Discussion in 'Economy' started by Kevin_Kennedy, Feb 9, 2009.
Obama's Wealth Destruction - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute
The arrogance of President Bush was only so destructive because he was so often wrong.
Obama doesn't seem particularly arrogant to me hear. This is not a simple case of whether the Iraqis do or do not possess WMDs. This is a question of economics that no amount of dithering or further research will answer. The President has identified a need and he means to meet it. The real question though isn't whether he is arrogant but whether he is right.
Isn't that the same thing with Bush, though? He identified a need after 9/11, and pushed to meet it. It was a Trillion+ dollar decision based on assumptions and recommendations from people who, in hindsight, were pretty wrong. Why does Obama just automatically get the benefit of the doubt here regarding yet another proposal to spend a Trillion dollars on something? Some economists think it will help, others say it will hurt more than help, and even others flat out say it will be a disaster. There's not enough concrete consensus here that this bill is worth taking what amounts to just another "chance" that it will turn out to be right.
There's no difference between wasting a trillion dollars on war, or wasting a trillion dollars on domestic issues. It's interesting that liberals are so quick to take a trillion dollar "chance" on something now after the past 5+ years of watching the last trillion dollar "chance" turn out to be a huge waste.
It's certainly arrogant of President Obama to go around parroting about how every economist agrees that the "stimulus" package is absolutely necessary, when you won't find a single Austrian that agrees with it and very few general free marketeers that do either. It may not be arrogant, but it certainly is hypocritical, for Obama to tout the same doomsday prophecies that President Bush used to frighten Congress into voting for the bailout package.
Kevin, what the fuck are you smoking to actually believe we have a free market?
I'm sorry, did I claim somewhere that we had a free market?
You seem to agree with them if you're touting their opinion as being correct.
I call them "free marketeers" because they believe, or at least claim to believe, in the free market. That doesn't suggest that we have a free market in the least.
Yes, I do agree that we need a free market.
Dude come out of the cave and read other stuff.
You're perfectly free not to participate in a discussion if the source displeases you, especially when it's not responding to you in the first place.
Separate names with a comma.