Are Republicans holding the US back?

[Sorgloss]

I would say it is people who think there is only Republican or Democratic which are holding the US back. There are much better parties waiting in the wings. The Justice Party for Democratic leaning folks and the Constitution Party for Republican leaning folk. Really, the Republican party and the Democratic party are virtually the same. Different selling points, same policies.

[Neutraligon]

the senate also went home. Although, considering the republicans filibustered a bill that passed with a majority makes me see Republicans as more wrong.

Ok? So the house bailed. What could the senate do?

Considering the leader of the house has been asking the senate to pass something (even though anything to deal with money needs to start in the house), maybe they could have stayed and tried to pass something. Although, with the house gone it is still pretty much useless. So again another example of Republicans holding back the US.

[Norjagen]

I would say it is people who think there is only Republican or Democratic which are holding the US back. There are much better parties waiting in the wings. The Justice Party for Democratic leaning folks and the Constitution Party for Republican leaning folk. Really, the Republican party and the Democratic party are virtually the same. Different selling points, same policies.

This. Same shit, different assholes. Democrats want a democratic big government, and republicans want a republican big government. It's either "gimme your right to a free trial so we can fight terrorists" from the right or "gimme your right to bear arms so that we can save the children" from the left. Our liberties get eroded from one side, then from the other, while the machine keeps on churning. I'd say that neither party is holding us back, so much as BOTH parties are sending us down a highly unfavorable path.

[Krintera]

Strictly speaking, isn't every conservative* party holding their country back, largely by definition?
The counter-argument ofcourse is that the conservatives are holding their country back from disaster, but I agree that's not currently the case. Not in the US, nok in the UK and not in my home country.

So, yes, the republicans are holding the US back, I think.




*look up the definition of conservative.

[Saliu]

It is my belief that if you have pure left-wing politics a country will not be that sucessful. It will begin to implement ideas that have not been well considered becuase there is no conservatives to oppose the changes. Then there is the alarming rate below:

Let's just assume that the rate of change is a Century (it is less).

Mid-Right Today = Far-Right in a Century
Centre-Right Today = Far-Right in 2 Centuries
Centre Today = Far-Right in 3 Centuries
Centre-Left Today = Far-Right in 4 Centuries
Mid-Left Today = Far-Right in 5 Centuries
Far-Left Today = Far-Right in 6 Centuries

!!!THAT MEANS THAT WITHIN 600 YEARS THE FAR-LEFTS WILL BE CALLED ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES!!!

Anyway, that's how I feel.

[Ashmoria]

No. The Republican Party is not holding the US back. The current problems facing the United States currently, the sequester for example, was Democratic idea set forth by the Obama negotiating tool as a way to scare the Republicans into budging. The current talk of, "the Republicans caused the sequester!" and "The Republicans aren't budging" are all falsities, as the Republican Party has compromised and backed down much more than the Democratic Party.

yes the sequester was a democratic/rationalrepublican way of snookering the idiots who thought it was a great idea to default on the full faith and credit of the united states.

and really, as stupid as sequestration is it is extremely much smarter than not raising the debt ceiling.

the republicans are being budged off nihilism. the democrats are insisting on sanity.

[Ashmoria]

...So congress has gone home without solving the sequester. At this point both are holding the US back, or screwing it over.

not that im not giving some blame to the democrats but why stay when the republicans refuse to even consider making a deal?

[Ashmoria]

I would say it is people who think there is only Republican or Democratic which are holding the US back. There are much better parties waiting in the wings. The Justice Party for Democratic leaning folks and the Constitution Party for Republican leaning folk. Really, the Republican party and the Democratic party are virtually the same. Different selling points, same policies.

no they are NOT better parties. they are nuts.

[Divair]

It is my belief that if you have pure left-wing politics a country will not be that sucessful. It will begin to implement ideas that have not been well considered becuase there is no conservatives to oppose the changes. Then there is the alarming rate below:

Let's just assume that the rate of change is a Century (it is less).

Mid-Right Today = Far-Right in a Century
Centre-Right Today = Far-Right in 2 Centuries
Centre Today = Far-Right in 3 Centuries
Centre-Left Today = Far-Right in 4 Centuries
Mid-Left Today = Far-Right in 5 Centuries
Far-Left Today = Far-Right in 6 Centuries

!!!THAT MEANS THAT WITHIN 600 YEARS THE FAR-LEFTS WILL BE CALLED ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES!!!

Anyway, that's how I feel.

That's not how economics works.

[Neutraligon]

...So congress has gone home without solving the sequester. At this point both are holding the US back, or screwing it over.

not that im not giving some blame to the democrats but why stay when the republicans refuse to even consider making a deal?

I answered that earlier, Mr speaker of the house has been claiming that the senate is the problem, so have the senate pass something. (Then see the house go crazy since they are the ones who are supposed to deal with finances). Damn the house for not even putting forward something this session.

[CTALNH]

The right question is.

Is capitalism holding the US back?

[The Nuclear Fist]

not that im not giving some blame to the democrats but why stay when the republicans refuse to even consider making a deal?

I answered that earlier, Mr speaker of the house has been claiming that the senate is the problem, so have the senate pass something. (Then see the house go crazy since they are the ones who are supposed to deal with finances). Damn the house for not even putting forward something this session.

You make it sound like the House isn't fully aware of what they actually do.

. . .

Oh dear.

[Ashmoria]

not that im not giving some blame to the democrats but why stay when the republicans refuse to even consider making a deal?

I answered that earlier, Mr speaker of the house has been claiming that the senate is the problem, so have the senate pass something. (Then see the house go crazy since they are the ones who are supposed to deal with finances). Damn the house for not even putting forward something this session.

they would only put forward something stupid.

its like that whole "its been 1200 days since the senate has proposed a budget. at least the house has proposed the ryan budget" thing. the ryan budget is unpassable so why even give them credit for it.

so you can damn them for not submitting a bill but it would have been ridiculously bad. better to diss them for being stuck in obstructionism well past its useful time.

[Ashmoria]

I answered that earlier, Mr speaker of the house has been claiming that the senate is the problem, so have the senate pass something. (Then see the house go crazy since they are the ones who are supposed to deal with finances). Damn the house for not even putting forward something this session.

You make it sound like the House isn't fully aware of what they actually do.

. . .

Oh dear.

one can be angry at their approach while knowing that they are aware of what they are doing. WHY they want to make themselves less popular is the mystery.

[Neutraligon]

I answered that earlier, Mr speaker of the house has been claiming that the senate is the problem, so have the senate pass something. (Then see the house go crazy since they are the ones who are supposed to deal with finances). Damn the house for not even putting forward something this session.

they would only put forward something stupid.

its like that whole "its been 1200 days since the senate has proposed a budget. at least the house has proposed the ryan budget" thing. the ryan budget is unpassable so why even give them credit for it.

so you can damn them for not submitting a bill but it would have been ridiculously bad. better to diss them for being stuck in obstructionism well past its useful time.

Senate did pass a bill though, it was filibustered.

[Ashmoria]

they would only put forward something stupid.

its like that whole "its been 1200 days since the senate has proposed a budget. at least the house has proposed the ryan budget" thing. the ryan budget is unpassable so why even give them credit for it.

so you can damn them for not submitting a bill but it would have been ridiculously bad. better to diss them for being stuck in obstructionism well past its useful time.

Senate did pass a bill though, it was filibustered.

they didnt pass it, did they? they got over 50 votes but could not overcome the filibuster?

[Neutraligon]

Senate did pass a bill though, it was filibustered.

they didnt pass it, did they? they got over 50 votes but could not overcome the filibuster?

Sorry yeah said that wrong, it would have passed had there not been a filibuster.

[Ashmoria]

they didnt pass it, did they? they got over 50 votes but could not overcome the filibuster?

Sorry yeah said that wrong, it would have passed had there not been a filibuster.

yeah.

not that it matters. if they had passed it it would have died in the house.

[Neutraligon]

Sorry yeah said that wrong, it would have passed had there not been a filibuster.

yeah.

not that it matters. if they had passed it it would have died in the house.

True but then the speaker couldn't complain. (well he could but he would look stupid, since at least the senate would have passed something, while the house hadn't even brought anything to a vote, especially since it isn't the senate's job).

[Obamacult]

Let me make this extremely easy for you -- both societies are the same in every respect -- except one society has extreme inequality with no poverty and the other society has extreme equality with 10% poverty.

And it is noteworthy that you cannot/will not answer this simple challenge.

IMHO the progressive/socialist/Marxist ideology is faulty for many reasons -- not in the least its immoral use of enforcing its redistributive plunder and crony capitalism at the point of a gun. The ideology is fatally flawed in that it is grounded in jealousy and envy -- for example, it seeks to destroy the wealth of the rich, not to enhance the poor, but to bring the different 'classes' closer together in their misery.

And again, it is noteworthy that you cannot/will not answer this simple challenge, but I expected as much because most progressive realized that the dogma of equality over prosperity is irrational. Indeed, it is faith-based, not much different than Islamist dogma that rejects science for faith. Similarly, progressives reject economic facts, logic and empirical science for egalitarianism.

Hence, the ideologues who support this system would prefer poverty for some citizens in order to reduce the wealth of the rich and insure a more equal, if less prosperous, society.

Indeed, trotslyvania challenged me to provide proof that progressives place greater emphasis on egalitarianism over prosperity -- so I issued this challenge which has yet to be met by any self-described Marxist, progressive, socialist, etc.

Amusing and noteworthy to say the least.

Again, you fail — only this time, harder.


More importantly, though, you continue to dodge the essential question: Do the top 1% in either society have the potential ability use their wealth and position to enslave the remaining 99%?

That question is essential because if — and only if — it can be answered in the affirmative, then the second society is clearly the better one, in so far as the top 1% are far less likely to be able to succeed at such a plan if the rest of society has 49 times the resources they do, as opposed to the top 1% in the first society having 99 times the potential resources available to execute a plan of repression than do the bottom 1%. If, on the other hand, there exists no potential for the abuse of wealth to result in the enslavement of those of more modest means by the wealthiest members of their society, then yes: The first society is better, in so far as its superior wealth allows it to eliminate human suffering.

Think of it this way: Wealth can buy anything. It can buy necessities and it can buy luxuries; it can even buy garish absurdities. But wealth can also buy weapons and people to use them; it can buy lawyers to intimidate and silence ones foes; it can buy silence and it can buy murder. In a society where 99% of the wealth is possessed by just 1% of the populace, there exists tremendous temptation for the 1% to use their wealth to silence the 99% and govern unilaterally.

Nor can you fall back on the notion that this might not be a bad thing, in so far as the 1% still have a comfortable material existence; they still have enough to remain above poverty. There is no guarantee that — once enslaved — their former neighbors turned masters will leave them in such comfort. Perhaps they could be more easily ruled if they were a little hungrier; perhaps the threat of real poverty might be a good way to keep the inevitable dissidents among them in line and encourage collaboration in their continued slavery by the less idealistic; every oppressive society needs rewards and punishments to keep the system running. Or maybe a little poverty — or the treat of it — could be used to force the downtrodden masses to surrender their pride and serve their betters as worshipers, prostitutes, gladiators, or human prey in hunts for the idle rich. Lord Acton asserted that power corrupts, after all - and in many ways the Go'auld were always just a metaphor.

In contrast, the poor egalitarian hardscrabble society might not be all that bad a place; the fact that 99% live on the edge of poverty might well encourage them to work together to help lift up the 10% who are least fortunate; indeed, even the top 1%, being not much better off than anybody else, might still have enough humility to pitch in and help make things better for everyone. It seems far less likely to fall into tyranny and far more likely to guarantee everybody some measure of freedom in all things and some kind of say in society's governance, as each man and woman in it might well look at the humblest among them and say to themselves, "But for the grace of God, that could be me." As hard a life as it might present, It seems unlikely that it would not have hope.

This is why your question cannot be answered. Even if we assume all other things are equal, we do no not enough about those other things to make a judgement.

Let me try and make this even easier still:

"All things being equal"

Do you understand the concept?

So for the fourth or fifth time:

Which society do you support -- a society in which 99% of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the top 1% in a society with no poverty or a society in which the wealth is equally dispersed with 10% poverty?

Don't try and make it harder than it is --- indeed, if one society is communist, both societies are communist. If one society is capitalist, both societies are capitalist. If one society has a risk of absolutism from the top 1%, the other society has the same risk from its 1%.

It ain't hard.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

No It's the Federal debt which keeps the Government from investing or lowering taxes.

[Alien Space Bats]

Let me try and make this even easier still:

"All things being equal"

Do you understand the concept?

So for the fourth or fifth time:

Which society do you support -- a society in which 99% of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the top 1% in a society with no poverty or a society in which the wealth is equally dispersed with 10% poverty?

Don't try and make it harder than it is --- indeed, if one society is communist, both societies are communist. If one society is capitalist, both societies are capitalist. If one society has a risk of absolutism from the top 1%, the other society has the same risk from its 1%.

It ain't hard.

I already answered that.

I already told you that even if assume both societies to be identical, there is still not enough information to make an intelligent choice.

And I even explained why: Because we don't know whether wealth concentration in either society has the potential to trigger a process of political devolution that ends in the few enslaving the many.

This means that I have already told you my preference: For as many people as possible to enjoy freedom for as long as possible. Under some circumstances, the first society might be the best to offer that outcome; in others, it might be the second; and in still others, there might be no difference at all, in which case secondary factors — like prosperity and economic opportunity — would then come into play.

So why are you having such a hard time understanding why your "test' is inadequate?

It's like asking, "All other things being equal, would you rather it rain tomorrow or not?" The answer very much depends on other conditions that the choice, as stated, does not clarify.

[Frisivisia]

No It's the Federal debt which keeps the Government from investing or lowering taxes.

Then it's the federal government that is holding us forward.

[Xsyne]

How would you even have a society with 99% of the wealth in hands of the top 1% and have zero poverty? Poverty is relative.

[Neutraligon]

How would you even have a society with 99% of the wealth in hands of the top 1% and have zero poverty? Poverty is relative.

That's what I was wondering.