This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office.
I can't tell if you're trolling or just that stupid. Either way I'll bite to stick up for my favorite president.
I never knew that being the worst president in U.S. history resulted from the following events...
- Having your citizens freed by Iran as soon as the word that you've been elected reaches them. - 20, 000, 000 jobs created over his tenure - Enacted TEFRA which closed many tax loopholes - Defeated our greatest enemy to date, the Soviet Union without firing a shot. - Reduced inflation levels from 12.5% to 4% - Purge unqualified recipients from SS while leaving Medicare intact. - Enacted legislation to combat the drug trade (You can't tell me this is a bad thing with all the baggage that drugs bring in terms of crime)
So unless you're a progressive who hates having man be independent from the chains of government, hates businesses for making money, being successful, and enriching the lives of thousands of successful people, and reviles the traditions of this country, there is no reason to think he's the worst president we've ever had.
Yeah I've heard about this guy, borderline anarchocapitalist that was mad at even some of the things Reagan did. I think I've seen this somewhere else before it's ringing some bells as I read it.
What do you mean "even some of the things Reagan did"? Keep reading. Rothbard's dislike (hatred?) of Reagan stems from the fact that Reagan was a statist who was able to convince people that he was a libertarian; basically, that Reagan fooled people like you. He used libertarian rhetoric to co-opt the anti-statist mood of the late 70s and implement a host of policies which expanded the scope and power of the state.
Not to insult you or anything, but I'm not sure why this article is written in such a bizarre tone and diction, it seems a tad illegetimate. I see what he's getting at though, and I'll explain my thoughts on it.
I know for a fact that Reagan wasn't by any means extremely conservative economically. He frequently raised taxes, and he lowered often as well. Yes, he did expand government to a small degree, but that's what happens when you reform things, your system becomes more complicated and you need more people to help the machine keep moving.
However he did drop corporate + individual tax rates which freed up a great deal of money being circulated freely in the market, a classical conservative move.
I just can't say I agree on him defining Reagan as a Statist, to me that definition seems to extreme considering the point above. Yes he toyed around with tariffs and such but he didn't radically increase taxes outside of TEFRA, which was later counterbalanced by more sweeping tax cuts.
So I must say I disagree, but I can see why this gentleman has his beliefs.
Everyone is kind of ignoring it, but I think most people that dislike Reagan do so because of the dramatic income disparity that has taken place since his trickle-down economic policies were implemented. The graphs have been posted many many times in this thread so I won't bother, also because I'm busy and I'm sure somebody else can repost them if requested. You can rail against graphs if you want, I guess, but that would be missing the overall point, which is unavoidable. Since 1980 the rich have become so very much richer, and that money never trickled down.
I didn't like his foreign policy either, but I won't go into it. Our war against communism was a giant immoral goose chase, and nobody "defeated" the USSR, they defeated themselves. I don't think I've liked any president's foreign policy since WW2 but I guess I'm just a silly isolationist.
Regarding charities, most are horribly inefficient with extensive bureaucracies and well paid employees. A disgustingly small fraction of your donations will go toward helping people that are dying
- I am surprised that Cain ranks second in favorability behind only Perry. - LoL at Huntsman having a -1 favorability rating. I'm not even sure how that's possible. - The graph shows how dramatic Bachmann's fall from grace has been. Palin is right down there with her.
As unpopular a sentiment as it is there is a fucking REASON people have this anti-American sentiment. You went around the world destabilising regions for a variety of reasons, either in the effort to prevent the spread of communism, or removing legitimate governments at the behest of big corporate interests. This is not leftist hyperbole, it is how it is.
I don't know maybe I'm naive about how the world works, but if you go around fucking everybody over, it's going to come back and bite you in the ass
I hope you're not insinuating that whenever a group of people gets the short end of the stick when we're involved that it gives them the right to commit violence against our citizens. Radical Islam comes to mind the most when I'm writing this.
Besides having relationships with the united states is a good thing if you're looking to make a buck or maintain a democratic society. We don't fuck everyone over, only some people / countries, we have calculated reasons for these decisions, and we keep a healthy supply of allies who share similar interests with us, we are loved and hated, which is pretty common in life, as you can't be friends with everyone.
On September 14 2011 03:24 lizzard_warish wrote: Bachmann is such an idiot, first arguing that it was a mandated program even though it had an opt out, then that parents "dont understand" such things [basically accusing the greater portion of texas parents as being too stupid to even ask if there child must get the vaccine], decrying that it does permanent damage and it violates the girls [what?!] and now that it produces retards lol. I'm not sure if her poll numbers will take a hit immediately, given a large body of people just subsume what they hear as fact, but I'm sure in the next debate if she brings up anything like this Perry [and possibly others] will have prepared responses, and her campaign will be effectively over.
I'm amazed her campaign managers let her go outside without a gag. Surely she must have some educated professional campaigners who can feel their reputation dying by association with her.
Well, there's this, although I dunno how far I'd read into that. I heard through the grapevine that Alice Stewart or Brett O'Donnell left her campaign, but Google's giving me nothing.
Bachmann may martyr herself by staying in the race 'till the very end, but the chances of her even getting the nomination are sunk.
As unpopular a sentiment as it is there is a fucking REASON people have this anti-American sentiment. You went around the world destabilising regions for a variety of reasons, either in the effort to prevent the spread of communism, or removing legitimate governments at the behest of big corporate interests. This is not leftist hyperbole, it is how it is.
I don't know maybe I'm naive about how the world works, but if you go around fucking everybody over, it's going to come back and bite you in the ass
I hope you're not insinuating that whenever a group of people gets the short end of the stick when we're involved that it gives them the right to commit violence against our citizens. Radical Islam comes to mind the most when I'm writing this.
I'm not accusing you of the neo-con "THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS" mindset, but this sentiment is dangerously close. It's not just that they got the short end of the stick, we have done terrible things to those people for DECADES and yes: created terrorists. I don't think anyone is ever justified in killing civilians, but an extensive survey of our history in the Middle East demonstrates a very clear sequence of events and logical reactions to those events that leads to people flying planes into buildings. Ron Paul even predicted 9/11 before it happened. U.S.-led sanctions killed at least half a million children in Iraq, with many more being badly malnourished during that time. On top of that we kept bombing them and killing civilians for good measure. And that's just one country.
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
As unpopular a sentiment as it is there is a fucking REASON people have this anti-American sentiment. You went around the world destabilising regions for a variety of reasons, either in the effort to prevent the spread of communism, or removing legitimate governments at the behest of big corporate interests. This is not leftist hyperbole, it is how it is.
I don't know maybe I'm naive about how the world works, but if you go around fucking everybody over, it's going to come back and bite you in the ass
I hope you're not insinuating that whenever a group of people gets the short end of the stick when we're involved that it gives them the right to commit violence against our citizens. Radical Islam comes to mind the most when I'm writing this.
Besides having relationships with the united states is a good thing if you're looking to make a buck or maintain a democratic society. We don't fuck everyone over, only some people / countries, we have calculated reasons for these decisions, and we keep a healthy supply of allies who share similar interests with us, we are loved and hated, which is pretty common in life, as you can't be friends with everyone.
I don't know why when people read/hear: 'Years/decades of unwanted occupation and intervention creates resentment and contributes to the popularity of extremist movements.'
they translate it to: 'Terrorism is morally justified / America got what it deserved.'
Ron Paul certainly had that problem in last night's debate. The crowd reacted like he said the 9/11 victims deserved to die.
I'm not accusing you of the neo-con "THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS" mindset, but this sentiment is dangerously close. It's not just that they got the short end of the stick, we have done terrible things to those people for DECADES and yes: created terrorists. I don't think anyone is ever justified in killing civilians, but an extensive survey of our history in the Middle East demonstrates a very clear sequence of events and logical reactions to those events that leads to people flying planes into buildings. Ron Paul even predicted 9/11 before it happened. U.S.-led sanctions killed at least half a million children in Iraq, with many more being badly malnourished during that time. On top of that we kept bombing them and killing civilians for good measure. And that's just one country.
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
That plays really well with your average Muslim.
I don't understand why their outrage is directed at us when it's their government(s) that has failed to provide them with the essentials. It's their lack of democratic governments that allow their tyrants to fuck them over in this regard, we're just playing along to further our own means (you can hate this scenario, I really don't care, but it's pretty much the case [and yes it can hurt us].) Since their governments do not allow them to bad-mouth the state, they take it out on us. Sad but true.
We cancelled the oil for food program because of the unjustified invasion of Kuwait, in the instance of Iraq. Maybe Saddam should have thought of that before he decided to conquer an independent nation.
This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office.
I can't tell if you're trolling or just that stupid. Either way I'll bite to stick up for my favorite president.
I never knew that being the worst president in U.S. history resulted from the following events...
- Having your citizens freed by Iran as soon as the word that you've been elected reaches them. - 20, 000, 000 jobs created over his tenure - Enacted TEFRA which closed many tax loopholes - Defeated our greatest enemy to date, the Soviet Union without firing a shot. - Reduced inflation levels from 12.5% to 4% - Purge unqualified recipients from SS while leaving Medicare intact. - Enacted legislation to combat the drug trade (You can't tell me this is a bad thing with all the baggage that drugs bring in terms of crime)
So unless you're a progressive who hates having man be independent from the chains of government, hates businesses for making money, being successful, and enriching the lives of thousands of successful people, and reviles the traditions of this country, there is no reason to think he's the worst president we've ever had.
Yeah I've heard about this guy, borderline anarchocapitalist that was mad at even some of the things Reagan did. I think I've seen this somewhere else before it's ringing some bells as I read it.
What do you mean "even some of the things Reagan did"? Keep reading. Rothbard's dislike (hatred?) of Reagan stems from the fact that Reagan was a statist who was able to convince people that he was a libertarian; basically, that Reagan fooled people like you. He used libertarian rhetoric to co-opt the anti-statist mood of the late 70s and implement a host of policies which expanded the scope and power of the state.
Not to insult you or anything, but I'm not sure why this article is written in such a bizarre tone and diction, it seems a tad illegetimate.
I know for a fact that Reagan wasn't by any means extremely conservative economically. He frequently raised taxes, and he lowered often as well. Yes, he did expand government to a small degree, but that's what happens when you reform things, your system becomes more complicated and you need more people to help the machine keep moving.
However he did drop corporate + individual tax rates which freed up a great deal of money being circulated freely in the market, a classical conservative move.
I just can't say I agree on him defining Reagan as a Statist, to me that definition seems to extreme considering the point above. Yes he toyed around with tariffs and such but he didn't radically increase taxes outside of TEFRA, which was later counterbalanced by more sweeping tax cuts.
So I must say I disagree, but I can see why this gentleman has his beliefs.
Reagan cut some taxes so he can't be a statist? ugh
Rothbard addressed Reagan's tax policy, which never accounted for bracket creep by the way, and his many other statist policies as well.
Bah I forgot to edit that part. I looked around some more and found that the source is indeed fine.
Reagan cut some taxes so he can't be a statist? ugh
Rothbard addressed Reagan's tax policy, which never accounted for bracket creep by the way, and his many other statist policies as well.
Well if you're going to use that argument than every president this country has had since FDR could fit that definition as well. I don't think there has been any president past FDR that hasn't had a hand in fiscal and monetary policy.
I don't see how the Republicans have much chance of winning the election as is. How can you win when your top two candidates are:
1. A guy who's trying to run as a Republican, but supported universal healthcare in his home state. 2. The Texas Governor who took Bush's place when he was elected.
And I'm even being kind and ignoring Sarah Palin. It's like they're trying to fail. Realistically, I'm going to be voting for Herman Cain if he's still around be the time the primaries roll around to me, but I'm probably pretty biased, being from Georgia. He's been consistently putting up excellent favorability numbers, but the real issue is his name recognition.
Reagan cut some taxes so he can't be a statist? ugh
Rothbard addressed Reagan's tax policy, which never accounted for bracket creep by the way, and his many other statist policies as well.
Well if you're going to use that argument than every president this country has had since FDR could fit that definition as well. I don't think there has been any president past FDR that hasn't had a hand in fiscal and monetary policy.
Rothbard would completely agree with that statement. He was proudly anarchist.
I'm not accusing you of the neo-con "THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS" mindset, but this sentiment is dangerously close. It's not just that they got the short end of the stick, we have done terrible things to those people for DECADES and yes: created terrorists. I don't think anyone is ever justified in killing civilians, but an extensive survey of our history in the Middle East demonstrates a very clear sequence of events and logical reactions to those events that leads to people flying planes into buildings. Ron Paul even predicted 9/11 before it happened. U.S.-led sanctions killed at least half a million children in Iraq, with many more being badly malnourished during that time. On top of that we kept bombing them and killing civilians for good measure. And that's just one country.
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
That plays really well with your average Muslim.
I don't understand why their outrage is directed at us when it's their government(s) that has failed to provide them with the essentials. It's their lack of democratic governments that allow their tyrants to fuck them over in this regard, we're just playing along to further our own means (you can hate this scenario, I really don't care, but it's pretty much the case [and yes it can hurt us].) Since their governments do not allow them to bad-mouth the state, they take it out on us. Sad but true.
We cancelled the oil for food program because of the unjustified invasion of Kuwait, in the instance of Iraq. Maybe Saddam should have thought of that before he decided to conquer an independent nation.
Edit: Reworded the first sentence.
I'm not sure if you know what sanctions are. They don't restrict just aid but trade, and it's very far from the simplicity of "their government should have taken care of them" in a globalized economic system. Either way it wasn't just food but medicine that the lack of thereof contributed to the death of, I repeat, half a million children. Yes, Saddam was a dick. That wasn't the fault of those Iraqis that the United States of America killed just to teach him a lesson. We also loved Saddam until he stopped furthering our interests, to the point where we even ignored him using chemical weapons on his own people and an unprovoked invasion of the independent nation of Iran. But oh yeah Kuwait was totally different right...
But it doesn't sound like you really disagree so it's a moot point. You are fine with the measures we take to further our interests and you recognize that those measures cause blowback in the form of terrorism.
On September 14 2011 06:23 FakeLife wrote: I don't see how the Republicans have much chance of winning the election as is. How can you win when your top two candidates are:
1. A guy who's trying to run as a Republican, but supported universal healthcare in his home state. 2. The Texas Governor who took Bush's place when he was elected.
And I'm even being kind and ignoring Sarah Palin. It's like they're trying to fail. Realistically, I'm going to be voting for Herman Cain if he's still around be the time the primaries roll around to me, but I'm probably pretty biased, being from Georgia. He's been consistently putting up excellent favorability numbers, but the real issue is his name recognition.
Under more normal circumstances, Obama would have 300 electoral votes easily. However:
a) the economy is terrible. b) Obama's approval is something like 42%. (see: a) c) enthusiasm gap - people who don't like Perry might just stay home rather than vote for Obama. People who don't like Obama will vote for Perry/Romney/Bachmann since the alternative is the socialist Muslim Antichrist.
Without a serious economic rebound, however, said candidate will be defeated in 2016 if the Democrats can find a competent candidate. (hardly a guarantee, see: Gore, Kerry)
On September 13 2011 22:49 SySLeif wrote: Religious fruitloop? Religious people live longer, more happy and fullfilling lives. Also most of the greatest men of all time were religious.
According to whom?
If your referring to another as in another "Bush" then I would rather see another Bush than any democrat. I would rather keep my freedoms than have them taken from the government. America is to diverse to have a single set of rules an laws for everyone, hence more power should be dispersed into more local communities.
Yeah, the Patriot Act was a monumental win in the battle for freedom... Sigh
Now why was Bush a bad president? When the democrats took over in 2006 (House and Senate) unemployment was still just above 5%?
Thank the housing bubble for that one, and how was Bush a bad president? Can you seriously ask that question with a straight face?
It took Barack Obama 2 years to make the debt that Bush did in 8.
Amazing to think that in some cases you actually have to spend money to dig yourself out of a hole - why is this so tough to comprehend?
Also since you seem to love the Rove kool-aid: "deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney.
Even though we had 9/11 he still stood strong when he said we were going to war. It takes a man to do that, and he did it with 70% of Americans behind him.
It takes a real 'man' to go awol during your national guard tenure. It takes a real man to paint your opponent (a true war hero in John Kerry) as a liberal pussy as well. Probably 70% of the world was behind the U.S. after 9/11 - nobody had any problem with Afghanistan, Iraq was the issue. While you and your ilk sat there flag waving and fist pumping about some imaginary weapons of mass destruction (forget the fact that they even tried to tie in an Al-Qaeda link first) the rest of the world was face-palming.
Also Bush had to cleanup a huge mess Clinton left behind... You know the mess where "O well nobody should be discriminated against during a loan application on how much they make a year."
Yeah, thank god Bush figured away to get rid of that huge budget surplus.
And now America is in a debt recession where most of the country is paying debts instead of buying things with their money earned.
Oh Jesus, you think this is something new? This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office. You can thank him for putting in the policies that slowly started to flush your country down the shitter.
Stop trolling the republicans and get on with your life.
Get informed.
Reagan was one of the best presidents of the modern times economically. FDR and Carter were some of the worst.
Clinton's policies were a major cause in the housing bubble.
Bush did over-spend on military, and he tried to stop the bubble from bursting with bad monetary policy so he could get reelected, which made it bigger, but Clinton is the one who helped start it. He wasn't at all a great president economically.
and no, you don't need to spend money to get out of the hole. The hole is that we're spending too much money. Stimulus doesn't work at all even on a theoretical level, and Obama continues to push for more. and spending money on Obamacare isn't a way to get out of this hole ever.
you're the one who needs to get informed.
You're so wrong it's astounding.
Reaganomics were so full of shit it's not even funny. BTW, Reagan increased taxes when he was in office. Surprise!
The housing bubble? Yeah, that's a result of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. Yes, Clinton did sign it, but it was also passed under a Republican congress. And again, we had a surplus under Clinton as a direct result of his policies. Don't make shit up. And yeah, to get out of a hole, you need to promote economic growth. Economic growth only occurs in times of increased demand for consumption. Increased demand for consumption only occurs when people have more disposable income. In other words, the only way to promote economic growth is to make sure people have more money to spend, which is what the stimulus bill did. And according to a number of institutions (including the Princeton Review), the stimulus was a great idea that wasn't big enough to work because it got cut down repeatedly due to demands from the Republicans in congress, because Obama wanted to compromise and work with them instead of telling them to go fuck themselves.
BTW, Obamacare? Yeah, another word made up by Republicans to make it sound like something really bad and dangerous. Surprise surprise, it's actually amazingly good for insurance companies, and it's not at all a liberal policy.
Get your shit together.
the second half of Reagan's presidency wasn't as good as his first I agree.
of course there was surplus during Clinton that was the bubble growing.
Stimulus doesn't fucking work, how can it. You're taking money from people and giving it back to them but less of it.
The economy doesn't grow from increased consumption... Consuming more than producing leads to debt... What people need to start doing is consuming less than we're producing, then export our excess, pay off our debt, then save real capital, and then invest that money so that we can produce more... There needs to be a recession because continuously giving people money to buy shit doesn't improve our economy, because buying shit doesn't increase the total number of shit to go around it simply redistributes it, and continues to send false signals to business that consumers can still afford more.
health care bill is longer to type than obama care, and it's terrible either way.
It's called the money multiplier. Person A is given $100 from the government. Government spending? $100. He then turns around and saves $20, but spends $80 of it. Person B gets that $80 now has $80 to spend. He saves 20% of it like person A, and now spends $64 of it. Person C gets $64 and saves 20%, spending the rest. $51.2 goes to person D who then spends some. End result? The government spent $100, net gain in production and consumption is MUCH HIGHER. This spending is also taxed, so the government gets some of it back.
The two reasons why the stimulus bill didn't work are as follows: One, the stimulus bill wasn't big enough, they underestimated people's tendency to save money rather than spend, and it needed to be larger. To be fair, Obama's original plan was much bigger, but it was cut down in size drastically in compromise with the Republicans. Secondly, a lot of the jobs it did create went overseas because nobody seems to be interested in making the companies doing business in America hire Americans. This is the biggest problem with our economy right now, all the money goes out of country, and unemployment is high because companies find cheaper labor elsewhere. We need to do something about THIS, but it's not high on anybodies agenda.
To be honest, I don't much like Obama either, but it's important to give credit where credit is due and not make stuff up.
Where does the government get this money? They're already in huge deficit. They either print the money in which case there's inflation, or they go further into debt which also weakens the dollar.
The weakened dollar loses people their purchasing power, so of course people spend less. Especially since they're already in debt.
The solution isn't to spend it's to save... the principle of global economics dictates that if you're consuming more than you're producing you're going to be falling into debt. Either literal debt, or it loses purchasing power of the currency with respect to other currencies. In the end you can't make something out of nothing, and the efficiency of this obviously sucks because whenever money goes through the government tons of it gets stuck.
By giving people money to spend we're not improving our economic fundamentals, our production or industry, and the artificially low interest rates aren't helping. There's an obvious arbitrage going on with the US dollar which makes it foolish to save currency (which is why commodities and precious metals have kept going up in price as they're a way to hedge inflation.) How can money be so cheap (low rates) when everyone is in debt, it doesn't make sense.
The spending doesn't create any more products or wealth it simply allows some people to keep jobs that provide americans with goods and services that the americans shouldn't be able to afford in the middle of a recession. The market needs to go through a contraction to pay off its debt, and the more we keep spending the harder the contraction will be to deal with when it comes.
On September 13 2011 22:49 SySLeif wrote: Religious fruitloop? Religious people live longer, more happy and fullfilling lives. Also most of the greatest men of all time were religious.
According to whom?
If your referring to another as in another "Bush" then I would rather see another Bush than any democrat. I would rather keep my freedoms than have them taken from the government. America is to diverse to have a single set of rules an laws for everyone, hence more power should be dispersed into more local communities.
Yeah, the Patriot Act was a monumental win in the battle for freedom... Sigh
Now why was Bush a bad president? When the democrats took over in 2006 (House and Senate) unemployment was still just above 5%?
Thank the housing bubble for that one, and how was Bush a bad president? Can you seriously ask that question with a straight face?
It took Barack Obama 2 years to make the debt that Bush did in 8.
Amazing to think that in some cases you actually have to spend money to dig yourself out of a hole - why is this so tough to comprehend?
Also since you seem to love the Rove kool-aid: "deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney.
Even though we had 9/11 he still stood strong when he said we were going to war. It takes a man to do that, and he did it with 70% of Americans behind him.
It takes a real 'man' to go awol during your national guard tenure. It takes a real man to paint your opponent (a true war hero in John Kerry) as a liberal pussy as well. Probably 70% of the world was behind the U.S. after 9/11 - nobody had any problem with Afghanistan, Iraq was the issue. While you and your ilk sat there flag waving and fist pumping about some imaginary weapons of mass destruction (forget the fact that they even tried to tie in an Al-Qaeda link first) the rest of the world was face-palming.
Also Bush had to cleanup a huge mess Clinton left behind... You know the mess where "O well nobody should be discriminated against during a loan application on how much they make a year."
Yeah, thank god Bush figured away to get rid of that huge budget surplus.
And now America is in a debt recession where most of the country is paying debts instead of buying things with their money earned.
Oh Jesus, you think this is something new? This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office. You can thank him for putting in the policies that slowly started to flush your country down the shitter.
Stop trolling the republicans and get on with your life.
Get informed.
Reagan was one of the best presidents of the modern times economically. FDR and Carter were some of the worst.
Clinton's policies were a major cause in the housing bubble.
Bush did over-spend on military, and he tried to stop the bubble from bursting with bad monetary policy so he could get reelected, which made it bigger, but Clinton is the one who helped start it. He wasn't at all a great president economically.
and no, you don't need to spend money to get out of the hole. The hole is that we're spending too much money. Stimulus doesn't work at all even on a theoretical level, and Obama continues to push for more. and spending money on Obamacare isn't a way to get out of this hole ever.
you're the one who needs to get informed.
You're so wrong it's astounding.
Reaganomics were so full of shit it's not even funny. BTW, Reagan increased taxes when he was in office. Surprise!
The housing bubble? Yeah, that's a result of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. Yes, Clinton did sign it, but it was also passed under a Republican congress. And again, we had a surplus under Clinton as a direct result of his policies. Don't make shit up. And yeah, to get out of a hole, you need to promote economic growth. Economic growth only occurs in times of increased demand for consumption. Increased demand for consumption only occurs when people have more disposable income. In other words, the only way to promote economic growth is to make sure people have more money to spend, which is what the stimulus bill did. And according to a number of institutions (including the Princeton Review), the stimulus was a great idea that wasn't big enough to work because it got cut down repeatedly due to demands from the Republicans in congress, because Obama wanted to compromise and work with them instead of telling them to go fuck themselves.
BTW, Obamacare? Yeah, another word made up by Republicans to make it sound like something really bad and dangerous. Surprise surprise, it's actually amazingly good for insurance companies, and it's not at all a liberal policy.
Get your shit together.
the second half of Reagan's presidency wasn't as good as his first I agree.
of course there was surplus during Clinton that was the bubble growing.
Stimulus doesn't fucking work, how can it. You're taking money from people and giving it back to them but less of it.
The economy doesn't grow from increased consumption... Consuming more than producing leads to debt... What people need to start doing is consuming less than we're producing, then export our excess, pay off our debt, then save real capital, and then invest that money so that we can produce more... There needs to be a recession because continuously giving people money to buy shit doesn't improve our economy, because buying shit doesn't increase the total number of shit to go around it simply redistributes it, and continues to send false signals to business that consumers can still afford more.
health care bill is longer to type than obama care, and it's terrible either way.
It's called the money multiplier. Person A is given $100 from the government. Government spending? $100. He then turns around and saves $20, but spends $80 of it. Person B gets that $80 now has $80 to spend. He saves 20% of it like person A, and now spends $64 of it. Person C gets $64 and saves 20%, spending the rest. $51.2 goes to person D who then spends some. End result? The government spent $100, net gain in production and consumption is MUCH HIGHER. This spending is also taxed, so the government gets some of it back.
The two reasons why the stimulus bill didn't work are as follows: One, the stimulus bill wasn't big enough, they underestimated people's tendency to save money rather than spend, and it needed to be larger. To be fair, Obama's original plan was much bigger, but it was cut down in size drastically in compromise with the Republicans. Secondly, a lot of the jobs it did create went overseas because nobody seems to be interested in making the companies doing business in America hire Americans. This is the biggest problem with our economy right now, all the money goes out of country, and unemployment is high because companies find cheaper labor elsewhere. We need to do something about THIS, but it's not high on anybodies agenda.
To be honest, I don't much like Obama either, but it's important to give credit where credit is due and not make stuff up.
Where does the government get this money? They're already in huge deficit. They either print the money in which case there's inflation, or they go further into debt which also weakens the dollar.
The weakened dollar loses people their purchasing power, so of course people spend less. Especially since they're already in debt.
The solution isn't to spend it's to save... the principle of global economics dictates that if you're consuming more than you're producing you're going to be falling into debt. Either literal debt, or it loses purchasing power of the currency with respect to other currencies. In the end you can't make something out of nothing, and the efficiency of this obviously sucks because whenever money goes through the government tons of it gets stuck.
By giving people money to spend we're not improving our economic fundamentals, our production or industry, and the artificially low interest rates aren't helping. There's an obvious arbitrage going on with the US dollar which makes it foolish to save currency (which is why commodities and precious metals have kept going up in price as they're a way to hedge inflation.) How can money be so cheap (low rates) when everyone is in debt, it doesn't make sense.
The spending doesn't create any more products or wealth it simply allows some people to keep jobs that provide americans with goods and services that the americans shouldn't be able to afford in the middle of a recession. The market needs to go through a contraction to pay off its debt, and the more we keep spending the harder the contraction will be to deal with when it comes.
Short term debt is unimportant, long term debt is. Think about the long run, not the short run. Yes, deficit spending while in debt increases your debt in the short run, but if it increases employment, it leads to a long term recovery. Unfortunately, it won't do that now, because all the jobs that get created still are going overseas, and nobody fucking wants to do anything about it. Nothing pisses me off more than watching big companies get tax breaks to create new jobs and then hire people outside the country because it's cheaper. Hilariously, if this were fixed, it'd be the biggest factor in helping the economy, but not a single candidate has it on their agenda at all. Go fucking figure. (Yes, I'm legitimately angry about this, and it's almost the only thing that has me actually pissed off rather than irritated).
Also, right now, inflation isn't a bad thing at all, we're below our target inflation number. I'm not sure why people keep bringing this up as a negative. Also, a lot of people can't afford to wait during a contraction period for the economy to recover: people are losing their homes because they can't find a job due to high unemployment.
I don't see how his response was bad. He is libertarian, and what he said sounded like what a libertarian would say.
When ideological purity is considered more important than saving lives, you know that the society is well and truly fucked. At this rate, there will be little difference between the US and China in a decade or so. Wealth rules! I've got mine, fuck you! Nationalistic jingoism and flag waving and greatest country/people in the world... while you know, lagging behind everyone else but propaganda says otherwise.
this is fucking retarded.
ron paul is so correct. if you don't have health insurance but yet you're making a healthy living, then you should have some kind of personal savings to afford the healthcare out of pocket, or be able to borrow it with interest, or rely on friends/family to help you out, that's all there is to it.
it's not the society's job to hedge risks of personal irresponsibility, this line of thought brings us to a very morally hazzardous place.
also note that if the healthcare system is driven by an actual free market then healthcare wouldn't be so fucking expensive.
I think it's undoubtedly true that in general people should save for rainy days. In my opinion, though, I don't think that the consequence of being ill prepared for something like a tragic accident (honestly, do we remotely think about getting hit by a car every day?) should be that you have to pay or you die. :/
I also don't think it's moral hazard either because no one wants to put themselves in a position to "die". There's a difference between knowing you'll be saved if you go bankrupt (and therefore will take financial risks every so often) and knowing you'll be saved if you're on the verge of the death. The very threat of death is one that deters most people.
Also, we've had private insurance trying to insure people for years in a market that's basically been not very well regulated. Government insurance did very little to tamper with private insurance companies....and yet prices are still high. That to me tells me that some structural reform is necessary other than just "oh free markets are best".
there are still options of how you can receive treatment even if you don't have the money, but if you have the savements, and don't have insurance, then like you said, you either pay or you die... I don't see what's wrong with that when saving people's lives actually costs money.
if you don't have the money there are charities, people willing to loan you money, and friends and family who could possibly help you out.
I agree that Steve Jobs was responsible for his cancer. He shouldn't have led such a risky lifestyle.
Wow are you that dumb? of course it's not his fault he got cancer, but if like in that question that was asked of Ron Paul someone makes a comfortable living and doesn't have health insurance and doesn't have personal savings just in case something happens then it's his fault and he's being irresponsible.
what if he doesn't have his house insured, and a lightning hits it, and it burns down? is the government supposed to give him a new home?
I want to apologize. I misread your post early in the morning. I thought you were making the common conservative argument that people create their own health problems and should be responsible.
What kind of conservatives would say that? The fact of life is that at any point of time shit can happen to anyone, and there are some risks that you may want to invest in protecting yourself against and some that you just choose to live with.
Having personal savings is a personally responsible way of hedging your risks against the possibility of something unfortunate happening to you. If something is kind of likely but would be extremely devastating for you financially you get insurance for that event.
There are still stuff that can happen to people that aren't prepared for them. Hell there's a lot of things that you can't reasonably prepare against, and although a lot of socialists won't admit it, the government won't save you from them either.
However, I disagree with you that charity is in anyway a substitute for government welfare. If your family and friends are also facing difficulties, they're not going to be able to help you out. And if the charities are facing difficulties with their donations (which happens in recessions), then they're not going to be able to pay for your hospital expenses. And there's no reason why a bank would someone give a loan to cover a health procedure. That's a horribly retarded argument. A bank loan isn't automatic.
Ok, well first of all you're underestimating how much charities help people. Note that they use money way more responsibly than the government, and there are charitable people in the country, especially when the efficiency of economy is allowed to increase in the free market, there will obviously still be incredibly poor people, but on average people will have more stuff, and charities on average will also be in better shape.
Second, yes your friends and family can be in tough situations as well, but really the situation was that a man who was living comfortably decided not to get insurance... There's a bunch of stuff he can do to avoid not getting the healthcare he needs. Yes he can't just sit on his ass and wait for the government to rescue him.
Well there isn't a reason that a bank like that can't exist. You need a procedure that costs X. First you prove your income. Then you get some kind of estimate on the chance of success of the procedure... like y%. The bank uses your income to estimate how long it would take you to pay off a loan such that you cover the standard current interest %, with the % chance of risk (you dying/being unable to work after the operation) on top of it + a little extra on top of it for the bank to make a profit... boom it's a loan. I don't know if they do such things now, but if they don't it's probably because of some retarded regulation due to lobbyists from insurance companies... regulations that prevent people from being able to save their own lifes...
So no... it's not a horrible argument.
I'm going to cite one example of where the the private insurance system completely failed and was cannibalized by a socialized system. The fire fighting services didn't start out as socialized systems. There were previous private fire halls. But there were several issues that made it a disaster. people made short sighted decisions to save money. And even if I was personally responsible for my own house, I couldn't guarantee that my neighbour was responsible for his own house. Fires don't happen to respect property lines. Lastly, even if I did pay for private fire fighting protection, there was no guarantee I would receive it under the private system. The private fire fighting systems would carry someone to verify that the property was insured. Sometimes that would be difficult as the house number was burning. The private systems didn't have the goal of saving lives and they could never operate with that goal in mind.
There's no guarantee you receive it under the government control either, it's very likely that you do, but it better be very likely given how much extra money social projects cost vs private ones... but anyways I don't see a problem with this, because fire/police is a state power which is considerably less inefficient than the federal government, and states often relegate these things to cities, which are smaller and even less inefficient, so while there's still some money being lost unnecessary it's not that bad...
But what about my example? You have a good solid income of like 150K, but little savings and no house insurance... a lightning strikes your house and it burns down... Is the government also supposed to come your rescue to save you?...
Look the answer is obvious, people need to take responsibilities for their mistakes. Then the very poor get helped by charities, and only then if it's still not enough, if the government at this point is small enough that it's not running huge deficits like others is should the government consider providing some safety net if it has some surplus. and of course, it should always start at the district level up. When a president says he's gonna double the benefits for everyone... He's talking politics, and he's simply trying to win people over by promising something for nothing, but maybe when small district governor who actually lives amongst the people he's a representative of promises slight increase in funding for the one soup kitchen in town, you have more reason to assume that he's actually doing it out of the goodness of his heart, because he cares about the community he lives in, and maybe he would even take a slight pay cut himself to help fund this endeavor.
as for private systems don't having the people's interest in mind... No one does... the government doesn't either. People's votes actually mean less to a government than people's money to a private company, your bargaining power is much higher with a company than it is with the government, and with the company if you sign a contract you can take them to court on fraud charges if they infringe, and get your money back +more... So private systems actually have a larger incentive to carry out their promises.
EPT
