NationStates Jolt Archive

Although this article isn't completely accurate in claiming that Presidents rarely meet with the opposition pary about big legislation, this does highlight Obama's inclusive approach to politics. Unfortunately, the GOP is still caught up in pointless partisanship.

Rare sight: president walks halls of Congress (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/27/MNNL15I6OD.DTL&type=politics)

01-27) 17:07 PST Washington - -- It's a rare sight in Washington to see the president walking the halls of the Congress, stopping to talk to reporters in the usual hallway haunts, and rarer still to see him meet with the opposition party to hear their ideas on the first big legislation of his presidency.

Still stranger was this: The leaders of the out-of-power party, thrashed in two consecutive elections and the subject of all this presidential courting, told their members to vote against the president before he even arrived to hear their grievances.

Hours before President Obama arrived Tuesday for GOP-only talks in the House and Senate on the $825 billion economic stimulus bill, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio and his deputy Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia told a closed-door meeting of Republicans to vote against the bill because it has too much government and will not revive the economy.

To be sure, Republicans sounded less churlish when they came out of their meetings with Obama. They sang his praises for reaching out to them and instead blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and other Democratic leaders for writing the legislation without them.

Some seemed surprised at how friendly and open Obama was. Others noted the advantages he brought as a former Senate colleague.

"One of his great strengths is, he's very comfortable with himself, and therefore others are comfortable with him," said Senate Republican conference chair Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. "I think he has a certain ease about him. He did as a senator, and I think he's made an easy transition to the presidency. After all, as he did remind us, he's only been there five days."

Even the most conservative Republicans praised Obama as being genuine and open before denouncing the stimulus as a waste of money and a pile of new debt.

Republicans want more tax cuts. Economists argue that the problem with tax cuts is that in recessions, they are mostly saved, not spent, and so have very little stimulative effect. Republicans acknowledged that and so argued to make them permanent - essentially the policy of the Bush administration.

Obama said part of his effort was to change politics as usual in Washington and break through the traditional partisan bickering over ideology to focus on what might work.

He argued that economic indicators are so bad - including plans to lay off more than 55,000 people announced on Monday by major companies such as Home Depot and Caterpillar - that Congress should pull together quickly behind a stimulus plan that can help stop the bleeding.

"I try to remind people that even with modifications made in the House, we still have $275 billion of tax cuts" in the stimulus Obama said. He said he reminded Republicans that he started out with $300 billion in tax cuts "that got a lot of praise from the Republican side and some grousing from my side of the aisle. I think we're still working through the process, but I'm very grateful" for the opportunity to listen.

The House is set to vote on the bill Wednesday. The Senate will take longer, and then the two different versions must be reconciled - a point at which House Republicans plan to make their presence felt.

The White House is hoping for a bipartisan vote to set the tone for much tougher battles to come over a new banking-system rescue, health care reform, energy and a host of other issues.

Obama asked Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, to remove from the bill $200 million for family-planning services to low-income people that had become a hot Republican talking point. Waxman complied.

"The president took some very tough questions, didn't dodge them, gave very direct and specific answers," said Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah. Nonetheless, Bennett, echoing many other Republicans, said he and others "are not completely convinced that it will, in fact, produce a stimulus."

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., who recently suggested that Guantanamo Bay prisoners should be sent to Alcatraz, complained that "bailing out profligate states like California that have not been able to control their budget does not seem to me to be the highest priority for federal spending."

Republicans also pointed out Congressional Budget Office estimates for the stimulus that show an additional nearly $350 billion in interest payments over 10 years, bringing the total cost of the stimulus to nearly $1.2 trillion. They said Obama may want to make investments, but congressional Democrats added items that Bond said were "just thrown in at the last minute" and won't stop job losses.

Obama said he was confident that things can be worked out.

"But the key right now is to make sure that we keep politics to a minimum," he said. "There are some legitimate philosophical differences with parts of my plan that the Republicans have, and I respect that. In some cases, they may just not be as familiar with what's in the package as I would like. I don't expect 100 percent agreement from my Republican colleagues, but I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people's business right now."

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, said she ran into a GOP colleague who had just come out of the meeting with Obama.

"He said, 'He's just so impressive,' " Tauscher said. "I said, 'He's the real deal, isn't he?' But will he vote with us tomorrow? Probably not."

She blasted Boehner and Cantor for urging their members to vote against the package before even listening to what Obama had to say.

"Are you really going to listen to the people who lost the House for you?" Tauscher commented. "At some point, you have to vote your conscience."
(emphasis added)

I don't mean to sound like I'm drinking the Kool-Aid :wink:, but this seems to me to be a refreshing approach by Obama. Perhaps he can thaw the hearts of some of those Grinch-like Republicans. :D

It still amuses/depresses me to no end that Republicans are against something because it has too much government in it. Additonally they're new "debt is bad" policy is staggering considering the 6 years they had. Ugh, beating a dead horse I am.

Obama's actions this first week have been very refreshing and my hope for him has consistently been going up. In my short political awareness I wouldn't have imagined this happening even with all his (Obama's) claims during the election season. It won't shut up the Republicans though, you'll still have the Hugh Hewitt's and Hannity's of the world.

Hope?
I thought you were going to say it`s been proven he wasn`t born in the US or Rod Blagojevich was going to finger him in hopes of saving his own ass.

Sorry, I`m no fan of the 'New Messiah'. Didn`t care for him as State Senator or US Senator, sure don`t want him for President but I`ve got to suffer through. I survived the Clinton years and will celebrate Obama`s leaving office as much as I did Bill`s. Matters not what I think.

To all that thought/think he was going to fix everything as soon as he took office, you`re insane. The GOP isn`t alone in the blame for the mess we`re in and things are going to get worse before they get better. I live in the middle of nowhere and I am feeling the economic sting (AKA: Layoffs). However, I`m fortunate. This is farm country and everyone has to eat. I can find work, maybe not what I`d like to do but it will pay the bills. I never thought spending my youth bailing hay, walking beans and running tractors would come into play again. At least I have something to fall back on, do you?
I feel I`m going to fare better than those in the urban areas. If things really take a dump, how are some of you going to survive? We`re all going to have to take a lesson from our Grandparents or Great-Grandparents (in my case, Parents) who lived through the Great Depression or we`re going to be in for a world of hurt.

Hope?
I thought you were going to say it`s been proven he wasn`t born in the US or Rod Blagojevich was going to finger him in hopes of saving his own ass.

Sorry, I`m no fan of the 'New Messiah'. Didn`t care for him as State Senator or US Senator, sure don`t want him for President but I`ve got to suffer through. I survived the Clinton years and will celebrate Obama`s leaving office as much as I did Bill`s. Matters not what I think.

To all that thought/think he was going to fix everything as soon as he took office, you`re insane. The GOP isn`t alone in the blame for the mess we`re in and things are going to get worse before they get better. I live in the middle of nowhere and I am feeling the economic sting (AKA: Layoffs). However, I`m fortunate. This is farm country and everyone has to eat. I can find work, maybe not what I`d like to do but it will pay the bills. I never thought spending my youth bailing hay, walking beans and running tractors would come into play again. At least I have something to fall back on, do you?
I feel I`m going to fare better than those in the urban areas. If things really take a dump, how are some of you going to survive? We`re all going to have to take a lesson from our Grandparents or Great-Grandparents (in my case, Parents) who lived through the Great Depression or we`re going to be in for a world of hurt.


lulz.


Anyway, people are suprised that the Republicans wont cooperate? After 8 years of not really having to play with others, we suddenly expected them to stop acting like spoiled children?

I find the article inflammatory and poorly written. This is not abnormal. Obama wants to pass a bill quickly, The republicans cant stop passage of said bill but they can delay it. Obama knows this and he is looking for supporters or break a ways.
The republican leadership is telling people to vote no on the bill because they don't want anyone to promise Obama their vote until they the leadership is certain they have gotten as good of a deal as they can get.
This is just standard leadership making sure they can get as good of a deal as possible.

I find the article inflammatory and poorly written. This is not abnormal. Obama wants to pass a bill quickly, The republicans cant stop passage of said bill but they can delay it. Obama knows this and he is looking for supporters or break a ways.
The republican leadership is telling people to vote no on the bill because they don't want anyone to promise Obama their vote until they the leadership is certain they have gotten as good of a deal as they can get.
This is just standard leadership making sure they can get as good of a deal as possible.

As good a deal as possible for who?

As good a deal as possible for who?

The Republicans and the rich of course. Lets be honest, with the Democrats there is a 50/50 chance that they really care about people.

There is a 99% the Republicans dont give a shit about anyone but themselves.

I can't even begin to express how pissed off I am at the Republicans.

I'm pissed off at the Dems, too, and for much the same reason, but the Reps are being worse about it. I had to turn off the news for my blood pressure's sake after hearing those <expletive that starts with a synonym for rooster and ends with "suckers"> bitching about how Obama's plan is full of "liberal pet projects" and then outlines the Republican "compromise" that is nothing but the full catalogue of Republican party talking points and pork barrel goodies. I'd really like to just start hitting anyone wearing one of those fucking flag lapel pins. With a stick. Now.

The fucking country is coming apart at the seams and these dicks are still playing Junior Ideology League.

As good a deal as possible for who?

depends on view point. its relative. Think of it like this. If Obama is able to get 2 republican senators to vote his way he can pass the bill fairly quick and only have to compromise with what those two senators want.
If the republicans refuse to break ranks Obama has to compromise in line with what the majority of the republican party wants.

Democracy its that thing about compromise.
And politics is generally how those compromises are worked out.

Obama is playing his and the republicans are playing theirs.

Anyway, people are suprised that the Republicans wont cooperate? After 8 years of not really having to play with others, we suddenly expected them to stop acting like spoiled children?
Sort of like the Democrats running congress from WWII to 1994. They`re all useless.

"Politicians and Diapers have a lot in common. They both need changed regularly because they`re full of shit!"

Sort of like the Democrats running congress from WWII to 1994. They`re all useless.

"Politicians and Diapers have a lot in common. They both need changed regularly because they`re full of shit!"

Yes. Because nothing of note was passed from 1939-1994. No important or useful legistlation was passed for about 60 years.:rolleyes:


Please. The Republicans have passed good legistlation too. Just none for the past....decade.

I don't see the partisanship in opposing the stimulus plan. It's not a very good idea.

Economists argue that the problem with tax cuts is that in recessions, they are mostly saved, not spent, and so have very little stimulative effect.

Who are these economists? Are they saying everyone will take their tax cuts and put them in a mattress? Tax cuts, while still a bad idea, would probably provide more relief than infrastructure spending, especially if people did not spend them.

As for high unemployment, get used to it. The government can't spend enough to make a difference.

I don't see the partisanship in opposing the stimulus plan. It's not a very good idea.



Who are these economists? Are they saying everyone will take their tax cuts and put them in a mattress? Tax cuts, while still a bad idea, would probably provide more relief than infrastructure spending, especially if people did not spend them.

As for high unemployment, get used to it. The government can't spend enough to make a difference.

Your opinion is once again noted.

To all that thought/think he was going to fix everything as soon as he took office

another neo-con boogeyman.

The Republicans and the rich of course. Lets be honest, with the Democrats there is a 50/50 chance that they really care about people.

There is a 99% the Republicans dont give a shit about anyone but themselves.

There`s a 100% chance that they`re all (GOP and Dem`s) going to get the rest of us worked up over their partisan bullshit and then end up being all 'buddy-buddy' when it gets settled.
They should all get one term, then get shot.

The Greeks summed up politics right: Poli, meaning Many and Tics, Blood-sucking creatures.

I find the article inflammatory and poorly written. This is not abnormal. Obama wants to pass a bill quickly, The republicans cant stop passage of said bill but they can delay it. Obama knows this and he is looking for supporters or break a ways.
The republican leadership is telling people to vote no on the bill because they don't want anyone to promise Obama their vote until they the leadership is certain they have gotten as good of a deal as they can get.
This is just standard leadership making sure they can get as good of a deal as possible.

This is my opinion mostly, especially the first part.

To Boihaemum: Yeah, maybe they do think that debt is bad all of the sudden. Well, someone has got to, even if they do just start suddenly. These stimulus packs haven't helped before, most Americans don't think so, and the senators should usually be representative of the people they represent. If he is the candidate of change, why is he trying the same stupid stimulus packages that Bush did?

another neo-con boogeyman.

I prefer Right-Wing Extremist. All I know is I`m "Bitter and Clingy".

All I know is I`m "Bitter and Clingy".

at least you admit it. You certainly are acting the part down to a T

I don't see the partisanship in opposing the stimulus plan. It's not a very good idea.



Who are these economists? Are they saying everyone will take their tax cuts and put them in a mattress? Tax cuts, while still a bad idea, would probably provide more relief than infrastructure spending, especially if people did not spend them.

As for high unemployment, get used to it. The government can't spend enough to make a difference.
There would be no particular partisanship in opposing the stimulus plan if the Republicans were opposing it for anything other than partisan reasons.

The fact is, by their admissions about their behavior and motivations, all their criticisms of the plan are bullshit, and their proposed alternatives are even more bullshit. I have serious issues with the plan, too, but I also know that, regardless of how bad it is, the reason the Republicans oppose it is because the Dem's mostly wrote it. And the alternatives they propose in its place are literally to keep on doing what we did to get into this hole in the first place.

But why am I surprised at this -- or rather not surprised, but still not jaded enough to avoid getting enraged over it? It has been clear for years that our government is overwhelmed by incompetent, drooling morons who, if ever a thought wandered into their heads, would call an exorcist to save them from it. They do nothing but spew bullshit. The country right now needs real people to do real things, and all we've got is puppets and trolls. This is what we've asked to get us through this crisis. We are doomed.

I'm serious, as of today, I no longer give a shit what the government does about the economy. It's time for me to look out for my own interests and not wait for them, because they are never going to stop picking their asses and get to work.

This...
Still stranger was this: The leaders of the out-of-power party, thrashed in two consecutive elections and the subject of all this presidential courting, told their members to vote against the president before he even arrived to hear their grievances.
Is completely untrue. 1) They aren't voting against Obama, the time to do that was in November. They are voting against a specific piece of legislation that Obama supports. They might be doing it just to spite Obama, but since he will neither be on the ballot, nor even voting on this matter, it cannot be said that they are voting against him. 2) Parties are always telling their members how to vote, that's why they have Whips and all that jazz.

The country right now needs real people to do real things, and all we've got is puppets and trolls.

It makes me feel a lot better to know that some in our government only says what they say to piss people off and dont actually believe it.;)

It makes me feel a lot better to know that some in our government only says what they say to piss people off and dont actually believe it.;)
You think you're joking, but you're not.

It makes me feel a lot better to know that some in our government only says what they say to piss people off and dont actually believe it.;)That's true.

You think you're joking, but you're not.And that's sad.

This is my opinion mostly, especially the first part.

To Boihaemum: Yeah, maybe they do think that debt is bad all of the sudden. Well, someone has got to, even if they do just start suddenly. These stimulus packs haven't helped before, most Americans don't think so, and the senators should usually be representative of the people they represent. If he is the candidate of change, why is he trying the same stupid stimulus packages that Bush did?

Historically, bitching about the deficit is for the minority party regardless of which one they are.
as for Obama's Stimulus package being similar to Bush's that because on the economy Democrats and Republicans are pretty similar. The only Arguments of Difference is tax cuts Democrats are demand side and republicans are supply side. but even then the differences are pretty small and more rhetoric going back to the parties last great heroes Roosevelt and Reagan.

It makes me feel a lot better to know that some in our government only says what they say to piss people off and dont actually believe it.;)
Wait, you mean there are people who really mean what they say? Where? What do they look like? Do they get special hats?

Wait, you mean there are people who really mean what they say? Where? What do they look like? Do they get special hats?

these guys
http://data1.blog.de/blog/p/parametric/img/shriners.jpg

How the hell is this the same as the GOP plan? When did the GOP invest in infrastructure at all? Our infrastructure is in shambles.

It actually astonishes me that some Americans act like people should be jealous of us. The way we take care of our people and our resources resembles the third world.

The stimulus package, while not perfect is much different from how Bush began his tenure. He gave tax cuts and the economy got worse. Republicans are asking that he give more of the same and hope upon hope it turns out differently.

Worse, they keep saying that our children will inheret the debt. Who inherets the problems with our infrastructure? Gnomes?

Who inherets the problems with our infrastructure? Gnomes?

Yeah, but those guys are jerks anyway, so good riddance...

How to fail as a liberal president: forsake your own ethics and morals to court the neocons for a "bipartisan" vote.

This is my opinion mostly, especially the first part.

To Boihaemum: Yeah, maybe they do think that debt is bad all of the sudden. Well, someone has got to, even if they do just start suddenly. These stimulus packs haven't helped before, most Americans don't think so, and the senators should usually be representative of the people they represent. If he is the candidate of change, why is he trying the same stupid stimulus packages that Bush did?

Except unfortunately they aren't against debt, they just want it to be debt towards their programs, which have failed. Other posters have already covered why his stimulus package is very different from the previous one's.

I would still like someone to explain to me ((and I mean mostly devoid of insults, flames, etc...)) how the government spending more money and cutting taxes is going to lead to a solution to this crisis, when it just puts the government even further under?

This plan adds an additional $6700 worth of debt to every man, woman, and child ((if the national debt were distributed)). I'm not an economist, so I'm not trained in this, but I fail to see how this will really help.

Republicans want more tax cuts. Economists argue that the problem with tax cuts is that in recessions, they are mostly saved, not spent, and so have very little stimulative effect. Republicans acknowledged that and so argued to make them permanent - essentially the policy of the Bush administration.

They know it doesn't work, but push to make it permanent anyways. Bushevism is still around to plague the United States.

Obama asked Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, to remove from the bill $200 million for family-planning services to low-income people that had become a hot Republican talking point. Waxman complied.


I saw that and I don't like it.

Still, Obama's doing a wonderful job so far.

I would still like someone to explain to me ((and I mean mostly devoid of insults, flames, etc...)) how the government spending more money and cutting taxes is going to lead to a solution to this crisis, when it just puts the government even further under?

This plan adds an additional $6700 worth of debt to every man, woman, and child ((if the national debt were distributed)). I'm not an economist, so I'm not trained in this, but I fail to see how this will really help.

I'll use an analogy. Let's say my business is making less than I have to pay employees and for resources and whatnot. Downsizing isn't a viable option, so instead I increase my cash outlay in order to increase business.

That's essentially what's happening here. If increasing spending DOES help the economy, then the taxes will naturally increase (because it's a percentage of the money that moves around) and the gap will close.

If they do the opposite and decrease spending and collect more taxes but the economy slows even more, it's actually possible for the result to be an increase in debt.

What you have to remember is the national debt is a projection based on things continuing as is. For that reason, Clinton was projected a huge surplus that never materialized because of things that happened after Bush took office. Don't get too caught up in the specifics of the numbers. They just use those for political reasons to scare the public into one side or the other.

I saw that and I don't like it.

Still, Obama's doing a wonderful job so far.

Keep in mind, Kyr, that he didn't say he was against it. Obama simply agreed that it really didn't fit the bill and could be worked on elsewhere. While I think it's important, I agree with the President in this case.

Hope is really not in short supply in Obama's government -_-

I would still like someone to explain to me ((and I mean mostly devoid of insults, flames, etc...)) how the government spending more money and cutting taxes is going to lead to a solution to this crisis, when it just puts the government even further under?
Inflation is fun and extra debt means the Dems are going to be record-breakers all over again.

Hope is really not in short supply in Obama's government -_-

he has a majority in congress only he really needs the republicans for is to make sure he can pass legislation quickly.

Keep in mind, Kyr, that he didn't say he was against it. Obama simply agreed that it really didn't fit the bill and could be worked on elsewhere. While I think it's important, I agree with the President in this case.

Fair enough. So long as it gets done at some point.

I like this. We can feel free to disagree with our President in a nice, debating fashion. It feels good to be able to do that.

IDk, I think the GOP is torn, you have the moderates whom ive heard legitimately praise Obama's actions...

And then I see the Limbaugh wing of the party, who seem to made up of the Die Hards that are still Wrapped in the flag and thumping a Bible...


I think youre going to see a new shift in Congress, with the "Blue Dogs" of the Democratic party forming a sort of coalition with Moderate Republicans...against Pelosi and Reid's more leftist wing of the party...

and Obama's real task will be to reconcile the two...IMO...

Well, at least the GOP pretends to be principled once they're out of power.

Oh well. I'm rather apathetic to the whole thing. The stimulus package will just make things worse and speed up the inevitable crash.

So I guess the GOP should STFU so we can go ahead and kill ourselves and get the painful part over and done with.

It's disturbing to see "I want him to fail" from the diehard neo-con trolls who've revealed lately that they don't give a shit about democracy, the US, or anything other than appearing to be right.

It's another thing entirely to see this kind of behavior from elected representatives. Shame on them. And fuck them. Up the ass.

Inflation is fun and extra debt means the Dems are going to be record-breakers all over again.

screaming about the debt is always the hobby of the minority party.
while the number is rather large and scary, that's not the important number.
the important number is Debt in relation to GDP. GDP being your ability to pay
After all a doctor being in debt 10k pounds is nothing but a day laborer beign in debt 10k pounds is significant.
in Debt to GDP ratio the US actually does pretty well.
better then Germany, Portugal, France, Canada, Belgium, Japan, Italy, and several others.

I'll use an analogy. Let's say my business is making less than I have to pay employees and for resources and whatnot. Downsizing isn't a viable option, so instead I increase my cash outlay in order to increase business.

That's essentially what's happening here. If increasing spending DOES help the economy, then the taxes will naturally increase (because it's a percentage of the money that moves around) and the gap will close.

If they do the opposite and decrease spending and collect more taxes but the economy slows even more, it's actually possible for the result to be an increase in debt.

What you have to remember is the national debt is a projection based on things continuing as is. For that reason, Clinton was projected a huge surplus that never materialized because of things that happened after Bush took office. Don't get too caught up in the specifics of the numbers. They just use those for political reasons to scare the public into one side or the other.

Poor analogy. In a business, you're working with what you have, so you can accept your losses and hope that you make a profit next year, or you will be forced to downsize, since you can't just keep spending more. Eventually, you run out.

In this case, though, they're just going to debase the dollar by printing more money. The debt rises once again, and the poor, through the devalued money, get to shoulder the blame.

Besides, increasing spending doesn't help the economy. If you personally are in debt, you're not going to go by a brand new car. If you do, you're an idiot. This is no different. It's an economic Kristalnacht.


That said, this is politics as usual - on both the GOP and Obama sides - and no one should be shocked, unless they actually thought Obama was real change.

Poor analogy. In a business, you're working with what you have

Well there's your problem...Dont you know that businesses dont just operate on what they have...But also on what everyone else has, what part of Change didnt you understand? lol

I'll use an analogy. Let's say my business is making less than I have to pay employees and for resources and whatnot. Downsizing isn't a viable option, so instead I increase my cash outlay in order to increase business.

That's essentially what's happening here. If increasing spending DOES help the economy, then the taxes will naturally increase (because it's a percentage of the money that moves around) and the gap will close.

If they do the opposite and decrease spending and collect more taxes but the economy slows even more, it's actually possible for the result to be an increase in debt.

What you have to remember is the national debt is a projection based on things continuing as is. For that reason, Clinton was projected a huge surplus that never materialized because of things that happened after Bush took office. Don't get too caught up in the specifics of the numbers. They just use those for political reasons to scare the public into one side or the other.

Thank you muchly, that does make some sense.

Well there's your problem...Dont you know that businesses dont just operate on what they have...But also on what everyone else has, what part of Change didnt you understand? lol

Only if you're a banker. ;)

Poor analogy. In a business, you're working with what you have, so you can accept your losses and hope that you make a profit next year, or you will be forced to downsize, since you can't just keep spending more. Eventually, you run out.

In this case, though, they're just going to debase the dollar by printing more money. The debt rises once again, and the poor, through the devalued money, get to shoulder the blame.

The funny thing about analogies is that they are limited, because they aren't the exact same thing (or they wouldn't be analogies). I was explaining to him the idea behind trying to spend your way out of debt.

It's not as if they're buying things that are unnecessary. Fixing the infrastructure is a necessary expense. And YOU, yourself, had made the argument that lowering taxes can increase federal income. That's the point of the analogy.

Are you denying that there is the potential that if spending and lowering taxes increases the flow of the economy that it could increase the federal income proportionately? If you're not, then you're not addressing the point I made. If you are, I'd love to see you support that.

Well there's your problem...Dont you know that businesses dont just operate on what they have...But also on what everyone else has, what part of Change didnt you understand? lol

you should always run programs on borrowed money as a business. You know why ? Because when you go to the bank for the loan and make your presentation you have a group of people listening to you who you can guarantee are not yes men. If the plan doesn't seem like it will work they will tell you.

you should always run programs on borrowed money as a business. You know why ? Because when you go to the bank for the loan and make your presentation you have a group of people listening to you who you can guarantee are not yes men. If the plan doesn't seem like it will work they will tell you.

You and your....Logic.....



:p

Well there's your problem...Dont you know that businesses dont just operate on what they have...But also on what everyone else has, what part of Change didnt you understand? lol

Well, given that was the policy of the last administration, I'm not sure why you're referring to "Change".

And business don't operate on what they have. That was actually why the freak out happened over the credit crunch. Most businesses cannot survive without credit. It's typical to use credit to cover payroll and various other expenses while waiting for payments from clients or prepping for various increases in business and the like. Of course, the projection is that in the long run you'll be able to cover that debt, but that's also the projection here.

Well, given that was the policy of the last administration, I'm not sure why you're referring to "Change".

And business don't operate on what they have. That was actually why the freak out happened over the credit crunch. Most businesses cannot survive without credit. It's typical to use credit to cover payroll and various other expenses while waiting for payments from clients or prepping for various increases in business and the like. Of course, the projection is that in the long run you'll be able to cover that debt, but that's also the projection here.

Agreed, No one ever gets it When Im joking :( lol

you should always run programs on borrowed money as a business. You know why ? Because when you go to the bank for the loan and make your presentation you have a group of people listening to you who you can guarantee are not yes men. If the plan doesn't seem like it will work they will tell you.

That's not why they do it, but it is actually true that most new programs operate on borrowed money.

Agreed, No one ever gets it When Im joking :( lol

Ah, sorry. The funny part is that though I don't know you well, it seemed a little out-of-character.

Alright, I'll take that hit. It's late.

Ah, sorry. The funny part is that though I don't know you well, it seemed a little out-of-character.

Alright, I'll take that hit. It's late.

yeah, I only make jokes when i feel like it....Im not as good or as efficient as LG, lol...

The funny thing about analogies is that they are limited, because they aren't the exact same thing (or they wouldn't be analogies). I was explaining to him the idea behind trying to spend your way out of debt.

And the idea is absolutely insane. Spending is debt, no matter how many people try to twist it.

It didn't work in Weimar, it's not working in Zimbabwe, it won't work for us, either.

It's not as if they're buying things that are unnecessary. Fixing the infrastructure is a necessary expense. And YOU, yourself, had made the argument that lowering taxes can increase federal income. That's the point of the analogy.

I made no such argument whatsoever.

And it's not a matter of unnecessary vs necessary. It's a matter of redistributing wealth from more valued to less valued resources. It's the broken window fallacy yet again.

Are you denying that there is the potential that if spending and lowering taxes increases the flow of the economy that it could increase the federal income proportionately? If you're not, then you're not addressing the point I made. If you are, I'd love to see you support that.

If spending and lowering taxes increased the flow of the economy, it could increase the federal income proportionately.

But "flow" doesn't matter that much if you're flowing into a massive hole. Also, spending doesn't increase federal income. So the point is moot.

Well, given that was the policy of the last administration, I'm not sure why you're referring to "Change".

And business don't operate on what they have. That was actually why the freak out happened over the credit crunch. Most businesses cannot survive without credit. It's typical to use credit to cover payroll and various other expenses while waiting for payments from clients or prepping for various increases in business and the like. Of course, the projection is that in the long run you'll be able to cover that debt, but that's also the projection here.

Businesses can easily survive without credit, for one. Did the US just not have an economy before 1913? The problem with credit is that when you have a lot of it, you spend with credit instead of savings (which you wouldn't have to pay back, nor pay interest on). Which, if you have to do for something as simple as payroll, you fail terribly as a businessman, especially if you already owe nearly three times your annual budget.

Not to say there aren't legit uses for credit and what-not. But taking loan after loan after loan that is financed by debasing the currency is not one of them.

Erm...

Businesses can easily survive without credit, for one. Did the US just not have an economy before 1913? The problem with credit is that when you have a lot of it, you spend with credit instead of savings (which you wouldn't have to pay back, nor pay interest on). Which, if you have to do for something as simple as payroll, you fail terribly as a businessman, especially if you already owe nearly three times your annual budget.

Not to say there aren't legit uses for credit and what-not. But taking loan after loan after loan that is financed by debasing the currency is not one of them.

Well, id say thats mostly true for Established businesses...

But how do you intend to start a New Business, which, to me, would be the real statistic for determining Economic Growth....

Without getting loans or having Credit? Unless you inherited a Fortune, itd be a nigh Impossible thing to do...

Well, id say thats mostly true for Established businesses...

But how do you intend to start a New Business, which, to me, would be the real statistic for determining Economic Growth....

Without getting loans or having Credit? Unless you inherited a Fortune, itd be a nigh Impossible thing to do...

Like I said, there are legit reasons for it, and you do take risks. But you, as an entrepeneur, bear all of the costs and losses that you may or may not take.

The government, though, socializes these costs through either raised taxes or debasement of the currency, thus is not held responsible for stupid moves.

And, on a different note, what I think would really help the economy is something I heard on talk radio...which although not usually a good source, since they dont seem to check their sources(its more entertaining than NPR)...I think itd be a good idea on stimulating the economy, at least Stateside, if it is true...

They were saying that Reagan had originally helped employ Auto-Workers by saying, in effect, that if you manufacture a car outside the border, then you can only import X numbers of them before you have to pay a tariff...I dont see why we cant apply that to most, if not all, manufacturing products in the US, which I think would bring alot of jobs back from overseas....

They were saying that Reagan had originally helped employ Auto-Workers by saying, in effect, that if you manufacture a car outside the border, then you can only import X numbers of them before you have to pay a tariff...I dont see why we cant apply that to most, if not all, manufacturing products in the US, which I think would bring alot of jobs back from overseas....

They did do something like that and it ended up devastating the US automotive industry. The thing was, those quotas created artificially low supply while demand was very high, and this enabled Japanese and European automakers to start charging "quota rents" that drastically increased their profits enough to more than compensate for the restrictions on sales. Long story short, these higher profits eventually led to such overwhelming competitive advantage that the foreign automakers were able to eviscerate the US companies once they began investing in US plants to circumvent the quotas.

Quotas are flat-out the worst possible form of trade restriction in existence, worse than tariffs (which are in turn worse than subsidies and tax credits) and generally ensuring the complete destruction of any industry that is protected by them.

This is what party politics does.

I would still like someone to explain to me ((and I mean mostly devoid of insults, flames, etc...)) how the government spending more money and cutting taxes is going to lead to a solution to this crisis, when it just puts the government even further under?

This plan adds an additional $6700 worth of debt to every man, woman, and child ((if the national debt were distributed)). I'm not an economist, so I'm not trained in this, but I fail to see how this will really help.

I'll give you a hint: I can better afford an extra $6700 worth of debt if I have a job than I can an extra $0 worth of debt if I'm unemployed.

The fucking country is coming apart at the seams and these dicks are still playing Junior Ideology League.

As I've said a million times, Americans view politics like a football game. Whatever it takes for their team to win.

As for high unemployment, get used to it. The government can't spend enough to make a difference.

I'm still polishing those jackboots.

They did do something like that and it ended up devastating the US automotive industry. The thing was, those quotas created artificially low supply while demand was very high, and this enabled Japanese and European automakers to start charging "quota rents" that drastically increased their profits enough to more than compensate for the restrictions on sales. Long story short, these higher profits eventually led to such overwhelming competitive advantage that the foreign automakers were able to eviscerate the US companies once they began investing in US plants to circumvent the quotas.

Quotas are flat-out the worst possible form of trade restriction in existence, worse than tariffs (which are in turn worse than subsidies and tax credits) and generally ensuring the complete destruction of any industry that is protected by them.

Even a partisan supporter of the Big 3 like myself has to agree with this.

i know it was a looooong time ago.....last september.... but does anyone else remember that when the republican president and treasury secretary came to congress with an emergency that required a huge bailout it didnt pass right away because the republicans were against it?

it doesnt seem wrong to me that when a democratic president does the same they would still be against it.

and since the president doesnt need their votes there is no big downside to them "selling short" so as to gain politically if the recovery doesnt go so well. they sure wont get any points for going along if it succeeds.

I'll give you a hint: I can better afford an extra $6700 worth of debt if I have a job than I can an extra $0 worth of debt if I'm unemployed.

You're not going to be affording that extra debt when your job, which for all intensive purposes shouldn't exist, goes under in a few years after the government can't keep paying to prop it up.

Unless, of course, you want to live in the Weimar Republic.

And fuck them. Up the ass.

Considering the recent trends of high profile Republicans and Evangelicals, I dont think they would object to this.

You're not going to be affording that extra debt when your job, which for all intensive purposes shouldn't exist, goes under in a few years after the government can't keep paying to prop it up.

Unless, of course, you want to live in the Weimar Republic.

All intents and purposes.

And perhaps not, but I'm not going to be able to afford anything if I'm out of work period.

I'd rather live in New Deal America than the Weimar Republic, if that's all right. Perhaps we need another world war.

All intents and purposes.

You know, I've always thought "all intensive purposes" sounded wrong, but no one ever corrected me. Thanks. :)

And perhaps not, but I'm not going to be able to afford anything if I'm out of work period.

True, yes. However, taking resources from more productive areas of the economy to less productive will only hurt everyone - including yourself - further.

I'd rather live in New Deal America than the Weimar Republic, if that's all right. Perhaps we need another world war.

I'd rather not live in either. I'll take the one-to-three year depression to let the market correct all the malinvestment and get back to normal. You can keep your dollar debasement and 10 year depression.

Also, destruction of capital never helps the economy.

Unless, of course, you want to live in the Weimar Republic.
Err well this really gives you your choice of the two worst bits - inflation or unemployment. Take your pick.

Err well this really gives you your choice of the two worst bits - inflation or unemployment. Take your pick.

the 1970's taught us you can have both inflation and unemployment.
Its like having your cake and eating it too, only the cake is made out of shit.

the 1970's taught us you can have both inflation and unemployment.
Its like having your cake and eating it too, only the cake is made out of shit.

lol stagflation

Correct me if I am wrong(I just got out of a Canadian History exam) but wasn't one of the causes of the Great Depression due to too many people buying things on credits that they couldn't pay back sound like what the government is doing now?

I did not support Obama or his beliefs on what would be best for this country. However, he is now our President and my leader, so I respect him. If he does a great job in office, I will approve of and like him. If not, then I will not.

My expectations of him are the same as any other president...I hope he does great.

Correct me if I am wrong(I just got out of a Canadian History exam) but wasn't one of the causes of the Great Depression due to too many people buying things on credits that they couldn't pay back sound like what the government is doing now?

That would be correct.

I honestly don't know why when we are going to spend even more when we are in such an incredible amount of debt. This is going to catch up with the United States sometime, and when it does, it's not going to be fun.

I admire Obama's willingness to work with conservatives like me, and I respect him greatly. However, I must disagree with his $800 billion or so economic stimulus package. Taxes have to go up and spending has to go down at this point. It sucks to think that has to be the case, but it's going to come to that somehow.

Correct me if I am wrong(I just got out of a Canadian History exam) but wasn't one of the causes of the Great Depression due to too many people buying things on credits that they couldn't pay back sound like what the government is doing now?

Quiet, you; stop letting facts get in the way of government policy.

They did do something like that and it ended up devastating the US automotive industry. The thing was, those quotas created artificially low supply while demand was very high, and this enabled Japanese and European automakers to start charging "quota rents" that drastically increased their profits enough to more than compensate for the restrictions on sales. Long story short, these higher profits eventually led to such overwhelming competitive advantage that the foreign automakers were able to eviscerate the US companies once they began investing in US plants to circumvent the quotas.

Quotas are flat-out the worst possible form of trade restriction in existence, worse than tariffs (which are in turn worse than subsidies and tax credits) and generally ensuring the complete destruction of any industry that is protected by them.

Well, I wasnt saying itd help US automakers, but it would get the European and Japanese to open their factories here, employing Americans...

Im saying itd get more Americans to work if they did that to more manufactored goods....and I think it would keep alot of companies from doing what Rheem for example did, and abruptly close up and go to Mexico, disgusts me, Im ashamed to have one of their systems in my house...

Just cause its US owned doesnt mean its beneficial to us...and just because its not US owned doesnt mean its not employing more Americans anyway, that should be the true goal of fixing the economy, getting our jobs back, no matter who its owned by...

Quiet, you; stop letting facts get in the way of government policy.

Loosing your job and not making payments on installment plans caused the great depression?

Loosing your job and not making payments on installment plans caused the great depression?

Nope. But that's not what he said, so that's okay.

And the idea is absolutely insane. Spending is debt, no matter how many people try to twist it.

It didn't work in Weimar, it's not working in Zimbabwe, it won't work for us, either.

I made no such argument whatsoever.

And it's not a matter of unnecessary vs necessary. It's a matter of redistributing wealth from more valued to less valued resources. It's the broken window fallacy yet again.


If spending and lowering taxes increased the flow of the economy, it could increase the federal income proportionately.

But "flow" doesn't matter that much if you're flowing into a massive hole. Also, spending doesn't increase federal income. So the point is moot.

Ah, I see. Saving the economy is unnecessary. Fixing the infrastructure is unnecessary. We know that you don't use airports or interstate highways. You obviously don't participate in the economy, right?

What else is unecessary? Food and shelter?

As far as increasing the flow, that's actually what happens. It's been demonstrated. But, hey, let's pretend like the 90's didn't happen. I mean, during the 90's, during a recession, they increased spending and decreased taxes and went form a HUGE projected deficit to a HUGE projected surplus. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your flawed theory.

Like I said, there are legit reasons for it, and you do take risks. But you, as an entrepeneur, bear all of the costs and losses that you may or may not take.

The government, though, socializes these costs through either raised taxes or debasement of the currency, thus is not held responsible for stupid moves.

False. The government is for the people and by the people. Who besides the people are paying for these "stupid moves"?

I like you, Gloe, but if you really don't know how the government works or what is, stop talking. This is just embarrassing.

Still, Obama's doing a wonderful job so far.Even the Grays have their eye on him!
http://www.asylum.co.uk/2009/01/26/paranoia-alert-did-aliens-watch-the-obama-inauguration/

Ah, the condescending disrespect of Jocabia. Nothing ever changes, does it?

Well, let's begin, then.

Ah, I see. Saving the economy is unnecessary. Fixing the infrastructure is unnecessary. We know that you don't use airports or interstate highways. You obviously don't participate in the economy, right?

What else is unecessary? Food and shelter?

Spectacular strawman with the food and shelter thing, I applaud.

The economy cannot be saved or salvaged by doing the very thing that continues to make the economy bad - living beyond our means. Our economy is in the shape it is because of the very things the government is pretending to do to fix it.

Savings are important, and are the only thing that will allow us to pull ourselves up from the ashes of the inevitable collapse of our economy. Savings, not spending.

Besides, government only leads to malinvestment. It cannot accurately predict the needs and wants of 309 million individuals.

As far as increasing the flow, that's actually what happens. It's been demonstrated. But, hey, let's pretend like the 90's didn't happen. I mean, during the 90's, during a recession, they increased spending and decreased taxes and went form a HUGE projected deficit to a HUGE projected surplus. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your flawed theory.

Okay, you're right, spending increases government income. But that doesn't defend this bailout.

The "flow" of the economy was a deluge, it should have never happened.

In order to "counter" the recession, interest rates were dropped artificially low, encouraging more people to borrow and spend. Banks were then guarenteed government help if the loans defaulted, so bankers had full incentive to give loans out left and right - after all, they didn't have to bear the costs.

This extra spending created an artificial boom in the economy (dot com bubble, housing bubble, etc). So sure, it appeared that we were doing well. However, the prosperity was an illusion. The people getting these loans should not have been getting said loans. People overextended themselves, and, as we just saw with the recent housing bubble collapse and the banking "crisis," the bubble popped.

Ultimately, the "prosperity" of the 90s was an illusion, an artificial bubble crafted by government legislation and the federal reserve.

But you can keep lying to yourself to justify your parasitical State.

Unless, of course, I just misinterpreted you, in which case I encourage you to flesh your argument out completely so I may properly respond.

False. The government is for the people and by the people. Who besides the people are paying for these "stupid moves"?

Oh please. You sincerely believe this bullshit? The state is made up of individuals acting in their own self interest. They are granted a total monopoly on violence and law. And you think they really care about the people?

If they really were "for the people and by the people," then there wouldn't be any criticisms. Bush would have never happened, neither would Iraq, or the PATRIOT ACT. Or, really, the Federal Bank, or American involvement in WWI and II, or any of the drafts, or...well, need I go on? Sorry, reality and history are on my side on this one. You have nothing but empty rhetoric.

I like you, Gloe, but if you really don't know how the government works or what is, stop talking. This is just embarrassing.

You're a decent fellow, too, when you're not arguing. And what should be more embarrassing to you is your own naivete in actually thinking the government cares about you. I know what the state is and how it works, which is why I want nothing to do with it.

a refreshing approach by Obama.

eh... I don't think there's anything particularly refreshing about massive bailouts. They're such huge gambles.

Rare hope is right as for inclusive as long as they go along with whatever he says that is considered inclusive, the same can be said of any president.

eh... I don't think there's anything particularly refreshing about massive bailouts. They're such huge gambles.

Your signature made me choke on my drink from laughing. Asshole.

Rare hope is right as for inclusive as long as they go along with whatever he says that is considered inclusive, the same can be said of any president.

What?


Hey, at least hes getting their opinion. How often did Bush seek to comprimise with the minority if they were in the other party.

Oh right. Never. Republicans dont know how good they have it atm.

Your signature made me choke on my drink from laughing. Asshole.

Aha! It's function has been fulfilled then! :)

As long as they agree with whatever that is not inclusion.

What?


Hey, at least hes getting their opinion. How often did Bush seek to comprimise with the minority if they were in the other party.

Oh right. Never. Republicans dont know how good they have it atm.

Not openly, but compromise is a necessity if you actually want anything passed. But you're right, Obama is extending a hand.

I still lol'd hard at every GOP member of the house voting against the bill.

As long as they agree with him.

As long as they agree with him.

Not really. Hes bending over backwards to add their ideas into the bill.


Theyre the ones not comprimising. They want it all their way.

Like I said, the Republicans are on the verge of being totally politically obsolete. Theyre lucky he is even dealing with them.

Dont think President Obama is any different then any other politician. He may very well include others ideas when he thinks its ok, others times not, same as any othe president.

I really don't know how I feel about the stimulus package. I know our economy could use some government assistance, but its just so much debt.

Although this article isn't completely accurate in claiming that Presidents rarely meet with the opposition pary about big legislation, this does highlight Obama's inclusive approach to politics. Unfortunately, the GOP is still caught up in pointless partisanship.

...

I don't mean to sound like I'm drinking the Kool-Aid :wink:, but this seems to me to be a refreshing approach by Obama. Perhaps he can thaw the hearts of some of those Grinch-like Republicans. :D
I'd be far more impressed with the stand taken by Republicans, if they hadn't been such spendthrifts when GWB was in office. Still, the Obama package is like a guy taking water from the deep end of a pool and emptying it into the shallow end just to make the pool deeper. It won't happen and this package isn't going to stimulate the economy.

I don't see how it can be good for the economy, the estimated total cost of this is more like 1.1-1.2 trillion, when you figure in interest payments to pay it all back, that is of course assuming we do pay it back. Frankly I'm not convinced that the people running the show are smart enough not to deficit spend us right into bankruptcy.

I don't see how it can be good for the economy, the estimated total cost of this is more like 1.1-1.2 trillion, when you figure in interest payments to pay it all back, that is of course assuming we do pay it back. Frankly I'm not convinced that the people running the show are smart enough not to deficit spend us right into bankruptcy.
It dawned on me one day that only so much money can be spent in any economy. The government can't create a situation where more than the GDP is spent -- either the gov't spends less, or the public spends less. A giant spending bill like this only guarantees that we will spend less. So call it by the name it deserves -- WELFARE.

It dawned on me one day that only so much money can be spent in any economy. The government can't create a situation where more than the GDP is spent -- either the gov't spends less, or the public spends less. A giant spending bill like this only guarantees that we will spend less.

and that's bad? We weren't spending enough?

So call it by the name it deserves -- WELFARE.

As long as you call Bush's bailouts by that name too.

I might have misheard a great deal about the plan, but isn't the bulk of it allowing money for a massive overhaul of various infrastructure such as roads and electricity?


I for one think that is a good thing, but like I said, I might have misheard.

and that's bad? We weren't spending enough?



As long as you call Bush's bailouts by that name too.
Isn't the idea of stimulus that we, the public, should spend more -- create more demand on industry -- create more jobs? Spending less will not achieve that. In fact, spending less is forced through a couple of unappealing methods. The first is increased taxation so that the government can pay its bills. If the government decides to run a tab, then we suffer from inflation. We spend the same, but we buy less.

And we're dealing with Obama and the Democrats, now. Bush is gone. Get over it.

and that's bad? We weren't spending enough?

His wording was off, but he meant the people actually spending instead of the government.

Either way, spending is too much :(

As long as you call Bush's bailouts by that name too.

And they were. Corporate welfare is still welfare. Anyone who supported them has no right to call themselves a capitalist.

Isn't the idea of stimulus that we, the public, should spend more -- create more demand on industry -- create more jobs?

Possibly. I think saving is preferable to spending, however.


And we're dealing with Obama and the Democrats, now. Bush is gone. Get over it.

Nice dodge. I am not talking with Obama, I'm talking with you. I want to know if your "LOL, WELFARE" comment stems from some true dislike of government bailouts - or if you only pipe up when it's Democrats doing it.

In other words, I want to know if your opinion is worthless.

Bush is gone. Get over it.

You going to remember that when you bring up Clinton?

And we're dealing with Obama and the Democrats, now. Bush is gone. Get over it.

no u

I'm a happy capitalist, and I'm sure as hell not "getting over" Bush. That jerkface destroyed the free market and then called his policies "lassiez-faire."

Even the right hates him. Unless you're a neo-con, but then you don't count as a human being.

I'd be far more impressed with the stand taken by Republicans, if they hadn't been such spendthrifts when GWB was in office. Still, the Obama package is like a guy taking water from the deep end of a pool and emptying it into the shallow end just to make the pool deeper. It won't happen and this package isn't going to stimulate the economy.

So, when youre wrong, will you man up and admit it?


Nice dodge. I am not talking with Obama, I'm talking with you. I want to know if your "LOL, WELFARE" comment stems from some true dislike of government bailouts - or if you only pipe up when it's Democrats doing it.

In other words, I want to know if your opinion is worthless.

You know the answer to that just as well as I do.

Possibly. I think saving is preferable to spending, however.



Nice dodge. I am not talking with Obama, I'm talking with you. I want to know if your "LOL, WELFARE" comment stems from some true dislike of government bailouts - or if you only pipe up when it's Democrats doing it.

In other words, I want to know if your opinion is worthless.
You can't save with increased taxation or increased inflation. But this is the change you wanted.

His wording was off, but he meant the people actually spending instead of the government.

Either way, spending is too much :(

Indeed.


And they were. Corporate welfare is still welfare. Anyone who supported them has no right to call themselves a capitalist.

I wouldn't even equate it to welfare. Actual weflare aims to help impoverished people who need it. Corporate welfare aims to prop up failing businesses. I find hungry children a lot more personally compelling than a failing business.

no u

I'm a happy capitalist, and I'm sure as hell not "getting over" Bush. That jerkface destroyed the free market and then called his policies "lassiez-faire."

Even the right hates him. Unless you're a neo-con, but then you don't count as a human being.

SRSLY. And then the anti-capitalists take Bush or the Republican Party to be some sort of free market champion - then when their policies fail, 'capitalism' gets the blame.

You can't save with increased taxation or increased inflation. But this is the change you wanted.

You didnt answer the question. Was Bush's bailout welfare too? Or are you just saying "lulz teh black guy likes welfare"?

You can't save with increased taxation or increased inflation. But this is the change you wanted.

How much saving went on with the shrubs tax cuts? Oh wait I keep forgetting the lions share went to the wealthy class.

Balancing the taxes among the classes and adding more to the wealthy class will not cause a decrease in savings. Well for them maybe.....

How much saving went on with the shrubs tax cuts? Oh wait I keep forgetting the lions share went to the wealthy class.

Balancing the taxes among the classes and adding more to the wealthy class will not cause a decrease in savings. Well for them maybe.....

Not to mention Bush destroyed a rather large surplus.


But he killed ebil moslems, so Myrmi will defend him to the death.

How much saving went on with the shrubs tax cuts? Oh wait I keep forgetting the lions share went to the wealthy class.

Balancing the taxes among the classes and adding more to the wealthy class will not cause a decrease in savings. Well for them maybe.....
Say what you want about the wealthy, but there are more than a few states that wish the wealthy were still raking it in. New York State is losing $1 billion this year.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01282009/news/regionalnews/new_york_takes_1b_tax_revenue_hit_152412.htm

The plans I've seen don't balance anything. The plans eliminate income taxation for at least half of all wage earners. Then they provide some sort of 'credit' for working that is utterly unjustified.

Not to mention Bush destroyed a rather large surplus.


But he killed ebil moslems, so Myrmi will defend him to the death.

Obama drank the Paulson Kool-Aid too, KOL, seven hundered billion dollars worth, no oversight, no demands or requirements, just money down the toilet with a request for MORE.

Obama drank the Paulson Kool-Aid too, KOL, seven hundered billion dollars worth, no oversight, no demands or requirements, just money down the toilet with a request for MORE.

Money that, unlike past bailouts, is going mostly into infastructure

Money that, unlike past bailouts, is going mostly into infastructure
Under the misnomer of stimulus. How is a grant to the NEA going to stimulate anything economic? Same with patching a few roads... It isn't what's needed. But Democrats could never bring themselves to let ordinary citizens spend their own money. No, government knows best...

Under the misnomer of stimulus. How is a grant to the NEA going to stimulate anything economic? Same with patching a few roads... It isn't what's needed. But Democrats could never bring themselves to let ordinary citizens spend their own money. No, government knows best...

Because massive amounts of tax cuts worked so well. Especially when they were specifically for the wealthy.

Where were you the past eight years? Because you sure werent in reality.

Not to mention Bush destroyed a rather large surplus.



Technically that was a projected Surplus dependent on the economy staying good (at the DOT com boom levels) and keeping Bush Sr.'s Tax rate.

Under the misnomer of stimulus. How is a grant to the NEA going to stimulate anything economic? Same with patching a few roads... It isn't what's needed. But Democrats could never bring themselves to let ordinary citizens spend their own money. No, government knows best...

Eh? Then whats with all the living beyond their means or buying more house then they can afford comments?

Do you want them to spend their money or not?

Under the misnomer of stimulus. How is a grant to the NEA going to stimulate anything economic? Same with patching a few roads... It isn't what's needed. But Democrats could never bring themselves to let ordinary citizens spend their own money. No, government knows best...

So what exactly is needed?

So what exactly is needed?

More tax cuts of course! Especially for the wealthy. Not like we tried that and it failed miserably or anything.

I wouldn't even equate it to welfare. Actual weflare aims to help impoverished people who need it. Corporate welfare aims to prop up failing businesses. I find hungry children a lot more personally compelling than a failing business.

On an emotional level, I agree. But on a purely economic level, welfare is nothing more than taking money from one sector of the economy and giving it to another because a few bureaucrats thought Y needed it more than X.



SRSLY. And then the anti-capitalists take Bush or the Republican Party to be some sort of free market champion - then when their policies fail, 'capitalism' gets the blame.

http://www.terraspirit.com/memories/021406_rage.jpg
RRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEE

Money that, unlike past bailouts, is going mostly into infastructure

Unless you're in Illinois; no bailout funds are allowed to go into that state until Blaggy leaves office.

And the idea is absolutely insane. Spending is debt, no matter how many people try to twist it.

It didn't work in Weimar, it's not working in Zimbabwe, it won't work for us, either.

Zimbabwe's problem is that it's printing too much money, not that it's spending too much. I seem to recall that was the problem in the Weimar Republic as well.

Zimbabwe's problem is that it's printing too much money, not that it's spending too much. I seem to recall that was the problem in the Weimar Republic as well.
Quite.

Zimbabwe's problem is that it's printing too much money, not that it's spending too much. I seem to recall that was the problem in the Weimar Republic as well.

You are indeed correct. However, in the case of the United States, one of the reasons that they print so much money is so the government can spend and go into debt without having to raise taxes. Because debasement is quiet, the peasant rabble won't notice. Increase taxes, though, and all hell breaks loose.

And really, that was the case in the Weimar Republic, too. The prime reason they printed so much was due to the horrendous reparations the allies put on them.

You can't save with increased taxation or increased inflation. But this is the change you wanted.

Myrm, please TG me and explain why you have In Hoc Signo Vinces under your name. I am not doing this to attack you so be not afraid. We may have more in common than we already know.

And here we go again. It simply does not matter how large a majority the Democrats get. The could have all the Senate seats, all the house seats, and the Supreme Court, and they still would be talking about obstructionism. They support the tax cuts and other benefits to big business in the "stimulus" package. This is just a clever ruse to give the Republicans blame for the Democrat's policies. They blamed Bush for the continuation of the War in Iraq, when they needed 41 votes in the Senate or a majority in the House to end it. And the U.S. is still in Iraq. The Republicans of course are playing the role of the "bad cop" perfectly. But there are no real good guys in a game of good cop, bad cop.

And here we go again. It simply does not matter how large a majority the Democrats get. The could have all the Senate seats, all the house seats, and the Supreme Court, and they still would be talking about obstructionism. They support the tax cuts and other benefits to big business in the "stimulus" package. This is just a clever ruse to give the Republicans blame for the Democrat's policies. They blamed Bush for the continuation of the War in Iraq, when they needed 41 votes in the Senate or a majority in the House to end it. And the U.S. is still in Iraq. The Republicans of course are playing the role of the "bad cop" perfectly. But there are no real good guys in a game of good cop, bad cop.

Well said.

Well, good ideas. Perhaps the delivery could have been a bit more concise and passionate, but oh well. ;)

On an emotional level, I agree. But on a purely economic level, welfare is nothing more than taking money from one sector of the economy and giving it to another because a few bureaucrats thought Y needed it more than X.


True it clearly doesn't work as it ought to, and it's certainly not a positive thing economically, but I still support it in principle. Quite unlike handing out cash to losing businesses. See, it doesn't matter to me if a business fails - its just an organization designed to make money. Doesn't make money? Shrug, oh well. On the other hand, despite my general misanthropy, people failing is something I tend to oppose.



http://www.terraspirit.com/memories/021406_rage.jpg
RRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEE[/QUOTE]

lulz

Oh please. You sincerely believe this bullshit?

Yes, I tend to believe facts. I'm silly like that.

The state is made up of individuals acting in their own self interest. They are granted a total monopoly on violence and law. And you think they really care about the people?

I didn't say they care about the people. You having trouble with reading comprehension? I said, they're of the people. The people have the power. The people choose politicians and they get the politicians they deserve. Until they require politicians to care about them, they'll continue to get politicians that don't. However, pretending like the people aren't responsible for the choices the people make is just nonsense.
If they really were "for the people and by the people," then there wouldn't be any criticisms. Bush would have never happened, neither would Iraq, or the PATRIOT ACT. Or, really, the Federal Bank, or American involvement in WWI and II, or any of the drafts, or...well, need I go on? Sorry, reality and history are on my side on this one. You have nothing but empty rhetoric.

Bullshit. Bush had the support of the people. People can complain and respond however they like to surveys, but a large portion of the people couldn't care enough to vote and another large portion supported him taking the reigns.

You can cry and distract all you like, but you aren't going to convince me that somehow the people of the United States shouldn't pay for the very plans they vote their politicians in on. Hell, a large portion of the population got offended when Obama dared to mention that rather than voting in their interests they vote on pet subjects. They people get what they deserve. I also don't feel bad for people who eat at McDonald's and complain because the food is killing them. At some point, Americans need to take responsibility for their actions.


You're a decent fellow, too, when you're not arguing. And what should be more embarrassing to you is your own naivete in actually thinking the government cares about you. I know what the state is and how it works, which is why I want nothing to do with it.
Again, who said that the government cares? I wonder, is the real argument so difficult to address that you have to make one up?

Ah, the condescending disrespect of Jocabia. Nothing ever changes, does it?

Respect is earned.

Well, let's begin, then.

Spectacular strawman with the food and shelter thing, I applaud.

Again, if you don't know something don't talk about it. I didn't say you were arguing food and shelter is unnecessary. You see those question marks? What I argued is about what is necessary. That's because you said it was unnecessary spending.


The economy cannot be saved or salvaged by doing the very thing that continues to make the economy bad - living beyond our means. Our economy is in the shape it is because of the very things the government is pretending to do to fix it.

Except, it's not what makes the economy bad. Almost all small companies do it at some point. The issue is that they have a plan to get things back in sync. I mean, I know you've never run a business, but don't tell me they don't talk about this in the books you read.


Savings are important, and are the only thing that will allow us to pull ourselves up from the ashes of the inevitable collapse of our economy. Savings, not spending.

Interesting. Apparently, nearly every small business in the country is unsuccessful. Seriously, you don't know how things work at all.

If everyone saved money instead of spending it, the entire economy would collapse. The government is currently trying to get people to spend money. If they succeed, the economy will recover. If you succeed and people follow your advice, the economy will be in the can by Christmas.

Besides, government only leads to malinvestment. It cannot accurately predict the needs and wants of 309 million individuals.

Ah, and there we have it. We get it, you're an anarchist. However, you'd probably have a more credible argument if you didn't rely on silly and sweeping generalizations without supporting them.

Okay, you're right, spending increases government income. But that doesn't defend this bailout.

It doesn't? You argued that it would increase the deficit. I take it you don't actually have evidence that it will in the long run. Good. We agree.

The "flow" of the economy was a deluge, it should have never happened.

In order to "counter" the recession, interest rates were dropped artificially low, encouraging more people to borrow and spend. Banks were then guarenteed government help if the loans defaulted, so bankers had full incentive to give loans out left and right - after all, they didn't have to bear the costs.

You don't actually remember the 90's, do you?

This extra spending created an artificial boom in the economy (dot com bubble, housing bubble, etc). So sure, it appeared that we were doing well. However, the prosperity was an illusion. The people getting these loans should not have been getting said loans. People overextended themselves, and, as we just saw with the recent housing bubble collapse and the banking "crisis," the bubble popped.

It did not and it wasn't artificial. Lots and lots of people got rich, most of them had little money to begin with. Lots and lots of people were pulled out of poverty. Most of them, unsurprisingly, wouldn't consider reality to be "an illusion".

It was allowed to overextend, but it was the best thing to happen in this country in a century. If you adjust your thinking in such a ludicrous way, everything good that results from government spending and tax cuts is "artificial" and then you don't have to address those times when it worked.

A booming decade is a long time for that level of activity. The mistake wasn't in the solution they offered to the problem but that they (by the nature of being elected officials) didn't have the balls to reign it in when it bubbled. A brand-new industry being invested in and becoming one of the most profitable industries to ever exist isn't artificial. Seriously, when you argument requires you to call the boom of the internet "artificial", you really should just stop.

Ultimately, the "prosperity" of the 90s was an illusion, an artificial bubble crafted by government legislation and the federal reserve.

But you can keep lying to yourself to justify your parasitical State.

Unless, of course, I just misinterpreted you, in which case I encourage you to flesh your argument out completely so I may properly respond.

As I said, why address the reality, when everything that doesn't fit into your provably false beliefs can just be waved away with "illusion" and "artificial"?

I love that you consider the state parisitic but not business. Business has NO other role than to do everything it can to exploit the people. It's not a suggested role. It's not a possible role. If a public business does it's job it makes the absolute most money it can for shareholders. This requires it to exploit every advantage it can get.

You can't seperate one from the other. Your arguments are automatically suspect that you have to wave away an entire decade and then you make arguments that if they were used against you, you would laugh and point at.

Isn't the idea of stimulus that we, the public, should spend more -- create more demand on industry -- create more jobs? Spending less will not achieve that. In fact, spending less is forced through a couple of unappealing methods. The first is increased taxation so that the government can pay its bills. If the government decides to run a tab, then we suffer from inflation. We spend the same, but we buy less.

And we're dealing with Obama and the Democrats, now. Bush is gone. Get over it.

Of course, you want us to "get over it". Because you've been defending Bush for so long that if people make note that Bush was a 1000 times worse if one considers what Obama is doing bad, then you'd have to admit to being full of shit.

How does spending money on infrastructure discourage people from spending money? What precisely are you arguing is going to cause people to spend less? Be specific.

Under the misnomer of stimulus. How is a grant to the NEA going to stimulate anything economic? Same with patching a few roads... It isn't what's needed. But Democrats could never bring themselves to let ordinary citizens spend their own money. No, government knows best...

The difference here is the money Obama is spending will be spent eventually. You can argue all day that they should save money, but saving money by not changing the oil in the car you're driving will cost you eventually.

Obama didn't throw money that isn't the role of the government. Repairing our infrastructure is specifically the job of the government.

Isn't the idea of stimulus that we, the public, should spend more -- create more demand on industry -- create more jobs? Spending less will not achieve that. In fact, spending less is forced through a couple of unappealing methods. The first is increased taxation so that the government can pay its bills. If the government decides to run a tab, then we suffer from inflation. We spend the same, but we buy less.

And we're dealing with Obama and the Democrats, now. Bush is gone. Get over it.

Inflation is much better than deflation, and most of the spending will lead to increased production instead of inflation.

Inflation is much better than deflation, and most of the spending will lead to increased production instead of inflation.

depends on where the deflation is. If it is in food and gas people don't wait to until next year to eat to see if prices go lower. Or wait until next year to drive to work to see if prices go lower.

Under the misnomer of stimulus. How is a grant to the NEA going to stimulate anything economic? Same with patching a few roads... It isn't what's needed. But Democrats could never bring themselves to let ordinary citizens spend their own money. No, government knows best...

You mean like how it knew best when it was under your pet favorites who decided that slashing federal budgets to infrastructure was good, never mind that a city drowned because of it?

depends on where the deflation is. If it is in food and gas people don't wait to until next year to eat to see if prices go lower. Or wait until next year to drive to work to see if prices go lower.

Deflation of the general price level.

Deflation of the general price level.

that rarely happens. Only when there is a major drop in available currency otherwise its almost always in one or two of the commodities. like we saw last quarter with oil. Dropped so much in price it made the entire index deflate.

Myrm, please TG me and explain why you have In Hoc Signo Vinces under your name. I am not doing this to attack you so be not afraid. We may have more in common than we already know.
I don't (can't) TG anymore. But if you like Hawks, we just might be members of the same small club.

in Debt to GDP ratio the US actually does pretty well. better then Germany, Portugal, France, Canada, Belgium, Japan, Italy, and several others.
You include Canada on this list....do you have anything to support that claim?

Although this article isn't completely accurate in claiming that Presidents rarely meet with the opposition pary about big legislation, this does highlight Obama's inclusive approach to politics. Unfortunately, the GOP is still caught up in pointless partisanship.

Rare sight: president walks halls of Congress (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/27/MNNL15I6OD.DTL&type=politics)

01-27) 17:07 PST Washington - -- It's a rare sight in Washington to see the president walking the halls of the Congress, stopping to talk to reporters in the usual hallway haunts, and rarer still to see him meet with the opposition party to hear their ideas on the first big legislation of his presidency.

Still stranger was this: The leaders of the out-of-power party, thrashed in two consecutive elections and the subject of all this presidential courting, told their members to vote against the president before he even arrived to hear their grievances.

Hours before President Obama arrived Tuesday for GOP-only talks in the House and Senate on the $825 billion economic stimulus bill, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio and his deputy Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia told a closed-door meeting of Republicans to vote against the bill because it has too much government and will not revive the economy.

To be sure, Republicans sounded less churlish when they came out of their meetings with Obama. They sang his praises for reaching out to them and instead blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and other Democratic leaders for writing the legislation without them.

Some seemed surprised at how friendly and open Obama was. Others noted the advantages he brought as a former Senate colleague.

"One of his great strengths is, he's very comfortable with himself, and therefore others are comfortable with him," said Senate Republican conference chair Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. "I think he has a certain ease about him. He did as a senator, and I think he's made an easy transition to the presidency. After all, as he did remind us, he's only been there five days."

Even the most conservative Republicans praised Obama as being genuine and open before denouncing the stimulus as a waste of money and a pile of new debt.

Republicans want more tax cuts. Economists argue that the problem with tax cuts is that in recessions, they are mostly saved, not spent, and so have very little stimulative effect. Republicans acknowledged that and so argued to make them permanent - essentially the policy of the Bush administration.

Obama said part of his effort was to change politics as usual in Washington and break through the traditional partisan bickering over ideology to focus on what might work.

He argued that economic indicators are so bad - including plans to lay off more than 55,000 people announced on Monday by major companies such as Home Depot and Caterpillar - that Congress should pull together quickly behind a stimulus plan that can help stop the bleeding.

"I try to remind people that even with modifications made in the House, we still have $275 billion of tax cuts" in the stimulus Obama said. He said he reminded Republicans that he started out with $300 billion in tax cuts "that got a lot of praise from the Republican side and some grousing from my side of the aisle. I think we're still working through the process, but I'm very grateful" for the opportunity to listen.

The House is set to vote on the bill Wednesday. The Senate will take longer, and then the two different versions must be reconciled - a point at which House Republicans plan to make their presence felt.

The White House is hoping for a bipartisan vote to set the tone for much tougher battles to come over a new banking-system rescue, health care reform, energy and a host of other issues.

Obama asked Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, to remove from the bill $200 million for family-planning services to low-income people that had become a hot Republican talking point. Waxman complied.

"The president took some very tough questions, didn't dodge them, gave very direct and specific answers," said Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah. Nonetheless, Bennett, echoing many other Republicans, said he and others "are not completely convinced that it will, in fact, produce a stimulus."

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., who recently suggested that Guantanamo Bay prisoners should be sent to Alcatraz, complained that "bailing out profligate states like California that have not been able to control their budget does not seem to me to be the highest priority for federal spending."

Republicans also pointed out Congressional Budget Office estimates for the stimulus that show an additional nearly $350 billion in interest payments over 10 years, bringing the total cost of the stimulus to nearly $1.2 trillion. They said Obama may want to make investments, but congressional Democrats added items that Bond said were "just thrown in at the last minute" and won't stop job losses.

Obama said he was confident that things can be worked out.

"But the key right now is to make sure that we keep politics to a minimum," he said. "There are some legitimate philosophical differences with parts of my plan that the Republicans have, and I respect that. In some cases, they may just not be as familiar with what's in the package as I would like. I don't expect 100 percent agreement from my Republican colleagues, but I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people's business right now."

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, said she ran into a GOP colleague who had just come out of the meeting with Obama.

"He said, 'He's just so impressive,' " Tauscher said. "I said, 'He's the real deal, isn't he?' But will he vote with us tomorrow? Probably not."

She blasted Boehner and Cantor for urging their members to vote against the package before even listening to what Obama had to say.

"Are you really going to listen to the people who lost the House for you?" Tauscher commented. "At some point, you have to vote your conscience."
(emphasis added)

I don't mean to sound like I'm drinking the Kool-Aid :wink:, but this seems to me to be a refreshing approach by Obama. Perhaps he can thaw the hearts of some of those Grinch-like Republicans. :D

Grinch or not, it's hard to argue that a lot of the pork in the stimulus is actually going to do anything to restore the economy.

Hundreds of millions on contraception - hmm, just how is that going to create jobs?

By Trostia

Possibly. I think saving is preferable to spending, however.

Paradox of thrift. In the current situation saving makes sense for an individual household but its detrimental to the economy as a whole because if everyone saves, aggregate demand decreases and along with it the GDP. The end result is that even the individual household is harmed by the cumulative effect of everybody saving.

Obamas package will lead to a lot of debt to my generation but to quote Paul Krugman, the dangers of doing too little outweigh the dangers of doing too much. In fact, I think that a lot of economists are arguing that the stimulus package isnt big enough to close the gap but it would be politically unpopular to have proposed anything bigger than what their proposing now.

You include Canada on this list....do you have anything to support that claim?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Hundreds of millions on contraception - hmm, just how is that going to create jobs?

gee, I dunno, maybe it'll prevent pregnancies in already financially hurt families?

Just a thought.

obama's kool-aid is grape. i learned that on helloquizzy.com the quiz is called did you drink obama's kool-aid? i still have reservations about obama, but will give him a chance. i am no obama cultist*, in other words.
* term from the quiz results

Maybe it will work for the best to have the GOP dragging its heals. Its not going to look good for them if Obama reaches out to them and they choose petty partisanship in a time of crisis.

Let's hope their actions will be remembered in two years when Congressional elections come around again.

Any President of the USA including President Obama needs some form of Line Item Veto to bring about real change.

Any President of the USA including President Obama needs some form of Line Item Veto to bring about real change.

except for the whole "blatant unconstitutionality" of that, sure.

except for the whole "blatant unconstitutionality" of that, sure.

Many State Governors have some form of a Line Item Veto. In my NS Nations you cannot attach unrelated issue bills to other laws being considered. Each law or issue bills are considered separately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
Based on outdated CIA data perhaps but not according to IMF or OECD data that is listed there (2008 data) or according to this:

Canada's Total Government Fiscal Performance (http://www.budget.gc.ca/2008/plan/ann1-eng.asp)

Canada’s debt burden has declined from the second highest to the lowest in the G7 (http://www.budget.gc.ca/2008/images/ann1-8-eng.gif)

Many State Governors have some form of a Line Item Veto. In my NS Nations you cannot attach unrelated issue bills to other laws being considered. Each law or issue bills are considered separately.

State governments are not just miniatures of the Federal government. They work differently, sometimes radically differently.

The USA Supreme Court has consistently ruled different forms of a Line Item Veto unconstitutional. Today it might have 1 or two more supporters yet would probably fall short by 1 vote. The USA Supreme Court can and has the power to change its mind on this issue. Any USA President needs some form of Line Item Veto to bring about real changes in legislation that is filled with unrelated items to the principal issue and intent of the law being considered.

The USA Supreme Court has consistently ruled different forms of a Line Item Veto unconstitutional. Today it might have 1 or two more supporters yet would probably fall short by 1 vote. The USA Supreme Court can and has the power to change its mind on this issue. Any USA President needs some form of Line Item Veto to bring about real changes in legislation that is filled with unrelated items to the principal issue and intent of the law being considered.

So your argument is that yes, it's been consistently ruled unconstitutional but we should cross our fingers and hope the court loses it's mind and decides to allow unconstitutional acts to be performed by the President. That's happened for 8 years. How did that work out?

So your argument is that yes, it's been consistently ruled unconstitutional but we should cross our fingers and hope the court loses it's mind and decides to allow unconstitutional acts to be performed by the President. That's happened for 8 years. How did that work out?

I guess you dont support a line item veto for any USA President as many state governors have.

I guess you dont support a line item veto for any USA President as many state governors have.

What does that have to do with what I said?

What I don't support is the SCOTUS ignoring the US Constitution to give powers to the President he is not meant to have. That is what I don't support.

The difference, it is not subtle.

I sure can tell you one thing...I was sure people were expecting to much from him...but he only got started and he's approach of govering so far has AMAZED me in a good way like none of any world politic before!

What does that have to do with what I said?

What I don't support is the SCOTUS ignoring the US Constitution to give powers to the President he is not meant to have. That is what I don't support.

The difference, it is not subtle.

You have made your point clear as have I. I do support a line item veto for any USA President including President Obama who I dont generally support. As many State Governors have.

It's funny how the only real criticisms so far are either really nitpicky or are about things that haven't happened yet.

"He's a failure because I looked in my crystal ball and this bill will not stimulate the economy."

In a week, he's closed Gitmo, ordered the discontinuation of torture in all venues, restored our position on the world stage, and basically made American leadership credible again.

It's not us setting the bar high. It's Obama. What the hell is he going to do NEXT week to top that?

I guess you dont support a line item veto for any USA President as many state governors have.

no I do not, because it would be unconstitutional.

What part of that don't you understand?

Many State Governors have some form of a Line Item Veto.

I don't think you understand how this country works.

In my NS Nations

Um...that's...nice? Totally irrelevant, but nice, I suppose. I don't really care how things work in your fictional universe.

Except, it's not what makes the economy bad. Almost all small companies do it at some point. The issue is that they have a plan to get things back in sync. I mean, I know you've never run a business, but don't tell me they don't talk about this in the books you read.

Merely taking out a loan is not what I mean by “living beyond means.” Taking out a loan that CANNOT BE PAID BACK is what I mean. If small businesses do that, they go under, and rightfully so. When a business starts taking permanent losses, it is a poor entrepreneurial decision to take out a loan to continue at the current production level – instead, they have to cut back their spending. That's exactly what we're NOT doing.

Besides, the homeless have plans to turn their lives around, too. However, businesses are not people, and deserve no humanitarian concern for “welfare.” Business welfare takes from the successful and gives to the unsuccessful, thus ultimately damaging the economy in the long term (it also takes a lot more resources when it gets “charity”).

If everyone saved money instead of spending it, the entire economy would collapse. The government is currently trying to get people to spend money. If they succeed, the economy will recover. If you succeed and people follow your advice, the economy will be in the can by Christmas.

You're right, if everyone saved everything, the economy would collapse, and that's not quite what I'm advocating, although the misunderstanding is my fault for not fully expressing my position. However, this would never happen. However, saving isn't a bad thing, which is what people seem to keep saying. Without saving, though, we cannot truly improve the economy, as we'll do nothing but maintain current consumption and production, instead of having accumulated capital to invest in development of more efficient production techniques, or whatever else an entrepeneur decides to invest in.

The government, however, is encouraging people not to save at all, and instead spend it wildly, accumulating debt. This is just as silly as everyone suddenly stopping consumption. It is especially dangerous because of how the government is going about it. They are encouraging spending by inflating the money supply (which is silly – creating the illusion of wealth does not create wealth), thus debasing the value of the dollar (as money is a commodity), and diminishing the value of the money saved by people for future investment and/or emergencies. This HARMS everyone, not helps.

And as an afterthought, it everyone stopped saving AND investing (i.e. they just stuffed it under the mattress)...well, think of it this way. If I spend my money today, it's "out there" "doing stuff"... if I invest it, I'm loaning to some business who then buys something with it so it's still "out there" "doing stuff" but if I stuff it under my mattress it's not in circulation any more so the money supply is essentially reduced. This is deflation, which we desperately need. Deflation would mean prices would go down, thus making basic necessities more affordable for everyone, and would increase the purchasing power of the savings and investments of everybody. Inflation – the debasement of the currency – can only harm people, not help.

Ah, and there we have it. We get it, you're an anarchist. However, you'd probably have a more credible argument if you didn't rely on silly and sweeping generalizations without supporting them.

You're the one attempting to suggest the necessity of an organization. As you're the one attempting to impose something on society, it is your responsibility to present its justification. Feel free to do so at any time.

It did not and it wasn't artificial. Lots and lots of people got rich, most of them had little money to begin with. Lots and lots of people were pulled out of poverty. Most of them, unsurprisingly, wouldn't consider reality to be "an illusion".

It was allowed to overextend, but it was the best thing to happen in this country in a century. If you adjust your thinking in such a ludicrous way, everything good that results from government spending and tax cuts is "artificial" and then you don't have to address those times when it worked.

A booming decade is a long time for that level of activity. The mistake wasn't in the solution they offered to the problem but that they (by the nature of being elected officials) didn't have the balls to reign it in when it bubbled. A brand-new industry being invested in and becoming one of the most profitable industries to ever exist isn't artificial. Seriously, when you argument requires you to call the boom of the internet "artificial", you really should just stop.

can call it artificial because it was a bubble – it was nothing more than the boom side of the Business Cycle, inevitably followed by the BUST. It's like taking heroin: you get a fantastic high, but then you come crashing back down to earth, and the crash hurts.

I'm not saying that all investment during a bubble is malinvestment. However, if it wasn't for the Fed forcing credit rates below market levels, the “bubble” would have never happened in the first place, thus the economy would not have expanded to the unsustainable level it did.

Remember, economics is about looking at the short term AND the long term. The bubble was nice in the 90s (just like it was in the 20s), but when economic growth is forced, the market will ultimately overpower the forces attempting to manipulate it and correct the malinvestments, thus leading to the inevitable (and necessary) recession.

Besides, why should the government bother with investment in technology? Does it know better than private ventures? If so, why do we even allow private investment in the first place?

I love that you consider the state parisitic but not business. Business has NO other role than to do everything it can to exploit the people. It's not a suggested role. It's not a possible role. If a public business does it's job it makes the absolute most money it can for shareholders. This requires it to exploit every advantage it can get.

Competition. Remember, the state is nothing more than a total monopoly on law and the use of legitimized violence. It operate only by forcing the people subject to it to pay taxes, and will throw them in jail if they do not comply. The state cannot produce anything without first taking.

While businesses would like to exploit their customers to the max, they cannot exploit them very much more than is common on the market, that is, they cannot be much more exploitative than their competitors. Since people don't like to be exploited, they will always prefer those businesses which do not exploit them, driving all competitive businesses to not only NOT exploit their customers, but to do everything in their power to serve them. Businesses are not holding a gun to customers' heads and threatening to put them in jail if they don't buy their product. A business can operate only by providing customers with their desires and wants through a voluntary exchange on the market (unless the government steps in with various “regulations” to effectively create oligopolies or monopolies).

Even the workers themselves demonstrate this. Workers don't like to be exploited, so if the company wants to acquire labor, it has to provide suitable and acceptable compensation for said worker (a wage). This exchange simply would not happen if either party felt that the exchange was not in its best interest. No exchange in a truly free market occurs if its not in the preceived best interests of both parties.

Competition. Remember, the state is nothing more than a total monopoly on law and the use of legitimized violence. It operate only by forcing the people subject to it to pay taxes, and will throw them in jail if they do not comply. The state cannot produce anything without first taking.


Eh? Then how should the law be run?


Even the workers themselves demonstrate this. Workers don't like to be exploited, so if the company wants to acquire labor, it has to provide suitable and acceptable compensation for said worker (a wage). This exchange simply would not happen if either party felt that the exchange was not in its best interest. No exchange in a truly free market occurs if its not in the preceived best interests of both parties.

:) Fantasy at best. Workers are exploited all the time all over the world.

A "truly free market" is only a fantasy. It's not achievable due to human nature.

Even the workers themselves demonstrate this. Workers don't like to be exploited, so if the company wants to acquire labor, it has to provide suitable and acceptable compensation for said worker (a wage). This exchange simply would not happen if either party felt that the exchange was not in its best interest. No exchange in a truly free market occurs if its not in the preceived best interests of both parties.

Perhaps in magical fart land this works, but here in reality, companies are able to exploit people's desires to not die of starvation to impose unfair working conditions on them all over the world throughout history. Your "truly" free market is as much a fantastical dream as a "true" communist state; that is to say that neither are capable of exists in anything besides a Berenstain Bears book.

I don't think you understand how this country works.



Um...that's...nice? Totally irrelevant, but nice, I suppose. I don't really care how things work in your fictional universe.
It's certainly reasonable to support a line item veto via Constitutional Amendment. That's not fiction.

Perhaps in magical fart land this works, but here in reality, companies are able to exploit people's desires to not die of starvation to impose unfair working conditions on them all over the world throughout history. Your "truly" free market is as much a fantastical dream as a "true" communist state; that is to say that neither are capable of exists in anything besides a Berenstain Bears book.

I've had this conversation with him before. Seriously, it's not like we don't have TONS of examples of what happens when the state lets the 'market' run free.

He acts like it's never been tried.

Not only that, when people acquire wealth, they always create some form of government. So either the people create a government that protects them from the eventuality or they don't and those with business power band together to exploit those who don't have it.

The only examples of businesses having good relationships with their employees are since the creation of the union, which only succeeds with the support of government.

I love baiting him into posting that nonsense. There is pretty much no better way to make that argument look silly then to simply let people read it. It's pretty obviously not based in any form of reality that has ever existed.

Eh? Then how should the law be run?

*shrugs* Up to society / the market, really. If there's a demand for law (which there would be), arbitration courts will happen. Medieval Iceland, Colonial Pennsylvania, the American Indian tribes in and around the area of Washington State, merchant law of the Hanseatic League...these are all great examples of a market-born legal system without interference or monopolization by the state.

:) Fantasy at best. Workers are exploited all the time all over the world.

Define "exploited."

A "truly free market" is only a fantasy. It's not achievable due to human nature.

Not a fantasy at all, simply not achievable with the existence of the State.

Also, why do you think it isn't achievable because of "human nature?" The market arises out of human nature, really. But I'd like to hear your stance on "human nature."

Also, why do you think it isn't achievable because of "human nature?" The market arises out of human nature, really. But I'd like to hear your stance on "human nature."

for me? Hobbsian. There's a significant enough tendency in the human population to gravitate towards occupying positions of power, to thus essentially destroy any anarchical system, and to make any life in any such system "nasty poor brutish and short"

Perhaps in magical fart land this works, but here in reality, companies are able to exploit people's desires to not die of starvation to impose unfair working conditions on them all over the world throughout history. Your "truly" free market is as much a fantastical dream as a "true" communist state; that is to say that neither are capable of exists in anything besides a Berenstain Bears book.

1. There is no such thing as an "unfair" working condition. "Fairness" implies some sort of objective value in a working condition or a pay, and as value is all subjective, "fairness" is nothing but an irrelevant an arbitrary distinction.

2. Prove the free market cannot exist.

for me? Hobbsian. There's a significant enough tendency in the human population to gravitate towards occupying positions of power, to thus essentially destroy any anarchical system, and to make any life in any such system "nasty poor brutish and short"

Your argument is nothing short of saying "Some humans are bound to deviate and murder, therefore, just let them kill everyone because we can't stop it."

Unless you're fine with that.

Your argument is nothing short of saying "Some humans are bound to deviate and murder, therefore, just let them kill everyone because we can't stop it."

only if you equate "kill everyone" with "ordered society". In which case, yes.

Otherwise...no, no not so much.

2. Prove the free market cannot exist.

the free market most certainly CAN exist. It's just the fact that the vast majority of us wouldn't want to live in it.

Oh, I see how it is. Obama is offering rare hope instead of common hope. What an elitist liberal. So much for change.

only if you equate "kill everyone" with "ordered society". In which case, yes.

Otherwise...no, no not so much.

Actually, no. You're saying that people will desire power, so we shouldn't get in their way. That is fundamentally what you're arguing.

Your point also implies another argument - people are bad, thus need to be ruled over. But what are governments? Nothing more than enforced monopolies on violence and order, funded through theft. If men are so depraved as to not be able to rule themselves, why the hell would we trust them to rule others?

Also, prove to me that a society without a state would lead to total chaos.

Also, prove to me that a society without a state would lead to total chaos.

Happened in Somalia.

Actually, no. You're saying that people will desire power, so we shouldn't get in their way. That is fundamentally what you're arguing.

I'm saying that a stateless society will inherently devolve into violence. I do think we should "get in their way". Creating stable nationstates is how we do that.

Also, prove to me that a society without a state would lead to total chaos.

The fact that I can not think of any society in the history of the world, save for much smaller and regional cultures, that didn't ultimately evolve into some form of hierarchy suggests that a "stateless society" is inherently unstable.

I think if you're going to advocate a system, the burden falls pretty well on you to show how it would be successful.

Happened in Somalia.

To be fair, Somalia really isn't a good example. The place fell apart at the seams instead of the whole sort of willing anarchy Derscon is suggesting.

Note: I do not agree that anarchy, as in complete statelessness, can work, I just don't think Somalia is a good example.

Oh, I see how it is. Obama is offering rare hope instead of common hope. What an elitist liberal. So much for change.WHERE'S TEH CHANGE, OBAMA!? (There's change for you. I actually added the damn comma.)

WHERE'S TEH CHANGE, OBAMA!? (There's change for you. I actually added the damn comma.)

The change is in the elitism, he's change alright, change from the Great Bush, history will undoubtedly revere him as our greatest president! Whereas Obama willl lead us all into terrorism and Mulismism!:p

The change is in the elitism, he's change alright, change from the Great Bush, history will undoubtedly revere him as our greatest president! Whereas Obama willl lead us all into terrorism and Mulismism!:pMuslim-ism? Wtf, mate? Wtf?

No...seriously? :eek: I dun wanna be a MUZLIM! :eek2:

Happened in Somalia.

No, actually. It's not anarchy at fault there - in fact, it's economy is one of the fastest growing in Africa. The problem is that foreign powers - including the United States - continue to try to impose a government on a society that doesn't want it.

And before you go "omg invashun anarkee kant werk lol," I would like to inform you that many states and regions of many government forms have been invaded in the past and been beaten. Military prowess does not make an ideology justified or irrelevant. (Although, to be fair, the invasions have been remarkably unsuccessful at establishing a stable government. Much like Iraq. Hmm...)

Muslim-ism? Wtf, mate? Wtf?

No...seriously? :eek: I dun wanna be a MUZLIM! :eek2:

You know Muslimism is an awesome word. Bow down before it's awesomeness!

You know Muslimism is an awesome word. Bow down before it's awesomeness!:hail:
No, wait, must resist! :headbang:

*shrugs* Up to society / the market, really.
Ahh yes. Leave it to the companies. There would be no law at all when it comes to their actions. After all a businessman would never do anything corrupt because it goes against the free market and it's not to their benefit right?

If there's a demand for law (which there would be), arbitration courts will happen.
Law is a good thing.

But let's look at your examples:

Medieval Iceland - Failed
Colonial Pennsylvania - Failed
the American Indian tribes in and around the area of Washington State - failed
merchant law of the Hanseatic League - failed

...these are all great examples of a market-born legal system without interference or monopolization by the state.


Why in gods name would we allow monopolization of the law by businessmen?

Define "exploited."

Please, you already know.

Not a fantasy at all, simply not achievable with the existence of the State.

The state is only a byproduct. Man is the problem.

A truely free market can't and never will exist. Human nature makes it impossible.

Also, why do you think it isn't achievable because of "human nature?" The market arises out of human nature, really. But I'd like to hear your stance on "human nature."

Corruption. Free market as you define it is impossible.

no I do not, because it would be unconstitutional.

What part of that don't you understand?

So by your argument all constitutional amendments that have been made should be unconstitutional even though they are allowed to be made as hard as it is to make them. Many of which I am sure you and I agree with.

So by your argument all constitutional amendments that have been made should be unconstitutional even though they are allowed to be made as hard as it is to make them. The president is not a governor, and a state government is not the federal government. The Presentment clause is very blunt about what the president's job is on approving or vetoing bills.

The president is not a governor, and a state government is not the federal government. The Presentment clause is very blunt about what the president's job is on approving or vetoing bills.

I still support some form of a line item veto for any USA President may it happen or not, thanks for the information.

I still support some form of a line item veto for any USA President may it happen or not, thanks for the information.

Well, there was this one guy who had a line item Veto....Word has it, he was an ancestor of President Obama even...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis

Well, there was this one guy who had a line item Veto....Word has it, he was an ancestor of President Obama even...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis

he gets a bad rap/And stupid white wing nuts he spoke out against succession several times. And only joined the South because there was no way to keep them part of the union.

Besides the person who really could have prevented the war was Andrew Jackson(though he didn't know it).

No, actually. It's not anarchy at fault there - in fact, it's economy is one of the fastest growing in Africa.
Oh, it's got a good economy, that totally makes up for all the rapes and murders.

Happened in Somalia.

most of the Chaos was the various war lords making grabs for power.

Warlord = some rudimentary form of a state.

But what are governments? Nothing more than enforced monopolies on violence and order, funded through theft.

To be theft there has to be legitimate property rights. Please prove which property rights are the correct ones.

No, actually. It's not anarchy at fault there - in fact, it's economy is one of the fastest growing in Africa. The problem is that foreign powers - including the United States - continue to try to impose a government on a society that doesn't want it.

The growth rate is still pretty low for such a poor country. The problem is the lack of the rule of law and

And before you go "omg invashun anarkee kant werk lol," I would like to inform you that many states and regions of many government forms have been invaded in the past and been beaten. Military prowess does not make an ideology justified or irrelevant.

Whether something can work in the real world and whether it is justified/revelvant are too different things. The fact that stateless societies are either conquered by state societies or develop their own states would seem to suggest that anacrcy isn't workable, at least in current settings.

most of the Chaos was the various war lords making grabs for power.

Warlord = some rudimentary form of a state.

Another reason why a "truly free market" will never exist....

1. There is no such thing as an "unfair" working condition. "Fairness" implies some sort of objective value in a working condition or a pay, and as value is all subjective, "fairness" is nothing but an irrelevant an arbitrary distinction.

I was going to stay out of this argument, but this remark is so ridiculous I had to just comment on this one thing.

If you really think there is no such thing as an unfair working condition, then you obviously must believe that slavery, in which people were forcibly kidnapped from their homes, transported to another country, starved along the way, beaten when they arrived and regularly thereafter, and forced to work for someone else who (a) did not pay them, (b) did not allow them to leave, (c) exerted the power of life and death over them, was a fair working condition for the slaves.

After all, it is a "working condition" and if there is no such thing as an unfair working condition, then such involuntary servitude accompanied by such physical brutality must be fair to the worker, right?

How about a less obvious example of how you failed to think about the issue you're opining about: Coal miners, circa 1900-1920's.

It was common practice before the advent of labor unions -- and in fact, such practices are the reason for the advent of labor unions -- to change wages and/or withhold pay without notice. Miners received their pay from the mine company's payroll office once a week, in person, from the hand of a teller on site. When they first took the job of miner, they were told it paid $X per day. That was the agreement upon which they took the job. But when payday came and they went to the pay window, they would frequently be handed less than the agreed upon amount -- sometimes more than half less, and sometimes nothing at all. When they questioned this, they were told to be grateful they got anything. If they kept protesting it and demanding the wage they had been promised when they were hired, they got fired. And they had no recourse, no protection, no way to get the money they were owed for services already rendered.

So, is that your idea of fair? That a businessman can commit theft by fraud? Because that's exactly what such jiggery-pokery with wages are -- fraud. Paychecks are not gifts, you know. They are the payments of debts owed by the employer to the employee for work already completed. Hiring workers for a wage is a contractual agreement -- "You do A, and I will give you B in exchange for it." Worker does A, but employer refuses absolutely to deliver B. He gets A, you do not get B. He ripped you off by fraud.

And that was the working condition in just one well-documented industry at that time. Tell me, would you think it fair if you got ripped off and had no way to get what was owed to you? You must think its fair if you really think that there is no such thing as an unfair working condition.

Seriously, THINK before you say these things. This obvious lack of thinking the matter through is why I (a) disagree with everything you've been saying in this thread and (b) disagree with the people who, nowadays, call themselves "free market" supporters. Listening to such ridiculous comments, of which yours above is just one example, of so-called free marketers leaves me with the distinct impression that they have no clue what the fuck they're talking about. They just make up this magical-fart (thanks Sdaeriji ;)) bullshit that has no relation to reality whatsoever and then sit around spouting it with a smug condescension that reminds me of a little kid who has just "invented" the peanut butter sandwich and pities all the poor adults who clearly have never been able to figure it out.

So by your argument all constitutional amendments that have been made should be unconstitutional even though they are allowed to be made as hard as it is to make them.

first off, this sentence needs to be taken out back and shot. Second off, a constitutionally ratified amendment isn't unconstitutional, now, is it?

Now, if the constitution was amended to give the president line item veto power, then that would be different. I still wouldn't support such an amendment, as I feel line item veto power is against the fundamental principles of our balance of power, but it would at least be legal

he gets a bad rap/And stupid white wing nuts he spoke out against succession several times. And only joined the South because there was no way to keep them part of the union.

Besides the person who really could have prevented the war was Andrew Jackson(though he didn't know it).

agreed, Hell, he's from my home state, home town even, lol...

I just wanted to see how people would react...I actually dont have a problem with a Line Item Veto, I think it would help cut down on Congressmen tacking on unpopular, and unnecessary legislation and screwing over the overall bill...

To use a word I dont like to use very much, I think it would cut down on the Pork...

Your argument is nothing short of saying "Some humans are bound to deviate and murder, therefore, just let them kill everyone because we can't stop it."

Unless you're fine with that.

The problem is your system CANNOT stop it. There would be nothing to stop it. By the nature of your system, there is a vacuum of power that is there for someone or something to fill. There's a saying about nature and vacuums.

Actually, no. You're saying that people will desire power, so we shouldn't get in their way. That is fundamentally what you're arguing.

Your point also implies another argument - people are bad, thus need to be ruled over. But what are governments? Nothing more than enforced monopolies on violence and order, funded through theft. If men are so depraved as to not be able to rule themselves, why the hell would we trust them to rule others?

Also, prove to me that a society without a state would lead to total chaos.

It doesn't lead to total chaos. It leads to a society with a state. Always. There have been plenty of societies with no state.

Unless there is something in place to prevent the creation of more state, the tendency is ALWAYS toward more state.

As for evidence, I submit... all of history, all over the world.

I'm saying that a stateless society will inherently devolve into violence. I do think we should "get in their way". Creating stable nationstates is how we do that.



The fact that I can not think of any society in the history of the world, save for much smaller and regional cultures, that didn't ultimately evolve into some form of hierarchy suggests that a "stateless society" is inherently unstable.

I think if you're going to advocate a system, the burden falls pretty well on you to show how it would be successful.

The problem is that if any group organized and created a state and decided it wanted to rule over a stateless society, which has happened. The stateless society cannot organize and defend itself without a hierarchical structure with inherent powers...

You see where I'm going. It doesn't require everyone to wish for a state. It only takes someone with a little leadership or power to wish for a state and the state happens.

Filibuster, anyone?

The Republicans are really starting to piss me off. Even if this doesn't boost the economy as much as something else would, SOMETHING needs to be done right now to help. Talking it out until it becomes The Great Depression v2 is not going to help anyone.

Ahh yes. Leave it to the companies. There would be no law at all when it comes to their actions. After all a businessman would never do anything corrupt because it goes against the free market and it's not to their benefit right?

Well, the only law would be tort law, since in a free market anarchist society, only violations of property rights would have any justification for restitution, so enforcement would be no different than enforcement of contract law.

So, for this, if there was a dispute between party A and party B, then a private court (whatever happens to be the way of doing things in this particular area) would settle the dispute. If A infringed upon the property of B, and was found to be guilty of said infringement, then A would pay restitution, court costs, and cost of capture, if applicable. (Punishment is incompatible with true justice, as it’s completely arbitrary.) If A is found not guilty, then B will pay all court costs.

In the market, entrepreneurs make profits by satisfying their customer base – basically, “the people.” For the case of law, fairness leads to profits, as when one establishes the reputation of being just and fair, they get more customers. The unfair ones won’t ever be used – they’re supplying a terrible product, thus, will go out of business.

Now, a common retort to this is “well, businesses can just pay off certain arbitrators to always rule in their favour.” This true, they could. But:

1. This already happens in our current courts. Now, “they do it too” isn’t by itself a valid argument. However, in our current, state-monopolized system, there is no alternative. In a market system, we can always pick another arbitrator.

Also, in cases of the state, you are attacking the owner of the court system itself. Bias much? Also, bureaucracies are allowed to set the rules that you have to go through their own system before going to the courts. Naturally, “their own system” gets you nowhere, and you have no recourse against them.

2. They would eventually be found out, and there would inevitably be websites or organizations to monitor decisions and people – watch groups, basically. They already exist for US congressmen, so there’s no reason to assume they wouldn’t exist for arbitrators.

Law is a good thing.

Well, I'm glad we agree.

But let's look at your examples:

Medieval Iceland - Failed
Colonial Pennsylvania - Failed
the American Indian tribes in and around the area of Washington State - failed
merchant law of the Hanseatic League - failed

Babylon – Failed
Assyria – Failed
Ancient China – Failed
Egypt – Failed
Persia – Failed
Greece – Failed
Rome – Failed
Holy Roman Empire – Failed
Ottoman Empire – Failed
Napoleonic Empire - Failed
Prussian Empire – Failed
Russian Empire – Failed
Nazi Germany - Failed
South Vietnam - Failed
Russian Empire Part II (USSR) – Failed
American Empire - soon to fail :)

…I’m honestly not seeing your point here. Either every philosophy on the face of the earth failed, or your definition of "fail" is bad.


Why in gods name would we allow monopolization of the law by businessmen?

That’s not what would happen. In a market, there are multiple arbitration “businesses” (if they manifest themselves in that way) in competition with each other. There is no monopoly. With a State, though, there is.

Please, you already know.

Humor me.

The state is only a byproduct. Man is the problem.

A truely free market can't and never will exist. Human nature makes it impossible.

Corruption. Free market as you define it is impossible.

Why? Really, free market anarchism operates on the understanding that man will act only in his best interests. It is only in statist philosophies that people believe that man will somehow, upon joining government, put aside that self interest and magically become altruistic.

Humor me.


I gave you two examples of workers being exploited -- one having the output of their labor taken by force, the other having the output of their labor stolen by fraud.

If you really think there is no such thing as an unfair working condition, then you obviously must believe that slavery, in which people were forcibly kidnapped from their homes, transported to another country, starved along the way, beaten when they arrived and regularly thereafter, and forced to work for someone else who (a) did not pay them, (b) did not allow them to leave, (c) exerted the power of life and death over them, was a fair working condition for the slaves.

After all, it is a "working condition" and if there is no such thing as an unfair working condition, then such involuntary servitude accompanied by such physical brutality must be fair to the worker, right?

The person’s labor was stolen from him, not sold in a voluntary transaction, thus is unacceptable in a free market. What you describe isn’t what I meant by working conditions. What I meant was the environment they work in, and the wages the company agrees to pay them. In a free market, both parties must agree for a transaction to take place. What you’re describing is…well, what the state does through taxation, really (after all, the slave owner provided food and shelter, did he not?), the difference being the state takes only some of your labor, while the slavedriver takes all of it. It’s theft, not the free market.

How about a less obvious example of how you failed to think about the issue you're opining about: Coal miners, circa 1900-1920's.

It was common practice before the advent of labor unions -- and in fact, such practices are the reason for the advent of labor unions -- to change wages and/or withhold pay without notice. Miners received their pay from the mine company's payroll office once a week, in person, from the hand of a teller on site. When they first took the job of miner, they were told it paid $X per day. That was the agreement upon which they took the job. But when payday came and they went to the pay window, they would frequently be handed less than the agreed upon amount -- sometimes more than half less, and sometimes nothing at all. When they questioned this, they were told to be grateful they got anything. If they kept protesting it and demanding the wage they had been promised when they were hired, they got fired. And they had no recourse, no protection, no way to get the money they were owed for services already rendered.

This is the same legal situation as slavery, which I already answered.

All of this, by the way - slavery and the wages problem - existed either because of or in spite of the state, mind you.

The person’s labor was stolen from him, not sold in a voluntary transaction, thus is unacceptable in a free market. What you describe isn’t what I meant by working conditions. What I meant was the environment they work in, and the wages the company agrees to pay them. In a free market, both parties must agree for a transaction to take place. What you’re describing is…well, what the state does through taxation, really (after all, the slave owner provided food and shelter, did he not?), the difference being the state takes only some of your labor, while the slavedriver takes all of it. It’s theft, not the free market.

Out of curiosity, who's going to stop that sort of thing from taking place?

Well, the only law would be tort law, since in a free market anarchist society, only violations of property rights would have any justification for restitution, so enforcement would be no different than enforcement of contract law.

So, for this, if there was a dispute between party A and party B, then a private court (whatever happens to be the way of doing things in this particular area) would settle the dispute. If A infringed upon the property of B, and was found to be guilty of said infringement, then A would pay restitution, court costs, and cost of capture, if applicable. (Punishment is incompatible with true justice, as it’s completely arbitrary.) If A is found not guilty, then B will pay all court costs.


Problem: Gigantic company says fuck off. Your version of the government can't enforce it.

In the market, entrepreneurs make profits by satisfying their customer base – basically, “the people.” For the case of law, fairness leads to profits, as when one establishes the reputation of being just and fair, they get more customers. The unfair ones won’t ever be used – they’re supplying a terrible product, thus, will go out of business.


Fairness leads to profits!!?!?!!? :D :D :D

Now, a common retort to this is “well, businesses can just pay off certain arbitrators to always rule in their favour.” This true, they could. But:

1. This already happens in our current courts.


Ok Prove it.

Now, “they do it too” isn’t by itself a valid argument. However, in our current, state-monopolized system, there is no alternative. In a market system, we can always pick another arbitrator.


And the other company says we don't like that one, pick another. Sorry but even now companies with large bank accounts can outlast other companies. A consumer is screwed in your setup.

Also, in cases of the state, you are attacking the owner of the court system itself. Bias much? Also, bureaucracies are allowed to set the rules that you have to go through their own system before going to the courts. Naturally, “their own system” gets you nowhere, and you have no recourse against them.


Wow so nobody has ever won against the state.


2. They would eventually be found out, and there would inevitably be websites or organizations to monitor decisions and people – watch groups, basically. They already exist for US congressmen, so there’s no reason to assume they wouldn’t exist for arbitrators.


Ahh but with a senator, you can vote them out. That wouldn't happen with your "arbitrators"



…I’m honestly not seeing your point here. Either every philosophy on the face of the earth failed, or your definition of "fail" is bad.



You are the one touting them as examples. If they were so good they would have continued.

That’s not what would happen. In a market, there are multiple arbitration “businesses” (if they manifest themselves in that way) in competition with each other. There is no monopoly. With a State, though, there is.


:D Friendly compitition? :D :D :D :D Yea there would be no business monopolies.

Humor me.
So you are suggesting it doesn't happen.

Why? Really, free market anarchism operates on the understanding that man will act only in his best interests.

And that is why you will never see a "truly free market."

It is only in statist philosophies that people believe that man will somehow, upon joining government, put aside that self interest and magically become altruistic.

Ahh but in your dream; altruism is impossible.

Out of curiosity, who's going to stop that sort of thing from taking place?

Because in a "truly free market" that would NEVER happen.

The problem is your system CANNOT stop it. There would be nothing to stop it. By the nature of your system, there is a vacuum of power that is there for someone or something to fill. There's a saying about nature and vacuums.

Well, of course merely possessing a stateless society doesn't guarantee success. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, after all.

However, a well-armed populace is a good way to stop a state from rising. Ultimately, a state can only rise up and take power if the people allow it. I mean, the most powerful nation the world has known to that point, the Roman Empire, couldn't break the Irish or the Germans - both of which were clan-based, not state-based, societies.

Well, of course merely possessing a stateless society doesn't guarantee success. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, after all.

However, a well-armed populace is a good way to stop a state from rising. Ultimately, a state can only rise up and take power if the people allow it. I mean, the most powerful nation the world has known to that point, the Roman Empire, couldn't break the Irish or the Germans - both of which were clan-based, not state-based, societies.

Ohhh no you believe in personal armies.

-edit-

Do we really have to go into how many clan based societies were conquered?

Why are you arguing for a truly free market? That's like arguing for communism as the perfect solution - sure, its lovely when we all get along and everything and its all fair and hearts and roses paint the ground but that's not the world we live in. Arguing for hypothetical paradises is as silly as all this Ayn Rand nonsense.

States are a superior solution to anarchy because they normalize interactions. Don't make me go all prisoner's dilemma on your asses!

The person’s labor was stolen from him, not sold in a voluntary transaction, thus is unacceptable in a free market. What you describe isn’t what I meant by working conditions. What I meant was the environment they work in, and the wages the company agrees to pay them. In a free market, both parties must agree for a transaction to take place. What you’re describing is…well, what the state does through taxation, really (after all, the slave owner provided food and shelter, did he not?), the difference being the state takes only some of your labor, while the slavedriver takes all of it. It’s theft, not the free market.



This is the same legal situation as slavery, which I already answered.

All of this, by the way - slavery and the wages problem - existed either because of or in spite of the state, mind you.
Please, give me a break. I find it adorable how you are given two examples of unfair working conditions and try to disqualify them by claiming they aren't the kind of working conditions you had in mind. What, were you only thinking about the kinds of working conditions that True Scotsmen engage in?

Whether you like it or not, those are both working conditions, and they are both unfair, as you yourself acknowledge.

So, take a moment to think about it, and then decide whether you want to amend your original statement to be less nonsensical and to actually fit in with a realistic world view, or whether you'd rather spend three days insisting your original statement was correct and reasonable all along, and whether you really want to start your defense of it with a No True Scotsman type fallacy.

Oh, and while you're at it, take another moment and explain why there can never be anything like the examples of worker exploitation that I described in a free market system. Explain how the market was not free during the age of slavery in the 17th-19th centuries. Explain how the market was not free during the pre-union period of industrialization in the late 19th-early 20th centuries. Tell us all about the regulation and restrictions on the market in those days and how it was the lack of freedom in the market that caused such abuses to happen, and how they wouldn't happen if the market were free.

Why are you arguing for a truly free market? That's like arguing for communism as the perfect solution - sure, its lovely when we all get along and everything and its all fair and hearts and roses paint the ground but that's not the world we live in. Arguing for hypothetical paradises is as silly as all this Ayn Rand nonsense.

States are a superior solution to anarchy because they normalize interactions. Don't make me go all prisoner's dilemma on your asses!
Now you know why we do that Ayn Rand nonsense. Now you understand how she got to be THE Pre-eminent 20th Century Russian-American Philosopher. People really do need to familiarize themselves with her writings. If they did, they might spout less of her nonsense.

…I’m honestly not seeing your point here. Either every philosophy on the face of the earth failed, or your definition of "fail" is bad.

All the societies you listed were all replaced by state societies. They didn't turn into other forms of nonstate societies. When state societies and nonstate societies clash the state societies tend to win or the nonstate societies become statist ones.


Why? Really, free market anarchism operates on the understanding that man will act only in his best interests. It is only in statist philosophies that people believe that man will somehow, upon joining government, put aside that self interest and magically become altruistic.

Prove that free market anarchism and the thought that people will put self interest for altruism are mutually incompatible.

I don't (can't) TG anymore. But if you like Hawks, we just might be members of the same small club.

I was thinking of something more in line with the Order of Constantine. Perhaps a blue shield with a yellow cross? If we are part of this same club than it is certainly not small.

It is only in statist philosophies that people believe that man will somehow, upon joining government, put aside that self interest and magically become altruistic.
This is untrue. Just so we're clear.

Well, of course merely possessing a stateless society doesn't guarantee success. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, after all.

However, a well-armed populace is a good way to stop a state from rising. Ultimately, a state can only rise up and take power if the people allow it. I mean, the most powerful nation the world has known to that point, the Roman Empire, couldn't break the Irish or the Germans - both of which were clan-based, not state-based, societies.

The problem is the citizenry, without organization, always falls to the group that's organized. A bunch of individuals can certainly make it painful for an organized group, but the fact is that they cannot stop an organized group. Every successful uprising has been organized, even they chose to end that organization upon it's completion.

I love the clan-based bit, though. Those clans had governments. They were organized. They had leadership. The leadership governed the clans. It was just very local. Your definition of "state" appears to be really big government.

The person’s labor was stolen from him, not sold in a voluntary transaction, thus is unacceptable in a free market. What you describe isn’t what I meant by working conditions. What I meant was the environment they work in, and the wages the company agrees to pay them. In a free market, both parties must agree for a transaction to take place. What you’re describing is…well, what the state does through taxation, really (after all, the slave owner provided food and shelter, did he not?), the difference being the state takes only some of your labor, while the slavedriver takes all of it. It’s theft, not the free market.



This is the same legal situation as slavery, which I already answered.

All of this, by the way - slavery and the wages problem - existed either because of or in spite of the state, mind you.

Without a government there is not law. You're basically redefining government to mean something it doesn't. There is nothing to prevent those with power taking from those without power without law and someone to enforce it.

Government is simply an organization with governing authority. Someone who has the authority to enforce laws is part of government by the definition of the term.

Without a government there is not law.
! What !

You're spitting in the face of every political philosopher ever!

! What !

You're spitting in the face of every political philosopher ever!

I'm hoping that's sarcasm, but just in case, I'll add that I'm referring to enforced laws. You simply cannot enforce laws without a body to do so. You can argue that a single individual can do so, but that single individual can get several other single individuals together and go on a killing spree just as easily.

I'm hoping that's sarcasm, but just in case, I'll add that I'm referring to enforced laws. You simply cannot enforce laws without a body to do so. You can argue that a single individual can do so, but that single individual can get several other single individuals together and go on a killing spree just as easily.

I was using it sarcastically, but technically it is factual.

I'm hoping that's sarcasm, but just in case, I'll add that I'm referring to enforced laws. You simply cannot enforce laws without a body to do so. You can argue that a single individual can do so, but that single individual can get several other single individuals together and go on a killing spree just as easily.

Wow, the yellow card has really changed you...

Wow, the yellow card has really changed you...

I'm seriously just floored by the whole thing. I called him a moron for thinking the President is CiC and said another comment about people running around like the sky was falling. Given the things people have freely said to DK/RO, I simply can't believe I got warned for those two things. If that's the line, then I should have been deat on sight in the first year.

By the by, the warning actually says "malicious flaming/personal attacks". You just gotta laugh at that. Anyway, I'm not out to hijack. It just seems I need to be more careful to make sure we don't say anything that isn't blindingly obviously sarcasm.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the pre-eminent 16th-century Anglo-Saxon political philosopher John Hobbes.

I called him a moron for thinking the President is CiC
I thought that was much too. I didn't really get why he didn't understand what I meant either. You can call me what you like without fear of getting reported - you're an internet person, your opinion means nothing to me!

I'm seriously just floored by the whole thing. I called him a moron for thinking the President is CiC and said another comment about people running around like the sky was falling. Given the things people have freely said to DK/RO, I simply can't believe I got warned for those two things. If that's the line, then I should have been deat on sight in the first year.

By the by, the warning actually says "malicious flaming/personal attacks". You just gotta laugh at that. Anyway, I'm not out to hijack. It just seems I need to be more careful to make sure we don't say anything that isn't blindingly obviously sarcasm.

Maybe its because one of them admitted to being mentally retarded, and we need to be nicer?

Or was it somebody else? FO or somebody?

I was thinking of something more in line with the Order of Constantine. Perhaps a blue shield with a yellow cross? If we are part of this same club than it is certainly not small.
Sorry, my club flew A-6 Intruders. "In Hoc Signo Vinces" was the motto, Hawk was the callsign.

Sorry, my club flew A-6 Intruders. "In Hoc Signo Vinces" was the motto, Hawk was the callsign.

No problem chap. I was in 02 so most of my rides came via black birds. A couple of amphibeous landings as well.

Filibuster, anyone?

The Republicans are really starting to piss me off. Even if this doesn't boost the economy as much as something else would, SOMETHING needs to be done right now to help. Talking it out until it becomes The Great Depression v2 is not going to help anyone.
Aye well how's about letting this pass in a relatively short period instead of dragging it out for about 12 years which is what the New Deal did?

Aye well how's about letting this pass in a relatively short period instead of dragging it out for about 12 years which is what the New Deal did?

People forget that Smooth-Hawley and other New Deal acts greatly prolonged and intensified the Great Depression.

People forget that Smooth-Hawley and other New Deal acts greatly prolonged and intensified the Great Depression.

People "forget" this because is not true.

People "forget" this because is not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot-Hawley passed 1930.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt became president 1933.

New Deal programs enacted 1933-1936.

A =/= B

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

Your own source says the Tariff act was signed in 1930 by Hoover. Therefore, it wasnt a "New Deal" act.


Good try.

Smoot-Hawley passed 1930.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt became president 1933.

New Deal programs enacted 1933-1936.

A =/= B

That's just the first of many stupidities that took us into the Great Depression.

And kept us there. Keynes was an ass.

Best explained here:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?ad55a448-d62e-4846-9cf7-6b10e4e3578a

Federal policymakers are moving ahead with a huge $800-billion stimulus plan to return the U.S. economy to growth. Will it work? Decades of macroeconomic research suggest that it won't. Indeed, the revival of old-fashioned Keynesianism to fight the recession seems to stem more from political expediency than modern economic theory or historical experience.

The idea of using fiscal policy to boost the economy during a downturn was championed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s. Keynes argued that market economies can get stuck in a deep rut and that only large infusions of government stimulus can revive growth. He posited that high unemployment in the Great Depression was due to "sticky wages" and other market problems that prevented the return of full-employment equilibrium. Interestingly, Keynes did not offer any evidence that sticky wages were a serious problem, and later research indicated that wages actually fell substantially during the 1930s. Instead, one needs to look at a range of government interventions to explain why the downturn lasted so long.

Despite the flaws in Keynes' analysis, his prescription of fiscal stimulus to increase aggregate demand during recessions became widely accepted. Governments came to believe that by manipulating spending or temporary tax breaks they could scientifically manage the economy and smooth out business cycles. Many economists thought that there was a trade-off between inflation and unemployment that could be exploited by skilled policymakers. If unemployment was rising, the government could stimulate aggregate demand to reduce it, but with the side-effect of somewhat higher inflation.

Keynesians thought that fiscal stimulus would work by counteracting the problem of sticky wages. Workers would be fooled into accepting lower real wages as price levels rose. Rising nominal wages would spur added work efforts and increased hiring by businesses. However, later analysis revealed that the government can't routinely fool private markets, because people have foresight and they are generally rational. Keynes erred in ignoring the actual microeconomic behaviour of individuals and businesses.

The dominance of Keynesianism ended in the 1970s. Government spending and deficits ballooned, but the result was higher inflation, not lower unemployment. These events, and the rise in monetarism led by Milton Friedman, ended the belief in an unemployment-inflation trade-off. Keynesianism was flawed and its prescription of active fiscal intervention was misguided. Indeed, Friedman's research showed that the Great Depression was caused by a failure of government monetary policy, not a failure of private markets, as Keynes had claimed.

Even if a government stimulus were a good idea, policymakers probably wouldn't implement it the way Keynesian theory would suggest. To fix a downturn, policymakers would need to recognize the problem early and then enact a counter-cyclical strategy quickly and efficiently. But U.S. history reveals that past stimulus actions have been too ill-timed or ill-suited to have actually helped. Further, many policymakers are driven by motives at odds with the Keynesian assumption that they will diligently pursue the public interest.

The end of simplistic Keynesianism in the 1970s created a void in macroeconomics that was filled by "rational expectations" theory developed by John Muth, Robert Lucas, Thomas Sargent, Robert Barro and others. By the 1980s, old-fashioned Keynesian was dead, at least among the new leaders of macroeconomics.

Rational expectations theorists held that people make reasoned economic decisions based on their expectations of the future. They cannot be systematically fooled by the government into taking actions that leave them worse off. For example, people know that a Keynesian-style stimulus might lead to higher inflation, and so they will adjust their behaviour accordingly, which has the effect of nullifying the stimulus plan. A spending stimulus will put the government further into debt, but it will not increase real output or income on a sustained basis.

It is difficult to find a macroeconomics textbook these days that discusses Keynesian fiscal stimulus as a policy tool without serious flaws, which is why the current $800-billion proposal has taken many macroeconomists by surprise. John Cochrane of the University of Chicago recently noted that the idea of fiscal stimulus is "taught only for its fallacies" in university courses these days. Thomas Sargent of New York University noted that "the calculations that I have seen supporting the stimulus package are back-of-the-envelope ones that ignore what we have learned in the last 60 years of macroeconomic research."

It is true that Keynesian theory has been updated in recent decades, and it now incorporates ideas from newer schools of thought. But the Obama administration's claim that its stimulus package will create up to four million jobs is outlandish. Certainly, many top macroeconomists are critical of the plan including Harvard University's Greg Mankiw and Stanford University's John Taylor, who have been leaders in reworking the Keynesian model. Taylor noted that "the theory that a short-run government spending stimulus will jump-start the economy is based on old-fashioned, largely static Keynesian theories."

One result of the rational expectations revolution has been that many economists have changed their focus from studying how to manipulate short-run business cycles to researching the causes of long-run growth. It is on long-run growth that economists can provide the most useful advice to policymakers, on issues such as tax reform, regulation and trade.

While many economists have turned their attention to long-run growth, politicians unfortunately have shorter time horizons. They often combine little knowledge of economics with a large appetite for providing quick fixes to crises and recessions. Their demand for solutions is often matched by the supply of dubious proposals by overeager economists. Many prominent economists pushed for the passage of the $170-billion stimulus act in early 2008, but that stimulus turned out to be a flop. The lesson is that politicians should be more skeptical of economists claiming to know how to solve recessions with various grand schemes. Economists know much more about the factors that generate long-run growth, and that should be the main policy focus for government reform efforts.

The current stimulus plan would impose a large debt burden on young Americans, but would do little, if anything, to help the economy grow. Indeed, it could have similar effects as New Deal programs, which Milton Friedman concluded "hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government." A precedent will be created with this plan, and policymakers need to decide whether they want to continue mortgaging the future or letting the economy adjust and return to growth by itself, as it has always done in the past.

Unfortunately, President Obama has proposed no long-run fiscal reforms, and like his predecessor seems to have a short-run Keynesian outlook. The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were generally sold as temporary stimulus measures and President Bush hailed the 2008 tax rebates as providing a "booster shot" for the economy. It is not clear whether Keynesian beliefs or political factors are the main driver for the $800-billion stimulus plan. But as Harvard University's Robert Barro noted in disapproval of the stimulus plan, just because the economy is in crisis, it does "not invalidate everything we have learned about macroeconomics since 1936."

That's just the first of many stupidities that took us into the Great Depression.

And kept us there. Keynes was an ass.


Yeah, no. Your opinion is once again rejected, since you dont really have anything to base it on.


Its hard to take you seriously after you try and pretend a bill passed by Hoover was part of the New Deal. Youre either a liar or uninformed.

Yeah, no. Your opinion is once again rejected, since you dont really have anything to base it on.

Its hard to take you seriously after you try and pretend a bill passed by Hoover was part of the New Deal. Youre either a liar or uninformed.

I do have plenty to base it on.

Milton Friedman.

Milton Friedman concluded that New Deal programs "hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government."

No economics course in the West would seriously teach otherwise.

I do have plenty to base it on.

Sure you do.

Milton Friedman.

Milton Friedman concluded that New Deal programs "hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government."

Good for him.

No economics course in the West would seriously teach otherwise.

This is wrong.

I do have plenty to base it on.

Milton Friedman.

Milton Friedman concluded that New Deal programs "hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government."

No economics course in the West would seriously teach otherwise.

I suppose you consider all non-conservative theories of economics "not serious"?

Also, isn't appeal to authority considered a logical falacy in a debate?

obama offers rape hope.... thats what i read ^^

I suppose you consider all non-conservative theories of economics "not serious"?

Also, isn't appeal to authority considered a logical falacy in a debate?

So is blatantly lying about what your "source" says, even when everyone can read it themselves and see the lie.

Not that that has ever stopped Hotwife.

So is blatantly lying about what your "source" says, even when everyone can read it themselves and see the lie.

Not that that has ever stopped Hotwife.

You obviously didn't read what I linked to, or quoted.

Keynes was an ass, and Milton Friedman showed it to be true.

I do have plenty to base it on.

I'd love to see what information you possess that says that a bill passed three years prior to Roosevelt's election qualifies as a New Deal bill.

You obviously didn't read what I linked to, or quoted.

No, I did. I even read your wiki link about the Tariff act. Which sucks for you, because it shows your claim about said act was bullshit.


Keynes was an ass, and Milton Friedman showed it to be true.

Friedman gave his opinion. I reject his opinion.

Keynes was an ass, and Milton Friedman showed it to be true.

Wow, sir, I'm totally convinced! After all, you're making a detailed analysis, and not treating two economical theorists like they are baseball teams, innit?

/sarcasm

Your own source says the Tariff act was signed in 1930 by Hoover. Therefore, it wasnt a "New Deal" act.


Good try.
Ah yes, the master of minutiae strikes again. Don't worry that the point of the post was that then, as now, bad legislation will prolong a bad economy.

Ah yes, the master of minutiae strikes again. Don't worry that the point of the post was that then, as now, bad legislation will prolong a bad economy.

Minutia is a good thing when people stretch "facts" and imply things.

Even the article posted can be questioned as one of the authors is a cato institute guy.

Minutia is a good thing when people stretch "facts" and imply things.

Even the article posted can be questioned as one of the authors is a cato institute guy.

Are you arguing that bad legislation will not be bad for the economy? Or was all of the listed legislation passed in the name of curing the Great Depression good legislation that actually helped the economy?

Are you arguing that bad legislation will not be bad for the economy?

Can you prove that this is bad legislation?

Are you arguing that bad legislation will not be bad for the economy? Or was all of the listed legislation passed in the name of curing the Great Depression good legislation that actually helped the economy?

Bad is a matter of opinion; especially when a group like the cato institute is giving it.

My Granddad lived through the great depression and he would tell you FDR did a fine job.

The shrub's tax cuts were bad and didn't accomplish much.

When a person needs a job; he isn't going to believe that the free market faeries are going to wave their magic wands and everything will be good.

Wasn't modern economic theory sort of what got us into this mess in the first place?

Shouldn't we look elsewhere for the fix?

Wasn't modern economic theory sort of what got us into this mess in the first place?

Shouldn't we look elsewhere for the fix?

No no. Clinton did it and it was the policies of 70 years ago that caused it!

Can you prove that this is bad legislation?

tHERE r NT ENUF TXX KUTS!