aberrant85
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 594
- Reaction score
- 209
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/u...eory-default-wouldnt-be-that-bad.html?hp&_r=0
To quote:
Both [Obama and Boehner] were counting on the prospect of a global economic meltdown to help pull restive Republicans into line. On Wall Street, among business leaders and in a vast majority of university economics departments, the threat of significant instability resulting from a debt default is not in question. But a lot of Republicans simply do not believe it.
Seeing as how this is like deja vu all over again, I pose a question: On which issue does the GOP have the loosest grasp of facts and the broad consensus of experts when it comes in opposition to their preferred ideology?
The Democrat philosophy can be summed up as "Yes, you got yours but we are going to take it from you whether you earned it or not cause, no matter how hard you worked, we are automatically just as equal, so I get to take as much from you as I possibly can... "The Republican philosophy can be summed up as "I got mine, I want more, and I'm keepin' it."
I think the basic mistake that Republicans, and conservatives in general, make, can be explained on a scale where one end is cooperation and the other is competition. Basically, human beings are dependent creatures. We depend on each other to survive, and that's a simple fact. It is not possible to eliminate cooperation, or even to eliminate beyond a certain fairly robust degree, without endangering the survival of many individuals, if not the entire species. Acting in a completely self-interested manner simply does not work.
Of course, going too far the other direction is also fatal. But it's pretty critical to maintain the bonds of cooperation, which are always fairly delicate.
All of the above.....
johndylan1 said:Horrible misunderstanding of conservatives.
johndylan1 said:Conservatives believe in cooperation. We believe in voluntary cooperation and not coerced cooperation.
johndylan1 said:The effect of coercion is usually destructive, creating division.
I've never heard of a single person who supports 'trickle down economics'.My vote went for trickle down economics since the effects are so devestating to the entire nation and its people far more than many of the other things on the list. The idea that you can craft policies and programs to benefit the rich and piss on everybody else and call it rain is the cause of so much of our problems going back several decades. And unlike some issues like global warming where there actually are sensible republicans, they almost all seem to subscribe to taking care of the rich before everybody else.
I've never heard of a single person who supports 'trickle down economics'.
Yes, I was in my 20s and very interested in politics. I've heard many people express opposition to 'trickle down economics' but I've never heard a single person support it.Were you around in the 1980's, since you have never heard of a single person who supports 'trickle down economics'.
Yes, I was in my 20s and very interested in politics. I've heard many people express opposition to 'trickle down economics' but I've never heard a single person support it.
This was Reagan's economic policy, trickle-down, Reagonomics if you will.
How does the term "trickle down economics" fit anything that happened in the 80s?This was Reagan's economic policy, trickle-down, Reagonomics if you will.
You could've, and some people did.We should have been able to select more than one answer, it would make it much more effective.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?