# The Republicans are swine cunts **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 1, 2005, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481 "2005-12-01T00:27:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/201 "2005-12-03T16:49:49Z")
My computer locked up, I had to reboot. Hyperbole and treason: Bush - Either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists. Cheney - aid and comfort to the enemy Free speech is guaranteed BY LAW. There is no law that says what speech will be allowed. It does not “help the terrorists” one bit, no matter what Bush, Cheney, O’Reilly, or anyone else says. Maybe SOME people need to go back to school and study history a bit more. It is one of the things that is guaranteed (again) BY LAW. The legal definition is deliberately narrow. Where to draw the line: No where. Nobody gets to decide where American citizens have to stop. Nobody gets to draw a line anywhere at all. There is no list of “allowed speech” and there never will be. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/202 "2005-12-03T17:14:49Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I think the war is very necessary. Macho-man **Scylla** , always willing to fight to the last drop of someone else’s blood. Along with the codpiece, one more thing he has in common with his beloved CIC. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/203 "2005-12-03T17:44:11Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I think I said, you work your way out of a recession by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Handing out money to the poor would be the latter. Or you could see it as a rebate of sales taxes, etc. > [@](#): > > The other side of it is that poor and middle class people have large amounts of debt. Rather than spending it, a large part of it goes to paying down that debt. That is a good point. But, morally speaking, it hardly hurts my case that it’s better to cut taxes for the middle class and poor, does it? > [@](#): > > Which will be the larger operating force depends on the economic circumstances prevalent at the time. If debt loads are high, and consumer confidence is low, than tax cuts to the middle class will likely go to reducing debt. Thanks, I will use this argument in the future. It is better to cut taxes for the poor and middle class. Not only will they end up consuming proportionately more than the rich, but doing so will help them pay down their crushing debt burden, making for a more equitable society, etc. etc. > [@](#): > > You have to realize that tax cuts affect profit margins. It increases them. That incentivises business owners to hire. I should have said way back that I don’t buy your reasoning concerning tax cuts and recessions in the first place. I’m not saying you’re totally wrong, but without an injection of subtlety somewhere (hard to do on a message board), the logic is going to be that we could tax cut and spend (and lower interest rates) our way out of any recession. But you can’t have zero taxes or zero interest rates (Japan has tried the latter without much success). > [@](#): > > I’m absolutely positive I have a stronger grasp on it than you. No argument there! You have absolutely, positively a better grasp of the right’s talking points on the economy than I have on the left’s. > [@](#): > > To make that assumption is to endorse the strong form of the efficient market hypothesis. Pretty much only an idiot does that. Well, if the shoe fits… > [@](#): > > This is too vaguely worded to be meaningful. You need to define the terms you are speaking in. Yeah, if this were a goddamn whitepaper on the economy, I would need to. > [@](#): > > Sales taxes disproportionately penalize lower income levels. I would have no problem with a repeal of most sales taxes accompanied with a commensurate increase in income taxes. Sounds fair and appropriate to me. Sounds like we agree on something. > [@](#): > > The middle class **did** get a tax cut. Sure, a weensy little thing, whereas the rich got a bonanza. It was fuckin’ unreal. > [@](#): > > Let me try it this way: The poor don’t make a lot of money. Exempting them from taxes doesn’t help. Except that they aren’t exempt from taxes in the first place (sales taxes, etc.). So yes, it would help. Next, they should get good medical care without having to pay much for it. > [@](#): > > No. Employment has been pretty strong even through the post bubble/ 9/11 recession. Dude, really. I’ve been following the stats since 2000. You heard the one about a year back about Bush having the lowest level of job creation since Hoover, right? You heard the stats about new jobs not even keeping up with population growth, right? And I am also talking about underemployment. When I graduated with an MBA in 2000 a very high percentage of grads (70s) had a job before they left (yes, it was higher during the bubble, but those stats had been good for a long time; the idea was that if you went out and improved yourself, like all the tightie righties suggeted, you got rewarded). In 2002 it was the dark night of the soul for MBAs, with only 25 - 35% or so in the same condition. And of that percentage, a high number were taking jobs in the 30-40k range. I also had the _fun_ of being in the job market that year, found nothing, but then easily found a job back in Japan (at the highest pay I’d ever gotten). Meanwhile, tech workers were finding “employment” at Wal-Mart and other career-building corporations. If you don’t recognize that _bad things_ have been happening in the job market over the past five years, then you’re just too far gone to argue with. > [@](#): > > Go check unemployment rates for the last five years, and compare them for previous five year periods and then tell me it sucked. It sucked. > [@](#): > > Quantify “under-employed.” You require education? Here is [Underemployment.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underemployment) > [@](#): > > As for your “undeniable malaise,” perhaps you might quantify that as well. The term you may be looking for is “consumer confidence.” If it is, I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but I don’t really think you have your finger on the pulse of the economy. Dude, I don’t wanna tell you where you’ve got _your_ finger. There is a malaise in the country concerning the economy that transcends the stats (which, by the way, I deny are particularly good). The right-wing talking point that you can go out there and get _degrees_ _training_ and _skills_ and thereby get a _great job_ is bullshit these days, for the simple reason is that everybody’s doing it, so the employers are left with arbitrary hoops instead of hard criteria. What that does to people psychologically is obvious: You can go get your BA, but you’re bound for Starbucks. You can get your MBA, and maybe you’ll make head barrista. > [@](#): > > Health costs and insurance costs have been skyrocketing. It makes it a harder benefit to offer. I don’t blame the employers. In fact, let’s get that monkey of their back with socialized medicine (or rather, let’s make it 100% socialized instead of 44%). > [@](#): > > Why don’t you define equitably? Sure. In an equitable economy, a breadwinner can perform a job that is _prima facie_ necessary to the functioning of the economy (janitor, supermarket clerk, dishwasher) and support a family of five (i.e., the other spouse can stay home with the kids; I say “five” because you need more than two kids per couple to replace the population) in a decent dwelling, with decent food, good medical care, and small basic comforts and entertainments. That is, no-frills middle-class existence. Is that doable? It’s pretty much the situation in Japan, which has had full employment no matter how crappy the economy has gotten and medical care for nearly all. > [@](#): > > Off to gibberish land. I said “necessary.” Whoops, no ya didn’t: > [@YOU](#): > > I think the war is very necessary. I don’t think your finger on the tap of the “national mood” is any more accurate than the economic acument you’ve demonstrated. > [@](#): > > Hmmmm. Blew a gasket, did we? Yes. A few months into Bush’s second term, when the natiional and international situation crossed the line dividing _farce_ and _batshit insanity._ ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/204 "2005-12-03T18:25:11Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Meanwhile, they’re paying FiCA, regressive sales taxes, property taxes, **sin taxes** , gas taxes, etc. Whatever else happens from now til the end of time, we always have this to agree on. Now we just need to look at whom is responsible for ever increasing them in an effort to change personal behavior. My company just announced insurance premiums are going up for using legal products. But that’s a different rant. I have a question. What is the definition and criteria for standard of living? I keep hearing about the difference between now and 40 years ago. I honestly wonder how the two can be fairly compared. 40 years ago, families were mostly content with a home, car, TV (maybe 2 if you were well-off). A radio, appliances such as a fridge and stove, water heater and if you were lucky an A/C unit. Today we’re talking 2 cars minimum for most, and more if the kids get one. X-Box or PS2, plasma TV, DVD surround sound, high performence PC’s, cable internet, cell phones, a t.v. in in more than half the rooms in the house (growing bigger by the day), printers hooked up to the PC, etc, etc, etc. Now, of course many don’t have most of the above listed. But most have some of them. In addition to all that people had 40 years ago. Is standard of living based on what the Jones’ have? Or is it based on the basic things that make for a comfortable life? Were I to cancel the broadband and go back to network stations, cut cell service, never spend another penny on anything internet related and forego digital cameras, the 360 and a larger TV, I’d be able to retire before 50. I won’t stop spending the money on those things as they provide a facet of the lifestyle I prefer. But they certainly aren’t necessities. However, the simple fact that so many more things are available to me that weren’t to my parents and grandparents, how can the two be compared? The technology and quality in just this room I sit in now is such that wasn’t even dreamed of 40 years ago. And I’d consider myself on the lower end of equipment. My father was just under 6 figures a year in 1978. My quality of life is so far beyond his at that time, it’s stunning. So what are the rules in comparing standard of living? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/205 "2005-12-03T18:37:45Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > I have a question. What is the definition and criteria for standard of living? I keep hearing about the difference between now and 40 years ago. I honestly wonder how the two can be fairly compared. … > > Now, of course many don’t have most of the above listed. But most have some of them. In addition to all that people had 40 years ago. Is standard of living based on what the Jones’ have? Or is it based on the basic things that make for a comfortable life? … I am NOT an economist (much of it sounds like magic or doubletalk), but here’s my simplistic take. Standard of living would be how much money (adjusted for inflation) is left over after dealing with the necessities (disposable income). Someone who can afford all the great toys you mentioned (I have some of them too) would then have a higher standard of living than someone who can barely afford the basic necessities - even if the more well off person chooses not to buy all the “extras”. ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/206 "2005-12-03T18:40:44Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > **Ukelele{sic} Ike** Why don’t you do me a favor, and get off your cowardly drive-by ass, do your job, and warn the puppy? Sorry, sir, this isn’t my station. I also apologize for what you consider “drive-bys;” as I’ve stated during _contretemps_ with you in the past, I have other things to accomplish in life besides write really, really long Mister T-oriented posts on message boards. How’s your kid doing, by the way? See much of her? As for the “coward” part, when do _you_ plan to enlist? You’ve got a new Strategy For Victory to carry out, pal. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/207 "2005-12-03T19:30:14Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Or you could see it as a rebate of sales taxes, etc.That is a good point. But, morally speaking, it hardly hurts my case that it’s better to cut taxes for the middle class and poor, does it? Better in what way? > [@](#): > > Thanks, I will use this argument in the future. It is better to cut taxes for the poor and middle class. Not only will they end up consuming proportionately more than the rich, but doing so will help them pay down their crushing debt burden, making for a more equitable society, etc. etc. Well, if you use it, use it intelligently. They can’t both spend the money and pay down debt with it. Depending on circumstances they will do one more than the other. One helps the economy, the other not really. If you are trying to spend your way out of a recession you need to make tax cuts where they are likeliest to be effective. In some cases, tax cuts to the wealthy or business owners or corporations are unlikely to be effective. Other times they are likely to. Same goes for middle class tax cuts. > [@](#): > > I should have said way back that I don’t buy your reasoning concerning tax cuts and recessions in the first place. I’m not saying you’re totally wrong, but without an injection of subtlety somewhere (hard to do on a message board), the logic is going to be that we could tax cut and spend (and lower interest rates) our way out of any recession. If you reduce it to absurdity. But what exactly is your problem with my reasoning? Macroeconomics 101, nothing controversial about it. > [@](#): > > But you can’t have zero taxes or zero interest rates (Japan has tried the latter without much success). Good point, and that’s one of things I’m alluding to in making tax cuts and increasing spending. You can give people all the money you want, but if they are unwilling to spend it it won’t help the economy. The Japanese were huge savers and they did not respond to the incentives. Tax cuts for economic purposes need to inject more capital and investment into the market or they’re wasted. > [@](#): > > No argument there! You have absolutely, positively a better grasp of the right’s talking points on the economy than I have on the left’s. Oh stop with the “talking points.” This is basic economics not politics. > [@](#): > > Sure, a weensy little thing, whereas the rich got a bonanza. It was fuckin’ unreal. Again, if you wish to make these kind of arguments you have to quantify them and put them in context. Hyperbole and adjectives give me no ground to understand your point. If you give a 5% tax cut to a guy who makes a million, and to a guy who makes 100k, do you consider one a “bonanza” and the other not? > [@](#): > > Except that they aren’t exempt from taxes in the first place (sales taxes, etc.). So yes, it would help. I thought it was clear from context I was discussing income taxes. We seem to agree on sales taxes. > [@](#): > > Next, they should get good medical care without having to pay much for it. That’s a nice wish. I think so, too. It’s surprisingly difficult to make it happen in practice though. We do have a Medicare safety net, but I think we should be doing better in terms of coverage. In my town there’s a Federally funded practice with excellent Doctors that bills on a needs based scale. If you would like to read about it, I’d email you a link, but the bottom line is that everybody gets good care who goes there, and, we have a lot of poor and migrant workers in the area. It’s a good model. > [@](#): > > Dude, really. I’ve been following the stats since 2000. Apparently not. It was about 5.5% in '04 and about 5.8% in '03. Check at the US department of labor. I’m trying to figure out how you think unemployment sucked in the last five years. > [@](#): > > You heard the one about a year back about Bush having the lowest level of job creation since Hoover, right? You heard the stats about new jobs not even keeping up with population growth, right? I dunno. Why don’t you quantify them and make an argument? > [@](#): > > And I am also talking about underemployment. When I graduated with an MBA in 2000 a very high percentage of grads (70s) had a job before they left (yes, it was higher during the bubble, but those stats had been good for a long time; the idea was that if you went out and improved yourself, like all the tightie righties suggeted, you got rewarded). In 2002 it was the dark night of the soul for MBAs, with only 25 - 35% or so in the same condition. And of that percentage, a high number were taking jobs in the 30-40k range. I also had the _fun_ of being in the job market that year, found nothing, but then easily found a job back in Japan (at the highest pay I’d ever gotten). Meanwhile, tech workers were finding “employment” at Wal-Mart and other career-building corporations. If you don’t recognize that _bad things_ have been happening in the job market over the past five years, then you’re just too far gone to argue with.It sucked.You require education? > > Here is [Underemployment.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underemployment) Yes, but I didn’t ask you what it was, I asked you to quantify it. I’m hard pressed to wring my hands about MBAs only making 40k fresh out of college, and you’re committing a fallacy if you think that proves something about the economy. It is equally likely to prove something about the market for MBAs. > [@](#): > > There is a malaise in the country concerning the economy that transcends the stats (which, by the way, I deny are particularly good). So you assert. > [@](#): > > The right-wing talking point that you can go out there and get _degrees_ _training_ and _skills_ and thereby get a _great job_ is bullshit these days, for the simple reason is that everybody’s doing it, so the employers are left with arbitrary hoops instead of hard criteria. What that does to people psychologically is obvious: You can go get your BA, but you’re bound for Starbucks. You can get your MBA, and maybe you’ll make head barrista.I don’t blame the employers. In fact, let’s get that monkey of their back with socialized medicine (or rather, let’s make it 100% socialized instead of 44%).Sure. In an equitable economy, a breadwinner can perform a job that is _prima facie_ necessary to the functioning of the economy (janitor, supermarket clerk, dishwasher) and support a family of five (i.e., the other spouse can stay home with the kids; I say “five” because you need more than two kids per couple to replace the population) in a decent dwelling, with decent food, good medical care, and small basic comforts and entertainments. That is, no-frills middle-class existence. Is that doable? It’s pretty much the situation in Japan, which has had full employment no matter how crappy the economy has gotten and medical care for nearly all. It’s an interesting discussion, but it’s more of an editorialization. To what degree what you’re talking about occurs, what it means and who if anybody is to blame is a little outside of the scope of this thread, which is about the brilliant left-wing thesis that Republicans are swine cunts. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/208 "2005-12-03T19:32:07Z")
Whoa. Is there some history between you two that I’ve missed? Just curious as you brought his kid into it. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/209 "2005-12-03T19:35:34Z")
> [@Ukulele Ike](#): > > Sorry, sir, this isn’t my station. Lots of times Mods moderate across forums. Unless you wish to state that a Mod need only be listened to when he’s in his own forum, I suggest you get off your malingering ass and do your job. > [@](#): > > I also apologize for what you consider “drive-bys;” Not accepted. The first time, I accepted and you offered to by a beer. The next time, I stopped and politely asked you what your problem was. You didn’t bother to respond. You’re just another drive-by dipshit, bereft of intellectual integrity. > [@](#): > > as I’ve stated during _contretemps_ with you in the past, I have other things to accomplish in life besides write really, really long Mister T-oriented posts on message boards. Yeah, like writing about Lard and doing asinine drivebys. It’s too bad you don’t have enough to do your job. > [@](#): > > As for the “coward” part, when do _you_ plan to enlist? You’ve got a new Strategy For Victory to carry out, pal. As soon as you sign up with the insurgents. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/210 "2005-12-03T19:37:03Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Whoa. Is there some history between you two that I’ve missed? Just curious as you brought his kid into it. Yeah. He’s pretty much a scumbag. ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/211 "2005-12-03T19:41:55Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > You’re just another drive-by dipshit, bereft of intellectual integrity. To quote one of your deeply souind and intelligent posts re: me – Who gives a fuck what you think? Nice quick turnaround for a response, too. You search your name a lot? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/212 "2005-12-03T19:46:35Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Whatever else happens from now til the end of time, we always have this to agree on. Yep, I’m against the war on drugs and the government’s efforts to tax smokes and booze so as to reduce their consumption to zero (some reasonable charge to help pay for the damage these things do seems fair, however). > [@](#): > > Now we just need to look at whom is responsible for ever increasing them in an effort to change personal behavior. My company just announced insurance premiums are going up for using legal products. But that’s a different rant. Yeah, that’s bullshit. > [@](#): > > I have a question. What is the definition and criteria for standard of living? What you say here makes sense. In my definition of economic fairness, however, I am looking at both sides of the equation. There a lot of families out there working their asses off with two or more jobs AND going home to an X-Box, PC, AC, etc. Because at the end of the day, those things are not _that_expensive. What really _is_ expensive is medical care, college tuition–things that, if you don’t got 'em, you are put in a lower caste, and the cycle repeats itself. But the “what do you got” is only one side of the equation. Standards of living in 1960 were lower on average, but the inputs were much lower too, both time-wise and psychology-wise. The guy worked, knew he had decent job security and prospects for the future, and the wife stayed at home with the kids. Medical care sucked because of worse technology, but the middle class generally had access to it. All that is changed now. Uncertainty is the order of the day. The rich get a higher proportion of wealth. Medical tech is better, but more expensive and consequently rationed by who has insurance and who doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/213 "2005-12-03T19:50:51Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Well, if you use it, use it intelligently. They can’t both spend the money and pay down debt with it. Depending on circumstances they will do one more than the other. One helps the economy, the other not really. If you are trying to spend your way out of a recession you need to make tax cuts where they are likeliest to be effective. In some cases, tax cuts to the wealthy or business owners or corporations are unlikely to be effective. Other times they are likely to. Same goes for middle class tax cuts. So, the government giving the wealthy is good for the economy in this situation, but if the government gives the money to the middle class or poor and they turn around and immediately give it to wealthy creditors, it’s not as good for the economy? Aren’t the wealthy getting the same money either way. Also, I would argue that paying down their debt now enables the middle class to spend more in the future, as they can and probably will borrow more in the future, and will have saved some money in interest. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/214 "2005-12-03T19:52:13Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > …As soon as you sign up with the insurgents. Brave, brave, brave Sir Robin… ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/215 "2005-12-03T19:56:58Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > As soon as you sign up with the insurgents. You’re sick, man. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/216 "2005-12-03T20:25:55Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > They can’t both spend the money and pay down debt with it. Depending on circumstances they will do one more than the other. One helps the economy, the other not really. The debt of the poor and middle class (mortgages aside) tends to be exploitative debt, not debt that gives them investment leverage. I think their paying down that debt would be a good thing for the economy. Plus, even with that debt, they are still more likely to spend those dollars on consumption. > [@](#): > > If you are trying to spend your way out of a recession you need to make tax cuts where they are likeliest to be effective. In some cases, tax cuts to the wealthy or business owners or corporations are unlikely to be effective. Other times they are likely to. Same goes for middle class tax cuts. Yes, for any given class of people, it will either be effective or ineffective. A or not-A. Therein lies no particular insight. > [@](#): > > But what exactly is your problem with my reasoning? Macroeconomics 101, nothing controversial about it. The problem is that it all gets reduced to a talking point: It was good for Bush to cut taxes, since that’s what you do in a recession. You pretty much said it thus simply yourself. But we on the left called into question BOTH the effectiveness AND justice of those tax cuts. > [@](#): > > You can give people all the money you want, but if they are unwilling to spend it it won’t help the economy. The Japanese were huge savers and they did not respond to the incentives. Tax cuts for economic purposes need to inject more capital and investment into the market or they’re wasted. I basically agree except that the lower interest rates in Japan were supposed to stimulate investment, _business_, whatever, and not consumption in particular. You are right that consumption has not taken off there, however, and I see that as a deep infrastructural problem with overpriced land and atrocious housing at its root (put simply, houses in the major metro areas are too small to put anything more in them, and rent and housing consume too much of the average family’s budget. This combined with a negative wealth effect from land prices crashing 50% in ten years. And on and on.) > [@](#): > > Again, if you wish to make these kind of arguments you have to quantify them and put them in context. I don’t have the time and/or knowledge to argue every point on that level, but if you can right-brain what I’m saying to appreciate the obvious macro point, I’d appreciate it. I’ll do the same for you. > [@](#): > > If you give a 5% tax cut to a guy who makes a million, and to a guy who makes 100k, do you consider one a “bonanza” and the other not? Both of these guys are doing OK, but that 50k is just gravy to the millionaire, whereas the 5k means proportionately more to the 100k dude. > [@](#): > > That’s a nice wish. I think so, too. It’s surprisingly difficult to make it happen in practice though. We do have a Medicare safety net, but I think we should be doing better in terms of coverage. Another point of agreement. > [@](#): > > In my town there’s a Federally funded practice with excellent Doctors that bills on a needs based scale. If you would like to read about it, I’d email you a link, but the bottom line is that everybody gets good care who goes there, and, we have a lot of poor and migrant workers in the area. > > It’s a good model. Yeah, whatever it takes, let’s get people covered. We don’t, after all, give medical care to people because they “earn” it or “deserve” it, and I admit that the whole business is nothing simple. > [@](#): > > Apparently not. It was about 5.5% in '04 and about 5.8% in '03. Check at the US department of labor. I’m trying to figure out how you think unemployment sucked in the last five years. Try to anticipate what people on my side say. There is the obvious point that those figures don’t cover those who have stopped trying, people who go back to school because the market sucks, spouses who give up trying and decide to stay home with the kinds, etc. They don’t cover people who downgrade their careers in order to survive. They don’t cover a lot. Again, are you saying there has been _no problem_ in the last five years? If so, what was the issue? > [@](#): > > I’m hard pressed to wring my hands about MBAs only making 40k fresh out of college Most MBA candidates have 4 or 5 years of job experience before they go back for the degree. No, I’m not saying you should pity them, but I’m saying this: Let’s drop the false meme of _training_ as a cure for economic ills. We can’t _train_ our way out of a shithouse job market if the number of slots for the fully _trained_ is limited. > [@](#): > > , and you’re committing a fallacy if you think that proves something about the economy. It is equally likely to prove something about the market for MBAs. Um, dude, the market for MBAs or anything else is _part_ of the economy. > [@](#): > > To what degree what you’re talking about occurs, what it means and who if anybody is to blame is a little outside of the scope of this thread, which is about the brilliant left-wing thesis that Republicans are swine cunts. No doubt. This dialog between you and me has _devolved_ from a shouting match into a fairly intelligent discussion of economic policy. If all of Bush’s policies and initiatives were disappeared except the economic, he would still be known as a fairly crappy, inept president, but perhaps not one deserving of mouth-frothing excoriation. But Iraq clinches it. Then you have the overall behavior of the Republican party, truly scary and freaky in every dimension. Swine cunts it is. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/217 "2005-12-03T20:52:30Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > But the “what do you got” is only one side of the equation. Standards of living in 1960 were lower on average, but the inputs were much lower too, both time-wise and psychology-wise. The guy worked, knew he had decent job security and prospects for the future, and the wife stayed at home with the kids. Medical care sucked because of worse technology, but the middle class generally had access to it. Yes, a guy in the '60’s got up every morning, went to work and paid his bills. If he was lucky he came home to a hot meal and a clean house. Don’t, however, buy into concrete job security. There were lay-offs than as well as today. Now then, psychology? 40 years ago we’re talking 1965. You think there was no stress/anxiety in the American male psyche concerning that wife at home raising the kids? One benefit I have psychologically is knowing my wife isn’t entirely dependant on me for her security. I don’t take the marriage for granted thinking she can’t leave me for fear of turning destitute. I had the benefit of entering marriage on the solid ground of knowing there was no solid ground. Even in emotions, I have to earn contentment. (I really hope that made as much sense to you as it does in my head) 😕 I figured a main part of this health care. I seems to ba a factor in the majority of any political argument these days, no matter the topic. You’ve pointed out the glaring reality of health care in the 21st century very well. 40 years ago, we had technology that could cover the basic problems in health. We had a vaccine for polio, the precursors of cancer treatments, stunning success in surgery and were on the brink of knowledge that led to organ transplants. We were, at the time, deveolping undreamed of techniques that could proplong life. We were, in my opinion, at the capacity of providing the greatest health care available to everyone. Fast forward to now. Any public health center, free of charge in many cases, offer health services far superior to those of the '60’s. I defy anyone to show me an instance where a woman can’t get a breast exam or PAP smear because she can’t afford it. Right there quality of life has improved. I wonder what color the ribbon is for men’s health checks, but that’s a discussion for another day. I trust you will at least concede part of the cost of health care today is the unthinkably (new word!) amazing procedures, drugs and tools available. No, they aren’t available to all. Neither were appendectomies at one time. Nor tonsillectomies. Those are pretty common today, and usually safe. But when they were “new” there was still incredible risk. I’m not going to get into a big debate about lawsuits affecting cost, but only the most deluded will dismiss it. If we were to consider health care that was commonly affordable to a person in 1965 and what is affordable now, I have to say we’re still better off. Humans are, if nothing else, self-aware of our certain fate. We’re also aware that any chance of prolonging our life should be a right. The first is fact, the second is ego. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/218 "2005-12-03T21:03:25Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > All that is changed now. Uncertainty is the order of the day. The rich get a higher proportion of wealth. Medical tech is better, but more expensive and consequently rationed by who has insurance and who doesn’t. Shit. Just to clarify. Yes, insurance is needed for most of the major things like transplants and radiation/chemo. Or surgeries to repair/restore function. The point is, cold as it may seem, the commonly available medicine in 1965 is available today to even most of the poorest. What was available in 1965 is common practice today. What is available today beyond that is why even the poor and uninsured are living longer. I’m just saying when you want to bring up health care, try to keep it in a seperate arena from health care comparisons between then and now. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/219 "2005-12-03T21:12:19Z")
Your kinda close to conflating technical progress with social progress. With technical progress, there is more to share. With social progress, it is shared more justly. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/220 "2005-12-03T21:16:39Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Fast forward to now. Any public health center, free of charge in many cases, offer health services far superior to those of the '60’s. That’s right. A lot of the problem today is justice. If the year is 1960 and anyone can get an aspirin for his/her headache, so to speak, the everyone is OK together or fucked together, depending on how you look at it. No disparity. Today we have a lot of disparity, which pisses people off, even if their absolute level of care has risen since 1960. > [@](#): > > I trust you will at least concede part of the cost of health care today is the unthinkably (new word!) amazing procedures, drugs and tools available. No, they aren’t available to all. There is that, indeed. The other big factor is the one common to the service economy overall: We can’t significantly improve service productivity. A nurse attending to a patient today does pretty much the same thing s/he did in 1960. Sure, the monitors and whatnot probably increase productivity _marginally_, but not a lot. When my dad was dying in the hospital in 2001, he had a bunch of people working on him day and night, with the only good to come of it (they were all great, I don’t blame them) the prolonging of his misery. We had good insurance, thankfully, but the cost of all that–it was mind-boggling. Lots and lots of labor being flushed. It’s no wonder that health care costs so much. No, it’s not an easy problem. > [@](#): > > If we were to consider health care that was commonly affordable to a person in 1965 and what is affordable now, I have to say we’re still better off. No disagreement. > [@](#): > > Humans are, if nothing else, self-aware of our certain fate. We’re also aware that any chance of prolonging our life should be a right. The first is fact, the second is ego. It is a “right” insofar as we don’t provide health care to people because they “deserve” it. How to ration it and prevent moral hazards is the rub, though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481.md?page=12)