Many Republicans are very poor actors when it comes to emotion-based social issues, and they keep muddying what could be a very clear message about finances by constantly inserting social hot-button issues into the debate. Planned Parenthood is not a real fiscal problem. In the long run, it accounts for a pittance of what we spend, and serves as a distraction from the real problems of social security and especially medicare. This is not an endorsement of providing public funds to support Planned Parenthood, just a reasonable observation.
The issue of government in funding organizations such as Planned Parenthood is a real topic worthy of a significant debate, but it is a philosophical debate about the role of government in society and it should be addressed as such. Inserting social and philosophical topics into a fiscal debate only leads to embarrassing moments like the one Kyl just had.
This is how the Republicans will the lose the moderates, and hence the election, in 2012. Unless they start following the example set by New Republican leaders like Paul Ryan and Chris Christie, and leave the social issues to be addressed on their own merits.
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 04-13-2011 at 03:50 PM.
Senator Kyl is still a dipshit for pulling numbers out of his ass though and has lost a lot of credibility.
Here is my question...it seems like the economy and the government's role in society are the two main issues right now. Specifically, we have this huge problem of government's role and influence on schools, taxes, inserting religion into policy, etc. And then there is the economy, which is a complex problem well beyond my understanding. What I do know is that the poor keep getting poorer, and only 1% or so of the entire population control like 95% of the wealth. That shit is FUCKED UP. Tables are going to be turned within the next 20, 50 or maybe 100 years. If history is any indicator, there will be some revolution or uprising or turn of events
The economy is in a vice grip, and in turn that runs off into DC with all the lobbying and policy stuff. So DC does is influenced by the top 1% without giving consideration to everyone else.
That's my peasant-minded understanding of what is up, at least. So here is my question:
Is there a legitimate (ie controlled) media racket that just focuses on dumb hot button bullshit like this planned parenthood abortion issue? It seems like the political race and the election has boiled down to hot air campaigns (I will bring Change /Obama) and minor issues like abortion. No one wants to address the real problems like our country's continuing decline in global education, our inane military spending, our expanding and highest in the world prison rates, and the huge gap between the 1% and the rest of the population.
I'm just so sick of it all I withdrew myself from most things politics. That and I honestly am not really educated to throw down any real fight or argument.
I guess my second thought is that maybe we should not be blaming the Republicans completely. Part of the issue is the way the media chooses to highlight certain things and make those the focus.
For example, why was 5 seconds of dumbassery (even if it was pretty epic...3% and 90% are way off) turned into a media focal point?
I think you could argue things the other way around too though. Maybe the Republicans and Democrats are not so different in their overall influence on the economy (since you need to consider the role of Congress AND the President). And maybe it really is the minor social issues that differentiate the two parties. This is probably a simplification though, since there are different types of Republicans and Democrats.
And then there is the economy, which is a complex problem well beyond my understanding. What I do know is that the poor keep getting poorer, and only 1% or so of the entire population control like 95% of the wealth. That shit is FUCKED UP.
That is both true and false. The rich are getting richer, but the poor are not getting poorer. In fact, the exact opposite is true, or at the very least it is far more complicated that we make it out to be. I could try and explain, but this guy does a much better job than I ever could.
Quote:
The economy is in a vice grip, and in turn that runs off into DC with all the lobbying and policy stuff. So DC does is influenced by the top 1% without giving consideration to everyone else.
That I cannot argue with. As the government has become more involved in business, business that can afford it have become FAR more involved in shaping government. That is why most tax policy changes screw small businesses while huge corporations are barely affected, regardless of the party in power. Example: GE barely pays any taxes at all, and they are very much in bed with the Obama administration.
Quote:
Is there a legitimate (ie controlled) media racket that just focuses on dumb hot button bullshit like this planned parenthood abortion issue? It seems like the political race and the election has boiled down to hot air campaigns (I will bring Change /Obama) and minor issues like abortion. No one wants to address the real problems like our country's continuing decline in global education, our inane military spending, our expanding and highest in the world prison rates, and the huge gap between the 1% and the rest of the population.
I think a lot of the sensational news casting is a result of a 24/7 news cycle, and the transfer of news from education to entertainment.
That and I blame baby boomers. I teach generational identities as part of one of my classes, and baby boomers have essentially destroyed the objective thought process. Its all emotion based on the right and left. Its amazing to watch old talk shows from the 70s like Donohue (YouTube him) that appealed to the Veteran generation, compare them to today's shows aimed at boomers, and see just how far we have fallen.
Anybody can just make up a random statistic and people will believe it at face value. 38% of all people know that.
Yes, and that goes both ways, including arguments about how the rich are soaking the poor. Example: A common fact thrown around by the left is that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing. That's true, but what does that really mean?. The GAP is growing, but that does not mean that the poor are getting poorer. It means the rich are gaining wealth at a higher rate than the poor, but the poor are gaining wealth well above the rate of inflation. (I believe over the last 30-40 years (inflation adjusted) the rich have grown at 70%, but the poor have grown at about 30%). Hence the gap, and how those who wish to abuse statistics can do so for political gain.
Another "fact": The middle class is shrinking. Yes, it is, but levels of what are considered poor have remained relatively stable over time. So what is happening to the middle class? They are graduating to upper middle class, not dropping to the poor. Again, this is all about how people define the classes to drive statistics. If we use a modern, political definition of poor, or an overly rosey definition of the upper middle class, we can create whatever class war we wish.
Most of this is caused by another myth: There is only so much wealth to go around. I disagree with this economic world view for reason I've briefly touched on (and the vast increase in wealth after the emergence of the industrial age). If you believe there is only so much wealth to go around, then when you hear the rich are getting richer you automatically believe the poor must be getting poorer. Where else could the wealth be coming from from? Simply put, they created it.
\
Personally I think the fact that we have redefined poor over the last century reveals more in the way of prosperity than impoverishment than statistics ever could. My dad grew up with an outhouse and a communal sink for 7 siblings and they considered themselves working class.
Now if you can't afford a data plan for your cell phone or cable TV you're one step above homeless.
Note: Any information I post without a source linked is from personal recollection, so I may misremember the exact numbers, but the jist of it should be on point.
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 04-14-2011 at 01:03 PM.
Many Republicans are very poor actors when it comes to emotion-based social issues, and they keep muddying what could be a very clear message about finances by constantly inserting social hot-button issues into the debate. Planned Parenthood is not a real fiscal problem. In the long run, it accounts for a pittance of what we spend, and serves as a distraction from the real problems of social security and especially medicare. This is not an endorsement of providing public funds to support Planned Parenthood, just a reasonable observation.
The issue of government in funding organizations such as Planned Parenthood is a real topic worthy of a significant debate, but it is a philosophical debate about the role of government in society and it should be addressed as such. Inserting social and philosophical topics into a fiscal debate only leads to embarrassing moments like the one Kyl just had.
This is how the Republicans will the lose the moderates, and hence the election, in 2012. Unless they start following the example set by New Republican leaders like Paul Ryan and Chris Christie, and leave the social issues to be addressed on their own merits.
In my view, the problem is that the social conservative movement within the Republican party, a movement that I rather dislike, controls a significant amount (honestly probably a majority) of the funding for most Republican candidates. I would trace this phenomenon back to the time of Barry Goldwater warning of the negative consequences of "selling out" the party to evangelical Christians.
I'll just say in here, that I have the utmost confidence in your country, and it's people - to do the right thing, and elect President Donald Trump.
__________________ Fingerbang:
1.) The sexual act where a finger is inserted into the vagina or anus. Headbang:
1.) To vigorously nod your head up and down.
Now Playing: Shut the hell up and quit asking me questions
Posts: 3,412
Re: Where Republicans Fail
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
That is both true and false. The rich are getting richer, but the poor are not getting poorer. In fact, the exact opposite is true, or at the very least it is far more complicated that we make it out to be. I could try and explain, but this guy does a much better job than I ever could.
I like how he says that data doesn't give any information about the "absolute condition" of the poor, but then goes on to throw out meaningless numbers that don't account for inflation or the lifestyle of the poor in this country. (Not to mention it's serverely out-dated)
I'm not saying he's wrong, it will take some research, but the time period he took his data from was prior to the time where redistribution of wealth to the rich by the government started to become the politically popular thing to do. AKA the whole trying to build the economy from the top down instead of the bottom up.
What I would like to see is real data on... let say, the 21-29 age group in the 1970's vs now. What percentage of people are the head of household, what percentage of people have fair credit scores, what percentage of people have full time jobs. In the 70's was it easier for a man to go out and get a high enough paying job to where he could support a house wife and kids? Maybe we could seperate the data for males and females.
If the poor makes so much more money now, how does that compare to the inflation? Did the percentage go up more then the cost of a loaf of bread, gallon of gas, etc?
Maybe it's the MIDDLE class that's getting the sour end of the stick here, while the poor is coming up and the rich is moving away.
Etc etc etc. The terms rich and poor are relative, and the value of money changes.. so the only thing worth comparing is the lifestyle.
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
Where Republicans Fail
Linear Mode
