| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sab
United Kingdom
912 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Oct 2008 : 15:03:34
|
Interesting link on past American Presidents with African blood.
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/content.php?show=13698 |
The world would be a poorer place if it was peopled by children whose parents risked nothing in the cause of social justice, for fear of personal loss. (Joe Slovo - African revolutionary) |
 |
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2008 : 22:27:01
|
kayjatta
No, that is not true at all. If you look at the quantitive stats, that may be true. But the reality, republicans are usually reason for growth. Democrats are consumption focused. They usually benefit from the growth due to previous republican administration. For example, Clinton's prosporous years are due to two term Reagan, one term Bush growth based economic policies. WHen you applied growth based policies, you don't see the result immidietly. Usually it takes years. When Democrats come to power, they benefit previous administration growth base policies and 'spread the wealth'. What you are saying is really confilict with economic theories. Social Democrats focus 're distribution', fiscally conservatives 'focus on growth. That is the fact in economic doctrine. You are the first person stating, leftist economic policies being more successful in growth. The growth numbers tend to increase after a few years. Like republican invest, the results usually happens during the democrats government. And if you add the increasing spending due to democratic policies, the growth even increase during the democrats. But that is due to previous administration.
For your second argument, may i remind you economic policies are not facts, they are preferences addressing to different interests. As a younger person with paying a lots of tax, reliying less on social spending by government, I want to keep my tax money. I do appreciate income re-distribution to provide social justice and equality, at the same time, I don't want that to go to far. I would like to have the option of keeping my money to manage my health insurance and private education for my daughter instead of public one. Obviously, those who rely social assistance, public health and education may support obama. Like I said my opening argument, every individual have different reason to vote. I have my reason to vote for obama, others would have different reasons to vote or not to vote.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2008 : 22:30:39
|
For example, a muslim would be better position to vote for Republicans if they are living in USA. Obama has pro-Gay policies, support pro-choice. Republican have social policies in homosexuality and abortion matching islamic agenda. Can anyone see my point?
Also, if a muslim are out of america, they may support obama, just like me, as Obama has less hawkish policies. No? |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2008 : 22:33:27
|
quote:
Jambo,Obama is not a saint.His past is not whiter than white!
musa
what do you mean? I found this comment to be very interesting. What is wrong with the whiteness? |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
musa pembo
United Kingdom
154 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2008 : 23:27:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by turk
quote:
Jambo,Obama is not a saint.His past is not whiter than white!
musa
what do you mean? I found this comment to be very interesting. What is wrong with the whiteness?
Turk,all I was trying to say was that Obama is human and to err is human,he may have dabble in drugs,but the sooner he realises his mistake,he decided to kick the habit,that is a sign of common sense.I hope and pray he wins,that will be a breath of fresh air,I am fed-up with the policies of George W.Bush which will be a continuation if(God forbid)John McCain was to win.This election will be dubbed "Peoples Power" versus "Old Boy network Plus vast wealth in the hands of the Republicans".That is why Obama is not taking any thing for granted,urging his workers to get the voters out and for them to vote for him solidly.What God has destined no man born of a woman can change.This man was destined to lead his Country.Wishing him the very best of good fortune on the 4th November,2008. |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2008 : 06:11:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by turk
kayjatta
No, that is not true at all. If you look at the quantitive stats, that may be true. But the reality, republicans are usually reason for growth. Democrats are consumption focused. They usually benefit from the growth due to previous republican administration. For example, Clinton's prosporous years are due to two term Reagan, one term Bush growth based economic policies. WHen you applied growth based policies, you don't see the result immidietly. Usually it takes years. When Democrats come to power, they benefit previous administration growth base policies and 'spread the wealth'. What you are saying is really confilict with economic theories. Social Democrats focus 're distribution', fiscally conservatives 'focus on growth. That is the fact in economic doctrine. You are the first person stating, leftist economic policies being more successful in growth. The growth numbers tend to increase after a few years. Like republican invest, the results usually happens during the democrats government. And if you add the increasing spending due to democratic policies, the growth even increase during the democrats. But that is due to previous administration.
For your second argument, may i remind you economic policies are not facts, they are preferences addressing to different interests. As a younger person with paying a lots of tax, reliying less on social spending by government, I want to keep my tax money. I do appreciate income re-distribution to provide social justice and equality, at the same time, I don't want that to go to far. I would like to have the option of keeping my money to manage my health insurance and private education for my daughter instead of public one. Obviously, those who rely social assistance, public health and education may support obama. Like I said my opening argument, every individual have different reason to vote. I have my reason to vote for obama, others would have different reasons to vote or not to vote.
TURK, are you kidding me? This is the most absurd argument I have ever heard in my entire life time. You mean the Clinton era prosperity is a result of Reagan's growth policies (which did not result in economic growth during his 8 years in office, and not during Bush sr.'s additional 4 years-12 years of Republican rule) until after Clinton comes to power? Do you also mean that the vast surplus created by Clinton, that has been squandered by Bush Jr. is a result of Republican growth policies?
The American experience under Republicans is this: the hallmark of republican economic philosophy is "trickle down" economics, (call it "supply side economics" or "Reaganomics" if you like) which in theory sounds great but in practice it increases poverty- poor wages, poor work conditions, poor environmental management, poor healthcare, to name a few. The idea that when the top 5% (capital owners) become more and more prosperous, their wealth will somehow trickle down to the 95% of the working class is proven to be not the case."Trickle down" economics in itself is a contradiction of capitalism. It did not work under Reagan, it did not work under George Herbert Walker Bush, and it did not work under George W. Bush.
But in America, we are half capitalists and half socialists. Our most successful presidents in terms of economic and social policy are those who find an optimum balance between these two theories. The success of Clinton and other Democratic presidents is that they moderated the excesses of capitalism while they avoided beeing seen as socialists. On the other hand, their counterparts who are the proponents of hands-off capitalism oversee an insatiable profit drive that eventually crashes the entire economic engine of the nation. That is the greed and corruption we are all talking about today ...
I want to end by telling you that if you "want to keep your tax money" (that means you do not want to pay tax, right?), then you should not drive on public highways, or benefit from many public-funded programs and projects. Please see the link below:
http://anotherdamnblog.com/index.php/economic-performance-by-party-in-the-white-house/ |
Edited by - kayjatta on 31 Oct 2008 06:21:13 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2008 : 06:34:42
|
That shows your lack of economic knowledge. Because average 50 % of americans agree with me. Anyway. Yes, I do mean leftist economic approaches does not have much growth agenda. The prosperty is illusion as the government spending increase provides temporary growth. It is like borrowing from the future. Clinton's economic wealth was due to Reagan and Senior Bush's growth. And the current economic problem really combination of Clinton's expensive social policies and Bush's political mistake, iraqi war. You are correct. Not much growth during Reagan's years, because it was after Socialist Carter, so economic growth should have been slow and Reagan's economic policies were affected by final knockout punch to Soviet Union. Bush situation was different though. Normally bush had good economic policies, but bad foreign policies. The iraqi war was contributing factor for this current crisis.
Tax is essential for economy. However, I am against my tax money to be wasted by government. You still don't get it. Your vote is for your interests. For example, if you were depend on welfare, unemployment insurance, health benefit, of course you would vote for Obama's policies.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 31 Oct 2008 06:58:04 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2008 : 07:21:31
|
| Thank you for your time Turk ... |
|
|
|
njucks
Gambia
1131 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2008 : 09:49:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by turk
............. I am against my tax money to be wasted by government. You still don't get it. ............. For example, if you were depend on welfare, unemployment insurance, health benefit, of course you would vote for Obama's policies.
Rubbish!
Turk , again i totally disagree with you. you seem to look only at growth, growth growth! fine but what about the real issues of health, education.
Government has to have a leading role in education, scientific research, healthcare etc. Are you implying that unless you have a bank account like a Turkish phone number , people with disabled children should have to pay for the healthcare cost of those children. No everyone can particiapte in this growth because we live in the real world.
providing good schools, not just buildings, but paying techers well, building hospitals, paying doctors and nurses well, funding research in Univeristies has nothing to do with wasting public funds.
in fact, unlike Kay, i will tell you that there is nothing wrong with socialism. In Europe you will find many political parties called Social Democrats!
whilst i believe in the triumph of the individual, to allow for creativity, innovation and excellence, we must encourage the building of communities this is the only thing that can keep peace.
what you fail to mention is when do you have the highest crimes rates, social unrest, unemployment,homelessness in the US. You dont seem to be worried when your tax goes to stupid CEOs who are actually just ''cooking the books''. |
|
|
|
jambo
3300 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2008 : 10:07:01
|
musa, you gave a long list against mccain and party, BUT canyou give me a reason to vote for BIDEN, is he clean |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2008 : 10:10:37
|
| Biden is clean, if a politician is ever clean ... |
|
|
|
musa pembo
United Kingdom
154 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2008 : 17:19:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by jambo
musa, you gave a long list against mccain and party, BUT canyou give me a reason to vote for BIDEN, is he clean
Jambo.Please note that I have nothing personal against John McCain,I was just stating the fact which is readily available if you care to spend the time on it.It is call POLITICS.Regarding Biden,I have not given much time to him yet,If Obama wins the election,then it will become necessary for us to dig his Past,since he would be a heart- beat away from the presidency.For now,I would assume,he is clean otherwise the Republican Party and Supporters would have expose him by now.The same goes for Obama.
Thanks and have a nice day. |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2008 : 21:18:02
|
Njucks.
Rubbish? How about Japan. Conservatives have been in the power for last 40 years. Are you claiming the japan lacks hospitals, scientific research fundings? Conservative economic poltics are legimate. Thatcher was conservatives. Merkel is conservative. Italy has conservative government. Are these people dumb voting for conservative politicians? You can't portray them as rubish. That is ridiculous. Not social democrats or socialist? You seem like you are leftist which is fine with me. I don't portray them as garbage politician, obviously there is a need for social democrat polcies as well. The society needs re-distribution too as sometimes growth policies may cause social injustice.
Unlike you, I don't see ideologies as my ultimate objective. I see them as a tool for my individual or collective interests. I thought the title of this forum would give you a hint. Every individual vote based on their interests.
I never vote for ideology. Different circumstances motivate my vote differently. For example, if I was in Gambia, I would vote for a political platform of Ataturk in early my country. It was close to Socialist. I see the ideologies not objective but as tool for the ultimate goal. What is best for me and my family determines whom I vote.
While I do not agree with Obama's leftist polices I am supporting obama for another reason. First of all I am not leaving in USA. The economic policies not directly impacting me. DO you live in USA? So who cares about social democrat policies. I am not idelogist. I support Obama because of his foreign policies.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 31 Oct 2008 21:54:57 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2008 : 21:22:41
|
Musa
What do you think about democrats pro-choice, pro-gay agenda? And conservatives pro-life and traditional marriage agenda? |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2008 : 22:15:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by turk
That shows your lack of economic knowledge. Because average 50 % of americans agree with me. Anyway. Yes, I do mean leftist economic approaches does not have much growth agenda. The prosperty is illusion as the government spending increase provides temporary growth. It is like borrowing from the future. Clinton's economic wealth was due to Reagan and Senior Bush's growth. And the current economic problem really combination of Clinton's expensive social policies and Bush's political mistake, iraqi war. You are correct. Not much growth during Reagan's years, because it was after Socialist Carter, so economic growth should have been slow and Reagan's economic policies were affected by final knockout punch to Soviet Union. Bush situation was different though. Normally bush had good economic policies, but bad foreign policies. The iraqi war was contributing factor for this current crisis.
Tax is essential for economy. However, I am against my tax money to be wasted by government. You still don't get it. Your vote is for your interests. For example, if you were depend on welfare, unemployment insurance, health benefit, of course you would vote for Obama's policies.
TURK, I agree with you ,what you say is total common sense. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
