An honest question for the right-wing

BOHtox

jasonc5432 wrote: »

So, my question is -- which party or individual politician do you consider MOST suits your political standpoint, and why?

Noone really represents my opinions on the Right. Milton Friedman would come close but I'm not as far right. Thatcher and Reagan too. Although I do agree with some Government and I like the idea of pump-primed economics (just not in Ireland) therefore I also like John Maynard Keynes.
So it really just depends on the topic.

sarumite

BOHtox wrote: »

Noone really represents my opinions on the Right. Milton Friedman would come close but I'm not as far right. Thatcher and Reagan too. Although I do agree with some Government and I like the idea of pump-primed economics (just not in Ireland) therefore I also like John Maynard Keynes.
So it really just depends on the topic.

Off topic slightly,had I been a little older during the Reagan and Tatcher era I think I would have supported their economic ideas at the time. That said now with hindsight I think Reagon's trickle down economics never really happened (middle income growth in America over the past 20 years is pretty flat when inflation is taken into account) and Tatchers deregulation has brought us down the path of busted banks etc.

BOHtox

sarumite wrote: »

Off topic slightly,had I been a little older during the Reagan and Tatcher era I think I would have supported their economic ideas at the time. That said now with hindsight I think Reagon's trickle down economics never really happened (middle income growth in America over the past 20 years is pretty flat when inflation is taken into account) and Tatchers deregulation has brought us down the path of busted banks etc.

Well I'm only 18 so I wasn't alive either.
Under Reagan's time as Presidency he reduced government spending increase, income tax and capital gains tax. He reduced inflation by controlling the money supply and reduced Government regulation , all with Milton Friedman as an Economic Adviser.
The results of this were reduced unemployment ( to 5.4% from 7%), 39 billion in budget cuts and 25 billion in tax decreases.

Thatcher fought unions and communism which is good enough for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8YCd9-Xtc8

This video says it all for me.

karma_

BOHtox wrote: »

Well I'm only 18 so I wasn't alive either.
Under Reagan's time as Presidency he reduced government spending increase, income tax and capital gains tax. He reduced inflation by controlling the money supply and reduced Government deregulation , all with Milton Friedman as an Economic Adviser.
The results of this were reduced unemployment ( to 5.4% from 7%), 39 billion in budget cuts and 25 billion in tax decreases.

Thatcher fought unions and communism which is good enough for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8YCd9-Xtc8

This video says it all for me.

Since you're only 18, you most likely aren't aware that her policies ruined many people and caused mass unemployment. She certainly did nothing for the poor except make them poorer and her legacy lives on in Britain to this very day, especially in the North.

Duke Leonal Felmet

BOHtox wrote: »

Well I'm only 18 so I wasn't alive either.
Under Reagan's time as Presidency he reduced government spending increase, income tax and capital gains tax. He reduced inflation by controlling the money supply and reduced Government deregulation , all with Milton Friedman as an Economic Adviser.
The results of this were reduced unemployment ( to 5.4% from 7%), 39 billion in budget cuts and 25 billion in tax decreases.

Thatcher fought unions and communism which is good enough for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8YCd9-Xtc8

This video says it all for me.

karma_ wrote: »

Since you're only 18, you most likely aren't aware that her policies ruined many people and caused mass unemployment. She certainly did nothing for the poor except make them poorer and her legacy lives on in Britain to this very day, especially in the North.

A question to both of you.
Is it not possible that she did a lot of good and a lot of bad?

Eliot Rosewater

Well, of course. It's all-too-easy when it comes to complex economies to pick things that suit your point of view to the exclusion of others. Anti-Thatcherites usually complain about the miners but refuse to deal with the fact that Britain had had a sluggish economy for all the 70s (which anti-Thatcherites usual paint as some kind of utopia) and was bailed out by the International Monetary Fund in 1976.

The inherent problem here is the complexity of economies and the ease with which people can scapegoat. We're already seeing it in Ireland now. For 10 years Irish people consistently voted for unsustainable low-tax high-spending economic policies that have clearly affected the exchequer and been a key factor in this country's need for international support. Yet last Sunday our Taoiseach said that it wasn't out fault. Now, he probably doesn't really think that, but a lot of people do, including elected representatives. They can brush it under the carpet and complain about the banks. It's very easy to cover things in this fashion.

K-9

I'd be no fan of Thatcher but certain things had to be done in the late 70's. A good example of how Unions were so powerful was the British motor industry, a booming industry in the 50's and 60's that ended up a joke in the 70's and 80's.

It seems to have gone the other way now though and new Labour are just to blame. Unions seem to have little or no power in the UK and are derided by huge sections of the UK.

The extremes of Reagan and Thatcher is globalism and that has hardly been a success either!

BOHtox

karma_ wrote: »

Since you're only 18, you most likely aren't aware that her policies ruined many people and caused mass unemployment. She certainly did nothing for the poor except make them poorer and her legacy lives on in Britain to this very day, especially in the North.

Well I think it's unfair that you only look at the bad side of things. I bet you're the type of guy who gives out about Hitler killing millions whereas in actual fact he achieved great economic growth in Germany

JustinDee

BOHtox wrote: »

Well I think it's unfair that you only look at the bad side of things. I bet you're the type of guy who gives out about Hitler killing millions whereas in actual fact he achieved great economic growth in Germany

Edit following mod warning:
I find this statement repugnant. There were no plusses to the Nazi regime. Not in how they gained power, in their modus operandi. in their economic policies (built on massive crippling debt) or the millions who died at their hands or because of them.

sarumite

BOHtox wrote: »

Well I'm only 18 so I wasn't alive either.
Under Reagan's time as Presidency he reduced government spending increase, income tax and capital gains tax. He reduced inflation by controlling the money supply and reduced Government deregulation , all with Milton Friedman as an Economic Adviser.
The results of this were reduced unemployment ( to 5.4% from 7%), 39 billion in budget cuts and 25 billion in tax decreases.

I was a school kid during Reagans era, I do remember watching Tatcher on the TV however I was too young to care about politics at that stage.

The point I was making was that both their economic legacies are often sugar coated through the rose tinted eyes of nostalgia. You, much like the Tea party who so adore Reagon, often forget that he also raised taxes during in a recession. However that is besides the point I was trying to make. Reagon believed in 'trickle down economics' and much of the data I have seen is that it never trickled down and instead just accumulated at the top.

Thatcher fought unions and communism which is good enough for me.

There were a lot of people fighting communism before her to be honest. She merely picked up the baton. As for the unions, certainly the UK unions were hampering economic progress and Tatcher taking on the unions was necessary. However in my opinion Tatcher got too caught up in fighting the unions and never considered what needs to be done afterwards (I think the same problem can be found with her policies in NI).
Tatchers model of privatisation is lesson on how not to do it. I was working in the UK during the RailTrack fiasco which could have been completely avoidable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

anymore

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So successful has it been that in some third world countries it is obesity that is the health threat rather than famine as it used to be in the past. And in countires which have been relatively isolated from the success of globalism, it is famine, whether man made or natural, which is the problem. Whilst much of the third world still seeks to emotionally blackmail the west, little gratitude is ever expressed for the enormous benefts that the west has conferred on the third world .

Is mise le key

anymore wrote: »

FG right wing ???:D:confused::)

!

Well this is bizarre,

Screen shot of what was available from the Indo today,



See it says centre right leaders,

Heres the link

Page not found

taken offline?

anymore

BOHtox wrote: »

Well I'm only 18 so I wasn't alive either.
Under Reagan's time as Presidency he reduced government spending increase, income tax and capital gains tax. He reduced inflation by controlling the money supply and reduced Government deregulation , all with Milton Friedman as an Economic Adviser.
The results of this were reduced unemployment ( to 5.4% from 7%), 39 billion in budget cuts and 25 billion in tax decreases.

Thatcher fought unions and communism which is good enough for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8YCd9-Xtc8

This video says it all for me.

regan also started the policy of financial deregulation which resulted in massive transfers from ordinary US people to the top rchest 1% and eventually led to todays recession - not bad for a guy with alzheimers !

Is mise le key

anymore wrote: »

regan also started the policy of financial deregulation which resulted in massive transfers from ordinary US people to the top rchest 1% and eventually led to todays recession - not bad for a guy with alzheimers !

And dont you ever forget it,

anymore

Is mise le key wrote: »

And dont you ever forget it,

There was agreat programme on Channel 4 on the lead up to and financial disaster in the US. Extraordianary thing was that somew of the Top Universities who were egging on the uuse of derivities during this era have ended up as Obama's advisers ! That was a shocker for me and makes me wonder how Obama is different from the republicans ?

BOHtox

JustinDee wrote: »

Edit following mod warning:
I find this statement repugnant. There were no plusses to the Nazi regime. Not in how they gained power, in their modus operandi. in their economic policies (built on massive crippling debt) or the millions who died at their hands or because of them.

I don't think your sarcasm detector was working then.

Is mise le key

JustinDee wrote: »

Edit following mod warning:
I find this statement repugnant. There were no plusses to the USA regime. Not in how they gained power, in their modus operandi. in their economic policies (built on massive crippling debt) or the millions who died at their hands or because of them.

I changed one thing in that post, remarkably it still fits exactly.

irishh_bob

anymore wrote: »

There was agreat programme on Channel 4 on the lead up to and financial disaster in the US. Extraordianary thing was that somew of the Top Universities who were egging on the uuse of derivities during this era have ended up as Obama's advisers ! That was a shocker for me and makes me wonder how Obama is different from the republicans ?

in terms of prioritising wall street above main street , obama is no better than bush

JustinDee

Is mise le key wrote: »

I changed one thing in that post, remarkably it still fits exactly.

No-one was assassinated for the US government when they took power and no opponent was assassinated in order to win their election. As you well know, it was a different story in Germany from 1931 onwards.

While the US's deficit was inherited, they still remain one of the largest economies in the world. In Nazi Germany, the borrowing worsened and their economy collapsed in the mid-1930s.

As far as murder goes, the systematic, organised and industrial murder of millions of its own people as well as their ilk in the rest of occupied Europe has still yet to be matched by anyone except Stalin.

Duke Leonal Felmet

JustinDee wrote: »

Is mise le key wrote: »

I changed one thing in that post, remarkably it still fits exactly.

No-one was assassinated for the US government when they took power and no opponent was assassinated in order to win their election. As you well know, it was a different story in Germany from 1931 onwards.

While the US's deficit was inherited, they still remain one of the largest economies in the world. In Nazi Germany, the borrowing worsened and their economy collapsed in the mid-1930s.

As far as murder goes, the systematic, organised and industrial murder of millions of its own people as well as their ilk in the rest of occupied Europe has still yet to be matched by anyone except Stalin.

The above means nothing to the anti-american type. They need a world where statements like Bush=Hitler hold sway, without this, they must contend with a complex world that is too big and scary to deal with.

JustinDee

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

The above means nothing to the anti-american type. They need a world where statements like Bush=Hitler hold sway, without this, they must contend with a complex world that is too big and scary to deal with.

Well in an objective manner, their faults can be highlighted quite easily, particularly with not only Bush but with the likes of Kennedy too, despite him being in my opinion, the most revered of the modern US Presidents. The comparisons to the likes of the Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR are ill-thought out however.

sarumite

JustinDee wrote: »

No-one was assassinated for the US government when they took power and no opponent was assassinated in order to win their election. As you well know, it was a different story in Germany from 1931 onwards.

While the US's deficit was inherited, they still remain one of the largest economies in the world. In Nazi Germany, the borrowing worsened and their economy collapsed in the mid-1930s.

As far as murder goes, the systematic, organised and industrial murder of millions of its own people as well as their ilk in the rest of occupied Europe has still yet to be matched by anyone except Stalin.

I have to correct you there....I think people far too often Mao. He was as bad as Stalin and Hitler.

Duke Leonal Felmet

sarumite wrote: »

JustinDee wrote: »

No-one was assassinated for the US government when they took power and no opponent was assassinated in order to win their election. As you well know, it was a different story in Germany from 1931 onwards.

While the US's deficit was inherited, they still remain one of the largest economies in the world. In Nazi Germany, the borrowing worsened and their economy collapsed in the mid-1930s.

As far as murder goes, the systematic, organised and industrial murder of millions of its own people as well as their ilk in the rest of occupied Europe has still yet to be matched by anyone except Stalin.

I have to correct you there....I think people far too often Mao. He was as bad as Stalin and Hitler.

You're telling me. You can enjoy a tasty meal in Dublin, in a restaurant named after the man himself, complete with his image and communist stars.

Can you imagine a similar set up with Hitlers image and Swastikas?

RichieC

anymore wrote: »

There was agreat programme on Channel 4 on the lead up to and financial disaster in the US. Extraordianary thing was that somew of the Top Universities who were egging on the uuse of derivities during this era have ended up as Obama's advisers ! That was a shocker for me and makes me wonder how Obama is different from the republicans ?

You don't become the us president without giving up a lot of your personal values.

I think Obama is a good man but the system he works in is sick as all hell.

sarumite

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

You're telling me. You can enjoy a tasty meal in Dublin, in a restaurant named after the man himself, complete with his image and communist stars.

Can you imagine a similar set up with Hitlers image and Swastikas?

Nope. Though the Germans denounce Nazism and Kruschev denounced Stalins rule soon after coming to power. Unfortunately the Chinese have a put a lot of work into revising history and trying to erase the fact the Mao was a monster. I remember once reading a book the Great wall of China....or long wall as it was originally called. The argument goes that the wall is a testament to the fact that the Chinese people are unable to accept that they made a mistake or bad idea. I think it is that characteristic that makes them unable to look at Mao record without having to shred evidence, gloss over facts and sugar coat the rest.

Is mise le key

Wow, i think i should have put a smiley in my last post as your humour radars are malfunctioning lads, it was with a pinch of salt i posted that, then as usual its was like a race to see who can get there first,

Hitler
Stalin
Mao

It was with a pinch of salt i posted that post but the content is accurate, not in the same manner as the Nazi did there deeds but still accurate,

how they gained power. (1 party state)
in their modus operandi. (Lies & propaganda that affects the world)
in their economic policies (built on massive crippling debt) (self explanatory)
the millions who died at their hands or because of them. (i dont have enough room to type all the countries they have had their hands soaked in blood with)

The Corinthian

sarumite wrote: »

I remember once reading a book the Great wall of China....or long wall as it was originally called. The argument goes that the wall is a testament to the fact that the Chinese people are unable to accept that they made a mistake or bad idea. I think it is that characteristic that makes them unable to look at Mao record without having to shred evidence, gloss over facts and sugar coat the rest.

It's really more down to the fact that Hitler lost World War II and, in particular, implemented the Holocaust. You could be a brutal dictator and still get largely get away with murder as long as you won or be a relatively benign figure, but on the side of the Axis, and that would damn you.

The best example of the former is easily Stalin, who still has his fair share of admirers and who's ideology, Stalinism, was still quite popular in far-left circles up until the fall of the USSR. Of the latter, Miklós Horthy of Hungary or Philippe Pétain of the French State were arguably no worse than many allied leaders and certainly much more benign than either Stalin or Mao.

History, as they say, is written by the victors.

As to the question posed by this thread, it's actually moot, because there is no such thing really as left or right-wing. As these two 'poles' theoretically represent forces for or against social and economic change, in practical terms you'll be hard pushed to actually find any political party that fits the bill.

Even the PD's were not really right wing. Certainly they supported free-market, Capitalist economics, but they were quite left wing on social policies and were formed at a time when supporting free-market, Capitalist economics in Ireland was actually pretty radical. Or on the peripheries of the political spectrum, parties such as the Christian Centrist Party are (or were) socially very right wing, but socially tended to espouse a return to the crypto-socialist economic model that plagued Ireland before the 1990's.

To me, all this talk of "which party or individual politician do you consider MOST suits your political standpoint", as a result, smacks of a need to belong to an ideology rather than actually having your own opinion on individual issues.

irishh_bob

RichieC wrote: »

You don't become the us president without giving up a lot of your personal values.

I think Obama is a good man but the system he works in is sick as all hell.

good men dont become leaders of superpowers , its always a case of the least evil

thier all ruthless people who kill at will

btw , im realistic enough to realise that it was never any other way

irishh_bob

sarumite wrote: »

Nope. Though the Germans denounce Nazism and Kruschev denounced Stalins rule soon after coming to power. Unfortunately the Chinese have a put a lot of work into revising history and trying to erase the fact the Mao was a monster. I remember once reading a book the Great wall of China....or long wall as it was originally called. The argument goes that the wall is a testament to the fact that the Chinese people are unable to accept that they made a mistake or bad idea. I think it is that characteristic that makes them unable to look at Mao record without having to shred evidence, gloss over facts and sugar coat the rest.

in a poll of the hundred greatest russians some years ago , stalin was in the top ten , something like a quater of russians regard stalin as having been a good leader , i imagine the figure for hitler in germany would be less than a tenth of one percent , china and russia are very different places than western europe and america , strong men are held in very high esteem