Stupid is as stupid does and stupidity votes Obama

[snoopy369]

So now currently existing taxi businesses can't pay the interest on the loans they took out to buy the medallions because new competitors have driven down revenue?

That's why you do it slowly, over a course of 20 years. I also picked the number arbitrarily - while that is likely what a government will do (boo), hopefully some economists could figure out the number that would likely NOT screw up revenues immediately but only reduce slightly each year, still ending within a reasonable timeframe.

[snoopy369]

Conservatism exists for the purpose of making poor idiots vote to help the rich. Those who fully embrace conservatism live in an alternate universe.

This is absolutely not true. You can disagree with the GOP all you want - I certainly do - but economic conservatism (which is what you're referring to in these conversations) is not by definition in favor of the rich, nor against the poor. Free markets are what created the middle class out of previously poor people, a few hundred years ago. The belief that the government is not generally good at determining prices/economics/etc. is not inherent to the rich or the poor, but is simply an opinion. Poor immigrants who want to be able to work freely without the government telling them what they can or can't do are conservatives. Conservative economic policies, in general, favor poor people improving their lot - allowing small businesses to grow unfettered and street vendors to fill a niche. That guy who sells fruit at the entrance to Lakeshore Drive on 57th can thank conservative economic principles for allowing him to do that, rather than telling him it's too dangerous and he has to fill out a form to do that. (Well, he probably does have to fill out some forms, as this is Chicago...)

The fact that the GOP is not exactly aligned with economic conservative ideals is only relevant in criticizing the GOP, not criticizing conservatism. I disagree with HC, to some extent, as well - the GOP is not really all that aligned with conservative economic principles, though they are more so than the Democrats - but that's a different question entirely.

[Jaguar]

Yes, let's talk about car policies. I'll see your anger about Democratic policies for automobiles and counter with the fact that the GOP thinks poor people should either ****ing die or pay off outrageous medical bills for the rest of their lives.

Houses are the most expensive things Americans own. Cars are the second-most expensive. These are not trivial, and I am pointing to real-life examples of the current leader of the Democratic party literally destroying these or otherwise depriving people of them.

You are doing a damn fine job of beating up a strawman, though.

I support SCHIP, a program that gives health insurance to uninsured children. I support Social Security in some form. I support progressive taxation - as do most Republicans. We support quiet, non-intrusive, common-sense policies to help the poor. Democrats support regulatory monstrosities that compel the government to hire more lawyers for six-figure salaries.

What world do you live in?

One where we observe these two truths.

(1) The US GOP occupies a unique place in the world - no political coalition, anywhere on earth or at any time in history, has been so consistently market-oriented as the United States GOP. Leftists often comment [negatively] about how unique the US GOP is in this world.

(2) Despite this unique force [apparently] hell-bent on crushing the poor, the United States fares better, economically than virtually every state on earth - even the wealthiest, and even when we only look at the very poorest of each country. Canada - not even a particularly leftist country - has about 200,000-300,000 homeless people. If the United States were as poor as Canada, we'd have 2-3 million homeless! Thank god that we don't. In fact, we're nowhere close to that number. (There are about 600,000 homeless in the US, a number that could be reduced if Obama would stop depriving people of houses.)

We also live in a world where we've done this same experiment time and time again - given one half of a country to leftists, and the other half to capitalists. Time and time again, we see the same results. South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, West Germany.

This isn't a posturing game. There is actual human suffering here - and HC and I have done our due diligence on observing, empirically, who perpetuates it, and who alleviates it.

[-Jrabbit]

Observation: The actions of a city government should not be conflated with the policies of any national political party.

This is a fundamentally dishonest method of argument.

[giblets]

This is absolutely not true. You can disagree with the GOP all you want - I certainly do - but economic conservatism (which is what you're referring to in these conversations) is not by definition in favor of the rich, nor against the poor. Free markets are what created the middle class out of previously poor people, a few hundred years ago. The belief that the government is not generally good at determining prices/economics/etc. is not inherent to the rich or the poor, but is simply an opinion. Poor immigrants who want to be able to work freely without the government telling them what they can or can't do are conservatives. Conservative economic policies, in general, favor poor people improving their lot - allowing small businesses to grow unfettered and street vendors to fill a niche. That guy who sells fruit at the entrance to Lakeshore Drive on 57th can thank conservative economic principles for allowing him to do that, rather than telling him it's too dangerous and he has to fill out a form to do that. (Well, he probably does have to fill out some forms, as this is Chicago...)

The fact that the GOP is not exactly aligned with economic conservative ideals is only relevant in criticizing the GOP, not criticizing conservatism. I disagree with HC, to some extent, as well - the GOP is not really all that aligned with conservative economic principles, though they are more so than the Democrats - but that's a different question entirely.

If we're talking about the GOP we can't isolate economic issues. Plenty of people outside of the conservative twilight zone think markets are great but don't hold Ben Kenobi-esque views on the matter.

[Jaguar]

Observation: The actions of a city government should not be conflated with the policies of any national political party.

This is a fundamentally dishonest method of argument.

http://council.nyc.gov/html/members/members.shtml

There are forty-seven Democrats on the New York City council, and four Republicans. Who is responsible for this policy? Aliens?

[snoopy369]

Observation: The actions of a city government should not be conflated with the policies of any national political party.

This is a fundamentally dishonest method of argument.

Why is that? Cities are microcosms of the nation, but the policies are still the same, and often cities have far more power to implement direct economic policies, while the Federal Government has to do it indirectly and at a larger scale - thus making it difficult to see how effective it was (as it's often effective in some areas and not in others). Cities are much more homogeneous and thus simpler to see the results of economic policies.

[snoopy369]

If we're talking about the GOP we can't isolate economic issues. Plenty of people outside of the conservative twilight zone think markets are great but don't hold Ben Kenobi-esque views on the matter.

You're more then welcome to discuss the GOP and criticize their policies all you want. I am one of these people outside of the twilight zone. I specifically disagreed with your portrayal of 'conservatism'. The combination of the word 'conservatism' with social issues the GOP supports is a misnomer, as those policies are generally in favor of government regulation. Further, the poor are probably more likely than the rich to support the social issues the GOP supports. Specifically in portraying the GOP as a rich person's party, it can only be economic issues that are up for discussion.

[giblets]

You're more then welcome to discuss the GOP and criticize their policies all you want. I am one of these people outside of the twilight zone. I specifically disagreed with your portrayal of 'conservatism'. The combination of the word 'conservatism' with social issues the GOP supports is a misnomer, as those policies are generally in favor of government regulation. Further, the poor are probably more likely than the rich to support the social issues the GOP supports. Specifically in portraying the GOP as a rich person's party, it can only be economic issues that are up for discussion.

If you're like Jaguar then you're not a complete loon who would **** up the lives of the poor. Unfortunately a significant portion of the "Tea party" are and are replacing reasonable Republicans with nutjobs.

The social conservatism of the GOP is to get votes from people who aren't rich. It's a "rich person's party" because of their obsession with cutting taxes for the rich.

[Asher]

This would be when I tell you to back away slowly, lest you get dragged into this conversation any deeper.

It's truth.

Did you hear Romney talk?

[Asher]

This isn't a posturing game. There is actual human suffering here - and HC and I have done our due diligence on observing, empirically, who perpetuates it, and who alleviates it.

I'm sure you've observed the human suffering in upper class Virginia very thoroughly to come to such conclusions. I always say: Privileged teenagers are those best in a position to ascribe the causes of human suffering and their solutions.

[Asher]

http://council.nyc.gov/html/members/members.shtml

There are forty-seven Democrats on the New York City council, and four Republicans. Who is responsible for this policy? Aliens?

You clearly do not comprehend his point. Please read it again.

[snoopy369]

If you're like Jaguar then you're not a complete loon who would **** up the lives of the poor. Unfortunately a significant portion of the "Tea party" are and are replacing reasonable Republicans with nutjobs.

Again, what does any of this have with 'conservatism'? Criticize the nutjobs who deserve criticizing, not the perfectly reasonable economic philosophy

[snoopy369]

I'm sure you've observed the human suffering in upper class West Virginia very thoroughly to come to such conclusions. I always say: Privileged teenagers are those best in a position to ascribe the causes of human suffering and their solutions.

When has Jaguar ever visited upper class West Virginia?

[Guynemer]

\
(2) Despite this unique force [apparently] hell-bent on crushing the poor, the United States fares better, economically than virtually every state on earth - even the wealthiest, and even when we only look at the very poorest of each country. Canada - not even a particularly leftist country - has about 200,000-300,000 homeless people. If the United States were as poor as Canada, we'd have 2-3 million homeless! Thank god that we don't. In fact, we're nowhere close to that number. (There are about 600,000 homeless in the US, a number that could be reduced if Obama would stop depriving people of houses.)

Depends on how you define "homeless". There are an additional estimated 1.5 million who have used temporary housing and/or shelters on a yearly basis, which would put us nicely into that 2-3 million number you posted.