Republicans prefer private sector unemployment over public employment

[WillowTree]

Really--the economy's in the toliet and we're not alone. There's a giant flushing sound throughout the planet.

What do we do now to get things rolling again?

I want to see how the Republicans work with and influence the Obama Adminstration. If you think we can get out of this with the same old same old partisan politics, I strongly disagree.

Do you think that your ideas are unpartisan? You just don't like the Republican answer because you don't understand economics. Let the market handle this. This is how it is supposed to be.

I don't understand economics. I understand greed. I understand job loss. I understand poverty, corruption and fraud.

Translation: I have my talking points down pat.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well since jobs and wealth are only created in the private sector that would seem to be a pretty good policy.

You know you younger generations have been indoctinated by so many trueisms which are false, it little wonder our world is falling apart.

That's not really true, you know. Basically it's hugely overstating the case.

Wealth is created by labor and it doesn't really matter how that labor is originally funded.

The Hoover dam or the TVA project for examples are sources of great wealth and ones that were created by government funding.

Likewise the cross continental RR's only happened because the government invested huge money into the project in conjunction with private money.

I could go on with example after example- roads, bridges, ferries, damns, canals, educational systems...all created by governments, all creating more wealth than they cost, and all creating jobs and helping the commonweal, too.

And Hoover actually did plenty to try and "fend off" the Great Depression. Roosevelt basically continued his policies.

Really?

What policies did Hoover try to do to "fend off" the depression?

What policies of Hoover did Roosevelt "basically continue"?

How do you define wealth?

Merely resurfacing a highway is not producing wealth is it?

How does a ferry produce wealth anyway?

If one lives on an island and works on that island, he doesn't need a ferry does he?

If there were no ferry, people who didn't live and work on the island would live and work on the mainland no? Or people would buy their own boats to commute and put boat salesmen and builders to work.

If the state takes taxes from people to run a ferry, all that money is money that can't be spent on boats so where is the wealth creation?

Sure you gave a ferry manufacturer work but you took that work and the related wealth from another sector of the economy didn't you? And the fares people pay over a lifetime of riding the ferry would have easily bought and maintained a personal boat no? And people who didn't want to buy a boat would simply pay someone to use their boat
or to be driven over so again the ferry system does nothing but suppress another potential business that will produce wealth.

At best it's a wash. And since the government has a knack of spending multiple times what the private sector spends to accomplish the same result i think it's fair to say that if the government didn't get involved, we would see even greater benefit.

 

[editec]

Well since jobs and wealth are only created in the private sector that would seem to be a pretty good policy.

You know you younger generations have been indoctinated by so many trueisms which are false, it little wonder our world is falling apart.

That's not really true, you know. Basically it's hugely overstating the case.

Wealth is created by labor and it doesn't really matter how that labor is originally funded.

The Hoover dam or the TVA project for examples are sources of great wealth and ones that were created by government funding.

Likewise the cross continental RR's only happened because the government invested huge money into the project in conjunction with private money.

I could go on with example after example- roads, bridges, ferries, damns, canals, educational systems...all created by governments, all creating more wealth than they cost, and all creating jobs and helping the commonweal, too.

And Hoover actually did plenty to try and "fend off" the Great Depression. Roosevelt basically continued his policies.

Really?

What policies did Hoover try to do to "fend off" the depression?

What policies of Hoover did Roosevelt "basically continue"?

Actually, wealth creates labor.

Really? Interesting theory.

Tell you what sport... put a million dollars on your kitchen table and see how quickly it washes those dirty dishes.

You even said it unwittinglhy in your post. You just seem to have a mental block created by a false interpretation of economic activities lead by an ideology that does not care about economic progress.

Yopu seem confused about how stuff gets done. You are under the impression that money does work.

Most infrastructure is best left to the government, in my estimation. Dams and the like would actually be better operated by the private sector, but people are too afraid of meltdowns to allow this transfer to happen.

Maine is now overrun with abandoned private dams that are a public menace because they are falling apart.

That is to say, most people revel in unknowledgeable stupidity. Educational systems are so fucked up precisely because of what government is Private schools are so much better for all the reasons that government took away from public schools over the decades in a desire to please trial lawyers and that the government added in order to please teachers' unions.

Lots of words, but not much in there except unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[editec]

Well since jobs and wealth are only created in the private sector that would seem to be a pretty good policy.

You know you younger generations have been indoctinated by so many trueisms which are false, it little wonder our world is falling apart.

That's not really true, you know. Basically it's hugely overstating the case.

Wealth is created by labor and it doesn't really matter how that labor is originally funded.

The Hoover dam or the TVA project for examples are sources of great wealth and ones that were created by government funding.

Likewise the cross continental RR's only happened because the government invested huge money into the project in conjunction with private money.

I could go on with example after example- roads, bridges, ferries, damns, canals, educational systems...all created by governments, all creating more wealth than they cost, and all creating jobs and helping the commonweal, too.

And Hoover actually did plenty to try and "fend off" the Great Depression. Roosevelt basically continued his policies.

Really?

What policies did Hoover try to do to "fend off" the depression?

What policies of Hoover did Roosevelt "basically continue"?

How do you define wealth?

Merely resurfacing a highway is not producing wealth is it?

How does a ferry produce wealth anyway?

It produces a road which people can use.

If one lives on an island and works on that island, he doesn't need a ferry does he?

You've obviously never lived on an Island

If there were no ferry, people who didn't live and work on the island would live and work on the mainland no? Or people would buy their own boats to commute and put boat salesmen and builders to work



If the state takes taxes from people to run a ferry, all that money is money that can't be spent on boats so where is the wealth creation?

Sure you gave a ferry manufacturer work but you took that work and the related wealth from another sector of the economy didn't you? And the fares people pay over a lifetime of riding the ferry would have easily bought and maintained a personal boat no? And people who didn't want to buy a boat would simply pay someone to use their boat
or to be driven over so again the ferry system does nothing but suppress another potential business that will produce wealth.


At best it's a wash. And since the government has a knack of spending multiple times what the private sector spends to accomplish the same result i think it's fair to say that if the government didn't get involved, we would see even greater benefit.

Public transport might (or might not) be the most efficient way to deal with the issue of transportation to and from an island. It really depends on specific circumstances.

That is not obvious to you?

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Really?

What policies did Hoover try to do to "fend off" the depression?

What policies of Hoover did Roosevelt "basically continue"?



Really? Interesting theory.

Tell you what sport... put a million dollars on your kitchen table and see how quickly it washes those dirty dishes.





Yopu seem confused about how stuff gets done. You are under the impression that money does work.



Maine is now overrun with abandoned private dams that are a public menace because they are falling apart.

Lots of words, but not much in there except unsubstantiated opinion.

You are a dumbass prick.

Why don't I ask "How many dishes must you wash before money magically appears on the table?"

If work creates wealth, why didn't slavery create a snowball efect where every plantation owner and other owner kept owning more and more slaves, because the more work you got, the wealthier you became?

How old are you? I want to know whether to continue my disgust at people twice or three times my age who know a quarter as much.

 

[editec]

Really?

What policies did Hoover try to do to "fend off" the depression?

What policies of Hoover did Roosevelt "basically continue"?



Really? Interesting theory.

Tell you what sport... put a million dollars on your kitchen table and see how quickly it washes those dirty dishes.





Yopu seem confused about how stuff gets done. You are under the impression that money does work.



Maine is now overrun with abandoned private dams that are a public menace because they are falling apart.

Lots of words, but not much in there except unsubstantiated opinion.

You are a dumbass prick.

Translation -- I can't think of a response so I'll just insult the person who trumped me.

Why don't I ask "How many dishes must you wash before money magically appears on the table?"

Beats me.

If work creates wealth, why didn't slavery create a snowball efect where every plantation owner and other owner kept owning more and more slaves, because the more work you got, the wealthier you became?

Basically that is what happened.

How old are you? I want to know whether to continue my disgust at people twice or three times my age who know a quarter as much.

I'm young enough to laugh out loud at what an idiot you are making yourself appear to be, but old enough to forgive your youthful foolishness, because we are all fools in our youth.

Money is a way of keeping score, lad, it is NOT the source of weath.

The source of all human wealth is human labor.

You could be sitting on a vein of gold, but it's nothing but yellow rocks until you discover it, dig it up and bring it into society.

Is that too difficult for you to understand?

You ought to be thanking me for educating you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well since jobs and wealth are only created in the private sector that would seem to be a pretty good policy.

And Hoover actually did plenty to try and "fend off" the Great Depression. Roosevelt basically continued his policies.

That simply is not true, and had Hoover done what Roosevelt did, your party would have a real hero and not only the imaginary ones.

In the end Keynesian economics got us out of the depression, even Roosevelt was fiscally conservative during years the New Deal created too much debt. WWII was government, aka Keynesian spending, at its greatest. It was required spending so ideology took a back seat for a while.

Actually, it is true. Hoover was as much an interventionist as Roosevelt was. The New Deal didn't get us out of the Great Depression, it prolonged the Great Depression by roughly 10 years.

Also, I am not a Republican.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You know you younger generations have been indoctinated by so many trueisms which are false, it little wonder our world is falling apart.

That's not really true, you know. Basically it's hugely overstating the case.

Wealth is created by labor and it doesn't really matter how that labor is originally funded.

The Hoover dam or the TVA project for examples are sources of great wealth and ones that were created by government funding.

Likewise the cross continental RR's only happened because the government invested huge money into the project in conjunction with private money.

I could go on with example after example- roads, bridges, ferries, damns, canals, educational systems...all created by governments, all creating more wealth than they cost, and all creating jobs and helping the commonweal, too.



Really?

What policies did Hoover try to do to "fend off" the depression?

What policies of Hoover did Roosevelt "basically continue"?

How do you define wealth?

Merely resurfacing a highway is not producing wealth is it?



It produces a road which people can use.



You've obviously never lived on an Island

If there were no ferry, people who didn't live and work on the island would live and work on the mainland no? Or people would buy their own boats to commute and put boat salesmen and builders to work



If the state takes taxes from people to run a ferry, all that money is money that can't be spent on boats so where is the wealth creation?

Sure you gave a ferry manufacturer work but you took that work and the related wealth from another sector of the economy didn't you? And the fares people pay over a lifetime of riding the ferry would have easily bought and maintained a personal boat no? And people who didn't want to buy a boat would simply pay someone to use their boat
or to be driven over so again the ferry system does nothing but suppress another potential business that will produce wealth.


At best it's a wash. And since the government has a knack of spending multiple times what the private sector spends to accomplish the same result i think it's fair to say that if the government didn't get involved, we would see even greater benefit.

Public transport might (or might not) be the most efficient way to deal with the issue of transportation to and from an island. It really depends on specific circumstances.

That is not obvious to you?

you're the one who said things like ferries produce wealth not me.

And BTW my wife grew up on an island off the coast of Maine so I think i know a little about it.

 

[editec]

How do you define wealth?

Merely resurfacing a highway is not producing wealth is it?



It produces a road which people can use.



You've obviously never lived on an Island



Public transport might (or might not) be the most efficient way to deal with the issue of transportation to and from an island. It really depends on specific circumstances.

That is not obvious to you?

you're the one who said things like ferries produce wealth not me.

And BTW my wife grew up on an island off the coast of Maine so I think i know a little about it.

'

Based on the vast majority of the blatherings you post hereabout, I don't think you know shit from shinolea, amigo.

 

[DiamondDave]

you're the one who said things like ferries produce wealth not me.

And BTW my wife grew up on an island off the coast of Maine so I think i know a little about it.

'

Based on the vast majority of the blatherings you post hereabout, I don't think you know shit from shinolea, amigo.

 

[Skull Pilot]

you're the one who said things like ferries produce wealth not me.

And BTW my wife grew up on an island off the coast of Maine so I think i know a little about it.

'

Based on the vast majority of the blatherings you post hereabout, I don't think you know shit from shinolea, amigo.

And you think that the government confiscation our money via taxes produces wealth.

I'd say you don't know shinola from shit. But at least I know how to spell "shinola"

 

[sealybobo]

The private sector is shedding jobs by the thousands every day. But Republicans would rather have people be unemployed by the private sector than employed by the public sector. (Rep. Rodgers insisted that every single job that the economic recovery plan creates be in the private sector.)

Only the federal government has the resources to stave off the disaster that will surely befall us if we let the free market take us further over the cliff.

The Republicans keep reiterating Hooverisms.

Why?

Because they’re ideologically bankrupt.
Republicans Go Back to Hoover in Response to Obama’s Stimulus Bill | The Progressive

Republicans want to socialize the losses and privatize the profits.

Perfect example, the Iraq war. The tax payers are paying $10 billion a month and Blackwater/Haloburton/KBR are making a fortune.

Another example is illegal immigration. Republicans want to hire illegals for low wages and no healthcare. So what happens when they get sick? They go to the emergency room where the tax payers pay for their treatment.

Hell, every employer should just stop paying for healthcare and we'll all just go to the emergency room for free.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

The private sector is shedding jobs by the thousands every day. But Republicans would rather have people be unemployed by the private sector than employed by the public sector. (Rep. Rodgers insisted that every single job that the economic recovery plan creates be in the private sector.)

Only the federal government has the resources to stave off the disaster that will surely befall us if we let the free market take us further over the cliff.

The Republicans keep reiterating Hooverisms.

Why?

Because they’re ideologically bankrupt.
Republicans Go Back to Hoover in Response to Obama’s Stimulus Bill | The Progressive

Republicans want to socialize the losses and privatize the profits.

Perfect example, the Iraq war. The tax payers are paying $10 billion a month and Blackwater/Haloburton/KBR are making a fortune.

Another example is illegal immigration. Republicans want to hire illegals for low wages and no healthcare. So what happens when they get sick? They go to the emergency room where the tax payers pay for their treatment.

Hell, every employer should just stop paying for healthcare and we'll all just go to the emergency room for free.

That is not the ideology. That is the corruption of it. This is what conservatives mean when they say that America is moving to the left.

 

[sealybobo]

The private sector is shedding jobs by the thousands every day. But Republicans would rather have people be unemployed by the private sector than employed by the public sector. (Rep. Rodgers insisted that every single job that the economic recovery plan creates be in the private sector.)

Only the federal government has the resources to stave off the disaster that will surely befall us if we let the free market take us further over the cliff.

The Republicans keep reiterating Hooverisms.

Why?

Because they’re ideologically bankrupt.
Republicans Go Back to Hoover in Response to Obama’s Stimulus Bill | The Progressive

Republicans want to socialize the losses and privatize the profits.

Perfect example, the Iraq war. The tax payers are paying $10 billion a month and Blackwater/Haloburton/KBR are making a fortune.

Another example is illegal immigration. Republicans want to hire illegals for low wages and no healthcare. So what happens when they get sick? They go to the emergency room where the tax payers pay for their treatment.

Hell, every employer should just stop paying for healthcare and we'll all just go to the emergency room for free.

That is not the ideology. That is the corruption of it. This is what conservatives mean when they say that America is moving to the left.

We are already on to this Republican tactic. When they fail, they say it was because they tried to work with the Democrats and that was their mistake.

What a joke. Deregulations and no oversite. So when the oil companies gouged us, no one looked into it. We were to just accept the lies/spin that people like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly were telling us.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Republicans want to socialize the losses and privatize the profits.

Perfect example, the Iraq war. The tax payers are paying $10 billion a month and Blackwater/Haloburton/KBR are making a fortune.

Another example is illegal immigration. Republicans want to hire illegals for low wages and no healthcare. So what happens when they get sick? They go to the emergency room where the tax payers pay for their treatment.

Hell, every employer should just stop paying for healthcare and we'll all just go to the emergency room for free.

That is not the ideology. That is the corruption of it. This is what conservatives mean when they say that America is moving to the left.

We are already on to this Republican tactic. When they fail, they say it was because they tried to work with the Democrats and that was their mistake.

What a joke. Deregulations and no oversite. So when the oil companies gouged us, no one looked into it. We were to just accept the lies/spin that people like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly were telling us.

It was because they tried to work with Democrats and that was their mistake. The Democrats have never been right about any issue related to economics or finance, and even their strongholds on social issues relating to tolerance and acceptance are nebulous and highly debatable.

There should be no regulation from people who have no real knowledge in the area of expertise that field requires, and government oversite is a bad idea because the government doesn't understand what they need to regulate enough to produce a positive result. You know, reducing the entire Republican or conservative platform to a puppet trick by Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly only shows your lack of understanding of the platform and your desire to eliminate the competition in the easiest way possible.

 

[sealybobo]

That is not the ideology. That is the corruption of it. This is what conservatives mean when they say that America is moving to the left.

We are already on to this Republican tactic. When they fail, they say it was because they tried to work with the Democrats and that was their mistake.

What a joke. Deregulations and no oversite. So when the oil companies gouged us, no one looked into it. We were to just accept the lies/spin that people like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly were telling us.

It was because they tried to work with Democrats and that was their mistake. The Democrats have never been right about any issue related to economics or finance, and even their strongholds on social issues relating to tolerance and acceptance are nebulous and highly debatable.

There should be no regulation from people who have no real knowledge in the area of expertise that field requires, and government oversite is a bad idea because the government doesn't understand what they need to regulate enough to produce a positive result. You know, reducing the entire Republican or conservative platform to a puppet trick by Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly only shows your lack of understanding of the platform and your desire to eliminate the competition in the easiest way possible.

Do you even get emails from the real conservatives? I do. Look at the advice they give people like you:

America needs a better Right than the GOP can provide American Conservative – Reid Buckley laments the lack of hard 'truth' in conservative commentary today, wondering who will be the one to speak out against the growth of government and champion real conservative principles. Buckley's first suggestion for conservatives: completely disassociate from the Republican Party.


This is from conservativehq.com and/or conservativesbetrayed.com

How are you still left to defend the treasonist bastards who ruined our economy? You still swallowing that this is Freddy/Fanny's fault?

You'll continue that lie until you figure out how rediculous it is. I won't tell you why either. I like it that you are so god damn wrong.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

We are already on to this Republican tactic. When they fail, they say it was because they tried to work with the Democrats and that was their mistake.

What a joke. Deregulations and no oversite. So when the oil companies gouged us, no one looked into it. We were to just accept the lies/spin that people like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly were telling us.

It was because they tried to work with Democrats and that was their mistake. The Democrats have never been right about any issue related to economics or finance, and even their strongholds on social issues relating to tolerance and acceptance are nebulous and highly debatable.

There should be no regulation from people who have no real knowledge in the area of expertise that field requires, and government oversite is a bad idea because the government doesn't understand what they need to regulate enough to produce a positive result. You know, reducing the entire Republican or conservative platform to a puppet trick by Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly only shows your lack of understanding of the platform and your desire to eliminate the competition in the easiest way possible.

Do you even get emails from the real conservatives? I do. Look at the advice they give people like you:

America needs a better Right than the GOP can provide American Conservative – Reid Buckley laments the lack of hard 'truth' in conservative commentary today, wondering who will be the one to speak out against the growth of government and champion real conservative principles. Buckley's first suggestion for conservatives: completely disassociate from the Republican Party.


This is from conservativehq.com and/or conservativesbetrayed.com

How are you still left to defend the treasonist bastards who ruined our economy? You still swallowing that this is Freddy/Fanny's fault?

You'll continue that lie until you figure out how rediculous it is. I won't tell you why either. I like it that you are so god damn wrong.

What you are trying to say is "I know you are right, badger, but I must remain loyal to the guys who call themselves Democrats and anti-loyal to the guys who call themselves Republicans.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You know you younger generations have been indoctinated by so many trueisms which are false, it little wonder our world is falling apart.

That's not really true, you know. Basically it's hugely overstating the case.

Wealth is created by labor and it doesn't really matter how that labor is originally funded.

The Hoover dam or the TVA project for examples are sources of great wealth and ones that were created by government funding.

Likewise the cross continental RR's only happened because the government invested huge money into the project in conjunction with private money.

I could go on with example after example- roads, bridges, ferries, damns, canals, educational systems...all created by governments, all creating more wealth than they cost, and all creating jobs and helping the commonweal, too.

When labor is funded by the government it means that other labor was not able to be funded because the government took that money from the private sector. So, when the government creates 100 new jobs, it also destroys 100 potential jobs.

The Truth About the "Robber Barons" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute

That article talks about James J. Hill who built a transcontinental railroad without any government subsidies, and how this railroad was more efficient than his government run competitors.

What policies did Hoover try to do to "fend off" the depression?

What policies of Hoover did Roosevelt "basically continue"?

The Hoover New Deal of 1932

Hoover's Attack on Laissez-Faire - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute

Those two are rather long, but here's another.

Myth #3: The U.S. economy slid into depression because Hoover, a believer in "rugged individualism," stood back and did nothing.

Answer: This is the standard explanation that one reads in U.S. history textbooks, but it is utterly false. First, Hoover was anything but a believer in free enterprise, as is evident not only from his actions as president but also from his actions, statements, and affiliations before he became president of the United States in 1929.

Hoover was very much a "progressive" and believed that government should intervene in economic affairs on a regular basis. In fact, a number of well-known socialists/progressives such as Jane Addams supported his bid for the presidency. (Both Democrats and Republicans courted Hoover; unfortunately for the Republicans, Hoover chose their party. History might have taken an interesting turn had Hoover cast his lot with the Democrats.)

In the wake of the crash and the subsequent liquidity crisis that occurred soon afterward as margin calls escalated after the stock market downturn, Hoover urged business and labor leaders to keep wages and prices high and not let them fall, believing that a "high wage" strategy would win the day. As banks began to fail and the amount of money in circulation began to fall, it became obvious just how dangerous Hoover’s strategy really was, since it prevented the necessary adjustment of prices for labor, capital, and commodities.

Hoover also signed the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930, one of the highest tariffs in the nation’s history, despite the fact that 1,000 economists signed a letter begging him not to do so. The effects of the tariff were swift: in the year after Hoover signed the Republican-led tariff, the nation’s unemployment level quickly climbed into double digits.

In 1932, the Hoover administration, alarmed that the federal budget deficit was growing, pushed through a huge series of tax increases. Top income tax rates were raised from 24 percent to near 70 percent, while taxes on other items were nearly doubled. Not surprisingly, the federal deficit grew even more after the passage of these punitive tax measures.

Rothbard also points out that Hoover attacked business leaders and the stock market, much in the same way that President George W. Bush and his amen corner in Congress and the media have been doing. Like the present media and political classes, Hoover sought to blame business leaders themselves for the economic downturn.

The U.S. Economy Is Not Depression-Proof - William L. Anderson - Mises Institute