Boehner just asked Obama to move his speech by one day

[kaz]

Okay.

Government stops buying miltiary hardware, cars, computers, and all the other things they get from private industry. It also withdraws all the accounts of government employees from private sector banks and financial institutions..such as IRAs and 401ks.

What do you think happens the very next day?

Jobs get created???

You forgot a step. Government confiscates money from the private sector, then buys the things you say from the private sector for purposes creating no economic value. If you own a store and I take money out of your cash register and buy your stuff, are you going to hire people to serve me better? So yes, if they stop doing that then it would dramatically improve the economy.

Military is a red herring here. Demonstrate you don't grasp the discussion by going to why we have a military and not the economic impact of military spending. Military is analogous to insurance. It makes you poorer but protects what you have. But no, military spending doesn't create jobs.

 

[Sallow]

Okay.

Government stops buying miltiary hardware, cars, computers, and all the other things they get from private industry. It also withdraws all the accounts of government employees from private sector banks and financial institutions..such as IRAs and 401ks.

What do you think happens the very next day?

Jobs get created???

You forgot a step. Government confiscates money from the private sector, then buys the things you say from the private sector for purposes creating no economic value. If you own a store and I take money out of your cash register and buy your stuff, are you going to hire people to serve me better? So yes, if they stop doing that then it would dramatically improve the economy.

Military is a red herring here. Demonstrate you don't grasp the discussion by going to why we have a military and not the economic impact of military spending. Military is analogous to insurance. It makes you poorer but protects what you have. But no, military spending doesn't create jobs.

Government doesn't confiscate anything. And I am not going to argue something as absurd as "Military spending doesn't create jobs".

Read the constitution. Taxation is a part of it.

But for fun, add another thing to this paradigm...no more taxation.

No more government.

Just the private sector.

It's kinda what you guys want.

What do you think happens..next?

 

[kaz]

Government doesn't confiscate anything. And I am not going to argue something as absurd as "Military spending doesn't create jobs".

Read the constitution. Taxation is a part of it.

But for fun, add another thing to this paradigm...no more taxation.

No more government.

Just the private sector.

It's kinda what you guys want.

What do you think happens..next?

I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. As for the rest, please, econ 101. Just take one class. One. If you grasp just the basic concepts of economics then the world would stop being a mysterious black box to you where liberal politicians could fill it with idiotic self serving lunacy

 

[BDBoop]

I'm going with "Anarchy". Followed by rape, loot and plunder, and if things get really bad - fold, spindle and mutilate.

 

[kaz]

I'm going with "Anarchy". Followed by rape, loot and plunder, and if things get really bad - fold, spindle and mutilate.

Don't forget spin, dry and hang in the breeze...

 

[deepthunk]

I'm going with "Anarchy". Followed by rape, loot and plunder, and if things get really bad - fold, spindle and mutilate.

Well, the rich would never stand for being raped; looted or plundered so clearly that’s not what conservatives have in mind. Perhaps an Ayn Rand based system where police protection must be paid for directly in order to be received, that way it’s only the poor who get raped, looted and plundered (not to mention mutilated, disemboweled, drawn and quartered).
Now that’s a policy good Christian conservatives can get behind.
(Does this post physically drip with sarcasm? Because that was the effect I was going for but sometimes irony doesn’t translate well into text).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow, you guys still have this thread going. Is it the be all bitch about everything thread now? Lol

Of course. It's gonna make a great attack ad for Obama.

Oh, yeah. "I came back from my vacation, ready to save the world, and those damned Republicans insisted that I wasn't King and had to respect other branches of government and basic rules of courtesy. Everything's RUINED because I had to wait ONE DAY!"

That'll convince a lot of people . . . who are already sucking Obama's ass. Everyone else is going to keep laughing at him.

 

[BDBoop]

I'm going with "Anarchy". Followed by rape, loot and plunder, and if things get really bad - fold, spindle and mutilate.

Well, the rich would never stand for being raped; looted or plundered so clearly that’s not what conservatives have in mind. Perhaps an Ayn Rand based system where police protection must be paid for directly in order to be received, that way it’s only the poor who get raped, looted and plundered (not to mention mutilated, disemboweled, drawn and quartered).
Now that’s a policy good Christian conservatives can get behind.
(Does this post physically drip with sarcasm? Because that was the effect I was going for but sometimes irony doesn’t translate well into text).

You forgot tarred and feathered.

Just sayin. >.>

 

[Cecilie1200]

How? By being a crybaby, caught trying to schedule over a previously planned debate.

Everyone is talking about how they asked the president to move a speech so these idiots could debate. It is a running joke at this point.

Jobs, jobs, jobs, not campaign, campaign, campaign.

Seriously, I don't know you but your party is running amok. It's a comedy of errors with them on a daily basis.

Really, when exactly is Obama not Campaigning, other than when He is on vacation?

Oh, he's still campaigning on vacation, because he vacations with deep-pocketed donors.

 

[idb]

A very good point. No Republican has ever been impeached, NOT because Democrats were too "respectful" to try, but because Republicans either 1) are not in a position to BE impeached, or 2) have enough respect for the United States not to put them through that sort of spectacle. Not only did Nixon resign instead, but he was also told to resign by his own party's leaders, or else.

Only a Democrat would be more interested in his own power and legacy than in not embarrassing his country.

So Nixon resigned because he loved America so much?

I don't personally know the guy, so I can't say whether "love" came into it. I do think he had a better sense of the decorum required of the President than Obama does, and I also know that the Republicans in Congress had no intention of letting him drag the country through an embarrassing spectacle.

And if you want to get on your high moral horse about former President Nixon, I have two words for you: Bill Clinton. After having that clown in office, you lost any moral authority to object to ANYTHING Nixon did.

Ummm...why does it have to be 'either/or'?
Is it not possible to believe that they were both lacking in moral leadership?
Do I have to pick a side?

 

[Oldstyle]

Actually, I don't. I think the government we have..which is a mix of both public and private sector initiatives, is a good way to go.

But when there's a break down in the process, which is, that government funds research and development, gives grants and loans at low cost, gives out contracts to do jobs for the public sector..and the private sector responds by giving Americans jobs and providing a tax base, and provides goods and services..something has to change.

So far tax cuts and low regulations are not working. Quite the opposite. It is encouraging massive greed from the "wealth extractors". We are seeing the same sort of concentrating of wealth we saw prior to the new deal. It's not good and it's destroying a carefully crafted middle class.

It's absolutely fine to have rich people, by the way, but not when it is causing so much economic distress. And that really has to be remedied.

Wow, I don't even know where to start with a post like this...

First of all, the Private Sector is quite capable of flourishing without government help in the form of "funds, research and development, grants and loans at low cost". In a fully functioning free market economy the Private Sector will invest it's own money in the pursuit of profit. If you want a perfect example of how government intervention in that process usually leads to a bad result look no further than Solyndra. We gave them 535 million dollars in 2009 to fund the building of a solar panel factory even though any MBA just coming out of business school could have looked at the numbers and KNOWN that there was no way for that company to compete on the open market with that product. So after giving them all that money because they were a "green energy" company a year later the company has gone bankrupt. That is your government at work.

And rich people don't cause "economic distress". That's laughable. Economic distress happens when you try and punish people for making profits and take away any incentive for them to further invest in the economy. Your so called "remedy"...namely income redistribution...has never worked and never will. The concept of a free market economy is what made this country great.

Fine.

Show me a country started, maintained and now exists as a Private sector venture.

Please provide links.

OMG but you're an idiot! All countries are run by some form of government. None exist as a Private Sector "venture". Why do you even bother to take part in discussions involving economics? It's painfully obvious that you don't understand the first thing about the subject.

 

[Oldstyle]

Because small business is not what I am talking about. And..yeah..a certain amount of control has to be put on the private sector. I kind of love being able to eat something without having to travel with a chemist to determine whether or not it is safe to do so.

Free market controls on the private sector are adequate. If you get injured by an intentionally dangerous product, you are free to sue their asses off. Remember the Ford Pinto and Chevy Corvair? The government is also free to prosecute them for homicide or fraud, or any other aplicable statute. You are free to not do business with corporations that intentionally harm people to maximize profit. If they harm enough people, they will go the way of all corporations that are poorly run and their market will be absorbed by ethical corporations.
You are free to buy a Chevy Volt, but in a properly regulated market, you should not be rewarded for buying one, any more than I should be penalized for buying a Dodge Viper. Creating false markets with CAFE standards, forces companies to produce cars that the market doesn't want that they have to sell off at the end of the model year at a loss. The only thing keeping Ford in business is their pick-up trucks and SUV's that are profitable because of demand. Unfortunately, most of that profit is eaten up producing cars no one wants in order to keep fleet mileage numbers where government wants them.

No they ain't. If I lose a loved one due to some idiot's moronic attempt to cut corners and maximize profit..money is not going to bring them back.

That's the most ludicrous thing you've posted.

But you think Government regulations prevent some "idiot" from cutting corners when the threat of law suits doesn't? Sorry but a life time of experience tells me that most government regulations don't fix what they are intended to fix which is why we always have to add MORE regulations and then EVEN MORE regulations.

 

[Oldstyle]

You know when you spew crap like this..you show your ignorance.

Government spending on the private sector is Fascism. You like that sort of shit?

Well back at ya. Fascist.

What the fuck are you talking about? I said government needs to STOP spending our money. You were arguing for government spending, moron. Government needs to stay out of our economy and THEN the free market will create jobs.

Okay.

Government stops buying miltiary hardware, cars, computers, and all the other things they get from private industry. It also withdraws all the accounts of government employees from private sector banks and financial institutions..such as IRAs and 401ks.

What do you think happens the very next day?

Jobs get created???

Are you serious? How exactly is it that the Government is going to withdraw "all the accounts of government employees from private sector banks and financial institutions...such as IRAs and 401ks"? Do you really not know that the Government can't do that? Dude, you are showing yourself to be one of the most fiscally clueless people ever to grace this board.

What do I think happens the very next day? I think that whichever Government officials gave the go ahead to withdraw all that money, are told to pack up their personal effects and are escorted out of the office in which they work by security and told never to come back.

 

[The T]

What the fuck are you talking about? I said government needs to STOP spending our money. You were arguing for government spending, moron. Government needs to stay out of our economy and THEN the free market will create jobs.

Okay.

Government stops buying miltiary hardware, cars, computers, and all the other things they get from private industry. It also withdraws all the accounts of government employees from private sector banks and financial institutions..such as IRAs and 401ks.

What do you think happens the very next day?

Jobs get created???

Are you serious? How exactly is it that the Government is going to withdraw "all the accounts of government employees from private sector banks and financial institutions...such as IRAs and 401ks"? Do you really not know that that Government can't do that? Dude, you are showing yourself to be one of the most fiscally clueless people ever to grace this board.

What do I think happens the very next day? I think that whichever Government officials gave the go ahead to withdraw all that money, are told to pack up their personal effects and are escorted out of the office in which they work by security and told never to come back.

And I don't belive they have the power to do it besides.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So Nixon resigned because he loved America so much?

I don't personally know the guy, so I can't say whether "love" came into it. I do think he had a better sense of the decorum required of the President than Obama does, and I also know that the Republicans in Congress had no intention of letting him drag the country through an embarrassing spectacle.

And if you want to get on your high moral horse about former President Nixon, I have two words for you: Bill Clinton. After having that clown in office, you lost any moral authority to object to ANYTHING Nixon did.

Ummm...why does it have to be 'either/or'?
Is it not possible to believe that they were both lacking in moral leadership?
Do I have to pick a side?

Let me put it this way: if you were supporting Bill Clinton by the end of his Presidency, you have no moral authority to criticize Richard Nixon.

Is that clearer?

 

[J.E.D]

Pussy!

This message is hidden because Wicked Jester is on your ignore list.

It is a message board...are you that incensed at what someone writes? You are the reason places like NJ has such absurd 'bullying' laws, a country of over sensitive, lame, metrosexual pussies like yourself.

Ignore me, I'm not missing out on anything

Yes, it is a message board. So what? Does that meant that I should sit here and read insult after insult? I have dished out my fair share of insults (some of them quite vulgar), but they're usually in response to somebody else's; I don't just come in out of nowhere and start insulting people. I used to find it amusing to trade vukgar jabs with people. I'm done with all of that now. If all you can do is attack and insult me, then you will be put on ignore. Doesn't bother you? Great, then it won't bother me either. I'll give you another shot. I've seen you say some intelligent things.

 

[Stephanie]

Show me that you have 58 billion in your bank account..and I will explain it to ya.

Why 58 billion? Why not 1 million? Why not $250,000. I'm doing my part. I don't control the accounts of anyone but myself, but you seem to feel justified in controlling the private sector.

Because small business is not what I am talking about. And..yeah..a certain amount of control has to be put on the private sector. I kind of love being able to eat something without having to travel with a chemist to determine whether or not it is safe to do so.

If you are THAT worried about it, than GROW YOUR OWN FOOD. damn don't push off your paranoia's on the rest of us in this country.

 

[idb]

I don't personally know the guy, so I can't say whether "love" came into it. I do think he had a better sense of the decorum required of the President than Obama does, and I also know that the Republicans in Congress had no intention of letting him drag the country through an embarrassing spectacle.

And if you want to get on your high moral horse about former President Nixon, I have two words for you: Bill Clinton. After having that clown in office, you lost any moral authority to object to ANYTHING Nixon did.

Ummm...why does it have to be 'either/or'?
Is it not possible to believe that they were both lacking in moral leadership?
Do I have to pick a side?

Let me put it this way: if you were supporting Bill Clinton by the end of his Presidency, you have no moral authority to criticize Richard Nixon.

Is that clearer?

I wouldn't claim moral authority for anything.

On the other hand, what have morals got to do with it?
If Clinton was a good president, what does it matter how fucked up his personal life was?

 

[Photonic]

Wow, I don't even know where to start with a post like this...

First of all, the Private Sector is quite capable of flourishing without government help in the form of "funds, research and development, grants and loans at low cost". In a fully functioning free market economy the Private Sector will invest it's own money in the pursuit of profit. If you want a perfect example of how government intervention in that process usually leads to a bad result look no further than Solyndra. We gave them 535 million dollars in 2009 to fund the building of a solar panel factory even though any MBA just coming out of business school could have looked at the numbers and KNOWN that there was no way for that company to compete on the open market with that product. So after giving them all that money because they were a "green energy" company a year later the company has gone bankrupt. That is your government at work.

And rich people don't cause "economic distress". That's laughable. Economic distress happens when you try and punish people for making profits and take away any incentive for them to further invest in the economy. Your so called "remedy"...namely income redistribution...has never worked and never will. The concept of a free market economy is what made this country great.

Fine.

Show me a country started, maintained and now exists as a Private sector venture.

Please provide links.

OMG but you're an idiot! All countries are run by some form of government. None exist as a Private Sector "venture". Why do you even bother to take part in discussions involving economics? It's painfully obvious that you don't understand the first thing about the subject.

Ever wonder WHY?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fine.

Show me a country started, maintained and now exists as a Private sector venture.

Please provide links.

OMG but you're an idiot! All countries are run by some form of government. None exist as a Private Sector "venture". Why do you even bother to take part in discussions involving economics? It's painfully obvious that you don't understand the first thing about the subject.

Ever wonder WHY?

I think it is because governments give the people that run them more power than private sector ventures do. Not sure what that has to do with economics, but feel free to try to explain how economics dictates political science and psychology. It will be interesting to watch you try to rewrite both history and psychology at the same time.