Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 90
Thanks Tree66Thanks

Thread: Are your political views always right?

  1. #31
    Conservative Pragmatist Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,277
    Thanks
    2956

    From
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by Shanty View Post
    But, the right displays more of its extremism as mainstream, because the media gives them more air time to give the extremism a sort of respectability.
    That may or may not be the case. Regardless, no one should follow either extreme lock stock and barrel. If you notice, I do not bash liberal ideology. Why, because I'm as open minded as I'm conservative and realize that neither side has it correct all the time.

    Jmo

  2. #32
    Stalked by *****iTroll Shanty's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    22,841
    Thanks
    4554

    From
    America's Fighting City and Cradle of Liberty
    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    That may or may not be the case. Regardless, no one should follow either extreme lock stock and barrel. If you notice, I do not bash liberal ideology. Why, because I'm as open minded as I'm conservative and realize that neither side has it correct all the time.

    Jmo
    there's a few issues that I'm at odds with liberals on.

    But on economics and budgets, history shows us the right wing, supply side/Austrian School/Ayn Rand approach has this far proven to hurt growth, raises deficits and debt, and has otherwise been a failure in every respect.

    Right now, there's no such thing as a fiscally responsible fiscal conservative. Reduced growth means larger deficits and larger debt down the road.
    Thanks from Babba and MaryAnne

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8,702
    Thanks
    1980

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by Shanty View Post
    there's a few issues that I'm at odds with liberals on.

    But on economics and budgets, history shows us the right wing, supply side/Austrian School/Ayn Rand approach has this far proven to hurt growth, raises deficits and debt,
    I don't think Ayn Rand was big on macroeconomics and federal budgets. Wasn't she more of a philosophical/moral thinker and writer?

    Also, we've never fully adopted Keynesianism, or else we wouldn't have any evidence since that a more conservative approach is so bad, would we?

    So what is it that really raises deficits and debt? It's not a conservative supply side approach by itself. It's the back-and-forth manner in which we respond to what's going on in the economy. As a rule, we favor capitalism in an expansion and socialism in a contraction. In other words, Keynesianism would work better in theory if we actually followed the protocol and cut back during good periods. But we don't.

    Right now, there's no such thing as a fiscally responsible fiscal conservative. Reduced growth means larger deficits and larger debt down the road.
    Today's Keynesian meme is circular reasoning. It leads to perpetually using increasing spending to maximize growth and saying that only by maximizing growth will deficits and debt be reduced.

    I can go along with Keynesianism checking out as effective in theory, but in practice federal spenders can always find an excuse to keep spending more and more. It's never ending.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 27th December 2013 at 11:31 AM.

  4. #34
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,371
    Thanks
    619

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    It's not a conservative supply side approach by itself.
    No such beast. Conservatism only uses supply-side myths in order to justify their coercive policies (e.g. further enabling corporate profiteering at the expense of the consumer)

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8,702
    Thanks
    1980

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    No such beast. Conservatism only uses supply-side myths in order to justify their coercive policies (e.g. further enabling corporate profiteering at the expense of the consumer)
    Whereas liberalism further enables corporate profiteering using dependence-fostering demand stimulation.

    If there is such evidence of conservative economics replete with failure, then clearly we have not adopted a fully conservative approach nor a Keynesian one. We have an ambivalent approach. That flip-flopping economic policy approach is the most costly, and what really grows deficits and debt. Not just one side, but the two in tandem.

  6. #36
    Stalked by *****iTroll Shanty's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    22,841
    Thanks
    4554

    From
    America's Fighting City and Cradle of Liberty
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    I don't think Ayn Rand was big on macroeconomics and federal budgets. Wasn't she more of a philosophical/moral thinker and writer?
    Yes, but what's happened is that her "philosophy" has been taken by some by to have some sort of validity in government and business, and that approach has taken focus away from reality based thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Also, we've never fully adopted Keynesianism, or else we wouldn't have any evidence since that a more conservative approach is so bad, would we?
    When we went from Keynesian policies to supply side, we've seen generally less prosperity, higher deficits and debt take the place of balanced budgets with higher employment for all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    So what is it that really raises deficits and debt? It's not a conservative supply side approach by itself. It's the back-and-forth manner in which we respond to what's going on in the economy. As a rule, we favor capitalism in an expansion and socialism in a contraction. In other words, Keynesianism would work better in theory if we actually followed the protocol and cut back during good periods. But we don't.
    We did all the way from WWII to Reagan. And we did it again during Clinton. We're also seeing a reduction in government under Obama.


    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Today's Keynesian meme is circular reasoning. It leads to perpetually using increasing spending to maximize growth and saying that only by maximizing growth will deficits and debt be reduced.
    You're still refusing to learn the lessons. Ground Hog Day comes every day with you.

    I
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    can go along with Keynesianism checking out as effective in theory, but in practice federal spenders can always find an excuse to keep spending more and more. It's never ending.
    You should learn something about the history of the country you live in.
    Thanks from Babba

  7. #37
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,371
    Thanks
    619

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Whereas liberalism further enables corporate profiteering using dependence-fostering demand stimulation.
    Demand stimulation is mere rationality. All political sides of course do it. The right will tend to favour more wasteful forms mind you (e.g. using military expenditure won't run the risk of empowering the workers)

  8. #38
    Stalked by *****iTroll Shanty's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    22,841
    Thanks
    4554

    From
    America's Fighting City and Cradle of Liberty
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Whereas liberalism further enables corporate profiteering using dependence-fostering demand stimulation.
    I don't think more jobs and less poverty denotes dependence. Maybe you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    If there is such evidence of conservative economics replete with failure, then clearly we have not adopted a fully conservative approach nor a Keynesian one. We have an ambivalent approach. That flip-flopping economic policy approach is the most costly, and what really grows deficits and debt. Not just one side, but the two in tandem.
    really? Have any evidence of this theory? Because the Keynesian policies of the 1940s-1970s saw growth and the lack of asset bubbles, like we've seen since Reaganism's deregulation started us down that path.

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3,077
    Thanks
    1885

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Genevieve View Post
    Mine are not always right, but the tone is on target.
    I have changed my views when I find them to be wrong.
    Agree....I intend to be correct,to have the best path forward...and often that's complicated and I make adjustments. In most regards... I am quite happy to stand by what I have advocated. All things considered. In Politics...very often one may have an IDEAL position...as well as "best available"

    When I go to the pub to party....sometimes considering which cutie I most want to spend time with...is an easy choice...sometimes a bit tricky...but what will not work is fixating on some woman who ain't THERE...who maybe..I'd never even met.

    I've lived a few different places, moved some. If I was thinking of moving... Tahiti...Tibet... ain't do-able...so I skip them and deal with real options. US Politics being what it is.....were I President, the fact is that like Obama I could not get my top ideas past congressional gridlock

  10. #40
    Stalked by *****iTroll Shanty's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    22,841
    Thanks
    4554

    From
    America's Fighting City and Cradle of Liberty
    Quote Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
    US Politics being what it is.....were I President, the fact is that like Obama I could not get my top ideas past congressional gridlock
    Which is why I like to point to the wreckage the GOP is able to do to the economy just by obstructing policies that can end the high joblessness and deficits their ideology has brought onto Americans.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed