dcsimg The Get Rich Slowly Forums • View topic - A One-Term Proposition? Do we accept?

  GRS Home  Forum Home
Bank Rates Center
   Savings Account Rates
   Money Market Rates
   Highest CD Rates
Insurance Rates Center
  Auto           Health
   Life              Home
Mortgage Rates Center
  Mortgage Rates
  Mortgage Quotes

Last visit was:
A place for Get Rich Slowly readers to ask questions
and exchange ideas
It is currently Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:28 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: A One-Term Proposition? Do we accept?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:32 am 
Moderator

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5402
kombat wrote:
It seems to me that someone who is constantly learning, constantly evolving their position based on new facts and realities, is a GOOD thing, not something to be derided as "flip-flopping."


Absolutely. It was relatively recently that I became consciously aware of the fact that both political parties promote the idea that changing one's position is a character flaw.

I want leaders capable of adjusting their views based on evolving knowledge and social trends. I want them to flip-flop when their thinking is no longer consistent with the evidence.


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: A One-Term Proposition? Do we accept?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:37 am 

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:11 am
Posts: 192
DoingHomework wrote:
Northern, as you know, Sweden has its own right wing extremist party that is gaining prominence, Sverigesdemokraterna (SD). What do you think of this? I'm not asking whether you agree with them, I'm asking what you make of the fact that they getting an increasing amount of support from Swedes who used to be far more liberal. I have my own theories about this but I'd be curious to hear yours.

Sverigedemokraterna ("Sweden democrats") was formed in the late 1980:s, by people from different small time openly racist organisations, like "Bevara Sverige Svenskt" ("Keep Sweden Swedish"). Even though this might seem like a consolidation of multiple different strains of racist organisations/partys not represented in parliament (even though they tried), they did not gain entrence to parliament until 2010. With 339.610 votes out of 6.028.682 (5,7% with blank votes discarded).

What I think of this. Active members of the party seems very, very young, rural and non educated. Even though "Darwin" have guided some of the "not THAT stupid" people to the top of it, you would be amased what some of the others say. Many people say non politically correct stuff that they can´t defend publically, but these guys are often so stupid they do it to journalists. With a video camera up their face. The culprit is often forced to step down and disappear into a non official private life and have no comments. I would say this is evidence A.

The voters on the other hand is overrepresented by the other side of the demographical spectrum. Not seldom old blue collar, former social democrat voters who have a very nostalgic relationship with "the good old fachion Sweden" (which was run by social democrats like Olof Palme by the way). Like all nostalgia it´s a very skewed image of history. During the late 1960:s, 1970:s and 1980:s Sweden was living a dream built on debt, inflation, extreme regulated economy and regular devaluation of the currency. This lead up to our crisis that started through 1985 regulation of credit markets, exploded in 1990-1991, and had us on the ropes up until 1996-1998. Social and political stigmas like this is hard to put in words even in mother tongue, but I would say a series of events during the late 1980:s and 1990:s (murder of Olof Palme, financial crisis, 500% interest rate, huge unemployment) is for swedish social/political discurse maybee somethink like the Vietnam war for the United states. The need for extensive reform in the early 1990:s was massive, and gladly those reforms layed the foundation for Sweden today beeing the 4:th most competetive economy of the world. Event though, given a couple of decades, allowing the nostalgia to wash all the "bad" and hard reality off many of those who took part in building the Swedish wellfare state (social democrats) after the second world war feel abandoned by "the party" (who governed Sweden like 93% of the time 1930-2006). Like most of the western countrys of today (and US is one of the best examples) Sweden had huge and unsustainable pension debt. This system had a extreme makeover in the mid 1990:s, and the consequenses of these reforms have been hitting pensioners bit by bit the last 10 years. Evidence B, bitter senior citizens who feel dicarded, questioning a generous refugee policy and longing for pensions they did not pay for.

Evidence C is quite uncontroversial. Voting for populistic partys picking on imigrant is a tightly linked to economical crisis and austerity. In the start ot the crisis of the 1990:s, more than 10% of swedes voted for the "not so racist but still very populistic and imigrant baching party "New democracy", run by a couple of clowns (quite fun in their own way I should say). Sweden before the crisis of the 1990:s pretty much adjusted the law and the economy to reach full employment as a social measure. Global competetiveness went down the drain and the regultade curency had to be devaluated every now and then. Sweden after the crisis of the 1990:s is another deal. Yes, if you do get unemployed you get a grant from day one, 80% of salary up to (very low) $2.835 a month - but political policy is now very focused on stable inflation, stable public finances and quite alot of respect for the mighty wrath of Adam Smiths unvisible hand. Much more than the US I would say. One of three swedish car manufacturer, Saab, was not saved by the government and went bust in a long process 2010-2012. This makes alot of people in the middle of a structural crisis feel sidelined, and are inclined to listen to extreme political views (see "Tea party").

I would not bet money on Sverigedemokraterna getting into parliament in 2014 and would even bet on that they don´t 2018.

Is that a reasonable answer?


DoingHomework wrote:
I bring this up here because two of the things that the SD wants to do are lower taxes and dismantle for of the social welfare state

That is like saying that the United states is a global beakon of light for free capitalist economy, free trade and so on. Is it 90% of new mortgages given by governemnt owned financial institutions right now? Saying is one thing, playing ball is another. :lol:

The typical "Sveigedemokrat" would say we should send all imigrants home, and thereby saving tons of money so that we can lower taxes on a massive scale. The problem is these guys know nothing (let me repeat that - NOTHING) of economy. The costs of refugees in Sweden is miniscule as a part of the public economy and quite frankly, in one of the biggest countrys in Europe with 9 million sparsely located citizens throwing 1/10 of them out is a BAD idear as far as economy goes (see Mexicans and the US states on the border). At the same time the party is flirting with pensioneers to raise their public pensions, which at something like 1/10 of GDP would hit the economy quite swift. Again - these guys is all hair oil and no socks. They don´t have the slightest clue of how to run a country, you might as well let high school kids run the Federal reserve (well, looking at policy, it actually seems as you do...).

Answer OK?


Last edited by Northern light on Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: A One-Term Proposition? Do we accept?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:54 am
Posts: 636
Speaking of "flip flopping" and Romney's campaign going down the tubes... NPR this morning played a clip of his speech yesterday to a group of senior citizens. He said something to the effect of: "you should all know that Obama cut $716 billion from Medicare, and if I'm elected president I will make sure to put that money back into the program." I guess it's been a talking point for a while now, but it makes my head spin. This guy is apparently calling for the protection/expansion of the nation's single largest entitlement spending program and blasting his opponent for cutting it (which he really didn't, as I understand the facts), while simultaneously arguing against entitlement spending (as he should be as a Republican). I know what he's doing, but this must be the greatest act of political desperation I've ever seen.

kombat wrote:
Some of the questions should have been easy, but the answers were hilariously uninformed, and it made for some great television... In their defense, Canadians are exposed to far, far more US content than vice-versa, so it's by no means a fair test.


I grew up in the state of New Hampshire and later moved south where I've encountered people who think that New Hampshire (and Maine) is actually part of Canada.

Tim


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: A One-Term Proposition? Do we accept?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:27 pm 
Moderator

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5402
timwalsh300 wrote:
I grew up in the state of New Hampshire and later moved south where I've encountered people who think that New Hampshire (and Maine) is actually part of Canada


New Hampshire, New Brunswick, and of course the French-speaking Nova Scotia.


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: A One-Term Proposition? Do we accept?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:58 pm 
Moderator

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5402
timwalsh300 wrote:
Speaking of "flip flopping" and Romney's campaign going down the tubes...


It's kind of like watching a train wreck...

With just a few weeks to go he's in panic mode. We spent all of those rich donors money and will have nothing to show for it. His political career is over. Just wait for the debates. The public will see a stiff stuffed shirt next to a hip guy with style. The Romney campaign even says Barack is one of the best speakers in recent memory while Mitt is a relative clod. It's not going to be pretty.

The rich donors will pull their support and save their money for 2016 when they have to fight against Hilary. She's going to be tough to beat so they'll need all the help they can get.

Even his campaign co-chair sees the handwriting on the wall. He resigned yesterday. They might not be making much of that but c'mon, if you thought the guy was going to win, wouldn't you stick around to have that line on your resume?

Stick a fork in him! He's done.


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: A One-Term Proposition? Do we accept?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:08 pm 

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:34 pm
Posts: 555
DoingHomework wrote:
Just wait for the debates. The public will see a stiff stuffed shirt next to a hip guy with style. The Romney campaign even says Barack is one of the best speakers in recent memory while Mitt is a relative clod. It's not going to be pretty.


Mitt already knows this, which is why he's trying a preemptive strike on the President's character: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/14/romney-president-will-lie-in-debates/.

DoingHomework wrote:
Stick a fork in him! He's done.


I'd like to hope this, but I'm still worried. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: A One-Term Proposition? Do we accept?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:17 pm 

Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1977
DoingHomework wrote:
Stick a fork in him! He's done.

But his running mate will help bail him out! http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-paul-ryan-booed-aarp-20120921,0,6615741.story


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: A One-Term Proposition? Do we accept?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:11 pm 
Moderator

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5402
VinTek wrote:
DoingHomework wrote:
Stick a fork in him! He's done.

But his running mate will help bail him out! http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-paul-ryan-booed-aarp-20120921,0,6615741.story


They're not worried about AARP. Those people are all in the 47% that will never vote for him. Probably as many as 80% of the people in this country are in the 47% according to Yogi Berra.

There is video of Ryan's speech on C-span. Not smart to have video of yourself getting consistently boo-ed.


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: A One-Term Proposition? Do we accept?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:57 pm 

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:31 pm
Posts: 405
Quote:
That is curious. So basically you won't choose a side of the fence? Not sure it will do any good in the long run either.


Oh wow...

A side of the fence? I think people misunderstand the truth about our "two party" system here in America. Its really one party, with only superficial differences separating them.

I voted 3rd party last election, and plan to do so again this year. I object to being told I need to choose a side.


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: A One-Term Proposition? Do we accept?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:49 am 

Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1977
Well Eagle, the weekend has come and gone. I've seen you've already started posting, so I know that the excuse that you haven't had any time isn't going to hold up.

VinTek wrote:
Eagle wrote:
@ DoingHomework – Re: Colonialism - Understanding Obama from the perspective on an anti-colonialist makes a lot more sense than a communist or Muslim as some have claimed he is. The Falkland Islands are relevant because England is (was) one of our few remaining supporters in Europe. It seems to me now that we’ve even alienated England. Further where is the evidence that most English would want to give back the Falklands to Argentina? Is there some study done on the subject?

Oh for pity's sake, where did you get the idea that we've alienated the British and advocated for the return of the Falklands? From that idiotic movie? Even the British know that Obama backs the Falklands remaining in British. Here's an http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9147256/Barack-Obama-backs-Falklands-remaining-British.html in The Telegraph (a British newspaper) about that.

Well?

VinTek wrote:
Eagle wrote:
Obama in my opinion doesn’t mean to merely re-distribute wealth in the U.S. but also across the board in the world.

And the basis for that opinion? Where are your links and facts?

Well?

VinTek wrote:
Eagle wrote:
@ DoingHomework – Re: U.S. Debt - Okay I concede on the W. Bush tax cuts. However, how much has the Obama administration spend on bail outs?

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. Since I'm limited to 1 link per post, you can look up the recipients and the amounts yourself. Obama has only spent TARP funds (including money for AIG and the car companies) authorized by the Bush administration.

So Eagle, how much money did the Bush administration authorized for bailouts?

VinTek wrote:
Eagle wrote:
@ DoingHomework – Re: Jobs & Unemployment - I’d really like to see some hard evidence (or a link would suffice) that points to a reduction in government jobs and an increase in private sector jobs. It would also be very interesting to see data on how many people have just stopped looking for jobs in the last 3-4 years. Further, it would be really great to see on average how much income these new “private” sector jobs provide for citizens. What journals would you recommend?

Try the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a relatively pure look at the data, both on jobs created/lost, and the income provided by the new jobs. And before you even go there, note that a large number of the low-wage jobs are in *ahem* Texas, where the governor there likes to brag about the employment numbers.

And what have you learned from looking at the pure facts without any spin? That DH is right? Remember, you wanted to look at the hard evidence. You asked for it. Now that you've been told where to find it, what did you discover? Did you bother to look? Or were you trolling?

VinTek wrote:
Eagle wrote:
@ DoingHomework – Re: Communism - Please list another President in U.S. history who has been so influenced by Marxists and socialists. Everyone has a right to believe what they want. I just think most Americans have no clue as to who they voted for in 2008 and have the chance to re-elect in 2012.

Why don't you pony up some evidence that the influence is there? You make the assertion, you back it up. And by influence, that means actions such as policy decisions. Guilt by association isn't valid. If you want to go that route, let me know what church you attend; I'll bet I could dig up a bit of dirt there and link you to it.

And your answer is...?


Top
Offline Profile   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Moderators: kombat, bpgui, JerichoHill Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net & kodeki