jmog;1002942 wrote: Some safety/social measures, enough for a civilized society, but not nearly the safety net we have now where you can go without a job for 2 years and still get paid by the government.

What you're implying is that the Americans on unemployment by and large are slothful and would rather stay on unemployment rather than find gainful employment. There is no evidence for this behavior by and large. The reality is that there is not enough demand for the supply of labor and even if every unemployed person were a hard working, self-reliant conservative, there is not enough demand for their labor to employ them all...and thus, it is necessary to have long-term unemployment insurance in this scenario (since nobody with power will do anything to increase the demand for their labor) in order to avoid even more widespread misery. Without the long term unemployment insurance, demand for labor, goods and services would be even less and unemployment would be even higher.

If you don't want to have long term unemployment insurance, support an expansionary employment program and policies that will allow debt burdened citizens to alleviate their debt burdens and revive the private economy....This could all be paid for with basically free money over the next couple of years (cheaper than the 3%+ surtax on millionaires that Harry Reid wants).

We have a common interest in defeating the unemployment crisis and pursuing full employment. If you don't want people being lazy and sucking on the government teet you need to support policies in pursuit of full unemployment which zero republicans with power are doing.

BoatShoes;1007336 wrote:What you're implying is that the Americans on unemployment by and large are slothful and would rather stay on unemployment rather than find gainful employment. There is no evidence for this behavior by and large. The reality is that there is not enough demand for the supply of labor and even if every unemployed person were a hard working, self-reliant conservative, there is not enough demand for their labor to employ them all...and thus, it is necessary to have long-term unemployment insurance in this scenario (since nobody with power will do anything to increase the demand for their labor) in order to avoid even more widespread misery. Without the long term unemployment insurance, demand for labor, goods and services would be even less and unemployment would be even higher.

If you don't want to have long term unemployment insurance, support an expansionary employment program and policies that will allow debt burdened citizens to alleviate their debt burdens and revive the private economy....This could all be paid for with basically free money over the next couple of years (cheaper than the 3%+ surtax on millionaires that Harry Reid wants).

We have a common interest in defeating the unemployment crisis and pursuing full employment. If you don't want people being lazy and sucking on the government teet you need to support policies in pursuit of full unemployment which zero republicans with power are doing.

You can't be serious...

I didn't imply anything, I just said that it is fiscally irresponsible to allow unemployment payments to go on for 2 years, period.

Actually there is evidence that if unemployment only lasts the original 26 weeks, instead of the current 99 weeks, that upon getting laid off someone would be much more motivated to find/take even a lower paying job. Trust me, I did this when I was laid off back in 2003, you quickly take a job to pay the bills and get rid of as many bills as you can when you KNOW you only have a couple months of unemployment.

If I knew I had nearly 2 years, come on, I'm going to take a few weeks off, stay around the house with the wife and kids, etc.

I know I am not alone here. When I was laid off before it was the last recession after 9/11, unemployment was up at 7% and I took crap jobs for awhile (tutoring, delivering pizza, etc) and went back to school to get my MS.

You can not deny that some people on unemployment, welfare, whatever are lazy. I didn't not say most or on average, I said some. Said people might be more motivated if they new the checks would stop coming in 6 months.

jmog;1007486 wrote:You can't be serious...

I didn't imply anything, I just said that it is fiscally irresponsible to allow unemployment payments to go on for 2 years, period.

Actually there is evidence that if unemployment only lasts the original 26 weeks, instead of the current 99 weeks, that upon getting laid off someone would be much more motivated to find/take even a lower paying job. Trust me, I did this when I was laid off back in 2003, you quickly take a job to pay the bills and get rid of as many bills as you can when you KNOW you only have a couple months of unemployment.

If I knew I had nearly 2 years, come on, I'm going to take a few weeks off, stay around the house with the wife and kids, etc.

I know I am not alone here. When I was laid off before it was the last recession after 9/11, unemployment was up at 7% and I took crap jobs for awhile (tutoring, delivering pizza, etc) and went back to school to get my MS.

You can not deny that some people on unemployment, welfare, whatever are lazy. I didn't not say most or on average, I said some. Said people might be more motivated if they new the checks would stop coming in 6 months.

Well apologies for suggesting you implied something you say you did not...but either way, it is NOT fiscally irresponsible to extend unemployment benefits in the current macroeconomic scenario. In fact, as long as there is a depressed economy is more fiscally harmful to the budget not to have such types of safety net expenditures.

And, the whole motivation concept misses the point when you're in a persistently demand depressed economy like we have been for nearly half a decade. Even if everyone who were unemployed could take a pill and instantly become perfectly motivated to take even the lowest paying job available there would not be enough jobs available to meet the supply of available labor. That is what it means when we have unemployment rates this high.

It is NOT fiscally irresponsible to have lengthy unemployment benefits in this scenario if you're not going to do anything as a society to restore demand for their labor because if their unemployment benefits are cut and there is no job available (which is what happens in this macro scenario!) then demand contracts even further (people aren't using the insurance money to buy food, pay rent, etc.) and more people are laid off and unemployment rises further.

Additionally, as even fewer people pay taxes and use their unemployment insurance, government outlays increase, growth slows and the deficit and debt get even worse.

Thus, as you can see, it is fiscally irresponsible NOT to have lengthy unemployment benefits if the government insists on waiting around for years for demand return. Now, if you would support actually doing something to employ people and restore demand for their labor then I would agree with you.

Any talk about increasing motivation to find a job is misplaced in this crisis. Sure that applies to people who get laid off in a robust economy at full employment but that does not apply here. Even if everyone were maximally motivated to take any available job shoveling poo many would not be able to find a job. If Christ himself were to come down and align everyone up with the available jobs that best suit them, there would not be enough jobs for all of the available workers. Thus, hoping to disincentivize laziness in a multi-year economic crisis with an oversupply of workers is not a good idea as benefits just run out and there are people who won't find a job, period. It does nothing to fix the problem of their being an oversupply of workers. An ultra-motivated oversupply of workers is still an oversupply of workers. On a micro-level a guy who might otherwise sit on the couch may choose to shovel gravel but we need to be concerned with macro-level results.

In the real world everyone has their own anecdotal story about the guy who was extra motivated and worked two crappy jobs versus the lazy guy who waited until his benefits were almost up but that has no bearing on what the proper macroeconomic policy ought to be. The fact that in the real world there are lazy people is a moot point.

The nearly indefinite unemployment benefits accomplishes what they want it to. It props up wages because no one is going to give up their free check to work for less money. It accomplishes the same thing Hoover and Roosevelt did in the 1930s. Of course propping up wages just means that fewer people will be employed, but that is of no consequence. We have plenty of inflation and subsidies propping up prices, and we have a floor under wages. They are doing the same things they did in the 1930s, which is why we have the same results. Propping up wages and prices in this environment is the last thing that should be done, but free markets aren't good for totalitarian governments, so we aren't going to bother giving those a try for the first time in well over 100 years.

"Now, if you would support actually doing something to employ people and restore demand for their labor then I would agree with you."

Get rid of the barriers for employment or production. It isn't a shock that we have such a high unemployment rate when the costs of hiring employees or being self-productive are so high due to government largesse and pencil pushing for bureaucrats that do nothing to stimulate the economy.

I got a notice this week that going forward to keep up with MCLE (mandated continuing legal education) I have to spend 4 hours in "live" classes. This is after I spent to pay for lifetime regular MCLE classes which one can watch online at your convenience. These four hours will likely cost me $500/year or more going forward - to what point? It is nothing more than putting one's hand in another's wallet, and padding the receipts for those that conduct these useless classes.

BoatShoes;1007541 wrote:Well apologies for suggesting you implied something you say you did not...but either way, it is NOT fiscally irresponsible to extend unemployment benefits in the current macroeconomic scenario. In fact, as long as there is a depressed economy is more fiscally harmful to the budget not to have such types of safety net expenditures.

And, the whole motivation concept misses the point when you're in a persistently demand depressed economy like we have been for nearly half a decade. Even if everyone who were unemployed could take a pill and instantly become perfectly motivated to take even the lowest paying job available there would not be enough jobs available to meet the supply of available labor. That is what it means when we have unemployment rates this high.

It is NOT fiscally irresponsible to have lengthy unemployment benefits in this scenario if you're not going to do anything as a society to restore demand for their labor because if their unemployment benefits are cut and there is no job available (which is what happens in this macro scenario!) then demand contracts even further (people aren't using the insurance money to buy food, pay rent, etc.) and more people are laid off and unemployment rises further.

Additionally, as even fewer people pay taxes and use their unemployment insurance, government outlays increase, growth slows and the deficit and debt get even worse.

Thus, as you can see, it is fiscally irresponsible NOT to have lengthy unemployment benefits if the government insists on waiting around for years for demand return. Now, if you would support actually doing something to employ people and restore demand for their labor then I would agree with you.

Any talk about increasing motivation to find a job is misplaced in this crisis. Sure that applies to people who get laid off in a robust economy at full employment but that does not apply here. Even if everyone were maximally motivated to take any available job shoveling poo many would not be able to find a job. If Christ himself were to come down and align everyone up with the available jobs that best suit them, there would not be enough jobs for all of the available workers. Thus, hoping to disincentivize laziness in a multi-year economic crisis with an oversupply of workers is not a good idea as benefits just run out and there are people who won't find a job, period. It does nothing to fix the problem of their being an oversupply of workers. An ultra-motivated oversupply of workers is still an oversupply of workers. On a micro-level a guy who might otherwise sit on the couch may choose to shovel gravel but we need to be concerned with macro-level results.

In the real world everyone has their own anecdotal story about the guy who was extra motivated and worked two crappy jobs versus the lazy guy who waited until his benefits were almost up but that has no bearing on what the proper macroeconomic policy ought to be. The fact that in the real world there are lazy people is a moot point.

The sad thing is that you actually believe your long diatribes. So the government has to spend money they don't have so that it doesn't lose more tax payers...basically is what you are trying to push huh?

jmog;1008930 wrote:The sad thing is that you actually believe your long diatribes. So the government has to spend money they don't have so that it doesn't lose more tax payers...basically is what you are trying to push huh?

Come on, jmog...don't you get it? If you are deep in unsustainable debt, the only way out is to double down on MORE debt. If your 10 credit cards are maxed out, get 20 more cards and keep on going. Keynesian policies will work if we only give them enough time and more rope.

Using this logic, the next time you see a drunk on the street, rush out and buy him a 5th of Jack Daniels and force him to down it as fast as he can chug. That will certainly help him to recover....or die trying.

BGFalcons82;1009004 wrote:Come on, jmog...don't you get it? If you are deep in unsustainable debt, the only way out is to double down on MORE debt. If your 10 credit cards are maxed out, get 20 more cards and keep on going. Keynesian policies will work if we only give them enough time and more rope.

Using this logic, the next time you see a drunk on the street, rush out and buy him a 5th of Jack Daniels and force him to down it as fast as he can chug. That will certainly help him to recover....or die trying.

I just don't get it, for a man who acts like he is so well educated on economics to believe this illogical horsecrap is unbelievable to me. Let's assume for a minute that BS really is as educated as he tries to come across, then the only explanation is that he was just brainwashed with this crap from his profs in college.

jmog;1009286 wrote:I just don't get it, for a man who acts like he is so well educated on economics to believe this illogical horsecrap is unbelievable to me. Let's assume for a minute that BS really is as educated as he tries to come across, then the only explanation is that he was just brainwashed with this crap from his profs in college.

What he believes is what has been mainstream economics for the last 80 years. He was taught it well. A majority of people educated in that field believe the same things. Now a good reason for that is that many were never taught any other school of thought, they were just told that Keynesian theory is the correct way to go.

The problem is with treating economics like a math problem that formulas can solve. An economy is trillions and trillions of exchanges between individuals who may or may not have different reasons for making those transactions. To think that any mathematical formula is going to predict and describe these behaviors is insane.

Manhattan Buckeye;1008546 wrote:"Now, if you would support actually doing something to employ people and restore demand for their labor then I would agree with you."

Get rid of the barriers for employment or production. It isn't a shock that we have such a high unemployment rate when the costs of hiring employees or being self-productive are so high due to government largesse and pencil pushing for bureaucrats that do nothing to stimulate the economy.

I got a notice this week that going forward to keep up with MCLE (mandated continuing legal education) I have to spend 4 hours in "live" classes. This is after I spent to pay for lifetime regular MCLE classes which one can watch online at your convenience. These four hours will likely cost me $500/year or more going forward - to what point? It is nothing more than putting one's hand in another's wallet, and padding the receipts for those that conduct these useless classes.

Notice I said "Demand" as we're in a demand side slump. Eliminating Barriers to Entry will not improve the demand for goods and services. CLE's are a bitch but eliminating them will not create more demand for legal services which is the problem right now. Your suggestion will not get consumers and businesses to spend their money on goods and services.


Also, because of the looking glass world of economics when interest rates are so low, eliminating barriers to entry can make things worse as the demand curve is upward sloping.

Nevermind of course that there's no real evidence for your claims that government largesse and pencil pushers are creating insurmountable barriers to hiring.

Bruce Bartlett, Republican and Economic Adviser for Ronald Reagan has a nice summary here: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/#more-132551

I like these quotes:

"No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber"

"regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment."

jmog;1009286 wrote:I just don't get it, for a man who acts like he is so well educated on economics to believe this illogical horsecrap is unbelievable to me. Let's assume for a minute that BS really is as educated as he tries to come across, then the only explanation is that he was just brainwashed with this crap from his profs in college.

Everything that I've written can be gleaned from Republican Greg Mankiw's (Romney's Chief Economic Adviser) widely read introductory macroeconomic textbook. It is I who am proposing textbook solutions. It is Republicans who speak of the inevitable punishments from Invisible Bond Vigilantes while hoping for the return of the mythical confidence fairy.

jmog;1008930 wrote:The sad thing is that you actually believe your long diatribes. So the government has to spend money they don't have so that it doesn't lose more tax payers...basically is what you are trying to push huh?

jmog;1008930 wrote:The sad thing is that you actually believe your long diatribes. So the government has to spend money they don't have so that it doesn't lose more tax payers...basically is what you are trying to push huh?

GDP = Private Consumption + Gross Domestic Private Investment + Government Spending + (Exports - Imports)

When you're in a liquidity trap with interest rates near zero (and only in these types of unique scenarios) and the government can borrow nearly for free at rates way lower than the long term growth rate, the government ought to spend to prevent the contraction of GDP in the midst of collapsing private spending and investment. When you take into account workers permanently leaving the labor force, the persistent collapse in private investment and spending over years, and the curtailed careers of younger workers it's not hard to see how the lower revenue from lower and lower gdp can offset any initial savings from austerity.

And of course the empirical real world has seen this happen in Europe. Just a few years ago Spain was running budget surpluses...they were a paragon of fiscal virtue if the public debt is your measuring stick...especially considering they had a free ticket to an all you can eat buffet of low interest rates.

Yet, the austerity policies for all imposed on Europe has sent even the virtuous spaniards into the land of large budget deficits. The best example is of course Ireland which is touted as a roaring success by austerity advocates which is in a depression level slump with almost double the unemployment rate that we have and interest rates on 10 year bonds at > 6% (even after crippling austerity). Then there's of course Iceland which was facing an incredibly bad financial crisis and chose to go the opposite rout and now has lower unemployment and and better output than Ireland.


Even the Wall street Journal is finally getting in the game and realizing that austerity was a folly;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203501304577088221198128632.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

Here's the Wall Street Journal Arguing that not extending unemployment insurance will make the budget deficit worse

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/07/07/cutting-off-unemployment-benefits-could-worsen-deficit/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Feconomics%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Real+Time+Economics+Blog%29


So basically the Wall Street Journal...the Conservative Mouthpiece pushed the same thing I'm "trying to push"

BGFalcons82;1009004 wrote:Come on, jmog...don't you get it? If you are deep in unsustainable debt, the only way out is to double down on MORE debt. If your 10 credit cards are maxed out, get 20 more cards and keep on going. Keynesian policies will work if we only give them enough time and more rope.

Using this logic, the next time you see a drunk on the street, rush out and buy him a 5th of Jack Daniels and force him to down it as fast as he can chug. That will certainly help him to recover....or die trying.

sovereign debt and budgets are not analogous to individual household debt and budgets. In fact, because households are strapped with debt and need to pay it down is part of the reason why private demand is still slacking and why the government needs to spend in its place or generate some inflation to alleviate their debt burdens. deflationary pressures and depressed incomes make it harder for people to pay off debt. But, it's tough to generate inflation when you're in our current scenario See: Helicopter Ben TRIPLING the monetary base and there being non-existent core inflation...we only experienced a slight uptick in commodity and food prices not attributable to the monetary expansion just as the IS/LM model suggests would happen.

When households are debt constrained, Uncle Sam can come in and borrow cheaply and put assets to work that otherwise wouldn't be and then the households can no longer be constrained by debt and deficit spending is no longer needed to support demand.

And also, our debt is not unsustainable. 1. We have over $200 trillion in assets as a citizenry that might be tapped if worse comes to worse like we did as a nation after the Civil War. 2. We have our own currency so could inflate it down. Inflation was higher than what we have in the 80's and helped President Reagan bring the national debt down. 3. Countries like the UK in WWII have been able to use expansionary fiscal policies without being punished by the bond vigilantes with debts as a percentage of gdp much higher than ours.

BoatShoes;1009731 wrote:sovereign debt and budgets are not analogous to individual household debt and budgets. In fact, because households are strapped with debt and need to pay it down is part of the reason why private demand is still slacking and why the government needs to spend in its place or generate some inflation to alleviate their debt burdens. deflationary pressures and depressed incomes make it harder for people to pay off debt. But, it's tough to generate inflation when you're in our current scenario See: Helicopter Ben TRIPLING the monetary base and there being non-existent core inflation...we only experienced a slight uptick in commodity and food prices not attributable to the monetary expansion just as the IS/LM model suggests would happen.

When households are debt constrained, Uncle Sam can come in and borrow cheaply and put assets to work that otherwise wouldn't be and then the households can no longer be constrained by debt and deficit spending is no longer needed to support demand.

And also, our debt is not unsustainable. 1. We have over $200 trillion in assets as a citizenry that might be tapped if worse comes to worse like we did as a nation after the Civil War. 2. We have our own currency so could inflate it down. Inflation was higher than what we have in the 80's and helped President Reagan bring the national debt down. 3. Countries like the UK in WWII have been able to use expansionary fiscal policies without being punished by the bond vigilantes with debts as a percentage of gdp much higher than ours.

Boat, I just can't come to grips here on your line of reasoning on your position here. Just can't. You are arguing that the 15 trillion in national debt is OK because it is backed by collateral?

If so, wouldn't it be a good idea to liquidate some of the fed's assets in order to reduce the deficit? How about we sell Yosemite Park to the Chinese? We could maybe call it.."Wun Hung Lo" Park. Maybe cut some slanty eyes in all the redwood trees for effect.

At some point, we need to evaluate exactly what money is...or in the present day, what it isn't.

If it were that simple, I'm sure the Greeks would have sold off bits and pieces of Athens.

Footwedge;1023911 wrote:Boat, I just can't come to grips here on your line of reasoning on your position here. Just can't. You are arguing that the 15 trillion in national debt is OK because it is backed by collateral?

If so, wouldn't it be a good idea to liquidate some of the fed's assets in order to reduce the deficit? How about we sell Yosemite Park to the Chinese? We could maybe call it.."Wun Hung Lo" Park. Maybe cut some slanty eyes in all the redwood trees for effect.

At some point, we need to evaluate exactly what money is...or in the present day, what it isn't.

If it were that simple, I'm sure the Greeks would have sold off bits and pieces of Athens.

I didn't say it was good thing...just that are debt is not "unsustainable" which people just basically accept as self-evident these days. Hopefully we can come to a reasonable agreement to pay it down over the next decade in a way that won't harm growth too much. I don't think the $15 trillion debt is "ok" but I'm also not worried that the end is near.

And I'm not talking about the U.S. selling off things. Rather, I referred to the $200 trillion assets of the populace and country as a whole as a potential source for an emergency wealth tax if need be like we've done in the past. Obviously I would not like for this to be the course of action taken and hope it can be solved with more conventional policy tools but the point is...if there is a desire to continue this union that option could always be on the table just as a corporation might look to its shareholders for additional capital.

If the American people are the shareholders in the corporation that is the United States of America, there are $200 trillion worth of assets on its balance sheet and the directors of that corporation could go to the shareholders with some kind of directly apportioned wealth tax like we did after the Civil War in order to pay the debt down/off.

The debt should not be this high. We as a nation were irresponsible during the good times IMHO. But, the perpetual claims that our large debt means we are doomed are overblown IMHO. Of much more concern to me is the loss of skills, talent, potential output and productivity that has been happening for almost half a decade now.

Fair enough..I guess. You and I are 180 degrees apart on this one. The credit agencies aren't agreeing with you either.

My preference would be to write off the national debt...or at least a major portion of it. Murray Rothbard wrote...way back in 1992...that we should re[pudiate the national debt based on constitutional reasoning. I agree w/ Rothbard.

If the national debt is "different" than personal debt, then why are the taxpayers paying interest to the tune of appx. 6%? Fractional banking does not take a hiatus...because it is the national debt. Bankers need to make their nut you know.

Spending trillions..much of it channeled into stupid operations...like the war machine....is not the answer...as Keynes wrote. Incentivizing American businesses to remain in America (tax credits)...coupled with severe tax reprisals for taking their businnesses offshore (tax surcharges)...would be a much better proposition....than the lunacy of expanding the debt...to...IMO...unsustainable levels.

Republican reality, what they offer us in leadership
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Near the front of the pack we have racist, anti-semite followed by the flavor of month club Bachman, Perry, Cain, Gingrich (all rather quickly proven to be lacking) and now Santorum rising. But of course at the top we have Mitt, “"I think people recognize that I'm not a partisan Republican," Romney told a reporter after a rally in Worcester, "that I'm someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive." Romney 2002 ah if it were only true.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/13/romney_in_2002_i_m_someone_who_is_moderate_my_views_are_progressive_.html

I get the outrage over the newsletters but can we stop with the Paul is a racist crap. Would a racist vote for mlk day to be a recognized holiday. Or say for decades how unfair the drug war is to minoritys.

I will concede that he should have paid more attention to what was going out under his name.

pmoney25;1030128 wrote:I get the outrage over the newsletters but can we stop with the Paul is a racist crap. Would a racist vote for mlk day to be a recognized holiday. Or say for decades how unfair the drug war is to minoritys.

I will concede that he should have paid more attention to what was going out under his name.

He knew exactly what was in those newsletters.
The guy who called MLK “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours.”
Who voted in 1999 against giving him a Congressional Gold Medal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html
Who in 2007 took campaign contributions from Neo Nazis knowing the source.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244
Who in 2004 was the only Congressman voting against a bill hailing the 40[SUP]th[/SUP] anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill that began the end of dejure segregation
Saying he would have voted against the 1964 Bill.
Ron Paul ‘the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
He even was one of only two Congressmen who voted no for funding to catch murderers from the Civil Rights era.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2887585

Footwedge;1027243 wrote:My preference would be to write off the national debt...or at least a major portion of it. Murray Rothbard wrote...way back in 1992...that we should repudiate the national debt based on constitutional reasoning. I agree w/ Rothbard.

If the national debt is "different" than personal debt, then why are the taxpayers paying interest to the tune of appx. 6%? Fractional banking does not take a hiatus...because it is the national debt. Bankers need to make their nut you know.

Spending trillions..much of it channeled into stupid operations...like the war machine....is not the answer...as Keynes wrote. Incentivizing American businesses to remain in America (tax credits)...coupled with severe tax reprisals for taking their businesses offshore (tax surcharges)...would be a much better proposition....than the lunacy of expanding the debt...to...IMO...unsustainable levels.

Footie....We can agree on much of this.

Footwedge;1027243 wrote:Fair enough..I guess. You and I are 180 degrees apart on this one. The credit agencies aren't agreeing with you either.

My preference would be to write off the national debt...or at least a major portion of it. Murray Rothbard wrote...way back in 1992...that we should re[pudiate the national debt based on constitutional reasoning. I agree w/ Rothbard.

If the national debt is "different" than personal debt, then why are the taxpayers paying interest to the tune of appx. 6%? Fractional banking does not take a hiatus...because it is the national debt. Bankers need to make their nut you know.

Spending trillions..much of it channeled into stupid operations...like the war machine....is not the answer...as Keynes wrote. Incentivizing American businesses to remain in America (tax credits)...coupled with severe tax reprisals for taking their businnesses offshore (tax surcharges)...would be a much better proposition....than the lunacy of expanding the debt...to...IMO...unsustainable levels.

Well the credit agencies might not agree but the market certainly does. Investors with money on the line are loaning the U.S. money at incredibly low rates even after a downgrade of our national debt. Even with HUGE deficits we can still borrow at very low rates. If our debt was as risky as you say the interest rates would be much higher.

You really think purposefully defaulting on our debt...when it's not even as high as it has been in the past as a percentage of gdp....when it's the safest investment in the world, would be a good thing? The national debt was a moral issue for Murray Rothbard. The Constitution could not be more clear in granting the federal government the ability to borrow money.

And, even if you accept my point or don't, I don't see how more efficient spending and/or tax incentives and reprisals go against either position. Surely I could believe that we need to spend our money more efficiently and understand that our national debt is not the horrifying thing people are claiming it is.

For instance, most of our national debt is owned by Americans. That is, the U.S. governments liability is concurrently an asset for some American citizen who is also a shareholder in that same government.

But, although we differ on this issue, props (or is it "reps" what they say on the other forums???) for not only caring about the deficit/debt when a democrat is in the white house.

isadore;1030170 wrote:He knew exactly what was in those newsletters.
The guy who called MLK “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours.”
Who voted in 1999 against giving him a Congressional Gold Medal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html
Who in 2007 took campaign contributions from Neo Nazis knowing the source.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244
Who in 2004 was the only Congressman voting against a bill hailing the 40[SUP]th[/SUP] anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill that began the end of dejure segregation
Saying he would have voted against the 1964 Bill.
Ron Paul ‘the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
He even was one of only two Congressmen who voted no for funding to catch murderers from the Civil Rights era.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2887585

1. In regards to the Congressional Medal of Honor. Paul also voted against giving Rosa Parks the Medal. Instead of Government spending money, he actually offered a solution of having each member chip in Hundred Dollars of their own money to pay for it instead of having a bill to finance it. Same reasoning with why he did that for MLK.

2. As for the Civil Rights Act. The Libertarian point of view that all people are individuals and all worth the same and all should have the same rights. Libertarians do not put people into groups and therefore don't believe that ANY groups (Black, White, Straight , Gay, etc) should receive any special treatment by the Government. If you are consistent to that message, how does that make you a racist. I guarantee that if a bill came out tomorrow that said White people will get "insert special privilage here" Paul would vote no for it. I love when Democrats think that they are the party of the minority when their own party has been littered with Racists( Robert Byrd), and people who voted against the Civil Rights act. Al Gore's father for one. If you actually look at the voting for the act, The democrats actually opposed it more than the republicans did percentage wise. In 1957 John F Kennedy voted against the Civil Rights Act also. Does that make him a racist? Or when Kennedy had his brother wiretap Kings Phones at home and his office or bug his hotel rooms.

3. Do we really need to get into what type of people support each candidate. Yea some Neo Nazi contributed to his campaign. You know who else has, African Americans, Jews, Homosexuals, Muslims etc...

The Head of the Austin NAACP who has known Paul for well over 20 years has went on record saying that Dr Paul has cited DR King as one of his heroes for decades, well before Paul every was a relevant figure in Politics.

Ron Paul also has the highest support from Non Whites in the GOP race. These newsletters will soon be a thing of the past. No one who actually knows him or has heard him speak for the last 30 years believes he is a racist.

pmoney25;1030284 wrote:1. In regards to the Congressional Medal of Honor. Paul also voted against giving Rosa Parks the Medal. Instead of Government spending money, he actually offered a solution of having each member chip in Hundred Dollars of their own money to pay for it instead of having a bill to finance it. Same reasoning with why he did that for MLK.

2. As for the Civil Rights Act. The Libertarian point of view that all people are individuals and all worth the same and all should have the same rights. Libertarians do not put people into groups and therefore don't believe that ANY groups (Black, White, Straight , Gay, etc) should receive any special treatment by the Government. If you are consistent to that message, how does that make you a racist. I guarantee that if a bill came out tomorrow that said White people will get "insert special privilage here" Paul would vote no for it. I love when Democrats think that they are the party of the minority when their own party has been littered with Racists( Robert Byrd), and people who voted against the Civil Rights act. Al Gore's father for one. If you actually look at the voting for the act, The democrats actually opposed it more than the republicans did percentage wise. In 1957 John F Kennedy voted against the Civil Rights Act also. Does that make him a racist? Or when Kennedy had his brother wiretap Kings Phones at home and his office or bug his hotel rooms.

3. Do we really need to get into what type of people support each candidate. Yea some Neo Nazi contributed to his campaign. You know who else has, African Americans, Jews, Homosexuals, Muslims etc...

The Head of the Austin NAACP who has known Paul for well over 20 years has went on record saying that Dr Paul has cited DR King as one of his heroes for decades, well before Paul every was a relevant figure in Politics.

Ron Paul also has the highest support from Non Whites in the GOP race. These newsletters will soon be a thing of the past. No one who actually knows him or has heard him speak for the last 30 years believes he is a racist.

You are wasting your time arguing with Isadore. He wants us to scour the earth (not himself of course, but send someone else or their children) to drop bombs on every brown skinned human being in existence just in case they are one of the bad ones. I love the irony of him calling someone racist, especially someone like Paul who has fought for the rights of the minority for 30+ years.

One more point on the congressional medal. He also voted no for Ronald reagan and Pope John Paul II. Its obvious Ron Paul is so racist, he hates white people too.

Cleveland Buck;1030292 wrote:You are wasting your time arguing with Isadore. He wants us to scour the earth (not himself of course, but send someone else or their children) to drop bombs on every brown skinned human being in existence just in case they are one of the bad ones. I love the irony of him calling someone racist, especially someone like Paul who has fought for the rights of the minority for 30+ years.

LOL when he is not doing his best to provide aid and comfort to America's enemies your buddy the bigot has done his best to deny denigrate minorities and deny them basic rights.