White people...

[Nihilist_santa]

Finland is an interesting example amongst the Nordics. They just introduced a Milton Friedman inspired negative income tax rate as a means of cutting their social welfare programs. If the Nordic socialist models are the example for America why are they currently pivoting away from those models?

[Lictor]

Having children out of wedlock is a money train/only source of income for number of people on that graph, of course they will continue to reproduce.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lune will utter some non-sense about causation and correlation then will continue to unknowingly produce more information that charts the decline of America in most areas to the rise in leftist policies.

dont worry, lune is on the same side of the argument as you when it comes to shrieking about browns [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean look. There is only one United States, and it is suffering from a plague of leftist Keynesians. I can't prove that things would have been better without this insanity. If you choose to believe that a decline in union membership is a bigger factor than government corruption, cultural marxism, and bad monetary policy, although I believe that is utter foolishness I can't prove you are wrong.

I don't believe declining union membership is a bigger problem than government corruption and bad monetary policy. I just believe it is a big problem that is just a symptom of changing political attitudes in the US that correspond to the rise of hyper-individualism / Reagonomics type beliefs, ie: "Government is bad, I shouldn't have to pay taxes, fuck you I got mine".

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All I can say is that the leftists have had their way with the US since 1960 in practically every area (the Republican party has been too busy giving money to the 1% to put up any real resistance). If union membership is down, do you really think that outweighs the massive, massive shift to the left we've experienced? Do you really think we've outperformed the rest of the globe economically since 1960? Is the US a better place to live than it was then, relative to the rest of the world? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that life satisfaction as measured by the GSS is actually down since then, but google is failing me.

I'm not sure how you got the idea the US has experienced a massive shift to the left, because that stands contrary to everything I know about politics over the last 60 years. Reagan and his cronies revolutionized politics in America and nothing has been the same since then; Republicans have been a lot more libertarian (in their rhetoric, not in their actions-- they still bloat the government and fuck with monetary policy), and taxes have become a third rail issue, even for Democrats. The US is so so much further to the right than our peers, it isn't even funny. How can you tell me we're more liberal than Canada, Germany, or any other advanced economy? If leftists had their way, people like Bernie Sanders wouldn't have spent their entire career advocating a brand of European liberalism and being ignored by the American house of grifters.

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Finland is an interesting example amongst the Nordics. They just introduced a Milton Friedman inspired negative income tax rate as a means of cutting their social welfare programs. If the Nordic socialist models are the example for America why are they currently pivoting away from those models?

This is just comical. Finland experimenting with a form of basic income-- and you say that's a pivot away from socialist policies? It's universal fucking welfare. If it's something Milton Friedman advocated, I guess there's one point I agree with Milton Friedman. Basic income kicks ass; we should do it here.

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

dont worry, lune is on the same side of the argument as you when it comes to shrieking about browns [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here's my stance on racial issues: Judge someone by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

[Raev]

I didn't say that the US was to the left of Canada/Europe etc, I said we have moved to the left of where we were 60 years ago. For example, Federal Safety Net claims that spending on poverty programs has increased by a factor of 30 since 1960. Are you seriously claiming this is not a move to the left? Note, of course, that the percentage of people in poverty has not changed. Obviously we just need more!

[Lune]

60 years ago, in the 1950's, the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was a "progressive conservative" and had a policy of massive government spending on infrastructure, and expanded various New Deal programs.

As late as the 1970's, Republican Richard Nixon's achievements included the Clean Air Act, OSHA, and the establishment of the EPA. He proposed a private health insurance employer mandate, and the first form of Medicaid for poor families.

Do these Republicans resemble the Republicans of today? Would they be elected by the current GOP electorate? Reagan absolutely decimated politics in this country. I just don't understand how you can think we have gone left. Even our top Democrats today are as conservative as Eisenhower was. The faction of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan radically changed the politics in this country, dragging both the GOP and the Dems to the right.

Further, of course safety net spending has increased. These institutions are massively corrupt and inept, and are just another avenue for crooks to plunder the country. I can't imagine how much money insurance companies are skimming out of medicare and medicaid (bloated cost), developers/lenders are skimming out of HUD, colleges skim out of Pell Grants (bloated tuition), etc-- all with the cooperation of their Democrat cronies.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

60 years ago, in the 1950's, the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was a "progressive conservative" and had a policy of massive government spending on infrastructure, and expanded various New Deal programs.

As late as the 1970's, Republican Richard Nixon's achievements included the Clean Air Act, OSHA, and the establishment of the EPA. He proposed a private health insurance employer mandate, and the first form of Medicaid for poor families.

Do these Republicans resemble the Republicans of today? Would they be elected by the current GOP electorate? Reagan absolutely decimated politics in this country. I just don't understand how you can think we have gone left. Even our top Democrats today are as conservative as Eisenhower was. The faction of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan radically changed the politics in this country, dragging both the GOP and the Dems to the right.

Further, of course safety net spending has increased. These institutions are massively corrupt and inept, and are just another avenue for crooks to plunder the country. I can't imagine how much money insurance companies are skimming out of medicare and medicaid (bloated cost), developers/lenders are skimming out of HUD, colleges skim out of Pell Grants (bloated tuition), etc-- all with the cooperation of their Democrat cronies.

You keep trying to tell us about wolves in sheeps clothing. We get it. You dont seem to realize that what you are pointing out is that the neocons and Randians and some others that have hijacked the conservative groups and republican party are not really representing conservatism or libertarianism. These guys are straight up Trotskyites that were opposed to the USSR. Kristol is on record numerous times talking about this and he is the grandfather of neo-conservatism. He gleefully recounts his times as a member of the precursor to the Young Communist League I forget what it was called then. He was part of a clique of Jewish revolutionaries and leftist thinkers that became influential with the right.

All you are showing is the failures of the left.

[Daywolf]

baaahahaha goes the sheep in wolves clothing baaaahahahahha followers of wolves in sheep clothing hehe

Seriously, worse thing about Reagan, the neocons stuck him with Bush as VP. Oh then he got shot te-he-he. Just think, we could have wound up with a Bush earlier and still have the USSR around, Jeb might even have looked good at some point. Just endless Neocon wars to be had, and for dems too apart from the few that actually woke up.

This problem is inherited, has been ongoing over 100yrs. Though probably better propelled thanks to Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda techniques. So well played by star struck political figures, society is further sliding into self-censorship and total denial of the stage being set right before their eyes. How many lights do you see? Woof!

[maerilith]

Can't wait till I can haz office.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

60 years ago, in the 1950's, the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was a "progressive conservative" and had a policy of massive government spending on infrastructure, and expanded various New Deal programs.

As late as the 1970's, Republican Richard Nixon's achievements included the Clean Air Act, OSHA, and the establishment of the EPA. He proposed a private health insurance employer mandate, and the first form of Medicaid for poor families.

The rhetoric does not matter. What matters is the absolute quantity of socialist programs. And I just linked you a study showing that quantity was far lower in 1960.

Originally Posted by Lune

Further, of course safety net spending has increased. These institutions are massively corrupt and inept, and are just another avenue for crooks to plunder the country. I can't imagine how much money insurance companies are skimming out of medicare and medicaid (bloated cost), developers/lenders are skimming out of HUD, colleges skim out of Pell Grants (bloated tuition), etc-- all with the cooperation of their Democrat cronies.

So if you agree that the government is terrible at everything it does, why do you want more of it? Shouldn't we attempt to clean up the government we have now before we expand it?

Also, I think both the Democrats and the Republicans of the past 30+ years are full of shit. In the end they are only interested in transferring money to themselves and their banker puppet masters. Don't you find the reaction of the Democratic party to Bernie rather enlightening? I mean, he is for all of the things they SAY they are for: more socialism, more benefits for poor people, etc. And yet the party hates his guts and is going to use the super delegates to nominate Hillary who will keep the banker gravy train rolling. Ditto for Trump; you would think less immigration, 2nd amendment rights, lower taxes, etc would go over really well with the Republicans. Instead the establishment went nuts trying to give the nomination to someone, anyone, who would lose to Hillary. The Koch Brothers have been claiming to be libertarian, but now we know they are the wolves in sheep's clothing when they talk about supporting Hillary.

Again: if you think our government is corrupt, why do you want more of it?