Where is the US economy headed?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Remember that a Centrist is someone who has some Liberal positions and some Conservative ones.

You're insulting me. As a libertarian who likes to flirt with anarchism, I hold lots of very liberal and very conservative opinions. I believe in school vouchers, an individual right to gun ownership, the privatization of Social Security, abolishing the minimum wage, and abolishing rent control. (That's conservative.) At the same time, I would grant marriage licenses to gay couples, would downsize the US army by 50%, and legalize prostitution, drugs, and gambling. (That's liberal.) I would return to America's pre-1921 immigration laws (an idea almost all contemporary American politicians would hate, conservative or liberal. Milder variants of my preferred policies bitterly divide both camps.) You calling me a centrist, eh?

0 Replies

Cyclops, what have the liberals disavowed Clinton over? As far as I could tell, they defended him, regardless of what he did. Any criticism was pretty weak. The guy could virtually commit murder, and none of his people would turn on him. Sorry for them if they dared. The guy could have been impeached several times over for lots of things, but no, not one single Democrat strayed very far. Clinton is one of yours, paid for lock stock and barrel, by the George Soros of the world, and all the rest.

Now we have to deal with Hillary, the epitome of liberalism, and before its over, Bill will be doing everything he can to get her into the Whitehouse, after all that is his ticket to more of the power and lifestyle he craves at virtually any cost. If he has to throw a bone toward a conservative now and then, he will, and even Hillary has been known to do it. It is their triangulation strategy, but when they can govern unfettered, you know which end of the triangle they go to. That is what you apparently do not get. The Clintonistas are not conservative, but they will appear to do anything to gain power and keep it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Remember that a Centrist is someone who has some Liberal positions and some Conservative ones.

You're insulting me. As a libertarian who likes to flirt with anarchism, I hold lots of very liberal and very conservative opinions. I believe in school vouchers, an individual right to gun ownership, the privatization of Social Security, abolishing the minimum wage, and abolishing rent control. (That's conservative.) At the same time, I would grant marriage licenses to gay couples, would downsize the US army by 50%, and legalize prostitution, drugs, and gambling. (That's liberal.) I would return to America's pre-1921 immigration laws (an idea almost all contemporary American politicians would hate, conservative or liberal. Milder variants of my preferred policies bitterly divide both camps.) You calling me a centrist, eh?

To your face? Laughing

Your position is more centrist than other positions, yes. Though I support the right for people to self-define.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I remain the only centrist on a2k.
vote early
vote often
vote Kucinich.

0 Replies

Everyone (except Thomas, who is a bit of a crank) defines 'centrist" as one who agrees with him. Cyclo certainly appears to do this. Dys just likes to poke his fingers in our eyes.

Evidently Thomas concedes he is a statistical centrist. The mean values are in the middle, though there is no discernable central tendency.

I am a real centrist -- moderate, wise and tolerant.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I am a real centrist -- moderate, wise and tolerant.

Or in other words, you're a radical supporter of the Aristotele/Augustine/Aquinas wing of Jesuitism. These are the most extreme ones.

0 Replies

Very close -- change 'radical' to 'wise and tolerant', and 'extreme' to 'excellent' and you have it exactly.

Thomas, who is so well-mannered and reasonable on the outside is, in fact a bit radical (anarchist & libertarian) at the core. I, who am relatively hot-tempered and excitable on the surface, am the soul of reasoned moderation and tolerance within.

Dys just likes to poke his fingers in everyone's eyes, and Cyclo is even more excitable and hot tempered than I.

0 Replies

Thomas is a nearly purist (European) old-style liberal.

That is in modern terms ... an incalculable rightish left-wing centrist.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Thomas is a nearly purist (European) old-style liberal.

That is in modern terms ... an incalculable rightish left-wing centrist.

How very European of you Walter to cut the distinctions so finely. It sounds confusing but, after some reflection, appears to realistically duplicate the spectra of European Parliamentary alliances.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Dys just likes to poke his fingers in everyone's eyes, and Cyclo is even more excitable and hot tempered than I.

Having met all three of you in real life, I think you'd get along fabulously.

0 Replies

Quote:

Everyone (except Thomas, who is a bit of a crank) defines 'centrist" as one who agrees with him. Cyclo certainly appears to do this.

This is untrue. Those who agree with me, are for the most part Liberal, as I am a Liberal.

I'm not sure where you got this from, honestly. I have never portrayed myself as anything but a Liberal - since my conversion from the Dark Side, that is...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I consider myself a Moderate, and will vote for a candidate of either major party. Used to think John McCain was "way up there," but changed my mind when he voted for the torture bill. For me, at least, it doesn't matter that I still think he's one of the "better" candidates. I just can't trust him any more if he fails on the trust element by circumventing the truth on the torture bill.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Dys just likes to poke his fingers in everyone's eyes, and Cyclo is even more excitable and hot tempered than I.

Having met all three of you in real life, I think you'd get along fabulously.

Perhaps, but could we get along with Walter?

Cicerone is the most immoderate poster on A2K. He makes me look restrained and in absolute self-control, even at my worst moments. A likeable guy, but no moderate he --

Just like Cyclo to want to be both Liberal and Centrist at the same time.

0 Replies

Quote:

Dys just likes to poke his fingers in everyone's eyes, and Cyclo is even more excitable and hot tempered than I.

This is accurate, at least about me. I'm working on it.

Quote:

Just like Cyclo to want to be both Liberal and Centrist at the same time.

This, maybe as well. Though as I have said above, I support people's right to self-idenfity.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

"...the most immoderate poster on A2K?" WOW, at least I'm on top of something for some people. I just don't handle BS very well, and at my age I tells em the way I sees em.

0 Replies

I find it humorous everyone wants to be a centrist, or a moderate. Except cyclops, who admits to being a liberal. Thanks, cyclops. Upon reading Thomas's explanation of being a centrist, I think you are kind of a mixture, Thomas, libertarian on some issues, which is considered I think pretty far right in America, and liberal on others. I would judge a centrist as taking a moderate approach on all issues, sort of in the middle, like a 5 on most issues, not a 1 on half and a 9 on the other half, if you use a scale of 1 to 10. I think that is what george was alluding to.

Rush Limbaugh describes moderates as those that ride the fence so they don't offend either side, but believe in not much of anything. I don't think that is what we have here. Imposter, you do not strike me as a moderate or centrist. For the life of me, you claiming to have supported John McCain is a real mystery. It is not consistent with much of anything you say here. All I can attribute it to is you have been taken in by the love affair of the press with McCain, because he provided good sound bytes against his own party, but as I have predicted all along, when he actually runs as a Republican, the press will throw him to the wolves, or trash him. McCain has no chance whatsoever, because the Dems won't support him, and he has already alienated his own party. I wouldn't vote for McCain because he has no common sense, as illustrated with McCain - Feingold campaign finance legislation.

I am a conservative on most issues, in the context of the modern American definition. And proud of it.

And all of you, I enjoy debating people that are courteous on the board. Thanks.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Do you have data to link to show what you are claiming, cyclops? I won't say you are wrong, but just want to see which graph or set of data you are basing it on.

There are a lot of different factors that we could look at or get into, but here's a simple graph showing poverty changes under respective presidents:

I'm sure you don't need me to find a graph showing the rising wages and savings of the Wealthy over the last couple of years...

Cycloptichorn

To revisit this post, 4 points I would like to bring up.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

According to the above link you posted, a bar can be added to the Bush presidency showing a slight drop in 2005. So this reinforces the fact that Bush's overall average is better than Clinton's. Furthermore, if you wish to only look at the data in the context of trends, then Bush's record should be viewed more approximately as fairly flat, not distinctly upward.

Secondly, where does the information come from or gathered from? How reliable is the data? Do they rely upon surveys and what they are told by the people used in the sampling? I am skeptical and justifiably so.

Third, if the data does not include tax rebates over and above what income earners pay to the government, and I have seen no evidence that they do, this factor alone renders the graph totally worthless, and especially under the Bush tax policy years.

Fourth, I ran the poverty line values given in one of your links through an inflation calculator from 1992 through 2006, and the values given were more than $300 less than what the Census Bureau is using. I do not know if the calculator I used is more correct or not, but it simply points out that if their numbers are slightly off, the poverty percentages could be affected at the margins by at least tenths of a percent, which would drastically alter the visual impression of a graph.

0 Replies

okie doesn't know how to translate graphs; Clinton started his presidency when the poverty rate was close to 15% of the population, and brought it down to 11%. In other words, during Clinton's tenure, he brought down poverty. However, during Bush's tenure, poverty increased - steadily.

Some people see what they want to see, and not what's obvious.

0 Replies

So according to your reasoning, conservatism works, right? And welfare reform worked too.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So according to your reasoning, conservatism works, right? And welfare reform worked too.

This is a non-sequitur.

And this

Quote:

According to the above link you posted, a bar can be added to the Bush presidency showing a slight drop in 2005. So this reinforces the fact that Bush's overall average is better than Clinton's. Furthermore, if you wish to only look at the data in the context of trends, then Bush's record should be viewed more approximately as fairly flat, not distinctly upward.

Is untrue, as the rate has been rising under Bush, not dropping. Even if it is flat, it's still worse than Clinton's by a long shot - and it isn't flat.

You seem to think that the fact that Bush inherited a low poverty rate from Clinton is evidence that Bush has done something right, and it isn't.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know