New here. Are there any liberals who could explain their economic theory to me?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by jdxprs, Jul 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jdxprs

    jdxprs New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm a registered republican, but in actuality i'm an independant. I've been voting since 1992, when i supported Ross Perot. In 96, I voted for Clinton. In 2000 and 2004 I voted for bush. in 2008 i voted for Obama.

    Although i'm not currently in a union job, I've spent the better part of the past 20 years working union jobs. I fully support unions. Anyone who is against unions, doesn't know wtf they are talking about.

    On most issues I consider myself to be pretty moderate, and i seem to gravitate towards politicians that are moderate because it seems to me that those are the ones that tend to get more accomplished by way of compromising.

    When it comes to taxes and government spending, I definetly fall into line with republicans. The main reason for this is because I don't understand how democrats can possibly think we are better off giving our money to a wasteful government to redistribute is the better way to go.

    ok, with all that said, can someone please try to convince me as to why it makes more sense for me to support politicians that will raise taxes and increase spending.
     
    daddyofall and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Marshal

    Marshal New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Raising taxes and increasing spending is NOT always the right action to take.

    The politician should be free to enact whatever measure will be best planned by professional economists according to the unique circumstance facing the country at the time.

    The American greatness was produced NOT by tax/spend considerations but by a robust base class of free entrepreneurialism which no longer exists in the country due to rampant corporate dominance. The politician has little authority in this regard.

    Raising taxes and increasing spending, while scary to you, is still a better policy than cutting taxes while increasing spending such as Bush did in 2007.

    In short... The economy should be run by economists, and not politicians.

    If professional economists make mistakes such as Alan Greenspan. FORGIVE THEM. They are still the €£¥#%^* economists.

    No politician left, right, or backward should deny the experts their right to glory.

    So you SHOULD NOT vote for a lefty politician who thinks he can twiddle with the economy. Unfortunately in the American system there is little opportunity to ascertain what the politician thinks, as he or she is PRE-selected in a corporate sponsorship and paraded before the American people as a show dog to elicit fraudulent and fake acceptance.

    So... As arguably the most liberal here... The economic policy is to follow economists, such as Clinton did during the "Great Years" just prior to the first, second, third, and fourth Bush era depressions and Big Obama Blunder.
     
  3. NetworkCitizen

    NetworkCitizen New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    5,477
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Mostly a true story you tell there, but markets and not politicians or economists should run the economy. Economics is voodoo theories.

    Not that the market would always be thriving as one we would wish, there would be cycles with any system. But, the planners and politicians meddling in the economy in order to please their constituents right now have more devastating consequences on the future health of the economy.

    OP: liberals believe in central planning, the same methods which have created all the boom/bust cycles. They believe in stringent regulation of the economy, but do not realize that they have no method to prevent special interests from taking over those regulatory positions.
     
  4. Southern Man

    Southern Man New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The economic theory of liberals is exactly like this. Anyone who disagrees with them doesn't know wtf they are talking about....
     
  5. NetworkCitizen

    NetworkCitizen New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    5,477
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All evidence aside, their theory is that government is not wasteful, and they want more of it. I know, it's hilarious.

    Who cares if everything is paid with IOUs? They think the rich should have their wealth confiscated to provide everyone a middle class lifestyle. Who cares if all of the wealth in the nation leaves for greener pastures? Who cares if incentive to work is destroyed when everyone is equal?

    PS: The only vote you made that didn't help destroy the nation was for Ross Perot. ;)
     
  6. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I consider multifarious economics ideal. Reliance upon one particular economic philosophy leads to lack of adaptivity, robustness, and prosperity, in theory and in practice, and subjectively speaking and objectively speaking.
     
  7. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can explain the republican economic theory for sure. It's like a food buffet...first take, then take some more, then,,take some more and, finally..take the rest even if you're not hungry, and when you're so full you'd puke if you ate another bite, stuff all you can down your throat anyway and make sure you don't leave anything for anybody else, even if you just throw the rest away....so long as nobody besides you gets any of it. That's the objective.
     
  8. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suggest you research logical fallacies. Recognition of hasty generalizations is obviously not your strong suit.
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not against unions, they have their place, I am against unlimited State public sector unions. I think they should have the same rights as Federal public unions.

    No right to strike.
    No right to collective bargain for wages (a legislative responsibility).
    No forced union dues.

    Conservative value: Equal opportunity.
    Liberal Value: Equal outcome.

    Liberal economics: Money grows on trees.
     
  10. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Modern liberalism distorts the ideals of economic liberalism.
     
  11. Southern Man

    Southern Man New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hasty? Not quite. My conclusion comes after years of experience corresponding with libs.
     
  12. Southern Man

    Southern Man New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you believe that for some to be wealthy that others must be poor? In other words, zero sum gain?
     
  13. darckriver

    darckriver New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,773
    Likes Received:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Modern liberalism DISTORTS - period.
     
  14. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Misuse of anecdotal evidence is another logical fallacy, and in this case, a component of faulty/hasty generalizations.
     
  15. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Republican/conservative voters are driven by ideologies. None of what they believe actually has been implemented in America in the last century until recently. If you drop the partisan talk and just look at the data Republican's/Democrat's have been pretty much the same. It's all a demand driven Keynesian concepts. That if you give money to people who spend it, it will create demand for goods and services. When you say raising taxes, I don't know any liberals that want cross the board tax hikes. I think they want tax increases on the 1% that have seen their wealth increase far greater than everyone else since Reagan cut their taxes. Supply-side economics is a complete sham. Giving rich people more money will not create jobs, giving them customers will create jobs.

    Raising their taxes will not stop them from going after profit, businesses do not make decisions like that. Republican voters, especially on this site are as illogical as it gets. Look at the data, none of what they believe has ever been implemented in America since the 30s.
     
  16. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Rich and poor will continue to exist for various reasons. My main problem is the greed factor and taking just for the sake of taking. Leave some for somebody else instead of taking all you can, just because you can. Does that not seem reasonable to you?
     
  17. Daybreaker

    Daybreaker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    17,158
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    My theory is that we should have a three-part economy. Note that by 'three-part' I do not mean three necessarily equal parts.

    The first and largest part of the economy should be free market capitalism, and should be run more or less the way the libertarians want the economy to run.

    The second part of the economy should be funded by progressive taxation and spent democratically (i.e., government spending). Ideally, this will be the smallest part of the economy, but it has to account for the military and a lot of other infrastructure.

    The third part of the economy should work like Alaska's permanent fund. Every citizen gets an equal check (annual, quarterly, whatever) representing their dividends from the American economy. Ideally (I know -- there's that word again) this should replace welfare spending.

    That's my theory. I don't know if it qualifies as a liberal theory, 'cause I've never heard anyone else suggest it, liberal or otherwise. But I'm a liberal and that's my theory.
     
  18. The XL

    The XL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,569
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I could explain the Democrats and Republicans economic theories to you. Democrats: Hybrid welfare/corporate welfare/warfare with a lot of rhetoric on the welfare side. Republicans: Hybrid welfare/corporate welfare/warfare with rhetoric on the warfare side of things. Rhetoric a bit different perhaps, but nearly identical results.
     
  19. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Well, now see that would be wrong in the right winger's eyes. Equal dividends, to them, represents one large entity or fat cat owning all of it, and then doing whatever they want with it. You'd be taking away from them and all their "hard earned" capital, and "giving" it to someone else. That would be socialism, in their view.
     
  20. Southern Man

    Southern Man New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Except it hasn't been misused...
     
  21. Southern Man

    Southern Man New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You appear to have answered my question with a "yes". Is that a reasonable assumption on my part?
     
  22. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, it is. An anecdote which renders a desired conclusion, especially a dogmatic one, over a logical conclusion is deemed a faulty or hasty generalization. This is misuse of anecdotal evidence.
     
  23. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Not the way you phrase it...no Sir. Rich and poor will exist, simply because everybody cannot be rich (despite popular right wing propaganda of wanting us "all to be rich"). It isn't possible. Do you have a point to make?
     
  24. Daybreaker

    Daybreaker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    17,158
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    True. But that's why it's not their theory. :)

    But I figure that's got to be logical way of dealing with an economy where everyone wants to do something different. Everybody's got their points, even the republicans, though I can't imagine what those points are. We shouldn't try and do everything one way or the other (or the other). There's really no reason why we can't, or shouldn't, run things with the best of all the different economic philosophies.
     
  25. Southern Man

    Southern Man New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, it is an application of the scientific method to an analysis of human behavior.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page