1. Hey look - my name up in lights!! Busy busy day today, will check out the vids at some point. JS > JC
    Add p00pymcp00perton to Rail
  2. Hey ncj, I've answered that question a couple of times already.

    Also, did you know that part of the reason that Obama's projections are that bad for the deficit is because he is including the Afghanistan and Iraq wars in the budget, whereas Bush never did? Yeah, I know, crazy right? Bush never submitted a budget with the cost of his two wars factored into it. They always did a supplemental funding bill for the wars, do you remember that? That meant that those wars were always off the books, making his horrible deficits look a little less horrible. One of the things that Obama did was to put those wars into the budget, making his deficit seemingly worse, but for some reason Republicans never mention that. Weird, right?

    Anyway, that's one of those Bush policies.

    Look, I can answer your question (again) but it's one of those things where the answers I give probably won't satisfy you because you probably think Keynesian economics is invalid. If you were willing to accept the basic assumptions that come with Keynesian economics, then you'd already understand that when the economy is robust (like it was when Bush took over) that's the time for the government to cut spending and keep taxes at the higher end (relatively speaking). Since the economy is doing well, you don't need the government to spend money to inject demand and you can use the taxes to pay down debt. The reason you do that is to shore up for the inevitable slowdown of the economy and so that the government can then increase spending and cut taxes, which will replace the lost demand that the economy needs. What Bush did was the exact opposite. He cut taxes (by a lot) and increased spending (by even more) with Medicare Part D, a completely unnecessary entitlement program that was nowhere near being paid for, and then really increased spending by starting two wars (and keeping them off the books, remember?)

    Those are bad economic decisions (if you accept Keynesian theory, which, like I said, you don't).

    What Obama has done is cut taxes even more and started spending on infrastructure to inject demand into the economy, which is exactly what Keynesian theory would dictate. The biggest problem that Obama has now is that Bush so exploded the deficit (in good times!) that when the bad times (inevitably) came, his hands were tied as far as being able to spend enough to put people to work. If the deficit hadn't already been so large, we could be spending huge amounts of money on infrastructure (for example, high speed rail across the US or something) that would both put people to work and help the economy for years to come by greatly reducing the travel costs of businesses and individuals, allowing for more tourism, shipping of goods, and business travel. It's really frustrating.

    This is why Obama's deficits are called for, and Bush's weren't. It's not intellectual dishonesty for me to believe Bush's deficits were bad and Obama's deficits are necessary, but in order to see that, you have to at least understand Keynesian theory, if not agree with it. Even believers of Hayek's theories should be able to see the intellectual consistency of that argument.
    Add Underdog to Rail
  3.  
    Originally Posted by jetsjets1028 View Post

    you keep saying this....how on earth did it make us an easier target for Al Qaeda? We are kicking their ass over there and they haven't touched us since 9/11

    Tell that to all the soldiers killed in Iraq

     
    Originally Posted by jetsjets1028 View Post

    Oh dear. They hate us no matter what we do. Do you really not see this? What would you suggest we do to make them like us? When you figure it out, please tell Obama.

    Al-Queda members already hate us correct, but invading their country made it much easier for Al-Queda to come in and say, 'look at how evil these guys are, join our side in fighting them.

     
    Originally Posted by jetsjets1028 View Post

    So the plan is to cut defense spending and change our military culture so the people that hate us and have sworn to kill us in the name of their god will stop attacking us.....good heavens.

    No you are right, we still need to prepare and fight against people coming to our country and killing Americans. But having the biggest military isn't going to help that. We are wasting billions of dollars building our army bigger and bigger when we are fighting guys who's whole strategy is just to blow themselves up. We shouldn't be ruining the country by driving us into record debt when we could easily cut spending on defense (and thats not to say we shouldn't cut spending across the board).
     1
    Add fly44 to Rail
  4.  
    Originally Posted by Underdog34 View Post

    Hey ncj, I've answered that question a couple of times already.

    Also, did you know that part of the reason that Obama's projections are that bad for the deficit is because he is including the Afghanistan and Iraq wars in the budget, whereas Bush never did?.

    Agree that Bush was slimey for doing this, so you are saying the next decade's budget projections include the cost of two wars? Are we planning on being there the next 10 years? Slimey accounting like this bothers me too, that's why including tax increases, double counting the same medicare cuts, not counting a doctor fix, including interest on student loans all as part of your fairy tale health care bill really bothers me. Shame you can't be consistent.

    LOL at Obama including the cost of 2 wars for the next 10 years. And LOL at you knocking Bush's accounting while trying to make it look like Obama's team is so excellently honest.

    The rest of the post I'll give credit for making sense and well explained whether I agree with it or not. Shame you started it with such BS.
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  5. No BS. I never said that the deficit in Obama's budget was because the two wars would continue for the next 10 years. I was pointing out one of the reasons that Bush's budget deficit was even worse than what Republicans cite when they compare his with Obama's. You are so eager to find deception on my part that you read things that I'm not writing. And the phrase "Obama's team is so excellently honest" is, again, just laughable. I never said that Obama's team is a paragon of honesty.

    I am pointing out that Obama's deficit is understandable, given his circumstances, and Bush's isn't, given his. The size of the respective deficits matter, especially given ncj's line of questioning, and I was explaining why Obama's reported deficit isn't the same as Bush's, given the rather large discrepancies.

    What part of the second half of my post did you disagree with? Do you take issue with the assertion that, following Keynesian theories, Obama's actions were correct and Bush's were incorrect? Or are you saying you disagree with the underlying Keynesian theory? If so, what makes you dismiss Keynes and embrace (presumably) Hayek? If so, do you have any empirical evidence to suggest that Hayek's theories are better, or does your preference instead come from a desire to live in a Hayek society?

    EDITED TO ADD: One thing that is also not considered when comparing the size of the two deficits is that a significant portion of Obama's deficit is just the interest from Bush's explosion of the debt, another thing that Republicans seem to forget.
    Edited By: Underdog Sep 28th, 2010 at 05:37 AM
    Add Underdog to Rail
  6.  
    Originally Posted by niptuck View Post

    I paid almost NO income taxes last year because I almost went bankrupt. However if my business' survive, and I hire people and pay huge taxes then I will be rewarded by people like you telling me I don't pay my 'fair' share.

    Please, for the love of your Country, take the time to actually watch all of these videos. Then, come on here and tell me what you really think/feel. I honestly would like your opinions on the substance.

    Didn't you make a thread on tax day complaining about a 6 figure tax bill?
    Add rocket5 to Rail
  7.  
    Originally Posted by rocket5 View Post

    Didn't you make a thread on tax day complaining about a 6 figure tax bill?

    That was for previous year
    Edited By: niptuck Sep 28th, 2010 at 10:22 AM
    Thread StarterAdd niptuck to Rail
  8. nipple has a point, but johnny rotten...really

    you boys are omitting the fact that the wars the good old u.s. of fucking aye are in the nations best interest. course you can embrace the spotted owl if you like. the POTUS is saying eff you and your internal strife, as the POTUS should do.
    Add Stockage to Rail
  9. I just wish at least ONE person who previously bought into the 'financial liberal' Democrat positions would have watched these and maybe changed their perspective.

    Sorry for calling you out UD/Poopy/Lenny. Obv not ment as a 'slight'. I welcome different points of view on these videos.
    Thread StarterAdd niptuck to Rail
  10. Keynesian economics is what has been tried in the Mediterranean countries and you see how well that has worked out. You also see the measures to fix this is get away from those philosophies. We have proof that Keynesian not only doesn't work but how detrimental it is. Want to bankrupt a country? use the silly notion that you can spend and borrow your way out of debt.

    Yes, Bush was bad and is a major reason we were in the shape we were in with 7% unemployment, wish we were in that bad of shape now. The proof is in the pudding.
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  11.  
    Originally Posted by niptuck View Post

    I just wish at least ONE person who previously bought into the 'financial liberal' Democrat positions would have watched these and maybe changed their perspective.

    Sorry for calling you out UD/Poopy/Lenny. Obv not ment as a 'slight'. I welcome different points of view on these videos.

    Sorry dude, that's not the way it works. You want to make an argument for your political philosophy, go ahead. You can't post half an hour of videos and expect everybody to watch them. It's okay for you to post them, and it's okay to post articles that you think are good, everybody does that, but it's silly to demand that people watch them.

    Posting half an hour of videos by John Stossel and expecting people to watch them would be like me posting half an hour of videos by Rachel Maddow. Stossel is not acting as a journalist here who is just discovering previously unknown truths. He's making an ideological argument, exactly as someone like Michael Moore does in his documentaries. That doesn't make it invalid or anything. I'm not suggesting that Stossel doesn't have some good points or a valid point of view, but I already know what Stossel's point of view is. He's not new to me; I've been watching him for over 15 years. I'm not real fond of his penchant for cherry picking and providing anecdotal evidence to support his theories when the overall evidence doesn't. I don't think Stossel is trying to convince anyone; he's not trying to persuade me. He's giving people who believe like you what you want to hear; he's providing a service. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not debate.

    If you want discussion about his points, then summarize them and post the summary, and you'll get plenty of debate.

     
    Originally Posted by ginwilly View Post

    Keynesian economics is what has been tried in the Mediterranean countries and you see how well that has worked out. You also see the measures to fix this is get away from those philosophies. We have proof that Keynesian not only doesn't work but how detrimental it is. Want to bankrupt a country? use the silly notion that you can spend and borrow your way out of debt.

    Yes, Bush was bad and is a major reason we were in the shape we were in with 7% unemployment, wish we were in that bad of shape now. The proof is in the pudding.

    I could also argue that Keynesian economics is what has kept the US economy strong for over 70 years, and it was the deviation from it by Bush that caused the current economic crisis. Suggesting that because Greece's economy is bad Keynesian economics has been proven invalid would be like suggesting that because the Democratic government in Sri Lanka failed, Democracy is a failed philosophy. Just as the application of Democracy can be done well or poorly, you can have good and bad applications of Keynesian economic theory. Greece's corruption would have been a problem for any economic philosophy and the corruption itself was not caused by adherence to Keynes, but by corrupt people.

    Your pudding is weak.
    Add Underdog to Rail
  12. pussys wet HI!!
     
    Add Believer82 to Rail
  13. I totally Understan UD. The truth is I would watch 30min of Rachel Maddow if she made some really good points. Open Mind > Closed Mind. Hearing arguments/videos from ppl against Death Penalty is why I changed my opinion on that subject.

    Too bad people (maybe even you idk) won't watch with an open mind. I think Poopy is going to watch. This shit really is important no matter which side of the issues you are on. It is about the future of the USA ffs.
    Thread StarterAdd niptuck to Rail
  14. great thing about the future... we won't be there
    Add jesterwords to Rail
  15.  
    Originally Posted by Underdog34 View Post

    If you were willing to accept the basic assumptions that come with Keynesian economics, then you'd already understand that when the economy is robust (like it was when Bush took over) that's the time for the government to cut spending and keep taxes at the higher end (relatively speaking). Since the economy is doing well, you don't need the government to spend money to inject demand and you can use the taxes to pay down debt.

    Just LOL at this. If we can't at least agree that the economy was cycling down just prior and during the first year of Bush's presidency, than there's no point in discussing which policies should be in place, and which ones shouldn't.
     
    Add Artiecat to Rail
  16. Pretty sure that Keynesian economics falls flat on its face the same way the others do when factoring in the insane amount of waste, borderline theft, inefficiency, and overall ineptitude that our current Federal Government has devolved into under both Republicans and Democrats. Because our government cannot deliver the things it promises to, the best solution to our problems will always be to minimize the Fed's influence in our lives.

    I will not pretend to be an expert on economic theory, but I do know that Barack Obama's stimulus was a failure because it, like most large Government programs was implemented in a terrible way. Who knows what would have happened had the money gone everywhere he said it would? We will never know.

    George Bush, Barack Obama, and the rest of the awful leaders we have had over the past decade are basically taking us full circle back the days leading up to the revolution and King George. We will either rise up and slowly take back our country from these corrupt and useless politicians or we will be the latest world superpower to fall by the wayside.
    Add jetsjets1028 to Rail
  17.  
    Originally Posted by Artiecat View Post

    Just LOL at this. If we can't at least agree that the economy was cycling down just prior and during the first year of Bush's presidency, than there's no point in discussing which policies should be in place, and which ones shouldn't.


    Yes it was cycling down. But it was still strong, much stronger than now. Bush cut taxes and spent so much that he left us with little room to manuever
    Add Underdog to Rail
  18.  
    Originally Posted by Underdog34 View Post

    Yes it was cycling down. But it was still strong, much stronger than now. Bush cut taxes and spent so much that he left us with little room to manuever

    I will never argue that too much money was and is being spent. However, I take issue with you singling out Bush. What about Congress?

    Also, please enlighten me on Keynesian theory. Is it proper to raise taxes and double the deficit during a bad economic down turn? (I'm not trying to be a smart ass...I really want to know)
    Edited By: Artiecat Sep 28th, 2010 at 04:16 PM
     
    Add Artiecat to Rail
  19. Do you have any military service? If not please do not give your opinions on what soldiers who were killed in iraq and afghanistan would say on the war. We all volunteered to put our life on the line for our country and swore an oath to follow the orders of our commander in chief. No arms were twisted.


     
    Originally Posted by fly44 View Post

    Tell that to all the soldiers killed in Iraq


    Al-Queda members already hate us correct, but invading their country made it much easier for Al-Queda to come in and say, 'look at how evil these guys are, join our side in fighting them.


    No you are right, we still need to prepare and fight against people coming to our country and killing Americans. But having the biggest military isn't going to help that. We are wasting billions of dollars building our army bigger and bigger when we are fighting guys who's whole strategy is just to blow themselves up. We shouldn't be ruining the country by driving us into record debt when we could easily cut spending on defense (and thats not to say we shouldn't cut spending across the board).

    Edited By: Watcher Sep 28th, 2010 at 04:23 PM
    Add Watcher to Rail
  20. Saxman, as a social worker, I have a unique perspective on this issue. I've had the opportunity for many years to make home visits to all types of families, many of whom are on welfare. I was a starry-eyed do-gooder who thought I could save the world when I decided to major in social work in college. I opted to forgo a career where I could make more money so that I could "help" people. I am not a heartless person, nor am I a person who's out there trying to get all I can and screw everyone else. Far from it!

    Let me tell you that, on the whole, the poor people in the US have it good compared to the poor in the rest of the world. You'd be surprised at what I've seen. And I assure you, it's not just a few people abusing the system, there is rampant abuse across the board. I've been in homes where there was a big screen TV as large as the wall and a $40,000 truck sitting in the drive, while every child in the home got Medicaid. I've gone to homes where perfectly able-bodied people were still asleep and in their pajamas at 11 am. I've seen families who have been on welfare for decades and it's become a generational thing. I've heard them refer to their welfare check as their "paycheck". I've seen clients take their child to the ER at midnight for a case of the sniffles instead of taking them to their regular pediatrician (if they even have one).

    Now, I agree, nobody is getting rich off welfare. But, honestly, there are a whole lot of able-bodied people who have everything done for them and choose not to lift a finger to do anything to better their situation. Working and taking care of themself isn't even on their radar. I'm all for helping out when someone has a catastrophic event and needs a hand up, but I think it's a shame that we allow people to live on welfare for their entire lives and never expect them to become an adult and take care of themself. I've seen what welfare does to people and how it affects their mentality. It's not pretty, trust me! If people honestly think it's truly "helping", then I don't know what to tell you. It would be more helpful to these people to help them gain a skill and become self-sufficient.

    I think I'm in a better position than most on this site to speak to this issue. It's one thing to live in suburbia and speculate about how the poor live and it's quite another to actually visit them in their homes and see first hand what goes on and what their lives are truly like. I could go and on about this, but I've rambled on enough.
    1
    Add ECUgirl to Rail
  21.  
    Originally Posted by Underdog34 View Post

    Yes it was cycling down. But it was still strong, much stronger than now. Bush cut taxes and spent so much that he left us with little room to manuever

    It was a robust down cycling.
    Add Willywoo to Rail
  22.  
    Originally Posted by Artiecat View Post

    I will never argue that too much money was and is being spent. However, I take issue with you singling out Bush. What about Congress?

    Also, please enlighten me on Keynesian theory. Is it proper to raise taxes and double the deficit during a bad economic down turn? (I'm not trying to be a smart ass...I really want to know)

    I'm no expert, but increasing the deficit through spending... yes. Raising taxes... generally no, especially for low incomes where 99% of tax cuts would be spent immediately and go right back into the economy. Marginal tax cuts on higher incomes also get spent but at a much lower rate.
    Add Underdog to Rail
  23.  
    Originally Posted by Underdog34 View Post

    I'm no expert, but increasing the deficit through spending... yes.

    Well the stimulus definitely increased the deficit, but I'm curious how you think the spending is helping the economy. I'll even submit to accept the information on Recovery.gov as an accurate source (aside from the fake zip codes and Congressional districts).

    I'm sure that increasing the deficit through spending doesn't work as well if you are blowing all the money on hookers and blow. (I am trying to be a smart ass, but I also really want to know.) ;-)
    Add jetsjets1028 to Rail
  24. Unfortunately, most of the stimulus spending went to non-infrastructure projects. 1/3 of it went to tax cuts. Let me repeat that, because no conservative on here ever seems to acknowledge this. ONE THIRD of the Recovery Act went to TAX CUTS. One third. Tax cuts. Got it? I just want to make sure. Because... it never seems to get any acknowledgement whatsoever. You guys talk about spending spending spending and the "trillion dollar failed stimulus" and how we should cut taxes, but you never seem to admit that ONE THIRD OF THE STIMULUS WAS TAX CUTS.

    Okay... anyway, most of the rest went to shoring up state budgets for existing jobs (teachers, nurses, fire, police). That's important stuff and totally necessary, but is more about saving jobs rather than creating new ones.

    And then we had the infrastructure funding. A lot of it went to bridge and road repairs. Again, totally necessary, definitely puts people to work, but at the end of it, we don't have as much "new" stuff to stimulate growth. Just better repaired old stuff, which is good and necessary.

    But what we missed out on was the opportunities to really improve our infrastructure in a major way. Again, I really really wanted to see a high speed rail project that would connect the entire country. I cannot overstate how important I think this could have been for us. But they couldn't get it done. It didn't help that even the smaller rail projects that did make it in were totally and dishonestly demagogued by the Republicans. Does anyone remember the bullshit "Railroad from Disneyland to the Bunny Ranch" talking point? Total bullshit.

    Here's a fun fact for all you spending hawks. When Eisenhower (a Liberal Republican, those were the days!) built the Interstate Highway System, do you know what the cost was in today's dollars? Guess. No, don't guess, I'll just tell you. It was $500 billion. Yep, a $500 billion federal spending project plus a 91% top marginal tax rate and how did that economy do in the 50s and 60s? Anyone? Oh, that's right. Booooooom.
    Add Underdog to Rail
  25. That was a very nice coversation you had with yourself just now but you didnt answer my question. Instead you simply told me where the money was supposed to go and waxed nostalgic about a time when the Republicans really got it.

    What I am asking is if you think the money that we printed/borrowed was spent efficiently and in a timely manner, since you know we had to pass the stimulus like NOW!!!! ORWEWILLALLDIE!!!!!!
    Add jetsjets1028 to Rail
  26. Oh, gosh, no. I really didn't like the spending schedule at all. I think it should have been way more front loaded. I also think that if we hadn't passed it, we'd be in a worldwide Depression right now. I just think it could have been much better.
    Add Underdog to Rail
  27.  
    Originally Posted by Underdog34 View Post

    Oh, gosh, no. I really didn't like the spending schedule at all. I think it should have been way more front loaded. I also think that if we hadn't passed it, we'd be in a worldwide Depression right now. I just think it could have been much better.

    Have you ever considered the notion that you believe this because all of your heros in Washington kept saying it to anyone who would listen? Really. Consider that for a moment......Mind Blowing, huh??
    Add jetsjets1028 to Rail
  28.  
    Originally Posted by ecugirl93 View Post

    I think I'm in a better position than most on this site to speak to this issue. It's one thing to live in suburbia and speculate about how the poor live and it's quite another to actually visit them in their homes and see first hand what goes on and what their lives are truly like. I could go and on about this, but I've rambled on enough.

    Respectfully - this is a lot of bullshit, and if that is your impression of the welfare state at large, i think you need to choose another profession.

    I did not grow up in suburbia. I grew up in the shit hole of my town surrounded by welfare cases. These people do not live high off the hog and for the most part, they are not proud to live in the circumstances that they do. There are certainly instances of welfare abuse. I have seen them myself. But again I will say that these instances are the excpetion and not the norm. They are as exceptional to the norm as Bernie Madoff's massive multi million dollar fraud against innocent people does not represent financial advisors as a whole.

    As you would know, the most important thing for a social worker to do is to break the cycle of dependancy because statistically, the children of welfare families and their children's children will end up in the same welfare state as the parents before them. It's not because they WANT to be there. It's because that is the only system they know. Its a visious cycle of dependancy as you know. In most cases, the parents are lost causes but the generations behind them are the ones who need saving otherwise they will forever be a burden to society rather than productive and proud citizens.

    As for "the poor in the USA being better off than the poor in other countries" - well i would certainly hope so. Compare the average wage and standard of living of a western family to that of a third world country and one could only hope that our poor are more well off than their poor.

    Welcome back, and sorry for the rant, but i do have some experience with this subject having grown up in that environment myself.
    Add saxman to Rail
  29.  
    Originally Posted by saxman View Post

    As you would know, the most important thing for a social worker to do is to break the cycle of dependancy

    That job is made wayyyy tougher by a Government that is seemingly trying to perpetuate that same cycle by making its citizens more and more dependent on the state for their "daily bread".
    Add jetsjets1028 to Rail
  30.  
    Originally Posted by niptuck View Post

    I paid almost NO income taxes last year because I almost went bankrupt.

    That guy they are talking about in PD that won $50 billion in one hand of poker and bought Pokerstars might be able to help you out.
    Add Mr. Smith to Rail
Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 51 2 3 4 5