Social con vs fiscal con

[Farage]

What will happen if a 100 pc fiscal conservative and social moderate guy is facing a guy who's 100 pc socially conservative and fiscal liberal?

[President Mitt]

I have done it numerous times on this very board. Some heated words, nothing more.

[Person Man]

Hmmmm.... it's tough. This is the best you could probably do and this still sucks-

There's really three questions-

Is a state red or blue?
Why is that state red or blue?
Would a state keep its loyalty to a particular party if their party's candidate did not deliver and they had the alternative of a moderate opponent that could deliver for them?

Basically, it could give us a backwards "L". Imagine that! 

Some things that will probably bother people about these maps-

* New Jersey
* Utah
* Idaho
* Florida 
* California
* Wyoming
* The Dakotas

Hmmm....

[WillK]

Yeah the Utah and Idaho thing does bother me.  I dont see that the socially moderate guy would beat the socially conservative guy in those states.

Hmmmm.... it's tough. This is the best you could probably do and this still sucks-

There's really three questions-

Is a state red or blue?
Why is that state red or blue?
Would a state keep its loyalty to a particular party if their party's candidate did not deliver and they had the alternative of a moderate opponent that could deliver for them?

Basically, it could give us a backwards "L". Imagine that! 

Some things that will probably bother people about these maps-

* New Jersey
* Utah
* Idaho
* Florida 
* California
* Wyoming
* The Dakotas

Hmmm....

[Antonio the Sixth]

Economic conservative : 269
Social conservative : 269

Perfect tie.

[Zarn]

Just to see if someone can come up with a story for this.

[pogo stick]

Economic conservative : 269
Social conservative : 269

Perfect tie.

Agreed. Good map.

I'd obviously vote for the social conservative

[President Mitt]

I'd rather have the Govt's hands out of my wallet, Econ Con./ Econ Con.

[FloridaRepublican]

I'd rather have the Govt's hands out of my wallet, Econ Con./ Econ Con.

If you wanted the Government's hands out of your pockets, you would be an economic liberal or a classical liberal.

[President Mitt]

I'd rather have the Govt's hands out of my wallet, Econ Con./ Econ Con.

If you wanted the Government's hands out of your pockets, you would be an economic liberal or a classical liberal.

Your point?

[FloridaRepublican]

I'd rather have the Govt's hands out of my wallet, Econ Con./ Econ Con.

If you wanted the Government's hands out of your pockets, you would be an economic liberal or a classical liberal.

Your point?

My point is that you said you were Econ Con./ Econ Con. (whatever that means) but I can only assume it means you are an economic conservative but you said you wanted the Government's hands out of your wallet so that's where I'm confused.

[President Mitt]

I'd rather have the Govt's hands out of my wallet, Econ Con./ Econ Con.

If you wanted the Government's hands out of your pockets, you would be an economic liberal or a classical liberal.

Your point?

My point is that you said you were Econ Con./ Econ Con. (whatever that means) but I can only assume it means you are an economic conservative but you said you wanted the Government's hands out of your wallet so that's where I'm confused.

I support a Laissez-Faire Economic System, which is basically the Government being out of the Private Sector's wallet. This supports Small Government, the Gold Standard, Low Taxes, basically the Milton Friedman (look him up) idea of Economics. I think your confusing Classical Liberalism (which I am, you are, and every economic con. on here.) With today's Obama/Pelosi Liberalism of Keynesian Economics, and Government intervention in the Economy.

So Yes, you could say I am a Classical Liberal.

Here's a wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Liberal

[FloridaRepublican]

I'd rather have the Govt's hands out of my wallet, Econ Con./ Econ Con.

If you wanted the Government's hands out of your pockets, you would be an economic liberal or a classical liberal.

Your point?

My point is that you said you were Econ Con./ Econ Con. (whatever that means) but I can only assume it means you are an economic conservative but you said you wanted the Government's hands out of your wallet so that's where I'm confused.

I support a Laissez-Faire Economic System, which is basically the Government being out of the Private Sector's wallet. This supports Small Government, the Gold Standard, Low Taxes, basically the Milton Friedman (look him up) idea of Economics. I think your confusing Classical Liberalism (which I am, you are, and every economic con. on here.) With today's Obama/Pelosi Liberalism of Keynesian Economics, and Government intervention in the Economy.

So Yes, you could say I am a Classical Liberal.

Here's a wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Liberal

Yes ok thanks for clarifying.  (I'm not being sarcastic)

[5280]

Keynesian economics is not going to help us out with the recession.  It's only a delusion then will take a back lash in the future.  We'll all have to pay for it eventually. I'm all about getting the government out of the private sector.  The private sector is called private for a reason.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Keynesian economics is not going to help us out with the recession.  It's only a delusion then will take a back lash in the future.  We'll all have to pay for it eventually. I'm all about getting the government out of the private sector.  The private sector is called private for a reason.

Keynesian policies work. We need the action of State to avoid crisis like this one and to correct dramatic injustices that appears when we let wealthies to become more and more rich and poors to become more and more poor.

[President Mitt]

Keynesian economics is not going to help us out with the recession.  It's only a delusion then will take a back lash in the future.  We'll all have to pay for it eventually. I'm all about getting the government out of the private sector.  The private sector is called private for a reason.

Keynesian policies work. We need the action of State to avoid crisis like this one and to correct dramatic injustices that appears when we let wealthies to become more and more rich and poors to become more and more poor.

The Keynesian view of economics essentially means that the government picks winners and losers. The winners that it picks are inevitably welfare recipients (because they are totally under the government's thumb), special interest groups who pad Uncle Sam's pockets, companies who need to be "bailed out", Big Labor unions, and those who seek to benefit from increasing the government dole of entitlement spending. The losers are inevitably wealthy and high income individuals (because they have too much independence), small business owners who get classified as "rich", firms who try to engage in fair trade, our children and grandchildren who get saddled with greater debts, and every consumer who must now pay higher prices for all goods and services.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Keynesian economics is not going to help us out with the recession.  It's only a delusion then will take a back lash in the future.  We'll all have to pay for it eventually. I'm all about getting the government out of the private sector.  The private sector is called private for a reason.

Keynesian policies work. We need the action of State to avoid crisis like this one and to correct dramatic injustices that appears when we let wealthies to become more and more rich and poors to become more and more poor.

The Keynesian view of economics essentially means that the government picks winners and losers. The winners that it picks are inevitably welfare recipients (because they are totally under the government's thumb), special interest groups who pad Uncle Sam's pockets, companies who need to be "bailed out", Big Labor unions, and those who seek to benefit from increasing the government dole of entitlement spending. The losers are inevitably wealthy and high income individuals (because they have too much independence), small business owners who get classified as "rich", firms who try to engage in fair trade, our children and grandchildren who get saddled with greater debts, and every consumer who must now pay higher prices for all goods and services.

A good tax policies can easily reduce debts caused by welfare state, with very progressive income taxes. Economic growth is ensured, but also the fact that it would be equally shared.

[Vepres]

Keynesian economics is not going to help us out with the recession.  It's only a delusion then will take a back lash in the future.  We'll all have to pay for it eventually. I'm all about getting the government out of the private sector.  The private sector is called private for a reason.

Keynesian policies work. We need the action of State to avoid crisis like this one and to correct dramatic injustices that appears when we let wealthies to become more and more rich and poors to become more and more poor.

The Keynesian view of economics essentially means that the government picks winners and losers. The winners that it picks are inevitably welfare recipients (because they are totally under the government's thumb), special interest groups who pad Uncle Sam's pockets, companies who need to be "bailed out", Big Labor unions, and those who seek to benefit from increasing the government dole of entitlement spending. The losers are inevitably wealthy and high income individuals (because they have too much independence), small business owners who get classified as "rich", firms who try to engage in fair trade, our children and grandchildren who get saddled with greater debts, and every consumer who must now pay higher prices for all goods and services.

A good tax policies can easily reduce debts caused by welfare state, with very progressive income taxes. Economic growth is ensured, but also the fact that it would be equally shared.

You can only tax the rich so much. Apparently in California, if you combine local taxes plus state and federal income taxes, upper middle class and rich people pay ~57% of their income in taxes.

I would also like to add that reforming or even replacing dated social programs with more efficient ones could save a lot of money. Additionally, if you modernize all government departments, automate as much as you can, and yes, layoff people in obsolete positions, just think of all the tax dollars would be saved.

The problem is that Republicans don't do anything except over fund the military and have unpaid for tax cuts while the Democrats just add more inefficient, overly bureaucratic programs on top of the old ones. So yeah, both sides suck when it comes to the budget.

The only time we had a good budget in recent times was when there was a Democratic President with a Republican congress and they actually had to compromise, and thus removed the waste in each other's ideas and proposals and checking the other side.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Maybe there are useless programs in Americ, I don't know. But what I'm sure of, is that the US soiety lacks some of the most essential public services, a decent health care above all.

[President Mitt]

Maybe there are useless programs in Americ, I don't know. But what I'm sure of, is that the US soiety lacks some of the most essential public services, a decent health care above all.

I think we have a fabulous health system, payed for by your job.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Maybe there are useless programs in Americ, I don't know. But what I'm sure of, is that the US soiety lacks some of the most essential public services, a decent health care above all.

I think we have a fabulous health system, payed for by your job.

That is rapidly collapsing since less and less entrerprises give you health care. Also, you have the private insurance, who is unable to give a decent social protection because :
- They refuse to cover those who are already ill.
- If you afford it, you are not treated
- It spends much more money ( the cost for health is twice those of the other industrialized countries ) for the same quality.

[President Mitt]

Maybe there are useless programs in Americ, I don't know. But what I'm sure of, is that the US soiety lacks some of the most essential public services, a decent health care above all.

I think we have a fabulous health system, payed for by your job.

That is rapidly collapsing since less and less entrerprises give you health care. Also, you have the private insurance, who is unable to give a decent social protection because :
- They refuse to cover those who are already ill.
- If you afford it, you are not treated
- It spends much more money ( the cost for health is twice those of the other industrialized countries ) for the same quality.

While I agree we need some reforms to the Health System, It seems foolish to completely overhaul the current system if 86% of Americans are happy with their insurance.  Not to mention only a fourth of the uninsured are actually people who can't afford it.

[Vepres]

Maybe there are useless programs in Americ, I don't know. But what I'm sure of, is that the US soiety lacks some of the most essential public services, a decent health care above all.

Example, Medicare and Medicaid. They do their jobs well, but they're full of fraud and inefficiencies and are in need of technological updates. I'm sure there are other smaller things. The point is they add up.

I agree that everybody needs basic healthcare, but I would prefer to do it differently than the Democrats are. However, the blue dogs amended the bill so the public option would have to compete with private insurers which is good IMO.

But yeah, as somebody who received lots of health services lately, I can agree that nobody should be deprived of health services.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Maybe there are useless programs in Americ, I don't know. But what I'm sure of, is that the US soiety lacks some of the most essential public services, a decent health care above all.

I think we have a fabulous health system, payed for by your job.

That is rapidly collapsing since less and less entrerprises give you health care. Also, you have the private insurance, who is unable to give a decent social protection because :
- They refuse to cover those who are already ill.
- If you afford it, you are not treated
- It spends much more money ( the cost for health is twice those of the other industrialized countries ) for the same quality.

While I agree we need some reforms to the Health System, It seems foolish to completely overhaul the current system if 86% of Americans are happy with their insurance.  Not to mention only a fourth of the uninsured are actually people who can't afford it.

The fact that 86% of people has got an insurance doesn't mean that 86% of the people are happy with it. The only fact that you have to pay for health is shameful.

[President Mitt]

Maybe there are useless programs in Americ, I don't know. But what I'm sure of, is that the US soiety lacks some of the most essential public services, a decent health care above all.

I think we have a fabulous health system, payed for by your job.

That is rapidly collapsing since less and less entrerprises give you health care. Also, you have the private insurance, who is unable to give a decent social protection because :
- They refuse to cover those who are already ill.
- If you afford it, you are not treated
- It spends much more money ( the cost for health is twice those of the other industrialized countries ) for the same quality.

While I agree we need some reforms to the Health System, It seems foolish to completely overhaul the current system if 86% of Americans are happy with their insurance.  Not to mention only a fourth of the uninsured are actually people who can't afford it.

The fact that 86% of people has got an insurance doesn't mean that 86% of the people are happy with it. The only fact that you have to pay for health is shameful.

I see why Universal Healthcare can work sorta well in France. You guys have about 40 doctors per 1000 people. Which is not so bad. In the United States we have 2.2 Doctors per 1000 people, so its not going too work very well if 30 million people suddenly become insured.

"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.

Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.

Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.