I Wear Pants;904140 wrote:How is it so difficult for you to comprehend that maybe, just maybe, Obama isn't Karl Marx?

Prove it.

So spending has increased by an astounding 60+% in the last 7 years, and yet the president is blaming the taxpayers, especially the "millionaires". What a crock.

Unfortunately he is getting away with framing the debate as being a revenue problem, which it is absolutely is not, instead of the spending problem which it is.

It is pretty dangerous to have a guy in charge who is in panic mode, especially a radical. Hopefully we survive until Nov '12.

QuakerOats;904149 wrote:Prove it.

You're right. I made a bold claim about another person.

tk421;903611 wrote:Apparently Obama doesn't do what Obama says.

[video=youtube;aufAtuTwKlE][/video]

Obama: "You don't raise taxes during a recession."

Well in case you haven't notice Obama has mistakenly, like every single conservative on this site, primarily turned to deficit reduction as opposed to expansionary fiscal policy. It is a mistake in the first instance for Obama to suggest that we "pay for" his American Jobs Act with offsetting tax increases that would have less effect on aggregate demand (tax increases on higher income earners have less effect on aggregate demand than spending cuts or tax increases on lower income earners) considering we are in a depressed economy and verging on a double dip.

But, if it is the case that we're going to focus on the deficit and cut $4 trillion over the next decade, which you yourself have expressed support for, the most efficient way to get those savings and mitigate the effect on economic growth is to tax higher income earners. We shouldn't be taxing anyone more but if we're going to make the mistake and tax someone it should be higher income earners so we don't harm growth as much.

However, what you also don't point out is that spending cuts harm economic growth. We also shouldn't be cutting spending right now but likewise, if we are going to do so we ought to do it in ways that will not hamper growth which is difficult to do even with regard to foreign war spending. So if you're going to sit here and lament Obama for choosing to do something that may tame the deficit at the expense of growth you need to severely lament the very policies you yourself have proposed.

However, if the goal is deficit reduction the individuals who are best able to bear that public good are those who have disproportionately benefited from the economic growth of the last 30 years beyond their marginal productivity. We all agree we have medium term and long term budget concerns and firing everyone at the Dept. of Education and the Department of Energy for example, even if we suppose is correct in principle, will harm the economy much more over the next decade, resulting in larger deficits than raising taxes on the top 10% of income earners.

The same proposal offers lowering marginal rates on corporations which everyone here has supported so how but some props for that eh??? He really needs to talk about it more though because despite it not being this magical bullet I've seen people claim it to be it would go along way to defeat his anti-business image methinks.

Spending cuts by everyone are exactly what we need for real economic growth. Slashing federal spending will hurt the GDP number and the people and companies being bailed out by that money, but no one else will be hurt by it.

The positives are many. Reduced government spending will free up money that is buying treasury bills to invest in companies. Get the government out of subsidizing the economy and stop printing money and prices will fall so that poor people can afford to eat and drive their car. Reduced consumer spending and lower prices will allow people to save their money which can also be invested into companies. Then the hope is that people will invest this new found capital in productive businesses rather than government and Fed sponsored bubbles like Nasdaq or real estate.

Cleveland Buck;904539 wrote:Spending cuts by everyone are exactly what we need for real economic growth. Slashing federal spending will hurt the GDP number and the people and companies being bailed out by that money, but no one else will be hurt by it.

The positives are many. Reduced government spending will free up money that is buying treasury bills to invest in companies. Get the government out of subsidizing the economy and stop printing money and prices will fall so that poor people can afford to eat and drive their car. Reduced consumer spending and lower prices will allow people to save their money which can also be invested into companies. Then the hope is that people will invest this new found capital in productive businesses rather than government and Fed sponsored bubbles like Nasdaq or real estate.

Reduced consumer spending would result in a contraction of the economy, not growth.

And Nasdaq is a stock exchange like the NYSE. I don't see how it's a "fed sponsored bubble".

I Wear Pants;904657 wrote:Reduced consumer spending would result in a contraction of the economy, not growth.

And Nasdaq is a stock exchange like the NYSE. I don't see how it's a "fed sponsored bubble".

Reduced consumer spending would result in a temporary, sharp contraction of the economy. Then after people saved some money and prices fell maybe we could get back to producing something instead of having an economy based on borrowing money to spend it.

When the Fed keeps interest rates too low it is like free money for Wall Street to gamble with, hence the Nasdaq bubble in the 90s and the real estate and related financial instruments bubble in the 2000s.

I Wear Pants;904140 wrote:How is it so difficult for you to comprehend that maybe, just maybe, Obama isn't Karl Marx?

I agree...Obama isn't Karl Marx. But he is clearly a socialist who subscribes to Marxist philosophy.

Why do you lefties shy away from being associated with Marxist principles? You either believe in socialist economics or you do not.

Man up and embrace your beliefs.

Cleveland Buck;904704 wrote:Reduced consumer spending would result in a temporary, sharp contraction of the economy. Then after people saved some money and prices fell maybe we could get back to producing something instead of having an economy based on borrowing money to spend it.

When the Fed keeps interest rates too low it is like free money for Wall Street to gamble with, hence the Nasdaq bubble in the 90s and the real estate and related financial instruments bubble in the 2000s.

Yeah just like when Herbert Hoover tried cutting spending and prices dropped 10% 3 years in a row and all that happened was a massive deflationary spiral, 25% unemployment and a plutocratic transfer of wealth for debtors to creditors. The only time deflationary growth occurs is in emerging economies at the expense of developed economies as happened in the U.S. during the Second Industrial Revolution which of course is giving the rooster credit for the dawn.

None of that matters though because what the Austrian Business Cycle is really about is turning recessions into morality tales of hubris and downfall; that there is no readily knowable fix printed in books we can find in our neighborhood library but that we must repent for our being seduced by the sweet nectar of the Federal Reserve's low interest rates at the alter of a shiny worthless metal. (Nevermind at the same time offering unending praise for the entrepreneur despite suggesting they are so easily and routinely fooled by the men behind the curtain of the Federal Open Market Committee).

It has no explanation why the malinvestment in certain investment sectors (railroads in the 1890's, dot-coms in 1990's and now housing) contract the economy as whole unlike the Chicago School or Keynesian theories. Furthermore, nobody has managed to explain why bad investments in the past require the unemployment of good workers in the present who are just collateral damage in the tragedy being weaved by Central Bankers; beyond some vague appeal to the moralization of interest rates. It will never go away because there will always be people who are emotionally committed to the idea that the People as whole through their institutions in government cannot do something positive to stem off contractions in the business cycle. And that's just it; people who adhere to the Austrian Business Cycle Theories just weave them into their comprehensive anti-government worldview that they already have...it doesn't matter if it's no good because it fits the narrative. That's why you never hear any of them ponder about why entrepreneurs are so easily fooled into bad investments after they boldly assert the virtue of entrepreneurs.

But oh no! Don't keep rates low! It's like drinking a beer on Sunday morning instead of just accepting the hangover! Our awesome entrepreneurs will still be awesome I say despite inevitably being sucked into the next bad gamble because of Helicopter Ben! The unemployed must suffer and get de facto interest raises on their debt burdens or default as the must pay back the very banks who swindeled them with easy money with more expensive dollars! They must pay for being enticed by the easy money after all!

I can see why free market fundamentalist types gravitate to this idea because they fear the big government implications of a fiscal or monetary response to a recession or depression but it belongs on the ash heap of history but it refuses to go.

Check out this piece and review that the instinct to go austerity by policy makers for the last 100 and some years always makes things worse: Notice the similarities between Barack Obama and Prime Minister Macdonald in 1929.

http://www.tnr.com/article/economy/magazine/94963/economic-doom?passthru=ZTQ0NjYwNGNiYzc5MzhjYjUwN2ZlNTA0ZGNkNmIxNTQ&utm_source=Editors+and+Bloggers&utm_campaign=c6a9cc9992-Edit_and_Blogs&utm_medium=email

believer;904741 wrote:I agree...Obama isn't Karl Marx. But he is clearly a socialist who subscribes to Marxist philosophy.

Why do you lefties shy away from being associated with Marxist principles? You either believe in socialist economics or you do not.

Man up and embrace your beliefs.

Have you ever seen what actual socialists and marxists say about Barack Obama? Do you know anything about what Marx actually said about Capitalism? Do you know the difference between a country that centrally owns the means of production vs. a country that has strong economic freedom and capitalistic institutions despite having strong welfare states (like the four European Welfare states that have higher indices of economic freedom than the United States)? Do you understand that a progressive tax is not antithetical to free-market capitalism?

I mean for heaven's sake, President Bush actually expanded a government program wherein the government owns the means of production. President Obama passed a law that would insure that Private Enterprise remained the means of production in the same sector and you don't call President Bush a socialist. President Reagan increased the payroll taxes to keep paying for the socialist program that is "social security" rather than dismantle it.

Do you not agree that a person might believe in a largely free-enterprize system with certain regulatory institutions and social safety nets and not be considered a socialist or marxist?

There is a difference between marxism, socialism and contemporary liberalism.

After all of the Obama-apologizing and attempting to paint him in conservative colors, tell us the answers to this Boatman (or anyone else that thinks Obama is on the right track):

How does confiscating money out of the private sector...say $450,000,000,000 and giving it to the elitists in DC, whom are all-knowing, all-seeing, all-omnipotent, and always right, create overall wealth in the country? Don't forget to mention the elitists don't do this act for free....they take their cut, let's say 20% to be kind. So, in other words, how does stealing $450 billion from certain groups of people and redistributing $360 billion to other government "winners" create overall economic growth? Try to use the term, "bubbling up" in your response.

And the follow-up...How does allowing people to keep more of what they've already earned, sending less money to the all-knowing elitists to spend, create a recession? In other words, how do you explain an all-knowing entity that confiscates billions is better equipped to spur the economy and create wealth than the 310,000,000 individuals?

BoatShoes;904773 wrote:There is a difference between marxism, socialism and contemporary liberalism.

I'm no expert but I did, indeed, minor in political science and took several courses that directly addressed marxist theory. I do understand the subtle differences among marxism (communism), socialism, and "contemporary" liberalism.

Generally they all tend to gravitate towards Marx's famous premise: "from each according to ability to each according to need". The differences among the three are all a matter of degree and/or convenience with regard to the desire to confiscate wealth from the producers and redistribute to keep the masses fat & sedate.

Do I think Obama is a communist? No. Do I think he wants a socialist America? Absolutely.

It doesn't really advance the debate much to call Bam a Socialist. It's fun to watch the libs get all pissy over it of course, but it's really not an accurate term.

He's a hardcore liberal, and a sh!tty President. I don't think we need to go much beyond that.

fish82;904849 wrote:It doesn't really advance the debate much to call Bam a Socialist. It's fun to watch the libs get all pissy over it of course, but it's really not an accurate term.

He's a hardcore liberal, and a sh!tty President. I don't think we need to go much beyond that.

Hard core liberal vs. socialist. Not just a whole lot of difference but your point is well taken.

Sorry, fish. I'm not going to join you.

Barry has been trained by communists, schooled by socialists, attended the church of a hard-core social-justice redistributionist for over 20 years, appointed communists to un-vetted czar positions, given money to businesses he adores, given money to failing businesses, doesn't care about re-payment, and truly believes, "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs." There is no better definition of a marxist than to define him by the words he represents.

The real eye-opener is to see people defend him as if he believes in American Exceptionalism, believes in the American Spirit, trusts rugged individualism, and truly wants a government to only perform its Constitutional duties. One only needs to look at the ObamaKare boondoggle to understand his intentions: Concocted behind closed doors, written so as to be defined in the future by unelected bureaucrats, unpublished, unread, designed to be implemented after the next election, and in clear violation of the Constitution he was sworn to uphold.

No, fish. He is what he was trained, taught and groomed to be.

believer;904741 wrote:I agree...Obama isn't Karl Marx. But he is clearly a socialist who subscribes to Marxist philosophy.

Why do you lefties shy away from being associated with Marxist principles? You either believe in socialist economics or you do not.

Man up and embrace your beliefs.

It isn't black and white. One can agree with parts of a political ideology and disagree with others. Or agree that particular ideologies work better in some circumstances than others.

BoatShoes;904744 wrote:Yeah just like when Herbert Hoover tried cutting spending and prices dropped 10% 3 years in a row and all that happened was a massive deflationary spiral, 25% unemployment and a plutocratic transfer of wealth for debtors to creditors. The only time deflationary growth occurs is in emerging economies at the expense of developed economies as happened in the U.S. during the Second Industrial Revolution which of course is giving the rooster credit for the dawn.

Hoover didn't cut spending, it increased every year of his presidency. The Fed slashed interest rates until late 1931 when they had to raise them to stop the outpouring of gold redemptions overseas, but it's not like from 1929-1931 the lower rates helped anything anyway. What Hoover did do was institute wage controls putting millions out of work, and slap high tariffs on imports and heavily subsidize farmers and industries keeping prices high so that most people couldn't afford them. Put them out of work and make sure they starve. A great plan for recovery. Hoover had his own New Deal with public works and everything before FDR. It failed just as badly.

BoatShoes;904744 wrote: None of that matters though because what the Austrian Business Cycle is really about is turning recessions into morality tales of hubris and downfall; that there is no readily knowable fix printed in books we can find in our neighborhood library but that we must repent for our being seduced by the sweet nectar of the Federal Reserve's low interest rates at the alter of a shiny worthless metal. (Nevermind at the same time offering unending praise for the entrepreneur despite suggesting they are so easily and routinely fooled by the men behind the curtain of the Federal Open Market Committee).

Artficially low interest rates keep producers in the dark about the real state of the market, but it also allows others to gamble and drive up speculative bubbles. They weren't victims, they did what people do and took advantage. That doesn't make it sustainable. And if gold is a "shiny worthless metal", why are European central banks buying it for the first time in 25 years? They aren't happy with the trillion of U.S. dollars we made available to them last week?

BoatShoes;904744 wrote: It has no explanation why the malinvestment in certain investment sectors (railroads in the 1890's, dot-coms in 1990's and now housing) contract the economy as whole unlike the Chicago School or Keynesian theories. Furthermore, nobody has managed to explain why bad investments in the past require the unemployment of good workers in the present who are just collateral damage in the tragedy being weaved by Central Bankers; beyond some vague appeal to the moralization of interest rates. It will never go away because there will always be people who are emotionally committed to the idea that the People as whole through their institutions in government cannot do something positive to stem off contractions in the business cycle. And that's just it; people who adhere to the Austrian Business Cycle Theories just weave them into their comprehensive anti-government worldview that they already have...it doesn't matter if it's no good because it fits the narrative. That's why you never hear any of them ponder about why entrepreneurs are so easily fooled into bad investments after they boldly assert the virtue of entrepreneurs.

Low interest rates aren't the only thing that causes malinvestment. Everywhere the government spends that the market wouldn't is malinvestment. Government guarantees and implied bailouts cause malinvestment. Also, interest rates are the demand for money, so the only way to keep interest rates low is to increase the supply of money, decreasing the demand. This inflation isn't limited to the areas of malinvestment. That money works its way through the economy. That all needs to be corrected. That is why the whole economy is affected by these busts. And when prices fall, wages have to fall as well, and when you have minimum wage laws and other wage controls, you have higher unemployment.

Attacking it as a moral issue is just a lack of understanding of the Austrian theory. The government may be trying to help. They just can't. Calling entrepreneurs idiots for not being able to guess what real interest rates should be yet extolling centrally planned government economies that have failed throughout history doesn't make sense to me. If people want to prevent the bust they have to prevent the boom. It's just too tempting. People like easy money. If you can make money working Wall Street borrowing from the Fed at 1% and buy some mortgages with that money and package them up and sell them, then why work? The problem is that if you aren't going to produce anything then you have to import it, but to import you have to have something to export. We have been exporting dollars, but even Europe doesn't want any more dollars.

BoatShoes;904744 wrote: But oh no! Don't keep rates low! It's like drinking a beer on Sunday morning instead of just accepting the hangover! Our awesome entrepreneurs will still be awesome I say despite inevitably being sucked into the next bad gamble because of Helicopter Ben! The unemployed must suffer and get de facto interest raises on their debt burdens or default as the must pay back the very banks who swindeled them with easy money with more expensive dollars! They must pay for being enticed by the easy money after all!

The debt burden is part of the problem. Why work if you can borrow the money against your appreciating home and buy what you want? You are acting like this would be a boon for the banks. If prices fall and wages fall (or they don't and people are unemployed), people aren't going to pay these loans back. They will go bankrupt and move on with their lives. The banks will be insolvent yet again and will either fail or bankrupt this country getting bailed out again.

BoatShoes;904744 wrote: I can see why free market fundamentalist types gravitate to this idea because they fear the big government implications of a fiscal or monetary response to a recession or depression but it belongs on the ash heap of history but it refuses to go.

Check out this piece and review that the instinct to go austerity by policy makers for the last 100 and some years always makes things worse: Notice the similarities between Barack Obama and Prime Minister Macdonald in 1929.

http://www.tnr.com/article/economy/magazine/94963/economic-doom?passthru=ZTQ0NjYwNGNiYzc5MzhjYjUwN2ZlNTA0ZGNkNmIxNTQ&utm_source=Editors+and+Bloggers&utm_campaign=c6a9cc9992-Edit_and_Blogs&utm_medium=email

When you understand why you have the recession then you understand the response the government should have. If the government caused it then why would more government solve it? Throughout history the recessions following inflationary booms had been quickly resolved without help from the government, but now they last several years or more with it. Worthless paper fiat currency was on the ash heap of history because it has failed every time it was tried. I guess we should embrace that, though, over the only currency to last thousands of years.

I will make this simple ... I did not vote for the mofo the first time and I'm sure the hell not going to vote for the mofo in 2012.

Those of you that keep defending Obama answer this : Will you vote for Obama in 2012?


fixed

Belly35;905224 wrote:I will make this simple ... I did vote for the mofo the first time and I'm sure the hell not going to vote for the mofo in 2012.

Those of you that keep defending Obama answer this : Will you vote for Obama in 2012?

Without a doubt Belly....without a doubt

Belly35;905224 wrote:I will make this simple ... I did not vote for the mofo the first time and I'm sure the hell not going to vote for the mofo in 2012.

Those of you that keep defending Obama answer this : Will you vote for Obama in 2012?


fixed

I'll wait until I know who the other choices are before deciding that.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/promise-kept-sea-levels-fall-under-obama


My, my, my

An 'inconvenient' evaporation ......

QuakerOats;905820 wrote:http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/promise-kept-sea-levels-fall-under-obama

My, my, my

An 'inconvenient' evaporation ......

WOW...Barry does walk on water! Can we get rid of the EPA now?

Ty Webb;905761 wrote:Without a doubt Belly....without a doubt

You know what they say, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity

BGFalcons82;904923 wrote:Sorry, fish. I'm not going to join you.

Barry has been trained by communists, schooled by socialists, attended the church of a hard-core social-justice redistributionist for over 20 years, appointed communists to un-vetted czar positions, given money to businesses he adores, given money to failing businesses, doesn't care about re-payment, and truly believes, "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs." There is no better definition of a marxist than to define him by the words he represents.

The real eye-opener is to see people defend him as if he believes in American Exceptionalism, believes in the American Spirit, trusts rugged individualism, and truly wants a government to only perform its Constitutional duties. One only needs to look at the ObamaKare boondoggle to understand his intentions: Concocted behind closed doors, written so as to be defined in the future by unelected bureaucrats, unpublished, unread, designed to be implemented after the next election, and in clear violation of the Constitution he was sworn to uphold.

No, fish. He is what he was trained, taught and groomed to be.

Obviously the Post-of-the-Week, and certainly a nominee for the Post-of-the-Year.
Get a beer.

QuakerOats;905820 wrote:http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/promise-kept-sea-levels-fall-under-obama


My, my, my

An 'inconvenient' evaporation ......

Imagine that, we go through a decade or so of cooler temperatures overall (due to less solar activity) and bam, sea levels drop.