31 Jul 08
Originally posted by WulebgrI take it you're NOT one of the stupid people? Do your nasal passages
It should be clear from the comments that Americans put up with such travesty because even those smart enough to read the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times minimally understand what its saying, and have almost no clue about what it leaves out. Our politicians seem stupid until you compare them to the people they manipulate to get into office.
Rick Shenkman lays it out: http://hnn.us/HowStupidAreWe/book.html
ever fill up when you take a walk on a rainy day? Can you even see to tie a fly...with your nose in the air? Do you uae a double surgeons knot.? What's your tipit length?
GRANNY.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by smw6869Well here we got it... No one likes to be called stupid.
I take it you're NOT one of the stupid people? Do your nasal passages
ever fill up when you take a walk on a rainy day? Can you even see to tie a fly...with your nose in the air? Do you uae a double surgeons knot.? What's your tipit length?
GRANNY.
And to my knowledge Americans are not that stupid after all.
But honestly from this posters point of view : Your business professionals (those I've worked with) don't come across stupid, Your average citizens (those I've met as a guest in USA or those I've Met as guests in my own country) don't come across stupid.
But your politicians do come across as some of the more unfortunate members of your population.
How come ?
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by smw6869I didn't title the book, just referenced it, I doubt the author thinks that Americans are completely stupid about all things, but he documents ways that Americans are stupid about politics.
I take it you're NOT one of the stupid people? Do your nasal passages
ever fill up when you take a walk on a rainy day? Can you even see to tie a fly...with your nose in the air? Do you uae a double surgeons knot.? What's your tipit length?
GRANNY.
I typically read for pleasure such things as Critical Review 18, in which I find:
"The list of things political that typical citizens do not know is daunting. Explaining their ignorance, and using it to explain various aspects of politics, pose serious tests for any theory of pragmatic or political cognition." Russell Hardin, "Ignorant Democracy," Critical Review 18 (2006), 179.
One doesn't start into such articles needing a book to tell them that Americans are stupid on the matter of politics, but that still leaves many questions regarding the effects of this ignorance.
That the United States has its largest deficit in history. that this deficit is a consequence of pathetic economic policies and a senseless war, and that a majority of Americans still prefer to leave National Security in the hands of the party that messed it up almost beyond recovery is clear enough evidence that ignorance reigns.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScheelIntelligent people voted for them? Maybe?
Well here we got it... No one likes to be called stupid.
And to my knowledge Americans are not that stupid after all.
But honestly from this posters point of view : Your business professionals (those I've worked with) don't come across stupid, Your average citizens (those I've met as a guest in USA or those I've Met as guests in my own country) don't com ...[text shortened]... ns do come across as some of the more unfortunate members of your population.
How come ?
GRANNY.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by WulebgrAh, so called intelligent people voted them in? Stupid people aren't that stupid. Stupid people don't vote. Don't blame it on them. Got nymphs?
I didn't title the book, just referenced it, I doubt the author thinks that Americans are completely stupid about all things, but he documents ways that Americans are stupid about politics.
I typically read for pleasure such things as Critical Review 18, in which I find:
"The list of things political that typical citizens do not know is daunting ...[text shortened]... y that messed it up almost beyond recovery is clear enough evidence that ignorance reigns.
GRANNY.
01 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessRecced for clarity of expression and pure common sense, as well as being backed up by the record of America's balance sheet over the past 28 years.
The Republicans seem to always get it backwards. They decide first how much money they are going to receive and then try to figure out how many services they can deliver with the available funds. Inevitably, they find there aren't enough funds available and therefore must issue debt in order to fund those services.
You basically have two options ..
High Services with normal taxes and no debt
OR
High services with low taxes and HIGH debt.
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by uzless"normal taxes"?
No argument there.
Where do you stand though on the revenue side of the argument? As I see it, the governments responsibility is to provide for its people..."for the people, by the people, etc"
To do this, the government takes its cue from the voters and decides what its citizens need in terms of services and then taxes its citizens an appropriate amou ...[text shortened]... with low taxes and HIGH debt.
Why do you guys choose the latter instead of the former??
Seems that it's more likely to be 'Low services with high taxes and low debt' Nah, that would never happen.
GRANNY.
11 Aug 08
Because its good news. In western economies, shrinking governemnt deficits, or even worse, surpluses are signs of very low growth or contraction. As was the case with the Clinton surplus and the recent shrinking deficit just before the economy slowed way down. A return to high deficits signals a return to strong economic growth.
That's bankable for those of you with an inclination to invest.
11 Aug 08
Originally posted by telerionYes. Congress has learned that the people can be bribed with their own money.
As much as we all like to bag on politicians, I'm not sure that everything can be chalked up to their stupidity. Many of them are actually fairly bright. Some are even trying to do a good job (of course plenty are probably crooks too).
I think there's a built in incentive problem that would tend to lead to repeated deficits and large debt. As a hypoth ...[text shortened]... h debt. But many others do not, and the system has a tendency to end up with large debts.
12 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkGosh, it seems Reagan isn't the only one who practices a form of Voodoo Economics. Where on earth do these bizarre ideas come from?
Because its good news. In western economies, shrinking governemnt deficits, or even worse, surpluses are signs of very low growth or contraction. As was the case with the Clinton surplus and the recent shrinking deficit just before the economy slowed way down. A return to high deficits signals a return to strong economic growth.
That's bankable for those of you with an inclination to invest.
Edit: Clinton fixed the economy by reducing military spending and increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% whilst giving most people a tax cut. Bush messed up the economy by increasing military spending and giving the very rich a tax cut. NAFTA was also bad for the US economy, and admittedly President Clinton went along with it but he had to in order to get elected (same with the death penalty). Another problem is the borrowing and debt that private citizens (as well as the US govt) have.
On the balance of things Clinton saved the country and the US owes him a great deal.