Conservative Obama and Hillary?

[di.civfan]

I always supposed that thay were liberal (as well as other democrats), until I saw this on Political Compass:

What does it mean? Is liberal on USA different from its classical meaning?

Maybe it's just because in my country "left" has usually something to do with socialism...

 

[GenMarshall]

Liberal and Conservative have different definitions in the United States than Europe.

Political Compass uses mainly a European definition. Plus, Both Democratic and Republican parties tend to favor Capitalism.

 

[Kraznaya]

Political Compass for US Primary 08 is terrible. There is now way Obama is that much more authoritarian than Hillary, nor are they more authoritarian than Ron Paul.

 

[holy king]

Liberal and Conservative have different definitions in the United States than Europe.

Political Compass uses mainly a European definition. Plus, Both Democratic and Republican parties tend to favor Capitalism.

meaning the democrats are still far right from a lot of social democratic parties in europe...

 

[Sims2789]

Obama is more liberal socially (opposes don't ask, don't tell, supports legalization of medical marijuana, etc.) and more market-oriented economically. Hillary is more authoritarian socially and more socialistic, but both are more free market-oriented than the Republicans, who support supply-side subsidies.

 

[di.civfan]

Liberal and Conservative have different definitions in the United States than Europe.

Obama is more liberal socially (opposes don't ask, don't tell, supports legalization of medical marijuana, etc.) and more market-oriented economically. Hillary is more authoritarian socially and more socialistic, but both are more free market-oriented than the Republicans, who support supply-side subsidies.

Thanks for the answers people!

Looks like American's definitions are way different from Brazilian's as well

 

[amadeus]

but both are more free market-oriented than the Republicans

While I don't like McLame, but... what?

 

[Norseone]

Obama is more liberal socially (opposes don't ask, don't tell, supports legalization of medical marijuana, etc.) and more market-oriented economically. Hillary is more authoritarian socially and more socialistic, but both are more free market-oriented than the Republicans, who support supply-side subsidies.

question dude...what are you saying? I dont think anyone would argue the dems are free-market...they are both talking about killing NAFTA You're funny. Btw, look at the chart it says Obama is more authoritarian than Hillary and more economically left.

 

[Integral]

both are more free market-oriented than the Republicans, who support supply-side subsidies.

Dude, NAFTA.

Obama bashes it once, and we can let it slide as pandering. But if he says it enough, I just might start to believe him...

 

[Sims2789]

While I don't like McLame, but... what?

McLame supports the tax cuts for the wealthy even though there aren't corresponding spending cuts, but until a few years ago he fought the GOP on increased spending with tax cuts and I expect he'll return to this position if he's President, or at least not fight the Democratic Congress cutting income taxes for the bottom 95% and raising them for the very wealthy.

 

[North King]

The Political Compass' chart is awful in this particular case. I find myself more conservative than either of the Dems on economic issues, but I'm on the center line on their chart, putting me well to the left of them. I'm just about the same on the authoritarianism scale, and I'm supposedly about 4 points below them on their chart. It just doesn't work; don't believe it.

 

[Archbob]

Hillary is more authoritarian socially and more socialistic, but both are more free market-oriented than the Republicans, who support supply-side subsidies.

Now, I am really a changer that will move the nation forward. I support demand-side subsidies.

 

[Sims2789]

question dude...what are you saying? I dont think anyone would argue the dems are free-market...they are both talking about killing NAFTA You're funny. Btw, look at the chart it says Obama is more authoritarian than Hillary and more economically left.

On Obama/the Clintons:
On that chart, right is fascist (supply-side welfare), left is socialist (demand-side welfare), and center is capitalist/free market. Obama is closer to the center than Hillary.

The Political Compass says that Obama is more socially authoritarian than Hillary, but that is simply untrue. Her and her husband support videogame censorship and sponsored legislation to pass it, internet censorship, the DMCA, and she wouldn't repeal don't ask, don't tell, while Obama would.

On the GOP being less market-oriented:
Social welfare costs little compared to the military and corporate welfare. The income tax doesn't even pay for the GOP's spending increases over the past eight years. Plus the GOP supports a large national debt, which is largely a "hidden tax" on the young and the unborn.

 

[emzie]

Dude, NAFTA.

Obama bashes it once, and we can let it slide as pandering. But if he says it enough, I just might start to believe him...

One can only hope it's true.

 

[Integral]

On the GOP being less market-oriented:
Social welfare costs little compared to the military and corporate welfare. The income tax doesn't even pay for the GOP's spending increases over the past eight years. Plus the GOP supports a large national debt, which is largely a "hidden tax" on the young and the unborn.

Health costs: $680 billion
Income security: $842 billion
total, $1,522 billion


Defense spending: $548 billion
Supplements to Iraq/Afghanistan: $116 billion
Corporate welfare: $92 billion
total, $756 billion



Sources: Health, income security, defense: NIPA 3.16
Supplements: CBO, "Analysis for the Growth in Funding for Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Elsewhere in the War on Terror", released February 2008
Corporate welfare: Cato Institute. The CBO estimates corporate welfare to be around $57 billion, but I was generous and went with the higher value.
All data from FY 2006.

 

[Sims2789]

Dude, NAFTA.

Obama bashes it once, and we can let it slide as pandering. But if he says it enough, I just might start to believe him...

NAFTA is not a true free trade agreement because it does not prevent countries from subsidizing exports and flooding NAFTA markets with them.

 

[Norseone]

Yeah..and the country that benefits from that is the USA hahaha

 

[emzie]

NAFTA is not a true free trade agreement because it does not prevent countries from subsidizing exports and flooding NAFTA markets with them.

But it is still the law, yet America has no problem ignoring it when it's benificial to do so.

I dare any politician to really, truly, pull out of NAFTA.

 

[Sims2789]

Health costs: $680 billion
Income security: $842 billion
total, $1,522 billion


Defense spending: $548 billion
Supplements to Iraq/Afghanistan: $116 billion
Corporate welfare: $92 billion
total, $756 billion



Sources: Health, income security, defense: NIPA 3.16
Supplements: CBO, "Analysis for the Growth in Funding for Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Elsewhere in the War on Terror", released February 2008
Corporate welfare: Cato Institute. The CBO estimates corporate welfare to be around $57 billion, but I was generous and went with the higher value.
All data from FY 2006.

You don't consider tax cuts on the wealthy, which raise taxes on the young and the unborn more than they cut taxes for the wealthy. Also, Democrats don't want to get rid of the military and sadly haven't been strong for cutting its funding (except for the Iraq War), and the Republicans won't end Social Security anytime soon.

 

[Integral]

Sims, you said:

Social welfare costs little compared to the military and corporate welfare.

I merely showed that social welfare costs twice as much as military and corporate welfare expenditures.

Now, we can argue about how much should be paid on this or that program, or who should be taxed by what percent, or how the government should get around to maintaining a balanced budget, but the fact remains that social insurance (health and income security) do cost more than defense and related expenditures.

I'm against corporate welfare as much as you are, but those expenditures are small in comparison to, say, Federal health spending. I'm not making any judgement on the relative value of said expenditures, just making an observation about the amounts.

I don't consider the tax cuts on the wealthy because there is no way of knowing how the revenue equation would have been changed without EGTRRA. If the CBO did a study on that, I must have missed it. Sorry.

I agree that the EGTRRA was irresponsible, but I can't predict by how much...




Re NAFTA: I'll just quote Larry Summers on this, who said it much better than I could:

I think the decision to support NAFTA was a crucial one because it was really a watershed as to whether America was going to stand for larger markets, was going to stand for forward defense of our interests by trying to have a more integrated global economy [in] which countries were growing. So [a] watershed in our relations with Mexico and establishing a real partnership with a country with whom we had a 2,000-mile border. I think it resulted in a profound change in the internal political dynamics in Mexico in favor of the progressive forces that believed in the market and friendship with the United States as opposed to the forces that believed more in socialism and opposition to the United States. And NAFTA didn't cost the United States a penny. It contributed to the strength of our economy both because of more exports and because imports helped to reduce inflation. It didn't cost the budget anything. It was a very worthwhile investment for our country.

Larry Summers, 2001