Are liberals dumb?

[Deacon923]

We are probably on the same board in terms of plans. Across the board 5% cuts, massive cuts to defense, getting rid of the inefficiency of our health care system which would help reduce entitlement spending. And raise taxes on the top 1%.

All of this, plus the Boomers are going to have to give back some of their Social Security and Medicare goodies. They did a great job putting these awesome retirement plans in place for themselves, then in their late 50s they wrecked the economy and started retiring. They forgot to have enough kids and create enough jobs for their kids to pay the tab for their retirement benefits. Time to give a little back to get us over the demographic and financial hump they created.

 

[Lectro]

Just take the liberal view of the climate debate. The smug assholes are clearly in denial over the past 15 years of zero warming as well as the truly egregious formulations of a few "experts" and their computer models.

Nobody more gullible than a hack from the academy.

 

[dmcheatw]

1.5-2.5% of our population have a net worth over 1mm, so I think we could tax that demographic...like tax the crap out of it, and make up for a lot of lost revenue while causing relatively little societal problems, especially if the tax hikes were done over a few presidential terms. we could also cut defense spending MASSIVELY and our standing in the would wouldn't change much, as our NATO allies still spend more than enough to exceed the military capability of either china, russia, or india, for one thing. Granted the way we conducted foreign policy would change dramatically, but our actual security could ironically increase as a result of defense cuts.

the problem with implementing these two things has not so much to do with the dumbness of america, but it's under-educatedness. that and the same 2% with all that money has convinced themselves they not only need it, but it's good for the overall economy. psychology shows that once a certain degree of material has been acquired, more of it has no effect on any of the life metrics that matter, and losing it (so long as you don't fall into poverty) will not adversely affect your life on the metrics that matter beyond temporarily. Sociology tells us, otoh, that this sort of wealth disparity leads to unnecessary societal complications, and economics tells us that capitalism will become all but dysfunctional if the disparity grows too much. so the sciences are fairly clear on what needs to be done to the super-wealthy class. and, just like white privilege, they're still going to disproportionately enjoy the fruits of society despite the high tax rate.

anyway, if this thread is about intelligence then we need to be talking about IQ test scores and other experimental measures of intelligence. Solving the debt and budget problems will require someone with excellent interpersonal skills, creativity, marketing/campaigning, communications, economics, and other skills/expertise and a HELLUVA LOTTA LUCK/Right place right time that are not the same as raw intelligence. such a person is likely to have above average overall intelligence, though, and it's worth noting.

if people haven't figured it out, intelligence as defined and measured scientifically is a much more narrow thing that the colloquial meaning, and is of a lot less real world value. IQ scores are better at defining the limits of an individual's aptitude in an area than they are at predicting how well someone performs on a task outside the test. a truly statistically significant difference between IQ scores of conservatives and liberals apparently exists, but it does not reliably translate to better X performance on nearly anything.

glad i had to counter my own argument for the conservatives.

 

[dmcheatw]

Just take the liberal view of the climate debate. The smug assholes are clearly in denial over the past 15 years of zero warming as well as the truly egregious formulations of a few "experts" and their computer models.

Nobody more gullible than a hack from the academy.

i had looked at the front page of NOAA when checking the weather earlier today, and the headlines on the front page make your post ironic or even comedic, in light of the overall topic in the thread.

 

[PhDeac]

Wow. Just checked it out. Crazy stuff. I'm sure the deniers have an answer though.

 

[TownieDeac]

lectro has had his ass handed to him about climate change dozens of times on this board, but he's more smug than any climatologist or scientist or policymaker i've ever seen

 

[jhmd2000]

We are probably on the same board in terms of plans. Across the board 5% cuts, massive cuts to defense, getting rid of the inefficiency of our health care system which would help reduce entitlement spending. And raise taxes on the top 1%.

Along with everything, Defense needs to be cut and many other things need to be amputated entirely. That said, nothing changes the flow of the river until we pull our heads out of entitled-asses with this entitlement [sic] bubble. People on the left rail against the climate change deniers (you and I have discussed my position that issue many times), but it seems to me that as a matter of statistical fact we can show that the so-called entitlements systems are on a collision course with insolvency.

The entitlement-insolvency is more than mere speculation or even really good science. It's ninth grade math. We need the same disdain for the insolvency deniers that many harbor for the climate ostriches. President Bush tried to do it in his second term and Congress (then still in control of his party) balked. To me, the spending of the middle four years of the Bush Administration form the headwaters of the Tea Party. That was a missed opportunity and our country will suffer because of it.

If we had a "Great Compromise of 2025" (let's get Hillary out of office and the Worst Generation in the ground, and then we can get back to governing our Country like it matters what we do with our money), we need to do the cuts the left doesn't believe are possible matched by the tax raises the right resents. Doing one without the other is shifting the problem rather than solving it (see, Reagan, Ronald; Clinton, William), failing at one and failing to try at the other (see, Bush, George W.) and ignoring it entirely (see, Obama, Barack) isn't working. Our government was designed to compromise, and instead people are just digging in.

 

[WakeandBake]

I know that we could link videos of naieve liberals being naieve, but none of them sit around all day convincing themselves that they're God's gift to political discourse. Leave Peggy alone.

What is amusing to me is that the liberals who are sure(!) they're the smartest guys in the room have no answer for the $5 trillion in debt that has piled up during this Administration. None. They have plenty of blame (for others, naturally) and plenty of proposals to kick the can down the road by borrowing even more money to give backpay for work not performed by nonessential employees, but no actual answers to the problem. Smartest guys in the room, the nonconformists are either dumb, racist or likely both.

So I ask you, what's the Administration's plan to pay back the debt they've run up? When is the planned course correction, or have we simply stopped asking that question?

We give you answers every day for months and you dismiss them out of hand, and then you come with this thread? Shame on you

 

[BeachBumDeac]

We give you answers every day for months and you dismiss them out of hand, and then you come with this thread? Shame on you

If your answers don't adhere to exactly what jhmd thinks should happen, then you've given NO answers.

 

[jhmd2000]

We give you answers every day for months and you dismiss them out of hand, and then you come with this thread? Shame on you

That's funny, but unfortunately not very true. What is the Administration's plan to reduce the national debt, and when does the action on that plan start?

Before: Debt constitutes 74.1% of GDP
Present (year 5): Debt constitutes 103.9% of GDP

Maybe we need a better plan (which is the point of the OP).

 

[jhmd2000]

If your answers don't adhere to exactly what jhmd thinks should happen, then you've given NO answers.

I think that if your plan is reduce the national debt, it shouldn't increase it by 33% in sixty months. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.

 

[WakeandBake]

That's funny, but unfortunately not very true. What is the Administration's plan to reduce the national debt, and when does the action on that plan start?

Before: Debt constitutes 74.1% of GDP
Present (year 5): Debt constitutes 103.9% of GDP

Maybe we need a better plan (which is the point of the OP).

I was pretty sure the plan was to grow the economy through domestic investment to raise revenue, and raise taxes on the 1% to raise revenue. Some cuts, but certainly not "austerity to prosperity" - which appears to be the cockamamie never-worked-before idea du jour you are still advocating. Super-economies are nothing like households so your analogy sucks hairy ball sack.

But, by all means, dismiss that as a non-answer - despite the empirical evidence of that type of plan being successful - and go with your theoretical "austerity will work this time I just know it because I hate government" idea.

 

[jhmd2000]

I was pretty sure the plan was to grow the economy through domestic investment to raise revenue, and raise taxes on the 1% to raise revenue. Some cuts, but certainly not "austerity to prosperity" - which appears to be the cockamamie never-worked-before idea du jour you are still advocating. Super-economies are nothing like households so your analogy sucks hairy ball sack.

But, by all means, dismiss that as a non-answer - despite the empirical evidence of that type of plan being successful - and go with your theoretical "austerity will work this time I just know it because I hate government" idea.

I'm not dismissing the answer, I'm watching the math. This is year five. It isn't working. I'm looking for ideas that move the number.

 

[WakeandBake]

I'm not dismissing the answer, I'm watching the math. This is year five. It isn't working. I'm looking for ideas that move the number.

Haven't really done any of it because every sensible idea put forth by reasonably sane politicians/leaders don't even see the light of day because of the constant idiotic pull to the extreme right from a small but mathematically significant group of nitwits who are fucking us all in the ass without a condom. This is the stagnant government wet dream of the gubmint haters. This is the Shining City on the Hill where government is off the backs.

 

[TownieDeac]

conservatives are only interested in the debt when a liberal is in charge

 

[Shorty]

All of this, plus the Boomers are going to have to give back some of their Social Security and Medicare goodies. They did a great job putting these awesome retirement plans in place for themselves, then in their late 50s they wrecked the economy and started retiring. They forgot to have enough kids and create enough jobs for their kids to pay the tab for their retirement benefits. Time to give a little back to get us over the demographic and financial hump they created.

I can totally relate to the antipathy toward Social Security and Medicare, but I don't understand why the Baby Boomers are always blamed. The Baby Boomers did not create either program. SS was created ten years before the first Boomer was born. It was amended in order to add recipients to the program nine times before the first Boomer was old enough to run for Congress.

The oldest Baby Boomers were nineteen when Medicare was created in 1966. Saying "They did a great job putting these awesome retirement programs in place for themselves..." is disingenuous. If you want to blame someone, blame the GI and Silent Generations for these two disasters.

That said, Boomer-led Congresses should have done something to address the oncoming problems. They've been well documented for a long time. But there are plenty of Gen Xers in Congress now who are doing nothing about them either. SS and Medicare have always been political sacred cows. No one has the courage to do anything meaningful that will be painful to some voters. We need to raise the income cap. It's silly to stop taxing income for SS at $113K. If someone earns $200K, they should be taxed on the entirety of their earnings. And we'll have to reduce benefits, probably through means testing.

And if you want to blame someone for the "demographic and financial hump" (no pun intended) blame the Silent Generation. They made all those babies from 1945 to 1964. Something Millennials aren't doing a very good job of either. The US replacement birth rate is at its lowest level since it has been tracked.

 

[ChrisL68]

1.5-2.5% of our population have a net worth over 1mm, so I think we could tax that demographic...like tax the crap out of it, and make up for a lot of lost revenue while causing relatively little societal problems, especially if the tax hikes were done over a few presidential terms.

So you want to punish success and people who has spent their lives making sacrifices to build up a net worth?

My parents have a net worth of that amount, and let me tell you, it doesn't mean that you don't have to make tough financial decisions in the elderly years. Not all net worth is as liquid as others, for one thing.

 

[Lectro]

lectro has had his ass handed to him about climate change dozens of times on this board, but he's more smug than any climatologist or scientist or policymaker i've ever seen

You will live eat the largest ice sandwich ever served and you'll be left with Albert Gore's carbon based jizz on your prom dress.

It will go down as undoubtedly the biggest God Damn Fraud ever perpetuated on a bunch of wide eyed fucking hucksters. Get ready for the cold years coming you stupid mother fuckers.. -and "Dance!" when they conveniently change the tune. I look forward to your ridiculous gyrations you bunch of fucking college stooges.

 

[dmcheatw]

So you want to punish success and people who has spent their lives making sacrifices to build up a net worth?

the shortest answer is yes. the social sciences across disciplines are in consensus that the amount of wealth your parents have accumulated vis-a-vis most others is a bad thing for society as a whole. it's a reality your going to have to deal with, the question is are you going to look at it as "punishment," or not. I'd like to elaborate on this at length later, but for now i'd just say it's a lot closer to saving America than punishing your parents, and if they could sign off on it, then the nation owes nothing less to people like them than they do to the founders themselves.

I can appreciate that nobody just got handed money out of the sky or owns a money tree. Your parents got to where they are by, generally speaking, being savvy. That said, they almost assuredly also enjoyed a host of benefits they don't even realize were conferred on them.

My parents have a net worth of that amount, and let me tell you, it doesn't mean that you don't have to make tough financial decisions in the elderly years. Not all net worth is as liquid as others, for one thing.

i'll agree with the notion that not all worth is equally liquid if you'll agree with the notion that the word "tough" is extremely, exteremely, subjective.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Once again, the biggest problem with the climate change discussion is that it was originally put forth as "global warming" rather than the appropriate "global climate change." I thought most intelligent people now realized that the focus is on the larger fluctuations in the changes in temperature and its impact on the earth rather than a literal "warming" of the earth which will go unchecked in perpetuity.