|
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Ed Huntress wrote:
SNIP ... taking C&O's analysis and pasting it together with Rothbard and a half-dozen other righties who claim it was the government spending that was the real culprit. They're not the only ones. So are a fair number of lefties. See, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/bu...t.html?_r=2&hp Naturally, the left blames Bush/Reagan, and the right blames all manner of social spending but in the end, there is some agreement that deficit spending on the scale historically practiced is a Bad Thing (tm). But, let's come back to something you've said earlier in this thread: If Keynes is right, Obama's not spending *enough* and *cannot* for practical political reasons. If Keynes is wrong, then Obama is doing the exactly wrong thing. Either way, its a lost endgame because of either insufficient government action or too much respectively. This does not, um, bode well for our future ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: SNIP ... taking C&O's analysis and pasting it together with Rothbard and a half-dozen other righties who claim it was the government spending that was the real culprit. They're not the only ones. So are a fair number of lefties. See, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/bu...t.html?_r=2&hp None of this sort of analysis has any real value. What does is the beliefs of Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke. Those two fellows believe the problem, or one of them, was that to little was done and not to nuch. Another, was letting of the gas and raising taxes stalled the economy in 1937 and that, finally, inflation is a problem we really can deal with while deflation is self reinforcing but that deflation isn't and Paul Volker proved out the mechanics of wringing it out of an econoomy decades ago. Naturally, the left blames Bush/Reagan, and the right blames all manner of social spending but in the end, there is some agreement that deficit spending on the scale historically practiced is a Bad Thing (tm). Not muchand that isn't the issue anyone focusses on. There is nearly universal agreement that a choice between financial collapse and large temporary deficits isn't a choice at all. The chaos that would result from collapse could have nation ending consequences caused by social unrest and lawlessness. Inflation, at best, gets people a little "Mavericky" or maybe even mad as hell but they don't take to the streets with guns. But, let's come back to something you've said earlier in this thread: If Keynes is right, Obama's not spending *enough* and *cannot* for practical political reasons. If Keynes is wrong, then Obama is doing the exactly wrong thing. Either way, its a lost endgame because of either insufficient government action or too much respectively. This does not, um, bode well for our future ... The third choice, and why it's a good thing our President and his administration are real intelectual powerhouses, is that you do some things and itteratively evaluate the early results and then adjust either by doing more, less or something else all together. JC |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... But lots of real economists think that the deficit spending and jobs programs were not effective in ending the Depression. Well, you've got 250 out of 15,000 so far. Keep at it. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Easy to see that the deficit spending and WPA was not helping end the depression. The War ended the depression. During the Depression, FDR managed to lower the unemployment rate to at most 20% from a high of 24%. The War took 2 million people into the Military and the rest of the people were manufacturing stuff for the 2 million in uniform. A war these days will not cure the depression. We have closed most smokestack manufacturing in this country, and even if we could open up "smokestack manufacturing" now, there are not enough skilled workers to staff the plants. We have a very illiterate population these days. Some regions have a 50%+ dropout rate before finishing high school. Maybe if we brought back shop classes, the kids would stay in school as they could see something they could do in the future. Maybe 20% of the population should go to college. Those that are both smart enough and motivated enough to do the work. We have raised wages astronomically pricing us out of a lot of the manufacturing jobs. $70 an hour with benefits to put lug nuts on a car. less than 30 years ago, $23k was a mid level engineering salary. Due to inflation because of government overspending and capitulation to "Public Service" unions, salaries are skewed way high here. 40 years ago we could compete due to better productivity and lower shipping costs for "Made in America". We made maybe 3x what a worker in another country made. Not the 10-20x now. When I designed disk drives in the 1980's, the fully bundled labor cost for making Head Stack Assemblies in Malaysia was $3.50 an hour. Most of the assembly was robotic, but to do the same job here was at a minimum $35 an hour. 10x the cost in Asia. I do not have a cure for the problems, but we are going to have to stop considering a "Living Wage" for everyone. Get some skills if you want higher pay! When a BART (transit) train driver makes $80k salary + benefits extra a year to sit and look out the window to see if anybody is stuck in the doors before the transit train moves, and if the train control fails, use the manual throttle to go at 25 mph max to the next station. We are overpaying. And with a Congress and Executive branch hell bent on bankrupting the country by spending like a drunk machinist out on the town, I do not see a lot of good in the future for us. While companies are laying off people and taking salary cuts out "leaders" are taking pay raises and giving an average of 17% bonus to staff members. Fannie May and Freddie Mac, who are a major cause of the housing bust and are billions in the hole have given out some $51 million plus in bonus money. People in leadership positions in government and quasi government business should be getting pink slips not bonus checks! |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
HeyBub wrote:
Stuart Wheaton wrote: Our incompetent President Hmmm.... Today the Dow is 600 points above where it was on the last day of Bush.... And 200 points above where it was right after the election... And 4,000 points below its high during the Bush years. Gee, most of us are enjoying a tax cut, but if you are getting more than 250K /yr and can't shield it, I feel no pity.... Or is this a "Joe the plumber" thing where you have no clue about income vs taxable income? Right. I saw one investor who managed to save $13,000 in taxes per DAY by the simple expedient of moving from New York to Florida. http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregio...153.html?imw=Y So, Bush's silly little war and Reagan's deficits are OK for you, but buying better highways is the road to ruin? Yes. We already pay a highway tax - and right now the highway tax has a huge surplus. Blame the politicians for dipping into the highway kitty to provide psychological counseling for troubled pets. What about the massive bill about to come due for Social Security? Are you going to show me where you advocated paying higher taxes during the Bush years so we could start to get ahead of the SS juggernaut? I can't; it didn't come up. You may recall that the first item on Bush's political agenda back in 2001 was reform of SS. Reform failed. You thought that privatizing Social Security was reform? That explains your first problem. Privatization was not reform, and in the immediate future it would have made the system more unstable because the current revenues would fall as contributions were siphoned off to Wall Street. Privatization was an attempt to damage Social security beyond repair. Reform of SS will require that benefits be decreased, indexed to assets, and that contributions be increased, exempted wages reduced, and payouts delayed. Furthermore, the U.S. Securities that George W called "Worthless IOU's " Will need to be turned into cash through tax revenues before they can be paid out. Even though we had an intense capital need hanging over our heads, W pushed for tax cuts and reducing the income to SS... Where is the reform you spoke of? Not better, but with somewhat less carnage. Recall, it was the market that got us here, and then screamed for mommy when their lousy decisions put the whole economy in peril. How do you feel about "too big to fail?" Personally? The bigger they are, the harder they fall, but fall they must. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
On Jun 10, 6:58*am, "
wrote: On Jun 5, 12:13*am, "Hawke" wrote: There seems to be a stereotype that "liberals" are the lazy sorts of people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance and work ethic. And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off, accomplished people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and interesting people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of attainment. Show us your data. *IOW, you're talking out your a$$. If that is the case, is that perhaps the time to reconsider our stereotypes? Perhaps you should reconsider yours. i think what he is saying is that your stereotypes should be the same as his... Ah, yes. *That is the leftist's way. At least that is what you think the leftist's way is. What people are forgetting is that there are stereotypes, which do have some truth to them, and then there is reality. There are concrete things that actually make someone a liberal or a conservative. They each have their own ways and beliefs. The problem is when one side makes claims about the other side which are not true, which is usually the case. In this group, which is filled with right wingers and republicans denigration of "liberals" are posted constantly. That's because the "wingers" detest anyone who has views that are different from theirs (a conservative trait). Proof of this is the unending stream of criticism and invectives directed at liberals by them. Take one trait that is common among liberals; tolerance. This same trait is not shared or highly regarded by conservatives. A trait they like a lot more is authority or hierarchy. Each group has it's own group of attributes and they are not shared much by the other group. Both groups have a low opinion of the other group. But if you want to know the facts about one group or the other you don't ask the other side because most of what they think is wrong. Anyone can find the truth about liberals or conservatives if they want but for most people it's a lot easier to simply call the other group names and say nasty things about them. On this group, most of the people doing that are conservatives. That's is not an opinion. It's a fact. Hawke The real problem with most peoples politics(in my opinion), is that most people are uninformed politically. They base their assumptions & political viewpoints on whatever the media monster feeds them! Yet, most of the news media are owned and controlled by the liberals! GWB was no conservative by any stretch of the imagination! The issues that are affecting us is really all that matters! Political correctness is killing us! These stinking lousy politicians who keep pushing healthcare and education; what about our industries? Gone. Jobs? Gone. Marriage as a sacred institution? Gone. I guess my marriage is equal to a pair of homosexuals...To each his own, but when my grandson asks me what marriage is, I guess I say, 2 people...??? Insanity. *Besides a million and one issues that most Americans are really clueless about, liberalism and conservatism is about as relevant as Democrat versus Republican. How about Republicrats + Demicans? The titles are meaningless.The oligarchs fiddle while Rome is burning. Wake up people! Our president wants to lead the world, not the US of A! He has his own agenda going on, and it won't be to our benefit! At least we can know Mrs. BO's newest clothes style ideas. God help us. Faux News is liberal? I thought it was a circus. TMT |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
On Jun 10, 9:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote: I guess if you need more reasons, I could come up with some. So you are saying that the United States should invade a country because we feel like it? Yes. There are thousands of grieving military families who would rip your heart out of your chest for squandering their children's lives for your "feel like it" approach. I feel sorry for the family's loss. But no more so than a loss due to a mountain climbing accident, a speedway crash, or from a sky-diver's failed parachute. Remember, our military are volunteers. They joined the military for the opportunity to kill people and blow things up. Incidental to that choice was the chance, of which they were well aware, of death or injury. They willingly took that chance. For their family's sake. For their country's sake. For duty's sake. For honor. For glory. They went to war because they trained for war, because they wanted to go to war, because they needed to go to war. Here's the proof: 85% of the soldiers who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan have reenlisted at the first opportunity. The remaining 15% retired, were invalided out, or mistakenly married harridans. So you are saying that any country is welcome to invade any other country when it feels like it. So I guess you favor Iran and North Korea making and using nukes. As for the "volunteers", how many would have volunteered if they had known that they were being lied to by Bush/Cheney? And...no you do not feel their pain. No parent wants their children to die for nothing. TMT TMT |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Stuart Wheaton wrote:
HeyBub wrote: Stuart Wheaton wrote: Our incompetent President Hmmm.... Today the Dow is 600 points above where it was on the last day of Bush.... And 200 points above where it was right after the election... And 4,000 points below its high during the Bush years. Gee, most of us are enjoying a tax cut, but if you are getting more than 250K /yr and can't shield it, I feel no pity.... Or is this a "Joe the plumber" thing where you have no clue about income vs taxable income? Right. I saw one investor who managed to save $13,000 in taxes per DAY by the simple expedient of moving from New York to Florida. http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregio...153.html?imw=Y So, Bush's silly little war and Reagan's deficits are OK for you, but buying better highways is the road to ruin? Yes. We already pay a highway tax - and right now the highway tax has a huge surplus. Blame the politicians for dipping into the highway kitty to provide psychological counseling for troubled pets. What about the massive bill about to come due for Social Security? Are you going to show me where you advocated paying higher taxes during the Bush years so we could start to get ahead of the SS juggernaut? I can't; it didn't come up. You may recall that the first item on Bush's political agenda back in 2001 was reform of SS. Reform failed. You thought that privatizing Social Security was reform? That explains your first problem. Privatization was not reform, and in the immediate future it would have made the system more unstable because the current revenues would fall as contributions were siphoned off to Wall Street. Privatization was an attempt to damage Social security beyond repair. Reform of SS will require that benefits be decreased, indexed to assets, and that contributions be increased, exempted wages reduced, and payouts delayed. Furthermore, the U.S. Securities that George W called "Worthless IOU's " Will need to be turned into cash through tax revenues before they can be paid out. Even though we had an intense capital need hanging over our heads, W pushed for tax cuts and reducing the income to SS... Where is the reform you spoke of? It took some 60 years for the collectivists to get us to this inflection point. It will likely take 50-60 to dig out from under vast stupidities like SS, Medicare, and all of the rest of the entitlements. Trying to do it all at once would be suicide. Not doing it at all is idiotic. For the period of time SS was in play, you could have thrown darts at the S&P 500 and outperformed the ROI on your SS payments - even with the current economic downturn. The most terrifying thing for a leftist/ collectivist (which includes good portions of the Republican party and almost the entire Democrat party) is to wake up in a world where the Sheeple finally figure out that the politicians are not needed at all for healthcare, elder care, childcare, education, and the like. After all, what would the political Chattering Classes have to do if they could not occupy fatcat elected and appointed jobs - they might actually have to perform useful work... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... Too_Many_Tools wrote: On Jun 9, 12:16 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote: Too_Many_Tools wrote: On Jun 8, 5:07 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote: Robatoy wrote: On Jun 8, 4:52 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: And if you can blame Bush for what happened during the last 100 days of his administration, then you've got no complaint when criticism is leveled at the first 100 days of Obama's. That, of course, is a crock of ****. Bush had the best part of 7 years to take a run at his last 100 days, as opposed to Obama who got the aftershocks AND he started from scratch. To compare both is ludicrous. I can't believe you made that comparison. r OK, so with what do you disagree: 1) Bush had over 5 years of quarter-over-quarter growth. 2) The Dems took over Congress and in less than two years the growth stopped. These are both factual statements BTW, but I am less inclined to a cause-effect relationship in 2) than the political Right believes. The underlying problem here started way before Bush was every in office. It has its roots in the neverending evil of believing that government should be in the "social justice" business and that government can ignore economic reality - to whit, that it could jigger the financial system to "encourage" lending to low income earners, crack whores, and other Democrats and that there would be no consequence to such a program. The people who affirmed such programs were dead wrong. It's a tribute to the strength of our markets and the power of Capitalism that it took as long as it did to crater. In short, this is not a "Bush" problem. It is a "stealing from some to give to others" problem that's been around well over 5 decades. BTW, Obama did not "start from scratch". He exploited an economic problem to implement his quasi-Marxist lunacy. There were far less overreaching ways the government could have engaged with the economy other than taking everything over. Even assuming that the credit liquidity problem was as bad and dangerous as claimed, Obama could have had his silly little bailouts without also signing up for the biggest pork spending bill in history. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ Tim...the supposed growth you are noting is smoke. Want to tell us how the deficit spending was doing at that time? And very convenient how you are ignoring the money that Bush threw at the liquidity problem...are you legally blind to any Republican faults? TMT Bush did not throw liquidity at the problem. The Fed did, and they are nominally an independent board. The growth - much of it - was very real. The problem today is not that there was not real growth, it is that the system got hijacked by an irresponsible government, population, and credit system for decades in some cases. Deficit spending did amp up under W - something he is very properly criticized for. And yes, there are many Republican faults. But this subthread of "it's all W's fault" is nonsense. If W is guilty in part, it is a pretty small part. There are decades of governmental stupidity that account for far, far more. A casual look at your tax booklet will illuminate the fact that well over half of Federal government spending is on social entitlements that are neither Constitutionally legitimate, nor a very smart investement. You want to blame someone, start with FDR, visit Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush 41, Clinton, W, and end with the fleas in Congress like Frank, Durbin, Schumer, et al. And yes, I left Reagan out because his few downsides here were vastly overweighed by the peace dividend he produced in finally decapitating the Sovs. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ Uh...better check out who Mr. Bailout really was....Bush. TMT It seems you have trouble with both reading what I wrote and elementary arithmetic. Bush improperly spent money - he was a Republican statist. But he spent a *fraction* of the money - even on bailouts - that the current Marxist-in-all-but-name President has and intends to. Bush was a broken leg to the republic. Our Dear Leader of the moment is a fatal cancer. You got a problem. We have a former president in Bush that has a full eight year record that we can take apart and evaluate, and it looks real bad. We also have a brand new president, Obama, who has barely been running things for four months and he started off in the worst hole any president has faced except for FDR. After four months of the Obama presidency you have pronounced him to be a cancer, a fatal cancer. You are obviously projecting what you think will happen in the future. Did you predict that Bush would lead us into the worst economic disaster since the Depression? Don't bother, I know you had no idea Bush would be horrible. I, on the other hand, said in 2001 that Bush would lead us into a war, would run up a tremendous debt, and would make all Americans poorer. So here we stand with Bush as the worst screw up ever, and you never saw it coming, and Obama, who is just getting started, you predict his presidency to be a disaster. Can you see the problem? You ain't too hot when it comes to predictions about how a president will do. Not only that, this time I am predicting you are going to be 100% wrong about Obama too and that his efforts will lead to a very good financial recovery. It'll take time but he'll get things turned around. You know why? He won't do what Bush did. Give Obama at least a year before writing him off. Because you're going to look really stupid if we have a good year in 2010, which is what I am predicting. You predict a disaster. Let's see if you are still a ****ty predictor as in the past. Hawke |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Hawke wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... Too_Many_Tools wrote: On Jun 9, 12:16 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote: Too_Many_Tools wrote: On Jun 8, 5:07 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote: Robatoy wrote: On Jun 8, 4:52 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: And if you can blame Bush for what happened during the last 100 days of his administration, then you've got no complaint when criticism is leveled at the first 100 days of Obama's. That, of course, is a crock of ****. Bush had the best part of 7 years to take a run at his last 100 days, as opposed to Obama who got the aftershocks AND he started from scratch. To compare both is ludicrous. I can't believe you made that comparison. r OK, so with what do you disagree: 1) Bush had over 5 years of quarter-over-quarter growth. 2) The Dems took over Congress and in less than two years the growth stopped. These are both factual statements BTW, but I am less inclined to a cause-effect relationship in 2) than the political Right believes. The underlying problem here started way before Bush was every in office. It has its roots in the neverending evil of believing that government should be in the "social justice" business and that government can ignore economic reality - to whit, that it could jigger the financial system to "encourage" lending to low income earners, crack whores, and other Democrats and that there would be no consequence to such a program. The people who affirmed such programs were dead wrong. It's a tribute to the strength of our markets and the power of Capitalism that it took as long as it did to crater. In short, this is not a "Bush" problem. It is a "stealing from some to give to others" problem that's been around well over 5 decades. BTW, Obama did not "start from scratch". He exploited an economic problem to implement his quasi-Marxist lunacy. There were far less overreaching ways the government could have engaged with the economy other than taking everything over. Even assuming that the credit liquidity problem was as bad and dangerous as claimed, Obama could have had his silly little bailouts without also signing up for the biggest pork spending bill in history. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ Tim...the supposed growth you are noting is smoke. Want to tell us how the deficit spending was doing at that time? And very convenient how you are ignoring the money that Bush threw at the liquidity problem...are you legally blind to any Republican faults? TMT Bush did not throw liquidity at the problem. The Fed did, and they are nominally an independent board. The growth - much of it - was very real. The problem today is not that there was not real growth, it is that the system got hijacked by an irresponsible government, population, and credit system for decades in some cases. Deficit spending did amp up under W - something he is very properly criticized for. And yes, there are many Republican faults. But this subthread of "it's all W's fault" is nonsense. If W is guilty in part, it is a pretty small part. There are decades of governmental stupidity that account for far, far more. A casual look at your tax booklet will illuminate the fact that well over half of Federal government spending is on social entitlements that are neither Constitutionally legitimate, nor a very smart investement. You want to blame someone, start with FDR, visit Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush 41, Clinton, W, and end with the fleas in Congress like Frank, Durbin, Schumer, et al. And yes, I left Reagan out because his few downsides here were vastly overweighed by the peace dividend he produced in finally decapitating the Sovs. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ Uh...better check out who Mr. Bailout really was....Bush. TMT It seems you have trouble with both reading what I wrote and elementary arithmetic. Bush improperly spent money - he was a Republican statist. But he spent a *fraction* of the money - even on bailouts - that the current Marxist-in-all-but-name President has and intends to. Bush was a broken leg to the republic. Our Dear Leader of the moment is a fatal cancer. You got a problem. We have a former president in Bush that has a full eight year record that we can take apart and evaluate, and it looks real bad. We Parts of it do, parts of it don't. When you don't toe the left-right line, you have the opportunity to actually look at such thing dispassionately. Bush was nowhere near the saint the right painted him, nor was he the villain the left painted him. He was - like all Presidents - a complex mix of virtue and vice. also have a brand new president, Obama, who has barely been running things for four months and he started off in the worst hole any president has faced except for FDR. After four months of the Obama presidency you have pronounced him to be a cancer, a fatal cancer. You are obviously projecting what you think will happen in the future. Did you predict that Bush would No, I am watching him launch into a full scale spending spree that has exceeded Bush's 8 years in a mere 6 months with no appreciable results. I've watched his promises - like unemployment below 8% turn to dust. I've watched him make nice to the world's tin pot dictators and despots in Venezuela, the Arab Middle East, and Cubae, I've watched him extend Miranda rights intended for legal residents of the US to foreign spies and terrorists attacking our nation. He is a living, walking, disaster. lead us into the worst economic disaster since the Depression? Don't bother, I know you had no idea Bush would be horrible. I, on the other hand, said in 2001 that Bush would lead us into a war, would run up a tremendous debt, and would make all Americans poorer. So here we stand with Bush as the worst They said the same thing about Truman. History vindicated him as it will Bush's Iraq venture *unless* the current feeble administration undermines the whole thing. screw up ever, and you never saw it coming, and Obama, who is just getting started, you predict his presidency to be a disaster. Can you see the problem? You ain't too hot when it comes to predictions about how a president will do. Not only that, this time I am predicting you are going to be 100% wrong about Obama too and that his efforts will lead to a very good financial recovery. It'll take time but he'll get things turned around. You know why? He won't do what Bush did. Give Obama at least a year before writing him off. Because you're going to look really stupid if we have a good year in 2010, which is what I am predicting. You predict a disaster. Let's see if you are still a ****ty predictor as in the past. I really hope you're right. I really hope I am here a year or two from now eating big crow and praising Obama for a job well done. I really doubt this will happen. He is caught in a value trap. If his theories are right, he's not spending enough money. If they are wrong, he is wasting money. Hawke -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
It took them less than 18 months to **** it all up. Here's one chart I could find regarding recent GDP growth by quarter:http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/ec...c-growth-stati s... Notice the rough average for the Bush years shown is about 2.25%. Since the 3rd quarter of 2007, the growth of GDP has plummeted and is now about -4% and unemployment is 9.8%. And if you can blame Bush for what happened during the last 100 days of his administration, then you've got no complaint when criticism is leveled at the first 100 days of Obama's. The Great Bush Depression. If Obama isn't sucessful, your children will remember it as that. If Obama is successful, the republic will at least be deeply damaged and may not ever recover fully. If he is not successful it will hopefully remind the Sheeple why they kicked Carter out after one term and why they need to do the same with Obama. What our children (and grandchildren, and their children ...) will call anything is moot. They'll be too busy paying off this generation's debt fostered in parts by a stupidly run government trying to spend its way out of debt, a bunch of greedy pigs in the population that want all the trappings of affluence whether they've earned them or not, and some unprincipled financial folks who knew they could take insane risk because the Obama's of this world would bail out their mistakes. No, I don't think they'll call it The Great Bush Depression. I think they'll call it "How I Got Shafted By My Stupid, Greedy, #$%^&* Grandparents". -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ You mean as they will be paying off the deficit that Bush ran up? Amazing how you completely ignore the Republican contribution. Are you aware that Cheney recently admitted that there was NO connection between Iraq and 9/11. So why did we fight a TRILLION dollar war? Now that's an easy one. Because the republican leadership wanted one. They ginned up a dozen reasons why we had to do it when all along it was the same as Herman Goering when he said about the Nazis, the people don't want war but the leaders do and it's simple to get the people to go along with the leaders if leaders want them to. Just like with Hitler and his bros Bush and his bros wanted the war and lo and behold we have a war. Simple. Hawke |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message m... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... But lots of real economists think that the deficit spending and jobs programs were not effective in ending the Depression. Well, you've got 250 out of 15,000 so far. Keep at it. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Easy to see that the deficit spending and WPA was not helping end the depression. The War ended the depression. The war was the biggest deficit spending, make-work program in history. Thus, a common view among many economists today is that FDR's programs were too small. They fear that Obama's programs are too small, now. Was only 6% of GDP deficit spending. Way less than the present deficit spending. And the money went to actual jobs and materials. Not some make work of paving a street with already employed workers. Common view of which economists? Percentage of economists? |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message ... HeyBub wrote: Stuart Wheaton wrote: Our incompetent President Hmmm.... Today the Dow is 600 points above where it was on the last day of Bush.... And 200 points above where it was right after the election... And 4,000 points below its high during the Bush years. Gee, most of us are enjoying a tax cut, but if you are getting more than 250K /yr and can't shield it, I feel no pity.... Or is this a "Joe the plumber" thing where you have no clue about income vs taxable income? Right. I saw one investor who managed to save $13,000 in taxes per DAY by the simple expedient of moving from New York to Florida. http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregio...153.html?imw=Y So, Bush's silly little war and Reagan's deficits are OK for you, but buying better highways is the road to ruin? Yes. We already pay a highway tax - and right now the highway tax has a huge surplus. Blame the politicians for dipping into the highway kitty to provide psychological counseling for troubled pets. What about the massive bill about to come due for Social Security? Are you going to show me where you advocated paying higher taxes during the Bush years so we could start to get ahead of the SS juggernaut? I can't; it didn't come up. You may recall that the first item on Bush's political agenda back in 2001 was reform of SS. Reform failed. You thought that privatizing Social Security was reform? That explains your first problem. Privatization was not reform, and in the immediate future it would have made the system more unstable because the current revenues would fall as contributions were siphoned off to Wall Street. Privatization was an attempt to damage Social security beyond repair. Reform of SS will require that benefits be decreased, indexed to assets, and that contributions be increased, exempted wages reduced, and payouts delayed. Furthermore, the U.S. Securities that George W called "Worthless IOU's " Will need to be turned into cash through tax revenues before they can be paid out. Even though we had an intense capital need hanging over our heads, W pushed for tax cuts and reducing the income to SS... Where is the reform you spoke of? Not better, but with somewhat less carnage. Recall, it was the market that got us here, and then screamed for mommy when their lousy decisions put the whole economy in peril. How do you feel about "too big to fail?" Personally? The bigger they are, the harder they fall, but fall they must. Even FDR said that part of SS had to be private. It could not all be government. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"HeyBub" wrote in message m... John R. Carroll wrote: None of this sort of analysis has any real value. What does is the beliefs of Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke. Those two fellows believe the problem, or one of them, was that to little was done and not to nuch. Another, was letting of the gas and raising taxes stalled the economy in 1937 and that, finally, inflation is a problem we really can deal with while deflation is self reinforcing but that deflation isn't and Paul Volker proved out the mechanics of wringing it out of an econoomy decades ago. "We can deal with inflation?" You bet. It isn't a bet, it's an excercise in monetary policy. During the Carter years I purchased a CD paying 10%. I cashed it in a year later, and got my 10% premium. Inflation for the year was 13%. OK, poor judgement. Then I had to pay taxes on my 10% gain. Would have been a lot tougher to pay that tax premium if your income had been cut in half. JC |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message m... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... But lots of real economists think that the deficit spending and jobs programs were not effective in ending the Depression. Well, you've got 250 out of 15,000 so far. Keep at it. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Easy to see that the deficit spending and WPA was not helping end the depression. The War ended the depression. The war was the biggest deficit spending, make-work program in history. Thus, a common view among many economists today is that FDR's programs were too small. They fear that Obama's programs are too small, now. Was only 6% of GDP deficit spending. Way less than the present deficit spending. It ran over 20% of GDP through most of the war, reaching something around 28% at the peak. The high-end estimate for FY 2009 is 12.3% of GDP. Your figures are 'way off, Bill, and so is the rest of your conclusion about the economic effects of war. Try again. -- Ed Huntress |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
John R. Carroll wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message m... John R. Carroll wrote: None of this sort of analysis has any real value. What does is the beliefs of Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke. Those two fellows believe the problem, or one of them, was that to little was done and not to nuch. Another, was letting of the gas and raising taxes stalled the economy in 1937 and that, finally, inflation is a problem we really can deal with while deflation is self reinforcing but that deflation isn't and Paul Volker proved out the mechanics of wringing it out of an econoomy decades ago. "We can deal with inflation?" You bet. It isn't a bet, it's an excercise in monetary policy. During the Carter years I purchased a CD paying 10%. I cashed it in a year later, and got my 10% premium. Inflation for the year was 13%. OK, poor judgement. Then I had to pay taxes on my 10% gain. Would have been a lot tougher to pay that tax premium if your income had been cut in half. Which 8 years of 10 percent inflation does handily. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
|
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
So you are saying that any country is welcome to invade any other country when it feels like it. No, of course not. I said the UNITED STATES is free to invade any other country when it feels it has sufficient reason. So I guess you favor Iran and North Korea making and using nukes. No, of course not. As for the "volunteers", how many would have volunteered if they had known that they were being lied to by Bush/Cheney? Virtually all. Every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine now serving either enlisted or re-enlisted at least once since 2001. And...no you do not feel their pain. Never said I did. That's Bill Clinton's line. No parent wants their children to die for nothing. Agreed. I'd go farther and say no parent wants their child to die, period. But should we deny those who want to risk death the opportunity to kill people and blow things up? They are our warrior class - that's what warriors do. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
On Jun 10, 4:01*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... But lots of real economists think that the deficit spending and jobs programs were not effective in ending the Depression. Well, you've got 250 out of 15,000 so far. Keep at it. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Easy to see that the deficit spending and WPA was not helping end the depression. *The War ended the depression. *During the Depression, FDR managed to lower the unemployment rate to at most 20% from a high of 24%. The War took 2 million people into the Military and the rest of the people were manufacturing stuff for the 2 million in uniform. *A war these days will not cure the depression. *We have closed most smokestack manufacturing in this country, and even if we could open up "smokestack manufacturing" now, there are not enough skilled workers to staff the plants. *We have a very illiterate population these days. *Some regions have a 50%+ dropout rate before finishing high school. *Maybe if we brought back shop classes, the kids would stay in school as they could see something they could do in the future. *Maybe 20% of the population should go to college. *Those that are both smart enough and motivated enough to do the work. *We have raised wages astronomically pricing us out of a lot of the manufacturing jobs. *$70 an hour with benefits to put lug nuts on a car. *less than 30 years ago, $23k was a mid level engineering salary. *Due to inflation because of government overspending and capitulation to "Public Service" unions, salaries are skewed way high here. *40 years ago we could compete due to better productivity and lower shipping costs for "Made in America". *We made maybe 3x what a worker in another country made. *Not the 10-20x now. *When I designed disk drives in the 1980's, the fully bundled labor cost for making Head Stack Assemblies in Malaysia was $3.50 an hour. *Most of the assembly was robotic, but to do the same job here was at a minimum $35 an hour. *10x the cost in Asia. *I do not have a cure for the problems, but we are going to have to stop considering a "Living Wage" for everyone. *Get some skills if you want higher pay! *When a BART (transit) train driver makes $80k salary + benefits extra a year to sit and look out the window to see if anybody is stuck in the doors before the transit train moves, and if the train control fails, use the manual throttle to go at 25 mph max to the next station. *We are overpaying. *And with a Congress and Executive branch hell bent on bankrupting the country by spending like a drunk machinist out on the town, I do not see a lot of good in the future for us. *While companies are laying off people and taking salary cuts out "leaders" are taking pay raises and giving an average of 17% bonus to staff members. *Fannie May and Freddie Mac, who are a major cause of the housing bust and are billions in the hole have given out some $51 million plus in bonus money. * *People in leadership positions in government and quasi government business should be getting pink slips not bonus checks! Deficit spending and the WPA kept millions of people from starving. I think that is accomplishing something. Go hungry for a week and get back to us with your changed attitude. As for excessive spending...where were you when Bush spent a TRILLION dollars on a war that had no Iraq - 9/11 connection. TMT |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Hawke wrote:
You mean as they will be paying off the deficit that Bush ran up? Amazing how you completely ignore the Republican contribution. Here's a chart: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/.../obamadebt.jpg Bush did run up the debt, although not as much as it seems. Turns out the biggest part, the $787 billion bail-out during his last three months hasn't been spent. In fact only about $25 billion has gone out the door. Anyway, Obama plans to increase the debt more in his first year than Bush accomplished in a full eight. Some deficits, and debt, are manageable. If the debt can be recouped by downstream economic growth, the debt/deficit may be excusable or even meritorious. Are you aware that Cheney recently admitted that there was NO connection between Iraq and 9/11. So why did we fight a TRILLION dollar war? Now that's an easy one. Because the republican leadership wanted one. They ginned up a dozen reasons why we had to do it when all along it was the same as Herman Goering when he said about the Nazis, the people don't want war but the leaders do and it's simple to get the people to go along with the leaders if leaders want them to. Just like with Hitler and his bros Bush and his bros wanted the war and lo and behold we have a war. Simple. I call GODWIN! |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... John R. Carroll wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message m... John R. Carroll wrote: None of this sort of analysis has any real value. What does is the beliefs of Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke. Those two fellows believe the problem, or one of them, was that to little was done and not to nuch. Another, was letting of the gas and raising taxes stalled the economy in 1937 and that, finally, inflation is a problem we really can deal with while deflation is self reinforcing but that deflation isn't and Paul Volker proved out the mechanics of wringing it out of an econoomy decades ago. "We can deal with inflation?" You bet. It isn't a bet, it's an excercise in monetary policy. During the Carter years I purchased a CD paying 10%. I cashed it in a year later, and got my 10% premium. Inflation for the year was 13%. OK, poor judgement. Then I had to pay taxes on my 10% gain. Would have been a lot tougher to pay that tax premium if your income had been cut in half. Which 8 years of 10 percent inflation does handily. Well sure, if you don't get a raise. LOL Even two or three percent inflation as hard to take under that scenario. JC |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
HeyBub wrote:
wrote: The real problem with most peoples politics(in my opinion), is that most people are uninformed politically. They base their assumptions & political viewpoints on whatever the media monster feeds them! Exactly. That's why laws need to be written by experts (i.e., special interests, lobbyists, etc.). Or at least these groups should get the right of last refusal. Do you think the average politician - let alone even an informed voter - could know all the ramifications of increasing the federal tariff by fifty-cents per hundredweight on the railroad transportation of partially-hydrogenated yak-fat across state lines? Mmmmmmmm, Yak ... tastes like chicken. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:39:00 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote: HeyBub wrote: wrote: The real problem with most peoples politics(in my opinion), is that most people are uninformed politically. They base their assumptions & political viewpoints on whatever the media monster feeds them! Exactly. That's why laws need to be written by experts (i.e., special interests, lobbyists, etc.). Or at least these groups should get the right of last refusal. Do you think the average politician - let alone even an informed voter - could know all the ramifications of increasing the federal tariff by fifty-cents per hundredweight on the railroad transportation of partially-hydrogenated yak-fat across state lines? Mmmmmmmm, Yak ... tastes like chicken. Ah, you've *obviously* never had yak meat. ;-) Dark color, tastes a lot like beef. Excellent in a stew. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
John R. Carroll wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... John R. Carroll wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message m... John R. Carroll wrote: None of this sort of analysis has any real value. What does is the beliefs of Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke. Those two fellows believe the problem, or one of them, was that to little was done and not to nuch. Another, was letting of the gas and raising taxes stalled the economy in 1937 and that, finally, inflation is a problem we really can deal with while deflation is self reinforcing but that deflation isn't and Paul Volker proved out the mechanics of wringing it out of an econoomy decades ago. "We can deal with inflation?" You bet. It isn't a bet, it's an excercise in monetary policy. During the Carter years I purchased a CD paying 10%. I cashed it in a year later, and got my 10% premium. Inflation for the year was 13%. OK, poor judgement. Then I had to pay taxes on my 10% gain. Would have been a lot tougher to pay that tax premium if your income had been cut in half. Which 8 years of 10 percent inflation does handily. Well sure, if you don't get a raise. LOL Even two or three percent inflation as hard to take under that scenario. And when the economy is bad you don't get raises. I've worked in places where in 5 years _nobody_ got a raise or if someone did get a raise it amounted to a couple of cents an hour. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... John R. Carroll wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... John R. Carroll wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message m... John R. Carroll wrote: None of this sort of analysis has any real value. What does is the beliefs of Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke. Those two fellows believe the problem, or one of them, was that to little was done and not to nuch. Another, was letting of the gas and raising taxes stalled the economy in 1937 and that, finally, inflation is a problem we really can deal with while deflation is self reinforcing but that deflation isn't and Paul Volker proved out the mechanics of wringing it out of an econoomy decades ago. "We can deal with inflation?" You bet. It isn't a bet, it's an excercise in monetary policy. During the Carter years I purchased a CD paying 10%. I cashed it in a year later, and got my 10% premium. Inflation for the year was 13%. OK, poor judgement. Then I had to pay taxes on my 10% gain. Would have been a lot tougher to pay that tax premium if your income had been cut in half. Which 8 years of 10 percent inflation does handily. Well sure, if you don't get a raise. LOL Even two or three percent inflation as hard to take under that scenario. And when the economy is bad you don't get raises. I've worked in places where in 5 years _nobody_ got a raise or if someone did get a raise it amounted to a couple of cents an hour. The years when I had the most significant increases in my earnings were down years. I've also come to the conclusion, based on practical experience, that the best time to start a new business is when things are in the tank. Anyway, inflation has a known cure that is easy to institute, effective and proven. Deflation really doesn't and the consequenses are generally worse on the whole, in deflationary environments. JC |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Deficit spending and the WPA kept millions of people from starving. I think that is accomplishing something. Go hungry for a week and get back to us with your changed attitude. As for excessive spending...where were you when Bush spent a TRILLION dollars on a war that had no Iraq - 9/11 connection. TMT Just for informational purposes, could you cite the reference when Bush actually said that there was an Iraq - 9/11 connection. I'm not trying to start an argument, but I couldn't find one, although I have heard many people state that he did. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Deficit spending and the WPA kept millions of people from starving. I think that is accomplishing something. Yes, but if avoiding starvation was the goal, they did it the wrong way. Simply handing out food would have been cheaper, more efficient, and more universal. Once again, a government program with a lofty goal, cost twice as much as it should and didn't fully address the problem. Go hungry for a week and get back to us with your changed attitude. As for excessive spending...where were you when Bush spent a TRILLION dollars on a war that had no Iraq - 9/11 connection. Right here. I was also right here when Obama committed $1.85 trillion more than revenue in the first quarter of this year. I'll be here as he spends another $6.6 trillion (in excess of revenues) over the next few years. http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/.../obamadebt.jpg The sad part is, Obama's expenditures don't guarantee we get to kill any enemies. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
John R. Carroll wrote:
SNIP Anyway, inflation has a known cure that is easy to institute, effective and proven. ????? On what planet? Inflation: 1) Punishes people on fixed incomes. 2) Drives wage earners into higher- and higher incremental tax brackets and triggers things like the AMT in the US tax code. 3) Punishes bond holders (like people who hold U.S. Treasuries) so that, over time, the bond issuer (like the U.S. government) has to sell that at higher rates to make them more attractive, thereby making the servicing of the debt more expensive. If you really think inflation is a cure for anything you need to revisit pre-WWII Germany or Zimbabwe in recent times. By your reckoning, they were/are economic paradises... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... John R. Carroll wrote: SNIP Anyway, inflation has a known cure that is easy to institute, effective and proven. ????? On what planet? Inflation: 1) Punishes people on fixed incomes. 2) Drives wage earners into higher- and higher incremental tax brackets and triggers things like the AMT in the US tax code. 3) Punishes bond holders (like people who hold U.S. Treasuries) so that, over time, the bond issuer (like the U.S. government) has to sell that at higher rates to make them more attractive, thereby making the servicing of the debt more expensive. If you really think inflation is a cure for anything you need to revisit pre-WWII Germany or Zimbabwe in recent times. By your reckoning, they were/are economic paradises... He didn't say inflation is a cure. He said inflation can be cured, as Paul Volcker demonstrated. Deflation, if it deepens into a spiral, has no known cure -- except years of time with businesses, the middle class, and the bottom working class suffering through it. -- Ed Huntress |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
HeyBub wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote: Deficit spending and the WPA kept millions of people from starving. I think that is accomplishing something. Yes, but if avoiding starvation was the goal, they did it the wrong way. Simply handing out food would have been cheaper, more efficient, and more universal. Once again, a government program with a lofty goal, cost twice as much as it should and didn't fully address the problem. Go hungry for a week and get back to us with your changed attitude. As for excessive spending...where were you when Bush spent a TRILLION dollars on a war that had no Iraq - 9/11 connection. Right here. I was also right here when Obama committed $1.85 trillion more than revenue in the first quarter of this year. I'll be here as he spends another $6.6 trillion (in excess of revenues) over the next few years. http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/.../obamadebt.jpg The sad part is, Obama's expenditures don't guarantee we get to kill any enemies. No, the sad part is that the foaming Bush-haters will never figure out that however fiscally irresponsible Bush was (and he was), Obama is at least an order of magnitude (base 10) worse, and he may even top that before it's all over... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... John R. Carroll wrote: SNIP Anyway, inflation has a known cure that is easy to institute, effective and proven. ????? On what planet? Inflation: 1) Punishes people on fixed incomes. 2) Drives wage earners into higher- and higher incremental tax brackets and triggers things like the AMT in the US tax code. 3) Punishes bond holders (like people who hold U.S. Treasuries) so that, over time, the bond issuer (like the U.S. government) has to sell that at higher rates to make them more attractive, thereby making the servicing of the debt more expensive. If you really think inflation is a cure for anything you need to revisit pre-WWII Germany or Zimbabwe in recent times. By your reckoning, they were/are economic paradises... I didn't say inflation was a cure for anything. I said "Anyway, inflation has a known cure that is easy to institute, effective and proven." Which is accurate. JC |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
On Jun 11, 3:47*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
No, the sad part is that the foaming [insert whatever it is, but it sure is foaming].... What is with you and that foam thing. Were you, as a child, left in the bathtub with a bar of soap...for too long? |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... HeyBub wrote: Too_Many_Tools wrote: Deficit spending and the WPA kept millions of people from starving. I think that is accomplishing something. Yes, but if avoiding starvation was the goal, they did it the wrong way. Simply handing out food would have been cheaper, more efficient, and more universal. Once again, a government program with a lofty goal, cost twice as much as it should and didn't fully address the problem. Go hungry for a week and get back to us with your changed attitude. As for excessive spending...where were you when Bush spent a TRILLION dollars on a war that had no Iraq - 9/11 connection. Right here. I was also right here when Obama committed $1.85 trillion more than revenue in the first quarter of this year. I'll be here as he spends another $6.6 trillion (in excess of revenues) over the next few years. http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/.../obamadebt.jpg The sad part is, Obama's expenditures don't guarantee we get to kill any enemies. No, the sad part is that the foaming Bush-haters will never figure out that however fiscally irresponsible Bush was (and he was), Obama is at least an order of magnitude (base 10) worse, and he may even top that before it's all over... That's not irresponsible. Deficit spending -- whether it's spending increases or tax cuts -- during a time of economic strength or stability is outright irresponsible. Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," and Bush ran with it. That's not Keynes; that's just nuts. Obama is spending in a violent economic downturn. That's what most economists agree you should do. Then, like Clinton (who got lucky, but at least he didn't do a Bush), you try to pay down the debt in good times. That's Keynes. -- Ed Huntress |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
John R. Carroll wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... John R. Carroll wrote: SNIP Anyway, inflation has a known cure that is easy to institute, effective and proven. ????? On what planet? Inflation: 1) Punishes people on fixed incomes. 2) Drives wage earners into higher- and higher incremental tax brackets and triggers things like the AMT in the US tax code. 3) Punishes bond holders (like people who hold U.S. Treasuries) so that, over time, the bond issuer (like the U.S. government) has to sell that at higher rates to make them more attractive, thereby making the servicing of the debt more expensive. If you really think inflation is a cure for anything you need to revisit pre-WWII Germany or Zimbabwe in recent times. By your reckoning, they were/are economic paradises... I didn't say inflation was a cure for anything. I said "Anyway, inflation has a known cure that is easy to institute, effective and proven." Which is accurate. JC Ahhh .. that's what I get for speed reading ... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... HeyBub wrote: Too_Many_Tools wrote: Deficit spending and the WPA kept millions of people from starving. I think that is accomplishing something. Yes, but if avoiding starvation was the goal, they did it the wrong way. Simply handing out food would have been cheaper, more efficient, and more universal. Once again, a government program with a lofty goal, cost twice as much as it should and didn't fully address the problem. Go hungry for a week and get back to us with your changed attitude. As for excessive spending...where were you when Bush spent a TRILLION dollars on a war that had no Iraq - 9/11 connection. Right here. I was also right here when Obama committed $1.85 trillion more than revenue in the first quarter of this year. I'll be here as he spends another $6.6 trillion (in excess of revenues) over the next few years. http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/.../obamadebt.jpg The sad part is, Obama's expenditures don't guarantee we get to kill any enemies. No, the sad part is that the foaming Bush-haters will never figure out that however fiscally irresponsible Bush was (and he was), Obama is at least an order of magnitude (base 10) worse, and he may even top that before it's all over... That's not irresponsible. Deficit spending -- whether it's spending increases or tax cuts -- during a time of economic strength or stability is outright irresponsible. Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," and Bush ran with it. That's not Keynes; that's just nuts. Obama is spending in a violent economic downturn. That's what most economists agree you should do. Then, like Clinton (who got lucky, but at least he didn't do a Bush), you try to pay down the debt in good times. That's Keynes. -- Ed Huntress It is far from demonstrated that what you've written above actually works. It is a theory without demonstration. Consensus among academics does not make something true, and this is all the more the case when the discipline in question has gets an F- for its predictions in the past. (A parallel example exists in the Global Cooling, I mean Global Warming, oh, ... uh ... Climate Change community whose predictions have universally been far wrong...) Spending money you do not have and have little hope of repaying if you borrow it is flatly irresponsible whether it is Obama or the guy down the street that bought a $300K house, a boat, and a 60" flatscreen TV on a $55K income. The issue at stake here is whether Obama can pull off the "paying it back" part. I don't think he can. There isn't a historical example that shows this will work and even you Keynesians are worried he's not spending enough. We're in a lost endgame. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Robatoy wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:47 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote: No, the sad part is that the foaming [insert whatever it is, but it sure is foaming].... What is with you and that foam thing. Were you, as a child, left in the bathtub with a bar of soap...for too long? The Bush-haters tend to spit and foam a lot when they talk. In person I make it a point of stepping back a bit to avoid the shower. What's really funny is that the Bush haters accuse anyone that disagrees with them in any small way as somehow being a rightwing stooge, a staunch Republican, or a Bush-supporting neocon. Apparently, at least in some quarters, the most complicated information space people are capable of considering is binary. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
On Jun 11, 4:21*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
*Apparently, at least in some quarters, the most complicated information space people are capable of considering is binary. You mean: (Bush quote) "You're either for us, or against us?" |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... HeyBub wrote: Too_Many_Tools wrote: Deficit spending and the WPA kept millions of people from starving. I think that is accomplishing something. Yes, but if avoiding starvation was the goal, they did it the wrong way. Simply handing out food would have been cheaper, more efficient, and more universal. Once again, a government program with a lofty goal, cost twice as much as it should and didn't fully address the problem. Go hungry for a week and get back to us with your changed attitude. As for excessive spending...where were you when Bush spent a TRILLION dollars on a war that had no Iraq - 9/11 connection. Right here. I was also right here when Obama committed $1.85 trillion more than revenue in the first quarter of this year. I'll be here as he spends another $6.6 trillion (in excess of revenues) over the next few years. http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/.../obamadebt.jpg The sad part is, Obama's expenditures don't guarantee we get to kill any enemies. No, the sad part is that the foaming Bush-haters will never figure out that however fiscally irresponsible Bush was (and he was), Obama is at least an order of magnitude (base 10) worse, and he may even top that before it's all over... That's not irresponsible. Deficit spending -- whether it's spending increases or tax cuts -- during a time of economic strength or stability is outright irresponsible. Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," and Bush ran with it. That's not Keynes; that's just nuts. Obama is spending in a violent economic downturn. That's what most economists agree you should do. Then, like Clinton (who got lucky, but at least he didn't do a Bush), you try to pay down the debt in good times. That's Keynes. -- Ed Huntress Noboby has paid down any debt since Ike. |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... HeyBub wrote: Too_Many_Tools wrote: Deficit spending and the WPA kept millions of people from starving. I think that is accomplishing something. Yes, but if avoiding starvation was the goal, they did it the wrong way. Simply handing out food would have been cheaper, more efficient, and more universal. Once again, a government program with a lofty goal, cost twice as much as it should and didn't fully address the problem. Go hungry for a week and get back to us with your changed attitude. As for excessive spending...where were you when Bush spent a TRILLION dollars on a war that had no Iraq - 9/11 connection. Right here. I was also right here when Obama committed $1.85 trillion more than revenue in the first quarter of this year. I'll be here as he spends another $6.6 trillion (in excess of revenues) over the next few years. http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/.../obamadebt.jpg The sad part is, Obama's expenditures don't guarantee we get to kill any enemies. No, the sad part is that the foaming Bush-haters will never figure out that however fiscally irresponsible Bush was (and he was), Obama is at least an order of magnitude (base 10) worse, and he may even top that before it's all over... That's not irresponsible. Deficit spending -- whether it's spending increases or tax cuts -- during a time of economic strength or stability is outright irresponsible. Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," and Bush ran with it. That's not Keynes; that's just nuts. Obama is spending in a violent economic downturn. That's what most economists agree you should do. Then, like Clinton (who got lucky, but at least he didn't do a Bush), you try to pay down the debt in good times. That's Keynes. -- Ed Huntress It is far from demonstrated that what you've written above actually works. It is a theory without demonstration. Well, it has a lot more "demonstration" than sitting on one's hands, Hayak-style, or of tightening money. Take a look at the list of recessions since 1948 in this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s#cite_note-23 I wouldn't rely on their analyses, but they're all based on other references and documentation, which you could follow. Most modern recessions in the US have been associated with monetary policies that attempted to reverse inflation. It could be that the ones that ended at about the time of stimulus would have ended similarly anyway (and stimulus usually is too late to have maximum effect), but it's interesting that several of them seemed to respond to deficit spending, to some degree. In any case, deficit spending relieved some pain, so it may function more as an analgesic than as a cure in a mild or moderate recession. But those were all fairly mild recessions that can be attributed to normal business cycles. Not this one. This is a hellbender, having more in common with 1930 than 1953. Consensus among academics does not make something true, and this is all the more the case when the discipline in question has gets an F- for its predictions in the past. (A parallel example exists in the Global Cooling, I mean Global Warming, oh, ... uh ... Climate Change community whose predictions have universally been far wrong...) Yeah, the parallel is a good one, but I read it differently. You have the mainstream, which usually is right, and you have the cranks and ideologues on the fringes, who almost always are wrong. I'll go with the mainstream. Spending money you do not have and have little hope of repaying if you borrow it is flatly irresponsible whether it is Obama or the guy down the street that bought a $300K house, a boat, and a 60" flatscreen TV on a $55K income. Nations are not households. We spent much MORE money, as a percentage of national income (GDP) in the 1940s than we are now. A household would go bankrupt. A sovereign nation with its debt denoted in its own currency will not. From here on out, everything depends on getting healthy growth going in our economy. It may be a long shot but it's the only shot. The issue at stake here is whether Obama can pull off the "paying it back" part. I don't think he can. There isn't a historical example that shows this will work and even you Keynesians are worried he's not spending enough. We're in a lost endgame. I'm not worried that he's not spending enough. I think we'll have dismally slow growth no matter what, so I'm viewing the spending as an analgesic that will ease the pain while the economy has a chance to recover -- if it really does. In any case, there is no alternative. As for historical examples, look again at the aftermath of WWII. Our national debt was over 120% of our GDP -- twice what it will be at the end of this year -- yet we paid it down and the economy got going. There's a lot of skepticism about whether there's room for that kind of growth today, and I'm somewhat skeptical, myself. But, once again, that's the hand we're dealt, and it's the only game in town. Head down, hang onto the ball, and charge through that line... -- Ed Huntress |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Robatoy wrote:
On Jun 11, 4:21 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote: Apparently, at least in some quarters, the most complicated information space people are capable of considering is binary. You mean: (Bush quote) "You're either for us, or against us?" He was, of course, wrong. The largest part of humanity "doesn't care one way or the other about us" ... until, of course, they get into trouble whereupon they come begging for help. (cf Indonesia for just one such example) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ... HeyBub wrote: Too_Many_Tools wrote: Deficit spending and the WPA kept millions of people from starving. I think that is accomplishing something. Yes, but if avoiding starvation was the goal, they did it the wrong way. Simply handing out food would have been cheaper, more efficient, and more universal. Once again, a government program with a lofty goal, cost twice as much as it should and didn't fully address the problem. Go hungry for a week and get back to us with your changed attitude. As for excessive spending...where were you when Bush spent a TRILLION dollars on a war that had no Iraq - 9/11 connection. Right here. I was also right here when Obama committed $1.85 trillion more than revenue in the first quarter of this year. I'll be here as he spends another $6.6 trillion (in excess of revenues) over the next few years. http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/.../obamadebt.jpg The sad part is, Obama's expenditures don't guarantee we get to kill any enemies. No, the sad part is that the foaming Bush-haters will never figure out that however fiscally irresponsible Bush was (and he was), Obama is at least an order of magnitude (base 10) worse, and he may even top that before it's all over... That's not irresponsible. Deficit spending -- whether it's spending increases or tax cuts -- during a time of economic strength or stability is outright irresponsible. Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," and Bush ran with it. That's not Keynes; that's just nuts. Obama is spending in a violent economic downturn. That's what most economists agree you should do. Then, like Clinton (who got lucky, but at least he didn't do a Bush), you try to pay down the debt in good times. That's Keynes. -- Ed Huntress Noboby has paid down any debt since Ike. Wrong. You're probably reading the right-wing crank-crap that includes future Social Security obligations (in the form of non-negotiable special Treasury bills "bought" by the SS "Trust Fund") as current debt. Wrong, stupid, and wrong again. Even the Bush administration admitted that the national debt had been reduced -- just a bit -- under Clinton. -- Ed Huntress |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter