I never said they were the majority of voters. They simply filled in the gap and made the difference in getting that ideology in the White House.
You stated that "these people," meaning our generation of 18-29 year olds, are the ones who elected the current administration in D.C. Untrue. 13% is not enough to get him elected.
How many 18-29 voters turned out in 2008 as compared to 2000 and 2004? BTW - The 18-29 demographic voted for Obama by a margin of 63-33.
It was actually 66-33. Nonetheless, you're still assuming that all of the new voters voted for Obama. It's very possible that many of those new voters made up that 33%. Again, I'm not claiming that all or even a majority of the new voters opposed Obama; most of them probably did come out and vote to support him, but it's an assumption to state that the new voters all voted for Obama.
And, again, even if they did, only 13% of Obama's vote was made up of our generation (18-29). New voters or not, we did not "elect these idiots in D.C.," as you stated. We were a part of that vote, yes, but only 13% of it; the older generations were 40% of it. We may have come out in record numbers, but yet again as I've already stated, we were outvoted as we often are. If the older generations had as much sense as everyone claims, then Obama's 40% of votes wouldn't have come from them, and they could have changed the election and taken control away from us dumb whippersnappers. But instead, they voted with us, adding 40% to his votes.
Quality of Life not equal to length of life. Quality meaning more asthetically pleasing and functional. You may not have been here as long, but it was "better". Length of life has gone up for other reasons - again, nothing to do with liberal policies.
Aesthetics is subjective, so there is no use in arguing that, but functional? It's more functional to deliver messages by horse than by internet? More functional to drive to Washington state than to fly? Your broad statements had nothing to do with liberal or conservative policies; you simply stated that our country had a better quality of life during the 1800s - 1950s as opposed to the 1960s to now. If you think our country is less functional than it was 200 years ago, then I'm not sure what else to say.
LMAO @ the Roaring 20's economics being caused by 'liberal policies'. While there was social change in the 20's (such as dance crazes, prohibition), the economic boom is typical of post war industrial production much like the Civil War and WWII.
Before, during, and immediately after the Civil War, the nation's economy was based around agricultural. The Industrial Revolution had occurred in Europe decades before, and was now sweeping into America. War does not automatically result in an economic boom upon its completion. The Vietnam War was responsible for a heavy strain on the financial resources of the U.S. economy, as most wars do. There was an imbalance in the industrial sector; factories which were manufacturing consumer goods had to shift their onus towards catering to the demands of the military.
Due to excessive military spending and diversion of funds overseas, the dollar weakened. There was no equivalent amount of funds coming into the country. The country cringed under the strain of household social spending and subsidies on one side and military expenditure on the other. The government earned dissatisfaction from the general public as the interest rates rose and inflationary trends ballooned. The affluent lifestyle of the 60s began to erode because of the economic paralysis.
Transportation is almost certainly the reason for MOST of the boom of the 20's. Between Charles Lindberg and Henry Ford, transportation was revolutionized in the 20's. There was also the electric grid which employed a ton of people, mass production of goods, mass communication and the oil industry (an increased demand from the auto industry booming). Don't confuse social changes and economic changes when speaking of the 20's. 2 different things and totally unrelated.
Certainly, but ignoring the political decisions that helped effectuate this change is also a mistake. The Fordney-McCumber Act (1922) and the Hawley-Smoot Act (1930) created the highest-ever schedule of tariffs for foreign-made goods. This was done in response to the modernization of America, which gave us the technology to trade with foreign countries. Such trade opened up the international market and threatened the marketability of our domestic goods, as is evidenced today. The very basic principal of progressivism is that it is a political movement that addresses ideas and issues stemming from the modernization of American society. These tariffs were essentially a progressive attempt to address the recent modernization of American society within the recently developed international trade scene.
As for the GD, buying on margin (i.e. - overextending credit in today's world) and purposeful speculating by a few greedy idiots were the causes. Its not a debate. Overextending credit to people who cannot handle is a progressive policy. See 2008 Housing Crisis/Subprime Lending Crisis. This is exactly what happened towards the end of the roaring 20's thus creating a bubble. Speculators do what they do, a panic sets in, people start selling short. And guess what happens when everyone starts selling at once, with most of their money tied up in margin? Bad things man...bad things......pop goes the Bubble. 
I agree that overextending credit was not a great idea. I also agree that it was the major cause of the most recent economic crash. To call it a progressive move, however, isn't quite correct. Maybe our contemporary definition of "progressive" has become skewed, especially with the Obama administration, but historically in the United States political system progressivism is characterized as a need for efficiency in society by means of ridding waste and corruption. As society changes, or modernizes, the manner in which we can satisfy this goal changes. New obstacles arise, and new solutions are needed. That's why the root word is "progress;" things are dynamic, not static.
Cultural progressivism has often focused on equality and social reform. Maybe that is what leads you to believe that progressivism would extend credit to everyone equally, despite their inability to manage the debt. However, economic ideas within progressivism must be (and traditionally have been) separated from social ideas. Giving money to those who will never be able to responsibly pay it back does not embody progressivism, as it promotes waste. I would argue that capitalism, the free market, and greed are what led to creditors extending loans to those who wouldn't be able to pay.
209 Replies
31971 Views