Political Compass Test

[Wall St. Peon]

Jae, I said "kinda young"...in comparison to like 70 year olds...

[el badman]

...or Sauru

[shadowgrin]

P.S. Did everyone miss my long posts?

At least you know how to use paragraphs. Add a pie chart next time.

[Paul23]

So you want the facts huh? Here they are, I am just reaching my 30s, with a PhD in an advanced science and work in a field that may someday save you from the subsidized gas prices and allow you to escape the corporate enforced oil regeme while paying me more than you will ever make. What are you doing with your life? Probably nothing to save the American people, that's clear. You claim to be independent but all your positions help the Republicans, unless you vote for the Democratic Party you are not doing anything to help this country. That is the only choice anyone who is sensible can make, either vote for the Democrats to save this country or help the Republicans destroy this nation. Easy choice in my opinion.

For your knowledge I am 6'1, in amazing shape thanks to my diet and exercise, and have slept with many smart brilliant high class women who I respect as people unlike you. My scholoarship came from the fact that I graduated at the top of eveyr class I have ever been in and people fought over me.

No, George W. Bush was not my president as he stole two elections and then went about opposing the American people by stealing OUR money and giving it to the rich and giving it to Blackwater to murder innocents. On the other hand, President Obama respects all of the American people, rejects the corporatism of George Bush and ensures that we all have a voice at the table.

Voting Libertarian and McCain just proves how much of a Republican you are, when votes for either support the Republican Party instead of letting Democrats save this country. The fact that you would think otherwise proves how uninformed you are. Libertarians are Republicans trying to fool people, and McCain IS A REPUBLICAN. You're laughable in your rejection of basic facts. The fact that you'd dare attack our Speaker of the House with sexist language is enough proof of this.

Sorry, every respected economist acknowledges that the stimulus saved us from another Great Depression but was too small to help us recover. Had the Republicans stopped whining about taxes and let the government do its job we wouldn't have any unemployed today and we'd again be the most respected nation in the world as we were in the 1990s when Bill Clinton raised taxes and an economic boom resulted.

The only reason the health reform will not save this country more is because the Republican interests watered down the bill instead of getting involved and making sure it properly eliminate the greedy insurance companies and doctors and made sure everyone was paid as they should be while nobody was denied care. The sheer fact that anyone opposed sensible reform that made sure government provided care for everyone in the country proves just how dysfunctional our corporate ran system is.

Yes, Bush seized power. He went against the American people twice and declared himself President with the help of the corrupt Republican Supreme Court and corrupt Republican Senate.

The fact that you watch Fox says it all, nobody should watch that and its license needs to be revoked before they do damage to this country that cannot be reversed. Your smearing of objective journalists is unbecoming. I cannot think of any media that leans to the left, outside of Fox (which is hard-right, basically fascist) almost all are center-right. Few stand up for the actual American people instead of corporations.

[koberulz]

save you from the subsidized gas prices and allow you to escape the corporate enforced oil regeme

Without the government subsidies, gas would be more expensive to produce. Corporations, whose sole goal is making a profit, would therefore see the benefit of using greener energy, since it will be closer in cost to gas. The people forcing gas to be the main supply of energy in the US are the government, not the corporations.

Voting Libertarian and McCain just proves how much of a Republican you are

Isn't freedom pretty much the key principle of the United States of America?

1990s when Bill Clinton raised taxes and an economic boom resulted.

So basically, I work hard to earn lots of money, which I then give to the government so they can give it to someone who sits on their ass doing nothing so that lazy fuck can spend it instead of me? What does this achieve, other than encouraging people not to seek out jobs, since a government handout is easier money to make?

[shadowgrin]

with a PhD in an advanced science

What advanced science is that if I may know?

I assume that PhD of yours has nothing to do with spelling...

work in a field that may someday save you from the subsidized gas prices and allow you to escape the corporate enforced oil regeme while paying me more than you will ever make.

unless you vote for the Democratic Party you are not doing anything to help this country. That is the only choice anyone who is sensible can make, either vote for the Democrats to save this country or help the Republicans destroy this nation. Easy choice in my opinion.

For your knowledge I am 6'1, in amazing shape thanks to my diet and exercise, and have slept with many smart brilliant high class women who I respect as people unlike you. My scholoarship came from the fact that I graduated at the top of eveyr class I have ever been in and people fought over me.

That utopia you offer doesn't sound so good right now if most people will be pompous and fascist like you Paul23.

[Wall St. Peon]

So you want the facts huh? Here they are, I am just reaching my 30s, with a PhD in an advanced science and work in a field that may someday save you from the subsidized gas prices and allow you to escape the corporate enforced oil regeme while paying me more than you will ever make. What are you doing with your life? Probably nothing to save the American people, that's clear.

Actually, last night I just had a meeting. My main biz partner in one of my LLCs and I are investing in a 100% eco-friendly product that's been in Europe for a decade and isn't in the US at all. Uses 100% recycled material, and not the usual recyclables. Our initial investment is about...significant. In five years, we'll probably split about $30 million (or more) when someone buys us. We also employ people with the businesses already owned. We will be creating green jobs in the next six months...not a lot of them due to the simplicity of the process, but plenty none the less. I can't say more than that due to the confidentiality agreement I signed today. I'd say that's helping the country, the environment, and so on, no?

That's great you have a PhD in advanced science...specifically, what field? "Advanced Science" is as general as "MBA." Also, wouldn't you have to work for an evil corporation to make "more money that I will make in my life?" You certainly won't make that much in the government, unless you're crooked...

You claim to be independent but all your positions help the Republicans, unless you vote for the Democratic Party you are not doing anything to help this country. That is the only choice anyone who is sensible can make, either vote for the Democrats to save this country or help the Republicans destroy this nation. Easy choice in my opinion.

I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I'd love to help everyone, but it's not feasible. People can help themselves just as well as I can help them. If I can't afford to help someone, then I don't do it. Being a "democrat" or a "republican" doesn't matter. I'm an independent. I have voted for democrats for congress - just not Obama. Also in local elections.

For your knowledge I am 6'1, in amazing shape thanks to my diet and exercise, and have slept with many smart brilliant high class women who I respect as people unlike you. My scholoarship came from the fact that I graduated at the top of eveyr class I have ever been in and people fought over me.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....ah, you're always good for a laugh.

No, George W. Bush was not my president as he stole two elections and then went about opposing the American people by stealing OUR money and giving it to the rich and giving it to Blackwater to murder innocents.

Let's see...no, pretty sure he was President of the United States for 8 years. Of everyone in the US. Just like Obama is President of the United States, regardless of who voted for him. I didn't vote for him, but he's still my president. The other stuff I can't argue with you on. However, you think the Robin Hood approach is better - steal from the rich, give to the poor/lazy/those who work the system/non-citizens?

On the other hand, President Obama respects all of the American people, rejects the corporatism of George Bush and ensures that we all have a voice at the table.

Yeah, except the fact that he blames all the ills of this country on Republicans, Conservatives, and Bush, gets enormous contributions from corporations, meets with said corporations behind closed doors, doesn't meet with Republicans unless there's a camera around and he can berate them, and so on and so on...almost half the voters did not vote for him. That means that half of the voting public does not agree with what he wants to do, which means that not everyone has a voice because he's ignoring any sort of moderately conservative opinion. For someone with a PhD, you're pretty dumb.

Voting Libertarian and McCain just proves how much of a Republican you are, when votes for either support the Republican Party instead of letting Democrats save this country.

How does voting Libertarian prove I'm a Republican? Just because I don't vote for Democrat US senators or reps doesn't mean I don't vote for Democrats. I voted for Vilsack back in the day...if I was old enough to vote, I would have voted for Clinton. I would have voted for Hillary if she'd won the nomination.

The fact that you would think otherwise proves how uninformed you are. Libertarians are Republicans trying to fool people, and McCain IS A REPUBLICAN. You're laughable in your rejection of basic facts.

I never said he wasn't a Republican? I gave you my reasoning; balance of power. The pendulum swing from the far right during the Bush years to the far left of Obama/Pelosi/Et al...that's not good, that drastic of a change. It's like taking a red hot iron and throwing it in liquid nitrogen - it explodes.

The fact that you'd dare attack our Speaker of the House with sexist language is enough proof of this.

Actually, I was attacking Shadowgrin by saying he'd sleep with her. Big difference.

Sorry, every respected economist acknowledges that the stimulus saved us from another Great Depression but was too small to help us recover.

OK, list them. EVERY respected economist? If your'e a scientist, you're a a terrible scientist. I'm friends with geneticists (of the seed variety...Pioneer Hybrids)...and they don't exaggerate. At all. Unless it's an intentional joke. Were you making a joke? I want a list of these economists, because I can point out the omissions.

From CBS news: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/ ... 9532.shtml
From CNBC, today, regarding the probability of a double dip recession (showing the stimulus spending did nothing but artificially prop up a faulty recovery): http://www.cnbc.com/id/38695912
Quotes from David Rosenberg, a truly amazing economist: http://www.businessinsider.com/david-ro ... ble-2009-9

We did some digging and found that all of the world economic rebound in 2009 — that is, 100% and then some — is being accounted for by fiscal stimulus. There is still nary a sign that the global recovery is being sustained by organic private sector activity. Oh yes, for 2010, we calculate that 80% of the growth that the consensus is penning in is derived from the public sector. Even FDR would blush over this unprecedented government incursion into the economy. Since the impact from government spending is a second-round effect on corporate profits, it will be interesting to see the extent to which earnings growth come into line with today's lofty expectations.

Had the Republicans stopped whining about taxes and let the government do its job we wouldn't have any unemployed today and we'd again be the most respected nation in the world as we were in the 1990s when Bill Clinton raised taxes and an economic boom resulted.

Actually, historically, as long as taxes are not raised more than 3.5% of GDP, the economy expands. And Bush I raised taxes, as did Reagan in, 83, I think...he erased the tax cuts he instituted in 1980. I'm not against higher taxes, but higher taxes in an uncertain economy are a bad thing, especially when such large social programs with unknown costs to both private businesses and the tax payer. I'm not against raising taxes...but I am more for simpler tax code with fewer loopholes.

The only reason the health reform will not save this country more is because the Republican interests watered down the bill instead of getting involved and making sure it properly eliminate the greedy insurance companies and doctors and made sure everyone was paid as they should be while nobody was denied care. The sheer fact that anyone opposed sensible reform that made sure government provided care for everyone in the country proves just how dysfunctional our corporate ran system is.

It's health insurance reform. Lower the cost of healthcare, and health insurance isn't needed. Reform health care and insurance will fix itself. I can go into this further if you like, but I think it would be a waste of breath.

Yes, Bush seized power. He went against the American people twice and declared himself President with the help of the corrupt Republican Supreme Court and corrupt Republican Senate.

He didn't "seize" power. By your logic, because I disagree with what Congress and the President are currently doing, I should think they're all corrupt and the Republicans aren't. However, ALL politicians are corrupt. I actually like the Supreme Court appointees...very intriguing. I'm indifferent towards them, really...I see nothing wrong with them. I could argue that Obama seized power because groups that supported him controlled get out the vote campaigns at colleges, where people tend to be more liberal and impressionable. But that would be as absurd as your argument.

The fact that you watch Fox says it all, nobody should watch that and its license needs to be revoked before they do damage to this country that cannot be reversed.

Again, how are you any sort of anything in advanced science? You have to be objective and collect information from both sides, otherwise your results and assumptions are subject to personal biases and not objective or scientific - self-fulfilling. Also, you know who else controls the media via the government? Socialist, communist, oligarchs, dictators, etc. Freedom of speech is what separates us from those kinds of governments. You take that away, and this country will cease to exist. 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, anyone?

Your smearing of objective journalists is unbecoming. I cannot think of any media that leans to the left, outside of Fox (which is hard-right, basically fascist) almost all are center-right. Few stand up for the actual American people instead of corporations.

Your smearing of objectivity while claiming to be a scientist is unbecoming. Whoever gave you a PhD should give you a refund and take it back. Hitler and Stalin would have loved having you on staff figuring out ways to silence people that disagree with the state...you would have been a great lackey.

[benji]

The pendulum swing from the far right during the Bush years to the far left of Obama/Pelosi/Et al...that's not good, that drastic of a change.

Uhhhh...

as did Reagan in, 83, I think...he erased the tax cuts he instituted in 1980.

Reagan instituted tax cuts before he was elected?

I keed, I keed, but anyway some history.

Reagan with the help of a Republican Senate slashed the top rate from 70% to 50% (and all the rates by close to a quarter) in 1981 along with a ton of other tax changes, he then agreed to re-establish all but the income tax cuts in 1982 in an agreement with Democrats to cut spending (which of course never happened), so he came back in 1986 and worked with Democrats on a second Tax Reform which slashed the top rate from 50% to 28%, consolidated the brackets and basically rewrote huge swaths of the tax code to eliminate loopholes and such. The Democrats were on board because this raised revenue while Republicans liked lowering rates. H.W. Bush then infamously raised taxes (the top rate to 31% and capital gains to 28%) and after a recession, Clinton was elected and he with Congress created two new brackets at the top (36% and 40%), with Congress being voted out. Then, often overlooked, Clinton agreed to a massive tax cut (by 50%!) in the capital gains among others with Newt, shockingly a stock market boom followed these lowered rates.

W. Bush of course cut taxes in 2001, then accelerated these cuts to take effect earlier in 2003, but agreed to a sunset provision. Thus, President Obama and the Democrats will be raising taxes by not extending them. Despite their moniker as "tax cuts for the wealthy" the biggest tax increases will come in the lowest bracket, with the top four brackets getting increases of 9-13%, and the lowest bracket getting a 50% tax increase! The lowest bracket will also be dropped in terms of qualifying income so more people are paying the tax. That's not even mentioning AMT nor the further capital gains cuts that the Act did.

So based on Paul's logic, get ready for the biggest economic boom in history thanks to raising the taxes on the richest and poorest people! Plus the stock market will be hitting that 36,000 number finally! Maybe we can look into FDR's desire to raise taxes over 100% on the highest brackets to really get this economy moving.

Whoever gave you a PhD should give you a refund and take it back.

Except for the whole hatred of gays, he's pretty normal for a PhD.

Thankfully he's not in Poli Sci, we're already bad enough. Although he would fit in perfectly.

[Wall St. Peon]

lol, let me rephrase: "The pendulum swung from the far right of the Bush years to the far left of the current Obama/Pelosi years...it's not good."

I knew you'd have the tax numbers info...feel like doing the actual research on the tax raises/gdp increases? I read that ages ago...don't remember where....it's quite interesting.

[benji]

My disagreement was with the notion that the Bush years were "far-right." Also the notion that Obama has done much different.

There is no point in plotting tax changes with GDP. Or using GDP for much of anything regarding the health of an economy.

If on Monday, Congress called a special session and passed legislation doubling all taxes (Obama signs it of course) and this actually worked out to double revenue, while also raising government spending $15 trillion. Then at the end of the year GDP will have DOUBLED, and you could then claim that doubling tax rates doubles GDP. (And that $17 trillion deficits cause economic booms.)

There is no possible way a tax increase can ever improve the economy UNLESS the multiplier is, as the government claims, above 1. (The government claims 1.55-2 which is so absurd only PhD's take it seriously.) Since the best case scenario ever shown by a serious empirical evaluation is that the multiplier is 0.8 tax increases and government spending can only HARM the economy.

Kenyesian economics doesn't work, it's bunk. The only way it works, like AGW theories, is in models that assume the conclusion. It's why, despite everyone being able to look around and see that unemployment has increased, the government is saying it's created 2-3 million jobs. Because they have a model that says, you spend this much you get this many jobs, and so they plugged in the numbers and thus it was. Their only falsifiable claim was falsified when they said the stimulus would cap unemployment at 8%.

When you raise taxes, you're taking money out of the economy and spending it on POLITICAL goals or institutions. You're shuffling money around based on what politicians want, while they and the rest of the bureaucracy skim some off the top.

[Wall St. Peon]

I don't disagree with you on the taxes...but there is evidence supporting that slight tax increases can have a positive effect on GDP without crippling the economy. The supporting evidence, if I recall correctly, was because of the crippling effect of when taxes were raised too much. Basically, there is a happy medium.

However, with that being said, my opinion is that raises in taxes will be necessary due to the government spending and handouts a good portion of the electorate want...but I think it should only be income taxes, and like I said, the tax code needs to be simplified...the increases should be because of fewer loop holes, not because the rates actually went up...that would be an effective increase in taxes without actually increasing the taxes.

[benji]

I don't disagree with you on the taxes...but there is evidence supporting that slight tax increases can have a positive effect on GDP without crippling the economy.

Except as I said, this has an obvious flaw.

Increased revenue -> increased spending -> increased GDP but not necessarily an improved economy.

There can't be evidence that tax increases improve the economy, it's completely irrational. How could people having less of their money to use as they please improve the economy? Is there some margin where government spending can be a short-term loss but a long-term gain? Yes, I don't think that's irrational, but we're long past building roads and water mains. Now we're paying people to form jam bands with musicians, build joke machines, marketing video games to the elderly, and building sidewalks to ditches so I think we're well past that point.

but I think it should only be income taxes, and like I said, the tax code needs to be simplified...the increases should be because of fewer loop holes, not because the rates actually went up...that would be an effective increase in taxes without actually increasing the taxes.

That is what the Tax Reform of 1986 did while cutting rates nearly in half.

[shadowgrin]

Actually, I was attacking Shadowgrin by saying he'd sleep with her.

Hey, how do you handle a vagina with teeth? With a steel penis, that's how. Don't be envious if you don't have one.

[benji]

Wow, sexist.

Even if she had to ruin Top Chef this week, and was completely vapid in her critique.



First GIS result, srsly. Maybe?

[Wall St. Peon]

Again, I don't disagree with you Ben, but they're going to raise taxes no matter what...which means I'd prefer they were within the ranges I mentioned that have not, historically, crippled the economy. I understand what you're saying...and I never said that higher taxes improve the economy, I just said that there's a point where you can have the higher taxes without negatively affecting GDP. There's evidence that if taxes are raised to a certain level, it doesn't cripple expansion.

Hey, how do you handle a vagina with teeth? With a steel penis, that's how. Don't be envious if you don't have one.

I assumed it was because the teeth on something that wrecked would be so far apart that only a tiny wang would be unaffected - even if it is made of steel.

[Paul23]

The hatred and mistruths here are simply too much to prove wrong anymore. The facts are facts, deny them if you wish but the rest of us live in reality and are educated and understand that raising taxes causes economic booms as resources are directed away from wasteful things like drugs, porn and McDonalds and put into useful things like education and health care.

Stop being greedy moochers who want to steal from the American people and contribute to society for a change. The rest of us are subsidizing your lives, the least you could do is pay your fair share.

[Wall St. Peon]

The hatred and mistruths here are simply too much to prove wrong anymore. The facts are facts, deny them if you wish but the rest of us live in reality and are educated and understand that raising taxes causes economic booms as resources are directed away from wasteful things like drugs, porn and McDonalds and put into useful things like education and health care.

Stop being greedy moochers who want to steal from the American people and contribute to society for a change. The rest of us are subsidizing your lives, the least you could do is pay your fair share.

Couple of things...you ignored everything that we said and focused on something that you obviously know nothing about. As for "mistruths," listen to what you're saying in your own posts. How about listing "every" economist that you say supports what you're saying? I can agree that you can raise taxes to a certain point and not cause the economy to contract, but there's no evidence to suggest that the raising of taxes (see Benji's posts) actually creates a boom...all booms have come from the private sector...not the government.

Also, you contradict yourself; the "greedy moochers who want to steal from the American people" are people like you...you want to steal money from me to pay for someone else who is "mooching" from the system...right? Take money from the "haves" and give it to the "have-nots?" Is that what you're going for here? It'd be better if they contributed to society by becoming productive members of society...you know, by going to school and graduating, getting jobs and trying to advance, paying more in local taxes to improve their school system, going to college, getting off food stamps, getting off welfare, etc. etc. etc. The "moochers" are those who you're trying to help...I'm not leaching off society, society is leaching off me. I'm fine with paying my share, but where does it stop? Why do I work 70 hours a week? Is it to provide for everyone else? No, it's to provide for my family and myself and the charities I volunteer my limited time and money to...in addition to the absurd amount of taxes I pay, quite willingly.

Shouldn't everyone else pay their share as well?