By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The American Right and Anti-Intellectualism

badgenome on 15 March 2012
theprof00 said:

lol I saw that edit old man. I often lose track of how long it's been since the millenium too.

Yeah...



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 15 March 2012
Runa216 said:
this thread interests me because before Bush, the right and the left were not at each others's throats like this. Republicans weren't seen as ignorant or stupid, Religion was just kinda THERE rather than being the forefront of a campaign, and....

Fuck bush. he ruined the right.


The republican party really isn't any different that it's been since Reagan though.



badgenome on 15 March 2012
Runa216 said:
this thread interests me because before Bush, the right and the left were not at each others's throats like this. Republicans weren't seen as ignorant or stupid, Religion was just kinda THERE rather than being the forefront of a campaign, and....

Fuck bush. he ruined the right.

Uh... how old are you, exactly?

  • A 26 year old male gamer
  • Canada <--- Ah. That explains it.


    • badgenome on 15 March 2012
    Kasz216 said:
    Runa216 said:
    this thread interests me because before Bush, the right and the left were not at each others's throats like this. Republicans weren't seen as ignorant or stupid, Religion was just kinda THERE rather than being the forefront of a campaign, and....

    Fuck bush. he ruined the right.


    The republican party really isn't any different that it's been since Reagan though.

    And Reagan was just as "stupid" in his time as Bush was in his. Just like William F. Buckley went from being a racist WASP who wanted to punch out queers to a faultlessly civil intellectual. Once he's dead, Bush will be revered as nice and kind and thoroughly sensible, and whoever happens to be the foremost Republican of the day will be a stupid hick who makes Bush roll over in his grave.



    Kasz216 on 15 March 2012
    KungKras said:
    Reading about american politics is always fun, because it is so different from europen politics. And opinions seem to be so polarized when you don't have a broad spectrum of parties to choose from.

    I always found it funny that you guys keep using the term "left" when talking about the liberal party, even though you only have right (liberals) and far, far right (republicans). I know they're called left because they are the left wing of the availible political parties, but it's fun to imagine what say, a social democratic party would be called if one was ever formed xD

    Does it even exist any other parties than the liberals and the republicans? I mean, there used to be a wiggs party before, right? Would the american system support more than two parties if more were ever to be formed?

    That's a weird statement considering the Euro debt crisis... and europe following through with what would be considered an "Ultra Conservative economics plan that could only be devised by someone from the Teaparty."

    Austerity in europe right now is being held up as a proof that the stimulus was right, and that Europes right wing economic policies are why it hasn't recovered.  (Ignoring of course, that at the same time, things were still going way downhill with the implentation of the stimulus... despite the fact that government spending is one of the metrics used to figure out the all important GDP.)



    Around the Network
    Kasz216 on 15 March 2012
    Mr Khan said:
    killerzX said:
    Dark_Lord_2008 said:



    The jury is still out on whether or not the Bush tax cuts created jobs or simply increased the Budget deficit and added to the national debt. Both sides of politics: Republicans and Democrats engage in class struggle arguments to justify their political positions: basic assumptions or political rhetoric aimed at the common voting American.

    letting people keep their own money in no-way increased the debt. the only possible way to add to the deficit is to spend.

    spending is what adds to the debt, not letting people keep their own money.

     

    sorry i just hate when people say that, as if the government is entitled to our money, or that its already theirs.

    Unfunded tax cuts? They definitely increase the deficit. Just like any entity, the Federal Government has a series of constant expenses, spending that is ongoing, and the best way to get further into debt is to have ongoing expenses and yet your revenue stream dries up, which is what happens to troubled businesses all the time, except this time the Federal Government did so willingly.

    A real debate would be the efficacy of supply-side economics, or rather, is it better for money to trickle down than to trickle up? Welfare money is just as good as that extra $20,000 you get to keep because of a lower capital gains tax, but who spends it more effectively?

     


    That's.. a debate that's been had a long time ago though in academic circles.... and has been pretty well decided ever since Jimmy Carter.

    I mean.. consider this... the stimulist was carried out by what you'd consider "Right wing supply side economists."

    Stagflation disproves keynsianism, because in a keynsian system, stagflation can't exist.

    It's no different then a republican asking for a debate on abortion or something.

    Keynsian economics is a niche right now that's been disproven time and time again... and actually doesn't call for huge social welfare programs or government control in the first place.  Except specific times of crisis.

    Support for Keynsian economics is more or less anti-intellectualism.

    Monetism, I have extreme doubts for, but at least it's consistant at this point.

     

    The problem with both... but espiecally Keynsianism is they rely too much on statistical formulas for something that's a "Social Science".

    Which economics is.  C+I+G+X-M=Y, Ignores P.

    In otherwords people.  People are the foundation of the economy, and Keynsian economics totally ignores consumer confidence.  Or rather, the effect of MASSIVE government spending and deficits on consumer confidence. 

    The government massivly spends on stimulius, and if that money goes to the people... it stays dead in the water, because even the poorer and lower middle class will mostly save, because they know the economy sucks and they might end up out of a job soon.

    The stimulus goes to buisnesses...they don't hire more people... because they know the stimulus is going to end, and there aren't any customers to replace government money.

     

    Keynsian economics expects people to go "Yay! the government is saving us, look at that broad GDP number that's up.  Let's ignore the man behind the curtain!"


    Honestly, say what you want about people... they're smarter then that.

     

    All you can do in times of poor economics to not make it much worse... is to modestly increase your budget to help those out of work... since there are more of them, not extend unemployment, but create a second tier of it.... and wait for "acceptence."

     

    Then real growth will happen again.  As people realize "This is just the economy.  It's now or never on that bigscreen TV."  Then ironically... the economy gets better.



    KungKras on 15 March 2012
    Kasz216 said:
    KungKras said:
    Reading about american politics is always fun, because it is so different from europen politics. And opinions seem to be so polarized when you don't have a broad spectrum of parties to choose from.

    I always found it funny that you guys keep using the term "left" when talking about the liberal party, even though you only have right (liberals) and far, far right (republicans). I know they're called left because they are the left wing of the availible political parties, but it's fun to imagine what say, a social democratic party would be called if one was ever formed xD

    Does it even exist any other parties than the liberals and the republicans? I mean, there used to be a wiggs party before, right? Would the american system support more than two parties if more were ever to be formed?

    That's a weird statement considering the Euro debt crisis... and europe following through with what would be considered an "Ultra Conservative economics plan that could only be devised by someone from the Teaparty."

    Austerity in europe right now is being held up as a proof that the stimulus was right, and that Europes right wing economic policies are why it hasn't recovered.  (Ignoring of course, that at the same time, things were still going way downhill with the implentation of the stimulus... despite the fact that government spending is one of the metrics used to figure out the all important GDP.)

    What I was talking about is, that most european countries have some sort of far right, conservative, liberal conservative, liberal, as well as center right, center, environmentalist, center left, social democratic, far left, and even communist parties, and these parties are relevant enough to be represented in the parlaments of thier respective nations (maybe not all I mentioned in one country though, but that's what the political spectrums usually looks like).

    I always got the impression that the republicans were far right, because, from what I've read they are against universal health ensurance and for the healthcare being totally private, while public healthcare is a standard in most european countries, even the more right-leaning ones, like the UK.

    What ultra-conservative economics plan are you talking about? Is it something made by the European Union? The Euro currency cooperation?  The stimulus packages to greece?



    I LOVE ICELAND!

    mrstickball on 15 March 2012
    Runa216 said:
    this thread interests me because before Bush, the right and the left were not at each others's throats like this. Republicans weren't seen as ignorant or stupid, Religion was just kinda THERE rather than being the forefront of a campaign, and....

    Fuck bush. he ruined the right.


    Which Bush?



    Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

    HappySqurriel on 15 March 2012
    Kasz216 said:
    KungKras said:
    Reading about american politics is always fun, because it is so different from europen politics. And opinions seem to be so polarized when you don't have a broad spectrum of parties to choose from.

    I always found it funny that you guys keep using the term "left" when talking about the liberal party, even though you only have right (liberals) and far, far right (republicans). I know they're called left because they are the left wing of the availible political parties, but it's fun to imagine what say, a social democratic party would be called if one was ever formed xD

    Does it even exist any other parties than the liberals and the republicans? I mean, there used to be a wiggs party before, right? Would the american system support more than two parties if more were ever to be formed?

    That's a weird statement considering the Euro debt crisis... and europe following through with what would be considered an "Ultra Conservative economics plan that could only be devised by someone from the Teaparty."

    Austerity in europe right now is being held up as a proof that the stimulus was right, and that Europes right wing economic policies are why it hasn't recovered.  (Ignoring of course, that at the same time, things were still going way downhill with the implentation of the stimulus... despite the fact that government spending is one of the metrics used to figure out the all important GDP.)


    I don't follow your logic ...

    The European debt crisis is caused by governments facing the consequences of out of control deficit spending, how does this demonstrate that out of control deficit spending was the right course of action?

    Realistically, all the stimulus did was change the timeline of the eventual default in the USA from sometime between 2020 and 2030 based on Bush's moronic economic policies and move it forward to 2015 to 2020 based on Obama's even worse economic policies.



    Kasz216 on 15 March 2012
    HappySqurriel said:
    Kasz216 said:
    KungKras said:
    Reading about american politics is always fun, because it is so different from europen politics. And opinions seem to be so polarized when you don't have a broad spectrum of parties to choose from.

    I always found it funny that you guys keep using the term "left" when talking about the liberal party, even though you only have right (liberals) and far, far right (republicans). I know they're called left because they are the left wing of the availible political parties, but it's fun to imagine what say, a social democratic party would be called if one was ever formed xD

    Does it even exist any other parties than the liberals and the republicans? I mean, there used to be a wiggs party before, right? Would the american system support more than two parties if more were ever to be formed?

    That's a weird statement considering the Euro debt crisis... and europe following through with what would be considered an "Ultra Conservative economics plan that could only be devised by someone from the Teaparty."

    Austerity in europe right now is being held up as a proof that the stimulus was right, and that Europes right wing economic policies are why it hasn't recovered.  (Ignoring of course, that at the same time, things were still going way downhill with the implentation of the stimulus... despite the fact that government spending is one of the metrics used to figure out the all important GDP.)


    I don't follow your logic ...

    The European debt crisis is caused by governments facing the consequences of out of control deficit spending, how does this demonstrate that out of control deficit spending was the right course of action?

    Realistically, all the stimulus did was change the timeline of the eventual default in the USA from sometime between 2020 and 2030 based on Bush's moronic economic policies and move it forward to 2015 to 2020 based on Obama's even worse economic policies.

    It's not my logic.

    It's just what is being presented in the media ad nauseum.  Thought the brackets would explain my annoyance with it.