What do liberals want the US to be?

[kaz]

The message of her books is individual freedom and responsibility. Her writing style is difficult so its easy to understand why the minimally intelligent do not get it.

Why you picking on Kaz. He/she may only be "minimally intelligent" but he/she sure sounds like your equal.

Seriously, Tyke, Republicans don't follow Ayn Rand at all and you think they worship her? And you're calling anyone minimally intelligent? That's just comic.

Republicans love government just like you do, they just want to move the deck chairs on the Titanic around a bit.

Ah, Republicans are a monolithic group? You admit to thinking this way

Actually when you agreed with StillObsessedWithW that Republicans worship Ayn Rand that was the monolithic thinking. The majority of Republicans do not, the mainstream party does not and the leadership certainly does not.

The statement was not that some Republicans agree with Any Rand, that I would have agreed with. Though most of us have left the party. So what you are saying is that if any Republican agrees with Ayn Rand that you can conclude the party worships her, which is ridiculous.

And just to be clear, since your standard is that agreement = worship, you admit you worship government, no?

 

[Listening]

contributions of facts hardly ever have anything to do with what kaz posts. Dante agress

Dante spends too much time arguing on playgrounds.

Kaz pointed out that the same money can not be both an asset and spent. Dante did not address that. Dante talked about whether government can pay the checks in the future. Whether the government can or not has nothing to do with kaz's point.

Like economics accounting is a form of voodoo

Not sure I get that one.

Democrats don't like economics because it keeps accurately predicting the disastrous effects of their government loving policies.

I'll be sure to share this little nugget of imbecility with Paul Krugman when next we meet for dinner

Ask him about this one.......

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The statement was not that some Republicans agree with Any Rand, that I would have agreed with.

Republicans seem to agree with all the major figures in human history who supported freedom from liberal government. Those figures are Aristotle Cicero Jesus Luther Locke Jefferson Madison Rand Friedman, and many many others. To narrow it down to Rand is just an indication of illiteracy.

 

[Londoner]

Starting in the 70s, conservatism became powerful enough to replace the New Deal Coalition as the dominating consensus. The economic theory of the movement was centered around lowering the costs of the suppliers. The theory was that capital investment (which leads to economic growth/jobs) flourishes when investors can make a higher return (that is, when investors pay lower labor costs, lower taxes, and have to deal with fewer regulations).

So this is what Reagan did. He lowered taxes on the wealthy suppliers and he lead the free trade movement which gave capitalists access to cheaper labor markets in freedom hating places like Communist China. He coupled this with with a war on labor unions at home. More broadly, he pushed for the globalization of production so that advanced industrial nations could shift their production to more profitable locations (-again, these locations were mostly in freedom hating nations that had extremely oppressed, and therefore cheap, labor markets).

As a result, labor costs in the US remained stagnant and worker benefits were either eliminated or greatly curtailed. This is why corporations like Walmart now flourish in the USA. Walmart enjoys the kind of cheap labor costs that would have been impossible during the postwar period, when U.S. corporations paid much higher wages/benefits.

As a result of the new low-wage America, middle class families no longer have the purchasing power they had during the hey-day of liberal rule (1945-1975). This was a time when middle class consumption was at its apex, and the economy saw its most sustained economic growth. It's also why the 50s are referred to as the golden age of American capitalism.

After Reagan's neoliberal reforms (low wages, taxes, reduced benefits and deregulation) American families had fewer dollars for consumption. This caused a problem, for capitalism had growing inventory but not enough consumers (who no longer had the wages to sustain economic growth through robust consumption). This problem was solved by the masters of finance. Starting in the 80s, the USA entered a period of financialization. This is where our banking system invented complicated products to finance consumption through debt. This is why we all started receiving 3 credit card offers a week in the 80s. Basically, the Reagan Revolution handed the middle class credit cards and various other debt-instruments in order to maintain consumption in the face of disappearing wages and benefits.

And . . . (hold on to you hats) it worked! By injecting massive, unprecedented amounts of credit into the economy, Reaganomics created a multi-decade boom.

But there was a problem. You can only borrow so much before the system topples.

What liberals want is for Republicans to realize that you cannot build a healthy economy without a wage and benefit system that provides workers with the ability to consume - without which "main street" businesses die. And that by leveraging oppressed Chinese labor against American workers, you are creating short term profits by destroying the long term purchasing power of American Workers (i.e.,consumers). This problem cannot be fixed by credit anymore, nor cannot it be fixed by the same Supply Side policies that worked so well in the 70s when capital was genuinely over-taxed & over-regulated, and consumer demand had yet to be compromised by several decades of concentrated borrowing. We need a return to the postwar Demand-Side policies that created a strong middle class - and we can't get there by monomaniacally asking for the same tired supply side policies that have formed the same sad entrenched bureaucracy enjoyed by the Keynesians from 1945-75.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. We need a return to the postwar Demand-Side policies

too stupid!! name a demand side policy that could work????

 

[Listening]

That was a great fairly tale.

But, you forget a few things....

First, we owned the world after 1945. We had pretty much bombed our future competition into oblivion.

Next, the "golden age" you reference wasn't so golden after LBJ won a second term.

In the early 70's we had stagflation and a host of other ills.

It might do to point out that Johnson purposely reduced the S.S. trust because he felt it was getting to loarge.

 

[Dad2three]

Dante spends too much time arguing on playgrounds.

Kaz pointed out that the same money can not be both an asset and spent. Dante did not address that. Dante talked about whether government can pay the checks in the future. Whether the government can or not has nothing to do with kaz's point.

Like economics accounting is a form of voodoo

Not sure I get that one.

Democrats don't like economics because it keeps accurately predicting the disastrous effects of their government loving policies.

I'll be sure to share this little nugget of imbecility with Paul Krugman when next we meet for dinner

Ask him about this one.......

How about ONE poll EVER in ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C or wants to get rid of UHC? lol

 

[Dad2three]

The statement was not that some Republicans agree with Any Rand, that I would have agreed with.

Republicans seem to agree with all the major figures in human history who supported freedom from liberal government. Those figures are Aristotle Cicero Jesus Luther Locke Jefferson Madison Rand Friedman, and many many others. To narrow it down to Rand is just an indication of illiteracy.

Right wing noise. Shocking

MADISON THE GUY WHO WANTED FEDERAL VETO POWER OVER STATES?

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Dad2three]

That was a great fairly tale.

But, you forget a few things....

First, we owned the world after 1945. We had pretty much bombed our future competition into oblivion.

Next, the "golden age" you reference wasn't so golden after LBJ won a second term.

In the early 70's we had stagflation and a host of other ills.

It might do to point out that Johnson purposely reduced the S.S. trust because he felt it was getting to loarge.

"fairly tale"

I'll agree. EVERYTHING you posit is


90% of the world was rebuilt by 1955 and 100% by 1960. What happened? lol

Stagflation? Oh right OPEC and right wing think tanks came into vogue pushing 'free trade' war on the unions and other harmful ideas

Care to point out HOW Johnson "purposely reduced the S.S. trust because he felt it was getting to loarge."

 

[Listening]

Like economics accounting is a form of voodoo

Not sure I get that one.

Democrats don't like economics because it keeps accurately predicting the disastrous effects of their government loving policies.

I'll be sure to share this little nugget of imbecility with Paul Krugman when next we meet for dinner

Ask him about this one.......

How about ONE poll EVER in ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C or wants to get rid of UHC? lol

That is totally stupid.

For the same reason people don't talk about Universal Health Carer here (Obamacare is far from Universal Health Care and even at that it is very upopular).

People don't know any different.

And why would anyone give up something for "nothing".

If you presented them with a real choice (one they understood) who knows what the results would be ? At least you'd have a legitimate poll.

 

[Listening]

That was a great fairly tale.

But, you forget a few things....

First, we owned the world after 1945. We had pretty much bombed our future competition into oblivion.

Next, the "golden age" you reference wasn't so golden after LBJ won a second term.

In the early 70's we had stagflation and a host of other ills.

It might do to point out that Johnson purposely reduced the S.S. trust because he felt it was getting to loarge.

"fairly tale"

I'll agree. EVERYTHING you posit is


90% of the world was rebuilt by 1955 and 100% by 1960. What happened? lol

Stagflation? Oh right OPEC and right wing think tanks came into vogue pushing 'free trade' war on the unions and other harmful ideas

Care to point out HOW Johnson "purposely reduced the S.S. trust because he felt it was getting to loarge."

That was a great fairly tale.

But, you forget a few things....

First, we owned the world after 1945. We had pretty much bombed our future competition into oblivion.

Next, the "golden age" you reference wasn't so golden after LBJ won a second term.

In the early 70's we had stagflation and a host of other ills.

It might do to point out that Johnson purposely reduced the S.S. trust because he felt it was getting to loarge.

"fairly tale"

I'll agree. EVERYTHING you posit is


90% of the world was rebuilt by 1955 and 100% by 1960. What happened? lol

Stagflation? Oh right OPEC and right wing think tanks came into vogue pushing 'free trade' war on the unions and other harmful ideas

Care to point out HOW Johnson "purposely reduced the S.S. trust because he felt it was getting to loarge."

What happened....?

Much to the dismay of your wet dream fairy tale, places like Japan didn't come into their own until the late 60's. Their rebuilding was one thing. They didn't go international for some time after that.

Staflation was a fairy tale ? Don't think so. Took place before 1975. That alone proves the original claim of the golden liberal years to be horsecrap. Johnson was already killing the economy when Nixon took over.

As to S.S. benefits...read your history. In 1966, Johnson asked for and got one of the largest increases in S.S. history. It wasn't even needed. Addtionally, he brought more people onto the rolls.

BTW: Don't bother to respond. You are on ignore and I am going back to bypassing your spam.

 

[kaz]

The statement was not that some Republicans agree with Any Rand, that I would have agreed with.

Republicans seem to agree with all the major figures in human history who supported freedom from liberal government. Those figures are Aristotle Cicero Jesus Luther Locke Jefferson Madison Rand Friedman, and many many others. To narrow it down to Rand is just an indication of illiteracy.

If Republicans agree with them, why don't they do it? I remember W spending us into the ground ala Sweden and the rest of the party voting for that and running the fiscal conservatives who objected out of their best committee assignments.

 

[Dad2three]

That was a great fairly tale.

But, you forget a few things....

First, we owned the world after 1945. We had pretty much bombed our future competition into oblivion.

Next, the "golden age" you reference wasn't so golden after LBJ won a second term.

In the early 70's we had stagflation and a host of other ills.

It might do to point out that Johnson purposely reduced the S.S. trust because he felt it was getting to loarge.

"fairly tale"

I'll agree. EVERYTHING you posit is


90% of the world was rebuilt by 1955 and 100% by 1960. What happened? lol

Stagflation? Oh right OPEC and right wing think tanks came into vogue pushing 'free trade' war on the unions and other harmful ideas

Care to point out HOW Johnson "purposely reduced the S.S. trust because he felt it was getting to loarge."

That was a great fairly tale.

But, you forget a few things....

First, we owned the world after 1945. We had pretty much bombed our future competition into oblivion.

Next, the "golden age" you reference wasn't so golden after LBJ won a second term.

In the early 70's we had stagflation and a host of other ills.

It might do to point out that Johnson purposely reduced the S.S. trust because he felt it was getting to loarge.

"fairly tale"

I'll agree. EVERYTHING you posit is


90% of the world was rebuilt by 1955 and 100% by 1960. What happened? lol

Stagflation? Oh right OPEC and right wing think tanks came into vogue pushing 'free trade' war on the unions and other harmful ideas

Care to point out HOW Johnson "purposely reduced the S.S. trust because he felt it was getting to loarge."

What happened....?

Much to the dismay of your wet dream fairy tale, places like Japan didn't come into their own until the late 60's. Their rebuilding was one thing. They didn't go international for some time after that.

Staflation was a fairy tale ? Don't think so. Took place before 1975. That alone proves the original claim of the golden liberal years to be horsecrap. Johnson was already killing the economy when Nixon took over.

As to S.S. benefits...read your history. In 1966, Johnson asked for and got one of the largest increases in S.S. history. It wasn't even needed. Addtionally, he brought more people onto the rolls.

BTW: Don't bother to respond. You are on ignore and I am going back to bypassing your spam.

I thought you had ignored before? lol

So since Japan, "didn't come into their own until the late 60's. Their rebuilding was one thing. They didn't go international for some time after that."

HOW DOES THAT SUPPORT YOUR POSIT:

"First, we owned the world after 1945. We had pretty much bombed our future competition into oblivion."

PLEASE explain, IF we bombed them into oblivion, yet the world was 90% rebuilt by 1955 and 100% by 1960, how does your posit stand? lol

Johnson killed the 70's? Here I thought Nixon was Prez from 1969 on...


As far as your 'history' on SS, like the vast majority of right wingers 'history' it's bullshit. by FAR the largest SS increase ever, BTW, was when Reagan 'saved' SS by increasing taxes 60% on it, to hide the real costs of his tax cuts for the rich!!

 

[percysunshine]

.

"What do liberals want the US to be?"

Being as this is the Christmas season, I would guess that what ever it is liberals want the US to be, they expect it to magically show up one day under a tree with a pretty little bow around it.

.

 

[Dad2three]

Not sure I get that one.

Democrats don't like economics because it keeps accurately predicting the disastrous effects of their government loving policies.

I'll be sure to share this little nugget of imbecility with Paul Krugman when next we meet for dinner

Ask him about this one.......

How about ONE poll EVER in ANY UHC nation that wants US style H/C or wants to get rid of UHC? lol

That is totally stupid.

For the same reason people don't talk about Universal Health Carer here (Obamacare is far from Universal Health Care and even at that it is very upopular).

People don't know any different.

And why would anyone give up something for "nothing".

If you presented them with a real choice (one they understood) who knows what the results would be ? At least you'd have a legitimate poll.

Got it, despite right wingers MYTHS on Obamacares and UHC, there has been ZERO polls EVER in ANY UHC nation that wants US style H//C or to give up their UHC. Thanks for agreeing

BTW, The majority of US like the things in Obamacares, it's weird how right wing think tanks can spin things right?


3. Some parts of the law are popular: It's the ultimate paradox. Overall, Obamacare remains mostly unpopular with the public, but many Americans give a thumbs up to most specific parts of the Affordable Care Act that have been tested in surveys .

Five things polling tells us about Obamacare 8211 CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

 

[Listening]

.

"What do liberals want the US to be?"

Being as this is the Christmas season, I would guess that what ever it is liberals want the US to be, they expect it to magically show up one day under a tree with a pretty little bow around it.

.

Paid for by somebody else.

 

[Listening]

The statement was not that some Republicans agree with Any Rand, that I would have agreed with.

Republicans seem to agree with all the major figures in human history who supported freedom from liberal government. Those figures are Aristotle Cicero Jesus Luther Locke Jefferson Madison Rand Friedman, and many many others. To narrow it down to Rand is just an indication of illiteracy.

If Republicans agree with them, why don't they do it? I remember W spending us into the ground ala Sweden and the rest of the party voting for that and running the fiscal conservatives who objected out of their best committee assignments.

Those fiscal conservatives were republicans.

It was the vaunted "mainstreamers" (that FakeyJakey loves) who did this.

He and his ilk are responsible for helping Bush put us so far in the red.

 

[blackhawk]

this is a serious question, please only reply with serious comments.

what specifically do liberals want the US to become?
Tell us exactly what you want changed, and why.

It seems like they want the U.S. to adopt a quasi socialist form of government that has dominated Europe for many years.

 

[kaz]

The statement was not that some Republicans agree with Any Rand, that I would have agreed with.

Republicans seem to agree with all the major figures in human history who supported freedom from liberal government. Those figures are Aristotle Cicero Jesus Luther Locke Jefferson Madison Rand Friedman, and many many others. To narrow it down to Rand is just an indication of illiteracy.

If Republicans agree with them, why don't they do it? I remember W spending us into the ground ala Sweden and the rest of the party voting for that and running the fiscal conservatives who objected out of their best committee assignments.

Those fiscal conservatives were republicans.

It was the vaunted "mainstreamers" (that FakeyJakey loves) who did this.

He and his ilk are responsible for helping Bush put us so far in the red.

I agree, but the Jake "Republicans" outvoted the fiscal conservatives, just showing again that "the Republican party" does not worship Ayn Rand.

 

[Dad2three]

The statement was not that some Republicans agree with Any Rand, that I would have agreed with.

Republicans seem to agree with all the major figures in human history who supported freedom from liberal government. Those figures are Aristotle Cicero Jesus Luther Locke Jefferson Madison Rand Friedman, and many many others. To narrow it down to Rand is just an indication of illiteracy.

If Republicans agree with them, why don't they do it? I remember W spending us into the ground ala Sweden and the rest of the party voting for that and running the fiscal conservatives who objected out of their best committee assignments.

Those fiscal conservatives were republicans.

It was the vaunted "mainstreamers" (that FakeyJakey loves) who did this.

He and his ilk are responsible for helping Bush put us so far in the red.

Name the GOPers voting against Dubya's 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts that the CBO said was 1/3rd of deficits 2001-2010?

The GOPers asking for a SOURCE of revenue for GOP's 'Medicare expansion', Part D?


How about the GOPer putting forward a bill to PAY FOR the 2 UNFUNDED wars, rather than put it on the credit card?