Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Renault]

No, Aqizzar, you're pretty much spot-on. It's been the primary justification for conservative anti-tax rhetoric for quite some time now, while even conservative economists agree that the US tax burden isn't anywhere near high enough for it to matter. It's sort of a bad joke, yet one people tend to inevitably bring up whenever taxation is discussed.

[Strife26]

Crap I remember it now. We grew the graph in conservative style way, then the teacher gestured to the far right and said that the actual intersection was Waaaay over here. It's been awhile since microeconomics, ya know?

[Renault]

Boy is it ever, since the Laffer curve is more a Macroeconomics issue. 

[AntiAntiMatter]

Watching US politics makes me happy that even our Conservatives are more liberal then your Liberals.

Yet another reason to move to Canada.

[Leafsnail]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It is an gross oversimplification, but it helps as a rough measure.

"Pick a good sounding adjective.  Make it so your point of view is at the top".

I mean, you could do that with pretty much any view.  You could do "Security" for fascism, "Preservation" for conservatism or "Fairness" for liberalism.

EDIT: Actually, it's even worse since you've labelled your opponents as "opportunists".

[Miggy]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It is an gross oversimplification, but it helps as a rough measure.

"Pick a good sounding adjective.  Make it so your point of view is at the top".

I mean, you could do that with pretty much any view.  You could do "Security" for fascism, "Preservation" for conservatism or "Fairness" for liberalism.

EDIT: Actually, it's even worse since you've labelled your opponents as "opportunists".

[Kusgnos]

Not nearly as hilarious as Miggy's, but...

[GlyphGryph]

First, what do you believe the basis of the governments right to govern is? It's possible to have more than one, but most people seem to favour one most strongly.
Rights-based (Libertarian Approach)
Morality-based (Various groups, mostly associated with religious right, but there's quite a lot of these on the left too)
Karma-based (Tea Party)
Fairness-based (Socialists to Communist)
Service-based (Democrats)
Equality-based (Liberals)
Interest-based (Many people across all parties. Most actual politicians. Lobbyists. Support whichever system they believe will benefit them the most)
Security-based (Neo Conservatives)
Tradition-based (Classic Conservatives)
Power-based (A belief that the government's duty is to protect and grow the nations power and influence over the whole world)
Class-based (Not popular in the US nowadays)

Even then, of course, there's plenty of disagreement amongst those with the same priorities as to methodology and implementation, with some (like morality based) being pretty damn diverse.

[thobal]

I'd like to see a Council Communist state attempted. Unfortunately, whenever "communism" is being brought into fashion, everyone who says that communism is compatible with democracy tends to get shot.

[Zrk2]

I support a rights based government. The only purpose of the government is to protect the people, and their rights. Anything else could be an excuse for the government to slowly expand and take over more and more until totalitarianism is achieved.

That said, I realize that a smaller government leaves the door open for manipulation via big business, and so the government should also ensure that those businesses cannot force the average Joe into submission.

Therefore I support a state with just enough regulation to keep big businesses and lobbyists from seizing power. However, it should try to ensure that it does not try to take too active a role in the day to day affairs of the nation.

[scriver]

Karma-based (Tea Party)

I don't get it?

[Strife26]

Boy is it ever, since the Laffer curve is more a Macroeconomics issue. 

The AP microecon class in question went on tangents more than most threads on the Bay 12 forum.

[Frajic]

When it comes to state/personal power, I'd put the power in the people we elect rather than the people who only were there for money in the first place.

That's my two cents.

[Zrk2]

Boy is it ever, since the Laffer curve is more a Macroeconomics issue. 

The AP microecon class in question went on tangents more than most threads on the Bay 12 forum.

I love AP. I'm in AP US history, it's great.

And that's why we have government, to ensure that power is not seized by those who would use it unscrupulously.

[Sowelu]

I'm in favor of a service-based government.  Yes, there is a high level of fraud, but the benefits are worth the waste.

Yeah, I support higher income taxes while secure in the knowledge that I'll be paying a big chunk of them while requiring few of the benefits.

I'm in favor of a LOT more social services.  This is because I've had a lot of friends who got really screwed over where the system was lacking.  I support nationalized health care because I've seen what happens to people who need health care and can't get it, and what happens to people whose disabilities keep them from being employable.

I support more government-funded college tuition, at least for technical colleges:  2-year sorts of things.  Those should be free.  I support WAY higher education funding all across the board, because that's what will keep our economy competitive.  Teachers should be high-enough paid that there is serious competition for their jobs.

I think we could deal with a smaller military.  The best way to increase our national security is to increase our foreign aid expenditure, and reduce our national deficit, while keeping a strong production economy that can swing into gear to give us an unbreakable backbone in a long-term conflict.  Civilians keep our nation strong.

I think our environmental regulations are moving in the correct direction right now.  Not too lax, not too strict, just gently nudging things in the right ways.  More research funding for cleaner power would be nice, but I don't think we need to regulate existing industries out of existence.

I'm divided on Social Security.  I am not opposed to its privatization, as long as it is VERY heavily regulated and watched like a hawk.

If I really wanted to be extreme, I would suggest we adopt a mandatory year of national service (which is not required to be military).

I think that a small reduction of military expenditure plus a moderate-to-large raise in taxes are the correct way to fund the increase in social services.  Hi, I'm a taxpayer, and I'm working hard to give the country my money.  I'm not a teacher, I'm not a doctor, and I'm not working overseas to improve the infrastructure of wartorn countries to make them more stable places...but I want my government to take my money and pay people who are.


Socially, I support gay marriage, and a national decriminalization and tax on less dangerous drugs with an emphasis on rehab instead of institutionalization.  I support gun ownership and I'm divided on the death penalty.