antagon
The Man
- Dec 6, 2009
- 3,572
- 295
- 48
That's what I'm saying.
That wasn't what your OP conveyed. Entitlements for individuals as well as bailouts for corporations need to be eliminated.
Agreed.
consensus on utter poverty.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's what I'm saying.
That wasn't what your OP conveyed. Entitlements for individuals as well as bailouts for corporations need to be eliminated.
Agreed.
That wasn't what your OP conveyed. Entitlements for individuals as well as bailouts for corporations need to be eliminated.
Agreed.
consensus on utter poverty.
Just saying...
Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?
Just saying...
Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?
Laissez faire is great for corporations... for monopolies... for the rich.
destroys the middle class.
thanks but no thanks. the concept of living in a banana republic doesn't appeal to me.
just sayin.
Just saying...
Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?
Laissez faire is great for corporations... for monopolies... for the rich.
destroys the middle class.
thanks but no thanks. the concept of living in a banana republic doesn't appeal to me.
just sayin.
laissez faire is not good for business. i would narrow your beneficiaries to monopolies, alone. maybe add crooks and robber barons.
the rich as we know it would not benefit. we would have considerably fewer wealthy in the US if we had some laissez-faire garbage instead of our pro-business, pro-consumer economy.
no bailout, rabbi, no recovery - if even to the feeble extents we can claim a recovery today, and notwithstanding the wasteful and cronyistic nature of the TARP and the fed's action.
i'm sure your libertarian bullshit economics proposes we should halt entitlement spending to get out of a recession, too.
no bailout, rabbi, no recovery - if even to the feeble extents we can claim a recovery today, and notwithstanding the wasteful and cronyistic nature of the TARP and the fed's action.
i'm sure your libertarian bullshit economics proposes we should halt entitlement spending to get out of a recession, too.
We have spent more money on this bailout and gotten the most feeble recovery to date. Does this not suggest that spending all that money was a really, really bad idea? Does it not suggest that leaving the markets alone would have been a whole lot more preferable to what we have now?
It is not "libertarian bullshit" (I am not a libertarian). It is basic economics 101. Government can only give money to one person by taking it from another. In this case they have taken billions of dollars from productive people and companies and given it to unproductive people and companies. Look at Fannie/Freddie. How much equipemtn could, say, Oracle have bought with all that money and used it to turn a profit? Or Exxon?
People yammer about third world this and that. Has anyone noticed that the "third world", China, Singapore, even South Korea are eating our lunch on a daily basis? Meanwhile the "First World" of France and Germany and Greece are stagnating under exactly the policies being pursued here.
If people cannot understand this then they are too stupid to take part in any debate and should stay home eating Pringles and watching Three's Company.
no bailout, rabbi, no recovery - if even to the feeble extents we can claim a recovery today, and notwithstanding the wasteful and cronyistic nature of the TARP and the fed's action.
i'm sure your libertarian bullshit economics proposes we should halt entitlement spending to get out of a recession, too.
We have spent more money on this bailout and gotten the most feeble recovery to date. Does this not suggest that spending all that money was a really, really bad idea? Does it not suggest that leaving the markets alone would have been a whole lot more preferable to what we have now?
It is not "libertarian bullshit" (I am not a libertarian). It is basic economics 101. Government can only give money to one person by taking it from another. In this case they have taken billions of dollars from productive people and companies and given it to unproductive people and companies. Look at Fannie/Freddie. How much equipemtn could, say, Oracle have bought with all that money and used it to turn a profit? Or Exxon?
People yammer about third world this and that. Has anyone noticed that the "third world", China, Singapore, even South Korea are eating our lunch on a daily basis? Meanwhile the "First World" of France and Germany and Greece are stagnating under exactly the policies being pursued here.
If people cannot understand this then they are too stupid to take part in any debate and should stay home eating Pringles and watching Three's Company.
i hate to break it to you but the guy by the dumpster wasn't teaching economics 101. your presumptions dont abide with basic econ or follow logic, whatsoever.
no, that government spending coincides with a weak recovery does not indicate that it is the impetus alone. that is pin-headed. where econ 101 would tell you the components of the GDP are consumption, government spending, investment, and net exports, it is indicated that inputs including government spending are insufficient for strong recovery.
oracle doesnt buy equipment for the hell of it, rabbi. they buy on necessity. what is the point of your simpleton's argument about what oracle could have done with bailout money?
developing countries and developed countries are defined, in part, by the rates of growth in their economies. nevermind debate, rabbi, are you too stupid to understand that pointing to the planets developing economies' growth rates is a tumble with circular cause and consequence?
Limited government control over businesses, contracts, and the economy coupled with rule of law. The very ideas you swear up and down will turn us into third world countries, despite enormous evidence that the opposite is the case.Then tell us those ideas that you think gave us this success?