It really bugs me how people are saying that this person is so far left, or that person is also left. Most people in this country have no idea what exactly IS left.

As the 2008 Primaries heat up, people assume that all the Dem candidates are to the left. Not true. Check this out.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png


It seems that only 2 are indeed leftest. I was surprise that my candidate of choice, Bill Richardson is actually to the right of the rest and dead even (but more authoritarian) with Hillary who is my least favorite.

I have posted this several times before:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test


Here is where I stand today:


http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-7.00&soc=-7.69

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69


I hope that people on this board realizes what exactly is left and what is right. And yeah, the majority of those running for the highest office in this country leans to the right.



Cat

I always assumed I was a Progressive.  Apparently I'm a Libertarian.  Does this mean I have to vote for Ron Paul?

I always assumed I was a Progressive.  Apparently I'm a Libertarian.  Does this mean I have to vote for Ron Paul?


  No, just whomever makes more sense to you.  But you knew that already...

  I think it's less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties' soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it's listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast "obscenities" or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries...

 

I hope that people on this board realizes what exactly is left and what is right. And yeah, the majority of those running for the highest office in this country leans to the right.



Cat






   I remember taking this very test in 2003/'04.  I know, for a fact, I've moved a little to the right since then...

  Economic Left/Right: -1.00
  Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.64

   http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-1.00&soc=-7.64

Interesting stuff...

Here's my chart:

Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/2/17/785141/pcgraphpng.png


Not sure how accurate this is, but I'm (nearly) with Nelson (Mandela, that is).

Good  site. Every time I've done it I've been around -4.00 on the "Economic Scale" and -5.00 on the "Social Scale". Sounds good enough.

Interesting how the US Democrat party (Left Wing) is in almost the same place as our NZ National party (Right Wing).

Political Compass may be well-intended, but it is severely limited and biased.  The vast majority of people who take that test (including myself) fall under left-libertarian.  This is obviously not the true classification for most people.

A much better test is found here: http://politics.beasts.org/scripts/survey

Another better test is here: http://www.moral-politics.com/

In the first test, I place as highly pragmatic but not really leaning to the left or right.  In the second, I'm almost completely in the center of both axes.

Economic left/right: -8.12
Social libertarian/authoritarian: -5.54

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.12&soc=-5.54

Among the example political/economic figures I'm closest to Gandhi, who is the only one of them I could stand!

Of course, there are only four options for each question with little room for nuance.  I'm probably a little more socially conservative than the graph suggests.  I am not anti-authority.  I am anti-authoritarian.  Big difference. 

Apparently, I'm still more left/liberal than Mr. Kucinich.  Ron Paul doesn't quite make it out of the authoritarian section, and I don't think he should. 

Economic Left/Right: -1.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

http://i2.tinypic.com/6wyqw3m.png

This was somewhat accurate....

I guess I've not really changed in the years since the last time I took this test:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.00&soc=-4.67

A few comments.  First, the contrast in the compass between authoritarian and libertarian - in this case, libertarian does not refer to the political grouping but to an anti-authority attitude.  Those who call themselves  Libertarian are on the right of the political spectrum because they oppose gov't regulations of anything (in some cases I'm sympathetic, but not most).  Second, I have maintained, on this board and elsewhere, that politics in the US is, and has been tilted toward the right side of the spectrum just about for ever, and most people here have no real idea as to what being "on the left" means, and haven't since Eugene Debbs ran for Pres.  I'm "on the left" and I'd be happy to explain what that means from my point of view, but I'll give you a hint.  To me, Bernie Sanders, our self proclaimed "socialist" Senator, is a left liberal.  I'm further to the left than he not because I advocate positions that are much different than his but because I have a different frame of reference and apply a different set of analytical tools to understand the world.

The compass on the candidates that Cat posted is no surprise, or only minimally surprising to me, ie it shows Hillary low on the authoritarian scale.

I wonder, though.  Since (I guess) none of the candidates took the test, who, and how placed them in this configuration? 

A few comments.  First, the contrast in the compass between authoritarian and libertarian - in this case, libertarian does not refer to the political grouping but to an anti-authority attitude.  Those who call themselves  Libertarian are on the right of the political spectrum because they oppose gov't regulations of anything (in some cases I'm sympathetic, but not most).  Second, I have maintained, on this board and elsewhere, that politics in the US is, and has been tilted toward the right side of the spectrum just about for ever, and most people here have no real idea as to what being "on the left" means, and haven't since Eugene Debbs ran for Pres.  I'm "on the left" and I'd be happy to explain what that means from my point of view, but I'll give you a hint.  To me, Bernie Sanders, our self proclaimed "socialist" Senator, is a left liberal.  I'm further to the left than he not because I advocate positions that are much different than his but because I have a different frame of reference and apply a different set of analytical tools to understand the world.

The compass on the candidates that Cat posted is no surprise, or only minimally surprising to me, ie it shows Hillary low on the authoritarian scale.

I wonder, though.  Since (I guess) none of the candidates took the test, who, and how placed them in this configuration? 

I agree, DC.  However, I do think authoritarian vs. libertarian (small "l") is an overdue conversation.  As Dr. Robert Altemeyer's research demonstrates, and John Dean's book "Conservatives without Conscience" bolsters, almost all authoritarians are on the Right.  Libertarians (upper case "L") generally identify with the right-wing.  Some call them "pot-smoking Republicans."  However, I find most Libertarians to be authoritarian, in spite of the root of their party's name.  The kind of "small government" they want leaves so many people impoverished and left out of the game that it will take a huge police state to keep a lid on the discontent.  Libertarians are OK with this so long as said police state isn't coming after their property, their money, their guns, their marijuana plants, or whatever.

I find most Republicans to be the same way to a lesser degree.  They're authoritarian for others, and libertarian for themselves.
::)

Authoritarianism on the Left (not to be confused with "liberal," though even authoritarian lefties often self-identify as such) is what you see on university campuses.  Let us not forget, "politically correct" was a term coined by Stalin.  Similar hypocrisy as on the Right.  Free speech for me, speech codes for you.  Noam Chomsky is free to speak, David Horowitz gets tarred-and-feathered.  You're probably saying, "But Maxwell, isn't that what you believe?"  Ixnay!  I believe David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, or whoever, should be welcome on campus.  If you don't like that person, don't go to the speech. 

I used to run with authoritarian leftists in the Progressive Labor Party.  I dumped them because the referred to "Comrade Stalin" and castigated me for saying "Stalin is no comrade of mine."  Ridiculous.  Though passionately anti-racist/sexist, many in the party were anti-gay.  They considered the artists I liked (Salvador Dali, John Cage) to be bourgeois and degenerate.  They also considered some of my favorite writers (George Orwell, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) to be on the side of the imperialists.  They didn't like doubts cast on their fragile ideology and certainly did not like too many questions asked. 

On the other hand, a major reason the Republican party succeeds as a party (outside of election theft) is they are much more corporate in their structure.  Republicans are much more likely to accept top-down command structures.  They like simplistic certainty above cluttered questions.  This is also why the religious right plays such a large part of the Republican party.  Why?  You ask why?  Because the Bible says so, that's why.

Good  site. Every time I've done it I've been around -4.00 on the "Economic Scale" and -5.00 on the "Social Scale". Sounds good enough.

Interesting how the US Democrat party (Left Wing) is in almost the same place as our NZ National party (Right Wing).



Exactly. That is the point I am trying to make. The so-called "Left Wing" in the U.S. isn't Left at all. Having a "D" next to someone's name does not mean they are to the left of the political spectrum. 



Cat

  Let us not forget, "politically correct" was a term coined by Stalin.  Similar hypocrisy as on the Right.


Karma for being one of the few guys on the (economic-left) side to acknowledge that the (social-left) authoritarianism comes with a heavy price.  In the 90s, those of us on the (economic) libertarian and (social) dontgiveadamnitarian sides always wondered why your former comrades always gave Stalin the benefit of the doubt, despite 60 years and 60,000,000 dead.

While we're at it -- on behalf of (economic) libertarians, I apologize for letting the (social-right) authoritarians take over what was once our party.  In our defense, it took us fewer than 10 years and 500,000 dead before I realized we'd been hijacked, and it'll take another 10 years and another million or two before the rest of us figure out that Clinton II isn't much different than Bush II.

Exactly. That is the point I am trying to make. The so-called "Left Wing" in the U.S. isn't Left at all. Having a "D" next to someone's name does not mean they are to the left of the political spectrum. 

It's all relative: I can remember some political commentator describing the Democrats as "marginally to the right of our Conservative party" at the time John Major's government was in power.. thing is, our "left wing" Labour party has taken up pretty much that position, too.

It also seems to me that irrespective of the language used by politicians, talking about devolving power, the trend throughout my life both here and over there in the US has been towards more authoritarian government with greater centralization of power.  Certainly on this side of the pond the only major party with any real belief in decentralization is the LibDem one, and they ain't going to be seeing much in the way of power for a while, methinks.  Unless Nick Clegg turns out to be some kind of media genius.

Karma for being one of the few guys on the (economic-left) side to acknowledge that the (social-left) authoritarianism comes with a heavy price.  In the 90s, those of us on the (economic) libertarian and (social) dontgiveadamnitarian sides always wondered why your former comrades always gave Stalin the benefit of the doubt, despite 60 years and 60,000,000 dead.



Well, you got your economic left and you got your social left and then you got Stalin and nobody left!
:D

I took macphisto's surveys and ended up closest to Jimmy Carter on the shorter one (fairly close to Kerry and Nader and not so close to W) and the second one is a British survey in which I was xcompletely centrist as far as pragmatism goes and moderately left wing economically. I've been left of all the current candidates every time that I took the compass test.

I took macphisto's surveys and ended up closest to Jimmy Carter on the shorter one (fairly close to Kerry and Nader and not so close to W) and the second one is a British survey in which I was xcompletely centrist as far as pragmatism goes and moderately left wing economically. I've been left of all the current candidates every time that I took the compass test.


Don't feel bad...  most rational people end up like the way we do as far as actual representation goes.  Neither of the big two parties represent common sense.

My dad sent me a test today:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

This one said that I was a liberal. A DUH!!!!  :D :D :D



Cat

Karma for being one of the few guys on the (economic-left) side to acknowledge that the (social-left) authoritarianism comes with a heavy price.  In the 90s, those of us on the (economic) libertarian and (social) dontgiveadamnitarian sides always wondered why your former comrades always gave Stalin the benefit of the doubt, despite 60 years and 60,000,000 dead.

I think the only reason FDR gave Stalin the "benefit of the doubt" was because he was a lesser evil to Hitler.  Granted, things changed after WW2.

While we're at it -- on behalf of (economic) libertarians, I apologize for letting the (social-right) authoritarians take over what was once our party.  In our defense, it took us fewer than 10 years and 500,000 dead before I realized we'd been hijacked, and it'll take another 10 years and another million or two before the rest of us figure out that Clinton II isn't much different than Bush II.


I really doubt Hillary's going to make it into the Oval Office.  I figure either Obama makes it or someone on the Republican side (maybe Romney or Huckabee).  Nonetheless, Huckabee is a representative of the social right nutjobs, while Romney embodies the corporate fascism that Ron Paul often refers to in his speeches.

If Paul won, things would greatly improve in this country, but I believe the chances of that happening are rather low.

My dad sent me a test today:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

This one said that I was a liberal. A DUH!!!!  :D :D :D



Cat


That's a nice short quiz that was designed by the Libertarian Party.  I still am a Libertarian by that quiz's definition, but I'm a moderate one who is left-leaning and near the centrist area as well.  My personal score was 80%, and my economic score was 60%.

What were your percentages?

That's a nice short quiz that was designed by the Libertarian Party.  I still am a Libertarian by that quiz's definition, but I'm a moderate one who is left-leaning and near the centrist area as well.  My personal score was 80%, and my economic score was 60%.

What were your percentages?


I'm not surprised that it was designed by the Libertarian Party because my dad is (as he describes it) a card carrying member.

Here are my %

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.



Cat

I'm not surprised that it was designed by the Libertarian Party because my dad is (as he describes it) a card carrying member.

Here are my %

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.



Cat


Interesting...  :)  I suppose you agree with Kucinich often?

Interesting...  :)  I suppose you agree with Kucinich often?



Yup.  ;) :D ;D ;D



Cat

I can't seem to get the graph to display, so here is the attachment.

Ant

I think the only reason FDR gave Stalin the "benefit of the doubt" was because he was a lesser evil to Hitler.  Granted, things changed after WW2.

I really doubt Hillary's going to make it into the Oval Office.  I figure either Obama makes it or someone on the Republican side (maybe Romney or Huckabee).  Nonetheless, Huckabee is a representative of the social right nutjobs, while Romney embodies the corporate fascism that Ron Paul often refers to in his speeches.

If Paul won, things would greatly improve in this country, but I believe the chances of that happening are rather low.

Hitler and Stalin are in hell tonight debating who was more evil and who was better at being an antisemite!
::)

The irony is Hillary would be a better Republican president than any of the Republican candidates.

Even if Paul or Kucinich won, even if, he would still have to deal with Reid, Pelosi, McConnell, Boehner, and the all those clowns.  Either man would at least try to get us out Iraq before today's kindergartners are old enough for the draft!

Hitler and Stalin are in hell tonight debating who was more evil and who was better at being an antisemite!
::)

The irony is Hillary would be a better Republican president than any of the Republican candidates.

Even if Paul or Kucinich won, even if, he would still have to deal with Reid, Pelosi, McConnell, Boehner, and the all those clowns.  Either man would at least try to get us out Iraq before today's kindergartners are old enough for the draft!



That is why I refer to Hilary as "Republican-Lite".



Cat

I took this test once and I didn't know where I stand. Now, I took the test again and I am -.62 on the Economic side and -.51 on the Authoritarian side. (No wonder I cut Bush some slack. And I also live in a Midwestern City.) ::)

My dad sent me a test today:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

This one said that I was a liberal. A DUH!!!!  :D :D :D



Cat


I'm a Centrist, almost leaning towards Liberalism.

I'm a Centrist, almost leaning towards Liberalism.


  It's the people in the center who bear a heavy burden because it is you who will determine the course of history, not those of us at the edges and corners of the chart...

i'm a liberal! imagine my surprise. :P

i'm a liberal! imagine my surprise. :P

You're not fooling anyone, you bloody goddam crypto-fascist!
:P

   It's the people in the center who bear a heavy burden because it is you who will determine the course of history, not those of us at the edges and corners of the chart...


I made-up my mind anyhow with who I'm going for, and It's Obama. I'm also encouraging others to vote for him.
You're not fooling anyone, you bloody goddam crypto-fascist!
:P


No, that's me because I voted for The Worst President ever in many people's opinions...twice. And no, I wasn't smoking!

You're not fooling anyone, you bloody goddam crypto-fascist!
:P
jonah goldberg evidently would put me in that camp. anyone read about his new book likening liberals to nazis? quite a slight of hand...

Imagine you were living in The Netherlands, with its numerous political parties...You'd have to take this test to find out where you stand:

StemWijzer (English Version)

Test consists of four phases:

1. You get 30 statements/questions that you have to answer "agree", "disagree" or "don't know".
2. You get to tick any of the boxes of the 30 subjects of the test that you think are of "extra importance" (you don't have to tick any of the boxes, btw).
3. You get to untick the boxes of the political parties that should be excluded from the test result (I recommend to include all parties, so don't untick any of the boxes).
4. A bar chart will show you which party/parties are closest to your opinions.

This test is the only one I could find that has an English version available. Some points of view may have changed since this test was put together (points of view are derived from party programmes prior to Dutch general elections of November 22, 2006), and of course the subjects may be very....well, Dutch.

It's a pity they don't have the party programmes in English, though.


...And of course you're not living in The Netherlands, so why bother?

Imagine you were living in The Netherlands, with its numerous political parties...You'd have to take this test to find out where you stand:

StemWijzer (English Version)

Test consists of four phases:

1. You get 30 statements/questions that you have to answer "agree", "disagree" or "don't know".
2. You get to tick any of the boxes of the 30 subjects of the test that you think are of "extra importance" (you don't have to tick any of the boxes, btw).
3. You get to untick the boxes of the political parties that should be excluded from the test result (I recommend to include all parties, so don't untick any of the boxes).
4. A bar chart will show you which party/parties are closest to your opinions.

This test is the only one I could find that has an English version available. Some points of view may have changed since this test was put together (points of view are derived from party programmes prior to Dutch general elections of November 22, 2006), and of course the subjects may be very....well, Dutch.

It's a pity they don't have the party programmes in English, though.


...And of course you're not living in The Netherlands, so why bother?





Here's how I did (even though the green boxes didn't show up and I tried to paste a link to my results but it didn't work).

GroenLinks 

Ad Bos Collectief (ABC) 

PvdA 

SP 

D66 

Verenigde Senioren Partij (VSP) 

ChristenUnie 

Partij voor de Dieren 

Continue Directe Democratie Partij (CDDP) 

CDA 

All the others were on the other end (meaning I didn't have anything in common with them). I did include ALL the parties since I have no idea which party is which.


Cat

Here's how I did (even though the green boxes didn't show up and I tried to paste a link to my results but it didn't work).

GroenLinks   

Ad Bos Collectief (ABC)   

PvdA   

SP   

D66   

Verenigde Senioren Partij (VSP)   

ChristenUnie   

Partij voor de Dieren   

Continue Directe Democratie Partij (CDDP)   

CDA   

All the others were on the other end (meaning I didn't have anything in common with them). I did include ALL the parties since I have no idea which party is which.


Cat


Thank you for taking the test. :)

Results shouldn't be much of a surprise...GroenLinks = GreenLeft, which means you're on the left side of the spectre. But you already knew that. Ad Bos Collectief (ABC), CDDP and Verenigde Senioren Partij (United Senior Citizens' Party) are of no importance (no seats in national government). PvdA (Partij van de Arbeid =  Labour Party) is one of the parties "in charge" at the moment, with the ChristenUnie and the CDA (Christian Democrats). All other parties are currently in opposition.

My reason for posting this test is to find out where you guys & gals stand in Dutch political spectre, because to be honest, I've no idea how "Republican" or "Democrat" compare to "VVD", "GroenLnks" or any of our other parties.

jonah goldberg evidently would put me in that camp. anyone read about his new book likening liberals to nazis?


Ann Coulter said the same thing, and so did that right-wing Indian dude, the one who isn't Dinish D'Souza but also works for a thinktank.

Welfare state = Death camps

(I'm not kidding, that's the kind gibberish they spew...and grownups actually buy it and read it!)
:D

Thank you for taking the test. :)

Results shouldn't be much of a surprise...GroenLinks = GreenLeft, which means you're on the left side of the spectre. But you already knew that. Ad Bos Collectief (ABC), CDDP and Verenigde Senioren Partij (United Senior Citizens' Party) are of no importance (no seats in national government). PvdA (Partij van de Arbeid =  Labour Party) is one of the parties "in charge" at the moment, with the ChristenUnie and the CDA (Christian Democrats). All other parties are currently in opposition.

My reason for posting this test is to find out where you guys & gals stand in Dutch political spectre, because to be honest, I've no idea how "Republican" or "Democrat" compare to "VVD", "GroenLnks" or any of our other parties.


Some other tidbits that might interest you:

The political leader of GroenLinks is a woman (Femke Halsema), and the party is a merger party (of four parties, including communists, socialists and evangelicals  :o).

If you guys are interested in matching your positions with a presidential candidate, here's a great test by ontheissues.org (which is a great site overall).

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008

If you guys are interested in matching your positions with a presidential candidate, here's a great test by ontheissues.org (which is a great site overall).

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008


I took that and I put down 'Ohio' and the highest one was John McCain. 2nd was Mitt Romney, and the Highest Democrat was Bill Richardson.

Cynthia McKinney (the Green candidate) was my highest, then Mike Gravel, and then Dennis Kucinich.  Paul didn't show up until number 5 or 6.

Ironically, I think Hillary was my #4 choice.

Out of all those people, I'll go with Mike Gravel.  McKinney is a nut, and Kucinich is a nice guy but unrealistic.

Ooooh...

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=2.25&soc=-0.46

Economic Left/Right: 2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.46

If you guys are interested in matching your positions with a presidential candidate, here's a great test by ontheissues.org (which is a great site overall).

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008


Surprise, surprise...I'm a Kucinich man! (80%)
Romney scores 10%, even below Alan Keyes and Duncan Hunter, and I'm embarrassed Romney even scored at all!
:-[

Paul comes in at only 30%, but if the poll asked a different set of questions, Paul could score up to 60% or 65% with me. 

Again questions are too broad, too few, and too black-or-white. 

I answered the questions as I thought they were intended, but the ambiguity of several bears mentioning:

Somebody who says companies should not be required to hire more women and minorities could fall anywhere on the political spectrum.  I said no because a quota system does not address the roots of social injustice.  I'm for a level playing field from prenatal care onward, whereas a right-wing libertarian would say no because the affairs of private enterprise are none of government's business. Period. 

"Teach family values in public schools," this one irked me.  WhoTF gets to define "family values"?  The Christian Right does, and why?  Because they have used the phrase ad nauseam for 30 years.  What they call "family values" I call "insular, provincial, narrow-minded bigotry."  Thus, I had to oppose.

What about allowing the church to administer welfare programs?  The church has always done that.  Do I think they government should outsource social programs to religious institutions?  Of course not.  That would be daft.  Church charity is a beautiful thing, but churches are not equipped to deal with the enormity of need in our society.  Besides, some churches don't like some people for some reasons.
::)

"The PATRIOT act harms civil liberties" is not a support/oppose question; it is a declarative statement.  They mean, and thus they should ask:  "Does the PATRIOT act harm civil liberties" and/or "Should the PATRIOT act be repealed?"
(It does and it should.)


BTW, John Edwards' campaign is the only one focusing on the issues of class and economic injustice that I think we must prioritize.  And I don't care if Edwards himself is loaded.  Why is it Republicans only hate rich people when the rich people want to help poor people?
:P

Great post, Max.

I think the answer to your question is that Republicans see charitable rich people as class traitors.

Whatever the case, Edwards is my favorite "electable" candidate.

Great post, Max.

I think the answer to your question is that Republicans see charitable rich people as class traitors.

Whatever the case, Edwards is my favorite "electable" candidate.

Nothing wrong with charity, my man.  If you want to give away your money, you're a saint.  But what's mine is mine!  So nooooo raising MY taxes! 

I agree with far right. I don't believe in the welfare state. 

I believe in a job that pays a good living for one and all.  But that's socialism.  The welfare state is socialism and full employment is socialism.  Then what's capitalism? 

I got mine, and you go f**k yourself!  Guess that must be capitalism.
:D

http://www.statesman.com/shared-gen/blogs/austin/opinions/20sargent3.png

http://www.statesman.com/shared-gen/blogs/austin/opinions/20sargent3.png


Karma +1

http://www.statesman.com/shared-gen/blogs/austin/opinions/20sargent3.png


That is the best opinion that I've ever seen thus far! You know how many Congress people out there are having vacations for themselves and regular people using credit without the circumstances? Let's just say I'm the only one in my family who STILL dosen't have a true Credit Card!

Karma +2

That is the best opinion that I've ever seen thus far! You know how many Congress people out there are having vacations for themselves and regular people using credit without the circumstances? Let's just say I'm the only one in my family who STILL dosen't have a true Credit Card!

Karma +2

Reaganomics, my friend.  Supply side BS.  It's been the reigning economic philosophy over the past quarter century, even though few legitimate economists thought it was valid from the start.  By 1984, the end of Reagan's first term, all evidence was the Chicago School boys were F.O.S. National debt doubled in three years, deficits out the wazoo. 

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
-- Dick Cheney

Cheney was right.  They don't matter for the only people who do matter: The super-rich, like Cheney, Bush, and now the Clintons.  This quote goes in tandem with Leona Helmsley's "Only little people pay taxes." 

Congressional spending is part of the problem, perhaps, but any spending at all is a problem when the government does not have enough revenue to support itself.  That's the Grover Norquist goal, after all. 

So-callled "conservatism" has degenerated to a form of mass psychosis.
::)

Reaganomics, my friend.  Supply side BS.  It's been the reigning economic philosophy over the past quarter century, even though few legitimate economists thought it was valid from the start.  By 1984, the end of Reagan's first term, all evidence was the Chicago School boys were F.O.S. National debt doubled in three years, deficits out the wazoo. 

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
-- Dick Cheney

Cheney was right.  They don't matter for the only people who do matter: The super-rich, like Cheney, Bush, and now the Clintons.  This quote goes in tandem with Leona Helmsley's "Only little people pay taxes." 

Congressional spending is part of the problem, perhaps, but any spending at all is a problem when the government does not have enough revenue to support itself.  That's the Grover Norquist goal, after all. 

So-callled "conservatism" has degenerated to a form of mass psychosis.
::)


Seems that Bush IS a Regan Republican. (Well, his father was VP of Regan, so...)

Seems that Bush IS a Regan Republican. (Well, his father was VP of Regan, so...)

He is.  They all are.  No other kind of Republican is allowed. 

Dick Cheney was right there in 1974 when a young economics lecturer named Arthur Laffer scribbled the essence of Reaganomics on a cocktail napkin.  The appropriately named "Laffer Curve"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

He is.  They all are.  No other kind of Republican is allowed. 

Dick Cheney was right there in 1974 when a young economics lecturer named Arthur Laffer scribbled the essence of Reaganomics on a cocktail napkin.  The appropriately named "Laffer Curve"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve



And while we're not laffering they are, all the way to the bank.  ::)

He is.  They all are.  No other kind of Republican is allowed. 

Dick Cheney was right there in 1974 when a young economics lecturer named Arthur Laffer scribbled the essence of Reaganomics on a cocktail napkin.  The appropriately named "Laffer Curve"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve


That's why in some people's opinions, Regan is STILL the worst President ever and Bush (both of them) went for the ride.

In the '90s the right-wing pundits couldn't stand to see the economy booming under Clinton, so they made a story in which the '90s boom was the fruition of Reaganomics and "Bush-a-nomics"!  Like, it takes several years for a change in economic policy to affect the economy, they said. 

When they Wall Street boys were raking it in back in 1984 did they credit Jimmeh Cawtah, 'course not.  It was Reagan all the way, they erected a gilded statue of Reagan. 

Jimmeh Cawtah got demonized for the recession during his adminstration, which was essentially the fall-out from the extremely costly war in Vietnam.  But when a recession started when Dubya took (and I mean "took") office, they blamed Clinton. 

Economics is a matter of partisan politics to these clowns.
::)

In the '90s the right-wing pundits couldn't stand to see the economy booming under Clinton, so they made a story in which the '90s boom was the fruition of Reaganomics and "Bush-a-nomics"!  Like, it takes several years for a change in economic policy to affect the economy, they said. 

When they Wall Street boys were raking it in back in 1984 did they credit Jimmeh Cawtah, 'course not.  It was Reagan all the way, they erected a gilded statue of Reagan. 

Jimmeh Cawtah got demonized for the recession during his adminstration, which was essentially the fall-out from the extremely costly war in Vietnam.  But when a recession started when Dubya took (and I mean "took") office, they blamed Clinton. 

Economics is a matter of partisan politics to these clowns.
::)



I would not give full blame toward Clinton for that recession. This is my opinion (That's what Politics really are) but many of the Congressmen who ran the House and Senators who ran the Senate were basically there between 1994 and 2006. They should take some of this blame.

I will not doubt that the next guy will be blamed for Bush's mess. Mark my words.

In the '90s the right-wing pundits couldn't stand to see the economy booming under Clinton, so they made a story in which the '90s boom was the fruition of Reaganomics and "Bush-a-nomics"!  Like, it takes several years for a change in economic policy to affect the economy, they said. 

When they Wall Street boys were raking it in back in 1984 did they credit Jimmeh Cawtah, 'course not.  It was Reagan all the way, they erected a gilded statue of Reagan. 

Jimmeh Cawtah got demonized for the recession during his adminstration, which was essentially the fall-out from the extremely costly war in Vietnam.  But when a recession started when Dubya took (and I mean "took") office, they blamed Clinton. 

Economics is a matter of partisan politics to these clowns.
::)



   Yep.  The 90s boom was the result of the 80s slump....

   Did you notice how, as American wealth grew in the 1990s, the people suddenly became "socially aware"?  People can debate the effectiveness of this period to no end, but it is true that Americans in comfort tend to be a little more generous because they view compassion as a luxury and not a necessity...

   Yep.  The 90s boom was the result of the 80s slump....

   Did you notice how, as American wealth grew in the 1990s, the people suddenly became "socially aware"?  People can debate the effectiveness of this period to no end, but it is true that Americans in comfort tend to be a little more generous because they view compassion as a luxury and not a necessity...


The 90s boom seemed more like a result of bipartisanship to an extent.  Clinton was a decent president, and the Republicans of the 90s were actually somewhat moderate.  Of course, they went crazy when Bush entered office.  It just shows that when one party runs things without much resistance (like 2000 to 2006), all hell breaks loose.  The same would be true if Democrats ran things without resistance.