Republikanske motkandidater til Obama, 2012? Hvem?

[Mr.M]

Du glemte eliminering av velferd for de svakeste i samfunn, han finner velferd stat politikk som Norge helt forkastelig og ulovlig.

Såvidt jeg har lest meg til, er han kun imot at denslags bestemmes på federalt nivå og dermed gjøres gjeldene for alle statene. Men er er ikke imot om delstater vedtar slike ordninger for sin egen del.

 

Forøvrig tror jeg at hverdagen brått ville innhentet en Ron Paul i presidentstolen. Han virker rimelig laid-back og har liksom "enkle og fornuftige svar" på alt, men han hadde nok ikke kunne opprettholdt den stilen i møte med virkeligheten og press fra Pentagon og andre sterke interesser.

[jjkoggan]

Såvidt jeg har lest meg til, er han kun imot at denslags bestemmes på federalt nivå og dermed gjøres gjeldene for alle statene. Men er er ikke imot om delstater vedtar slike ordninger for sin egen del.

 

Social Security, Medicare, og Food Stamps er bare en liten del av federal welfare Paul ville eliminere. Federal Government gir stor støtte til mange andre velferd programmer som er nødvendig for mange fattige til å overleve. Delstatene er avhengige av dette støtte og de rike statene betaler for de fattiger statene, noe som ville elimineres under Paul. Mange ville sulte under Paul.

 

Forøvrig tror jeg at hverdagen brått ville innhentet en Ron Paul i presidentstolen. Han virker rimelig laid-back og har liksom "enkle og fornuftige svar" på alt, men han hadde nok ikke kunne opprettholdt den stilen i møte med virkeligheten og press fra Pentagon og andre sterke interesser.

 

Han er en ideolog som har lite praktiske erfaring og det verste er at som ideolog, blir det vanskelig for ham å compromise, noe som er nødvendig i et demokrati. Det er derfor du finner nesten ingen saker som han har stemt på noe i kongress han ikke trodde på. Mange unge folk liker det men egentlig er det et stort problem. Ideologisk renhet stanser staten.

[del_diablo]

Han er en ideolog som har lite praktiske erfaring og det verste er at som ideolog, blir det vanskelig for ham å compromise, noe som er nødvendig i et demokrati. Det er derfor du finner nesten ingen saker som han har stemt på noe i kongress han ikke trodde på. Mange unge folk liker det men egentlig er det et stort problem. Ideologisk renhet stanser staten.

 

Uendelig mye bedre enn at han er kjøpt fra før dag 1.

[jjkoggan]

Voters have much, much more power rhan business interests. Ideologues who don't listen to the voters will be irrelevant quickly and be very ineffective while in office. Politicians who bend but dont break are the most successful in American history

 

In the case of Ron Paul only 10% of the electorate support his ideology. For an inflexible ideologue, that means he will alienate the electorate and become merely a dangerous figurehead. Were he to ignore the voters will as a democracy requires and use executive orders to pursue his minority ideology he would cause chaos and likely be impeached. Legislatively he would be DOA.

 

It is also false to claim he can't be bought. He has done exactly that by consorting with fringe elements Who Are bigots and racists in an attempt to boost popularity. This was evident in his newsletters

Endret 13. januar 2012 av jjkoggan

[Shruggie]

Too bad they never use it.

[jjkoggan]

Too bad they never use it.

 

They use it all the time. Our elected officials and laws reflect public opinion better than most european parliaments.

[Shruggie]

No, they don't. They reflect how well the 1 % have learned to control the 99.

[jjkoggan]

No, they don't. They reflect how well the 1 % have learned to control the 99.

Ah Yes, the ignorant masses, unaware of the grand coordinated manipulation, unable to think for themselves. Right out of michael moores playbook of absolutes and generalizations that thorougly discredit the validity of these claims. Reality is always messier and does not fit neatly into 99 to 1 percent categories.

 

I find your argument intellectually weak and devoid of nuance. Elite forces in every culture always have more power than they should but this does not mean they have total control. We Americans are very independent minded and are very capable of thinking for ourselves to say otherwise shows extreme ignorance and arrogance and shows little knowledge of our culture. Yes, powerful interests have too much influence but not as much as you assert. What you fail to understand us the concept that others can have conservative views without being brainwashed

[Shruggie]

No, they don't. They reflect how well the 1 % have learned to control the 99.

Ah Yes, the ignorant masses, unaware of the grand coordinated manipulation, unable to think for themselves. Right out of michael moores playbook of absolutes and generalizations that thorougly discredit the validity of these claims. Reality is always messier and does not fit neatly into 99 to 1 percent categories.

 

I find your argument intellectually weak and devoid of nuance. Elite forces in every culture always have more power than they should but this does not mean they have total control. We Americans are very independent minded and are very capable of thinking for ourselves to say otherwise shows extreme ignorance and arrogance and shows little knowledge of our culture. Yes, powerful interests have too much influence but not as much as you assert. What you fail to understand us the concept that others can have conservative views without being brainwashed

 

I don't fail to understand much, I just know that when 75 % of people support a bill that would only benefit the 1 %, someone's being fucked and someone's doing the fucking. The problem isn't that people like the cock up their asses, but that they don't feel it.

[jjkoggan]

Concrete example to support your vulgar, americans are brainwashed thesis ?

[Shruggie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

And stop calling me fucking vulgar.

[jjkoggan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

And stop calling me fucking vulgar.

 

You must not have noticed that there always have been a vigorous academic debate by serious economists about the benefits of tax cuts. Before you claim that Americans are brainwashed you must show that economists all agree about tax cuts and have therefore been misled Since this is not the case, your thesis doesn't hold water

 

Perhaps this time you can refrain from using profanity to make your point when you reply, it makes your arguments weaker

[Shruggie]

http://en.wikipedia....i/Bush_tax_cuts

And stop calling me fucking vulgar.

 

You must not have noticed that there always have been a vigorous academic debate by serious economists about the benefits of tax cuts. Before you claim that Americans are brainwashed you must show that economists all agree about tax cuts and have therefore been misled Since this is not the case, your thesis doesn't hold water

 

Perhaps this time you can refrain from using profanity to make your point when you reply, it makes your arguments weaker

 

There's no debate. There's people shouting at each other to muddle the field, but there's no real debate. Trickle down economics have never worked, that was proven in the early stages of feudal economics.

 

So no, I don't have to prove shit to you. You want to argue against me, bring arguments not stupid appeals to authorities that don't even exist.

 

And the reason I swear is simple: it helps me make my point. We speak differently in Norway, we swear a lot more than you do. If you have a problem with it, gtfo.

[festen]

En graf for å bare understreke at Obama slett ikke har vært så mislykket som noen her skal ha det til. Som andel av BNP har

den offentlige pengebruken faktisk gått ned i hele hans periode.

[jjkoggan]

There's no debate. There's people shouting at each other to muddle the field, but there's no real debate. Trickle down economics have never worked, that was proven in the early stages of feudal economics.

 

So no, I don't have to prove shit to you. You want to argue against me, bring arguments not stupid appeals to authorities that don't even exist.

 

And the reason I swear is simple: it helps me make my point. We speak differently in Norway, we swear a lot more than you do. If you have a problem with it, gtfo.

 

There is strong debate about the effects of tax cuts combined with free market capitalism. You might be ignorant of the Chicago school of economics, nor Nobel prize economist Milton Friedman, nor Neoliberalism. THis has been an unending debate for many decades among some brilliant economists, not just hacks.

 

I have seen many serious academic debates in Norway and have worked with several scandinavian scientists. None possessed the tendency to use profanity on every exchange, nor do most in these fora.

[Shruggie]

I am not ignorant of any of those, I simply find them to be wrong, and hardly any of them have had anything to say on these tax cuts. Friedman died years ago, and "a school" and the concept of neoliberalism can hardly be quoted in your favor, now can they.

 

I give you some articles to read.

 

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/how-bush-tax-cuts-economy_n_873245.html#s289287&title=Effect_On_AfterTax

 

And this, which of course is useless as simply a view on the tax cuts themselves, but present a great point in favor of them not being the brightest idea ever when you look at how much they've cost: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.php

[Spenol]

And the reason I swear is simple: it helps me make my point. We speak differently in Norway, we swear a lot more than you do. If you have a problem with it, gtfo.

Jeg synes ærlig talt ikke at banning tilfører argumentasjonen noe positivt - snarere tvert i mot. I mine øyne fremstår banning i de fleste tilfeller ukultivert, liksom-folkelig og aggressivt. Banning har sin plass i språket, men kun når den reserveres til de riktige situasjonene. Det går i hvert fall inflasjon i den språklige effekten av banneord når de brukes i annenhver setning.

[cFc]

En graf for å bare understreke at Obama slett ikke har vært så mislykket som noen her skal ha det til. Som andel av BNP har

den offentlige pengebruken faktisk gått ned i hele hans periode.

 

Lol. Nå kan du da ikke bruke bailout og fiscal stimulus som lagde boomen i denne grafen i 2008, som et vanlig utgiftsår. Er jo helt klart at det fortsatt ligger langt langt over 2000-07. Nå har jo også Obama under TARP kjøpt opp hundrevis av billioner dollar av toxic assets, som kan vise seg å bli en ekstrem tapspost etter hvert. Obama reddet finansektoren, ved å kjøpe deres verdiløse obligasjoner på gjeld fra Subprime-markedet for 100 % av tidligere markedspris. Lik taktikk som Irland og Island til en viss grad, og gjør at USA vil ha en kjempebyrde i mange år framover. Økonomisk sett har Obama økt USA's nåværende kjøpekraft, men til hvilken pris i framtiden? Går renten på statsbond opp kraftig i USA, dette kan skje om Fed slutter å kjøpe bonds i frykt for inflasjon, eller om inflasjon skulle intreffe noe som ikke er helt urealistisk, så vil USA ende opp med å bruke rundt 1/5 av budsjettet bare på gjeldsbetaling. At Obama er bra for USA nå, greit nok, men for neste generasjon kan det bli en katastrofe.

 

 

 

[festen]

En graf for å bare understreke at Obama slett ikke har vært så mislykket som noen her skal ha det til. Som andel av BNP har

den offentlige pengebruken faktisk gått ned i hele hans periode.

 

Lol. Nå kan du da ikke bruke bailout og fiscal stimulus som lagde boomen i denne grafen i 2008, som et vanlig utgiftsår. Er jo helt klart at det fortsatt ligger langt langt over 2000-07. Nå har jo også Obama under TARP kjøpt opp hundrevis av billioner dollar av toxic assets, som kan vise seg å bli en ekstrem tapspost etter hvert. Obama reddet finansektoren, ved å kjøpe deres verdiløse obligasjoner på gjeld fra Subprime-markedet for 100 % av tidligere markedspris. Lik taktikk som Irland og Island til en viss grad, og gjør at USA vil ha en kjempebyrde i mange år framover. Økonomisk sett har Obama økt USA's nåværende kjøpekraft, men til hvilken pris i framtiden? Går renten på statsbond opp kraftig i USA, dette kan skje om Fed slutter å kjøpe bonds i frykt for inflasjon, eller om inflasjon skulle intreffe noe som ikke er helt urealistisk, så vil USA ende opp med å bruke rundt 1/5 av budsjettet bare på gjeldsbetaling. At Obama er bra for USA nå, greit nok, men for neste generasjon kan det bli en katastrofe.

 

I forhold til BNP har de offentlige utgiftene gått ned, og fordi dollaren har falt såpass mye er også statsgjelden til USA i faktisk kjøpekraft i form av råvarer, eventuelt statistikk for hvor mange dollarmillionærer det er i verden egentlig gått ned. Fortsetter det er det ikke lenge før de kan ta gullet til sentralbanken og bruke den til å betale ned all utenlandsgjelden. For å komme dit er det viktig å holde en viss kraft på pengebruken. Det er nesten litt merkverdig at gjelden skal bli mindre og mindre desto mer de bruker av penger de ikke har, men fordi dollaren oppfører seg slik den gjør blir det effekten i praksis. Det er fordelen med å ha sin egen valuta og sin egen sentralbank. Gjør de ikke det, skulle de hatt en låst valuta kunne de risikert og ikke hatt nok penger, som betyr at de kunne gått konkurs. Sentralbanken gjør det lettere for dollaren ved at dollarene i omløp kan få hjelp av andre dollar for å kjøpe produkter og tjenester og betale gjeld.

Endret 14. januar 2012 av festen

[jjkoggan]

I am not ignorant of any of those, I simply find them to be wrong, and hardly any of them have had anything to say on these tax cuts. Friedman died years ago, and "a school" and the concept of neoliberalism can hardly be quoted in your favor,

 

Actually friedman was in favor of the Bush tax cuts before he died and Keynes and Adam Smith have long been dead but the basic principles of their theories are still being debated as are friedmans. Being dead has no relevance to their ideas.

 

My point is not whether or not the Bush tax cuts were a good idea or not, personally I disagreed with them from the start, but rather that the principle of low taxes, small government and privatization is not just a idea cooked up by a wealthy cabal of 1% ers to delude the ignorant

masses. It is, in fact a legitimate economic theory supported and established by some Nobel prize winning laureates.

 

The long term effects of different tax cuts through history are still being argued and debated and have different outcomes depending on which school of economics you ascribe to, but to say that tax cuts are simply a conspiracy of the very wealthy ignores an entire school of economics.

If Nobel prize winning laureates can support them who are you to say that others who also do are supporting them because they are ignorant and brainwashed

 

If you really want to understand why few Americans support the idea of welfare states and social democracies you must not fixate the powerful preying on the weak that was so influential in creating the politics in so many European states. We have a very different history and culture that created a very different view on wealth and class that has nothing to do with manipulation by the powerful. Theses views are the primary reason we have more conservative politics more than Europeans,