While true, I think that in four years, when Obama hasn't cured all their ills, perhaps some of these folks will change their tune.

On the flip side, if liberal policies actually bring employment levels to what they were in 2007, and bring the unemployment rate back to under 5%, I may end up voting for a Democrat for the first time in my life in 2016.

Yeah man, Concisely fucking said!!! As child learning speech on foreign'ish soil, i come to the states from Hawaii at age to be well handicapped communication wise. Fracking exercies were "go fish fucking games". But whatever the fuck.. i have limited adult exposure to these fields. Go-Fish and memory games were so fucking off from my phonic difficulty that it is amazing to me that a developed society would have wasted this time. Course a capitalist perverted system will naturally look for loopholes and scapeghosts towards profit. Fuck them. They die and humanity in general gets a major boon. Eat the rich for they eat you. Lol i been drinking and am distracted towards heavy towards resisitance. But then that is my default and truen nature. Pry my way from my dead fucking hands you fuck!!!@

It's amusing to read that while living in a country with over 30% unemployment. Not that I agree with letting it slide, mind you, it's just amusing.

I really do wonder how much of unemployment is due to a bad economy and how much us due to the simple turn away from manufacturing and labor-based agriculture. Same for the income gap, how much of that is due to jobs for uneducated changing from manufacturing to McDonalds?

We have a tough time ahead as the whole Western world acclimates to vast changes in culture and labor. I'm not sure trickle-down works anymore in such a world.

>

Ahhh i try and condense far too much. So.... stupid is as fucking stupid keeps doin. Stupid always dies evolutionary speaking. So what next for human dominates my thinking. Fuck you if you are too fucking sutpid to look past your own bullshit to grow past your own bullshit. We each our own. i'm past mine, before you flick shit my way, make sure you've covered your own fucking shit! i'll brawl dude. But tactical like. If you dont present anything more than shit then fuck you. Time is ticking. We shape future right fucking now. Wake up or go back to your sleep. Goodnight dolts. We begin to cull you now.

14% unemployement here, politicians don't seem to care :D

A lot of that has to do with globalization and automation - forces beyond the control of an individual nation. There are policies that may bring some manufacturing jobs back, but it's likely for the foreseeable future that it won't be what it was.

That's one of the reason liberals don't win elections - manufacturing and the organized labor that went with it was the backbone of the liberal part of the Democratic party.
I think it would be more accurate if you said centrist policies. Democrats are only liberal by the standards of US politics in the since that we've redefined conservative and liberal to go on the new axis that parties have settled on. Compared to much of the rest of the world and our own history, the modern Democratic party is center. For a number of countries it is even center-right. As I wrote in my reply to StingingVelvet the loss of the manufacturing center to globalization and the march of time, was the death knell not only to union power, but also the liberal-wing of the Democratic party as well. That's how the Republican plan for universal health-care became a marxist plot to destroy America from within. :)

Compromise has become a sin to the Republicans and the Democrats are already in the center so that they have no where to move to if they want to compromise. I'm not saying they are the same, far from it, but the political inaction is not because we have an extreme left or extreme right party.

Supply-side economics and demand-side economics are based on the same economic model; they just change different variables, different sides of the equation, to effect changes in GDP. If you don't believe one works anymore, then you tend to invalidate the entire free-market model. Which economic model do you believe would be better?

If you are just saying that you believe that Keynesian demand-side policies would be more efficient than supply-side policies in effecting changes in domestic product, then you may be correct. I don't think that either set of policies have been explored rigorously or thoroughly enough to make any definite decision. As always with economic issues, the Devil is in the secondary and tertiary effects.

The Obama team have been trying a weird hybrid of Keynesian and supply side economics. Spend during a recession, but focus on those who deliver credit to projects, rather than projects themselves.

For all the spending, Obama hasn't really pushed any grand infrastructure plans. Those have been comparatively tepid considering the state of our infrastructure - education as well as classic like power, transportation, etc ... As you yourself have noted the spending by the Administration and the Federal Reserve has been to financial institutions in the form of quantitative easing, or loans and bailouts - some of which we've gotten back, but is still not what is flowing into the coffers of everyday people.

I don't know if it will work eventually, but I guess the traditionalist in me, given the state of our ailing infrastructure, would preferred a little more concrete projects (pardon the pun).

I couldn't agree more.

I don't think the free market is going anywhere or should go anywhere. I am more focused and interested in the individual liberty aspirations of America. We are very focused on rising above and setting out on our own, opposing the European model and Eastern model of societies and families being one large unit. Can our focus on the individual survive in a world where many individuals are made redundant or unemployed due to technological and social advancements?

I'm far from a communist but I am also far from sure a total free market individual-focused society can survive future societal changes.

Do I get you two right that parties should change their policies in order to get into power? If e.g. the republican party will no longer stand for the relígious nuts, then who will?

It just sounds odd that e.g. republicans should become more like democrats, if they want to get back to power. Different parties should stand for different things.

If you believe that Democrats are fiscal centrists, then I probably would be a huge outlier on your charts ;). I am considered ultra-conservative even by U.S. standards. For example, I think that redistribution of wealth, no matter how it is effected, is generally nothing more than state mandated theft. There are few, if any, federal government entitlements or subsidies that I actually agree with. At state and local levels, I am far more open to government funding, however social engineering is something I oppose at all levels of government.

Congrats to the big-O. Let's hope he lives up to the task.

Now, GoG, give us a free game starting with O.

:o)

The morality of it is another matter, I am simply saying you won't be able to hold a nationwide office in America if you piss off Women and Latinos anymore. How you go about not pissing them off or deciding which matters more, principles or elections, is up to you.

The "you" is the candidate, to be clear.

I think that question sums up the ideological war that is occurring in the U.S. as we speak. I firmly believe that people should be allowed, and expected, to try to support themselves. I fear, however, that many people may decide to not try at all if government largesse becomes too great.

It's not about changing their policies, it's about making critical mistakes before you even start your campaign.

Demographic is the key, so GOP has to "offer" something to minorities. They picked up Ryan, but they could've picked up Rubio. How much more sense this would make when you take a look at Florida polls? Bush got more support from minorities (Latinos), because he tried to push an amnesty, and it worked - so there's a way for GOP to get Latinos votes. But they didn't want to.

And it's not about abortion - both Blacks and Lations are major against abortion (and same sex marriages), yet they vote for Obama, who supports it.

And also - you can't build your integrity on contesting something that was your idea ten - twenty years ago. Some call Obama moderate Republican, because some of his ideas are basically similar to those GOP had ten-twenty years ago.