What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Bfgrn]

No, I am saying what I said, though the track record of supply side is superior in generating economic activity to anything else the government has tried. What I am saying is that liberals too often argue as you are arguing here--accusing, blaming, demonizing, stating dishonest ridiculous things as fact--and unable to articulate a rationale for any of it.

That is so typical of the average liberal in any kind of discussion or debate, and it is extremely frustrating for those interesting in exploring and discussing a topic.

The track record of supply side is a failure...a total and complete failure. You are a typical of the right. You don't know the facts. But you are too self absorbed to care to know truth from myth.

And here you offer the typical argument that I have observed from most of the left. You demonstrate an inability to articulate a rationale for your erroneous 'fact' and don't make any kind of argument without going ad hominem and/or flat out insulting your opponent. Sad. And again frustating to those of us who do enjoy an informed and intelligent argument/discussion/debate.

The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the homo economicus, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word “idiot.” Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: “We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless…”

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

Kenneth Friedman - Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Foxfyre]

The track record of supply side is a failure...a total and complete failure. You are a typical of the right. You don't know the facts. But you are too self absorbed to care to know truth from myth.

And here you offer the typical argument that I have observed from most of the left. You demonstrate an inability to articulate a rationale for your erroneous 'fact' and don't make any kind of argument without going ad hominem and/or flat out insulting your opponent. Sad. And again frustating to those of us who do enjoy an informed and intelligent argument/discussion/debate.

The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the homo economicus, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word “idiot.” Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: “We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless…”

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

Kenneth Friedman - Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

Oh good. Rather than defend your point of view, now you through in a huge cut and paste diversion to deflect from the original subject being discussed,. Way to go, I love good illustrations that defend my argument for why arguing with liberals is so frustrating.

 

[Bfgrn]

And here you offer the typical argument that I have observed from most of the left. You demonstrate an inability to articulate a rationale for your erroneous 'fact' and don't make any kind of argument without going ad hominem and/or flat out insulting your opponent. Sad. And again frustating to those of us who do enjoy an informed and intelligent argument/discussion/debate.

The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the homo economicus, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word “idiot.” Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: “We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless…”

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

Kenneth Friedman - Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

Oh good. Rather than defend your point of view, now you through in a huge cut and paste diversion to deflect from the original subject being discussed,. Way to go, I love good illustrations that defend my argument for why arguing with liberals is so frustrating.

The subject YOU chose:

...the track record of supply side is superior in generating economic activity to anything else the government has tried.

FALSE!

 

[Foxfyre]

The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the homo economicus, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word “idiot.” Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: “We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless…”

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

Kenneth Friedman - Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

Oh good. Rather than defend your point of view, now you through in a huge cut and paste diversion to deflect from the original subject being discussed,. Way to go, I love good illustrations that defend my argument for why arguing with liberals is so frustrating.

The subject YOU chose:

...the track record of supply side is superior in generating economic activity to anything else the government has tried.

FALSE!

Laizzez faire--which is not regulated by the government--is not the same thing as supply side that requires government action. But of course you would have to understand the difference before you could appear even slightly educated on those principles wouldn't you.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh good. Rather than defend your point of view, now you through in a huge cut and paste diversion to deflect from the original subject being discussed,. Way to go, I love good illustrations that defend my argument for why arguing with liberals is so frustrating.

The subject YOU chose:

...the track record of supply side is superior in generating economic activity to anything else the government has tried.

FALSE!

Laizzez faire--which is not regulated by the government--is not the same thing as supply side that requires government action. But of course you would have to understand the difference before you could appear even slightly educated on those principles wouldn't you.

So, now you are disavowing your religion? Just because I provide facts that your religion is the biggest failure in American history?

But you do make a valid point. It took vast government intervention for Reagan to steal 3 trillion dollars from the middle class and hand it to the opulent. Looting Social Security, taxes raised on gasoline and cigarettes, the biggest tax rise on payrolls, self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent. Unemployment compensation taxed. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits.

A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax.

And lest we forget that Reagan created as much debt in 8 years as all the Presidents before him....COMBINED.

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[Foxfyre]

The subject YOU chose:



FALSE!

Laizzez faire--which is not regulated by the government--is not the same thing as supply side that requires government action. But of course you would have to understand the difference before you could appear even slightly educated on those principles wouldn't you.

So, now you are disavowing your religion? Just because I provide facts that your religion is the biggest failure in American history?

But you do make a valid point. It took vast government intervention for Reagan to steal 3 trillion dollars from the middle class and hand it to the opulent. Looting Social Security, taxes raised on gasoline and cigarettes, the biggest tax rise on payrolls, self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent. Unemployment compensation taxed. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits.

A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax.

And lest we forget that Reagan created as much debt in 8 years as all the Presidents before him....COMBINED.

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Sigh. When you are able to understand what you are typing or can even define the terms related to the stuff you cut and paste, perhaps we can have a discussion. Until then, do have a nice St. Paddy's day.

 

[Bfgrn]

Laizzez faire--which is not regulated by the government--is not the same thing as supply side that requires government action. But of course you would have to understand the difference before you could appear even slightly educated on those principles wouldn't you.

So, now you are disavowing your religion? Just because I provide facts that your religion is the biggest failure in American history?

But you do make a valid point. It took vast government intervention for Reagan to steal 3 trillion dollars from the middle class and hand it to the opulent. Looting Social Security, taxes raised on gasoline and cigarettes, the biggest tax rise on payrolls, self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent. Unemployment compensation taxed. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits.

A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax.

And lest we forget that Reagan created as much debt in 8 years as all the Presidents before him....COMBINED.

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Sigh. When you are able to understand what you are typing or can even define the terms related to the stuff you cut and paste, perhaps we can have a discussion. Until then, do have a nice St. Paddy's day.

Translation: you are getting buried and your only 'out' is an insult.

I know exactly what I am saying. You are just out of my league.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position.

actually there is a boat load. We have the most capitalism and are the richest amoung major industrial countries!! We have 70% of all recent medical patents. We are civilization on earth. Europe has 65% of our percapita GDP and would have 40% without our inventions.

Rank Country Value Date of Info
1 Qatar $145,300 2010 est.
2 Liechtenstein $122,100 2007 est.
3 Luxembourg $81,800 2010 est.
4 Bermuda $69,900 2004 est.
5 Singapore $62,200 2010 est.
6 Norway $59,100 2010 est.
7 Jersey $57,000 2005 est.
8 Kuwait $51,700 2010 est.
9 Brunei $50,300 2010 est.
10 United States $47,400 2010 est.
11 Hong Kong $45,600 2010 est.
12 Andorra $44,900 2008
13 Guernsey $44,600 2005
14 Cayman Islands $43,800 2004 est.
15 Switzerland $42,900 2010 est.
16 San Marino $41,900 2007
17 Australia $41,300 2010 est.
18 Netherlands $40,500 2010 est.
19 Bahrain $40,400 2010 est.
20 Austria $40,300 2010 est.
21 United Arab Emirates $40,200 2010 est.
22 Canada $39,600 2010 est.
23 Sweden $39,000 2010 est.
24 British Virgin Islands $38,500 2004 est.
25 Iceland $38,400 2010 est.
25 Gibraltar $38,400 2006 est.
26 Equatorial Guinea $37,900 2010 est.
26 Belgium $37,900 2010 est.
27 Ireland $37,600 2010 est.
28 Denmark $37,000 2010 est.
29 Germany $35,900 2010 est.
29 Greenland $35,900 2007 est.
30 Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) $35,400 2002 est.
31 Finland $35,300 2010 est.
32 Taiwan $35,100 2010 est.
32 United Kingdom $35,100 2010 est.
33 Isle of Man $35,000 2005 est.
34 Japan $34,200 2010 est.
35 Faroe Islands $34,000 2008 est.
36 France $33,300 2010 est.
37 Macau $33,000 2009
38 European Union $32,900 2010 est.
39 Italy $30,700 2010 est.
40 Korea, South $30,200 2010 est.
40 Greece $30,200 2010 est.
41 Monaco $30,000 2006 est.
42 Spain $29,500 2010 est.
42 Israel

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

outstriped when we have 30% more GDP percapita than Europe despite liberals ruining entire industries (like health care), taxing our corporations the most in the world, liberal unions driving millions of jobs away, liberal illegals taking 20 million jobs, and liberal deficits preventing balanced trade with China and Japan. Are you smart enough to be here?

 

[Foxfyre]

Damn Edward. Wish I had some rep to give but I've been out for awhile today. I owe ya.

 

[JoeB131]

I wasn't blaming you specifically, though you deserved a bit of it,. I was pointing out what frustrates me.

And yes, Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us dependent on it as Democrats are. The only difference is that Republicans tend to do it a bit more slowly - and - Republicans are more likely to be pro business and promote policies that stimulate economic growth rather than inhibit it so the dependency they create is usually not among the nation's poorest and most gullible, It is more often among the nation's more ambitious and opportunistic.

One of the differences (and frustrations) for me in discussing this with liberals, is that they are more likely to not see the distinctions here and/or grant one of these two things as meritorious and the other as evil/greedy/selfish etc. And they more often than not won't be able to articulate an accurate rationale for either.

i dispute the REpublicans are doing it more slowly. Who makes you more in need of a safety net, the guy who puts up the net or the guy who pushes you off the platform to need it?

The problem is the Republicans are Pro-Business at the cost of being anti-worker, anti-consumer and and average guy. And when Romney and his sort destroy those nice union jobs at AmPad and replace them with McJobs at Staples, they make people more dependent on government.

The fact the businessman makes out for now isn't going to help them when those folks finally get democrats with enough balls to say, "Yeah, let's up the taxes on the rich."

 

[Foxfyre]

I wasn't blaming you specifically, though you deserved a bit of it,. I was pointing out what frustrates me.

And yes, Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us dependent on it as Democrats are. The only difference is that Republicans tend to do it a bit more slowly - and - Republicans are more likely to be pro business and promote policies that stimulate economic growth rather than inhibit it so the dependency they create is usually not among the nation's poorest and most gullible, It is more often among the nation's more ambitious and opportunistic.

One of the differences (and frustrations) for me in discussing this with liberals, is that they are more likely to not see the distinctions here and/or grant one of these two things as meritorious and the other as evil/greedy/selfish etc. And they more often than not won't be able to articulate an accurate rationale for either.

i dispute the REpublicans are doing it more slowly. Who makes you more in need of a safety net, the guy who puts up the net or the guy who pushes you off the platform to need it?

The problem is the Republicans are Pro-Business at the cost of being anti-worker, anti-consumer and and average guy. And when Romney and his sort destroy those nice union jobs at AmPad and replace them with McJobs at Staples, they make people more dependent on government.

The fact the businessman makes out for now isn't going to help them when those folks finally get democrats with enough balls to say, "Yeah, let's up the taxes on the rich."

As long as you acknowledge that is your opinion unsupportable by any known data in the universe, I will accept it as your opinion.

I will also say that (most) Republicans believe that promoting, encouraging, and helping business succeed is the finest form of compasion and assistance a country can give to the worker, the consumer, and the average guy including the poorest guy. It goes back to the old concept of giving people a fish that once consumed leaves them in need of another fish. And people being people, once they discover that there are free fish to be had, will vote for those who will keep those free fish coming, most especially if they are promised even more or bigger fish. The fact that the fish must be provided by somebody who is working to catch the fish doesn't bother the giver or receiver in the least. Until the fisherman becomes weary of having so many of his fish confiscated and decides it is easier to just not fish and take the free fish.

The Republicans, at least the conservative ones, see the better road as teachong somebody to fish and making it possible and profitable to do so. And because his destiny is then in his hands, and there is profit to be made in fishing, and no profit to be made by not fishing, he will fish and be grateful for the opportunity to do so.

The difference between you and me is likely which of these two scenarios is the most caring, compassionate, honorable, profitable, and fairest to all concerned.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Damn Edward. Wish I had some rep to give but I've been out for awhile today. I owe ya.

is the rep thing important? I never paid much attention to it. What do you think?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And yes, Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us dependent on it as Democrats are. The only difference is that Republicans tend to do it a bit more slowly .

What???? Republicans since Jefferson have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments. Newt's passed the House and fell one vote short in the Senate!! Republicans would end the liberal BS instantly if not for independents and Democrats.

 

[JoeB131]

As long as you acknowledge that is your opinion unsupportable by any known data in the universe, I will accept it as your opinion.

I will also say that (most) Republicans believe that promoting, encouraging, and helping business succeed is the finest form of compasion and assistance a country can give to the worker, the consumer, and the average guy including the poorest guy. It goes back to the old concept of giving people a fish that once consumed leaves them in need of another fish. And people being people, once they discover that there are free fish to be had, will vote for those who will keep those free fish coming, most especially if they are promised even more or bigger fish. The fact that the fish must be provided by somebody who is working to catch the fish doesn't bother the giver or receiver in the least. Until the fisherman becomes weary of having so many of his fish confiscated and decides it is easier to just not fish and take the free fish.

The Republicans, at least the conservative ones, see the better road as teachong somebody to fish and making it possible and profitable to do so. And because his destiny is then in his hands, and there is profit to be made in fishing, and no profit to be made by not fishing, he will fish and be grateful for the opportunity to do so.

The difference between you and me is likely which of these two scenarios is the most caring, compassionate, honorable, profitable, and fairest to all concerned.

Well, you can keep believing that nonsense... But I've seen so much bad behavior by bosses and managers in the last 20 years, I certainly don't. And they'd be a lot worse if they didn't live in fear of the EEOC, EPA, OSHA, etc....

Nope, there's a class war going on in this country, and teh GOP has picked the wrong side. Absolutely. Wasn't always this way. Some Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt, Warren Harding, Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford- they got it.... I think on some level, Reagan did, too.

It's when you get the party run not by these humble guys from working class roots, but guys like the Bush's and Romney, who have never had to worry about a grocery bill or a mortgage payment, that you lose touch.

 

[The T]

As long as you acknowledge that is your opinion unsupportable by any known data in the universe, I will accept it as your opinion.

I will also say that (most) Republicans believe that promoting, encouraging, and helping business succeed is the finest form of compasion and assistance a country can give to the worker, the consumer, and the average guy including the poorest guy. It goes back to the old concept of giving people a fish that once consumed leaves them in need of another fish. And people being people, once they discover that there are free fish to be had, will vote for those who will keep those free fish coming, most especially if they are promised even more or bigger fish. The fact that the fish must be provided by somebody who is working to catch the fish doesn't bother the giver or receiver in the least. Until the fisherman becomes weary of having so many of his fish confiscated and decides it is easier to just not fish and take the free fish.

The Republicans, at least the conservative ones, see the better road as teachong somebody to fish and making it possible and profitable to do so. And because his destiny is then in his hands, and there is profit to be made in fishing, and no profit to be made by not fishing, he will fish and be grateful for the opportunity to do so.

The difference between you and me is likely which of these two scenarios is the most caring, compassionate, honorable, profitable, and fairest to all concerned.

Well, you can keep believing that nonsense... But I've seen so much bad behavior by bosses and managers in the last 20 years, I certainly don't. And they'd be a lot worse if they didn't live in fear of the EEOC, EPA, OSHA, etc....

Nope, there's a class war going on in this country, and teh GOP has picked the wrong side. Absolutely. Wasn't always this way. Some Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt, Warren Harding, Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford- they got it.... I think on some level, Reagan did, too.

It's when you get the party run not by these humble guys from working class roots, but guys like the Bush's and Romney, who have never had to worry about a grocery bill or a mortgage payment, that you lose touch.

WHO is paying YOU to be here, Bigot?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

... But I've seen so much bad behavior by bosses and managers in the last 20 years, I certainly don't. And they'd be a lot worse if they didn't live in fear of the EEOC, EPA, OSHA, etc....

thats absurd and idiotic!!! Its 1000 times easier to evade OSHA than customers who see that your price and quality is not the best in the world. 10,000 companies go bust every month thanks to the market place, not OSHA





Nope, there's a class war going on in this country, and teh GOP has picked the wrong side. Absolutely. Wasn't always this way. Some Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt, Warren Harding, Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford- they got it.... I think on some level, Reagan did, too.

It's when you get the party run not by these humble guys from working class roots, but guys like the Bush's and Romney, who have never had to worry about a grocery bill or a mortgage payment, that you lose touch.[/QUOTE]

 

[The T]

Damn Edward. Wish I had some rep to give but I've been out for awhile today. I owe ya.

Taken care of.

 

[JoeB131]

thats absurd and idiotic!!! Its 1000 times easier to evade OSHA than customers who see that your price and quality is not the best in the world. 10,000 companies go bust every month thanks to the market place, not OSHA

]

I don't have this worship of the market that you do.

I mean, it would be nice if we as consumers punished companies that were the bad actors, but we don't. More often than not, companies that are doing the right thing are the ones going out of business because they couldn't econmically compete with the scumbag using illegal alien labor.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't have this worship of the market that you do.

You should have it!! without it you must worship the liberal

I mean, it would be nice if we as consumers punished companies that were the bad actors, but we don't.

like I said pal we drive 10,000 into bankruptcy every month!! Why did you ignore that??

More often than not, companies that are doing the right thing are the ones going out of business because they couldn't econmically compete with the scumbag using illegal alien labor.

the liberals wont send the illegals home because they want the immigrant communities vote!! Its always the liberal who is to blame
In this case the liberals have taken 10- 20 million American jobs and yet American labor is still liberal. Its possible because liberalism is based on pure ignorance