How could anyone actually still consider themselves liberal at this point? I think that a lot of the liberal ideals sounded really great on paper, for years they were spun around and sounded fantastic, then since 2012 while Obama has been putting these ideals to the test we have seen that the "right" was right, they called it early that these agendas would not play out in reality like they did on paper, and it's true. These liberal agendas have gone a long way to decimating the working class of this country. Obamacare lost thousands of healthcare jobs, raising minimum wage closes local business and raises prices of big business, raising tax on the upper class causes them to spend less money at middle and lower class establishments like furniture stores, electronic stores, clothes stores and restaurants. When you raise taxes on the wealthy and give to the poor, you are destroying the middle classes chance to thrive.
If this were 2005 and you said you were a liberal I'd understand. This is 2015 and there is literally no possible way any well informed logical thinking clear-minded individual in the United States would be liberal. I'm not saying that Conservatism is perfect but it's clearly a better choice than Liberalism in every way imaginable.
This, both sides take turns fucking us in the ass, raising taxes, and flushing the constitution down the toilet. But people have a short term memory and only care about what the last person in office did.
2 sides of the same coin. Both parties serve the jews, big corporations, and the big banks.
>I'm not saying that Conservatism is perfect
Then you're not a conservative. Their soul purpose is to conserve what they consider traditional.
Liberals or "progressives" are trying to improve the current shitty system in their own shitty way. But at least they're trying.
when people saw the world clearly it was labor vs. the establishment. now anti-establishment = right-wing libertarianism. idiots don't know what they are fighting against except - 'muh libruls are soft, i'm a strong conservative.' people are fucking confused.
I'm okay with not being conservative, who said I had to be a conservative to understand how retarded liberalism is? Don't try to shove everything and everyone into a box.
You ruin your point when you say "the jews"
Obama is a corporate whore just like every other recent POTUS.
US politics does not have true liberals anymore. The leftists of today were considered to be right leaning 50 years ago. You need to get your mind on track son, dig in a little bit and find the truth. Stop reading headlines and listening to network news.
>there is literally no possible way any well informed logical thinking clear-minded individual in the United States would be liberal
Almost every conclusion you make in your diatribe is based on completely unfounded claims that you would have a hard time backing up with actual evidence.
frankly, you don't seem all that bright
Yet another example of an American who can't conceive of the fact that things go on beyond their borders. There's a whole continent of countries all more "liberal" than your "liberal" party that are doing just fine thanks.
You're brainwashed by Fox. Wake the fuck up.
>implying I watch fox news
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
This country was not built on what your country was built on. China is doing better than all of us under a fucking dictatorship, so we should all be under a single person's rule yeah?
obama is certainly not a liberal, he's a corporate whore like all the others. Although even being a corporate whore his track record isn't bad at all. Depression averted, unemployment is low, stock market is doing well and the economy is on the rise. All that BS about obamacare costing health care jobs and minimum wage shutting down businesses is not based on reality. Before obamacare we had 45,000 people dying annually because they couldn't afford healthcare, if obamacare lowers that number then a few lost jobs are a small price to pay.
verb re·gur·gi·tate \(ˌ)rē-ˈgər-jə-ˌtāt\
: to bring food that has been swallowed back to and out of the mouth
: to repeat (something, such as a fact, idea, etc.) without understanding it
OP is 14 and live with his super Repub dad I'm guessing?
You should pick up reading (books, newspaper etc) as a hobby, you'll likely learn that all ideologies are rife with shit ideas and terrible people.
OP is a troll, but it is funny how back when the wealthiest Americans were taxed around 90% (?) and those awful Unions were strong and prolific, in the 50's thru 70's, the USA was the envy of the world, we went to the moon, among other things, and there were virtually no homeless/jobless people anywhere...
Who gives a shit? It's fucking China ffs!
>implying China is some kind of model country? Go fuck yourself
I think it's more in style to call oneself a "moderate" than a liberal. Also, there is yet a fourth category, liberatarian. Tell people you're that and it's a mind blow. But liberal? Not so sexy anymore! LOL
so that's why japan, a democracy and most of western europe have had population growths of basically 0
in fact in the united states if you take the hispanic portion of the population out of the equation we had 0 population growth. hispanics breed like rabbits because of their catholic beliefs, well usually
get the fuck out lol
>opposite of conservative
Where the fuck do people get it in their head that conservatives hate people? Conservative does not go hand in hand with religion, the KKK, misogyny, racism of any kind, homophobia, etc.
If you are a moralist then I'm sure you understand stereotypes and generalizations are horrible, when someone sees a black kid and stereotypes him a thug nigger then I'm sure that upsets you, so why is it that a conservative can be stereotyped a jesus freak racist bigot and that's okay? Because he's not a minority so who gives a fuck about white men right.
I think that there is a very valid case for center-of-right financial and budget reforms coupled with increased efficiency and targeted funding of the current welfare system and an across-the-line budget cut with moderate tax reduction along with focused government science and industrial investment that could involve a continued at least semi-private healthcare system with strong regulations and a toning down of all the insane economic polemics by actually stabilizing the system in a way that does not rest on foreign and Fed loan capital.
That being said, I do not expect to find such a proposal from any leading voice in the Republican party. I would, in fact, more likely see such a thing in the Democratic party, which is probably the most centrist party in the world at this point, and that is saying something.
The fact of the matter is that the "big tent" idea of politics is well and good, but when serious, dividing issues begin to pile up, things begin to break down and democracy becomes a hegemony of elites rather than a true democracy of varying ideas.
This is why I think more than anything else, there needs to be electoral reform guaranteeing a better shot and better organizing advantage for 3rd, 4th, 5th parties etc within the current federal system.
We cannot move to parliamentary style democracy or European social democracy / corporate conservatism because that is not at all what defines the United States nor what it ought to be heading towards considering all the trouble that has caused Europeans.
well, the top tax rate was 90% but that doesn't mean all of their income was taxed at that rate, just the amount that fell into that top bracket.
I am not a conservative by any means, but I feel obligated to point out that our post-WW2 prosperity had more to do with the fact that we were a manufacturing powerhouse and our factories were not bombed to shit like the ones in Europe.
Once everybody's shit got rebuilt we started to get real competition again.
>These liberal agendas have gone a long way to decimating the working class of this country. Obamacare lost thousands of healthcare jobs, raising minimum wage closes local business and raises prices of big business, raising tax on the upper class causes them to spend less money at middle and lower class establishments like furniture stores, electronic stores, clothes stores and restaurants. When you raise taxes on the wealthy and give to the poor, you are destroying the middle classes chance to thrive.
Clearly trollbait, since literally everything you said is the opposite of reality. But I'll reply anyway. Because I love trollbait.
Put aside the fact that conservative policies have been crushing the middle class for decades, and then gave us the worst crisis in 80 years. Lets just compare the conservative policies of Wisconsin with the liberal policies of Minnesota over the past four years since their new governors took office. These two states are arguably equally wealthy in terms of skilled workforce, urban wealth, and natural resources. Yet over the past 4 years, Minnesota's unemployment has dropped to like 3rd best in the nation, with nearly the best new business startup and investment numbers in the country. Meanwhile Wisconsin is stuck in reverse, near the worst of the 50 states for job creation, and horrible for new business investment -- still moving negative against the national average.
Conservative economics have failed every time they've been tried for the last 40 years. Anyone who is a conservative today doesn't know a goddamn thing about history or economics.
I'm certainly not Chomsky when it comes to politics and world affairs, but I understand that OP doesn't know what a true liberal is. That's easy to see since he references our current politicians and uses them as a litmus test for liberalism because mainstream media calls them liberals.
Any real liberal in the federal govt is a tiny minority. The democratic party is not made up of true liberals but people that propose policies that the right wing of 50 years ago championed.
That is exactly right ... in a developing country.
We've been developed for a long, long time to the point where encouraging wealth gaining like you propose actually just encourages corporate giants maintaining themselves and preventing ANY and ALL entrepreneurship and overall market and class growth. No one said that trickle down doesn't work. It just doesn't work well, esepecially for us, especially now.
very very much true.
people ignore that. most of the industrialized world had been firebombed, bomb or nuked. whole generations of people were lost in russia, germany, poland, that whole area
What's really fucked up is that "on paper", I'm actually very "conservative", by the textbook definition. But the GOP today panders to the Über-wealthy, Über-retarded, and Über-Hateful, while the "liberals" have become a bunch of self-loathing silly faggots. I don't know if I will ever even bother to vote again, and I'm 50 BTW....
Greedy capitalists killed capitalism for everyone else. Trade deals that shipped jobs out of the country so they could make obscene profits killed the "American dream."
Conservative economics are working well here in Kansas. The rich (Koch brothers) are making bank and nearby states are beating us in job growth while we are slashing education and highway funds and increasing taxes on alcohol and tobacco.
>working as intended
that man was a genius and a master of policycraft who took very centrist positions on a lot of key issues. People don't appreciate that his administration was so efficient and powerful that people didn't make fun of him as a 'limp coward' or a 'sex fiend' or a 'renegade' like most presidents are, he was characterized as a master criminal who could control the entire world. His face and his name became the visceral rage of every social movement which opposed American intervention and economic participation the world over. He was a threat, and eventually, he was put down.
with the japanese it depends
really population growth is tied to level of technological development and availability
the more advanced a society is the less kids they have because kids are an economic drag that doesn't pay off directly.
Things like social security for everyone, and child labors makes it less important and actually costly to have children on average.
Places like japan even have this thing called grass eaters
these guys about a 1/3 of young japanese men have sworn off dating women because fuck it why.. they pay off prostitutes or just jack off. young japanese women are having trouble finding men
>Conservative economics are working well here in Kansas. The rich (Koch brothers) are making bank and nearby states are beating us in job growth while we are slashing education and highway funds and increasing taxes on alcohol and tobacco.
>>working as intended
The sad part is that you are correct. Conservative economics are working as intended -- crushing the middle class, marginalizing the poor, and giving the billionaires everything they want.
...and our manufacturing and production used our own citizens, rather than moving offshore or bringing in 3rd world employees who'll work for a fraction of the wages. Henry Ford once said to effect that he'd be stupid to pay people so little that they couldn't afford to buy the product they made. It's really quite simple...
Bleh, all politicians are corporate whores these days, but let's examine Obama's real track record :
> Depression averted
No way to possibly tell this because much of the financial data behind the mess is still being spun. Also, Bush started TARP.
> Unemployment is low
No, U3 unemployment is artificially low because our labor rate is the lowest it's been since the 1970's. U6 unemployment figures show we are still not under 10% unemployment.
> Stock market is doing well
Yes, because we are using quantitative easing to flood markets with free money. In other words, what is happening on Wall Street is completely artificial and will end at some point soon. Also, I thought according to liberals we were supposed to hate the rich on Wall Street, why cheer their success?
> Economy is on the rise
This is occur in spite of Obama's tax and regulate policies. Additionally, GDP is barely keeping pace with true inflation, which means the economy is barely doing better, not roaring forward like a true recovery.
The reality IS that this shitty bill is costing people jobs, work hours, and money. Additionally, for each person the bill has claimed it has forced into the insurance market by means of a penalty for simply being alive and over 26, a person has lost coverage because many in the middle class can not afford the increased cost without a subsidy which they don't get because they make too much money.
You obviously do not read real news or economic indicators. At best you probably watch CNN. At worst you watch MSNBC or the Daily Show and think it's news. Either way you are very uninformed.
china is hyper capitalist. They just have that capitalism "contained" under the auspices and control of the Communist Party, which is allowing the "experiment" to run its course to gain them wealth and power and propel China towards actual communism under the idea that "capitalism must first run itself out" in Marxist eschatology.
So essentially a hyper capitalist state without any of the democracy or any sort of proper welfare system, because "they're already a socialist country without need for welfare".
PLUS they hyper nationalism among the Han involving Chinese assimilation and corporatism.
So fascism. China is fascist.
I wish I'd kept the link, but I once read an article about the kind of America you'd be living in if every insane, retarded, and fascist law that the Republicans have tried (and failed) to pass in the last 10 years had actually gone through.
If you were actually living in the country that the leaders of the Republican party want, it would be a literal nightmare.
FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY FREE MONEY
but seriously whatever credibility this post had disappears right there
what's going on is the fed has low interest rates and what is happening is it's easier to loan out money with less payment
you play with the interest rates if the economy has to0 many bubbles or is getting too hot
to speed up the economy or to enhance growth you keep the interest rates low.
actually no, there aren't class segregation, and there are like various self-governing region whose aboriginals receive actual welfare
chinese here btw, and yes there is cultural tension, but 99% of it is concentrated in Tibet because Dalai Lama is funded by the US
I don't think you've read his memos, let alone those of the people he surrounded himself with in his Cabinet.
The man was the chosen savior of the neo-conservative political movement and he had nothing short of a university of academics and ideologues of vast experience working with him.
The man was a master, too, at diplomacy and is the reason that the United States military has continued to expand and gain military bases the world over. He's also the reason that there was a 100+ country coalition that attacked Iraq illegally after a UN mandate that forbade any security council action. He put so much funding into Southern Africa in aid and development funds along with trade deals and political exchanges that he rivaled the Chinese doing the same thing, but with millions more actors on the ground there.
If you truly believe the current Democrat party is centrist, you sir are either bat shit insane or a troll. This current Democrat party is by far the most radical left-wing bunch of commie kooks we have had in the history of our country. Go back to watching the Daily Show, you attempt at sounding reasonable has failed.
Hypercapitalist? Do you know the difference between mercantilism and capitalism? That capitalism came as a rejection of mercantilism? That's like saying muslims who reject christians are hyper-christians. Are they free trade? No. Do they have an authoritarian government? Yes. So how can they be hyper something when they have a controlled regime? I would agree that theyre more capitalist than America is. Which is ironic cause so many call America capitalist and china communist but really both those labels are false
Literally the only difference between a caveman and you is capitalism. Are you expecting smartphones cars Internet healthcare and food to magically fall out of the sky? Is it a coincidence many super rich companies sell household items or services that make your life easier? Do you understand how all technology works? No shut up you fucking hypocrite if you hate capitalism then go live in the forest
>no problems about Xinjiang race war
>no problems about Hong Kong, or Guangdong and the other Southern Provinces
Tibet is small shit, though I sympathize with any call for autonomy within a sovereign state.
Both forms of communism. Centralised communism. Try and have a decentralised version, or a version with no plans. No leaders. You cant have the people vote on every matter then need leaders, and they need a state. Gadaffi tried to do decentralised communism and it didn't work. He had to step in and take control. So Maoism and Stalinism (which was originally Scientific Communism) stem from the failures of communism.
The Obama Administration is frequently and almost universally analyzed and pegged at just center-of-right.
That being said, I don't agree with his policies that WERE center-of-right but your idea that the Democratic Party is a bunch of fools led by a Progressive and Social Democrat elite is a dream, at least for now.
Didn't read the full comment. Read up till that point. They are fascist so yeah aint arguing there. Fascist is a form of socialism so not hyper-capitalism. It has the pretence off ownership, and a strong centralised body regulating everything and in everyones pockets. So yeah. fascism. not hypercapitalism.
Dems still are mostly conservative. have a terrible record on social issues and govt infringment on civil liberties. Obama wasnt backed by ACLU on most issues. In the US, the libertarians and green party are more liberal.
This comment is a comment where I'm commenting on comments made by commeting commenters.
it's kind of a gray area
fascist say they want a mixed economy which is right on
china has massive public works projects, mining corporations, state gas, etc
but at the same time they have a shit ton of private industries running around with little regulation
I think that was the hypercapitalism he was speaking of.
If you just look at the free market and ignore the government its extreme
not arguing though
Sino-Capitalism involves mercantilism but it is still capitalism and, as I described, involves government sponsored corporatism and coincidentally a fuck ton of assimilationist and expansionist nationalism, which to me is the perfect characterization of a fascist state that calls itself communist.
Similar, but not totally equivalent to Stalin's and Kruschev's ideas of state capitalism and national communism which were at least contemporarily popular with the majority ethnicities like Russians who saw rapid growth and ethnic empire, one reason why we see today so many Russian former Communist Party Members fighting with ethnic and religious militias in the Donbass at this moment acting as if their communist allegiance does not contradict such obvious fascist tendencies. Same thing goes for China at the moment.
I also maintain that state capitalism and national communism is almost indiscernable from national corporatism and fascism in structure, if not in actual ideology
Well I don't want to argue too :)
"they have a shit ton of private industries running around with little regulation"
Running around, poisoning everything, which ignores property rights. Which everyone seems to forget is a key cornerstone of capitalism.
ignoring the oppression and torture he was a great dictator and in that case very successful. But just like the soviet union which had shortages in everything from food to toilet paper, is oppression and a lack off the essentials worth living the communist dream? State got to get rid of those black markets some how. Cant have individuals undermining the communist dream :P
come on man we are splitting hairs. it's national oil which means everyone owns it and everyone gets a piece of the pie via social services which actually works out incredibly well.
you'll never have true socialism or capitalism, it will always be a blend
so let's just relax lol
China and the other developing countries will utterly ruin the world economy and environment just from sheer pollution and resource extraction, forget about global warming within 2 lifetimes, if they can't figure out how to industrialize with a negative growth rate and more energy efficiency, while maintaining a majority of its current natural environment reserves.
China already tried the 1 child policy but that fucked them over really hard because they didn't consider the cultural and regional hangovers of Chinese families and now they have a dangerously high proportion of men to women, and are in danger of either a massive population drop or a massive population boom that will cripple them and surrounding countries.
Not quite, but I like your confidence putting forward the answer of a toddler.
Democracy is a system where the power is vested in ALL the people of the state to make decisions. Which sounds like what we have. But in reality a small group uses their extreme wealth and power to APPOINT officials to that will enact policies that help the small group obtain even more wealth and power... rinse and repeat.
That's an oligarchy /b/ro, and we ain't part of it.
Some idiot always got to bring up Sweden and ignore the 100 year run they had up until their socialist reforms. Then they ignore how Sweden slipped in the world rankings. Then they ignore how Sweden reversed a lot of those reforms when they seen the trends. But hey. The Swedish myth will live on, just don't mention the facts!
Be cause bush was the biggest communist of your lifetime
Listen, he was terrible. But have you read the Green Book?
Have you seen his agricultural and industrial advances during his tenure?
What about the trade union and soviet system he established within the context of his brand of development economics?
The man is the one cited over and over again by the Left parties in Europe for his successes domestically.
Think of Tito. He was by all means a ruthless dictator who made a ton of mistakes, not least of which the lead up to the Balkan Genocides, but he was generally lauded for his mixed economy accomplishments and his social system of inclusion.
You take bits and pieces and try to make things better. Self-declared socialist states generally have a horrible history of abuse, but they keep getting better over time.
> State got to get rid of those black markets
Except the communist state could not function without those black markets.
My libertarian friend, you also have missed many of the facts, including Sweden's political history, but your point that Sweden's economy has benefited from its policies which are friendly to business AND the people are more complicated than meets the eye.
>Obama isn't liberal.
You are right, he is a socialist.
I generally agree with that sentiment and also want to live in peace and harmony with everyone.
But we live in a time of social and political upheaval and political groups which are grabbing for power do not believe in moderation or compromise or peace, whatever their political orientation more and more.
So be careful. Don't let anyone justify doing something terrible in the name of progress to you. It's happened so many times in history before it's depressing.
That's socialism all over. State running in and trying to direct the economy and never ever considering the ramifications from their actions. Not quite as socialist as it used to be granted. They call it "red-capitalism" now but it still has all the same ramifications. The Great Leap Forward. Remember that one?
Also speaking of ramifications, one of my favourites, because of how grime it is, was how the child labour laws forced children to be adopted, families to go without food and clothes, or parents putting their kids into prostitution because they no longer had that income from the child labour. Lefties in Pakistan and outside thought the laws would be great. But even the British Red cross which pushed for the laws had to admit they fucked up.
That's a very real possibility and it will probably also encompass national irridentism and ethnic and religious tension that has long simmered in that region.
I wouldn't laugh, but if negotiation and cooperation, or at the very least individual responsibility and reason don't prevail, that could very well happen, and it would involve just about every single major power in the world and millions of deaths.
Not read the green book but heard a person reading it so I guess you can say ive "read it". But Libya was a small country with a lot of oil. If it wasn't for outside capitalism, and gadaffi using that oil things would have been far far worse as they wouldn't have had access to that instant wealth. Also China stepped in and was building up his country cause he couldn't even manage simple, and not too demanding projects such as watering the desert. There was something like 20,000 to 50,000 Chinese there when America started bombing. Now they should never have done that. War is nearly always bad
It's just a matter of time with china. They are losing more and more arable land and fishable sea every year. They have to grow the economy fast to keep it from simmering over.
They already are making moves in the south china sea and other places with the philipines, japan, taiwan and vietnam. it's just going to be more and more pressure.
cause it's asia they'll hold back till the brink and explode and they'll literally start eating each other like they do in times of war.
like the middle east has nothing on brutal war with asia. asians are fuckign nuts at war lol
Child labour laws are a good thing. If you want to look at it from a purely libertarian capital-investment standpoint, it is a national investment in children to give them an opportunity to increase their knowledge capital or at least skill capital in a public school / apprenticeship system that targets their skills towards something useful for the country and which will gain them more wealth in exchange for their services.
The problem is is that many countries have very little in terms of public education, not enough wealth to handle it, or both of the above AND a total lack of a market for wealth and trade.
Normally this would be fine, because the family would just move somewhere where they COULD get wealth or have better chances and the ones who couldn't leave would try to create wealth and trade where they lived, but with less competition / problems from overpopulation. And then if the country where all the immigrants went to started to suck, then they could move back along with others from THAT country, etc, etc, etc.
The problem is we have these illogical, economically unsound things called "national borders" and "protected markets" which help the people inside one nation, and hurt the other people in the other nations. Or sometimes vice versa.
Libertarianism only works, then, with the abolition of the nation state and a world government which ensures a total free market and minimal protectionism.
So, essentially, communism. Libertarian communism, which is the same thing as...
survey says.... anarcho-communism.
You two must be fans of homeopathy. If things get worse then they would have been much worse without the water. If they stabalise then its down to the water. And if the person gets better then its the water again. However were not talking about harmless homeopathy were talking about poison being sold as a cure
it's always been that way.
normal people are too busy living their lives so the when the nutcases start yelling you always here them.
the worst things get and the more normal people have less to do they start listening to the nut cases lol
it's all about free time or lack there off
I was agreeing with you. Sorry, didn't finish my thought I guess.
I'm saying you're right that Sweden has had friendly policies to business in combination with a welfare system that worked. But I was pointing out that I doubt you know the true political history of Sweden and the interaction between its socialist policies, particularly in concert with its industrialization, and its effect on the entire economy as a whole
30+ years of Trickle Down Failures since Reagan.
See a pattern Republicans? Of course not.
That's why I vote for the Green party. I don't trust them in the least, and I don't agree with their policies for the most part, but they encourage people to get hobbies, interact in their communities, and to exercise and eat healthy. I think the small, little things that make people friendly and interactive to one another like that are the iron cords that keep people together when political and social tension stretches them.
Well yeah if there isn't the capital structure, the machines, the productivity, the wealth etc to support them then it should be beyond obvious that child labour laws will only exasperate the problems and not improve anything. However communism will always need a state, a plan, a market to work. Or else the whole thing grinds to a halt. Then come the dictators with their cry that the ends justify the means. It can only work in small communes and not nationally or internationally.
Go back to pol faggot, the health care system is fucked up. To many niggers like to sponge off it and to many companies especially drug companies are fucking over the consumer
Most countries are republic and most political movements are republican, no matter how left they go.
It's a system that ensures that the majority can't kill off the minority and vice versa, and encourages power sharing among minorities rather than majority hegemonic edict-ing
The Clinton economic boom and budget balancing was thanks in great part to Reagan era concentrated national economic spending and industrialization in concert with supply-side economics
lol man. this train ain't stopping for a green party.
the only way we get a 3rd party is some billionaire goes nuts and decides to create one so he can get some deals so he can make billions more.
think if bill gates was like fuck it. i want to be president. so he spends 20 billion to be president.
he would be president
Ah ok. Well youre right I don't know their history, but I don't know even the history of my own country. Theres way too much to study out there. I know what I know. Is it enough? I think so. Ive got to a good point. Could I know more? Hell yeah
exactly. That's anarcho-communism.
Also known as libertarian communism, and it's been an integral part of the communist movement since nearly the beginning. It just happens to reject capitalism from the get-go and so doesn't really "compute" with modern libertarians who believe in total free markets but not necessarily an abolishment of capitalism
So youre a parent in a very poor country. You don't earn enough to feed and cloth your family. Your government doesn't have enough resources to feed and cloth the poor. Such as in Pakistan. You send your kids to work to supplement the family, and maybe send one of them to school. When do gooders remove that income, as the British Red Cross has observed there are ramifications. What would you do if you were in that situation? The observed ramifications were giving up their children, child prostitution and increases in starvation/poverty. Understandable if you would think about it.
I think there is a prevalent misunderstanding that "Republican" and "Conservative" are the same thing. Perhaps they were in an age lost to us, but now the two terms are almost as diametrically opposed as Liberal and Conservative.
The back-and-forth of recent Republican / Democrat control of our branches of government is merely a fluctuation of the degree of Liberal agenda being moved forward.
We haven't seen real, unrestrained conservatism practiced in this country since before most of the users of this board were probably even born. ..and even God-Emporer Reagan was a stretch of the term at times.
Ross Perot very nearly won the presidency and reset American politics totally and utterly. He started a huge political movement with sound economic policies (graphs and growth charts and everything) and a call for increased democratization of the electoral system.
But then people called him a crazy billionaire and shoved him out of polite society after a small breakdown.
There are so many strands of political thought that have risen in the United States which so many people agree / disagree with but no one even HEARS about them because they are systematically suppressed by the nature of the electoral system favoring 2 parties as it currently is.
The parties themselves are not the problem it's the fact that they are forced to accomodate every political position that the opposite party doesn't support and incorporate that into a common platform.
It's absolutely insane, and it makes me wonder how this political system has survived this long without any opportunity for an explicit, legitimate 3rd or 4th party emerging
>mfw conservatives trying to legislate away their tiny peckers
Clinton didn't have an economic boom. He had a bubble and some dodgy accounting tricks were he reclassified debt, plus emptied a few funded departments to make his economic stats better.
Also Regan didn't have Supply Side economics. That also was a myth. What they both had was loose monetary policies, and an expansion of debt and spending, which they both called GDP, which wasn't real wealth but an expansion of the parasite which is government. Its like putting on weight and its 5lbs cancer and 5lbs fat and 5lbs muscle. Cancer is government, fat is debt, and muscle is productive assets like factories. However both left and right like to count all "weight" as GDP and pat themselves on the back over how awesome they are.
>I think there is a prevalent misunderstanding that "Republican" and "Conservative" are the same thing. Perhaps they were in an age lost to us, but now the two terms are almost as diametrically opposed as Liberal and Conservative.
That is fascinating, because I'm sure you know that liberals say the same thing but reversed?
That there was once a relatively diverse republican party with liberals and centrists and conservatives, and that the hardline conservatives and neo-cons took over and smashed all the libs out?
How can both of those assertions be true ? Because they ARE true. I can assure you.
It's because the Republican party is a big tent party.
And it has pushed out liberals as much as it has pushed out conservatives according to whatever policy or idea is most appealing to their supporters and their electorate.
The purpose of a political party is to win an election. That is literally all. There's nothing more to it.
If you are looking for principled statesmen of sound political ideology, you should look for a moderate or a centrist Republican or Democrat that doesn't get much news coverage but gets thousands of mourners at funerals across party lines.
If you want a devoted absolute conservative or the same for a liberal, look at the firebrands and pundit children on Fox News and MSNBC.
Statesmen follow what they think is best and what is best for the people, not what they think will make them win, which is the great paradox of politics in a democracy.
Oh yeah. I understand it totally. Would I do it know what I know now. Fuck no. I'd get out of that shit hole or change it. Start hunting taliban and working with americans etc. Something. But as the parent of the kid, I feel my job would to give the kid a better life than I did. but hey this is all subjective
objectively speaking in no time in history have child labors law brought about more misery than advancement and a better overall world
stop having so many kids and bam problem fixed. all nations in history have gone through the development curve.
i'll add to this in s second
our population is generally
A: On pills
C: An Addict
D: In Jail
F: Illegal Immigrants
G: Impoverished single mother
H: Functionally illiterate and/or Can't do long division
What do you think the percentage of the population is one of these? Like 80%
that's why it will 20 billion right now for a legitimate 3rd party run at the president and it's not some random number there is reasoning behind it
To add to that let me remind everyone of the internet bubble and housing bubble which started under him (but Bush also encouraged). So theyre both as incompetent as each other.
In this video, both Clinton and Bush boasting about their housing bubble :)
but seriously, I love reagan. I think the 90's boom was part the internet, part clinton staying out of wars, the fact reagan raised taxes and spent trillions on the military which was a government program
we built roads for the military, airports, basically trained alot of people it was brilliant.. it was quiet socialism
You know, civic investment and government participation in the economy isn't socialism inherently. In fact, it is one of the defining aspects of a capitalist democracy. And the financial boom of the 90s along with the military investment was in large part thanks to Reagan's policies, intentional or not.
i think it was intentional. reagan had seen what things like the interstate highway system could do
it was first built to prepare for ww3 turns it it increased trade dramatically
these military enterprises end up losing their old use and the stuff becomes a public good.
reagan had a plan or atleast the guys behind reagan.
People in poor nations often don't even know what causes kids. And lets just say that all the positions for hunting Taliban and working for the Americans have been filled. Or that if you take that job no one would speak to you and theres a good chance you'll be killed. Or you live in the middle of Africa and there are no better job opportunities. What then? Would you just take government decree lying down, or would your kids work, like they have done through 99% of human history. Like they do in every nomadic group. Pre-industrialisation. Can you imagine that? No one ever complained about children working until then
The middle of Africa is the biggest treasure trove of untapped industry and natural resources in the world today, and if you can carve a business there, generally speaking you can control it thanks to the barriers to entry being guns and armies
70s recession, 80s house crash, 90s house crash, internet crash, 06-08 house crash and stagnation until now, followed by the 2015-16 crash or whenever the next one is. Because its round the corner. Time to replace debt created currency with real wealth :)
I know man. I wish old not insane republicans. Guys who saw wars and were like, nahh, we'll pass on that. Reagan and Eisenhower were great presidents. Eisenhower is underrated.
That's kind of the idea. The only way these people progress and let's be honest is by the end of a weapon.
The entire world for century after century has been the biggest untapped treasure trove of resources and we still seen starvation. Man kind truly is a barely evolved beast. And now the oceans have been fished to breaking point in several locations too :(
Reagan was a tool of the banks. I'll give him credit in that he was charismatic and had a fantastic "leader" feel to him. He marks in my eyes the first shift away from a president for the people to a president owned by business.
Eisenhower on the other hand was pretty badass.
Agreed, we need the sensible republicans back - I used to be one until the party leadership decided it would be best to go off the deep end, or at least not stop it from happening.
The market to me just looks like another fed pumped bubble. Theres no real production behind it and the job numbers are a joke. The employment rate is what matters, not the manipulated unemployment rate which is a joke. Wish more people would see that
Eisenhower is possibly the most conservative person that leftists quote every other minute in American history.
The problem is not that "the old guys were better" or that "the new guys are better"
It's that we don't have context. In 50 years, people will probably laud Bush as a centrist conservative unlike these "barbarous" neo-paleo whatevers, etc.
You just have to realize that centrist positions are often antithetical to what you as an individual believes and that cooperation and compromise are not always good for all parties.
there have been plenty of ideologues regarded as great statesmen for their positive influence in discourse whether or not they actually accomplished anything, and there are plenty of statesmen hated for accomplishing much, but pissing a bunch of people off.
(not defending bush here btw).
Either way, if someone believes what they say, and says what they do, and if they work in a perceived national interest rather than a political one, then they are regarded as good statesmen.
the problem is that people are now demanding we go in multiple directions, and going in one direction precludes totally abandoning another, which people aren't going to be ok with in many parts of society.
All this exacerbated by the economic troubles just makes it more bloodthirsty and cringy in the political realm of battle and discussion.