And, assuming that 11% number is correct, what makes you think a significant number haven’t historical been part of the Republican voting block? I doubt this is some sort of untapped potential for votes.
Well, Mr. Mace, there’s a reason that this thread is titled after that scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian. In fact, if you look at the entirety of any democratic political system on Earth, really, they are all, to one degree or another, for one reason or another, a GARGANTUAN version of the scene I’m referring to. There are Libertarian factions (not necessarily in the Party itself) who will vote Republican despite the GOP selling their souls to special interests and there are those factions who refuse to even touch the GOP for precisely this reason. I can’t really say I blame them.
The guy asked for a “socially liberal, fiscally conservative”* party.* I logically named the LP as a specific answer to his question. (Re: You brought up post #3)
I think that democratic form of government has a less-than-healthy amount of idealism built into it, and it allows irrational or illogical or even outright stupid voters, regardless of their position on the Left-Right spectrum, to choose the next leaders of their nation. Needless to say, throughout history, this proved to have really bad results.
I won’t say get rid of democracy. I actually brought this up with a few of my classmates in Political Science class last month. I proposed a mandatory test of intelligence for anyone who wants to register to vote.
My version (and, if anyone else has a similar thought on this, I’d love to hear it.) would compose of three sections: Logical Reasoning, The History of The United States, and The Political/Legal Systems of the United States.
For Logical Reasoning, a question would be worded like this: “Blah blah blah” in this context most logically means… (Fill in your answer)
For the History section: What was the Siege of Yorktown, and why was it important? (Or, Who was Marquis De Lafayette, and why was he important?)
Now, the Political/Legal System: Where did the common law system in place in the United States originally come from? (for Political: Which party is opposed to gun control?)
This is all important information for a voter from either side of the spectrum to know because the people need to make informed decisions when they vote. Uninformed voters are far more dangerous than foreign invaders.
But, this is just what I would do, IF I had the power to do so.
Nonsense.
The war on poverty was not a gigantic success by any means, but fewer people are poor and what it means to be “poor” in this country has shifted drastically for the better.
Also nonsense.
The average rate of fraud in any business is around 5%. That is, regardless of what business you’re in, you can expect around 5% losses due to fraud.
Welfare loses about 2% to fraud from its beneficiaries. The places where fraud is rampant is in the beaurocracy surrounding welfare, not in the actual payout.
For many, there is no alternative. When you have three jobless people for every job opening, there’s not much you can do. And yeah, you do occasionally have people like Arno Dübel - people who abuse and live off the system for decades. But it’s important to realize that for every case like that, we’re looking at hundreds of people who need a little help getting back on their feet, rather than moochers looking for a handout.
The demand for a balanced budget is a sure-fire sign of someone who doesn’t really know much about economics. It’s actually kinda funny - in two different schools here in Germany, I mentioned to my Business and Law teachers that the concept of anti-cyclical conjuncture politics is seen as controversial in the USA, and they just laughed, because it’s downright ridiculous - this shit works, we know it works, and Germany in particular has seen the effects a “balanced budget amendment” can have during economic downturn.
But just to make it clear, when aggregate demand starts to drop, tax income will drop as well, because there’s less money flowing. If the government is necessarily bound to balance the budget, this means the government must also cut its spending, which leads to a further drop in aggregate demand, which makes the situation worse, which leads to a further drop in aggregate demand. This is basic keynesian economics, and none of this should be controversial - in the case of the economy failing due to a lack of aggregate demand (brought on by, say, a major private debt overhang due to a real estate bubble bursting), demanding that the government balance the budget will make things a lot worse, because this is the point where the government needs to spend the most, to blunt the impact of a recession.
There are a number of reasons why a flat tax is a bad idea. First and foremost: the more money you have, the less of it you actually need. The reason why marginal tax rates make sense is quite simple: if I’m making $400,000 a year, I’m almost certainly not spending most of it on necessities. I’m probably not doing as much to stimulate the economy with it as, say, the government might (if it could pull its head out of its ass and just redo the new deal).
Do I need to explain why a mild rate of inflation - the kind of rate that would lead to a currency “losing 99% of its value” over 100 years - is a good thing for the economy? I love the terminology there; it’s as if you’re trying to imply that something of value was actually lost. It wasn’t.
Why in the world would you assume that a profit motive would have any positive effect on our education?
As compared to…? No, really, what are you comparing democracy to? Feudalism? Theocracy? Fascist dictatorships? You can’t just compare things in a vacuum. Amputation sounds really shitty until you remember that usually, the alternative is death. So what are you comparing democracy to, where it has “really bad results”? Some hypothetical “perfect system” that has never existed and probably cannot exist for a variety of reasons? Churchill said it best - “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
We had that for a while. It didn’t end well. But beyond that, the idea that we can disenfranchise voters just because they aren’t particularly intelligent is inherently flawed. It implies that they should have no say about their representation. Not only that, but it creates some very unfortunate fuzzy lines, and yet another way for instutitionalized racism to slip in through the cracks… You know, like the last time we had something like this.
And beyond that, who gets to pick the questions? This is important! For example, a question might ask, “Does the constitution ensure my right to own a personal firearm?” I’m a well-educated citizen who knows his government, and fundamentally disagrees with DC vs. Heller, so we have a bit of a problem. A more fair reading of the question would be “Does the current jurisprudence of the constitution ensure my right to own a personal firearm”. But simply choosing the questions can become an incredibly messy ordeal, and whoever is responsible for doing so holds an unreasonable amount of power over the voting public.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see the jackasses who think that global warming is a hoax or that the earth is 6000 years old get denied their right to vote. But they’re US citizens, just like I am. One man, one vote, that’s kind of how it works. The fact that they don’t know any particular piece of political trivia does not mean they should not be able to determine the people who run the government. I’d think a libertarian would recognize a very clear breach of the social contract when he sees one.
“Welfare loses about 2% to fraud from its beneficiaries. The places where fraud is rampant is in the beaurocracy surrounding welfare, not in the actual payout.”
Yeah, the point of fraud is…not getting caught. That 2% figure is just the people they actually caught.
Also, Keynes was a farce. He also claimed that war was economically beneficial. No. Just…no. No.
When countries are trading with each other in peacetime, all the countries involved see their economies benefit tremendously because there is capital in these countries, not to mention employment, which decreases armed conflict. I don’t see a lot of people trying to sell Pepsi-Cola in Aleppo or open a Burger King in Kandahar. If those people had jobs and the means to support themselves, they wouldn’t be picking up AK’s and shooting each other.
Also, a flat tax actually is the most sensible option in the States because Americans love one thing more than their country: Spending. Money. With a flat tax (backed by an eternity clause) that means more money in Yankee pockets, meaning more Yankee spending, and more money in the economy as opposed to being spent by idiots in suits and ties in DC on idiotic things. Americans have serious distrust of politicians on either side of the spectrum, not to mention Govt. in general, and it is more than well-deserved.
The Yankee government wastes money on the most ridiculous things, they clearly cannot be trusted with the amount of money that they take in. (i.e teaching Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly while on the job.) :smack::smack::smack::mad::mad::mad:
The economists who make the most sense to me are the Austrian School. I especially like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell.
Here’s a link: Austrian school of economics - Wikipedia
Remember, what may work fine in Germany might do serious (and possibly irreversible) damage in the Land of the Free.
Ok, I’ll address these one by one.
-
As compared to…? A meritocracy. (i.e. Singapore) The best man for the job, and only the best man for the job. A man who knows what he’s doing, and can do the job so well that even decades after he leaves office, the benefits of his leadership are still going strong and the citizens remember him admiringly.
-
Who gets to pick the questions? The questions will be similar to the naturalization test new immigrants take when they become Americans. However, to cut down on the possibility of institutionalized racism, a commission of 350 members, with complete legal protection from both special interests and govt. coercion, will revise the test every presidential election cycle. (As far as picking members, I don’t know.)
-
As far as the institutionalized racism problem, that’s why the logic test is in there and it’s a mandatory part of the test. The last time around, the questions were completely unrelated to the ability of a man to make an informed decision. (ex: how many bubbles are in a bar of soap? Whaaa?) As far as political “trivia,” I’d hardly consider it trivia to know which party holds what position. These are actually important things to know. There are COLLEGE students who can’t even name ONE sitting US Senator, and there are COLLEGE students who don’t even know how many members there are in the House of Representatives. Are you telling me that their vote should be equally as valid as mine?
The only adult citizens who should be disqualified from voting are those who suggest intelligence tests for voting imo.
Also Friedman was of the Chicago school, not the pseudoscientific Austrian cult. As for economics, I suggest looking somewhat further north in Germany to the Prussian Historical School for guidance-after all it was the Hohenzollerns not the Hapsburgs who united Germany.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that the 2% figure is just the cases they caught; I’m also not sure where you get the idea that the actual rate is more than double that. Cite, please? What percentage do you think is going on? And can you back that up with, you know, anything?
And yet, when you look at what happened to the US economy in the run-up and during World War 2, the fact is, he was right. The US government pumped a massive amount of cash directly into putting people to work. The result: the golden 50s. It not only worked in the USA, the winners of the war, it also worked just as well in Germany, where a massive influx of outside cash allowed a country that had been bombed to hell and back (look into “Trümmerliteratur” to get an idea of how things were in the immediate aftermath of World War II in Germany; they have an entire genre of literature dedicated to picking up those pieces) to undergo a period of incredible economic growth, with a solid, stable middle class.
Look, I hate to be that guy, but if you go anywhere outside the US, the idea that Keynes was “a farce” is simply untenable. You’ll be laughed out of the room quicker than if you went to a climatology conference and started talking about “hide the decline”. The man’s theories about the economy are, given certain conditions, completely correct. If the problem with the economy is a lack of demand (and it was both in the 2009 recession and in the great depression), then the government can inject demand into the market, thus strengthening the economy.
…But of course, that’s not what Keynes meant. You’re taking an oversimplification of what he was talking about and using it to build a straw man. Let’s take some quotes, shall we:
Oops.
Obviously, if a location is a war zone, this sucks for the economy. It’s certainly not going to encourage trade. And yet, somehow, despite this, the German economy was successful fairly long into World War II, at least until they were getting the Bratwurst bombed out of 'em. But if your country is going through a slump in demand, the fact is that moving to wartime footing, even if you’re not actually going to war (especially if you’re not bringing the war home or to your trade partners) puts a lot of people to work. You need soldiers. You need people to build the planes, guns, and bombs. And that causes money to circulate through the economy. Obviously, this is not as beneficial as simply having a public works department, but the comparison you made to Kandahar belies a complete misunderstanding of Keynes’s point.
Eh… Not necessarily. In fact, during the great recession, people got really antsy with their money. The savings rate soared during a time when we really needed not saving, but spending. This is fairly standard behavior during economic downturn, and on a personal level, it makes good sense - when times are tough and the job market is shaky, you don’t want to be blowing through your cash. It’s also really bad for the economy, because the economy is already starved for demand. This is why it’s so important that the government be able to stick a foot in.
But what about those marginal tax rates? Well, are the people to be most affected by this marginal tax rate spending spending spending?
Idiotic things like…? Let’s have some examples from the last few years.
That is, at best, a serious misrepresentation of the purpose of this project. The point is not “to teach Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job”.
If you’re getting your news from FOX, you should probably not.
Just out of curiosity - how’d the Austrian School do in this most recent recession? They predicted inflation, right? How’s that going, again? And didn’t they say the stimulus was a bad idea? They were dead wrong about that one too. Weren’t they asking for austerity policies as well? That did not end well in the countries that tried it.
Really? Why? As far as world politics go, Germany is really similar to the USA. The sole significant differences that I can see, in terms of economics: we’re still clinging to more of our industrial sector, and we have a stronger middle class and less income inequality. That, on its own, would not somehow throw the entirety of theoretical economics out of whack, and is in fact a sign that we’re probably doing something right.
You really should ditch this idea that America is somehow this special snowflake that’s special and better. It’s not. In fact, the idea that it is has done a lot to insulate the country from otherwise very good ideas.
…But Singapore is a democracy. The most you could say about it is that the people there vote more intelligently, or that they have damn good politicians. But they are not in any meaningful way more of a “meritocracy” than any other democracy.
I’ll just condense the rest down to the most crucial point:
Yes. The fact that they don’t know their congressmen does not invalidate their interest in the political system. Even leaving all the other problems aside, the fact is that without representation of some sort or another, the social contract is broken beyond repair. This is why felons should also be allowed to vote.
So you plan to vote for the Republicans, even though they are trying to destroy socialist impulses in society, because you just “feel” that the Democrats would be oppressive about it.
This is why Libertarians and Republicans are essentially the same party, already. They prize “faith based” thinking over rational decisions. It doesn’t matter if they work together because they are already voting the same way no matter what label they use.
Which party raises taxes?
Which party likes to help lazy people?
Which Party wants to vaccinate your kids with autism and send Grandma to the death camps?
It will be fascinating to watch the state-by-state design of the political questions for OP’s voter qualification test. :eek:
I’m glad someone else pointed out the absurdity of Mr. Badger’s position. I’m bookmarking his post for use in the next thread on Why American Politics are Dysfunctional.
I was a Libertarian until I realized they were Inverse RINOs: Whereas a RINO is a Republican In Name Only, a Libertarian is a Republican In Everything But Name.
“Fiscally conservative but socially liberal” is a fraud: If you want to fix social issues, you need social programs, which need to be funded. Otherwise, simple game-theoretic processes take hold and no social progress gets made.
Besides, Libertarians are opposed to social programs which don’t actually involve giving money or other resources to the poor: They’re universally opposed to having anti-discrimination laws, for example. “Socially liberal”, the way they mean it, only means they themselves aren’t racists or homophobes or so on, and even then you have to ignore the racism of the people they choose as leaders and other banner-wavers, such as Ron Paul and his racist newsletters. (Yes, I’ve heard the apologia. No, I don’t believe it.)
So I answered “Yes” (first option) to the poll because it has, in reality, already happened: The Libertarians are a faction within the Republicans, ignoring the largely inconsequential detail of the minority of Libertarians who caucus separately.
I think your opinions are not in line with the facts. Poverty has been greatly reduced in America and the abuses you described are rare. If you feel otherwise, please provide some credible cites.
Why would local governments be better? Businesses function most effectively when they’re big and centralized - it’s economics of scale - so why would government services be different? And you mention the waste of duplicated agencies - splitting government services into fifty separate agencies, each with their own administrative budget, will cost more than a single federal agency,
Every official has to stand for re-election. I think it’s better if the voters decide who should leave office rather than having a law about it.
It wouldn’t work. We spend more money than that (and both Democrats and Republicans vote for this spending). So cutting taxes without cutting spending is just a recipe for raising the deficit.
A terrible idea. The Federal Reserve has proven its effectiveness in avoiding financial crashes.
As I pointed out above, these two proposals are in direct contradiction to each other.
I agree with you on this one. Drug prohibition is a waste of money. It’s not solving anything, including drug abuse.
The democratic party presently fits much closer to my views than the republican party. In some of the areas it does not fit I feel so strongly about that I simply cannot support them. Thats my right as an American, I don’t have to think along any idealogy.
Hey, Hawaii: If Budget Cadet Players’s stats on welfare fraud can’t be trusted because it only measures people who have been caught, how do you know that welfare abuse is rampant in the first place? Where are you getting reliable numbers on how many welfare cheats are going uncaught?
Looks like you just disenfranchised yourself.
If the Democrats are borderline communists, what are Canadians? Full-on communists?
I question the standards the OP uses to gauge political outcomes.
I’ll participate. 
Let me ask OP some questions.
Two top contenders in the GOP right now are Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. If I try to view the GOP as comprising libertarian and conservative wings, which of Trump and Cruz is the libertarian? Which is the conservative?
Tell us what you know about deficit spending between 1980 and 2010.
I’d be unhappy to lose 97% of my teeth, or for my laptop to lose 99% of its RAM. OTOH I’m happy that some things, e.g. overseas phonecalls, are 99% cheaper than before.
Explain objectively why the dollar’s lost value should be of concern. If wealth has been stolen from the people, speculate on where that wealth has gone.
For extra credit: Assume A and B split a pound of gold 150 years ago and Mr. A’s great-grandson finally sells that gold today, while Mr. B immediately bought U.S. Treasury bonds, which Mr. B’s great grandson finally sells today. Compare the two great-grandson’s wealth.
Thank you.
I propose a different history question: what has been the reduction in the US poverty rate in the last 50 years? a) zero percent b) one percent c) four percent d) twenty percent
Which is your answer, OP?
The answer is A. According to a govt. study from last year (forgot which agency, though) the poverty rate in 1965 was 25%. Today, it is 27%. Not only is that zero reduction, that is actually an INCREASE in the poverty rate. Two percent, but it still blows the liberal nonsense of “welfare helping people out of poverty” out of the water.