Liberals vs. Conservatives

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
KCRW's To the Point podcast with an intelligent (uh oh) discussion on the division between liberals and conservatives in America.

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=73330613&selectedItemId=146198

Here is a better, direct URL:

http://kcrw.com/podcast/show/tp

This is a useful discussion to listen to.

While this may be useful, it currently does not offer anything other than links. Please add something to your post...

I had a thought on this a while back, let me share. It's not necessarily good vs. bad. It's: Short term vs. long term. Conservatives focus on the short term, with tax cuts, and enriching their own lives. They do not care about social reform or any other program that would take time to have effect. They do not care about the environment because it won't affect them, especially in their lifetime. They do not care about their kids, or kids/old people in general, because they are not affected, and therefore vote against education and social security.

It is really simple. Long term versus short term. The debate on global warming I think is the strongest issue to highlight this dichotomy. It is not necessarily bad, just a different way of thinking. I care about what happens to America and the world in 100 years. I care about social reforms that may take 30 or 50 years. Conservatives do not. They focus on the here and now. Just a different way of thinking. So I think nearly every issue that pits conservatives against liberals can be looked at through this lense.

Originally posted by Aquatic
I had a thought on this a while back, let me share. It's not necessarily good vs. bad. It's: Short term vs. long term. Conservatives focus on the short term, with tax cuts, and enriching their own lives.

Conservatives do not think only about the short term or even exclusively about tax cuts. There is a large difference betweeen contributing to the common pot for the common good and justifying the crime of stealing with good intentions. How easy is it to claim you are enriching the life of someone while taking the work, time and money of a different person. This is akin to claiming you showed good hospitality on the plantation becuase you made your slaves work hard for your guests. Even if the intentions are well placed, the actions used to achieve them are wrong.

They do not care about the environment because it won't affect them, especially in their lifetime.

This is not correct. There are plenty of conservatives who care about the environment. However they believe that the environment can be managed and cared for while also serving human needs. They do not treat humans as a plague that by their very nature destroy the planet with their presence. Also they know that economic progress has allowed us to be more productive, and there is hope that eventually this economic progress will lead to clean and everlasting forms of energy.

In the meantime the current forms of energy might be more dirty, but they have extended life expectancy, allowed us to feed billions, made life better for all and claiming all this should be thrown away when the path of progress can still clearly lead to the clean variety of energy is just shortsighted and irresponsible.

They do not care about their kids, or kids/old people in general, because they are not affected, and therefore vote against education and social security.

As someone who works in education, I can tell you that throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it. There are a multitude of issues that we have to discuss and address as a society before that money will effectively help children. Arguing that we need to have these discussions BEFORE we spend the money does not mean one hates kids.

The same is true for Social Security. It started as a program to insure the elderly did not end up indigent. It started at 65 when the average life expectancy was actually 65. To question why we might want to reform the most REGRESSIVE tax we have at the federal level isn't a sign you hate the eldery. We have people living in million dollar homes on golf courses receiving Social Security starting at the age of 63 when they will now live to be almost 80. Also the eldery poverty rate is HALF of what the rate is for children. The short term view is that it keeps these folks happy and buys their votes. The long term view is that it is not ethical to run up deficits for the elderly and leave them to the children that already have to experience double the poverty rate of those elder so that the elderly may retire in style.

It is really simple. Long term versus short term. The debate on global warming I think is the strongest issue to highlight this dichotomy. It is not necessarily bad, just a different way of thinking. I care about what happens to America and the world in 100 years.

Then you will support the economic progress that has brought about our current lifestyle and hope it will achieve as better future lifestyle. We have been watching this progress for decades now. You will not kill it today out of fear it will fail to achieve a future clean goal. The desire to kill it today is short term thinking. The long view says that these companies will continue to improve and refine their manufactoring processes and might one day be able to create clean energy on the cheap. We are already moving into hybrid vehicles. Governments do not bring about productivity improvements. Businesses wanting to improve profits find ways to redesign, refine, and achieve more with less. We should do our best and let this process continue instead of pushing for short term solutions that punish millions of people economically and in their day to day living.

I care about social reforms that may take 30 or 50 years. Conservatives do not. They focus on the here and now. Just a different way of thinking. So I think nearly every issue that pits conservatives against liberals can be looked at through this lense.

I disagree and can easily show how many liberal views are short sighted. Take affirmative action as the best example. Society is naturally moving toward a state or racial equality. This happens as more communication and competition is necessary in economic realms. The short term view says admit people into college because of their skin college, don't really care about if they graduate, just admit them. And fix racism by continuing to dwell on race and act in racist manners.

The long view is that you cannot just legislate that a number come up a certain way and that people who desire that path will find a way to achieve it. Black colleges still popped up all over the South and did great jobs even with Jim Crow laws. Sure perhaps today UCLA is too asian and not enough black. However just admitting that black student doesn't insure he will get what he needs to graduate and succeed. Studies have repeatedly shown that students admitted under affirmative action criteria drop out at hugely disproportionate rates. Perhaps he enrolls at a smaller UC campus, or perhaps at a CSU or community college. At these places he is admitted according to the merit of what he can accomplish and gets appropriate help. He isn't the small fish in the ocean with no additional resources helping him. As a result, he graduates.

The long view looks at graduation, not just who is admitted.

Let's look at the long view of abortion. Since it is understood that a child is now a choice, and not just something that naturally happens, when you make the choice for having the child, society feels it is fair in allowing you to suffer for that choice since you could have prevented it or made a different choice. The long view has noted that abortion is a quick fix and indeed whether you support it or not, it has not improved the lot of children in our society by any measure. If anything it has made it much easier for society to say it is simply a choice and you must live with the consequences.

I could go on, but unless you can see conservative views as something other than evil+selfish, there really isn't a point.

Nick

Conservative views are by and large defended by selfish reasoning. That speaks volumes about this view point even if one conservative doesn't believe he is selfish.

The tax cuts will benefit you. Under a conservative government the state will be less involved in your affairs (a blatant falsitude, clearly). etc etc etc.

So unless you can point out reasons why conservative ideologies don't by and large appear focused on serving the individual desire or corporate desire, I am not buying the conservatives are not selfish routine.

At the same time, I don't think liberals always have the long term future or society at their heart. This is simply because many lack the pragmatism that would be required for such planning to occur.

At some level there is a nice in-between for the lofty goals of liberals and society and the uber-pragmatic conservative approach to life (which unfortunately serves itself most of the time)...

Actually, I suspect there are a breed of people like that already but they are liberals whose voices aren't shrill enough to be heard over the sometimes irrelevent raison d'etre of the day...

Originally posted by e1618978
There is a pollitical test you can take, which plots you on a graph (one axis is social liberal vs social conservative, the other axis is financial liberal vs financial conservative).

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

There are 5 areas on the graph - you get put into either Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Statist or Centrist.

I am on the junction of liberal, centrist, and libertarian.

Interesting quiz. I have seen others but not this one (before today).

I fall on the line between conservative and libertarian.

I'd like to see a more detailed questionaire as I think it might provide a "higher resolution" picture of someone's position.

Finally, the way questions are asked can be vitally important in these quizzes.

Here are some others:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/
http://www.quiz2d.com/
http://franz.org/quiz.htm
http://www.moral-politics.com/
http://www.zackvision.com/weblog/archives/entry/000024.html

Haven't taken any of these yet. Will do so for some fun/entertainment.

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Conservative views are by and large defended by selfish reasoning. That speaks volumes about this view point even if one conservative doesn't believe he is selfish.

The fruit of one's own labors are selfish? I wonder how long you would have this view if youw were the slave versus the plantation owner?

The tax cuts will benefit you. Under a conservative government the state will be less involved in your affairs (a blatant falsitude, clearly). etc etc etc.

Letting you keep the result of your own labor will benefit you and this is bad. Obviously you believe that the government owns you and that any attempt you make to prove this wrong is "selfish."

So unless you can point out reasons why conservative ideologies don't by and large appear focused on serving the individual desire or corporate desire, I am not buying the conservatives are not selfish routine.

No one has to prove crap to you. If you want to live in ignorance, then enjoy it. People exist for the benefit of themselves first. They are not owned by society or even well intentioned members of society for whom they must slave away or devote their lives. To demand such a thing while calling it compassionate and selfless is the height of stupidity.

At the same time, I don't think liberals always have the long term future or society at their heart. This is simply because many lack the pragmatism that would be required for such planning to occur.

Yes much like as sounded in your rhetoric, we all learn that bad actions even when supported by good intentions do not work over the long term.

At some level there is a nice in-between for the lofty goals of liberals and society and the uber-pragmatic conservative approach to life (which unfortunately serves itself most of the time)...

More like when you take a persons money, you also have listen to their input and maybe even reflect or consider the values that they have. It is nonsense to take money from peope and use it against them. Many better off people desire to help others but make judgements in doing so to insure they are giving a hand up and not a hand out. Such judgements do not sit well with those who steal in an attempt to buy votes under the guise of bettering society or who wish to transform society but find the values they promote do not actually create or sustain the wealth necessary to bring about and continue a change.

Actually, I suspect there are a breed of people like that already but they are liberals whose voices aren't shrill enough to be heard over the sometimes irrelevent raison d'etre of the day...

Or perhaps they were tossed out of the party because they believe in a god, because they think equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcome, or because they didn't buy into the belief that everyone in life is a victim that must be compensated in some manner.

Nick

Conservative views are by and large defended by selfish reasoning.

That is about as constructive as the following:

Liberal views are by and large defended by state centered benefits analysis. The individual can be harmed in any way, and subjegated to the will of the state.

All forms of intellectual persuit, such as investigations of nurture vs nature, can and will be squashed if they start to contridict deeply held state views.

All property is subject to confiscation by the state, and the state can control all aspects of education and medical care. The use of language will be restricted in a pollitically correct way, to prevent anyone from having hurt feelings.

Foreign relations will be performed by highly paid diplomats with $1M expense accounts and limo drivers. Any attack on our facilities or people will be analysed to find out what we did to cause such distress in our enemies.

Success will be discouraged in the state, as anyone who earns more than the norm is obviously a criminal. Those that earn less than the norm will be subsidised, regardless of their contribution to the state.

Vested interests in the state can benefit from convoluted trade laws, and those interests are chosen based on how "natural" they are perceived to be.

Science and technology will be regulated by the state, as new things could be harmful. The bulk of research money will go to modern artists and native indian historians.

Originally posted by Aquatic
I had a thought on this a while back, let me share. It's not necessarily good vs. bad. It's: Short term vs. long term. There's no doubt that Bush's approach to government budgeting reflects this. Let's hope that it's just political expediency rather than a core element of their philosophy.

Going through those surveys/quizzes got me to thinking a bit more carefully about this subject. A couple of things:

1. What someone believes/thinks/values doesn't necessarily have to connect to a government action. For example, if I believe that homosexuality is wrong, that might be a "morally conservative" view, but I might also agree that the "government has no business in my bedroom", which would likely be considered a more "legally/governmentally liberal" view.

2. Today's political parties do not necessarily provide us very good examples of true conservativism or liberalism. So jumping to specific political parties, agendas or figures is not generally all that useful.

In a basic, dictionary definition sense of things, conservatism is about respecting an established or traditional way of doing things, where liberalism is about desiring "progressive" change. Neither of these are inherently bad, it is usually only at the extremes where they are problematic.

Change just for the sake of change, or the fact that someone doesn't understand why things are the way they are, is foolishness.

Similarly, non-change/traditionalism just because "that's the way we've always done it" is just as foolish.

In my observation it is ignorant fools that polarize strictly into either camp. Wisdom suggests that some things should not be changed, while other things should be.

Now...back to the more colloquial definitions of conservatism and liberalism...in regards to government relationship with its citizens.

Conservatism seems to have a core distrust of government and its ability to "fix" or "improve" things (particularly the lives of its citizens) in aggregate.

Liberalism seems to have more confidence in the ability of government to "fix" or "improve" things (particularly the lives of its citizens).

What is intresting though is some apparently glaring contradictions.

On the one hand a more liberal perspective would suggest that people should be free do do what they wish sexually speaking, women should have a "choice" of abortion...however...the public schools know best how to educate and raise my children, the government should be able to intervene in my parenting, and the death penalty doesn't "respect life".

There are similar apparent contradictions from conservative voices.

Originally posted by Aquatic
Conservatives don't like government. They want less of it. Yet they benefit the most from it.

Hmmm. Seems like a dubious deduction.

How do "conservatives" benefit most from government?

Originally posted by Aquatic
From the structure of civilization. This is HOW the rich got rich.

All conservatives are rich? All rich are conservatives? Conservatives got rich from government? Rich became rich through government?

Not sure at all what you are saying here.

Originally posted by Aquatic
They therefore should pay more back in to the government. Thoughts?

Conservatives? Rich people?

Rich people do pay more in taxes.

Originally posted by e1618978
Conservatives only benefit most from the first 40% of government - the parts that provide for national security, law enforcement, infrastructure and the SEC. These things really benefit everyone.

The second 30% is payments on the national debt, which is basically the costs of WWII + interest. Winning WWII was in the best interests of all citizens.

The last 30% is all social programs that don't benefit the rich in the slightest.

I'd say that the rich benefit less from most government expendatures.

Conservatives != the wealthiest

Conservatives = moral conservatives, often not wealthy... benefit by big government stepping in to take Judy's right to an abortion away and make Micheal and Tom's wish to get married a fantasy.

Conservatives = ecomonic conservatives, often wealthy...
benefit by big government giving tax breaks to businesses, pro-business laws, as well as social programs for workers to take the costs of providing health care, job security measures including training programs off of them etc etc...

Conservatives = those that hate any social program whatsoever. if they aren't getting ahead by government programs no one should (ie Nick).

Conservatives = insane near facsist 'merica is always right, well this one is obvious.

Conservatives = good old boys, small national government types big state government types who want to kill them some [explicative deleted]... these are the proud migrants from the old school racist democratic party... I don't know how you would handle these guys... really their rational is that if the national government is serving their unethical intentions, then a mighty government should exist... history does not look kindly on these sorts.

Conservatives = Strict constructionist libertarians, the constitution is as far as the national government should go. Get rid of the cabinet. etc etc etc

These people somehow fit into one party...

Originally posted by e1618978
The second 30% is payments on the national debt, which is basically the costs of WWII + interest. Winning WWII was in the best interests of all citizens. The debt went down and down (as a % of GDP) from WWII until 1980, when conservatives took power. Then it went up and up after that. Our current debt certainly wasn't caused by WWII. The current debt was caused by tax cuts enacted by Reagan and W. And we all know who those tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit.

FormerLurker beat me to it. :)

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Conservatism seems to have a core distrust of government and its ability to "fix" or "improve" things (particularly the lives of its citizens) in aggregate.

Liberalism seems to have more confidence in the ability of government to "fix" or "improve" things (particularly the lives of its citizens). I think this is pure marketing by conservatives. I don't doubt that many conservatives believe this and vote the way they do because they believe this. But let me give you the liberal view. :)

I don't think conservatism has anything to do with "distrust of government," and no liberal loves government the way a conservative does. Conservatives believe that government should direct our private lives so intimately that it should tell consenting adults where to stick their dicks. They believe so strongly in our government, right or wrong, that when it comes to foreign policy and fighting wars, any liberal critical of its actions is accused of "hating America" and considered a traitor. They believe so much in government that they trust it getting involved with religion. They believe in such a powerful and omnipotent government that it should be permitted to execute its citizens.

That's how most liberals view your supposed "distrust of government."

It seems to us liberals that the only place conservatives think there should be a less powerful government is when it comes to the "liberty" of being in the underclass. When liberals hear talk of how conservatives want low taxes simply because they distrust government, we put it into the context of conservatives' love of government in every other respect, and we simply don't buy it.

Originally posted by e1618978
My point still stands, your graph re-inforces it. The only distorting influence is the high debt payments that must have been made from 1950-1980, because the US was in the post war boom - if it wasn't for the post war boom, the graph would be more linear. 1980 was about when the Japaneese started to eat our lunch.

WW II cost (inflation adjusted) $2 trillion dollars. Add interest to that and you have the current national debt. :?:
This is your explanation for why the debt went from under 2 trillion to over 7 trillion in the last 25 years - "the Japanese started to eat our lunch?"
:\

Originally posted by e1618978
How exactly did Regan have the power to rack up the debt? That's a pretty easy one.

By slashing taxes for the wealthy while drastically increasing peacetime defense spending. These were his program, not something that was proposed by Congress.

Originally posted by FormerLurker
That's a pretty easy one.

By slashing taxes for the wealthy while drastically increasing peacetime defense spending. These were his program, not something that was proposed by Congress.

Well...he slashed taxes generally...slashing them just on the wealthy (well, depending on what you define to be "wealthy") wouldn't have done that.

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well...he slashed taxes generally...slashing them just on the wealthy (well, depending on what you define to be "wealthy") wouldn't have done that. I'll go with a revised quote of "..slashed taxes, especially on the most wealthy..."

You may not be 'happy' with that but I'm sure you're happier with it than the previous version.
;)

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well...I'm just dealing with the statistical fact that most tax revenue comes from the "middle of a bell curve" (i.e., the middle class tax payers).

Not true, most tax comes from the top.

From BRussels post on another thread:

Top 10%
Share of all income: 42%
Share of all taxes: 50%

Top 5%
Share of all income: 31%
Share of all taxes: 38%

Top 1%
Share of all income: 16%
Share of all taxes: 22%

BRussel - if the democrats "gave in to pollitical pressure", then they should not have been elected. This is just more of the bullshit democrat thinking that says that only Republicans are responstible for their own actions.

It looks like the Senate bounced back and forth between the democrats and republicans during this period:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

But the house never left democratic control.

Thinking back (to 1980, when I was 13 8-), it seems like the oil crisis and inflation kicked in during Carter's watch, which caused the interest rate on the debt to jump to 13% when the FED tried to control that inflation, which caused the spike in the national debt. Once it broke through the ceiling that we could control, it started building and has not stopped since.

Can a real economist (if there is one reading) please weigh in on the cause of the jump in national debt during the 1980s?

Originally posted by e1618978
BRussel - if the democrats "gave in to pollitical pressure", then they should not have been elected. This is just more of the bullshit democrat thinking that says that only Republicans are responstible for their own actions. Let's see, it was a Republican idea, a Republican president proposed it, Republicans all voted for it, a majority of Democrats voted against it, and yet you say "how did Reagan have the power" and when Democrats protest that they're blamed for it, you call it "bullshit democrat thinking." Uh huh.

Those who voted for it do deserve to be blamed. I voted against my Democratic Senator, Max Baucus, because he voted for all of Bush's bullshit. But you're trying to claim Reagan had nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by e1618978
1. The president can't propose bills, only senators and congressmen can. That's such a cop out. It was Reagan's agenda, passed by his allies in Congress. I really don't get it - was Reagan's agenda to cut taxes and increase military spending or wasn't it?2. The Democrats had control of the house for 40 years at this point, it does not wash to state that they voted for something because they were afraid of losing control of the house. Those democrats that voted for it did because it was a good idea at the time.

I never said that Regan did not have anything to do with the tax cuts - I just objectected to you saying that it was a republian thing. It was a bipartisan thing. It was a bipartisan thing in the same way that Bush's tax cuts were a bipartisan thing, i.e., a Republican thing that the some Democrats voted for.

3. We were in the worst recession in the last half of the 20th century, and the tax cut got us out of it. I say that the national debt would have been even more now if the interest rate had stayed up longer.

4. That recession was a hangover from the Democratic Carter administration. It wasn't really Carter's fault, but OPEC's fault:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

If OPEC had not killed us with their oil cartel, the economy would not have gone into stagflation with the highest post-WWII interest rates (13%), and not only would Regans's tax cuts not have been nessessary to end it all, but also the added interest expense on the debt would have not been a factor.

Again, we need a real economist to settle this. If you can't figure out for yourself that cutting taxes and increasing spending incurs debt, well, you must be a Republican. :p

I agree with the others. Conservatives think in the short term ( to gain votes ). Everything they do points to this. The enviroment, world politics, abortion, the economy. It's all designed to look good.....now. Never mind the enviroment's poisoned, everyone now hates us, there are already too many unwanted children, and speaking of our children. They ( and possibly theirs ) will be paying for this bloated, miscaluculation of an administration for many years. From a surplus to a huge record breaking deficit in only 4 years.

Yup, short term.

Originally posted by e1618978
Financially, the conservatives seem to be just the opposite of what you say. In your post you, in fact, are looking at a short term (4-year) view, without noticing that the economy tanked before Bush took office. The conservatives usually fix the problem, which involves a lot of flack in the short term for long term gain (tax cuts -> fix the recession).

Not like it tanked after he took office! All that debt ( mainly due to the war ) came after! Typical put a band aid on it now never mind later conservative thinking.

Yes we were already primed for a recession while Clinton was still in office. We were over due. But we'd been in the longest running bull market in history. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out!

For someone who claims not to vote republican you sure seem to love everything Bush in your posts!

Where are you, e16? Fiscal conservative or voodoo economist? From your statements so far, I'd have to peg you as a voodoo guy. Am I wrong?

I am both - I believe that high taxes, high spending, and high debt are all bad for the country.

I believe that the Europeans have it even worse than us in these three respects, and that Canada can only afford its social programs because the US is forced to provide for their national defense (we can't invade them, and we can't let them be invaded, so the Canadians spend token amounts on defense and let the US foot the bill).

Since the Europeans and Canada are often sited as models that the Democrats want to follow, I say that a prolonged democratic govenment would be a financial disaster.

Also, you say that we don't have control of the recessions, and then credit Clinton for the boom? Not very fair on your part. Clinton just happened to catch a wave, and his tax increase was not enough to derail it.

Originally posted by e1618978
Also, you say that we don't have control of the recessions, and then credit Clinton for the boom? Not very fair on your part. Clinton just happened to catch a wave, and his tax increase was not enough to derail it. I absolutely do not believe that Clinton caused the boom. Republicans believe that government policy effects the economic cycle - they were very clear in their prediction that we would go into the worst depression in the history of the universe. It was fundamental to why they crushed the Democrats in Congress in 1994. And they were unequivocally, embarrassingly, absolutely, rub-your-face-in-it wrong.

Originally posted by jimmac
Well folks that's one opinion.;)

I just love the fact that when conservatives ( Bush supporters in particular ) are on the defense tend to ignore the bottom line. The over all out come of these presidents.

No - we just notice that most of the effects of a president's decisions come to fruit during the next guy's reign. So if the white house jumps back and forth every 4 years - the good guy gets the blame, and the bad guy get the praise.

Originally posted by e1618978
They were only wrong because of an extremely unusual occurance. The dot-com boom was producing massive amounts of capital gains (and capital gains taxes) at the time. If it was not for the dot-com boom, I believe that they would have been right. There's no question that the dot-com boom was responsible for the happiness of the late-90s stock market. But to argue that it was the only reason that Clinton's top-rate tax increase didn't put the nation into recession doesn't match the timeline. Clinton's tax increase was put into place in 1993; we had significant growth and were well on our way to budget surplus by 1997, reaching it the next year; and the dot-com boom started in 1999, peaking in mid-2000.

Originally posted by e1618978
Wrong -

"In 1994 the Internet came to the general public's attention with the public advent of the Mosaic web browser and the nascent World Wide Web, and by 1996 it became obvious to most publicly-traded companies that a public web presence was no longer optional."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com

You are thinking of the telecom boom, which was still 1 year earlier than you are thinking of.
WRONG!
"The advent of the Mosaic browser" had nothing to do with the dot-com boom of dot-com STOCKS.

eBay went public in September of 1998, which to me indicated the beginning of the dot-com stock boom. Or maybe it was Amazon.com in mid-1997, but certainly not before then.

Other than Amazon, Yahoo and Netscape, please cite a specific dot-com initial public offering that was earlier than 1998.

For example, a company that's very representative of the dot-com boom-to-bust is Pets.com.

"Founded in 1998, Pets.com raised $82.5 million in an initial public offering in February (2000)."

"Pets.com is shutting down its retail operations and laying off hundreds of employees, the company said Tuesday (November, 2000)"

"The Amazon.com-backed company was the leading online pet store and was known for its wildly popular sock puppet spokesdog. The San Francisco-based company said it would sell off its assets, including its catchy URL and the rights to the sock puppet icon."

http://news.com.com/2100-1017-248230.html?legacy=cnet

Originally posted by BRussell
That's when web browsers started appearing, not when the dot-com stock market boom occurred. That was 1999. You could say the first signs that it was going to happen started in 1998, but the stock market book itself was clearly in 1999.

From your link:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/NASDAQ_IXIC_-_dot-com_bubble_small.png

Hmm - looks like you are mostly right. After the netscape IPO in August of 1995, there was immediate activity, though - it did not take 3 years for the first companies to jump on the bandwagon. Amazon just waited a long time before their IPO.

However, there is nothing that says that the huge promise that everyone saw Auguest of 1995 (due to the Netscape IPO) did not keep money flowing into the markets and prevent a recession.

BTW guys, when looking for information on Clinton's tax increase, I found this:

"That 1982 tax increase only slightly exceeded Clinton's in inflation-adjusted dollars ($37 billion a year vs.. $32 billion) but it was much bigger in relation to the size of the economy. The '82 increase amounted to 4.6% of GDP (average for the first two years) while Clinton's was 2.7%"

Regan had an even bigger tax increase in 1982 than Clinton had in 1993.

Originally posted by e1618978
I found this discussion of taxes, which seems pretty coherent:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_kucewicz/kucewicz103001.shtml

"Nominal GDP has risen 53% since the 1993 third quarter, while individual income-tax payments have soared 110% more than doubling from $510 billion to an estimated $1.073 trillion. By comparison, corporate income taxes have risen 81%, and Social Security and other retirement payments have increased 61%. Individual income taxes now supply more than 50% of total federal revenue (versus 44% in 1993). Corporate income taxes account for 10% of federal receipts (little changed from 1993), and retirement payments contribute 32% (versus 37%)."

Income tax is out of hand. I can't wait to hear what Bush's tax committee comes up with - they are producing their report by the end of the month.

What part of that 110% is due to the tax restructuring of the Clinton era? It seems to me that moving away from retirement payments as a source of tax revenue is a Good Thing (tm), and the last two lines indicate that that is precisely what occured.

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
What part of that 110% is due to the tax restructuring of the Clinton era? It seems to me that moving away from retirement payments as a source of tax revenue is a Good Thing (tm), and the last two lines indicate that that is precisely what occured.

All of it. Only Clinton and Bush have been in charge since 1993, and Bush sure hasn't raised taxes.

Come to think of it, I moved down here from Canada in July 1993, and I expected to save a bunch in taxes. When I checked things out after I moved, taxes were the same - I wasn't very pollitically interested at the time, so I didn't notice that taxes changed right when I moved, I remember thinking at the time "Damn, Canada must have lowered their taxes". Ha ha ha.

It isn't a reduction in payroll tax - payroll tax also is up more than the GDP.

And simplification of the tax code would save a whole bunch of money, which would let them lower taxes without lowering revenue. The instructions that Bush gave to the comittee included simplification, and keeping charity and progressive taxation.

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
DELETE Hey, Why was Chtis Cuilla banned? This is a good thread. Was it becuase of this? Though I have disagreed with Chris before, usually she was thoughtful and respectful.

Originally posted by e1618978
...Canada can only afford its social programs because the US is forced to provide for their national defense (we can't invade them, and we can't let them be invaded, so the Canadians spend token amounts on defense and let the US foot the bill).

I think you ignore the fact that Bush spending has gone up -- way up -- even when you take defense and national security out of the equation. What I'd like to know is how in any way is that "conservative".

Bush throws money to big business like it is rice at a wedding.

Originally posted by tonton
Nick's style of "conservative" actually believes that in general, people who earn more money (1) work proportionately harder (2) are proportionately more important (3) are proportionately smarter than those who earn less money. He thinks a CEO who earns 20 times more than his secretary is in fact 20 times more important and 20 times more worthy than his secretary, and that if the CEO, earning 500 thousand dollars a year pays 35% taxes, and the secretary, who earns 25 thousand a year pays 34% taxes than the CEO is getting treated unfairly by the government.

Alot of time people with more money don't always work harder, they just make smarter choices with the money they make(investments). I'll admit there are alot of CEOs that are overpaid for work they do, but a good many of them work their asses off trying to keep the company afloat and expanding. And for the record a secretary isn't nearly as important as a CEO or anyone else on the executive board. She can easily be replaced. As for your example about taxes, I don't think that's unfair. I think instead of a graduated income tax there should be a flat income tax. Noone should be punished with higher taxes for being more successful.

Originally posted by tonton
So the immigrant who is working as a janitor cleaning Shell gasoline station bathrooms is not investing wisely with the minimum wage she earns? Give me a fucking break. After she pays for her cockroach infested flat and buys food for the two children that her deadbeat husband left her with, there's nothing left to invest. It's not about choices. It's about necessities and social responsibility.

The thing here is, that you really, really, no matter what anyone ever says to you, will continue to deny and fail to understand, is that the people with more money have more power. They have more power in companies to choose who gets a raise and who gets a paycut (and of course they will always give themselves a raise), and they have more power in government to decide who gets a tax write-off and which jobs and industries get financed (of course they will support their own industry).

The scalable tax system addresses this inequality to some extent, though not nearly enough. If you check the average pay increases of CEOs and that of janitors, you'll find that in the last 20 years, CEOs' salaries have gone up tenfold while janitors' pay hasn't even kept up with inflation. The rich get richer and it has to stop.

You're not punishing the successful. You're punishing the greedy.

Don't preach to me about social responsibility. In the end the only person I'm responsible for is myself. You know I alwasy find it ironic how the left always screams about how the right tries to force their morals on everyone else (banning abortion, gay marriage) but you do the same thing here. Who are you to say what I or anyone else owes society?
The only person who should be able to decide that is me. And at least woman has a job. More than what she deserves considering she's probably illegal anyway. You have not right to force me to be socially responsible. If I want to hoard all of my money and share it with noone else, THAT'S MY BUSINESS, NOT YOURS. You have no right to punish me with higher taxes because of it. This is America, I can be as greedy or giving as I want. If you want more money to go towards social programs and all that other crap, then YOU pay more taxes voluntarily. But you have no right to try and force everyone else to do the same.

LOL! What a maroon!

Kids will be kids. And some adults will be kids too.

I love this part...

"Don't preach to me about social responsibility! I deny that it exists!"

LOL!

Originally posted by tonton
LOL! What a maroon!

Kids will be kids. And some adults will be kids too.

I love this part...

"Don't preach to me about social responsibility! I deny that it exists!"

LOL!

Why, instead of poking fun at my age, don't you make a reasonable response? Oh, that's right, you can't:devil:

To e#: Maybe some misunderstood me. I don't mind the gov't collecting taxes when they are used for things everyone benefits from like police and fire protection and public education. I also don't mind paying for unemployment benefits (never know when you are goin to need those). BUt I don't like paying for failed social welfare programs like social security and medicare/medicaid. I'm tired of paying for someone else's living expenses. Ths programs only encourage laziness and don't force individuals to take responsiblitiy for their own futures. That's why I'm happy Congress toughened up on backruptcy laws, making it harder for a person to declare bankruptcy. You should be forced to pay off your debt (for the rest of you life if need be) because noone forced you to sign the dotted line to incur that debt. I don't mind government spending as long as it's on something important (military, funds for municipalities to provide free broadband access) and in my book SS and medicare/medicaid are not important.

Originally posted by Protostar
I don't mind government spending as long as it's on something important (military, funds for municipalities to provide free broadband access) and in my book SS and medicare/medicaid are not important.

Why is free broadband access more important than health care?

I think I may have figured it out, though. If everyone can access WebMD (http://www.webmd.com), people won't need to visit the doctor!

But, really ... ?

Originally posted by audiopollution
Why is free broadband access more important than health care?


I think its a case of "No bread? why not eat cake?"

Originally posted by e1618978
Actually - I think that Social Security is one of the few government programs that works well. It is not subsidised by the rich, due to the 80K (or whatever) income limit for taxation, for one thing. There are two things that the government could do to make it better - 1) make it illegal for the social security fund to invest in government securities (i.e. right now the government loans the money to itself and then spends it), and 2) means test before giving benefits (i.e. change it from a guarenteed check to "poverty insurance" - you don't want to end up like the billionaires in the Eddie Murphy movie Trading Places.

Also, I agree with the bankruptsy law changes, but only if the credit card companies are forced to obey loan shark rules. My citibank credit card is in violation of loan shark rules, I am sure of it, when you miss a payment - the real interest rate is almost 40% because they base it on maximum balance, not average balance.

Maybe so, but if Social Security was gone then the government wouldn't have anything to steal money from would they? And if you do something as dumb as what they did on Trading Spaces you deserve to starve in my opinion.

Originally posted by Protostar
Health care is available to everyone (provided tht you can afford it) broadband isn't available to everyone even though some can afford it.

Of course it is, silly you.

Broadband is available anywhere you wish to. Its just a question if you want to apy for it.

Haha. Get rid of health care but provide broadband access. :D

I don't know if that epitomizes conservative thinking, or just 16-year-old thinking.

Broadband is available anywhere you wish to. Its just a question if you want to apy for it.

Maybe your talking about satellite based broadband and if you are I think that form of broadband is just as bad as dial up. Sure you get fast download speeds but at nearly $70 a month this places it out of the range of most people.

Healthcare actually isn't available to everyone... there are a large number of rural communities not covered by hospitals or even good physicians...

You see, there this thing called driving which enables you to get to places in a relatively quick manner.

Haha. Get rid of health care but provide broadband access.

I don't know if that epitomizes conservative thinking, or just 16-year-old thinking.

Actually I just turned 18 on the 8th (wooh! I can vote!!)

Mostly, though, it benefits high-school students who are trying to maintain a highly-consumptive porn habit.

I'm sure you know someone like that.

That was a really low blow, audio, really low. ANd actually I just graduated from high school and will be attending college this fall.

Originally posted by Protostar
Maybe your talking about satellite based broadband and if you are I think that form of broadband is just as bad as dial up. Sure you get fast download speeds but at nearly $70 a month this places it out of the range of most people.

You have yet to give us a concise breakdown of *why* broadband is essential.

You see, there this thing called driving which enables you to get to places in a relatively quick manner.

That assumes access to a car or public transportation. A car is a luxury, not a neccessity. Are you advocating handing out cars, too?

That was a really low blow, audio, really low. ANd actually I just graduated from high school and will be attending college this fall.

How was it a low blow? Did you take personal offense to my assumption that you might know someone who is a large consumer of porn? Don't you know anyone who is?

If we function under the assumption that the typical person will be using the internet for email/messaging and possibly banking, a dial-up connection is more than enough bandwidth. I expect that a large portion of the people in your age group are using their broadband connections for less than enriching purposes.

I'm glad to hear that you are heading off to college. I'm sure that being exposed to a wider range of influences will be an eye-opening experience for you.

Originally posted by Protostar
Maybe so, but if Social Security was gone then the government wouldn't have anything to steal money from would they? And if you do something as dumb as what they did on Trading Spaces you deserve to starve in my opinion.

Believe it or not - you are going to pull plenty of bone-headed moves in your life (everyone does). This kind of "survival of the fittest/death to all who make stupid decisions" thing you have going may sound ideal when you are young and healthy, and when you have not had a chance to make a lot of mistakes, but you will change your tune later.

And it was "Trading Places". "Trading Spaces" is some gay English TV show.

Then I dont understand why society should provide you with anything. Roads? Build your own road to where ever you want to go. Telephone? Put up the wires to whoever you want to speak to. Mail? Water? Education? Security? Lets see how much you enjoy the money saved on taxes.

I think I said this before but if not I'll say it again. I don't mind paying taxes when they benefit or benefited me in some way. I don't mind paying them when they are used for roads, fire/police protection, or public schools because I use or have used this services before and will continue to use them. But I don't feel I should have to pay for programs that will never benefit me, such as Social Security. I plan on providing for my own retirement and have no sympathy for those who don't and suffer because of their own shortsightedness. Free broadband is a benefit to everyone because it means information can be aquired faster and everyone benefits from a well informed populace.

Health care is provided for us over the tax bill here. The cost for our medical system is less than what you use on administration in yours! There are private hospitals and private insurance policies (and they are CHEAP compared