Another 2.5 million votes for Democrats in November

[Gipper]

where those studies down with a crystal ball that tells you what would have happened if you did not act? How does one do a study of a what if, in econ...all you can study is what happened...what if's are just nothing but some guys guess.

Once again you prove your inability to reason.

History! Have you ever heard of it? You might study what the worthless progressive Hoover and the mad diseased socialist FDR did during the Great Depression. BO is following in their footsteps.

Democrat policies equal unemployment

"[Barack] Obama's ostensible purpose [at his Rose Garden press conference Monday] was to lobby Congress for the eighth extension of jobless benefits since the recession began, to a record 99 weeks, or nearly two years. And he whacked Senate Republicans for blocking the extension, though Republicans are merely asking that the extension be offset by cuts in other federal spending. But Mr. Obama was nonetheless obliged to concede that, 18 months after his $862 billion stimulus, there are still five job seekers for every job opening and that 2.5 million Americans will soon run out of unemployment benefits. What happens when the 99 weeks of benefits run out? Will the President demand that they be extended to three years, or four? Only last week Vice President Joe Biden was hailing the stimulus for 'saving or creating' three million jobs. This week the White House says we need even more stimulus, in the form of jobless checks, to make up for the jobs his original spending stimulus didn't create. The one possibility the President and Congressional Democrats won't entertain is that their own spending and taxing and regulating and labor union favoritism have become the main hindrance to job creation. ... Mr. Obama also claimed yesterday that he wants to cut taxes on small businesses. That's a good idea, but Mr. Obama's proposal to provide one-year temporary tax cuts, such as expensing of certain capital purchases, will be dwarfed by one of the largest tax increases on small- and medium-sized firms in history that is scheduled to hit on January 1. The increase in the capital gains tax will fall hardest on start ups and expanding businesses that need capital for growth. More than half of the 'rich' who will pay higher income tax rates next year are small business owners and investors. The President is right that 'we've got a lot of work to do' to get Americans back to work.... But paying people not to work and adding $30 billion more to nearly $1.4 trillion of deficit spending is a dismal substitute for real economic growth and private job creation. Republicans are right to resist it." --The Wall Street Journal

 

[BigRob]

where those studies down with a crystal ball that tells you what would have happened if you did not act? How does one do a study of a what if, in econ...all you can study is what happened...what if's are just nothing but some guys guess.

So if GWB told you we needed to invade Iraq because something might happen if we did not you would fully support it?

Oh wait, he did that, and you didn't, yet it is your same logic.

 

[BigRob]

"Studies" can prove pretty much whatever the studier wants them to prove. The fact of the matter is that people in the '30s were orders of magnitude worse off than anyone living today, even the jobless, and there were many people living in abject poverty.

I do not dispute that people back there were worse off then today, the point is that they may have been worse off for longer needlessly.

Gambling with other people's money was not an example of capitalism not being allowed to work, but of government failing to adequately regulate commerce.

Bailing out banks, car companies, etc is an example of capitalism not being allowed to work. Banks invest (read gamble) with people's money. That is how they make money. When they make poor choices, they ought to pay the consequences right?

Yes, I have to admit you're right about that, however the Republicans blocking the extension of unemployment was pure political posturing, and we both know it. The money this measure cost is inconsequential, particularly when you factor in the amount that will come back to government.

Then why not cut an equally inconsequential amount out of some other federal program to pay for it?

On November 6th, 2009, Obama signed another extension and stated, "Now, it's important to note that the bill I signed will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for, and so it is fiscally responsible." Seems his "fiscally responsible" rhetoric has gone out the window.

This measure may not be a fix to the economic problems we face, but will mean that two and a half million Americans will be able to pay their bills and put food on the table for a while longer.

"May not be able to fix", that is pretty funny, this will definitely not fix anything. According to the economic theory that the White House believes in, (Keynesianism), we should have seen a massive return on trillions already spent...we have not. Why exactly is $34 billion more going to change that?

 

[OldTrapper]

I think that's a good point as there needs to be a degree of economic and corporate Darwinism

IMO, people on both the left, and the right, have ignored how corporatism as well as "big government" have stifled job creation here in the States. Then you have the government assisting the corporation in eliminating any competition thus stifling job creation even more.

"Studying" what happened under Hoover, FDR, etc., serves no useful purpose as it cannot answer the questions in todays globalized market.

I have tried to get people to understand the negative effects of NAFTA, GATT/WTO, legalized importation of cheap foreign labor, and the refusal to eliminate illegal immigration, have had on our own economy.

What we are seeing is the natural consequence of America's dependence on foreign markets, and the lack of interest in improving our own market, or insuring that individuals have the opportunity to set forth their own futures rather then that assigned to them by the government in collusion with the corporate world.

 

[PLC1]

I do not dispute that people back there were worse off then today, the point is that they may have been worse off for longer needlessly.

If that's so, then people today should be worse off, since they have these terrible government programs to keep them going. Would you do away with the FDIC?

Don't get me wrong. I agree with most of what you're saying about allowing failing enterprises to fail, however, there is a role for government to play in easing the effects of periodic depressions. The government may not be doing everything right today, but it's still much better than the nothing that they did in the '30s.

Bailing out banks, car companies, etc is an example of capitalism not being allowed to work. Banks invest (read gamble) with people's money. That is how they make money. When they make poor choices, they ought to pay the consequences right?

Right.

Even better, they should not be allowed to make poor choices in the first place if it can be prevented.

Then why not cut an equally inconsequential amount out of some other federal program to pay for it?

Oh, that's a great idea, and it is what the Republicans in Congress said they wanted to do. The problem is, you seem to believe them. In reality, they wanted to block the Democrats from doing anything because they are, after all, Democrats and therefore the enemy.

It is not the Reps nor the Dems who are the enemy, but rotten partisan politics on both sides.

On November 6th, 2009, Obama signed another extension and stated, "Now, it's important to note that the bill I signed will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for, and so it is fiscally responsible." Seems his "fiscally responsible" rhetoric has gone out the window.

Oh, that went out the window a long time ago.

"May not be able to fix", that is pretty funny, this will definitely not fix anything. According to the economic theory that the White House believes in, (Keynesianism), we should have seen a massive return on trillions already spent...we have not. Why exactly is $34 billion more going to change that?

It isn't going to change that. All it will do is ensure that 2.5 million Americans will be able to have homes and put food on the table for a while longer. Maybe the depression will have ended by the time their money runs out, and we'll avoid having to deal with "Hoovervilles" in the 21st. century.

or, at least not so many of them.

 

[GenSeneca]

Would you do away with the FDIC?

Yes. Full reserve banking will help to eliminate many of the financial booms and busts that we experience.

there is a role for government to play in easing the effects of periodic depressions.

No, there is not. Government cannot supplement the livelihood of one individual without first taking from another. Perhaps if the government were better run and the local, state and federal governments had surplus funds, rather than deficits, then they could use that money for your charitable projects... Otherwise deficit spending to support welfare is lunacy.

The government may not be doing everything right today, but it's still much better than the nothing that they did in the '30s.

It was during the '30's that government gave birth to the welfare state... You consider that "nothing"?

Even better, they should not be allowed to make poor choices in the first place if it can be prevented.

Sounds like a recipe for Fascism to me... Private ownership but government control.

It is not the Reps nor the Dems who are the enemy, but rotten partisan politics on both sides.

Do you really believe government is capable of solving economic problems?
If so, that is the real problem...

All it will do is ensure that 2.5 million Americans will be able to have homes and put food on the table for a while longer.

Well if violating the rights of some in order to provide for others is a legitimate form of government "assistance" then why stop there?

 

[PLC1]

Yes. Full reserve banking will help to eliminate many of the financial booms and busts that we experience.


No, there is not. Government cannot supplement the livelihood of one individual without first taking from another. Perhaps if the government were better run and the local, state and federal governments had surplus funds, rather than deficits, then they could use that money for your charitable projects... Otherwise deficit spending to support welfare is lunacy.


It was during the '30's that government gave birth to the welfare state... You consider that "nothing"?


Sounds like a recipe for Fascism to me... Private ownership but government control.


Do you really believe government is capable of solving economic problems?
If so, that is the real problem...


Well if violating the rights of some in order to provide for others is a legitimate form of government "assistance" then why stop there?

Anyone old enough to have had the great depression described in detail to them by their parents/aunts uncles, etc. understands that nothing that has happened as a result of the current depression even comes close to the misery that resulted from the sort of laissez fair capitalism you describe.

The housing bust was brought on by the mortgage brokers who were not properly regulated by the government, and so gambled (and won for a long time) with other people's money.

Yes, absolutely there is a role for government is defending our liberties against entities that are too powerful for the individual to deal with on our own. That is a part of the legitimate role of government, which is to protect our god given rights.

There is a big difference between banding together in a government of the people to protect our rights, and a total anarchy in which the strong survive at the expense of everyone else.

 

[OldTrapper]

Anyone old enough to have had the great depression described in detail to them by their parents/aunts uncles, etc. understands that nothing that has happened as a result of the current depression even comes close to the misery that resulted from the sort of laissez fair capitalism you describe.

Laissez faire capitalism di dnot create the Great Depression. As is occuring now it is a lack of capitalism, and government intervention, and corporatism, that has caused the current crisis.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-25.pdf

The housing bust was brought on by the mortgage brokers who were not properly regulated by the government, and so gambled (and won for a long time) with other people's money.

Wrong again. It was the government's demands on the market for an ever increasing number of loans, particularly to those who could not afford the loans, and then some crooked brokers who would "package" these loans to sell to the government backed lending agencies, i.e. Fannie, and Freddie, that created the "housing bubble".

Yes, absolutely there is a role for government is defending our liberties against entities that are too powerful for the individual to deal with on our own. That is a part of the legitimate role of government, which is to protect our god given rights.

The government has no desire to defend the rights of the individual, or to even protect them. The current system that we have had for several decades only desires to protect itself in order to perptuate its power, and secondly to protect the corporation.

There is a big difference between banding together in a government of the people to protect our rights, and a total anarchy in which the strong survive at the expense of everyone else.

True, however, we have neither. We do have the "strong" surviving at the expense of everyone else, however, the very reason they are the "strong" is by government intervention e.g. Kelos, Citizens United. This applies to unions, as well as to corporations.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes, absolutely there is a role for government is defending our liberties

That is governments only legitimate role, protecting the rights of the individual... Welfare is not a defense of our individual rights, it is the sacrifice of one individuals rights for the benefit of another individual - something you go on to claim you do not support. These 2.5 million people who will benefit from the proposed welfare are the few who will benefit at the expense of everyone else.

entities that are too powerful for the individual to deal with on our own.

And what is the individual left to do when that "too powerful entity" is the government?

There is a big difference between banding together in a government of the people to protect our rights...

That is the essence of Capitalism. Government limited to protecting the rights of the individual. The State sponsored Corporatism that you consider "Laisse Fair" is not Capitalism.

...and a total anarchy in which the strong survive at the expense of everyone else.

That is the essence of Collectivism... Yet you seem to think it is the definition of Capitalism.

 

[PLC1]

That is governments only legitimate role, protecting the rights of the individual... Welfare is not a defense of our individual rights, it is the sacrifice of one individuals rights for the benefit of another individual - something you go on to claim you do not support. These 2.5 million people who will benefit from the proposed welfare are the few who will benefit at the expense of everyone else.

No, not at the expense of everyone else. That "everyone else" is also vulnerable to losing their source of income and needing temporary assistance. Workman's compensation is a form of insurance, not a welfare program. That's why it's called "workman's compensation insurance". It doesn't go to the non workers, only to those who have been laid off due to economic hard times.

Sure, from a purely ideological point of view, the government has no business running an insurance plan. From a more practical point of view, it does guard against the sorts of abuses that happened during the last great depression. Have you ever read "Grapes of Wrath?" It's a great read, and has a lot to say about that time in our history.

And what is the individual left to do when that "too powerful entity" is the government?

Therein lies the rub. The solution to that is a government of the people. Unfortunately, government of the people doesn't work so well when the people don't take the time and effort to participate. That's the core of the problem we're having with the unbridled growth of government: No one is monitoring what that government does.

That is the essence of Capitalism. Government limited to protecting the rights of the individual. The State sponsored Corporatism that you consider "Laisse Fair" is not Capitalism.

I'm pretty sure you are not understanding the term lasse Faire capitalism. It comes from a French term meaning "let it be." The government does not participate in such a system in any way, no regulation, no rules, every man for himself. State sponsored corporatism is more like what we're seeing lately, in which entities "too big to fail" get the big bucks, then we have to balance the budget before the little guys can pick up the crumbs.

That is the essence of Collectivism... Yet you seem to think it is the definition of Capitalism.

No, that is the essence of anarchy. Collectivism and capitalism are economic systems. Anarchy is situation in which there is no government.

There are some interesting examples of anarchy in the world, none of which would make a great place to live. The tribal lands in Pakistan are an example.

 

[BigRob]

If that's so, then people today should be worse off, since they have these terrible government programs to keep them going. Would you do away with the FDIC?

People today would not be worse off because we have seen massive innovations that have generated vast amounts of economic activity. However, I think the argument could reasonably be made that people who are dependent on those programs are kept worse off for no particular reason.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with most of what you're saying about allowing failing enterprises to fail, however, there is a role for government to play in easing the effects of periodic depressions. The government may not be doing everything right today, but it's still much better than the nothing that they did in the '30s.

No it is not. I came across (I think on another board, but it might have been this one, I cant remember) this interesting CATO report... it states, "In his four years, Herbert Hoover increased taxes dramatically, including a boost in the top tax rate from 25 percent to 63 percent. He imposed harsh protectionist policies. He significantly increased intervention in private markets. Most importantly, at least from a Keynesian perspective, he boosted government spending by 47 percent in just four years. And he certainly had no problem financing that spending with debt. He entered office in 1929, when there was a surplus, and he left office in 1933 with a deficit of 4.5 percent of GDP."

Seems to disagree with the whole "do nothing" Hoover concept.

Right.

Even better, they should not be allowed to make poor choices in the first place if it can be prevented.

Government should control the decisions of private industry then based on what they feel is a "poor choice"?

Oh, that's a great idea, and it is what the Republicans in Congress said they wanted to do. The problem is, you seem to believe them. In reality, they wanted to block the Democrats from doing anything because they are, after all, Democrats and therefore the enemy.

It is not the Reps nor the Dems who are the enemy, but rotten partisan politics on both sides.

I think this is a gross oversimplification.

Oh, that went out the window a long time ago.

Well, still needed to be pointed out.

It isn't going to change that. All it will do is ensure that 2.5 million Americans will be able to have homes and put food on the table for a while longer. Maybe the depression will have ended by the time their money runs out, and we'll avoid having to deal with "Hoovervilles" in the 21st. century.

or, at least not so many of them.

Again, it is not the government's role to ensure that people can maintain their desired lifestyle.

 

[BigRob]

Yes. Full reserve banking will help to eliminate many of the financial booms and busts that we experience.

I just want to focus in on this comment, I would not support a full reserve banking system.

 

[GenSeneca]

No, not at the expense of everyone else.

The money goes into the general fund and comes out of the general fund, ergo, everyone else. Now if you wish to make the claim that people who get unemployment compensation get no more back than they put in, you're in for a tough time.

I'm pretty sure you are not understanding the term lasse Faire capitalism. It comes from a French term meaning "let it be." The government does not participate in such a system in any way, no regulation, no rules, every man for himself.

I'm the Capitalist here... I full well know and understand Laisse Fair. You are correct about the origin but you misunderstand the application. Capitalism is about protecting individual rights, whether from other individuals, groups or even the government itself, that is Capitalism: Protecting the individual from force and fraud. That means there is a government and it exists to protect the rights of the individual - Not just some at the expense of others, every individual equally.

Capitalism doesn't mean there are no rules to protect the individual, a system of no rules is Anarchy... Which you and many otherwise educated peoples confuse for Capitalism.

No, that is the essence of anarchy.

Your statement was about the strong surviving at the expense of everyone else... That is Collectivism in action.

There are some interesting examples of anarchy in the world, none of which would make a great place to live. The tribal lands in Pakistan are an example.

Just a side note here, you contradicted yourself. The tribal cultures in Pakistan operate under Tribalism, a form of Collectivism, it is not Anarchy.

 

[GenSeneca]

I just want to focus in on this comment, I would not support a full reserve banking system.

Any other system is fraud. If you, as an individual, operated your personal finances on a partial reserve system, you would be put in jail for fraud. Just because Government tells banks it's OK for them to do it changes nothing... Government sanctioned fraud is still fraud.

 

[PLC1]

The money goes into the general fund and comes out of the general fund, ergo, everyone else. Now if you wish to make the claim that people who get unemployment compensation get no more back than they put in, you're in for a tough time.

It could also be argued that people who suffer a serous car crash get more out of their auto insurance than they have put in. Does that mean there should be no auto insurance? Is that a redistribution of wealth as well?

I'm the Capitalist here... I full well know and understand Laisse Fair. You are correct about the origin but you misunderstand the application. Capitalism is about protecting individual rights, whether from other individuals, groups or even the government itself, that is Capitalism: Protecting the individual from force and fraud. That means there is a government and it exists to protect the rights of the individual - Not just some at the expense of others, every individual equally.

Exactly, and that is just what the government failed at doing. The practice of making questionable mortgage loans, then packaging them as reliable assets should never have been allowed. Doing so was a real redistribution of wealth, as well as a violation of the rights of all of us.

Capitalism doesn't mean there are no rules to protect the individual, a system of no rules is Anarchy... Which you and many otherwise educated peoples confuse for Capitalism.

Laissez fair capitalism means that there are no rules to protect the individual. Capitalism has to be monitored and regulated by a government of the people in order to protect our individual rights. Unfortunately, what we have today is the corporations running that government. In large part, our government of the people has become a government of the special interests and big money.

When money talks, people listen. When people talk, money just sits there.

Your statement was about the strong surviving at the expense of everyone else... That is Collectivism in action.

It is if the strong are in control of the government.

Just a side note here, you contradicted yourself. The tribal cultures in Pakistan operate under Tribalism, a form of Collectivism, it is not Anarchy.

It is collectivism within the tribe, but there is no central authority to control the country.