Political compass test

[Dan5]

I scored 2.25 on the first part, and -6.25 on the second part. Is Authoritarian positive or negative on your test? And what are the labels on the economics section?

You would be a fiscally liberal moderate libertarian.

It kind of makes sense

I analyzed both Romney and Obama for it from their speeches
Romney -6.75 (Authoritarian), -1 Economic (moderately fiscal liberal)
Obama -6.0 (Authoritarian), -3.5 Economic (fiscal liberal)
Nadar is 0 (moderate), -6.5 (fiscally liberal)

I'm 1.75 (moderate libertarian- I would have thought I would have been more of a libertarian), -6.75 (economic conservative)

Anything between -2.5 and 2.5 is a moderate on the specific scale

 

[Doug_G]

Maybe opening myself up here, but just be aware that by your own definition, democrats are the fiscal conservatives going by deficit growth vs. reduction during presidencies of the two parties. See Table 3 here: http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
:wink:

Fortunately I'm Canadian and don't have a horse in that race. Oddly enough in Canada the Liberal party has a better track record on balancing the books than the than the Conservatives. Go figure. I don't support a specific party - I make up my mind on a case by case basis.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Fortunately I'm Canadian and don't have a horse in that race. Oddly enough in Canada the Liberal party has a better track record on balancing the books than the than the Conservatives. Go figure. I don't support a specific party - I make up my mind on a case by case basis.

It's the same in the States -- the "tax-and-spend" Democrats in the last half-century have done a better job managing the deficit than the "fiscal conservatives" of the GOP. Go figure...

 

[Lloyd]

This does not take into account unfunded obligations.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Accepting your caveat re unfunded obligations, I think your chart proves my point:
Carter reduces the debt
Reagan and Bush I increase the debt
Clinton reduces the debt
Bush II increases the debt
Obama slows the rate of increase (while still having to fight 2 wars he inherited from W)

 

[Lloyd]

I'm not arguing, just showing the numbers!

 

[Dan5]

My issue is that most presidents leave "time bombs" for future leaders and generations to take care of, regardless of political affiliation.

There's a quote by A.F. Tyler
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."

In my opinion the only good president was Andrew Jackson from a fiscal policy perspective

 

[EVNow]

It's the same in the States -- the "tax-and-spend" Democrats in the last half-century have done a better job managing the deficit than the "fiscal conservatives" of the GOP. Go figure...

That is because GOP is more interested in tax cuts than deficits. Tax cuts help their base now - deficit reduction is supposed to help someone sometime in the future.

 

[EVNow]

Further 'negative' (that seems odd) than that. -6.5, -5.95 for me! I am still the most liberal person I know. :biggrin:

That is close to mine.

I ran a thread on this in MNL sometime back. Most were liberal libertarians (-ve, -ve). Funny thing is almost every politician in the US is +ve, +ve. Even the so called libertarian candidates like Ron Paul are more authoritarian than me.

 

[Doug_G]

That is because GOP is more interested in tax cuts than deficits. Tax cuts help their base now - deficit reduction is supposed to help someone sometime in the future.

Complete sellout. Pandering. Nothing "conservative" about that whatsoever.

 

[Dan5]

Complete sellout. Pandering. Nothing "conservative" about that whatsoever.

Both groups pander to specific groups. Living in NJ, the things that go on and the laws that they pass are just stupid and aimed for reelection or make the other group look bad.

One example in NJ was "Millionaires tax", Corzine (Democrat) passed it for a year, let it sunset during his lame duck period (had ample opportunity to sign it), Christie (Republican) came into office with the promise of not raising taxes, so he didn't sign it and there was a big blow out during the Senate elections. And then there was the "Gay Marriage" thing in NJ, Ample opportunity to pass it when democrats controlled both the house and senate, and governorship, but vote it down, then when a Republican becomes governor, they "find" the votes to pass it so that he can veto it.

It least in NJ here's how the two groups pander

Democrats- Big cities, poor, specific minorities, public worker unions
Republicans - property owners, suburbs, wealthy, senior citizens

Both groups say pander to the "middle class" but really do not do anything for them

 

[DrTaras]

One example in NJ was "Millionaires tax", Corzine (Democrat) passed it for a year

You mean THIS Corzine?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...grid10|htmlws-sb-bb|dl3|sec1_lnk3&pLid=146237