Why does the US have such extreme politics?

[jpeyton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO2Abp0FbA0

 

[Jhhnn]

It is because of the power that our government possesses.

Look at elections for minor local offices. Notice that no one really pays attention to these types of elections? Why? Because they have very little power to influence our lives.

But on the national level the people in Washington have WAY too much power.
The Federal government directly controls 20% of our GDP. And through the power to tax and regulate they probably control another 10%. Add in the state and local governments and their spending and you see that government controls nearly half of our countries national output in one form or another.

When you give the government the ability to control the lives of others to that degree of course it is going to get nasty when it comes to exercising that power.

Yeh, things were ever so much better 100 years ago, when the corporations had all the power, and they'd just bring in the Pinkertons to, uhh, restore law and order, yeh, that's it, or send the colorado militia to discipline those evil strikers at Ludlow...

The reason US politics are so adversarial atm is because repubs have moved right, become quite radical, based on the notion that "all viewpoints deserve to be heard". They've pitched it so well that people routinely vote against their own interests, slurp down buckets of simulated rationality to make it seem alright... Righties embrace so many contradictions that they really don't know what they believe, other than they believe quite fervently...

 

[ProfJohn]

To claim that the Republicans have 'moved' to the right is to ignore history. The country as a whole is FAR more to the left today than it was 100 years ago. Hell we are further left today than just 40 years ago.

In 1960 all governments in this country put together controlled just over 25% of our GDP. Today the Federal government alone controls that much of our economy.

The goal of the small government conservative isn't to 'move' us to the right, but to undo the damage done by the big government liberal who thinks that government is the solution to all our problems.

BTW the mantra "all viewpoints deserve to be heard" is a Democrat one. Look at the fairness doctrine and the Democrats excuses for why it is needed.

 

[hal2kilo]

Because we are, for the most part, uneducated in general. Most people know nothing of civics. Hell, half our population is too lazy to bother voting. We want entertainment, not substance. We have the politics, and politicians, that we deserve.

This/

 

[dahunan]

The super-wealthy need it like this.. they need the masses (idiots/sheep) to whine about little shit happening all the time so they can get away with the REAL BIG STUFF

Wars
Trillion Dollar Banking Scams SCAMS
Wars for profit

Rush - Hannity - any other talking heads.. they are employed by the super rich also..

 

[Craig234]

To claim that the Republicans have 'moved' to the right is to ignore history. The country as a whole is FAR more to the left today than it was 100 years ago. Hell we are further left today than just 40 years ago.

In 1960 all governments in this country put together controlled just over 25% of our GDP. Today the Federal government alone controls that much of our economy.

The goal of the small government conservative isn't to 'move' us to the right, but to undo the damage done by the big government liberal who thinks that government is the solution to all our problems.

BTW the mantra "all viewpoints deserve to be heard" is a Democrat one. Look at the fairness doctrine and the Democrats excuses for why it is needed.

You're full of it as usual, picking selective points to paint a misleading picture.

The country has changed in ways that include left, apolitical, right and others, but in the ways we're talking about, the country has moved to the right.

There was a more liberal period in the nation economically from FDR to LBJ mostly, still somewhat in place until Reagan, and then a lot of movement to the right.

Your 1960 example is in the middle of the liberal era. Your first error is defining 'left' as the same thing as 'more money in government'. Wrong.

Let's look at some things you ignored.

We had a top tax rate of 90%, we had the much stronger FDR-era regulations, we had the creation of a variety of government agencies (with still a relatively small federal government in terms of dollars). It was an era of people saying 'that's a problem, let's have the government improve it', creating a lot of laws an issues the large majority very much want today (e.g., mandatory seat belts in cars to ingredient disclosure in food packaging). We had an era when the government could say 'let's have a war on poverty', or 'wouldn't it be a great accomplishment for our society to put a man on the moon, by the way costing up to 5% of our federal budget'.

While the right had the communist issue to exploit (McCarthyism), the Republicans weren't all like that - and the far right were attacking a Republican president as a communist dupe if not agent, not to mention the US Army, economically we had a Republican President and Congress with that 90% top tax rate, and the Republican president privately referring to the far-right elements of his party who wanted to do things like dismantle social security not as the new heart of the party, but as nuts.
Unions thrive throughout the period, IIRC up to perhaps 30% of the workforce. Average people could do just fine, buying a home, etc. on low-end wages.

It's since Reagan that there has been a historic redistribution of wealth to the top few in society, the explosion of the finance in our economy from 10 to 15 percent in the liberal era to about 40 percent today, draining wealth, the deregulation of that industry, the cutting of taxes for the richest and many other measures to help the rich. It's in that period that the rising tide stopped lifting all boats, with reportedly 92% of all growth in the economy going to the top 20 percent.

It's in this period that the corporatocracy has gone from under a thousand lobbyists when Reagan took office to 35,000 today, that there has an been explosion of a right-wing machine with think tanks and media spending billions to propagandize the American people to the right we didn't have before.

This is where American has drifted from Europe, to where our liberal party is closer to their conservative party, and we have no major party like their left, and they have no major far-right party like our Republicans generally. We used to have CEO's paid similarly to theirs in the double digits times the average worker; the US alone has skyrocketed that to more like 400 times. Our concentration of wealth has returned from the lows of the liberal era back to the highs just before the great depression.

No, you post wrong info again. America has moved to the right - the Republican Party has moved well to the right.

This in part follows the re-alignment of the American south to Republicans - giving them the White House 28 of the last 41 years.

The price for the country for Democrats getting the civil rights bill passed was decades of the nation getting Republicans and a big move to the right, with all the benefits to the rich as the expense of most citizens re-distributing wealth up, the games with increases in debt, poorly controlled 'free market' policies, etc.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, stop writing book like responses and maybe people will start to respond to you.

Oh... and BTW when the top tax rate was 90% the rich paid a much smaller share of taxes than they do now with the rate in the high 30% range...

 

[sandorski]

Craig, stop writing book like responses and maybe people will start to respond to you.

Oh... and BTW when the top tax rate was 90% the rich paid a much smaller share of taxes than they do now with the rate in the high 30% range...

...and? aka, your point is moot.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig likes to talk about the 90% tax rate as if it meant something.

But there were so many loop holes and ways to get around paying taxes that no one paid that amount. And then the fact that the rate was so high causes people to spend valuable time and effort to avoid paying taxes. This meant that money that could have been used to improve the economy was being used to avoid taxation thus creating a drain on the whole system.

Look at what happened once the rate was dropped. The economy exploded AND the 'rich' actually paid MORE in taxes under the new lower rate than they did under the 90% rate!!! The reduction in the top rate from 90% to 40ish was one of the smartest economic moves in the post WW 2 era.

 

[sandorski]

Craig likes to talk about the 90% tax rate as if it meant something.

But there were so many loop holes and ways to get around paying taxes that no one paid that amount. And then the fact that the rate was so high causes people to spend valuable time and effort to avoid paying taxes. This meant that money that could have been used to improve the economy was being used to avoid taxation thus creating a drain on the whole system.

Look at what happened once the rate was dropped. The economy exploded AND the 'rich' actually paid MORE in taxes under the new lower rate than they did under the 90% rate!!! The reduction in the top rate from 90% to 40ish was one of the smartest economic moves in the post WW 2 era.

It did mean something, Wealth was far more evenly distributed. Thus as you pointed out yet missed the reason, the Wealthiest contributed far less of the over all Income Tax share.

 

[ProfJohn]

It did mean something, Wealth was far more evenly distributed. Thus as you pointed out yet missed the reason, the Wealthiest contributed far less of the over all Income Tax share.

The wealth distribution had nothing to do with the tax rate.

Also, you guys always forget the fact that while the rich became richer the rest of us did better too. Compare the life style of someone living at the poverty line today to someone at that line in 1960. There is NO comparison.

Also... a question for you guys.
Why do you attack Reagan for the growth in income inequity but give Clinton a pass?
Look at the facts. Income inequity on Clinton was FAR worse than under Reagan or either Bush.

The simple fact is that when you have strong economic growth people with access to capital will see their incomes and wealth explode, while people with out access to capital will see only a minor improvement in their economic situation. And there is NOTHING you can do to change this simple fact.

 

[CanOWorms]

I suppose each country has different extremes their politicians go to. In the US, perhaps it's what you claim (global illuminati conspiracy relating to a new world order). However, other countries have other extremes. For example, most European countries have established and popular racist political parties with Nazi-like ideologies. That's what I think about when someone says extreme.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, stop writing book like responses and maybe people will start to respond to you.

Oh... and BTW when the top tax rate was 90% the rich paid a much smaller share of taxes than they do now with the rate in the high 30% range...

Your record of being shown wrong has perhaps a 15+ of 15+ where you never acknowledge your wrong, and just move to a new wrong.

No one in this forum comes close to you at it being suggested you are a 'paid to lie' poster, because of this. I haven't said it, but I think it reflects your posting.

You claim the country has moved to the LEFT since 1970, close to the peaks of the nation's liberal period. Let's look for you responding to that issue in your reply. Crickets.

That's your approach, repeated ad nauseum - look for exception data that can be used to argue for a falsehood, and when it's debunked, reply with a new argument.

 

[cKGunslinger]

What we have in America is a solid middle ground, where the far right is really just slightly off center and leans right [a tiny bit]. While the far left is way off center and leans all the way left [so in general we are ruled entirely by the left].

Bill O'reilly in the more extreme poltical European nations, would be seen as a lefty for sure btw. Yet he is considered by many to be a "crazy" right winger here.

Uh.. ha? 😕

 

[Exterous]

Because we are, for the most part, uneducated in general. Most people know nothing of civics. Hell, half our population is too lazy to bother voting. We want entertainment, not substance. We have the politics, and politicians, that we deserve.

More than half. We only had a ~24% turn out here for the primaries.

It's easier to generalize and demonize a group. 'Look at all of them over there! They are all (Pickone: Republicans/Democrats) and are ruining our country! Vote for us! We are not them!'

This way you don't have to worry about little things like stances and views. You can just know that you are voting for the good guy - who is good simply because he is not a member of the bad guys

It's politics for the lazy

 

[peonyu]

Uh.. ha? 😕

Ok if I am wrong then explain to me what is so radical/right wing about either the Repubs or Dems. Both parties are pro-amnesty, both parties want our borders to remain open. Both parties like to talk the talk but never back it up with anything. If either party is right wing then list some examples...Cause they both appear solidly left wing to me and hardly ever veer much from that point.

Of course its easy to believe otherwise if you just listen to the media. But actions speak louder than words...And the actions of both parties points to them both being left wing.


And the most extreme event that has happened recently is Arizona trying to pass its immigration bill...But both parties came out against that state. Which isnt surprising considering that there isn't really a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Heres some pointers from the last election.
-Both Obama/McCain ran up to DC to support the bank bail out.
-Both are/were for amnesty for illegals
-Both support Nafta and other U N treaties
-Both support cap and trade,and between the 2 of them they had over 600 people from the CFR on their staffs.

Wow. Such extreme differences on huge issues in this country...

 

[cKGunslinger]

Ok if I am wrong then explain to me what is so radical/right wing about either the Repubs or Dems. <snip>

OK, maybe I horribly misread your post, but it seemed to me that YOU'RE the one who claimed the Democrats were "far left:"

What we have in America is a solid middle ground, where the far right is really just slightly off center and leans right [a tiny bit]. While the far left is way off center and leans all the way left [so in general we are ruled entirely by the left]

I would diagram that claim as:

[ L-------------------C-R-------------------- ]


But then you get all defensive and act like you claimed that you were describing the Star Trek episode where people had faces painted white-n-black vs black-n-white (which is what I think is closer to the truth of American politics.)

Perhaps I'm just confused by your use of terms like "way off center" and "all the way left?"

 

[Jhhnn]

If either party is right wing then list some examples...

Republicans are definitely right wing when it comes to taxes and distribution of wealth and income. The top .1 percent now earns a greater percentage of national income than the top 1 percent did 30 years ago. The top 1 percent earns twice the percentage of income as the bottom 50 percent, a complete reversal form 30 years ago. The top 400 incomes paid less than 17 percent federal taxes in 2007 while the rest of the top 1 percent paid 22 percent...

It goes on from there. Republicans favor the wealthy in no small way- it's the true Bush constituency, after all...

 

[ProfJohn]

Republicans are definitely right wing when it comes to taxes and distribution of wealth and income. The top .1 percent now earns a greater percentage of national income than the top 1 percent did 30 years ago. The top 1 percent earns twice the percentage of income as the bottom 50 percent, a complete reversal form 30 years ago. The top 400 incomes paid less than 17 percent federal taxes in 2007 while the rest of the top 1 percent paid 22 percent...

It goes on from there. Republicans favor the wealthy in no small way- it's the true Bush constituency, after all...

The Democrats gets a larger share of their money from the rich than the Republicans.

The Democrats ARE the party of the super rich. The Republicans are the party of the 'working' rich and the upper middle class.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Democrats gets a larger share of their money from the rich than the Republicans.

The Democrats ARE the party of the super rich. The Republicans are the party of the 'working' rich and the upper middle class.

So, uhh, link that up, OK? Otherwise, you're just pushing the usual...

 

[theeedude]

Business interests benefit from a radicalized populace that is more concerned about how many blocks from ground zero a mosque is than it is about getting fleeced.

 

[ProfJohn]

So, uhh, link that up, OK? Otherwise, you're just pushing the usual...

The best I can do is link to a Rush Limbaugh post of an old Washington Times op-ed passed on a study by the NONPARTISAN Center for Responsive Politics.

Washington Times Op-Ed: The Richest 1%

Dateline: December 18, 2002
Headline: The richest 1 percent
Byline: The Washington Times

So much for Republicans being the party of the wealthy. According to a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more appropriately belongs to the Democrats. "Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle," the report notes, "but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers." Among donors who gave more than $200 but less than $1,000, Republicans enjoyed a substantial $68 million to $44 million edge over Democrats. The margin was closer among those individuals who gave $1,000 or more: The GOP took in $317 million, compared to the Democrats' $307 million.

But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million. And when it comes to the millionaires' club - those kicking in $1 million or more - the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million. Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts - $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats - the number of individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more than 40 percent.

In other words, in 2002 a select group of bigwigs dumped big money into Democratic causes, while a broad base of folks donated respectable [but not overwhelming] amounts to Republican candidates. That goes a long way toward explaining the Democrats' shallow support in the midterm elections, and should give an indication of which party's agenda has been hijacked by the big money-men.

But it also sheds light on the president's first round of tax cuts - arguably the highest-profile domestic referendum in the midterm elections. We can't help but notice that only those who are so stinking rich that money doesn't matter supported the Democrats' opposition to tax cuts. Meanwhile, the many more who form the backbone of America's economy supported the Republicans. As the White House and congressional Republicans prepare a new tax package, we hope they bear that in mind. And just to show that there are no hard feelings, we'll still support tax cuts for the limousine liberals. With all that extra change in their pockets, maybe they'll put it to more productive uses than propping up the rejected policies of the Democratic Party.

 

[Infohawk]

Relatively speaking the US does not have extreme politics because of its two-party system. Most of the world thinks the Repubs and Dems are by and large similar. If we had a prorportional system we would have communists and nationalist parties.

 

[railer]

I'd chalk it up to the fact that Americans are, generally, stupid and lazy.

It's easier to point the finger and fall for the us vs. them scam, then it is to actually think through issues.

The R's and D's agree on 99&#37; of everything, and Obama's policies are virtually exactly the same as Bush's policies. Yet the name calling and idiocty gets worse and worse....

???????

 

[manimal]

Ok if I am wrong then explain to me what is so radical/right wing about either the Repubs or Dems. Both parties are pro-amnesty, both parties want our borders to remain open. Both parties like to talk the talk but never back it up with anything. If either party is right wing then list some examples...Cause they both appear solidly left wing to me and hardly ever veer much from that point.

Of course its easy to believe otherwise if you just listen to the media. But actions speak louder than words...And the actions of both parties points to them both being left wing.


And the most extreme event that has happened recently is Arizona trying to pass its immigration bill...But both parties came out against that state. Which isnt surprising considering that there isn't really a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Heres some pointers from the last election.
-Both Obama/McCain ran up to DC to support the bank bail out.
-Both are/were for amnesty for illegals
-Both support Nafta and other U N treaties
-Both support cap and trade,and between the 2 of them they had over 600 people from the CFR on their staffs.

Wow. Such extreme differences on huge issues in this country...

The real issues are jobs, education, outsourcing, the health of the people, the future of our children.. Issues like immigration reform, gay marriage, and moral equivalency is nothing but hot buttons to turn on the rage in the weak and ignorant.

Blah blah blah blah bailout! blah blah blah blah black panthers are coming to take your guns blah blah blah blah the borders have terrorists with durty bombs siezing towns in nogales blah blah blah blah bailout! blah blah blah global warming is the bebil trying to take me gunz......al gore is flying around in a plane trying to take your money....

I wonder if people feel the hand of frank lunz inside their large intestine...