Posted: 11/6/2012 11:30 AM
Posted: 11/6/2012 11:31 AM
Posted: 11/6/2012 11:32 AM
vebiltdervan wrote:WestCoastDore wrote: ...after the election, we can all hope that the extremists of both sides will learn to listen, discuss and compromise rather than behave like bad kindergarten students.I'm of the pessimistic opinion that, if Obama wins, the GOP will not 'listen, discuss and compromise', but rather will draw the opposite conclusion, to wit: that Romney wasn't a 'true conservative'. And they will therefore double-down on extremism and deadlock.Which likely as not will be rewarded in 2014, because democrats just aren't as dependable voters as republicans in 'off-year' (non-presidential) elections. But assuming that a reliably truly conservative is nominated by the GOP in 2016 (which takes Christie out of play, except as possible VP), America's demographics will expose this double-down as a terribly costly mistake, & send the GOP scrambling to regain their disappearing (at that point) competitiveness. Trouble is, the GOP will find themselves caught between their monetary dependence on ultra-right rich donors like the Koch brothers, versus the clearly perceived necessity of moving back toward the middle.The demographic logic is inescapable: every 4 years, the American voting populace is 2% more minority. The GOP cannot retain its relevance much longer if they remain the party of white male Americans.
WestCoastDore wrote: ...after the election, we can all hope that the extremists of both sides will learn to listen, discuss and compromise rather than behave like bad kindergarten students.
doreking wrote: What a joke this thread is. It demonstrates a favorite tactic of the left, which is to destroy those who challenge their policies. Further, those in favor of big government are deemed rational and reasonable, while anyone who disagrees is an extremist.
Posted: 11/6/2012 11:40 AM
Posted: 11/6/2012 11:45 AM
doreking wrote: "What a joke this thread is. It demonstrates a favorite tactic of the left, which is to destroy those who challenge their policies. Further, those in favor of big government are deemed rational and reasonable, while anyone who disagrees is an extremist."doreking wrote: "You are full of it. I want freedom and a limited government that protects freedom. You guys want unlimited government and a government managed economy. If my position is now extremist, our nation is in deep troubleYou guys are totally misguided and brainwashed by a leftist media, that simply destroys any dissent."
Last edited 11/6/2012 11:59 AM by ORDore
Posted: 11/6/2012 12:01 PM
Posted: 11/6/2012 12:18 PM
doreking wrote: If you don't understand why these things suck, you could benefit from some economics lessons.
Posted: 11/6/2012 12:26 PM
doreking wrote: Unfortunately for you what I'm saying is true. By the way, you guys are supporting a president who has implemented unprecedented levels of government spending, boasts about a governmental takeover of gm, and has implemented a health care scheme that uses government force to micromanage the practice of healthcare. If you don't understand why these things suck, you could benefit from some economics lessons.
Posted: 11/6/2012 12:27 PM
Posted: 11/6/2012 12:31 PM
Posted: 11/6/2012 12:36 PM
ORDore wrote: I would love to see your mountains of peer-reviewed studies that show how trickle-down stimulates economic growth.
Posted: 11/6/2012 12:38 PM
Posted: 11/6/2012 12:40 PM
ORDore wrote: I know. Occasionally I like to play his game. It's fun. In moderation. Moderation ... ha!
Posted: 11/6/2012 12:41 PM
Dore2004 wrote: ORDore wrote: I would love to see your mountains of peer-reviewed studies that show how trickle-down stimulates economic growth.Arthur Laffer?
Posted: 11/6/2012 12:46 PM
Posted: 11/6/2012 12:56 PM
doreking wrote: 1. There is no question a free market system is the best way to prosperity. Does it require government? Of course, but the government should be limited to areas where free markets don't work and for safety/protecting innocent 3rd parties. Should the government spend our money for us and distort transactions between consenting adults? No. Should the government arbitrarily redistribute income in the name of fairness? Never. That is different from limited help for the poor. Notwithstanding, freedom should always be paramount. When government spends our money and distorts our economic choices it does so with force. Comply or go to federal prison. Big governent, especially when beyond reasonably necessary bounds (such as your suggestion that the government should actively manage the economy) always destroys freedom.In addition, government policies can't trump the laws of economics. There are always unintended consequences to government economic policies, despite the best of intentions. Not to mention how inefficient and wasteful government is, because it necessarily involves spending other peoples' money on things deemed important by politicians and bureaucrats, rather than things in actual demand. In addition, government exist without competitive .pressures that preclude it being responsive and efficient.
Posted: 11/6/2012 1:20 PM
vebiltdervan wrote: geeznotagain wrote: ...the amount of government assistance provided today (expressed as a pct of GDP) far surpasses anything in the Eisenhower years. Do we have a link that shows this? My operating hypothesis would be that, to the extent it's true, it's a direct reflection of the Great Recession still. If recovery continues, it will drop back down to the same level as Obama's predecessor.
geeznotagain wrote: ...the amount of government assistance provided today (expressed as a pct of GDP) far surpasses anything in the Eisenhower years.
Posted: 11/6/2012 1:22 PM
Posted: 11/6/2012 1:32 PM
doreking wrote: Try reading milton friedman. There's no evidence to support keynesian theory. "Theory" says it all.
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2014 Microsoft|