Mott: as a moderate, why are you voting for Obama?

[Rationalist]

what you people call Obamacare was a republican idea to counter Hilarys plan in the 90s

I will freely admit that. Same goes for cap & trade. Although I think there's a lot of bullshit in Obamacare, the basic idea of increasing the pool of insured isn't a bad one. I would argue that it should be incentive-based rather than mandate-based, though.

 

[Phantasmal]

We agree on much. In my mind, essentially everything you said would indicate a vote for Romney, yet you are voting for Obama because the GOP supposedly embraces anti-intellectualism, bigotry, racism, and supply-side economics.

First, I would ask you to provide concrete examples to support your claims of anti-intellectualism, bigotry, and racism. It sounds like you're simply swallowing whatever the far left dishes out. I will agree that anti-intellectualism is a problem in some GOP circles (namely the evangelical crowd), but I don't think it's a widespread problem. As for claims of bigotry and racism, that's simply bullshit.

Second, I would point out that Romney's tax reform proposal is more Keynesian than Obama's. In Keynesian economics, taxes are reduced during a recession, not increased. Obama isn't even really a Keynesian. He's more like an Don't-know-what-the-hell-I'm-doing-ian.

Ultimately, I would argue that Romney is the best shot at preserving progressive government. With some adjustments, he will save programs that will otherwise go bankrupt. Democrats choose to ignore this problem.

The way i see Romney as George W. Bush, act II. His policies are the same, half his advisors are the same. Nothing new here to see.

 

[CanceledB]

The way i see Omney is George W. Bush, act II. His policies are the same, half his advisors are the same. Nothing new here to see.

Both are sociopathic.

 

[Rationalist]

His policies are the same, half his advisors are the same.

Can you provide some examples of policies? Please cite Romney's platform.

 

[CanceledB]

Romney's platform:

Feed the rich.

 

[Timshel]

Keynesianism does not work. Its fatal flaw is the multiplier effect, which is negative. Supply side economics IS Keynesianism. Keynesian voodoo is the reason we have crony capitalisim, a warfare state and are about to be crushed by debt.

Support for the social safety net should be based on the fact that it has proven cost effective in creating political and social stability not because it will increase economic activity.

 

[Timshel]

ObamaRomney are Keynesians who believe in perpetual war, a police state and view citizens/residents as property of the state.

 

[CanceledB]

ObamaRomney are Keynesians who believe in perpetual war, a police state and view citizens/residents as property of the state.

Obama's not a sociopath, however.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

We agree on much. In my mind, essentially everything you said would indicate a vote for Romney, yet you are voting for Obama because the GOP supposedly embraces anti-intellectualism, bigotry, racism, and supply-side economics.

First, I would ask you to provide concrete examples to support your claims of anti-intellectualism, bigotry, and racism. It sounds like you're simply swallowing whatever the far left dishes out. I will agree that anti-intellectualism is a problem in some GOP circles (namely the evangelical crowd), but I don't think it's a widespread problem. As for claims of bigotry and racism, that's simply bullshit.

Second, I would point out that Romney's tax reform proposal is more Keynesian than Obama's. In Keynesian economics, taxes are reduced during a recession, not increased. Obama isn't even really a Keynesian. He's more like an Don't-know-what-the-hell-I'm-doing-ian.

Ultimately, I would argue that Romney is the best shot at preserving progressive government. With some adjustments, he will save programs that will otherwise go bankrupt. Democrats choose to ignore this problem.

Good lord! You need evidence of the bigotry, anti-intillectualism and racism inherent in the southern strategy? Well it's not hard to find Brent. Goolgle "The Southern Strategy" and "racism" and you'll find plenty. If that don't work, do what I did. Move to the south and live there for 7 years. You know what they call a Rockefeller Republican from Ohio in the south? "A god damned bleeding heart, commie pinko liberal".

As for Romney's economic policy as far as I can tell he's adopted the Paul Ryan Plan and that certainly is based on the Republican interpretation of supply side economics. Cut taxes for the wealthy, reduce government services and safety nets for the masses, then more money will circulate, prosperity will grow, which in turn will increase government revenues. A phenomena that has never occurred in our nations history (or the planets for that matter).

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Keynesianism does not work. Its fatal flaw is the multiplier effect, which is negative.

That is incorrect, true Keynesian application does work. The Dems have simply warped it into meaning 'government spending increases' rather than what it truly was designed to do. That is why the current attempts continue to fail.

Supply side economics IS Keynesianism.

No, it most certainly is not. That said, like Keynesian theory, supply side only works if implemented correctly.

Keynesian voodoo is the reason we have crony capitalisim, a warfare state and are about to be crushed by debt.

Support for the social safety net should be based on the fact that it has proven cost effective in creating political and social stability not because it will increase economic activity.

On that we agree

 

[Phantasmal]

Romney's platform:

Feed the rich.

I think Romney needs to steer clear of the "more people on welfare" approach, why, because of Bain Capital and also Republican union busting. Obama could point to these two issues as Repiblicans getting rid of good paying jobs with benefits. The Republicans also don't support the increase in minimum wage, so I feel this is a real dead end for Romney in a debate.

 

[Timshel]

Keynesianism does not work. Its fatal flaw is the multiplier effect, which is negative. Supply side economics IS Keynesianism. Keynesian voodoo is the reason we have crony capitalisim, a warfare state and are about to be crushed by debt.

Support for the social safety net should be based on the fact that it has proven cost effective in creating political and social stability not because it will increase economic activity.

BTW, by supply side I mean what passes for it today.

 

[CanceledB]

I think Romney needs to steer clear of the "more people on welfare" approach, why, because of Bain Capital and also Republican union busting. Obama could point to these two issues as Repiblicans getting rid of good paying jobs with benefits. The Republicans also don't support the increase in minimum wage, so I feel this is a real dead end for Romney in a debate.

The debates are manna for Team Obama. The only time numbers improve for Mitt is when he keeps his mouth shut.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Good lord! You need evidence of the bigotry, anti-intillectualism and racism inherent in the southern strategy? Well it's not hard to find Brent. Goolgle "The Southern Strategy" and "racism" and you'll find plenty. If that don't work, do what I did. Move to the south and live there for 7 years. You know what they call a Rockefeller Republican from Ohio in the south? "A god damned bleeding heart, commie pinko liberal".

You continue spouting this nonsense?

As for Romney's economic policy as far as I can tell he's adopted the Paul Ryan Plan and that certainly is based on the Republican interpretation of supply side economics. Cut taxes for the wealthy, reduce government services and safety nets for the masses, then more money will circulate, prosperity will grow, which in turn will increase government revenues. A phenomena that has never occurred in our nations history (or the planets for that matter).

you are such a hack. Supply side economics does not state 'just cut taxes for the wealthy'. The bulk of the dollars in the Bush tax cuts went where Mutt? Two thirds went to the lower and middle income classes.

Also... government revenues did indeed increase when Kennedy cut tax rates, when Reagan did, when Clinton did (cap gains) and when Bush did. They all worked. What happened when Bush Sr raised taxes? What is happening in France as they raise taxes? What has happened to ever liberal CA as they continue raising taxes?

Supply side also does not say reduce safety nets. But the safety nets are of no use if the holes are so big we all fall through when needed. The safety nets have to be financially sound. Promising the world is great and makes people feel warm and cozy, but it is nothing more than empty rhetoric if you don't pay for it. Asking future generations to pay for things for us is not only fiscally irresponsible, but also unethical.

That is the party you support Mutt.

 

[Timshel]

That is incorrect, true Keynesian application does work. The Dems have simply warped it into meaning 'government spending increases' rather than what it truly was designed to do. That is why the current attempts continue to fail.

It does not. There is no multiplier effect. Government spending is a drain on the economy, always. Keynesian theories lead people to believe that spending money on war and crony capitalism leads to economic growth. It is idiotic.

No, it most certainly is not. That said, like Keynesian theory, supply side only works if implemented correctly.

Explain?

On that we agree

Then you don't understand what Keynesianism is. Keynes ideas were all based around the idea that we needed to take money away from the hoarders/savers (has nothing to do with wealth) and give it to people who would spend (again has nothing to with wealth). He claimed this would create a multiplier effect that would lead to growth. It did not work. It has not worked. All it has done is create a massive war machine and a huge debt problem.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I will freely admit that. Same goes for cap & trade. Although I think there's a lot of bullshit in Obamacare, the basic idea of increasing the pool of insured isn't a bad one. I would argue that it should be incentive-based rather than mandate-based, though.

Aren't those the same thing Brent? Aren't penaties, fines and taxes tools to be used to incentivize people to be responsible and carry insurance?

Look, when it comes to health care refomr there are a zillion ways to get there from here but what ever form they take it will have three basic principles.

#1. Universal Coverage
#2. A single payer system
#3. Cost controls.

The real debate is over what form these three reforms will take but those three reforms are the fundamental requirements, the basics if you will, that will need to be met to reform our health care system.

 

[Timshel]

The southern stratgey was based on racism. Of course, it was.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I think Romney needs to steer clear of the "more people on welfare" approach, why, because of Bain Capital and also Republican union busting. Obama could point to these two issues as Repiblicans getting rid of good paying jobs with benefits. The Republicans also don't support the increase in minimum wage, so I feel this is a real dead end for Romney in a debate.

LOL... so union busting as you call it is responsible for more people on welfare? HOW?

Tell us what higher taxes on corporations will do to better paying jobs in the US.

An increase to the federal minimum wage is not an intelligent move. The federal minimum wage should be set for an unskilled worker in the lowest cost of living part of the country. Let the states set their own minimums (as many have done) based on their own cost of living standards. In addition, raising the minimum wage simply creates wage inflation. Which means higher costs of goods and services. Which means if manufacturing labor costs increase too much, it then becomes more economically viable to ship jobs out of the country.

The 'Bain' boogey man is laughable. Companies like Bain are there to help companies out of a jam. Even the deals that don't work in the long run prolong the workers being employed. But I know... we are supposed to pretend Bain is evil.

 

[cawacko]

The southern stratgey was based on racism. Of course, it was.

It wasn't so much a Southern strategy as it was a suburban strategy. At the time you had lots of whites, not just in the South, moving out of cities and into the suburbs. The strategy was how do we appeal to these new suburban voters?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Keynesianism does not work. Its fatal flaw is the multiplier effect, which is negative. Supply side economics IS Keynesianism. Keynesian voodoo is the reason we have crony capitalisim, a warfare state and are about to be crushed by debt.

Support for the social safety net should be based on the fact that it has proven cost effective in creating political and social stability not because it will increase economic activity.

I agree with the later statement but not the former. That's just babble. As far as debt, our debt is certainly alarming and not responsible government but as a ratio of debt to GDP is certainly sustainable. Enough hyperbole. Studie show that a nations economy only begins to suffer when the debt to GDP ratio exceeds 90% (the US is around 70%). Our current debt to GDP ratio isn't even a historical high for the US.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we shouldn't do the responsible thing and reduce our debt but at it's current ratio it's definately sustainable.