Can any con here tell me the difference between a moderate liberal and an extremist?

[1776]

A moderate liberal is one that feels guilty about having more stuff than others and wants the GOV to distribute the wealth in a fair manner.

A uber liberal wants the GOV to target the rich that vote GOP and the middle class white Americans that typically vote for the GOP for their "wealth."

The uber liberal will violate the laws of their state and the US to gain more votes/power.

The moderate liberal will go on the internet claiming their fellow liberals aren't doing stupid/evil things in the name of power/votes either because they are stupid, insane or evil themselves.

 

[kiwiman127]

In my opinion a moderate liberal is someone that leans left either fiscally or socially but does not share 90% of their views with the far left extremist groups and is not dogmatic about their politics. A few examples

-Someone who is pro-choice but does not vote exclusively on that position and doesn't ignore the NARAL eugenics roots.
-Someone who sees government as a power for good if done correctly but doesn't think the stimulus worked.
-Someone who thinks we should protect the environment but notices the inconsistencies in the IPCC.
-Someone who sees validity to the position of fiscal or social conservative views but just disagrees and does not denigrate people merely for disagreeing.


Just my opinion.

Interesting.
As a moderate who identifies with neither the GOP or the Democrats I vote mostly for real moderates whether they be conservative or liberal.
I find the most important quality of moderates leaning right or left, is the willingness to work with the other side to find the best solution for issues. Typically the moderate left/right are pragmatic and don't goose-step to any more extreme philosophy. They tend to make more of an effort to represent their constituents than the more extreme ideologue.
I believe that most moderates are more conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. Thus, when a fiscal issue also encompasses a social issue, that's when the pragmatic thinking goes into overdrive.

 

[asterism]

Ah I see. Why am I not surprised this is from a conservative blog? Well heres the problem with this: this graph is only based on the failure of the prediction of how well the stimulus would turn out. That doesn't mean the stimulus didn't work. It just didn't work as well as we hoped. Here is the evidence that it did work from a non partisan perspective:

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

It would have created more jobs had it been bigger.

Moving the goalposts doesn't change anything. That was the chart used to sell the stimulus. It didn't work.

Why does the source of the chart matter if it's accurate?

It matters because the source is not telling the entire story. Ill concede Obama oversold it, but that doesn't mean it didn't work. That link you provided was a report written before the stimulus even took effect. The source I provided shows the stimulus did work. In fact, when the stimulus took effect, the 100,000s of jobs per month we were losing from the 2008 crisis began to level off. From there the private sector CREATED jobs. It is the reason why we are even in a recovery.

The chart I posted tells the story about the prediction made and the results. There was no prediction on number of jobs "saved or created" when discussing the stimulus. There was no prediction made to say that the US economy was on the brink of collapse. The predictions made and the results promised are spelled out very clearly.

You should re-read the Administration's position on the stimulus and take a good look at the chart they created. As you can clearly see, they did not predict a declining unemployment rate in perpetuity. They predicted a significant increase, a peak, and a slow taper back to full employment. The stimulus (they say) was going to accelerate the recovery. NOBODY in the administration said that without the stimulus there would be no recovery at all.

Read it for yourself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Recovery_Act_state-by-state_jobs_2-131.pdf

Embedded in that document from the White House is the other stimulus plan I linked previously:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Therefore for you to claim that the stimulus is the sole reason for this "recovery" is false. Even the administration didn't do that.

Your link didn't even discuss the stimulus, it points out one expert's opinion on extended unemployment benefits.

 

[asterism]

This is a fair analysis.

However, you are wrong on one thing: the stimulus did work.

No, it didn't:

A fraudulent chart? Sorry, chum, the stimulus worked.

Show me how that chart is fraudulent.

 

[Bluedog]

I don't think any of you can. I have never seen anyone here make the distinction. You instead choose to believe all liberals think the same way as if we are part of some giant clubhouse. I wish you understood how simple minded this kind of thinking is.

Or better yet, how about you also explain the difference between a moderate conservative and a conservative extremist,

I disagree with any form of broad brushing. Lumping people together and over generalizing serves no purpose regardless of politics.

IMO

 

[Billy000]

Moving the goalposts doesn't change anything. That was the chart used to sell the stimulus. It didn't work.

Why does the source of the chart matter if it's accurate?

It matters because the source is not telling the entire story. Ill concede Obama oversold it, but that doesn't mean it didn't work. That link you provided was a report written before the stimulus even took effect. The source I provided shows the stimulus did work. In fact, when the stimulus took effect, the 100,000s of jobs per month we were losing from the 2008 crisis began to level off. From there the private sector CREATED jobs. It is the reason why we are even in a recovery.

The chart I posted tells the story about the prediction made and the results. There was no prediction on number of jobs "saved or created" when discussing the stimulus. There was no prediction made to say that the US economy was on the brink of collapse. The predictions made and the results promised are spelled out very clearly.

You should re-read the Administration's position on the stimulus and take a good look at the chart they created. As you can clearly see, they did not predict a declining unemployment rate in perpetuity. They predicted a significant increase, a peak, and a slow taper back to full employment. The stimulus (they say) was going to accelerate the recovery. NOBODY in the administration said that without the stimulus there would be no recovery at all.

Read it for yourself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Recovery_Act_state-by-state_jobs_2-131.pdf

Embedded in that document from the White House is the other stimulus plan I linked previously:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Therefore for you to claim that the stimulus is the sole reason for this "recovery" is false. Even the administration didn't do that.

Your link didn't even discuss the stimulus, it points out one expert's opinion on extended unemployment benefits.

Dude extending the unemployment benefits was the heart of the stimulus package. There wasn't else much to it. That 19,000 jobs per billion stimulus figure was from his package.

Are you really suggesting the economy wasn't on the brink? We lost several millions of jobs within 6 months.

Tell me then. Why are we in a recovery if not the stimulus package?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't think any of you can. I have never seen anyone here make the distinction. You instead choose to believe all liberals think the same way as if we are part of some giant clubhouse. I wish you understood how simple minded this kind of thinking is.

Or better yet, how about you also explain the difference between a moderate conservative and a conservative extremist,

A moderate liberal is one closest the center, they don't necessarily agree with their party in all things. A liberal extremist on the other hand, is an exact opposite of the moderate, agreeing with everything and then more. Namely Keynesian economic theory, entitlements, global warming, universal health care, and government involvement in all things.

I know what the difference between a moderate conservative and an extremist conservative is, having been both of them at one point or another in my trek towards libertarianism. A moderate conservative, like a liberal is closest to the center. They don't always agree with their party in all things, seeing concerted efforts as too extreme. An extremist conservative wants absolute freedom, bans on abortion and gay marriage and an establishment of a system more tolerant towards Christianity, he favors anarchism.


That is the strict definition.

 

[asterism]

It matters because the source is not telling the entire story. Ill concede Obama oversold it, but that doesn't mean it didn't work. That link you provided was a report written before the stimulus even took effect. The source I provided shows the stimulus did work. In fact, when the stimulus took effect, the 100,000s of jobs per month we were losing from the 2008 crisis began to level off. From there the private sector CREATED jobs. It is the reason why we are even in a recovery.

The chart I posted tells the story about the prediction made and the results. There was no prediction on number of jobs "saved or created" when discussing the stimulus. There was no prediction made to say that the US economy was on the brink of collapse. The predictions made and the results promised are spelled out very clearly.

You should re-read the Administration's position on the stimulus and take a good look at the chart they created. As you can clearly see, they did not predict a declining unemployment rate in perpetuity. They predicted a significant increase, a peak, and a slow taper back to full employment. The stimulus (they say) was going to accelerate the recovery. NOBODY in the administration said that without the stimulus there would be no recovery at all.

Read it for yourself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Recovery_Act_state-by-state_jobs_2-131.pdf

Embedded in that document from the White House is the other stimulus plan I linked previously:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Therefore for you to claim that the stimulus is the sole reason for this "recovery" is false. Even the administration didn't do that.

Your link didn't even discuss the stimulus, it points out one expert's opinion on extended unemployment benefits.

Dude extending the unemployment benefits was the heart of the stimulus package. There wasn't else much to it. That 19,000 jobs per billion stimulus figure was from his package.

Are you really suggesting the economy wasn't on the brink? We lost several millions of jobs within 6 months.

Tell me then. Why are we in a recovery if not the stimulus package?

Why did the administration predict a recovery without the stimulus?

 

[blastoff]

The stimulus worked even though the shovel-ready jobs still aren't ready?

 

[Billy000]

The chart I posted tells the story about the prediction made and the results. There was no prediction on number of jobs "saved or created" when discussing the stimulus. There was no prediction made to say that the US economy was on the brink of collapse. The predictions made and the results promised are spelled out very clearly.

You should re-read the Administration's position on the stimulus and take a good look at the chart they created. As you can clearly see, they did not predict a declining unemployment rate in perpetuity. They predicted a significant increase, a peak, and a slow taper back to full employment. The stimulus (they say) was going to accelerate the recovery. NOBODY in the administration said that without the stimulus there would be no recovery at all.

Read it for yourself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Recovery_Act_state-by-state_jobs_2-131.pdf

Embedded in that document from the White House is the other stimulus plan I linked previously:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Therefore for you to claim that the stimulus is the sole reason for this "recovery" is false. Even the administration didn't do that.

Your link didn't even discuss the stimulus, it points out one expert's opinion on extended unemployment benefits.

Dude extending the unemployment benefits was the heart of the stimulus package. There wasn't else much to it. That 19,000 jobs per billion stimulus figure was from his package.

Are you really suggesting the economy wasn't on the brink? We lost several millions of jobs within 6 months.

Tell me then. Why are we in a recovery if not the stimulus package?

Why did the administration predict a recovery without the stimulus?

Who cares why? The stimulus worked. It is the heart of the recovery we are in. 2.5x more private sector jobs have been created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It matters because the source is not telling the entire story. Ill concede Obama oversold it, but that doesn't mean it didn't work. That link you provided was a report written before the stimulus even took effect. The source I provided shows the stimulus did work. In fact, when the stimulus took effect, the 100,000s of jobs per month we were losing from the 2008 crisis began to level off. From there the private sector CREATED jobs. It is the reason why we are even in a recovery.

The chart I posted tells the story about the prediction made and the results. There was no prediction on number of jobs "saved or created" when discussing the stimulus. There was no prediction made to say that the US economy was on the brink of collapse. The predictions made and the results promised are spelled out very clearly.

You should re-read the Administration's position on the stimulus and take a good look at the chart they created. As you can clearly see, they did not predict a declining unemployment rate in perpetuity. They predicted a significant increase, a peak, and a slow taper back to full employment. The stimulus (they say) was going to accelerate the recovery. NOBODY in the administration said that without the stimulus there would be no recovery at all.

Read it for yourself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Recovery_Act_state-by-state_jobs_2-131.pdf

Embedded in that document from the White House is the other stimulus plan I linked previously:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Therefore for you to claim that the stimulus is the sole reason for this "recovery" is false. Even the administration didn't do that.

Your link didn't even discuss the stimulus, it points out one expert's opinion on extended unemployment benefits.

Dude extending the unemployment benefits was the heart of the stimulus package. There wasn't else much to it. That 19,000 jobs per billion stimulus figure was from his package.

Are you really suggesting the economy wasn't on the brink? We lost several millions of jobs within 6 months.

Tell me then. Why are we in a recovery if not the stimulus package?

The recovery was going to happen regardless of whether or not the stimulus was passed. The American economy is a self governing entity, a living thing. It like a human body has an immune response, or a healing response. Naturally, it was going to recover from the collapse.

An economy is on the brink when the weight of it's debt exceeds its ability to produce. And if you haven't noticed, Billy, our debt to GDP ratio is over 100%. Sooner or later, the economy will collapse under the weight of it's own debt. That's the one flaw in Keynesian economics. You simply can't spend your way out of a recession. It's what let to stagflation in the 1970's and early 80's.

 

[blackhawk]

I don't think any of you can. I have never seen anyone here make the distinction. You instead choose to believe all liberals think the same way as if we are part of some giant clubhouse. I wish you understood how simple minded this kind of thinking is.

Or better yet, how about you also explain the difference between a moderate conservative and a conservative extremist,

Extremist be them liberal or conservative see the world as black and white they have set in stone views on everything and see their way as the only way moderates don't they have core values that they believe in but understand that there not going to get their way on everything and are wrong about things sometimes.

 

[mamooth]

-Someone who is pro-choice but does not vote exclusively on that position and doesn't ignore the NARAL eugenics roots.

Stories as deranged as that are useful, since they reveal instantly how the one pushing them must be a wild-eyed extremist of the right.

(By the way Templar "Little Bitch" Kormac took offense to this, and negged me for it. He really hates it when his cult's wild-eyed extremist bullshit is called out.)

 

[asterism]

Dude extending the unemployment benefits was the heart of the stimulus package. There wasn't else much to it. That 19,000 jobs per billion stimulus figure was from his package.

Are you really suggesting the economy wasn't on the brink? We lost several millions of jobs within 6 months.

Tell me then. Why are we in a recovery if not the stimulus package?

Why did the administration predict a recovery without the stimulus?

Who cares why? The stimulus worked. It is the heart of the recovery we are in. 2.5x more private sector jobs have been created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8.

You need to re-read the administration's own pitch.

It did not even come close to what it promised and it predicted a slower recovery without the stimulus - and the current recovery is even worse than that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dude extending the unemployment benefits was the heart of the stimulus package. There wasn't else much to it. That 19,000 jobs per billion stimulus figure was from his package.

Are you really suggesting the economy wasn't on the brink? We lost several millions of jobs within 6 months.

Tell me then. Why are we in a recovery if not the stimulus package?

Why did the administration predict a recovery without the stimulus?

Who cares why? The stimulus worked. It is the heart of the recovery we are in. 2.5x more private sector jobs have been created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8.

It hasn't worked. Asterism proved why. All you can do now is repeat yourself over and over. Our workforce participation rate is the lowest it's been in 40 years. Should you add all of the millions of people who dropped out of the workforce to the current unemployment rate, it would exceed 11.3%. You need only peruse BLS statistics to see how wrong you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it didn't:

A fraudulent chart? Sorry, chum, the stimulus worked.

Show me how that chart is fraudulent.

It's a chart from a blog without any peer review: none of that has been done.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't think any of you can. I have never seen anyone here make the distinction. You instead choose to believe all liberals think the same way as if we are part of some giant clubhouse. I wish you understood how simple minded this kind of thinking is.

Or better yet, how about you also explain the difference between a moderate conservative and a conservative extremist,

Yes. But then I'd be stuck with having to clean up the mess and I just don't do brains on the wall........

 

[TemplarKormac]

A fraudulent chart? Sorry, chum, the stimulus worked.

Show me how that chart is fraudulent.

It's a chart from a blog without any peer review: none of that has been done.

Sorry, that comes from BLS statistics, Jake. That's as peer reviewed as you get.

 

[mamooth]

global warming

Global warming is not a political position, despite the recent attempts of the right to make it into solely a political issue. Remember when Bush endorsed the science? Or when it wasn't a requirement for all Republican candidates to say global warming is a hoax? I do. In contrast, there is no similar litmus test for Democrats.

The facts aren't political. That's how most of the world sees it. Across the world, global warming science is accepted by all political types, being it's such solid science. It's only in the USA/Canada/UK/Australia that a denialist movement exists, probably a result of such a heavy conservative media dominance.

 

[Billy000]

Why did the administration predict a recovery without the stimulus?

Who cares why? The stimulus worked. It is the heart of the recovery we are in. 2.5x more private sector jobs have been created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8.

You need to re-read the administration's own pitch.

It did not even come close to what it promised and it predicted a slower recovery without the stimulus - and the current recovery is even worse than that.

Yeah it was suppose to be bigger. Too bad it wasn't.

2.5x more jobs in 5 years than the previous 8? Only legislation can make that kind of magic happen. Losing millions of jobs in the course of a half a year is not normal.