Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
That too. It teaches you how to create jobs in a sense of running your business. it does not make you an expert at predicting job trends across all industries or macroeconomics.
whuich is why I always find it funny when local missouri politicans lately run on their record as a "job creator"
edited 24th Oct '12 10:13:54 AM by Midgetsnowman
Especially since Macro economics works almost exactly opposite micro economics. Ideally we'd want to avoid anyone who focuses too much on microeconomics trying to suddenly shift to macroeconomics. It should be seen as a negative because their mindset is directly in opposition to where it should be for their new position.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickThat's a failure of logic, too. To accept that Romney will improve our lives is to blindly accept Reaganomics, which was supposedly debunked when Bush Sr. was defeated in '93. Trickle down theory. Keep the bigwigs happy and maybe they'll offer the poor some scraps.
At least the well-off have a legitimate reason to vote Republican. My boss loathes Romney, even though he bluntly admits that a Republican government is better for him financially.
I honestly suspect that it's Stockholm syndrome, or plain extortion. Vote for me or my friends will lay you off.
I'm a skeptical squirrel
This. Macroeconomics makes sense. Once you think about it.
If you're told outright that macroeconomics works the exact opposite of balancing your checkbook, theyll think you're crazy.
I mean, hell, I've had people look utterly confused when they find out how banks account their money.
edited 24th Oct '12 10:45:22 AM by Midgetsnowman
Well I finally got my ballot,looks like Anderson isn't on the ballot,....Roseanne Barr is though.
Some guy named Thomas Hoefling made it to
Lots and lots of propositions,and I really should take a quick look at the local stuff.
By the way, if you see ads for a site called "momthink.org", it's run by the people behind Intellectual Takeout
. That's their about page there; you can tell which way it leans just by reading it.
Of course, you could just take a guess looking at the relative lengths of their pages on Austrian economics
and Keynesian economics
(or their banner images for that matter), or at momthink.org's list of topics:
Welcome to Mom Think!
The Economy and You
Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)
America's Regulatory Environment
Energy Freedom for America
Constitutional Limits
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)
Missile Defense
America's Allies
America's Adversaries
External Threats to America
Internal Threats to America
For those of you don't feel like guessing:
Some say it's different now than in bygone eras because society has evolved and the world is more complex. In fact, many in the establishment argue that a highly active government, partnered with politically-connected businesses, is necessary in order to have a just and prosperous society in the modern world. At Intellectual Takeout, we do not believe that to be true.
Be assured, a "just and prosperous" society built around a highly-active government favoring special interests is neither just nor prosperous. More to the point, the bill for that society is likely to come due on our generation's watch. The time to take back our future is now.
Intellectual Takeout was founded to take back our future because there is a better way forward. We reach back to deeper truths in order to present what could be, based on individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom with a healthy respect for the important roles family, culture, and religion play in a free society. By doing so, we hope to provide our readers with the knowledge, clarity, and confidence necessary to pursue a bright future.
Let's just say I disagree with the notion that if we stop government involvement in the economym it'll magically get better. Uhh, those government policies were put in place in the first place for a reason, and that's because the markets weren't working right in the first place and needed tweaking.
edited 24th Oct '12 11:21:57 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
I tend to be self-conscious about using "America" in general conversation because it's a bit culturally myopic. "American" is the proper demonym, of course, but the country is the United States of America, or United States for short. I would suggest that the tendency to default to "America" is inversely proportional to education, but I have no statistics to back that up.
I would also guess that more educated liberals tend to have a worldview that encompasses more than just the U.S. and as such are indeed more culturally sensitive.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Let's be fair: That's just really bad luck on Mitt's part. How was he supposed to know this guy would say something like that the day after he got an endorsement from Romney?
At least the well-off have a legitimate reason to vote Republican. My boss loathes Romney, even though he bluntly admits that a Republican government is better for him financially.
I honestly suspect that it's Stockholm syndrome, or plain extortion. Vote for me or my friends will lay you off.
The fact that many small business owners who work 70 hour weeks pay more in taxes than the likes of Mitt Romney (who made considerable money exporting the jobs that belonged to those small business' customers) should tell you who's really on the side of the small business owner in America.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Conservative Republicans in Congress are busily shooting themselves in the foot by letting loose their inner crazies. They could very well hand both houses to Obama.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"How did the Palin/Biden debate go? I couldn't bear to look at Sarah on television by that point.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Running a business does teach you how to create jobs...as a businessperson.
It does not teach you how to create jobs as a policymaker.
Speaking of which, running a business also teaches you how to destroy jobs.
edited 24th Oct '12 10:11:56 AM by GlennMagusHarvey