-one by Afghan soldiers, who are being trained to provide security in parallel with the US drawdown of troops.
4. Ryan says he wants to protect small businesses. But we learn that the segment of small business he wants to help (beyond Obama's plan) includes Wall Street hedge funds.
5. Ryan says 'Obamacare' takes $716 billion from Medicare. Without explaining the details, there is a clear implication this will hit seniors. But we learn in fact this doesn't affect benefits, it's a reduction in future overpayments to insurance companies (some call it waste). And it extends Medicare to 2024 and helps close the prescription drug donut hole - both good for current and future seniors.
That's just five. People can judge what Ryan's motive is in what he said and what he didn't say. Romney / Ryan also continue to be vague on their alternate plans for taxes and healthcare. Trust us, we have a plan. And they profess to want to work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner, even though congressional Republicans have had a deliberate strategy of obstruction since Obama took office !
Ryan was all about rehearsed talking points. Biden crushed Ryan's attempts at deception.
I expect more of the same next week.
[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;427637]30, 000 dead in a civil war are not that many.[/QUOTE]México lost one-eighth of its population during their (second) revolution, about two [B]million[/B] people.
He didn't sound intelligent at all.
[QUOTE=Esten;427640]Paul Ryan is an articulate and intelligent guy.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Esten; 427640]Paul Ryan is an articulate and intelligent guy. But whether he is honest is an entirely separate question. A few points from the debate.
1. Ryan has panned the Stimulus over and over. But we learn he wrote the DOE several letters, requesting Stimulus funds for Wisconsin businesses. Ryan claimed the Stimulus funds would create growth and jobs, and help promote green energy.
2. Ryan portrayed stimulus spending as full of cronyism. But we learn an investigation found no evidence of cronyism.
3. Ryan says we are putting American soldiers at risk in Afghanistan by leaving fewer and fewer of them in dangerous places. But we learn American soldiers are being replaced one-for-one by Afghan soldiers, who are being trained to provide security in parallel with the US drawdown of troops.
4. Ryan says he wants to protect small businesses. But we learn that the segment of small business he wants to help (beyond Obama's plan) includes Wall Street hedge funds.
5. Ryan says 'Obamacare' takes $716 billion from Medicare. Without explaining the details, there is a clear implication this will hit seniors. But we learn in fact this doesn't affect benefits, it's a reduction in future overpayments to insurance companies (some call it waste). And it extends Medicare to 2024 and helps close the prescription drug donut hole. Both good for current and future seniors.
That's just five. People can judge what Ryan's motive is in what he said and what he didn't say. Romney / Ryan also continue to be vague on their alternate plans for taxes and healthcare. Trust us, we have a plan. And they profess to want to work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner, even though congressional Republicans have had a deliberate strategy of obstruction since Obama took office!
Ryan was all about rehearsed talking points. Biden crushed Ryan's attempts at deception.
I expect more of the same next week.[/QUOTE]For some reason Democrats believe they're always truthful and the other side is not. Here's a list of Biden's "untruths" during the debate from a conservative web site:
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/12/Fact-Check-Top-Ten-Worst-Lies-by-Joe-Biden-in-VP-Debate[/url]
I'd add to it the $5 trillion in tax cuts that Biden and Obama keep mentioning.
On your list,"1" and "2" sound like business as usual in Washington. All Congressmen except Ron Paul seek pork for their districts. Ryan is probably less aggressive than most. Undoubtedly cronyism played a part in the stimulus. Look at Solyndra, or the United Auto Workers.
Item "3" doesn't sound reasonable to me. From what I've read, mostly in a liberal publication (the New Yorker) , Afgan troops aren't competent. When they're involved in joint operations, they put our troops in danger. They're not well armed or well trained. While I'm to the left of you and just about everyone else on this board when it comes to keeping American troops overseas, Ryan was right.
Item "4", about the hedge funds, is true solely because hedge fund management companies are small businesses. So if Ryan protects small business then theoretically he protects hedge funds because they're small businesses? I maintain (and you'd disagree) that Romney and Ryan stand a better change of eliminating carried interest for hedge fund managers than Obama. At least Obama didn't do it when he had a majority in the house and 60 votes in the Senate. (Apologies Walleye)
Item "5" I don't know enough about to offer an opinion.
I commend you for not calling him a liar. That's getting really common, and the accusations are coming a lot more from the left than the right, although there are some conservatives doing it, like the writer on Breitbart's site.
[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;427637]This is a tough election for me. Even if I think that Romney's policies are better for the economy, I am the minority in that I have done exceptionally well under Obama's policies. If you compare 4 years of Obama to 8 years of Bush, I have far superior performance. Under both administrations, I will receive a tax hike. In any revenue neutral tax policy change as Romney is proposing there will be winners and losers. In the Reagan tax example that Ryan pointed to in the debate, my taxes were raised because I was using a preference that was eliminated.[/QUOTE]Good post, thanks. I did well under Clinton and have done well under Obama too. In Clinton's case, it was partly because he did a good job with the economy, balancing the budget among other things. The only big thing that he did wrong was raise taxes on ordinary income. He cut them on capital gains. In Obama's case, it's sheer coincidence. And if not for Republicans in the Senate and House he would have screwed me over. Romney would do a better job with the economy. Obama, however, might make more sense for older people who don't mind burdening the young and future generations with debt they can't repay.
I don't think the two sides really have different positions on Syria, although they claim to. And agree that Syria and Libya aren't big issues compared to the economic ones, and defense should be cut.
[QUOTE=Member #2041;427639]Big Boss Man, I hope that you realize that there is no place for a reasonable viewpoint in the center here.[/quote]How would you know that?
[quote=]Don't you realize that it's not sufficient to argue that Obama may simply have had some policy and execution failings, but rather, you must demonize him as a Marxist who does not hold core American values?[/quote]I'm still waiting for one of you lefties to list a few of his successes (I. E. The kind that more than just hardcore leftists consider to be successful). I did not demonize him as a Marxist, I accurately identified him as a Marxist because that is what he is. Wait, that is probably racist, you know, to truthfully identify what Obama is, as opposed to accepting what we are told he is.
[quote=]But my compliments for using a word such as "anathema" which will either blow right by the righties who dominate this board, or send them scurrying to the dictionary if they actually want to know what you said (admittedly doubtful).[/QUOTE]Please feel free to use the search function containing "wild walleye anathema" and see what you come up with.
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, owning the means of production, or inevitably revolting. He has some socialist leanings but not Marxist leanings. Who has Marxist leanings any more anyway? Shit's been discredited. Passing a national health care law is a major achievement, regardless of whether one is for or against the law. 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, 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=Esten; 427640]Paul Ryan is an articulate and intelligent guy. But whether he is honest is an entirely separate question. A few points from the debate.
1. Ryan has panned the Stimulus over and over. But we learn he wrote the DOE several letters, requesting Stimulus funds for Wisconsin businesses. Ryan claimed the Stimulus funds would create growth and jobs, and help promote green energy.[/QUOTE]Extreme and unaware of the realities that are the US Congress. Ryan is an elected representative of the State of Wisconsin and is serving both his state and his country. In his role representing the former, he needs to promote the interests of his constituents. Just because Obama, Pelosi and Reid made a $1T slush fund, deliberately excluding republicans, doesn't absolve him of his responsibilities to his constituents. However, I agree with Ryan, we would have been better off without the profligate spending.
[quote=]2. Ryan portrayed stimulus spending as full of cronyism. But we learn an investigation found no evidence of cronyism.[/quote]There really is no hope for you, is there? Solyndra, Fisker, Lightsquared, any of this ringing any bells?
[quote=]3. Ryan says we are putting American soldiers at risk in Afghanistan by leaving fewer and fewer of them in dangerous places. But we learn American soldiers are being replaced one-for-one by Afghan soldiers, who are being trained to provide security in parallel with the US drawdown of troops.[/quote]Ever heard of "blue on green?"
[quote=]4. Ryan says he wants to protect small businesses. But we learn that the segment of small business he wants to help (beyond Obama's plan) includes Wall Street hedge funds.[/quote]You believe that to be true because Joe said it during the interruption fest? Please show me where the plan targets that type of small business.
[quote=]5. Ryan says 'Obamacare' takes $716 billion from Medicare. Without explaining the details, there is a clear implication this will hit seniors.[/quote]Will you pick that same bone with the OMB, the source of the $716B number?
[quote=]But we learn in fact this doesn't affect benefits, it's a reduction in future overpayments to insurance companies (some call it waste).[/quote]Do you honestly believe that Medicaid overpays anyone to the tune of $716B, in the absence of fraud? Please, you can call a flaming pile of sh*t an overpayment, that doesn't make it one.
[quote=]And it extends Medicare to 2024 and helps close the prescription drug donut hole - both good for current and future seniors.[/quote]You mean taking the money away from those programs is good for seniors?
[quote=]That's just five.[/quote]You count like a liberal, too. That is zero.
[quote=]People can judge what Ryan's motive is in what he said and what he didn't say.[/quote]I have judged that his motive is to help save America from a Marxist ideologue who is doing his best to destroy the country. I don't think that I am the only one to draw that conclusion.
[quote=]Romney / Ryan also continue to be vague on their alternate plans for taxes and healthcare. Trust us, we have a plan.[/quote]No successful presidential candidacy gets too deep into the details of their plan. To do so is to open your self up to a wider variety of attacks. Why should Romney and Ryan do something Obama didn't due in the previous presidential race? Sh*t, Obama has been president for more than 3. 5 years and he can't give any details.
[quote=]And they profess to want to work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner, even though congressional Republicans have had a deliberate strategy of obstruction since Obama took office ![/quote]Why the false argument about Republican obstructionism? Did you miss the first two years (24 months, on some calendars) of the Obama administration? Please. The only thing that has kept Obama's increase in the national debt to 50% has been that for the last 21 months, there have been a few grown ups in the House. If it weren't for the Tea Party, Obama would have rung up $10T in national debt as opposed to his $5T.
[quote=]Ryan was all about rehearsed talking points. Biden crushed Ryan's attempts at deception.[/quote]We must have been watching two different debates. In the one I was watching, there was a respectful, competent individual, familiar with all of the issues, trying to squeeze a word in edgewise between the 84 interruptions from the buffoon next to him and a handful more from the moderator, who was clearly trying to prevent him from making his case. Despite the bizarre behavior of the vice president and the predictable behavior of the moderator, Ryan was a class act from the beginning to the end. I would have wanted to vault the table and beat old Joe with a chair (a sentiment shared by millions and millions of viewers, who oddly seem to be leaving the Obama / Biden ticket).
[quote=]I expect more of the same next week.[/QUOTE]I expect that no matter what happens in the debate, you will claim the Obama won, Romney was just putting out well rehearsed talking points and that Romney didn't want to be there, he would rather have been out giving some steel worker's wife cancer.
You're a broken record. Unfortunately, the recording is of fingernails on a chalkboard.
[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.
[QUOTE=Member #2041;427681]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.[/quote]I doubt that was Tiny's point.
[quote=]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.[/quote]The day you can articulate conservatism will be the day I can part the Red Sea.
[quote=]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.[/quote]For the record, I am not a Republican, I am a conservative. The legendary right-winger John F. Kennedy proved you wrong.
[quote=]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][/quote]Zzzzzzzzzzz.
[quote=]I do feel compelled to note that Mitt Romney has been endorsed by that well known deep thinker with concern over how to benefit the middle class, one Lindsay Lohan[/QUOTE]You think that is more egregious than the scores of embarrassing statements and instances of abject ignorance displayed by Obama and his minions?
[QUOTE=Dickhead;427687]Success is just delayed failure. Ask the trickle-down advocates. Or Tiger Woods.[/QUOTE]There are more wealthy and fewer poor folks under trickle-down economics than there are under trickle-down government.
Rome spent close to 70% of its GDP in the public sector at their peak. In fact, the decline of that particular empire coincided with decreased government spending, although correlation does not prove causality. Same thing with the Habsburg Empire. Of course, this is data mining because I am only presenting examples that corroborate what I seek to show, but actually those are the only two empires I have studied in that regard. México, I know, was relatively more successful (defining success in terms of peace and lack of starvation) when government spending was relatively higher, but I haven't looked at that one empirically. All government spending is not equal, though. Spending on things like education and training is investment (if the education and training is worth a shit, of course) , infrastructure spending can have high rates of return and short payback periods (unless the project was pork in the first place) , and there is such a thing as a natural monopoly. Defense spending is often Keynesian in nature, a juxtaposition many conservatives dislike. One problem I would address if elected (but see Sherman, William T.) is agricultural and other subsidies that distort the markets. That type of government spending is counterproductive.
So my platform is as follows:
1) Eliminate the corporate income tax.
2) Adopt a higher set of individual rates, that are approximately as progressive as what we currently have, that would be revenue neutral considering #1.
Immediate savings in bureaucratic bullshit. Decreased government employment would result, which could have a temporary negative effect. Some of the savings could be earmarked to offset this with temporary transfer payments to affected workers. Say 50.
3) Legalize marijuana. Regulate it and tax it like alcohol.
Immediate savings in bureaucratic bullshit. Decreased government employment would result, which could have a temporary negative effect. Suggest executing those cocksuckers instead.
4) Legalize prostitution. Duh.
Immediate savings in bureaucratic bullshit. Decreased local government revenues from outrageous property seizures would result, which could have a temporary negative effect, had we not had the foresight to legalize marijuana to offset this.
5) Tax all forms of income, earned income, dividends, royalties, and capital gains at the same rate. If you are against this proposal, read Modigliani and Miller and then shut the fuck up until you win your own Nobel Prize. QED.
6) Abolish the Electoral College and the Senate. If this does not happen eventually blood will flow in the streets. It never will so I hope 'eventually' is after I am dead.
7) Abolish private and charter schools. Maintain local control of the curriculum if you like (although I wouldn't) but everybody goes to the same fucking school for Christ's sake. That is the type of basic equality that [B]my[/B] United States is all about. And free means free. No more of these bullshit textbook fees that we did not have when I was a kid. That is a real problem.
8) Abolish tax breaks for religious organizations. Duh. It is in the Constitution.
9) Abolish all aspects of the tax system that favor those with children over those without, or those with more children over those with fewer. Encouraging large families is regressive.
10) Take the New York Yankees, their management, and their fans out on a boat in the middle of the ocean and sink it.
This is my platform. Feel free to write my name on your ballot: Richard T. Head, Esq.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;427689]There are more wealthy and fewer poor folks under trickle-down economics than there are under trickle-down government.[/QUOTE]Any empirical documentation of this assertion would be favorably received.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;427694]Any empirical documentation of this assertion would be favorably received.[/QUOTE]I'll work on that. However, we might start with the more than 110 million people killed by communist regimes, during the last century.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;427696]I'll work on that. However, we might start with the more than 110 million people killed by communist regimes, during the last century.[/QUOTE]Start with the economic side, but also work on supporting the figure you just gave. And try to move away from examples involving communism because that is so last century. I understand that is hard for you to recognize because you don't have any idea what communism is or involves, but I will grant that you can probably identify which countries were communist in the past.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;427697]Start with the economic side, but also work on supporting the figure you just gave. And try to move away from examples involving communism because that is so last century. I understand that is hard for you to recognize because you don't have any idea what communism is or involves, but I will grant that you can probably identify which countries were communist in the past.[/QUOTE]Sure, let's ignore the facts and move into fantasy land. I can assure you that Communism and its ilk are not last century. I am also quite certain that being killed severely limits one's ability to participate in the economy. Any more ridiculous constraints that you'd like to apply to the analysis? Does the air in that bubble ever get stale?
What's it's 'ilk'? Socialism? Go back and study the history of economic development and thought. You were sick that day too. It's really easy to ignore facts when chatting with you, since you never present any. You are articulate but lacking in substance. Have you considered a career in politics?
[QUOTE=Dickhead;427699]What's it's 'ilk'? Socialism? Go back and study the history of economic development and thought. You were sick that day too.[/QUOTE]I am surprised that an economic genius such as yourself doesn't know that there are multiple flavors of communism and command economies. Typical leftist approach: one size fits all.
Give some examples to support your position. Certainly there is a continuum of economic strategies ranging from pure capitalism to pure communism. Some would say socialism lies along that continuum (my view) while others would say it lies inside or within it; I think few would say it lies outside it. You don't engage my views at all; rather, you resort to 'liberal' as an epithet despite my assurance it does not describe me very well. You're adept at introducing straw men but seemingly incapable of any kind of independent analysis. It's sort of an anecdotal approach in place of an analytical one.