RINO Romney enters prez race

[TruthSeeker]

I would guess Clark thought that even you would realize that Bush kept war funding out of the budget for years, and that Obama put it back into the budget. And that the US has previously raised taxes in wartime, not cut them. And that the recession was caused by the collapse of the housing bubble.

But I think he gave you too much credit.

And I thought that you and Clark realized that the only jobs that GOVERNMENT creates are jobs funded by taxpayers, and that you and Clark realized that the government cannot create an economic "recovery" by borrowing trillions of dollars and bailing out the same banks and financial institutions and insurance companies that caused the housing bubble to burst, not to mention bailing out auto manufacturers and throwing money at fiscally irresponsible states, appeasing labor unions, offering mortgage "incentives" and bailouts, offering "cash for clunkers", printing more money, and letting a tax cheat orchestrate the whole thing.

But I think I gave you and your buddy Clark way too much credit.

 

[Pepper]

And I thought that you and Clark realized that the only jobs that GOVERNMENT creates are jobs funded by taxpayers, and that you and Clark realized that the government cannot create an economic "recovery" by borrowing trillions of dollars and bailing out the same banks and financial institutions and insurance companies that caused the housing bubble to burst, not to mention bailing out auto manufacturers and throwing money at fiscally irresponsible states, appeasing labor unions, offering mortgage "incentives" and bailouts, offering "cash for clunkers", printing more money, and letting a tax cheat orchestrate the whole thing.

But I think I gave you and your buddy Clark way too much credit.

Yes, government jobs are created by taxpayers. That doesn't make them unnecessary or unproductive.

Yes, you can create a recovery by economic stimulus. And you can prevent a complete meltdown by a bailout program. Our problem is that we've gone in for half measures.

I am employed in a county job. I take those dollars, I spend them at private businesses. That's how the world goes.

 

[Rick]

I am employed in a county job.

AH HA! A porkulus beneficiary! Well, that clears things up a bit.

 

[BigRob]

I am sick s**tless of people blaming the deficit in Obama. It wouldn't have mattered if Jesus was President, the deficit was factored in the second we declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan without funding it.

A bipartisan decision....and surely you are not going to blame deficits solely on the wars?

The recession resulting from the financial institutions' malfeasance created a snowball effect of unemployment and loss of state and federal revenue, cause and effect. If anything, the stimulus should have been twice as large.

The stimulus should never have happened to begin with. This whole idea that the government needs to "do something" is absurd. We are better off letting the market undergo a true correction than attempting to prop up bubble after bubble.

Unemployment has been steadily going down, slower than wanted, and growth has increased since 3 months into Obama's presidency.

Unemployment in February of 2009 (when the stimulus was passed) stood at 8.1%. Unemployment in May 2011 (two years after the stimulus) stands at 9.1%....and you are going to argue that unemployment has been coming down since the stimulus?

As for growth, yes, we are seeing positive growth, but it is nothing like what typically occurs coming out of recession. What do you suppose is the reason for that?

What mystery plan did the GOP have that I am unaware of to keep this from happening?

Why does the government have to keep it from happening?

Unless you mean just standing on the sidelines whining about the mess they created and lobbing grenades at the people trying to do something. Just how long do you think it should take to turn around 8 years of destructive administration?

This argument is pretty worn out...Just what in your mind is Obama responsible for?

 

[BigRob]

Yes, government jobs are created by taxpayers. That doesn't make them unnecessary or unproductive.

I think we can all agree that there are necessary, productive government jobs.

Yes, you can create a recovery by economic stimulus. And you can prevent a complete meltdown by a bailout program. Our problem is that we've gone in for half measures.

What size bailout would you have liked to have seen?

From the WSJ:

Deficits this year estimated to hit $1.65 trillion, are we really supposed to believe that more deficit spending will produce faster growth? Would $2 trillion do the trick, or how about $3 trillion? Two years after the stimulus debate began, the critics who said all of this spending would provide at most a temporary lift to GDP while saddling the economy with record deficits have been proven right.

I am employed in a county job. I take those dollars, I spend them at private businesses. That's how the world goes.

This is the broken window fallacy in action. The problem with your statement is that any money you have to spend was first taken from the economy through borrowing or taxes. At the core of your argument is the belief that the government is better able to spend money than the private sector. Is that really what you believe?

 

[clarkatticus]

Several trillion would be in the coffers were it funded as all wars should. Entitlement programs would be funded were they not raided. How many trillion did the financial institutions take out of the economy in their greed and avarice? Yes we bailed them out, you don't agree, but the GOP and everyone close to the situation sure did during the crisis. Of course, they have plausable deniability now, gutless pu**ys. Did the Dems have a hand in this? Hell yes, but the GOP was up to their arse in the blame. Show me a GOP program that has benefited the economy in the past 10 years. At the time of the crisis, the United States federal government was the only entity in the world with the wherewithall to avert a worldwide depression and upheaval-that was the consensus at the time so we did something. Not a perfect solution, but at least a decision toward a solution. Your revision of history is precious, it was known at the time that the GOP would make hay out of the decisions and situation since they were too spineless to affect their own plan.

 

[Rick]

Several trillion would be in the coffers were it funded as all wars should. Entitlement programs would be funded were they not raided.

Social security doesn't have any "funding" - it's merely a bookkeeping trick, since all the income is put in US treasury issues - ie, loaned to the government.

How many trillion did the financial institutions take out of the economy in their greed and avarice?

What do you mean - "take out of the economy"??

Show me a GOP program that has benefited the economy in the past 10 years.

According to leftwingers, who believe in their keynsian religion, the GOP under Bush must have tremendously benefitted the economy, since they ran up huge deficits from spending.

 

[Pepper]

That's not what Keynesian economics says. You don't understand what you're talking about at all.

 

[Pepper]

AH HA! A porkulus beneficiary! Well, that clears things up a bit.

I think we can all agree that there are necessary, productive government jobs.

Thank goodness! I hope you'll let Rick know.

What size bailout would you have liked to have seen?

I'd like to have seen Paul Krugman's advice followed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/09/krugman-obamas-stimulus-d_n_156547.html

This is the broken window fallacy in action. The problem with your statement is that any money you have to spend was first taken from the economy through borrowing or taxes. At the core of your argument is the belief that the government is better able to spend money than the private sector. Is that really what you believe?

That's an oversimplification of what I'm saying.

In a severe economic crisis, consumers stop spending money. The economy further contracts. The government is the spender of last resort. If the private sector isn't spending, then there's no one else left to spend.

You're taking what I believe should be done in a severe crisis, and saying I believe it should be a permanent situation. I hope I'm made it clear that there is a difference.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Of course there are "necessary" taxpayer-funded ("government") jobs at the local, county, state, and federal levels. There is no doubt about that.

The problem is, when "government" jobs are created out of thin air to "stimulate" the economy, regardless of whether these jobs are actually NEEDED or not, is nothing more than income redistribution, and senseless and irresponsible use of taxpayer revenues to create a false "economic recovery" atmosphere.

What makes this whole "economic recovery" scam even WORSE is the fact that the federal government is BORROWING money to create these government jobs, which means that our children and great-grandchildren are actually absorbing the debt for this perfect example of "robbing Peter to pay Paul".

When are politicians going to learn that the government can't fix anything by simply throwing money at it, and especially by throwing BORROWED money at it?

If we all ran our household budgets the way the government does, we would all be living in homeless shelters and rummaging through garbage dumpsters right now.

 

[Pepper]

There are public works projects that are not make work. They are not created out of thin air, they are improvements to the infrastructure that are desperately needed.

Yes, the money is borrowed. But as previously stated, to cut government spending in a recession causes the economy to further contract.

Yes, some things can be fixed by money.

When you talk about your household budget, you recite a well-worn conservative talking point-one that shows a lack of understanding of the difference between a home budget and a government budget. In any situation, both home and government will spend in response to a crisis. Nobody responds to a cancer diagnosis by saying "I'll have to put off treatment till I can afford it". Both home and government will borrow for necessities. Also, governments are not supposed to act like individual households. While it makes sense for households to cut back in a downturn, when a government does it, that makes the problem worse.

 

[Rick]

Of course there are "necessary" taxpayer-funded ("government") jobs at the local, county, state, and federal levels. There is no doubt about that.

The problem is, when "government" jobs are created out of thin air to "stimulate" the economy, regardless of whether these jobs are actually NEEDED or not, is nothing more than income redistribution, and senseless and irresponsible use of taxpayer revenues to create a false "economic recovery" atmosphere.

What makes this whole "economic recovery" scam even WORSE is the fact that the federal government is BORROWING money to create these government jobs, which means that our children and great-grandchildren are actually absorbing the debt for this perfect example of "robbing Peter to pay Paul".

When are politicians going to learn that the government can't fix anything by simply throwing money at it, and especially by throwing BORROWED money at it?

If we all ran our household budgets the way the government does, we would all be living in homeless shelters and rummaging through garbage dumpsters right now.

Well said. Leftwinger just can't get their limited intellects around the basic flaw in keynsianism - that to create a "stimulus", the money must come from creating new debt, new taxation, or printing currency - all of which have a deleterious effect on the economy. It's as if someone has a hole in their back yard, and to fix it, he digs another hole to fill the first one in. Keynsianism has now failed disastrously in two big outdoor esperiments - the Great Depression and the Obama rececession. Think they'd learn from that? Not a chance.

 

[Pepper]

Tell us your fix. Thanks.

 

[Rick]

Tell us your fix. Thanks.

ANOTHER pepper speck. I already have, but it didn't register with you, because all you hear is the koolaid sloshing in your skull.

 

[BigRob]

I'd like to have seen Paul Krugman's advice followed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/09/krugman-obamas-stimulus-d_n_156547.html

"Bigger" is not an answer. Put a numerical value on it.

That's an oversimplification of what I'm saying.

In a severe economic crisis, consumers stop spending money. The economy further contracts. The government is the spender of last resort. If the private sector isn't spending, then there's no one else left to spend.

You're taking what I believe should be done in a severe crisis, and saying I believe it should be a permanent situation. I hope I'm made it clear that there is a difference.

That is all fine and good, if the government then cut spending and eliminates waste down the road...something that rarely happens.