There's a pretty easy way to tell the difference between me and the current incarnation of the conservative movement in this country. If my only two choices were John Huntsman and Dennis Kucinch, I'd vote for the former. This is assuming I must choose. Now, given a choice between Barack Obama and Michele Bachmann, who do you suppose the right would vote for if they had to choose?
If you had to choose, who would YOU pick?
Not only does the answer speak volumes about who is more open minded but it also torpedoes the "both sides" argument.
18 comments:
Not only does the answer speak volumes about who is more open minded but it also torpedoes the "both sides" argument.
What?! You argue like a 5 year old!
I am assuming you picked Obama on the second which means you SUPER FAIL! It does speak volumes that you would pick a proven incompetent leader over some lady that is a bit strange. You outed yourself just fine.
Would depend on the likely makeup of Congress for me. Nearly above all else, I'd vote to avoid having either party own all 3 branches of government. Absent such a consideration, I don't know because I don't know anything about Bachmann. Is she crazy or something? Economically, Obama is pretty awful and since that is my primary concern with any occupant of the White House, Bachmann would have to be worse or flawed in some other way such that I'd prefer Obama.
I don't understand how the president gets the blame for the economy. Most of the jobs that are gone were lost before he became president. He was handed a disaster and I'm not sure any one could've done any better. Libertarian ideas likely would've resulted in higher unemployment.
Of course, you also assume that the president can control the free market. He can't nor should he. That's the nature of our system. So why not blame the captains of industry for all the problems? They were the ones that caused it after all. Or are they above criticism?
>He was handed a disaster and I'm not sure any one could've done any better.
Your opinion, of course, and quite poorly informed as you've amply demonstrated when you talk about economic topics on your blog. To my thinking: he was handed a bad situation and made it quite a bit worse than it needed to be. Technocratic delusions of the ability to tweak just *this* or *that* to get the desired results just never seem to die, no matter how many times they fail.
>Of course, you also assume that the president can control the free market.
Wow - thats impressively high on the "Mark just made something up" scale, even for you. Nothing I've ever said has remotely implied that. What the president does have the power to do (to be fair, it greatly helps to have a Congress that goes along, which is why I don't ever want the R's or the D's to have the whole thing) is to constrain the free market either by explicit laws and regulations, or by creating uncertainty about the future. That causes the market to do a much poorer job of producing things like jobs, wealth, and prosperity. You know, all the things we like. You can just ignore this point though, because we've already seen that business expert Mark knows better than to be fooled by all this uncertainty and law crap.
>So why not blame the captains of industry for all the problems? They were the ones that caused it after all.
Oh - it's now every industry that caused it, not just the financial industry? Weird though - Obama can't control the free market, and yet you seem to think that the captains of industry can control it. Has it ever occurred to you that the 'captains of industry' aren't exactly god-kings either?
I don't understand how the president gets the blame for the economy.
Really? You mean you don't remember your own howling about all the faults of Bush on the economy (and everything else) just a couple of years back? Oh wait, I get it - it isn't the presidency in general you were talking about, it was your idol that you were defending. Leave Barack Alone!!!
As for the choices: I don't really know much of anything about Huntsman, but Kucinich is a certified loon - so I probably take the chance on Huntsman. I also don't know much about Bachmann aside from what you talk about. If she really is as dopey as you make her sound (and for all I know she is), then I would probably choose Obama over her.
Fortunately, I am never actually limited to such choices. I can always vote for a candidate that might not win, but is not the lesser of two evil idiots.
I don't know Mark, why don't you tell us just what in your opinion is so wrong with Bachmann?
quite poorly informed as you've amply demonstrated when you talk about economic topics on your blog.
And yet no real responses based in economics when you respond to them. Just personal attacks. That says a lot, Hap.
made it quite a bit worse than it needed to be.
Well, most of the major economics experts were saying that he did what he had to do. What if he had done exactly what you would have wanted and we had 20 percent unemployment? That was what was predicted by people who know far more about economics than you and I do. Many have said that without the stimulus things would've been worse. It is true that we will never know for sure but just as a hypothetical what would you do if your economic theories in action failed? That answer is easy for me. I'd change.
constrain the free market either by explicit laws and regulations, or by creating uncertainty about the future.
Yet it was lack of regulation that caused our problems. You really need to admit that, Hap, otherwise you are simply being negligent in your critical thinking.
From a purely factual and reasoned point of view, how does a president create uncertainty? What's the scientific principle at work here? It seems to me that's highly subjective and entirely based in the emotional arena known as fear. I can't say as I blame you for using it as it has always been an effective tool for you guys.
Has it ever occurred to you that the 'captains of industry' aren't exactly god-kings either?
Of course they aren't. In fact, if they are good capitalists, they are amoral, right? Their goal is to maximize profits by any means necessary. Some try to avoid the law and do so. Others (the financial sector) try to come up with new instruments that are beyond regulation to maximize profit. One this is certain, however, they have more control over the private sector than the president does. Or do you think the government does?
I guess I'm still wondering why the president gets all the blame for a problem he didn't create and is continually being made worse by greedy babies in the private sector. They aren't hiring because they are making money without the labor. And why should they? That's simple economics, not the phantom menace of uncertainty. It can't possibly be that the captains of industry...say it ain't so...are exercising their enlightened self interest, right? Well, everything will just work out because when people do exercise their enlightened self interest everything works out perfectly. That's what Adam Smith told me in 1776 so it must be totally true in 2011.
Guard Duck, the problem with Bachmann is that she is woefully incompetent. This incompetence comes from the fact that she is a true believer. People like Palin and Romney don't really believe half of what they say--they just know how to play the hits for the fans. Bachmann really believes in what she says as do many on the right. I don't think that most of you are aware of how dangerous people like her are and how much support she has in this country. You chide me and say that they are just the "voices in my head" or that "both sides have loons."
I hope you never have to find out what these people would do in reality.
OK, so Obama will say anything it takes to get elected? Is there anything he says that we can take at his word? Is that the kind of politician you want to vote for?
Or are you implying that it is only scary for you if someone on the opposite side believes?
Not at all. That's one of the reasons why I would vote for Huntsman over Kucinich. Even though Huntsman is on the opposite side from where I am at, he's not a true believer like Kucinich. The difference between Kucinich and Bachmann, though, is power. She has a ton because there are more people following her and that's why the both sides argument doesn't work. The right encourages people like Bachmann and the left wishes Kucinich (like Nader and Buck Johnson) would just go away.
Even though I agree with some of what Kucinich says, he's not competent, is really off on so many issues, and just a complete moron...just like Bachmann.
As far as the president goes, I don't think he will say anything to get elected. In fact, he says and does things that will make it more difficult for him to get re-elected.
Well, most of the major economics experts were saying that he did what he had to do.
I love it - "most" and attributed to none, not even to Kruggie. Just wave your hands there some more M - you can keep yourself and the yippee dogs convinced with that.
What if he had done exactly what you would have wanted and we had 20 percent unemployment?
What IF the sun explodes tomorrow - what do we do then? Shouldn't we do something about that before its too late?
Many have said that without the stimulus things would've been worse.
Wait, "many"? I thought it was "most".
Yet it was lack of regulation that caused our problems.
Hosanna in the highest! No need for facts when you got faith brother!
In fact, if they are good capitalists, they are amoral, right?
No, but that was what Marx said.
That's what Adam Smith told me in 1776 so it must be totally true in 2011.
Lovely, why don't you tell us what has changed about human nature in that time. How are people fundamentally different now from then?
Actually, juris, it was Milton Friedman who said that, not Karl Marx. The word "economics" wasn't in use yet in the time of Adam Smith so I would say that's a big difference.
Way to fuck him up Sasquatch! He won't be posting soon after that uber-netburn!
You refudiated everything he said in two sentences!
Jaysus sasquatch, why do you even bother? No it wasn't Friedman, it was Marx who did not blame capitalists for being capitalists because they were a necessary part of the system - and it was the system, not the people, that Marx wanted to change. Of course later Marxists would discover that to change the system you DO have to change people, but that's another story.
Originally, economics was part of "political economy" as a field of study, so the term has been around a lot longer than your little brain can apparently comprehend. The field split and specialized into economics, sociology, poly sci in the latter part of the 19th century. Contrary to your deep liberal understanding [snort], Smith knew what he was talking about.
"Even though I agree with some of what Kucinich says, he's not competent, is really off on so many issues, and just a complete moron...just like Bachmann."
OK. That's a reasonable statement. If we get rid of the moron part of course...
""Even though I agree with some of what Kucinich says, he's not competent, is really off on so many issues, [...] just like Bachmann."
Ok. So they are BOTH extremist viewpoints, from your point of view. What exactly are you bitching about?
The % that disagree with you?
Shut the fuck up and change your life to suit your thoughts.
And yet no real responses based in economics when you respond to them.
Sweeting bleeding baby jeebus, Mark. I can't count how many detailed posts that included countless more links that you just handwaved away as "conservative dogma". Shit, you even completely reverse yourself from post to post on some ideas, such as how much influence a president has upon the economy, depending merely upon the rhetorical needs of the moment (R == bad, D == sweet yummy goodness). Sometimes you can't even remain consistent within the same post, but you airily dismiss anyone who points out such nonsense as too mentally deficient to understand your brilliance (probably because they're sucking so much corporate cock).
Shit, you even completely reverse yourself from post to post on some ideas
Like cutting the corporate tax rate.
And then screaming about how corporations aren't paying enough taxes.
I'm surprised that M doesn't embrace more "conservative dogma" at least some of the time - because when you believe in any-and-every thing you can't ever be wrong!
What if he had done exactly what you would have wanted and we had 20 percent unemployment?
These "many economists" who claim that if not for the stimulus we'd have 20% unemplyment now... aren't those the same "many economists" who, before the stimulus, said if we did nothing we'd have to face the horrors of 8% unemployment?
I'm kind of wondering why you take their word for it, considering the accuracy of their last prediction.
It's a pity that you can't spot for yourself how flawed your comparison is.
I honestly don't know if Michelle Bachmann is as nutty as Kucinich, but it might be good for you to bring up some actual evidence rather than expect everyone to just assume that it's so.
But the assumption that Obama is as moderate as Huntsman? That's a pretty tough comparison to justify... at least anywhere outside of Netroots Nation.
Post a Comment