Well now! Surprise surprise...

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Your tunnel-vision is positively astounding. What part of the above scenarios can't you grasp?

Don't confuse rejection for ignorance. I understood it all, but it's wrong.

Then I should have stopped after your tunnel vision is positively astounding. Repeat.

Facts can be astounding.

 

[antagon]

KK tell me does the money EVAPORATE right after they spend it or does it CONTINUE to be spent OVER and OVER being taxed over and over. You just don't understand how simple it is!

You just don't understand that you don't create real wealth by taking from some and giving to others.

Well I would argue that putting money into the hands of those who will SPEND IT would be better for the economy since it would increase need for production and service center jobs. Or give money to those who DON'T need it so they can stuff their mattresses a bit more. I just don't get your FOOLISH attempt to justify "supply side" "trickle down" economics when we have done NOTHING but LOSE jobs and the AVERAGE wage adj for inflation has DECREASED!!! Now try to follow.....The AVERAGE WAGE HAS DECREASED!! That means the AVRAGE American has FEWER $s to spread around that means LESS demand for products.....Tell me just how EXACTELY how "Reaganomics" has IMPROVED our econ since the 80's.

intrest rates, tax rates, ---flation: these were a mess before reagan took office, by '82, '83 they were smoothed out. we were feeling a good buzz economically, tax was lower by 30% or so. spending was reasonable... then ronny took another swig or two and fiscal policy went all voodoo.

ever since those golden years of his first term, hacks have been drunk with the idea that tax cuts and 'small' government are the end-all be-all of government in an economy, and promote them despite the resulting deficits and the corresponding public/private competition for investment dollars.

you can hear the recipe tumbling around in the progressaphobic's skull: well, if less could be better, none would be best! ... add hacked-up econ and half-bake as loudly as possible.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

“…there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens’ spending and investment to the full extent of it quantity.” Ludwig von Mises

 

[antagon]

You just don't understand that you don't create real wealth by taking from some and giving to others.

I'm just curious whether you felt this strongly about government subsidies to Big Oil, even as they raked in record profits. The stated purpose was so that they could be free to invest in alternative energy research and development. So Big Oil basically took from you in the form of subsidies in order to expand their business. Likewise with private insurance companies which receive billions in tax credits every year to subsidize risks that turn out to be bigger than their policy coverages.

Of course. No private corporation or business should ever be given government subsidies.

lunatic.

go to bangladesh or somewhere where the government is small, there's more economic freedom, tax is low and nothings subsidized, except for free by outside charities.

even with a head-cold the US economy should be studied for its merits, you aim to emulate the worlds shithole's econ regimen.

if im wrong, you point me out this economy that walks your talk, even remotelty, without requiring long walks down dusty roads to fetch a pail of water.

 

[saveliberty]

76% Prefer Free Market Economy - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Liability]

“…there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens’ spending and investment to the full extent of it quantity.” Ludwig von Mises

I would like to take this opportunity to applaud your use of such a concise and insightful quote!



If the government is busy spending not just OUR money (taken as taxation), but ALSO money BORROWED from -- let's just say -- CHINA, then not only are WE deprived of the USE of OUR money but we are also going to have to get deprived of the use of the money the government borrowed PLUS interest!

The botton line is that we would all be a whole lot better off if the damn government would spend less of OUR money, take less of OUR money and let US do the spending of OUR money.

See? Your quote of Von Mises WAS concise!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm just curious whether you felt this strongly about government subsidies to Big Oil, even as they raked in record profits. The stated purpose was so that they could be free to invest in alternative energy research and development. So Big Oil basically took from you in the form of subsidies in order to expand their business. Likewise with private insurance companies which receive billions in tax credits every year to subsidize risks that turn out to be bigger than their policy coverages.

Of course. No private corporation or business should ever be given government subsidies.

lunatic.

go to bangladesh or somewhere where the government is small, there's more economic freedom, tax is low and nothings subsidized, except for free by outside charities.

even with a head-cold the US economy should be studied for its merits, you aim to emulate the worlds shithole's econ regimen.

if im wrong, you point me out this economy that walks your talk, even remotelty, without requiring long walks down dusty roads to fetch a pail of water.

Our economy did not become the best in the world because of government spending, but despite government spending.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

You just don't understand that you don't create real wealth by taking from some and giving to others.

Well I would argue that putting money into the hands of those who will SPEND IT would be better for the economy since it would increase need for production and service center jobs. Or give money to those who DON'T need it so they can stuff their mattresses a bit more. I just don't get your FOOLISH attempt to justify "supply side" "trickle down" economics when we have done NOTHING but LOSE jobs and the AVERAGE wage adj for inflation has DECREASED!!! Now try to follow.....The AVERAGE WAGE HAS DECREASED!! That means the AVRAGE American has FEWER $s to spread around that means LESS demand for products.....Tell me just how EXACTELY how "Reaganomics" has IMPROVED our econ since the 80's.

intrest rates, tax rates, ---flation: these were a mess before reagan took office, by '82, '83 they were smoothed out. we were feeling a good buzz economically, tax was lower by 30% or so. spending was reasonable... then ronny took another swig or two and fiscal policy went all voodoo.

ever since those golden years of his first term, hacks have been drunk with the idea that tax cuts and 'small' government are the end-all be-all of government in an economy, and promote them despite the resulting deficits and the corresponding public/private competition for investment dollars.

you can hear the recipe tumbling around in the progressaphobic's skull: well, if less could be better, none would be best! ... add hacked-up econ and half-bake as loudly as possible.

Reagan ALSO tripled our national debt...That always seems to be swept under the rug when touting how GREAT Reagan was.

 

[saveliberty]

Well I would argue that putting money into the hands of those who will SPEND IT would be better for the economy since it would increase need for production and service center jobs. Or give money to those who DON'T need it so they can stuff their mattresses a bit more. I just don't get your FOOLISH attempt to justify "supply side" "trickle down" economics when we have done NOTHING but LOSE jobs and the AVERAGE wage adj for inflation has DECREASED!!! Now try to follow.....The AVERAGE WAGE HAS DECREASED!! That means the AVRAGE American has FEWER $s to spread around that means LESS demand for products.....Tell me just how EXACTELY how "Reaganomics" has IMPROVED our econ since the 80's.

intrest rates, tax rates, ---flation: these were a mess before reagan took office, by '82, '83 they were smoothed out. we were feeling a good buzz economically, tax was lower by 30% or so. spending was reasonable... then ronny took another swig or two and fiscal policy went all voodoo.

ever since those golden years of his first term, hacks have been drunk with the idea that tax cuts and 'small' government are the end-all be-all of government in an economy, and promote them despite the resulting deficits and the corresponding public/private competition for investment dollars.

you can hear the recipe tumbling around in the progressaphobic's skull: well, if less could be better, none would be best! ... add hacked-up econ and half-bake as loudly as possible.

Reagan ALSO tripled our national debt...That always seems to be swept under the rug when touting how GREAT Reagan was.

Have you convinced yourself to max out all your credit cards, give the money to the government and improve the economy yet?

 

[antagon]

Well I would argue that putting money into the hands of those who will SPEND IT would be better for the economy since it would increase need for production and service center jobs. Or give money to those who DON'T need it so they can stuff their mattresses a bit more. I just don't get your FOOLISH attempt to justify "supply side" "trickle down" economics when we have done NOTHING but LOSE jobs and the AVERAGE wage adj for inflation has DECREASED!!! Now try to follow.....The AVERAGE WAGE HAS DECREASED!! That means the AVRAGE American has FEWER $s to spread around that means LESS demand for products.....Tell me just how EXACTELY how "Reaganomics" has IMPROVED our econ since the 80's.

intrest rates, tax rates, ---flation: these were a mess before reagan took office, by '82, '83 they were smoothed out. we were feeling a good buzz economically, tax was lower by 30% or so. spending was reasonable... then ronny took another swig or two and fiscal policy went all voodoo.

ever since those golden years of his first term, hacks have been drunk with the idea that tax cuts and 'small' government are the end-all be-all of government in an economy, and promote them despite the resulting deficits and the corresponding public/private competition for investment dollars.

you can hear the recipe tumbling around in the progressaphobic's skull: well, if less could be better, none would be best! ... add hacked-up econ and half-bake as loudly as possible.

Reagan ALSO tripled our national debt...That always seems to be swept under the rug when touting how GREAT Reagan was.

thats the voodoo part, voodoo (borrow-instead-of-tax) economics, and getting liquored up on tax-break kick-backs alluded to above.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I would argue that putting money into the hands of those who will SPEND IT would be better for the economy since it would increase need for production and service center jobs. Or give money to those who DON'T need it so they can stuff their mattresses a bit more. I just don't get your FOOLISH attempt to justify "supply side" "trickle down" economics when we have done NOTHING but LOSE jobs and the AVERAGE wage adj for inflation has DECREASED!!! Now try to follow.....The AVERAGE WAGE HAS DECREASED!! That means the AVRAGE American has FEWER $s to spread around that means LESS demand for products.....Tell me just how EXACTELY how "Reaganomics" has IMPROVED our econ since the 80's.

intrest rates, tax rates, ---flation: these were a mess before reagan took office, by '82, '83 they were smoothed out. we were feeling a good buzz economically, tax was lower by 30% or so. spending was reasonable... then ronny took another swig or two and fiscal policy went all voodoo.

ever since those golden years of his first term, hacks have been drunk with the idea that tax cuts and 'small' government are the end-all be-all of government in an economy, and promote them despite the resulting deficits and the corresponding public/private competition for investment dollars.

you can hear the recipe tumbling around in the progressaphobic's skull: well, if less could be better, none would be best! ... add hacked-up econ and half-bake as loudly as possible.

Reagan ALSO tripled our national debt...That always seems to be swept under the rug when touting how GREAT Reagan was.

Every year Reagan sent Congress a much smaller budget than the one Congress eventually passed. So tell us again how Reagan tripled the national debt.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

intrest rates, tax rates, ---flation: these were a mess before reagan took office, by '82, '83 they were smoothed out. we were feeling a good buzz economically, tax was lower by 30% or so. spending was reasonable... then ronny took another swig or two and fiscal policy went all voodoo.

ever since those golden years of his first term, hacks have been drunk with the idea that tax cuts and 'small' government are the end-all be-all of government in an economy, and promote them despite the resulting deficits and the corresponding public/private competition for investment dollars.

you can hear the recipe tumbling around in the progressaphobic's skull: well, if less could be better, none would be best! ... add hacked-up econ and half-bake as loudly as possible.

Reagan ALSO tripled our national debt...That always seems to be swept under the rug when touting how GREAT Reagan was.

Have you convinced yourself to max out all your credit cards, give the money to the government and improve the economy yet?

I don't use credit.......Unless you count my mortgage. No car payments no credit card payments.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

intrest rates, tax rates, ---flation: these were a mess before reagan took office, by '82, '83 they were smoothed out. we were feeling a good buzz economically, tax was lower by 30% or so. spending was reasonable... then ronny took another swig or two and fiscal policy went all voodoo.

ever since those golden years of his first term, hacks have been drunk with the idea that tax cuts and 'small' government are the end-all be-all of government in an economy, and promote them despite the resulting deficits and the corresponding public/private competition for investment dollars.

you can hear the recipe tumbling around in the progressaphobic's skull: well, if less could be better, none would be best! ... add hacked-up econ and half-bake as loudly as possible.

Reagan ALSO tripled our national debt...That always seems to be swept under the rug when touting how GREAT Reagan was.

Every year Reagan sent Congress a much smaller budget than the one Congress eventually passed. So tell us again how Reagan tripled the national debt.

He should have sent them back again.......The thing I DID respect about Reagan though.....He told that asshole in ALASKA that he would veto any spending package that included the "bridge to nowhere".

 

[MaggieMae]

76% Prefer Free Market Economy - Rasmussen Reports™

Gotta hand it to ol' Scott Rasmussen. He runs a conservative website and asks questions specifically designed FOR conservatives. Do conservative posters ever look at any other polls? Probably, but they don't confirm their agenda the way Rasmussen does so unless other polls represent perceived bad news for Obama, they pretend they don't exist.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well I would argue that putting money into the hands of those who will SPEND IT would be better for the economy since it would increase need for production and service center jobs. Or give money to those who DON'T need it so they can stuff their mattresses a bit more. I just don't get your FOOLISH attempt to justify "supply side" "trickle down" economics when we have done NOTHING but LOSE jobs and the AVERAGE wage adj for inflation has DECREASED!!! Now try to follow.....The AVERAGE WAGE HAS DECREASED!! That means the AVRAGE American has FEWER $s to spread around that means LESS demand for products.....Tell me just how EXACTELY how "Reaganomics" has IMPROVED our econ since the 80's.

intrest rates, tax rates, ---flation: these were a mess before reagan took office, by '82, '83 they were smoothed out. we were feeling a good buzz economically, tax was lower by 30% or so. spending was reasonable... then ronny took another swig or two and fiscal policy went all voodoo.

ever since those golden years of his first term, hacks have been drunk with the idea that tax cuts and 'small' government are the end-all be-all of government in an economy, and promote them despite the resulting deficits and the corresponding public/private competition for investment dollars.

you can hear the recipe tumbling around in the progressaphobic's skull: well, if less could be better, none would be best! ... add hacked-up econ and half-bake as loudly as possible.

Reagan ALSO tripled our national debt...That always seems to be swept under the rug when touting how GREAT Reagan was.

What is remembered about Ronald Reagan most, and why he is still looked upon as the icon of the GOP is that swaggering good ol' boy style, and the way he could rev up patriotism like no other. Forgotten (or not known in the first place) is that Reagan's huge deficit was the reason Bush 41 couldn't win reelection because he tried, in vain, to get it under control. Bush's "read my lips" mantra was short-lived when he had to renege on that promise and raise taxes.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I may have to go look into EXACTELY how the questions were presented. The FACT is that the way a poll is presented you can get the answers you WANT and that is a FACT and that is ALSO why polls are an inherently FLAWED place to get proof of a claim.

 

[MaggieMae]

intrest rates, tax rates, ---flation: these were a mess before reagan took office, by '82, '83 they were smoothed out. we were feeling a good buzz economically, tax was lower by 30% or so. spending was reasonable... then ronny took another swig or two and fiscal policy went all voodoo.

ever since those golden years of his first term, hacks have been drunk with the idea that tax cuts and 'small' government are the end-all be-all of government in an economy, and promote them despite the resulting deficits and the corresponding public/private competition for investment dollars.

you can hear the recipe tumbling around in the progressaphobic's skull: well, if less could be better, none would be best! ... add hacked-up econ and half-bake as loudly as possible.

Reagan ALSO tripled our national debt...That always seems to be swept under the rug when touting how GREAT Reagan was.

Every year Reagan sent Congress a much smaller budget than the one Congress eventually passed. So tell us again how Reagan tripled the national debt.

So in other words he caved. Where have I heard that before? He could have vetoed any spending bill, and he didn't. Neither did GWB.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Well I would argue that putting money into the hands of those who will SPEND IT would be better for the economy since it would increase need for production and service center jobs. Or give money to those who DON'T need it so they can stuff their mattresses a bit more. I just don't get your FOOLISH attempt to justify "supply side" "trickle down" economics when we have done NOTHING but LOSE jobs and the AVERAGE wage adj for inflation has DECREASED!!! Now try to follow.....The AVERAGE WAGE HAS DECREASED!! That means the AVRAGE American has FEWER $s to spread around that means LESS demand for products.....Tell me just how EXACTELY how "Reaganomics" has IMPROVED our econ since the 80's.

intrest rates, tax rates, ---flation: these were a mess before reagan took office, by '82, '83 they were smoothed out. we were feeling a good buzz economically, tax was lower by 30% or so. spending was reasonable... then ronny took another swig or two and fiscal policy went all voodoo.

ever since those golden years of his first term, hacks have been drunk with the idea that tax cuts and 'small' government are the end-all be-all of government in an economy, and promote them despite the resulting deficits and the corresponding public/private competition for investment dollars.

you can hear the recipe tumbling around in the progressaphobic's skull: well, if less could be better, none would be best! ... add hacked-up econ and half-bake as loudly as possible.

Reagan ALSO tripled our national debt...That always seems to be swept under the rug when touting how GREAT Reagan was.

That is because he was spending it all on the cold war. The USA is still here the USSR is gone. We won. It cost way too much but we won.

 

[SFC Ollie]

76% Prefer Free Market Economy - Rasmussen Reports™

Gotta hand it to ol' Scott Rasmussen. He runs a conservative website and asks questions specifically designed FOR conservatives. Do conservative posters ever look at any other polls? Probably, but they don't confirm their agenda the way Rasmussen does so unless other polls represent perceived bad news for Obama, they pretend they don't exist.

Maggie it has been shown on this forum that Rasmussen is one of the most if not the most accurate. Or at least he was for the last Presidential election.

 

[antagon]

Our economy did not become the best in the world because of government spending, but despite government spending.

thats bout the same as 'unlost saved stimulus jobs' logic. cause/paradox. try again.

i could show you anywhere with a respectable per-capita GDP and base my arguement that the government does play a supporting role. cause/effect.

you and saveliberty are on my list of laisez-fairists who need to back that 'despite' claim up with a case study of any laisez-faire economy in action. i could point out many 'freer' economies and say their state is a result of governments inability or lack of willingness to play the appropriate role. i could line 'em up. cause/effect

capitalism functions in the economy naturally as a horse runs. economics is nearly all directed at how government should nurture it and ride it.

your 'let horsey run free' shit defeats the point of having a great society. the economy is the fuel for that. your work is the fuel for your life, maybe your family's life, not the point of your life initself. i may be too presumtive there, but at any rate ya didnt even shoe the horse!

neither government nor the economy are the single virtues of american life. youve got the freedom to do as folks with guts have done, and overthrow some hack-job government. then you can make the economy, check that, freedom in the economy, the top priority for everybody there, but thats more authoritatian than taxes, kevin.

youre forcing freedom over peoples desire for a little bit of leadership, unity and structure, order and security. thats not american, that libertarian. i read your von mises quote, and ill guess where youre coming from... youre reading into the radical end of libertine economics. like marx, he's one of many perhaps fine thinkers and economists who id say lack a clue about humanity. those other desires beyond mere freedom are wanting in his model.

moreover, if you havent read his books yourself, but just his liberterian students, id suggest you get a copy or two. people quote economists far out of context and stretch their words to wild proportions after they die. ive got 3/4 volumes of on the wealth of nations... 19th century antiques. (looking for a vol 2) <---- better get some classics to understand where these later thinkers are coming from.

freedom is like hot sauce. not everyone likes it. me, i glaze my food with it, but its not for everybody. you may fancy drinking it, but americans want the beef!