Lets get ready for some Debating Cage Fights Round 1,2, and 3

[Jhhnn]

Nixon proposed the EPA. Eisenhower launched one of the greatest New Deal infrastructure programs of the modern era. Reagan held the line during the Cold War. Bush demonstrated how to build international coalitions in a post Cold War world with the Gulf War.

You are free to throw darts at W all day. I wont defend his administration or the neo conservative movement.

The things you mention were 25-60 years ago. What about today? Who defends & seeks to extend what we've built & who wants to tear it down so that the plutocracy can fill the power vacuum?

The answer is obvious.

 

[sontakke]

This is *NOT* Brexit but something similar. Can you guys guess? More importantly do you foresee *any* relationship to upcoming US elections?

By the very slimmest of margins—50.2 percent to 49.8 percent, fewer than 54,000 votes out of almost 13 million cast—peace went down in defeat. Yet only last month, a poll had shown 62 percent voting for ‘Yes’ and an expectation that half of the 34 million registered to vote would turn out. Then, on D-Day, as the referendum date was called, 21 million of those voters stayed at home.

 

[emperus]

Depends on what level of government you want to discuss. The people of Chicago, Oakland and Detroit are sure living in a liberal eutopia. NYC was a cesspool in the 70s until a string of republican mayors righted the ship. Obamacare was Romneycare prior, and Mitt was a fool to distance himself from it.

I dont care for neoconservatism, but you are painting in broad brushstrokes something that has a bit more nuance to it.

Hmmm..

1. ) In terms of Chicago, Oakland and Detroit it seems you are arguing that minorities who live in those cities weren't helped by the Democratic party. You seem to have learned history in the same school Trump did. Compare the progress that African Americans have made to where they were 20 years ago and you can't possible be arguing they are no better off.

2.) Let's assume your NYC argument is accurate (it's not), what Republican constituency was actually helped?

Again, what have the Republicans done in the last 20 years that has helped it's respective coalition?

 

[Jhhnn]

Depends on what level of government you want to discuss. The people of Chicago, Oakland and Detroit are sure living in a liberal eutopia. NYC was a cesspool in the 70s until a string of republican mayors righted the ship. Obamacare was Romneycare prior, and Mitt was a fool to distance himself from it.

I dont care for neoconservatism, but you are painting in broad brushstrokes something that has a bit more nuance to it.

Gawd. It's no better & probably worse in conservative small towns all across America. Ask TH about where he lives in rural East Texas. In some respects it's worse, like with the Medicaid extension. It's entirely the result of leaving it to Capitalism to lead us to the future.

America needs better compensation for the work we do & for what we've given up in terms of jobs in this rush of technological progress. If we want a bigger piece of the pie we'll have to take it with taxes because we sure as hell won't get it any other way.

 

[agent00f]

You are simplifying something that is very complex to fit your worldview. The economy of today is far different from the economy of 35 years ago. The same can be said for the Democrats and Republicans in terms of their respective coalitions. Sure the base may be largely unchanged, but you need more than the base to win elections.

Trickle down in the form of venture capitalism is why we have a Silicon Valley and has been the driver of the Information Age.

Trickle down does not work so well for traditional machinery based manufacturing regions of the country.

There was a time when someone could enjoy a comfortable middle class life without a college degree. Now you have millions of people getting worthless degrees instead of learning trades or practical skills for the new economy.

A large swath of America got left behind. They were betrayed by both Republicans and Democrats. Trump capitalized on it.

Silicon Valley isn't the result of venture capitalism. It's far more the result of government funded r&d getting taken the last mile by garagists.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The things you mention were 25-60 years ago. What about today? Who defends & seeks to extend what we've built & who wants to tear it down so that the plutocracy can fill the power vacuum?

The answer is obvious.

Hmmm..

1. ) In terms of Chicago, Oakland and Detroit it seems you are arguing that minorities who live in those cities weren't helped by the Democratic party. You seem to have learned history in the same school Trump did. Compare the progress that African Americans have made to where they were 20 years ago and you can't possible be arguing they are no better off.

2.) Let's assume your NYC argument is accurate (it's not), what Republican constituency was actually helped?

Again, what have the Republicans done in the last 20 years that has helped it's respective coalition?

I made no mention of minorities. I was talking about the relative quality of life in cities guided unchallenged by Democrats. Don't make it about race because it is not. My comment was more to the corruption, collusion with public unions and budgetary incompetency that plagues each of those respective cities.

Democrats left to their own devices unchallenged have not exactly achieved socio-economic nirvana

 

[Starbuck1975]

Silicon Valley isn't the result of venture capitalism. It's far more the result of government funded r&d getting taken the last mile by garagists.

Silicon Valley thrives almost solely on venture capitalism. Are you seriously denying the role of venture capitalism in shifting investments from equipment and factories towards human intellectual capital?

 

[Starbuck1975]

The things you mention were 25-60 years ago. What about today? Who defends & seeks to extend what we've built & who wants to tear it down so that the plutocracy can fill the power vacuum?

The answer is obvious.

You moved the goal posts

 

[fskimospy]

I made no mention of minorities. I was talking about the relative quality of life in cities guided unchallenged by Democrats. Don't make it about race because it is not.

San Francisco has been run unchallenged by Democrats for the last 50 years or so. Boston has had an unbroken string of Democratic mayors for almost 75 years and exactly one Republican mayor in the last century. Both are highly prosperous cities. I think the idea that a city's prosperity is improved by having a periodic Republican mayor has no factual basis, and at least in the case of New York the trend you're talking about considerably predates Giuliani's administration.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Gawd. It's no better & probably worse in conservative small towns all across America. Ask TH about where he lives in rural East Texas. In some respects it's worse, like with the Medicaid extension. It's entirely the result of leaving it to Capitalism to lead us to the future.

America needs better compensation for the work we do & for what we've given up in terms of jobs in this rush of technological progress. If we want a bigger piece of the pie we'll have to take it with taxes because we sure as hell won't get it any other way.

Areas of the country run exclusively by Republican majorities are similarly no better off than some of their Democrat majority urban counterparts. It's a chop off the nose to spite the face dynamic.

 

[agent00f]

LOL. Silicon Valley thrives solely due to venture capitalism. Are you seriously denying the role of venture capitalism in shifting investments from equipment and factories towards human intellectual capital?

I don't think you're familiar with the history of the valley. VC money is a latecomer and has only fueled the move away from actual technology to populism.

You moved the goal posts

The last great gop hero was reagan. He got in on a deal with the iranians to screw carter, a behavior manifest throughout his tenure in the shady contra deal & such. His main claim to fame is "defeating" the commies, who mostly collapsed in and of themselves, and our own military expansion is the source of our own budget problems. Some legacy.

 

[Starbuck1975]

San Francisco has been run unchallenged by Democrats for the last 50 years or so. Boston has had an unbroken string of Democratic mayors for almost 75 years and exactly one Republican mayor in the last century. Both are highly prosperous cities. I think the idea that a city's prosperity is improved by having a periodic Republican mayor has no factual basis, and at least in the case of New York the trend you're talking about considerably predates Giuliani's administration.

San Francisco outsourced its problems to Oakland and is dealings with a significant gentrification and affordability crisis. Boston thrived under Menino because he was a balanced and well loved leader. Walsh not so much, and there are indications of cracks starting to form at city hall and indications of collusion and corruption.

Also, both Boston and San Francisco benefit from other dynamics. A steady pipeline of talent generated by local universities, a healthy foundation of technology based jobs reflective of today's economy and are geographically desirable places to live.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't think you're familiar with the history of the valley. VC money is a latecomer and has only fueled the move away from actual technology to populism.



The last great gop hero was reagan. He got in on a deal with the iranians to screw carter, a behavior manifest throughout his tenure in the shady contra deal & such. His main claim to fame is "defeating" the commies, who mostly collapsed in and of themselves, and our own military expansion is the source of our own budget problems. Some legacy.

A quick Google search brought up several articles suggesting otherwise. Here is a nice summary. What is open to debate is how much credit Reagan deserves for it. Some economists say none. Others suggest he lay the foundation as governor of California.

Venture capital played an instrumental role in developing many of the major technology companies of the 1980s. Some of the most notable venture capital investments were made in firms that include: Tandem Computers, Genentech, Apple Inc., Electronic Arts, Compaq, Federal Express and LSI Corporation.

 

[agent00f]

A quick Google search brought up several articles suggesting otherwise. Here is a nice summary. What is open to debate is how much credit Reagan deserves for it. Some economists say none. Others suggest he lay the foundation as governor of California.

I would think financiers might argue they deserve the credit, same as conservatives might be motivated to argue reagan wasn't just an unethical charlatan. If anything the valley is the story of technologists instead of people with money dictating the terms.

 

[fskimospy]

San Francisco outsourced its problems to Oakland and is dealings with a significant gentrification and affordability crisis. Boston thrived under Menino because he was a balanced and well loved leader. Walsh not so much, and there are indications of cracks starting to form at city hall and indications of collusion and corruption.

These are just excuses for why your theory doesn't hold up though. While every city has problems San Francisco is extremely successful by just about any metric you can come up with. Boston has had an unbroken string of Democratic mayors for a CENTURY. Attributing the city's success or failure to a single mayor in that time makes no sense.

Also, both Boston and San Francisco benefit from other dynamics. A steady pipeline of talent generated by local universities, a healthy foundation of technology based jobs reflective of today's economy and are geographically desirable places to live.

This is what I was trying to tell you. While I'm sure leadership matters it is overwhelmed by external factors. Flint, Michigan wasn't going to suddenly turn into an economic powerhouse if they elected a few more Republicans. This seems to be trying to create a trend where there's no indication one exists.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I would think financiers might argue they deserve the credit, same as conservatives might be motivated to argue reagan wasn't just an unethical charlatan. If anything the valley is the story of technologists instead of people with money dictating the terms.

Without investment, the ideas never leave the basement or garage. It's a mutually beneficial or symbiotic relationship.

 

[Starbuck1975]

These are just excuses for why your theory doesn't hold up though. While every city has problems San Francisco is extremely successful by just about any metric you can come up with. Boston has had an unbroken string of Democratic mayors for a CENTURY. Attributing the city's success or failure to a single mayor in that time makes no sense.



This is what I was trying to tell you. While I'm sure leadership matters it is overwhelmed by external factors. Flint, Michigan wasn't going to suddenly turn into an economic powerhouse if they elected a few more Republicans. This seems to be trying to create a trend where there's no indication one exists.

Leadership is all that matters. I never claimed that placing a republican in charge of any of those areas or cities would magically change their fortunes. What I am contending is that their is ample evidence of corruption and incompetence within both parties. It takes leaders to set a vision for a better America. Moreno in Boston. Giuliani in NY. Eisenhower and his national highway network. Kennedy and his ambition to put a man on the moon.

Probably why as a fiscal conservative I felt inexplicitely drawn to Sanders.

 

[agent00f]

Without investment, the ideas never leave the basement or garage. It's a mutually beneficial or symbiotic relationship.

I don't think anyone would argue that money is unnecessary in capitalism, just whether the valley was a result of venture money or the right technologists who happened to get together. A helpful hint might be the revolution would've happened all the same without one of these entirely.

 

[fskimospy]

Leadership is all that matters.

Absolutely not. That's a ridiculous statement and I think you know it.

I never claimed that placing a republican in charge of any of those areas or cities would magically change their fortunes. What I am contending is that their is ample evidence of corruption and incompetence within both parties. It takes leaders to set a vision for a better America. Moreno in Boston. Giuliani in NY. Eisenhower and his national highway network. Kennedy and his ambition to put a man on the moon.

Probably why as a fiscal conservative I felt inexplicitely drawn to Sanders.

How are you coming to this conclusion and what are your inputs and outputs? It sounds like you're just making this up.

 

[emperus]

Leadership is all that matters. I never claimed that placing a republican in charge of any of those areas or cities would magically change their fortunes. What I am contending is that their is ample evidence of corruption and incompetence within both parties. It takes leaders to set a vision for a better America. Moreno in Boston. Giuliani in NY. Eisenhower and his national highway network. Kennedy and his ambition to put a man on the moon.

Probably why as a fiscal conservative I felt inexplicitely drawn to Sanders.

Though the argument you are making speaks little to the argument that was initially made. We are talking about policies and how they have helped the respective coalitions of each party. You still haven't named a single Republican policy in the last 10 years that has made the lives of average Republicans better. All I keep hearing is this discredited theory that tax cuts will somehow lead to growth and the strange demonization of Education.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't think anyone would argue that money is unnecessary in capitalism, just whether the valley was a result of venture money or the right technologists who happened to get together. A helpful hint might be the revolution would've happened all the same without one of these entirely.

Bringing technology to market has incredibly high barriers to entry. I think the Tesla story more than proves that. The revolution would have happened eventually, but still led by the first technologist able to acquire funding.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Though the argument you are making speaks little to the argument that was initially made. We are talking about policies and how they have helped the respective coalitions of each party. You still haven't named a single Republican policy in the last 10 years that has made the lives of average Republicans better. All I keep hearing is this discredited theory that tax cuts will somehow lead to growth and the strange demonization of Education.

I am not defending Republican policy, I am criticizing Democrats' fanciful view of their own policies.

I also never demonized education, I am actually a huge proponent of both education and communal/government service as vehicles for socio-economic growth.

Both Democrats and Republicans use tax cuts as a convenient placeholder and stop gap when their policies otherwise fail.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Absolutely not. That's a ridiculous statement and I think you know it.



How are you coming to this conclusion and what are your inputs and outputs? It sounds like you're just making this up.

Input output assumes a closed system, which an economy is not. It sounds like you felt compelled to respond but don't have a response.

 

[fskimospy]

Input output assumes a close door system, which an economy is not

No it definitely doesn't. You've made a statement about how leadership is what matters and I'm asking you to show me how you came to that conclusion using empirical evidence as it seems like you're just taking your gut feeling about things. If that's what you're doing that's fine, but let's just acknowledge that for what it is.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No it definitely doesn't. You've made a statement about how leadership is what matters and I'm asking you to show me how you came to that conclusion using empirical evidence as it seems like you're just taking your gut feeling about things. If that's what you're doing that's fine, but let's just acknowledge that for what it is.

I rattled off a long list of historically and contemporarily recognized politicians, both Democrat and Republican, and the common thread is leadership.