Quote:
Originally posted by BGCarrera32
I just about fell off the chair reading the boldface. You got a great sense of humor dude. :D
|
It's very cute to mischaracterize liberals, but even in those caricatures you will find essentially this same characteristic being accused. I have many characterizations/caricatures which paint libs as folks who are frozen in analysis, while conservatives just pull out a gun and blast the problem to smithereens. As though that simpleton perspective is appropriate, but analysis of the various complex angles of the problem is painted as inappropriate. So, don't try to pretend that libs do not have the reputation of being analysts, even over-analysts. Even you cons say that. Unless someone like me says it, in which case it's a new opportunity to pretend like everything is simple and funny.
On a side note, I used to be a Republican and bought into the "supply side economics" stuff and the notion that what's good for business is good for the rest of us. On its face, it seems like a sophisticated concept. Cut business some tax breaks, which they can use to create jobs and produce more widgets, so now more folks are earning and buying. And the libs were characterized as just hoping gubmint will take care of everything. The cons were hoping the gubmint would stay out of it, so that this elegant commercial model can work.
But upon further inspection, this elegant but sophisticated model, which plays well with the ordinary voter, ignores some fundamental problems. Companies do not in fact use those tax breaks to create jobs. That's problem #1. Companies also do not use that money to make more widgets. Indeed, that would simply drive the price of widgets down...not a happy result from the company's perspective.
Demand-side economics make more sense. Virtually the definition of a healthy economy is one where there is more money in the hands of the consumers. For both spending and saving. So, the cons have jumped on that bandwagon, in seats normally marked for libs, and offered up some tax breaks to consumers. A step in the right direction. But then this dries up money for infrastructure, that business needs in order to keep costs down. Electric power, transportation, etc. Once reaching a crisis, their idea is then to privatize those utilities. So this plan then leads to citizens paying to drive on what should be public roads, paying both construction and profit costs, and buying electricity in the same way instead of just paying "cost."
Ah well. I digress. Libs are very very commonly characterized as over-analyzers. So, I'm not sure how honest (or funny) your remark is.
