List the mistakes/wrong choices of...

[Kadarin]

Given that I hate concepts like affirmative action, giving sanctuary to illegal aliens, perpetual welfare, and entitlement in general, I *really* want to be a Republican. I like not being weak on foreign policy, the concept of moral hazard, and the libertarian ideals of personal freedom and responsibility.

However, I can't stand the Republican love affair with idiotic American evangelicals (otherwise known as a large group of useful idiots), and I can't stand the fact that the Republican party in general only appears to really care about the top 1% of Americans.

These, I think, are the two main mistakes that the Republicans commit.

 

[Kadarin]

I agree with this 100% and I would go further by saying it was also a HUGE mistake for signing the repeal of the Glass-Steigall act.

Yeah, NAFTA and repealing Glass-Steigall were tremendous mistakes too.

 

[cwjerome]

Free trade with economic competitors, while said competitors do not reciprocate (IE, China).

China has one of the most open markets in the world. 15-20 years ago this wasn't the case, mostly due to cultural issues (the Chinese not understanding western business philosophy) and inept/inexperienced political leadership on the issue). Today, breaking into China and receiving Chinese support is far easier than a country like India, or practically any other. The Chinese will raze a small town to slap down a new, beautiful business park for outside businesses while Indian authorities have to navigate the rights and laws of a democratically freer population.

 

[Kadarin]

China has one of the most open markets in the world. 15-20 years ago this wasn't the case, mostly due to cultural issues (the Chinese not understanding western business philosophy) and inept/inexperienced political leadership on the issue). Today, breaking into China and receiving Chinese support is far easier than a country like India, or practically any other. The Chinese will raze a small town to slap down a new, beautiful business park for outside businesses while Indian authorities have to navigate the rights and laws of a democratically freer population.

Sure, so long as your company enters into a technology sharing strategic partnership with a Chinese owned company.

 

[Cerb]

China has one of the most open markets in the world.

So? I don't see Canada manipulating their wages and currency, relative to the Dollar. I don't see Canada hacking U.S. gov organizations.

How open they may be now has nothing to do with it. They are competition, and cannot provide a comparative advantage to reciprocate.

If you are a nation we trade with, then either we can each provide goods to each other that are cheaper, but in different industries, which may allow free trade to be mutually beneficial, else your own economy and political structure is similar enough that neither can provide significant advantage, else we should have some degree of protectionist policies towards your nation.

Today, breaking into China and receiving Chinese support is far easier than a country like India, or practically any other. The Chinese will raze a small town to slap down a new, beautiful business park for outside businesses while Indian authorities have to navigate the rights and laws of a democratically freer population.

Append to that their natural resources and labor practices, and you would have concisely explained why we should have trade restrictions. With a few added nuances, like only protecting IP when it suits their whims, the case only gets stronger.

 

[Fern]

Some Republican things I disagree with:

1. Nation building. Iraq I can understand for several reasons, not the least of which is their geographical importance as the gateway (or fence) beween Sunni's and Shia's. But nation building in Afghanistan? IMO, it's likely a waste of lives, time and money.

2. The Repubs should compromise with the Dems and repeal the Bush tax cuts for the rich IF they can get real budget cutting concessions. Otherwise forget it, it would just be more money blown on crap.

3. The Repubs need rethink their (somewhat general) opposition to SS and Medicare. We need the safety net at 65 yrs old. Most people can't work at that age. Forget increasing the retirement age, just means test for benefits. There's no reason rich people with fat private pensions can't have their benefits cut if not eliminated.

4. Their attempt to get rid of the estate tax is horribly misguided. Use this as another tool for compromise with Dems (not that they really want a decent estate tax, they suck up to the rich just as much - See Chuck Shumer). The estate tax needs to have it's exemptions etc eliminated so the wealthy actually pay a pretty heavy tax upon death. We don't need any more Paris Hilton/Al Gore types running around like American aristocracy.

5. A balanced budget is a stupid idea. In bad economic times we need the govt to blow some extra money on rebuilding our infrastructure and it'll need more money for unemployment benefits if only just to keep up with the regular benefits (not even extended ones) for so many out-of-work. I suspect the unintended consequences of a balanced budget will be enormous pressure to raise tax rates in a bad economy. I think that's a very bad idea. OTOH, absent some control like a balanced budget amendment Congress has shown exactly zero discipline in spending.

6. The War on Drugs, particularly MJ.

Edit: 7. They spend too damned much money too.

Fern

 

[cwjerome]

Sure, so long as your company enters into a technology sharing strategic partnership with a Chinese owned company.

Not necessarily, not always, and there will normally be some sort of trade-offs regardless of industry in most any country. All I'm saying is it's fairly easy to do business in China.

Obviously there's a huge trade imbalance which is some ways bad for us. This has more to do with the fact that US per capita GDP is around $47500 and for China it's about $4500 (and the fact that we're an insanely consumerist society), and less to do with screwed trade policy. We have more money to buy shit and we're consumption gluttons.

We can certainly be smarter about how we do business, but we also need to be smart about how we "fix" things because it seems to be a lot of people's fixes would do more harm than good.

 

[cybrsage]

Republicans and/or groups/persons associated with or closely aligned on policy with Republicans.

Bonus points if you're normally sympathetic toward or supportive of Republicans and you choose to identify their wrong-doings.

-AND-

Democrats and/or groups/persons associated with or closely aligned on policy with Democrats.

Bonus points if you're normally sympathetic toward or supportive of Democrats and you choose to identify their wrong-doings.

Why didn't you do as you want others to do? I notice you never do until pressed about it. Why is that?

 

[HomerJS]

Republicans - apartheid

Democrats - voting for the Iraq war

 

[zsdersw]

Why didn't you do as you want others to do? I notice you never do until pressed about it. Why is that?

I regularly criticize both Republicans and Democrats. You and your ilk only criticize one side or another.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

What's the difference between the two? Both will use broken promises to get in power where the previous losers have the advantage to make ones to repair previous ones mistakes.

 

[Craig234]

Democrats - voting for the Iraq war

Let's remember, apart from Bush lying that he would not go to war without approval:

House Vote:

Republican Aye 215 Nay 6

Democratic Aye 82 Nay 126

 

[Mursilis]

Some Republican things I disagree with:

1. Nation building. Iraq I can understand for several reasons, not the least of which is their geographical importance as the gateway (or fence) beween Sunni's and Shia's. But nation building in Afghanistan? IMO, it's likely a waste of lives, time and money.

2. The Repubs should compromise with the Dems and repeal the Bush tax cuts for the rich IF they can get real budget cutting concessions. Otherwise forget it, it would just be more money blown on crap.

3. The Repubs need rethink their (somewhat general) opposition to SS and Medicare. We need the safety net at 65 yrs old. Most people can't work at that age. Forget increasing the retirement age, just means test for benefits. There's no reason rich people with fat private pensions can't have their benefits cut if not eliminated.

4. Their attempt to get rid of the estate tax is horribly misguided. Use this as another tool for compromise with Dems (not that they really want a decent estate tax, they suck up to the rich just as much - See Chuck Shumer). The estate tax needs to have it's exemptions etc eliminated so the wealthy actually pay a pretty heavy tax upon death. We don't need any more Paris Hilton/Al Gore types running around like American aristocracy.

5. A balanced budget is a stupid idea. In bad economic times we need the govt to blow some extra money on rebuilding our infrastructure and it'll need more money for unemployment benefits if only just to keep up with the regular benefits (not even extended ones) for so many out-of-work. I suspect the unintended consequences of a balanced budget will be enormous pressure to raise tax rates in a bad economy. I think that's a very bad idea. OTOH, absent some control like a balanced budget amendment Congress has shown exactly zero discipline in spending.

6. The War on Drugs, particularly MJ.

Edit: 7. They spend too damned much money too.

Fern

I'm with you on most of that, except for 3 and 5.

On means testing for SS, that whole idea makes me very irate. There are certain things I want to do in retirement, such as travel extensively, which will cost money, and so I'm putting ~10% of my salary away annually toward that goal. Of course, I'm also putting a ton into SS - over $150K so far, according to those statements they send out. I'm also pretty frugal, and live well within my means - my car is 15 years old, and I own a much smaller house than I could qualify for with my income. Sure, I'd like a bigger house and a newer car, but it's more important to save right now. Meanwhile, I know people, even members of my extended family, who put away little to nothing for retirement, preferring to live well now and claiming they "can't afford" to save for retirement. I seriously know someone who earns into six figures, put in an inground pool a few years back, and just bought a vacation home in Florida who complains he'll have to work "forever" because he can't afford to contribute to his 401K. This whole financial meltdown was fueled in part by people cashing in on rising home equity to feed consumer spending, most of which wasn't necessary and has now left a lot of people with ridiculous debt levels. Meanwhile, I have little debt and credit scores in the 800's. So if I decide to put money away now and have a fat retirement account later, I have to face the possibility of losing my SS due to means testing, and foolish people who decided to spend it all now will get SS, because they've got nothing? F#$% that!! I'm seriously tired of gov't rewarding the stupid and punishing the prudent.

On a balanced budget, you're right that in the short term, it's perfectly OK to float a deficit for a while when the economy is in the tank and could use a stimulus. Unfortunately, however, it's become a long-term addiction for Congress. Over the past 50 years or so, the budget has been in the red more times than not, and I see little chance of that changing in the future. We simply can't keep doing this forever, and I think it's ethically wrong to leave future generations, who have no voice right now, with a heavy debt burden just so we can give ourselves gov't benefits right now.

 

[ichy]

Absolutely agree about the wrongness of means testing. People should not be penalized for being responsible when they were younger.

I heard on NPR this morning that 4 of the 5 remaining GOP candidates went to a forum sponsored by Personhood USA. This is the same crackpot organization that sponsored the personhood amendment in Mississippi which was so extreme that it got shot down even in the deep south. If the GOP ever wants support from people like me they need to STOP kissing up to these fringe religious extremists.

 

[Mursilis]

I heard on NPR this morning that 4 of the 5 remaining GOP candidates went to a forum sponsored by Personhood USA. This is the same crackpot organization that sponsored the personhood amendment in Mississippi which was so extreme that it got shot down even in the deep south. If the GOP ever wants support from people like me they need to STOP kissing up to these fringe religious extremists.

Attending a forum isn't the same as endorsing that organization. Christopher Hitchens spoke before a few religious groups, and no one seemed to have doubts about his atheism.

Regarding all this fear of the "American Taliban", it seems so reactionary to me. Sure, religious (and some non-religious) groups have enacted a few restrictions I oppose (such as gay marriage bans), but "vices" like alcohol, tobacco, porn, etc., are readily available. Divorce and birth control is common and easy to get, women can work, own property, wear pretty much what they want, vote, serve in gov't, etc. (unlike Saudi Arabia, for example). Businesses are open on Sundays everywhere around me, and no one is forced to give a single penny to any religious organization. I don't care about abortion restrictions because I oppose abortion on secular grounds, and I wish the best for anti-death penalty religious organizations, because I'm opposed to capital punishment as well. Overall, I see few real impediments to my rights and freedoms coming from the religious right. The "free (rigged) market" right and liberal left, however - that's a different story.

 

[HomerJS]

Attending a forum isn't the same as endorsing that organization. Christopher Hitchens spoke before a few religious groups, and no one seemed to have doubts about his atheism.

Regarding all this fear of the "American Taliban", it seems so reactionary to me. Sure, religious (and some non-religious) groups have enacted a few restrictions I oppose (such as gay marriage bans), but "vices" like alcohol, tobacco, porn, etc., are readily available. Divorce and birth control is common and easy to get, women can work, own property, wear pretty much what they want, vote, serve in gov't, etc. (unlike Saudi Arabia, for example). Businesses are open on Sundays everywhere around me, and no one is forced to give a single penny to any religious organization. I don't care about abortion restrictions because I oppose abortion on secular grounds, and I wish the best for anti-death penalty religious organizations, because I'm opposed to capital punishment as well. Overall, I see few real impediments to my rights and freedoms coming from the religious right. The "free (rigged) market" right and liberal left, however - that's a different story.

Enacting personhood amendments would outlaw the most popular/common methods of birth control. If you are a guy I guess your statement still stands.

 

[ichy]

Attending a forum isn't the same as endorsing that organization. Christopher Hitchens spoke before a few religious groups, and no one seemed to have doubts about his atheism.

In this particular case all four candidates were falling over each other to show much they agreed with the personhood crackpots.

 

[ichy]

Overall, I see few real impediments to my rights and freedoms coming from the religious right.

How would you feel if a major Democratic candidate endorsed a group which advocated slavery reparations? We all know that reparations will never happen, but simply seeing someone support such a morally and intellectually bankrupt cause would make me incapable of voting for them.

 

[cybrsage]

I regularly criticize both Republicans and Democrats. You and your ilk only criticize one side or another.

You create a thread (second one, in fact) where you want people to criticize the parties and you do not actually do so yourself. In the other, you at least did it when I called you out on it.

Why don't you actually do in the thread what you want others to do in the thread? Sayign "I do it in other places, so I don't need to do in this thread what I want others to do in this thread" is a cop out.

Seriously, you want others to post mistakes, etc, in this thread while not actually doing it yourself. Why should others bother to do what you are not doing? The first post is the perfect place for you to do what you want others to do.

 

[zsdersw]

You create a thread (second one, in fact) where you want people to criticize the parties and you do not actually do so yourself. In the other, you at least did it when I called you out on it.

Why don't you actually do in the thread what you want others to do in the thread? Sayign "I do it in other places, so I don't need to do in this thread what I want others to do in this thread" is a cop out.

Seriously, you want others to post mistakes, etc, in this thread while not actually doing it yourself. Why should others bother to do what you are not doing? The first post is the perfect place for you to do what you want others to do.

My grievances with both the Democratic and Republican parties are well known. Regular posters to P&N know, and you very likely know but are choosing to be stupid.

I fully expected you to post a reply like this. I suspect that even if I had done as you say I should've done you still wouldn't list what's wrong with Republicans and Democrats. You'd either avoid posting in the thread or post a diversionary comment.

That's fine... it just confirms what many already think: that you're nothing more than a Republican shill.

 

[Mursilis]

How would you feel if a major Democratic candidate endorsed a group which advocated slavery reparations? We all know that reparations will never happen, but simply seeing someone support such a morally and intellectually bankrupt cause would make me incapable of voting for them.

I don't much care what most people are for/against. It's only when they seek to restrict or require my own involvement, or the involvement of a underrrepresented or defenseless class, that it matters to me. If something "will never happen", then it's probably not going to concern me all that much. There are far, far too many real issues which require attention.

 

[cybrsage]

My grievances with both the Democratic and Republican parties are well known. Regular posters to P&N know, and you very likely know but are choosing to be stupid.

This thread is an example of "do as I say, not as I do".

You expect others to do what you did not do yourself, which is to post the mistakes/wrong choices of. You did not actually do what you told others to do...and you lash out at me for you not doing it.

Why do you lash at me for you not doing what you expected others to do? Is it because you are upset for me showing it to everyone? Easy way to prevent it is to simply post what you told others you want them to post.

 

[zsdersw]

This thread is an example of "do as I say, not as I do".

Your posts in this thread are an example of "diversion at all costs".

You expect others to do what you did not do yourself, which is to post the mistakes/wrong choices of. You did not actually do what you told others to do...and you lash out at me for you not doing it.

I don't "expect" anyone to do anything. I ask for things, and they either choose to provide them or they don't.

Why do you lash at me for you not doing what you expected others to do? Is it because you are upset for me showing it to everyone? Easy way to prevent it is to simply post what you told others you want them to post.

I'm not upset with you or anyone else. But I will call you what you are, as I would do to anyone else.

Again, I ask for things... everyone else can make up their own mind about whether to provide what I ask for or not. If they do, super. If they don't, oh well.

 

[cybrsage]

I notice you still refuse to do what you want others to do.

And if you wish to call me what I am, go ahead and use "He who shows others I refuse to do what I want others to do". It fits perfectly for you in this thread.

EDIT: You know, the easy way to stop me from pointing out that you are not doing what you want others to do is to actually DO what you want others to do. In this case, it would be posting the mistakes/wrong choices of... in the thread where you want OTHERS to post the mistakes/wrong choices of...

 

[HomerJS]

This thread is an example of "do as I say, not as I do".

You expect others to do what you did not do yourself, which is to post the mistakes/wrong choices of. You did not actually do what you told others to do...and you lash out at me for you not doing it.

Why do you lash at me for you not doing what you expected others to do? Is it because you are upset for me showing it to everyone? Easy way to prevent it is to simply post what you told others you want them to post.

You mean the GOP?