Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
Thanks Tree16Thanks

Thread: Democrat vs Republican: The Knowledge Struggle

  1. #21
    Established Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    6,503
    Thanks
    1162

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    Who told you they were more knowledgeable about economic issues? We are 20 trillion in debt and those assholes want to cut taxes when they are the lowest they have been in decades.
    You weren't bitching about Obama cutting taxes and we were only $10 trillion in debt then.

  2. #22
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,273
    Thanks
    1163

    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    What sort of "evidence"?

    I have seen examples of both, but in the last decades of the 20th century and over the 21st century, economically, I have been better off when Democrats have been in the White House. While neo republicans like to sell the perception they are somehow more knowledgeable, I have come to expect that any positive change ushered in by a neo-republican being elected to the White House, it has been short lived.
    Democrat Presidents certainly have superior growth records. Of course there is no automatic causation in that. Perhaps folk, historically speaking, are more likely to turn to Republicans when experiencing economic turmoil?

    In my opinion, it is because there are promises of tax cuts and roll backs of regulations. In the short term, the perception (and sales job) of what such things will produce appeal to the selfish, greedy side of many people and they spur on all kinds of economic activity which ends up doing several things, but fail in the base promises of overall prosperity. Tax cuts, especially when many of those supporting such things (who does NOT want a tax cut?) are many, if not all, the same sorts of people complaining about the nation's debt, have not only failed to produce prosperity across the board for all Americans, they are like taking a cut in pay to pay off one's debt. If there are any beneficiaries of tax cuts, they are the already wealthy who only become more wealthy and instead of spending in a manner that supports the overall economy, spend in ways that benefit themselves only. Rollbacks in regulations do much of the same and what is expected by most intelligent people, INCLUDING those that profit the most from them, the CROOKS!!! To put it simply, those looking to rip off people without any means to hold them accountable for doing so, LOVE regulation rollbacks, because THEY can rip off people without being held accountable!!!! Inevitably, that ends up being the result. The cheaters, crooks, liars, con artists, rip off artists (and they wear white collars, too) suck the overall economy dry and inevitably cause a recession that mostly wipes out any gains anyone made from activity that was based on so much hot air, not reality and so much thievery and personal "conservatism" (of personal profit), NOT lasting, stable prosperity spread across the entire spectrum of income levels.
    Interesting stuff on greed here. Previous surveys indicate that economists are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Are more greedy folk attracted to economic comment, explaining the Republican knowledge boost? Alternatively, could the economic approach (at least how its taught in neoclassical economics) actually blinker people towards a self-interest 'trust in the invisible hand' perspective? There was some discussion, for example, that 'game theory' might encourage a rational stupidity where the complexities of interaction are ignored in favour of simple Homo Economicus.

    Democrats, in this same time span, have appeared to have been left the job of having to recover from the too wild partying of the crooks, liars, thieves, rip off artists, con artists who have taken the money and run. Obviously there is a cost to the clean up effort in several ways. It cost money to, in a manner of speaking, clean the rugs, repair the torn up lawn. repair the cigarette burns, replace the broken glass and other ware and repair and replace other things broken and stolen. This cost is used against those expending the money, by the party goers as wasteful spending and adding to the debt, but without it, the results would be obvious and the party goers would continue to run down the property (nation) while laughing their own way, to the bank (with the stolen goods and because it is NOT their own property they are ruining, but the property of others, they are stealing from and wrecking. By the time the economy begins to stabilize and the benefit is seen in a much broader swath of America (than the top 10%), the crooks, thieves, liars and con artists have convinced just enough (look at the election margins of victory, especially of the last two neo republicans in the White House) Americans that a slow recovery or any failings in the economy due to a sifting out of competition, as in the DOT.COM bubble, are due to Democratic economic policies, not due to economic features of a specific sector.
    Its possible to track the recent recessions to bad faith and corruption. But are the Democrats sufficiently left wing to be free of the blight? Central parties, unless of minor importance, will typically become friends of the political elite.

    The mortgage crisis and other financial crisis' while the failings of specific sectors of the economy, had a basis in not just the rollback of regulation, but those who would use those rollbacks to rip people off with financial "devices" and "instruments" sold without the full disclosure of risk or the due diligence needed to see if what was sold, could actually be paid for, beyond those selling them, getting their commissions for the sale. The old adage still seems to hold up. If something looks to good to be true, it probably is too good to be true and it's NOT true, especially in the longer term.
    I find the most spectacular feature of the financial crisis is its failure to radically transform policy and/or politics. Keynesian economics hasn't had much of a boost. Quantitative easing is merely about maintaining the hegemony of the financial class. There is a rise of popularism, but the Democrats are still ultimately infected by a conservative backbone.

    I think neo-republican "economic" have been geared toward enriching a few, at the expense of many, while Democratic policies appear to be aimed at enriching all, so all prosper.
    It is the case that Democrats have been more successful in reducing inequality. But that doesn't reflect any grand plan. It more reflects the uselessness of the Republican and the voodoo economics that they have been completely reliant on.

    Simply put, if someone needs to sell 100 refrigerators to maintain their business and number of employees, when times are bad and the wealthy still retain a huge percentage of wealth, they are not going to become the substitute for all the lost sales. A wealthy person may still be able to afford 5 or 25 refrigerators but they are not going to buy an additional 75-95 refrigerators to make up for those that can no longer afford to buy just one. In other words, the top percentage of people in the world, in spite of what some want others to believe, and in spite of all the massive amounts of the world's wealth that they hold. are NOT going to support an economy that depends upon trillions upon trillions of small and modest transactions of goods and services, by the masses of people who are NOT super wealthy. While building 5 or 6 multi-million dollar mega-mansions for the very wealthy might be very lucrative for some construction companies, that won't support construction companies that need to build hundreds of homes at lesser amounts (the total of which is still greater than the 5-6 mega mansions) to stay even and support the numbers of employees and offshoot businesses they do.
    When even the IMF talk about the need for fairer income/wealth distributions you know you're on a clear winner!

    This appears to be understood by Democrats, whereas neo-republicans only seem to understand the "self" and dealing to the "self". Modern day Democrats also understand the "self" is of utmost importance, but they also seem to understand (as "old" Republicans did) that if one lives in a society of people, the "self" is NOT the only important thing. One wants to keep those they depend on for labor and for commerce, in good shape, so their own (self) businesses stay in good shape or to put it more simply, so they have long term customers for their goods and services. Neo-republicans seem to think in terms of ripping people off for all they are worth and don't worry about the long term or the fact that they won't come back, because they were ripped off. In some cases, they depend on people unaware they are being ripped off, because they are unobservant, are not intelligent enough to figure out they are being ripped off or because they are equally as greedy as those ripping them off, are blind to the schemes they buy into that are ripping them off.
    Is it though? I don't see many radical ideas from the Democrats. Aren't they peddling the same snake oil?

    Who doesn't want some sort of benefit to themselves? The difference I believe is that "conservative" in a political sense today, is far different than the non-political definition of the word. I know people of both parties who spend like there is no tomorrow and have gotten themselves into big problems as a result. I know people of both parties who are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. I know many rRepublicans, both of the old school and the neo school who are totally different when it comes to their "conservatism".
    Fiscally conservative is usually fancy language for 'innocent of economics'. Its used to peddle austerity-lite and ignore the key messages from Keynesianism.

    I would suggest MOST people are fiscally conservative in the non-political sense of the definition of "conservative". It is pretty much a requirement to survive, but there are all levels of "surviving". For some, they need to conserve on their purchase of food, so they can pay the rent or a visit to the doctor. For some, "conservative" means hoarding cash and not spending on anything, even a new roof or paint job on their home or buying only cheap goods and services, merely because they are cheap. For others, the same sort of "conservatism" in their business practices lead to ruined businesses because they were so stingy (conservative) they didn't spend the money required to update their manufacturing equipment or spruce up their sales floor or hire quality employees. They simply took all the profits for themselves.
    US low savings rate, mind you, suggests severe macroeconomic structural flaws. The preferences of the individual becomes irrelevant when suffering from constraints imposed by structural deficiency in the economy.

    I was once a Republican and would be one again if the neo faction was tossed out and more moderates like some of the Rockefeller family, Eisenhower or T Roosevelt returned. As far as I can tell, no Republican or Democrat is perfect and all people, including me, have their faults, but in weighing the balance, my money currently is on Democrats to both know what they are doing (being knowledgeable) and acquiring higher economic growth, because they aim to raise up a much higher population of people, creating a much more massive amount of transaction (commerce), not just money shuffling amongst the already wealthy.
    They're of course both broad churches. However, its the lack of left wing 'sanity' in the preach that's the problem. Policy is skewed towards neoliberalism. We're left with the Republicans being awful and the Democrats just plain bad.

  3. #23
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    10,844
    Thanks
    6977

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    Not really if that were true, the Blue states economies are struggling, the GOvernor of NY is having to promise Corporations THEY WILL HAVE NO yes NO state taxes in order to keep them from Fleeing the State like rats on a sinking ship. also Blue states are fiscal Hell holes, while Red States are in excellent fiscal health.
    Thanks from Panzareta

  4. #24
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    38,835
    Thanks
    22926

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    Democrat Presidents certainly have superior growth records. Of course there is no automatic causation in that. Perhaps folk, historically speaking, are more likely to turn to Republicans when experiencing economic turmoil?


    Interesting stuff on greed here. Previous surveys indicate that economists are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Are more greedy folk attracted to economic comment, explaining the Republican knowledge boost? Alternatively, could the economic approach (at least how its taught in neoclassical economics) actually blinker people towards a self-interest 'trust in the invisible hand' perspective? There was some discussion, for example, that 'game theory' might encourage a rational stupidity where the complexities of interaction are ignored in favour of simple Homo Economicus.


    Its possible to track the recent recessions to bad faith and corruption. But are the Democrats sufficiently left wing to be free of the blight? Central parties, unless of minor importance, will typically become friends of the political elite.


    I find the most spectacular feature of the financial crisis is its failure to radically transform policy and/or politics. Keynesian economics hasn't had much of a boost. Quantitative easing is merely about maintaining the hegemony of the financial class. There is a rise of popularism, but the Democrats are still ultimately infected by a conservative backbone.


    It is the case that Democrats have been more successful in reducing inequality. But that doesn't reflect any grand plan. It more reflects the uselessness of the Republican and the voodoo economics that they have been completely reliant on.


    When even the IMF talk about the need for fairer income/wealth distributions you know you're on a clear winner!


    Is it though? I don't see many radical ideas from the Democrats. Aren't they peddling the same snake oil?


    Fiscally conservative is usually fancy language for 'innocent of economics'. Its used to peddle austerity-lite and ignore the key messages from Keynesianism.


    US low savings rate, mind you, suggests severe macroeconomic structural flaws. The preferences of the individual becomes irrelevant when suffering from constraints imposed by structural deficiency in the economy.


    They're of course both broad churches. However, its the lack of left wing 'sanity' in the preach that's the problem. Policy is skewed towards neoliberalism. We're left with the Republicans being awful and the Democrats just plain bad.
    I think when there is economic turmoil, people get nervous and tend to prefer republicans. It can be seen readily in poor rural states that prefer republicans. I suspect it has to do with taxes, not just federal but local. They don't have money so they fear their taxes will be raised. Its a conundrum because many of these same people preferred "socialist" Bernie Sanders. I think its because the way we operate currently we pay out of everywhere for everything, not just federal, income, sales and property but massive amounts in healthcare. Then they are told to save for college and retirement. A system that has a consistent tax rate and includes things like healthcare and college makes life easier to plan for, you know where your money goes. The way it is now there is no idea. Republicans don't care other than lowering taxes and while the dems preach these things they haven't been able to make them reality. Better healthcare, retirement and college would probably go along way for people budgeting. Whichever party can do that will do well longterm, otherwise we keep shifting back and forth between parties like a swinging pendulum and over the decades nothing gets done. Here we are in 2017 still bitching about healthcare, something we have been doing for 40 years.
    Thanks from Æthelfrith

  5. #25
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    13,628
    Thanks
    3658

    From
    AK
    Clearly this banter about Democrats producing more economic growth assumes we are NOT talking about state or local issues, and we are NOT acknowledging urban/rural differences, rather we are talking about growth relative to the party affiliation of the President.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #26
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    6,805
    Thanks
    1405

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Clearly this banter about Democrats producing more economic growth assumes we are NOT talking about state or local issues, and we are NOT acknowledging urban/rural differences, rather we are talking about growth relative to the party affiliation of the President.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The fact that giant international coastal cities, where people are constantly exposed to other people from all over the world with all different kinds of backgrounds, are almost entirely much more socially liberal than places like Lincoln, Nebraska, is undoubtedly a big deal here.

    Obviously those big cities are giant commerce machines. The money will be flowing through them. And they vote overwhelmingly Democrat because of their socially liberal views, if nothing else.

    The correlation is without any question enormously important here.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    19,277
    Thanks
    3825

    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    Not really if that were true, the Blue states economies are struggling, the GOvernor of NY is having to promise Corporations THEY WILL HAVE NO yes NO state taxes in order to keep them from Fleeing the State like rats on a sinking ship. also Blue states are fiscal Hell holes, while Red States are in excellent fiscal health.
    Illinois is going down.

  8. #28
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    19,277
    Thanks
    3825

    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    it's more an issue of priority than ignorance. conservatives are interested in "balancing the books" and liberals are more interested helping the citizens regardless of cost. in all things there must be a proper balance. Americans have not yet found that balance - but we're working on it.
    Poverty immigration will not help.

  9. #29
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    20,550
    Thanks
    11049

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    The fact that giant international coastal cities, where people are constantly exposed to other people from all over the world with all different kinds of backgrounds, are almost entirely much more socially liberal than places like Lincoln, Nebraska, is undoubtedly a big deal here.

    Obviously those big cities are giant commerce machines. The money will be flowing through them. And they vote overwhelmingly Democrat because of their socially liberal views, if nothing else.

    The correlation is without any question enormously important here.
    And unlike the people in Nebraska, people in these cities actually live and work side by side with people of all religion, races, ethnicities, etc not just fellow white christians. THey are exposed to different views, unlike how in those more rural places they mostly all believe the same thing and just reinforce their viewpoint.

  10. #30
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    19,277
    Thanks
    3825

    Quote Originally Posted by DemoWhip View Post
    You can grow the economy with a credit card and tons of debt. That is not a solution.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 15th November 2016, 11:02 AM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 14th February 2015, 04:10 AM
  3. Republican becomes a Democrat
    By Cotton2226 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 6th January 2015, 11:40 AM
  4. First Republican / First Democrat
    By justoneman in forum World History
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 13th May 2008, 02:35 PM
  5. Republican vs. Democrat
    By Faithful One in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2nd February 2007, 08:06 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed