Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

D vs. R and L vs. C

Posted Jan 12, '13 at 10:26pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,300 posts

Knight

does it matter that they take a half year to form a coalition, if you get a mature and open system for the next 3 and half year in return? and a closer bond between the citizens and politics.


Yes it does. Because coalitions fall apart, or often make for strange bed fellows. Britain has a coalition complete with a kingmaker, look at it!

I'd like raised taxes + less spending to pay off foreign debts. Not sure which side that falls under.


D. Just you might not agree where they cut.
 

Posted Jan 12, '13 at 10:36pm

BigP08

BigP08

1,469 posts

.
I'd like raised taxes + less spending to pay off foreign debts. Not sure which side that falls under.

That sounds closer to the Democratic approach. Republicans like the idea of trickle down tax cuts which they believe will jump start the economy so quickly that it creates greater revenue. Speaking personally, I don't think there's an end all answer that works in every situation. I think trickle down works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't, and pump priming works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. It really depends on what the intended goal is. Tax increases do generate immediate revenue generally, but it may or may not hurt the amount of money being circulated through the economy depending on the situation. Tax cuts do generally help the economy, but not always to the point where the intended revenue can be generated, which creates a debt problem, which hurts the economy (because we have to pay for it somehow). So I think seeing the intended benefits is important so we can know when they work.

As far as the specifically Republican vs Democrat attempt, I think whether you raise taxes on the rich or cut taxes on the rich should depend on what their current state of affairs is. For instance, if they're in a "spend money to make money" situation, the more money they have, the more they'll spend. If they're in a "hang onto every penny I've got" situation, raising their taxes and reinvesting it into the economy may be the only way to get it back into the economy. So I like both sides when they've got it right but I generally don't like the logic they end up using to convince people to agree with them. For instance, I thought that during the 2012 presidential debates, both Romney and Obama used arguments that were flawed. Romney kinda went in the direction of "Obama was president, things aren't better" without always drawing causality. Obama kinda went in the direction of "Bush cut taxes on the rich, therefore tax cuts on the rich always hurt the economy" without trying to draw causality for the 2008 Recession. I don't blame them for having to dumb it down this way in the debates since they only have so much time and can't draw it out in detail. I think their websites and speeches should have gone into more detail economically, though.
 

Posted Jan 13, '13 at 12:17am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,300 posts

Knight

I think their websites and speeches should have gone into more detail economically, though.


If you understand economics, it would make sense, even if it was watered down. There are plenty of more deep analysis online.
 

Posted Jan 13, '13 at 1:41pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,130 posts

Yes it does. Because coalitions fall apart, or often make for strange bed fellows. Britain has a coalition complete with a kingmaker, look at it!

so have we. and tho it is true what you say. i still prefer the diversity and the ability to find the party that is close to your own ideas. over the black or white system.
i think mostly because in a black or white system, there is no 3rd dog that can walk away whit the bone while the 2 others are fighting over it. nothing keeps them focused on what really matters, if you know what i mean.
 

Posted Jan 14, '13 at 6:49am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,300 posts

Knight

i think mostly because in a black or white system, there is no 3rd dog that can walk away whit the bone while the 2 others are fighting over it. nothing keeps them focused on what really matters, if you know what i mean.


Oh, a two party system is just as bad. I was comparing it to a system where one party reigns supreme.
 

Posted Jan 14, '13 at 6:41pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,130 posts

Oh, a two party system is just as bad. I was comparing it to a system where one party reigns supreme.

if that 1 party ****s up then there is no other party to fall back on.
it depends allot on the party if that system works yes or no.
 

Posted Jan 15, '13 at 8:00am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,300 posts

Knight

if that 1 party ****s up then there is no other party to fall back on.
it depends allot on the party if that system works yes or no.


Course. But I have absolute faith in my Party. 65% of the vote, you'll never get those figures in most countries.
 

Posted Jan 15, '13 at 4:06pm

xAyjAy

xAyjAy

4,903 posts

why not both? even if that might not be possible...

 

Posted Jan 15, '13 at 7:17pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,130 posts

Course. But I have absolute faith in my Party. 65% of the vote, you'll never get those figures in most countries.


so what system does your country really use?
the black or white. then 65% isn't that special.

a real democracy whit multiple partys of wich your party turned out to have 65% of the vote.

or a 1 party system like china or venezuela. where voting is kinda for the show because well... there is only 1 party.

these are the systems. i dunno what system you talk about. 1st you say 1 party but then you say it was voted into power. so there must be more then 1 party.
what system do you support?

why not both? even if that might not be possible...

you answered your own question.
 

Posted Jan 16, '13 at 6:35am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,300 posts

Knight

so what system does your country really use?
the black or white. then 65% isn't that special.


Multiple parties, actual corruption free elections but the people genuinely support the ruling party.

these are the systems. i dunno what system you talk about. 1st you say 1 party but then you say it was voted into power. so there must be more then 1 party.
what system do you support?


Let's put it this way. The ruling party is respected, even grudgingly by most people here; there are elections and all, but the opposition is weak because no one wants to campaign for anything, the people know it.
 
Reply to D vs. R and L vs. C

You must be logged in to post a reply!