Oh boy. You projected, in one fell swoop, every conservative stereotype on me, without any indication I hold any of these views.
Manichaean much?
I know Krugman’s views. He’s a Keynesian, which is fine with me. What is not fine with me is reading a new article in the New York Times every week that tirelessly argues for increased stimulus spending, as we were racking up trillion-dollar deficits. He got his $800 billion stimulus, and the results were mixed, at best. He treaded the path toward blind ideology as the trumpeter of “more spending, more spending, more spending!!”
For what it’s worth, I hold the same contempt for Krugman’s fiscally dangerous love of government stimulus as I do for any fiscal conservative who thinks the budget should be balanced overnight.
What was needed–and still is needed–is a balanced approach that tackles the structural drivers of our debt while finding new revenues from the only members of our society whose wealth is growing, namely the wealthy. I prefer raising capital gains rates over income, but either way more money is needed to sustain our social safety net. I tread nowhere toward ideology with this reasoned assessment, and yes, I am calling for compromise. Call me crazy.
[QUOTE=Stringbean]
I know Krugman’s views. He’s a Keynesian, which is fine with me. What is not fine with me is reading a new article in the New York Times every week that tirelessly argues for increased stimulus spending, as we were racking up trillion-dollar deficits. He got his $800 billion stimulus, and the results were mixed, at best. He treaded the path toward blind ideology as the trumpeter of “more spending, more spending, more spending!!”
[/QUOTE]
As Hentor will undoubtedly point out, and to be fair, Krugman argued that the stimulus was far short of what was needed, and that the stimulus we got was insufficient to do the job. The analogy I guess would be if someone told you they needed a thousand gallons of water to put out the fire on your house, but they were only given 100 gallons to do the job…and then blamed because your house burned down.
We all have our fantasies. Marking an unprecedented stimulus package as wildly insufficient is not going to sway many.
But saying ‘He got his $800 billion stimulus, and the results were mixed, at best’ is a bit disingenuous when you know that it wasn’t what he was asking for wrt the results we did get. Whether you think the stimulus was a waste is something that can be addressed in another way than saying he got what he was asking for when, well, he didn’t.
Bullshit. He made it very clear that the stimulus was not enough, and then proceeded to offer us the reasons why he believed that was so. And here’s the important part:
He was right.
The stimulus was too small. The cash flow was cut off too fast. Same mistake as in the 30s.
But, again, he predicted it pretty accurately, and his economic models are pretty much on-point.
LOL
Legalizing same-sex marriages.
1- I agree that both sides would like to reduce the number of abortions. I’m in the “want abortions to be safe, legal, and rare” camp. I’d like to do it by universal free contraception. While I can see where conservatives who are pro-life are coming from, I fail to see the opposition some have to contraception.
2- To a point, both sides want to see unemployment drop. I think 0% is an unrealistic goal, though both sides pay lip service to it.
3- Both sides pay lip service to a balanced budget. One side would get their by gutting the safety net, the other side would make modest adjustments in taxes.
4- Both sides would like to reduce the crime rate.
5- I think both sides recognize that fossil fuels are not the future of energy. I don’t believe either side objects to solar or wind energy.
6- Both sides condemn terrorism.
Unfortunately, what divides seems to dwarf what unites us.
That sex criminals are not evil people, but either coerced by the victim or in need of psychological help.
Huh?
Here’s an issue that I think conservatives and liberals can agree on:
The militarization of the police through the ‘gifting’ of hardware from the military is a really, really bad idea. There is no reason whatsoever for a small town police force to have armored personnel carriers and heavy machine guns.
Not only is this a very bad thing for police/community relations, but it leads to shows of force like we saw in Ferguson which actually inflamed tensions. Not only that, but it’s clear that the yahoos on the force were not properly trained in the use of that equipment.
Hell, the marines in Iraq were told to get out of their armored vehicles and patrol on foot because it was recognized that policing requires engaging the population. To see police officers in America riding around in armored vehicles is very disturbing.
I have yet to meet anyone on the right or left who thinks this is a good idea.
I agree with you on the issue. I would like to agree with your assessment on the feelings of people in general on the topic. To be honest, I would have guessed a majority of conservatives in the US would like that sort of thing, though. I would be happy to be wrong.
There are certainly some conservaties who agree with you- Rand Paul is the most prominent.
But in many other cases, people’s attitudes toward the militarization of the police depends largely on whose ox is being gored.
Many Conservatives howled when more than 100 heavily armed federal agents burst into a private home to take Elian Gonzalez into custody; liberals generally yawned, or thought Elian’s relatives had it coming. Simialrly, many conservatives remain outraged by the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents; liberals generally yawned, or thought that David Koresh and the Weavers deserved what they got.
On the other hand, most law and order conservatives show little of the same compassion for the minority victims of overarmed, overzealous cops. Those victims are mourned almost exclusively on the Left.
No, they also differ on the definition of it – though that does also imply a difference as to means.
If conservatives and liberals agree that shouldn’t happen, why does it happen?
Yes, many conservatives are essentially saying that cells are human beings. SINGLE CELLS!!!
How they can manage it with a straight face is beyond me.
Because the police like it? Hey, free stuff. Cool military stuff!
Because it seems more ‘efficient’ to re-purpose military hardware than to just destroy it?
Independent of the larger issue, both of these bits of thought resonate with me!
You might want to try reading your own site. That’s not what it says. It supports neither your own claim nor the one BPC made that you offered it in support of.
Budget Cadet Player, ball’s in your court.
Probably because it hasn’t been a major issue. The majority might oppose the concept in general but they aren’t very vocal in their opposition. Meanwhile the minority that support the program are vocal in their support. There are other examples where a dedicated minority gets its way over a tepid majority.