Obamas inguation speech--"replace FEAR with HOPE--remember?

[mash107]

These people who so obviously loathe Obama really got nothing.

Look at the quality of their complaints, folks.

They're as empty as the head of the former POTUS who left this nation in the mess it is currently in.

The republicans -are- why we're in this mess, yes.

But why do anything less than reverse course?

It seems life after all those Presidents weren't necessarily peachy. Spending -is- the problem, and Obama attempting to scare us into spending more is simply fascism.

 

[WillowTree]

obama is exactly what he presented himself to be, an America hating Marxist living in the US of KKKA Chicargo thug.. that's all he will ever be.

 

[dilloduck]

These people who so obviously loathe Obama really got nothing.

Look at the quality of their complaints, folks.

They're as empty as the head of the former POTUS who left this nation in the mess it is currently in.

The republicans -are- why we're in this mess, yes.

But why do anything less than reverse course?

It seems life after all those Presidents weren't necessarily peachy. Spending -is- the problem, and Obama attempting to scare us into spending more is simply fascism.

Odd----all that spending apparently didn't stimulate the economy. Why are we trying it again?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have equal contempt, enmity and distrust of all politicians.

There is nothing noble about any of them.

The ultimate goal of every human being is self interest. I have my self interest in mind when I say taxes should be lowered and government should be smaller and less intrusive. I believe I would be better able to meet my obligations as a husband and a father if this were true.

The question I ask regarding politicians is how does what they do serve their self interests?

What pleasure does a politician get from proposing and slamming wasteful spending inspired by fear mongering rhetoric down the throats of people?

The urge to save humanity as almost always a false front for the urge to rule

-H.L. Mencken

By spreading around money that is not theirs to special interest groups, politicians gain power and influence at no cost to themselves. There is no financial risk as they are not using their money. In fact these politicians vote themselves pay raises while using the money of those they serve (rule?) to expand their personal spheres of influence. There is no legal ramification to what they do, hell even tax evaders are given a pass because they are politically connected when I've seen liens put on houses for tax obligations of as little as a couple thousand dollars, politicians walk with no penalties who owe tens or hundreds of thousands.

Politicians can justify what would be reprehensible in the name of the royal "we" what one individual or one small group could not.

For example, the politicians acting as the royal we can pass a law that states, you will give to the government 35% of what you earn so that "we" may give that money to someone else, if you do not comply, we will incarcerate you, seize your assets and do it anyway.

If in a community of say 10 people, 6 of those people ransacked, the households of the other 4 and took under threat of violence 35% their property we would call that an injustice.

injustices committed in the name of the greater good are still injustices. Because a body of people can decree that what they do is not an injustice, does not make what they do just.

 

[Munin]

These people who so obviously loathe Obama really got nothing.

Look at the quality of their complaints, folks.

They're as empty as the head of the former POTUS who left this nation in the mess it is currently in.

The republicans -are- why we're in this mess, yes.

But why do anything less than reverse course?

It seems life after all those Presidents weren't necessarily peachy. Spending -is- the problem, and Obama attempting to scare us into spending more is simply fascism.

Odd----all that spending apparently didn't stimulate the economy. Why are we trying it again?

You got it all wrong, Bush never intended to stimulate the economy with spending. If you give tax cuts to the rich, pay billions for wars, cut budgets for infrastructure, schools, healthcare, have a fucked up trade balance with China, have an overvalued $ (thx to china buying US debt), ... you won't stimulate the economy on the long term.

We are not trying it AGAIN because we never spend enough money on economic matters for the last 8 years. Bush his investments didn't work, that doesn't mean that all other investments won't work either. That is just too simplistic. It is like buying stocks, you re saying that because you buy stocks one time and you loose all your money on buying stocks that you should never buy stocks again. No, you should invest your money in the right stocks so you can make money.

That is just the same with what we are doing now, we are investing. We need to invest in the right things, so we will get "return on investment".

 

[dilloduck]

There have been some claims by posters that all government spending stimulates the economy. I thought I would use this opportunity to dispel that myth.

 

[mash107]

Odd----all that spending apparently didn't stimulate the economy. Why are we trying it again?

You got it all wrong, Bush never intended to stimulate the economy with spending. If you give tax cuts to the rich, pay billions for wars, cut budgets for infrastructure, schools, healthcare, have a fucked up trade balance with China, have an overvalued $ (thx to china buying US debt), ... you won't stimulate the economy on the long term.

We are not trying it AGAIN because we never spend enough money on economic matters for the last 8 years. Bush his investments didn't work, that doesn't mean that all other investments won't work either. That is just too simplistic. It is like buying stocks, you re saying that because you buy stocks one time and you loose all your money on buying stocks that you should never buy stocks again. No, you should invest your money in the right stocks so you can make money.

That is just the same with what we are doing now, we are investing. We need to invest in the right things, so we will get "return on investment".

Not quite.. tax cuts are a reduction of income, not spending. That chart doesn't take into account tax cuts. It just looks at the Keynesian policies of Bush over the last 8 years and how dramatic spending was. It's true our deficit increased to levels never seen before, with a 5.3% increase in spending -and- a reduction of money that was coming in through taxes.. but that's not a point that's being made in that chart. Most of that 5.3% was probably spent on the military, which is what Keynes himself prescribes as very beneficial. Don't you think there are some politicians out in Washington, right now, that think wars are good for economies?

Also, one can't cut taxes without cutting spending. You'll just end up printing the difference, and why's inflation better for the economy than taking the money out directly?

 

[Munin]

Odd----all that spending apparently didn't stimulate the economy. Why are we trying it again?

You got it all wrong, Bush never intended to stimulate the economy with spending. If you give tax cuts to the rich, pay billions for wars, cut budgets for infrastructure, schools, healthcare, have a fucked up trade balance with China, have an overvalued $ (thx to china buying US debt), ... you won't stimulate the economy on the long term.

We are not trying it AGAIN because we never spend enough money on economic matters for the last 8 years. Bush his investments didn't work, that doesn't mean that all other investments won't work either. That is just too simplistic. It is like buying stocks, you re saying that because you buy stocks one time and you loose all your money on buying stocks that you should never buy stocks again. No, you should invest your money in the right stocks so you can make money.

That is just the same with what we are doing now, we are investing. We need to invest in the right things, so we will get "return on investment".

Also, one can't cut taxes without cutting spending.

Sure you can, you just create a budget deficit. What do you think we have had for the last 8 years?

Cutting taxes means that is will cost you money because you lose money you would otherwise receive. You need to cut spending if you cut taxes, that is at least if you have a responsible tax policy but that was a policy that did not exist for the last 8 years.

If I m a shop and I use discounts on my products then that will be costs (spending), this is the same with the government (only the products of the government are different).

Not quite.. tax cuts are a reduction of income, not spending. That chart doesn't take into account tax cuts. It just looks at the Keynesian policies of Bush over the last 8 years and how dramatic spending was. It's true our deficit increased to levels never seen before, with a 5.3% increase in spending -and- a reduction of money that was coming in through taxes.. but that's not a point that's being made in that chart. Most of that 5.3% was probably spent on the military, which is what Keynes himself prescribes as very beneficial. Don't you think there are some politicians out in Washington, right now, that think wars are good for economies?

Spending is dramatic if you don't spend wisely, if you spend wisely you should get a "return on investment" on the long run: which means you are able to spend more if your economy expands as a result of your initial investment. But continues "big" spending is never good if done by a government. That deficit is a combined one of all costs made, if bush hadn't cut taxes for the rich so much and fixed the tradepolicy with china we probably wouldn't even have had a deficit. (Also his expensive war in Iraq did not do much good either as you already pointed out in the war costs)

 

[Xenophon]

Yes, BO hopes he doesn't mess up, but fears he will.

He's right, if he has any brains we will veto el porko and demand a clean bill from queen nan the worst.

 

[Lycurgus]

Every once in a whiile, especially during these bad economic times, some of us need a good laugh. So here it is. Do you remember Barack Obama's inaguration speech? Where he again, so elequently enamored the masse's with: "We have replaced "FEAR" with "HOPE?"

Just a couple of days ago our newly elected, & intellectually superior, President Obama stated: "If you don't pass this bill immediately, this will lead to an castatrophic economic disaster, something of which we may never recover! And our new President wonders why consumer confidence is so low?

And they thought President Bush was dumb! Still LOL!

Obama has already matched Bush on Fear Tactics.

This guy is so full of shit. Between him, Pelosi, Reid, Frank and the others, along with the fair share of idiots from the right, we might as well just assume the position and stay there.

 

[Lycurgus]

Barack Obama is a courageous and noble leader. He has high ideals. We need them in these troubled times we live in.

I don't remember anyone expecting Bush II to do shit in his first month of office. Obama is way ahead of the curve.

hahaha .......... oh yeah, he is ahead of the curve alright. The problem is it's pitch dark out and his head lights are burned out!

 

[mash107]

You got it all wrong, Bush never intended to stimulate the economy with spending. If you give tax cuts to the rich, pay billions for wars, cut budgets for infrastructure, schools, healthcare, have a fucked up trade balance with China, have an overvalued $ (thx to china buying US debt), ... you won't stimulate the economy on the long term.

We are not trying it AGAIN because we never spend enough money on economic matters for the last 8 years. Bush his investments didn't work, that doesn't mean that all other investments won't work either. That is just too simplistic. It is like buying stocks, you re saying that because you buy stocks one time and you loose all your money on buying stocks that you should never buy stocks again. No, you should invest your money in the right stocks so you can make money.

That is just the same with what we are doing now, we are investing. We need to invest in the right things, so we will get "return on investment".

Also, one can't cut taxes without cutting spending.

Sure you can, you just create a budget deficit. What do you think we have had for the last 8 years?

Cutting taxes means that is will cost you money because you lose money you would otherwise receive. You need to cut spending if you cut taxes, that is at least if you have a responsible tax policy but that was a policy that did not exist for the last 8 years.

If I m a shop and I use discounts on my products then that will be costs (spending), this is the same with the government (only the products of the government are different).

Oh, I meant that one can't cut taxes without cutting spending and think that'll jump start the economy, like the Republicans had thought, or lessen the burden the government has on economic growth. Each $1 spent by the U.S. government is $1 that the people can't have. This is why the last 8 years have been disastrous, and if you look up other Presidents on that list, the years following their tenure weren't all too great either. Private market job growth, and by extension the amount of trade we export is inversely correlated with how much government spends, not taxed like some Republicans think.

Not quite.. tax cuts are a reduction of income, not spending. That chart doesn't take into account tax cuts. It just looks at the Keynesian policies of Bush over the last 8 years and how dramatic spending was. It's true our deficit increased to levels never seen before, with a 5.3% increase in spending -and- a reduction of money that was coming in through taxes.. but that's not a point that's being made in that chart. Most of that 5.3% was probably spent on the military, which is what Keynes himself prescribes as very beneficial. Don't you think there are some politicians out in Washington, right now, that think wars are good for economies?

Spending is dramatic if you don't spend wisely, if you spend wisely you should get a "return on investment" on the long run: which means you are able to spend more if your economy expands as a result of your initial investment. But continues "big" spending is never good if done by a government. That deficit is a combined one of all costs made, if bush hadn't cut taxes for the rich so much and fixed the tradepolicy with china we probably wouldn't even have had a deficit. (Also his expensive war in Iraq did not do much good either as you already pointed out in the war costs)

Yes, I understand that there's a multiplier effect, and that, in the long run, spending $1 on infrastructure is probably better than a $1 spent on a missile blowing things up in Iraq. But you're just looking at what is seen, and not what is unseen. The best economist looks at what collateral damage is going to be done by interfering in the market. Spending that $1 will prevent someone who wants to start a business, or hire someone new, or simply spending it in a manner see fit, from actually getting that $1. And Bush has spent many $1s over these last 8 years. The best way for that $1 to be spent is invested in something people want, and not just in the U.S.

 

[Skull Pilot]

, we might as well just assume the position and stay there.[/B]

A gift

 

[Munin]

Yes, I understand that there's a multiplier effect, and that, in the long run, spending $1 on infrastructure is probably better than a $1 spent on a missile blowing things up in Iraq. But you're just looking at what is seen, and not what is unseen. The best economist looks at what collateral damage is going to be done by interfering in the market. Spending that $1 will prevent someone who wants to start a business, or hire someone new, or simply spending it in a manner see fit, from actually getting that $1. And Bush has spent many $1s over these last 8 years. The best way for that $1 to be spent is invested in something people want, and not just in the U.S.

I don't know, I always thought that when the government spends money it usually spends it on both private and government people. For example even with the military the new planes, tanks, guns are bought from private companies. I could understand what you re saying if the government would spend the money on their own institutions that carry out all the work, so their institutions take away jobs from the private sector. But it doesn't work that way in the US anymore (in some other countries this is still the case however), $1 spend by the government means that the private sector gets at least $ 0,5 that product (or sometimes even service) to the government.

I can understand what you re getting at: it is "small government". Yeah, it is a good ideal that says you should have as less government as you can. Which is not bad actually if you know where to draw the line (for me the line is drawn at military (soldiers), the police, the fire department, schools, ... other things that re too dangerous to put in private hands for moral & national security reasons). But the thing is most of the things the government spends eventually end up as work for the private sector (infrastructure, ...). It is of course better to let the free market employ people and let them consume whatever they want, but even then a government is needed that protects that free market (for example to protect the free market it from monopolies, foreign state owned companies, ...) .

And some cases when the government spends are very unique: I m referring to the recent stimulus bill where the government wont take the place of the consumers because nobody is consuming much anyway.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Also, one can't cut taxes without cutting spending.

Sure you can, you just create a budget deficit. What do you think we have had for the last 8 years?

Cutting taxes means that is will cost you money because you lose money you would otherwise receive. You need to cut spending if you cut taxes, that is at least if you have a responsible tax policy but that was a policy that did not exist for the last 8 years.

If I m a shop and I use discounts on my products then that will be costs (spending), this is the same with the government (only the products of the government are different).

Oh, I meant that one can't cut taxes without cutting spending and think that'll jump start the economy, like the Republicans had thought, or lessen the burden the government has on economic growth. Each $1 spent by the U.S. government is $1 that the people can't have. This is why the last 8 years have been disastrous, and if you look up other Presidents on that list, the years following their tenure weren't all too great either. Private market job growth, and by extension the amount of trade we export is inversely correlated with how much government spends, not taxed like some Republicans think.

Not quite.. tax cuts are a reduction of income, not spending. That chart doesn't take into account tax cuts. It just looks at the Keynesian policies of Bush over the last 8 years and how dramatic spending was. It's true our deficit increased to levels never seen before, with a 5.3% increase in spending -and- a reduction of money that was coming in through taxes.. but that's not a point that's being made in that chart. Most of that 5.3% was probably spent on the military, which is what Keynes himself prescribes as very beneficial. Don't you think there are some politicians out in Washington, right now, that think wars are good for economies?

Spending is dramatic if you don't spend wisely, if you spend wisely you should get a "return on investment" on the long run: which means you are able to spend more if your economy expands as a result of your initial investment. But continues "big" spending is never good if done by a government. That deficit is a combined one of all costs made, if bush hadn't cut taxes for the rich so much and fixed the tradepolicy with china we probably wouldn't even have had a deficit. (Also his expensive war in Iraq did not do much good either as you already pointed out in the war costs)

Yes, I understand that there's a multiplier effect, and that, in the long run, spending $1 on infrastructure is probably better than a $1 spent on a missile blowing things up in Iraq. But you're just looking at what is seen, and not what is unseen. The best economist looks at what collateral damage is going to be done by interfering in the market. Spending that $1 will prevent someone who wants to start a business, or hire someone new, or simply spending it in a manner see fit, from actually getting that $1. And Bush has spent many $1s over these last 8 years. The best way for that $1 to be spent is invested in something people want, and not just in the U.S.

I have to question the much vaunted infrastructure multiplier.

I can see the reasoning for new roads, or roads that did not exist before that actually make the movement of people and goods more efficient.

But how does merely resurfacing an existing road or repairing an existing bridge result in the same multiplier? And aren't our state and federal gas taxes and excise taxes supposed to be for the upkeep of roads and bridges? If it's not being spent on that, what is it being spent on?

Do you really see roads being built where there aren't any roads now?

You can sink money into energy grids but aren't the taxes and fees we pay for electricity supposed to fund those improvements? If they aren't, what exactly are they being spent on?

 

[Munin]

I have to question the much vaunted infrastructure multiplier.

I can see the reasoning for new roads, or roads that did not exist before that actually make the movement of people and goods more efficient.

But how does merely resurfacing an existing road or repairing an existing bridge result in the same multiplier? And aren't our state and federal gas taxes and excise taxes supposed to be for the upkeep of roads and bridges? If it's not being spent on that, what is it being spent on?

Do you really see roads being built where there aren't any roads now?

You can sink money into energy grids but aren't the taxes and fees we pay for electricity supposed to fund those improvements? If they aren't, what exactly are they being spent on?

Yeah, but if you don't repair the road it will cause your traffic to be more expensive. Bad roads means that cars suffer more or can not drive fast, slower traffic means that goods will cost more because it takes more time for the transport and the damage done to the tires of the trucks (as a result of the bad condition of a road) will be payed by the consumers.

And if your bridge collapses, you will suffer the economic damage you had gained by building that bridge. Rebuilding/repairing old bridges is just as important as building new bridges.

Yes it is true, normally they should have been repaired with taxpayer money that was payed just for that reason. But it appears that a lot of politicians seem to think they can spare money on that because they think the road will last long enough anyway, but then you come to a point where you have a majority of bridges from the time of WWII that become dangerously old. I find it unfortunate that politicians are not more accountable for the mess they create, if an engineer builds a crappy bridge he probably spends the rest of his life in jail but if a politician refuses to repair a bridge and uses the money for some other "more useful" cause then people stand in line to applaud for him. It is just fucked up.