World Politics

[ravens]

I will call my ego and tell it that, I am sure it will be devastated...

is it smart enough to pick up the phone!?!

 

[Anonymous]

is it smart enough to pick up the phone!?!

Oh, it makes bootie calls...

 

[Bala Verde]

Steele is ripping it up in Little Rock, Ar-Kansas:

The two [Ford and Steele] often traded jokes, especially when Steele panned President Barack Obama’s long-stated plan to let income tax rates return to higher levels for families making more than $250,000 a year.

"Trust me, after taxes, a million dollars is not a lot of money," Steele said.

How does the GOP crowd think about Steele? I don't think he is doing the party any favours, right?

 

[ravens]

Steele is ripping it up in Little Rock, Ar-Kansas:



How does the GOP crowd think about Steele? I don't think he is doing the party any favours, right?

Again, not to speak for repubs, he's a politician.

As for your ability to quote someone accurately, you have already proven you can willfully mis-quote, so I haven't acquainted myself with what he actually said or the context.

 

[Anonymous]

I was speaking only of the issue The Heritage Foundation, and CATO Institute have with FDR. Nothing more. My point being that neither you nor they have any examples to back up the implicit argument that your favored fiscal policy would have produced better results during the Great Depression. No examples at all. Not one. Yet you cite resources that claim to prove he did the wrong thing. Do you see the problem with saying he did the wrong thing, claiming that your ideas would have worked better, and having no real world example with which you can prove the assertion? It isn't like there are just a couple of countries that weathered the economic downturn of the 1930's. And the fact that not one used your ideas (though they were out there to be used. It isn't like you guys discovered some new toy that nobody had ever heard of.) does not seem to bother you in the slightest.

Here is the other kicker, we are discussing this because your intent in doing so is to paint the policies of the Obama administration as though they are bound to fail by citing FDR as precedent for your assertions. Couple of problems with that:
1. Debt as a percentage of GDP is nowhere near what it was during the 1930's. Not even close
2. Obama is this big socialist boogey man to you, yet he has not proposed ANYTHING like the New Deal. There is no bill to create the CCC, AAA, REA or anything like them. Yet you guys seem to think FDR is a credible measure of the Obama policy?

Look, again, I don't want to make this personal with you because you are an intelligent, well read person whose opinion happens to differ with mine. However, I address your critiques of the Obama presidency, and on many occasions, all I get from the right is more attacks and no answers regarding the beliefs you hold in regards to the direction of fiscal policy. Asking the question "How big should it be?" is not an answer. That is obfuscation of the point at hand which is this, come to the table with real numbers and real examples of your policies producing positive results in the eras you critique, or maybe don't make the critique. What I find is that most people hear the "taxes are bad, spending is bad" mantra and never ask questions of those making the proclamation because the just assume that must be right. However, I am not one of those people because I know the history they bastardize to make their dishonest points, and will confront the said fictional accounts whenever I hear the propaganda being spewed. Your theory is a paper tiger. Sorry, but that is just the way it is.

You keep attributing to me an argument I have never made. I understand the need for a mixed system. I am in no way arguing for pure capitalism. I forget who proclaimed capitalism as 'the least worst' system of govt/society.

Spending as a percentage of GDP is not at it's high point, that is true. But what you fail to mention is the previous high points were very short lived. What we have now is a sustained high that will eventually cripple this country because of accumulated debt.

"Government spending in the United States has steadily increased from seven percent of GDP in 1902 to 40 percent today.

Then came the Great Depression, in which famously President Roosevelt and the New Deal cranked spending up to 20 percent of GDP. World War II really showed how the United States could commandeer its national resources for all out war. Government spending peaked at just under 53 percent of GDP in 1945.


President Clinton famously said, in 1995, that the era of big government was over. But he was wrong. The post World War II era has been a golden age of government spending, and it shows no sign of ending. Although spending dropped back to 21 percent of GDP immediately after WWII, it steadily climbed thereafter until it hit a peak of 36 percent of GDP in the bottom of the recession of 1980-82. Thereafter government spending chugged along in the mid 30s until the mortgage meltdown of 2008. In the aftermath of bank and auto bailouts, government spending surged to wartime levels at 45 percent of GDP. The mortgage emergency seems to have ratcheted out-year spending up a notch. Near term government spending in the future is pegging at 40 percent of GDP."

Chart Key:
- Transfer to state and local
- Federal direct spending
- State direct spending
- Local direct spending

Chart 1: Government Spending 1902-2014
Click image to customize chartGovernment Spending started out at the beginning of the 20th century at 6.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). As you can see from Chart 1, the federal share of that spending was modest. But it was not to last. Spending got a big kick in World war I and ended up at about 12 percent of GDP in the 1920s

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_history



We are no longer in a position as a nation to continue with the accumulated debt. You may think is ok to be $14T underwater with something like $60T in un-funded obligations, but I don't.

Now as to Obama as a boogeyman. No. He's misguided. He has no more economic expertise than I do and I promise you he has less business experience. In terms of economic policy, I believe him to be significantly more socialist than you do. This is what worries me. He's demonized the capitalist system at nearly every opportunity (notwithstanding comments of the last couple of days), is actively pursuing limits on compensation (see pay czar), if left to his own devices would nationalize our healthcare, has nationalized GM, is very interested in social justice and social engineering through the re-distribution of earned wealth, has an extremely cozy relationship with big labor...

Yet you insist him to be moderate.

This is why I and many others are concerned;

"Socialism's failure in the former Soviet Union and in the other socialist countries stands as a clear and unquestionable warning as to which path any rational and sane people should never follow again. Government planning brought poverty and ruin. The idea of collectivist class and ethnic group-rights produced tens of millions of deaths and a legacy of civil war and conflict. And nationalized social services generated social decay and political privilege and corruption.

Unfortunately, America is not absorbing the lessons that should be learned from the socialist experience and, instead, is following the same path of destruction. "

This was written in 1993.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0393b.asp

And more:

"What gets produced, who produces it, where it gets produced, and what technologies and labor skills are used will no longer be determined solely by businessmen and entrepreneurs guided by the need to maximize profits by satisfying consumer demand. No, the private businessman, the entrepreneur, the investor will now have a governmental "partner." Through various financial subsidies and tax incentives, this partner will induce and stimulate those in the private sector to expand their investment and production activities in the directions that the government has decided are economically and socially desirable. The state will decide, even more than already, what kinds of communication and transportation networks America "needs." Presuming to know what skills and talents the American people should acquire to earn a good living in the future, the benevolent bureaucrats of Washington will create incentives for Americans to invest in certain types of technical and professional expertise."

I mean, does this sounds pretty much like Obama discussing his vision for a 'green' economy with cap and trade for example?

Again, written in 1993 but the author could have written this yesterday as Obama himself uses tht EXACT language.

As far as FDR doing the wrong thing, we will never know. we were in some economic trouble in 1980 and Reagan took a different approach. The situation was not the same and I'm not arguing that they were.

Here's another $ Multi-Billion boondoggle, ironically called "The Jobs Bill" that

" The Senate’s new bipartisan jobs bill likely would have only a modest effect on the US unemployment rate.

That is because the centerpiece of the legislation is a tax credit for companies that hire people who have been out of work for at least 60 days. Many economists say such credits are inherently inefficient employment-boosting tools."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100211/ts_csm/279799_1

How refreshing. The govt spending borrowed money on a program that ain't gonna work. Again.

 

[Anonymous]

All interesting points. Here are a couple more.
1. The spikes were the result of wars. We are currently fighting a very expensive one because of the technology necessary for its successful implementation. It will wind down. Maybe not end like it did with the defeat of the axis powers, but it will decrease in expense regardless.
2. You will also notice that from the late 50's until now, there has been a more steady level of spending wavering for certain, but nowhere near dropping to the lows of the first half of the 20th century. It is interesting because that happens to also coincide with the achievement of the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people in the history of mankind.

I have said all along that at the point where the economy can fully stand on its feet again, we need to cut back. That time is not now.

I also challenge you to show me where the government's plan is to keep General Motors a government entity, or where Obama has said that is his goal. The fact is that it isn't. The fact is that there has been a stimulating effect for the economy because of the Stimulus Package. No, it did not turn things around completely. Again, I ask you to find me the quote from Obama in which he said it would.

Your fears of him being the harbinger of socialist Utopian thought is just not backed up by anything but your fear of it happening. Again, I can name you 3 or 4 presidents of the 20th century who were far more socialist in their policies.

What I see is fear guiding political philosophy. Fine, happens all the time. What I believe however, is that the fears expressed in the Tea Party movement, and by those who see a looming tidal wave of debt that can never be paid off are nothing more than unrealistic fear expressing itself in a natural manner. Sorry, but I remain unconvinced that our current level of spending is unprecedented, and/or past anything that can be recovered in more favorable economic times.

As for a "green" economy. I just don't see the downside to moving towards creating jobs that will have a positive impact on the environment. Sorry, but I do believe in the preservation of our planet in a more left leaning manner than do you. I find it refreshing that we have a president that does too. Why is it that when the government provides subsidies for power companies to provide nuclear energy, you think its great, but when they do the same for other "green" movements, you think it is "socialism." Because the fact is that several pages back, you were all for government welfare for power companies if it made nuclear power more likely.

 

[ravens]

You keep attributing to me an argument I have never made. I understand the need for a mixed system. I am in no way arguing for pure capitalism. I forget who proclaimed capitalism as 'the least worst' system of govt/society.

Way to hang in there, no idea why! But at least this keeps you off the streets at night.

Winston Churchill, or as I like to call him, God's Other Son: "Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the
others."

 

[Anonymous]

Way to hang in there, no idea why! But at least this keeps you off the streets at night.

Winston Churchill, or as I like to call him, God's Other Son: "Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the
others."

I will again quote the man who sums up my beliefs quite well: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." Galbraith

 

[Anonymous]

Nice talking with you guys. I think I am going to take a break because all we do is talk past each other, and honestly, it isn't a character trait that serves me well. We disagree, but I do believe there is validity to the fiscal restraint you both express. I just don't buy the whole pie.

I am going to get on my trainer now, put on some Woody Guthrie (okay, Metallica) and do some interval training. Nice talking with you find chaps.

 

[ravens]

I will again quote the man who sums up my beliefs quite well: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." Galbraith

It was funnier the first time.

 

[ravens]

Nice talking with you guys. I think I am going to take a break because all we do is talk past each other, and honestly, it isn't a character trait that serves me well. We disagree, but I do believe there is validity to the fiscal restraint you both express. I just don't buy the whole pie.

I am going to get on my trainer now, put on some Woody Guthrie (okay, Metallica) and do some interval training. Nice talking with you find chaps.

Bon chance, until we meet again....

I can't say the Elvis line, you just used that on me, what, like a week ago? I shoulda stayed away. You are right, this does weigh our psyche's down.

 

[Anonymous]

All interesting points. Here are a couple more.
1. The spikes were the result of wars. We are currently fighting a very expensive one because of the technology necessary for its successful implementation. It will wind down. Maybe not end like it did with the defeat of the axis powers, but it will decrease in expense regardless.
2. You will also notice that from the late 50's until now, there has been a more steady level of spending wavering for certain, but nowhere near dropping to the lows of the first half of the 20th century. It is interesting because that happens to also coincide with the achievement of the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people in the history of mankind.

I have said all along that at the point where the economy can fully stand on its feet again, we need to cut back. That time is not now.

I also challenge you to show me where the government's plan is to keep General Motors a government entity, or where Obama has said that is his goal. The fact is that it isn't. The fact is that there has been a stimulating effect for the economy because of the Stimulus Package. No, it did not turn things around completely. Again, I ask you to find me the quote from Obama in which he said it would.

Your fears of him being the harbinger of socialist Utopian thought is just not backed up by anything but your fear of it happening. Again, I can name you 3 or 4 presidents of the 20th century who were far more socialist in their policies.

What I see is fear guiding political philosophy. Fine, happens all the time. What I believe however, is that the fears expressed in the Tea Party movement, and by those who see a looming tidal wave of debt that can never be paid off are nothing more than unrealistic fear expressing itself in a natural manner. Sorry, but I remain unconvinced that our current level of spending is unprecedented, and/or past anything that can be recovered in more favorable economic times.

As for a "green" economy. I just don't see the downside to moving towards creating jobs that will have a positive impact on the environment. Sorry, but I do believe in the preservation of our planet in a more left leaning manner than do you. I find it refreshing that we have a president that does too. Why is it that when the government provides subsidies for power companies to provide nuclear energy, you think its great, but when they do the same for other "green" movements, you think it is "socialism." Because the fact is that several pages back, you were all for government welfare for power companies if it made nuclear power more likely.

I do fear socialism. I do think Obama leans dangerously close as I believe he'd be head long down that road but for members of his own party that are scared of his aim too.

Our differences are probably chalked up to alternate universes I suppose. There is monumental down side to cap and trade. Take a look at Spain and their great failure in this arena.

"Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.

President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama's economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry."

But WTF, at least we can feel good about "saving" the planet.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46453

I think my comment about raising taxes to fund Nuclear Power was in jest. But who knows, I don't even remember what I had for dinner last night.

 

[Anonymous]

Nice talking with you guys. I think I am going to take a break because all we do is talk past each other, and honestly, it isn't a character trait that serves me well. We disagree, but I do believe there is validity to the fiscal restraint you both express. I just don't buy the whole pie.

I am going to get on my trainer now, put on some Woody Guthrie (okay, Metallica) and do some interval training. Nice talking with you find chaps.

Until tomorrow then

 

[cartman]

Churchill never said Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the
others. Ravens, I don't know where you have that from. He did however say Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. If you are going to quote God's second son you might try and get it right.

As for saying the US is following in the lead of the former east block countries with the new proposed healthcare reform is ****ing on the graves of those who died in the GULags.

 

[ravens]

Churchill never said Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the
others. Ravens, I don't know where you have that from. He did however say Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. If you are going to quote God's second son you might try and get it right.

As for saying the US is following in the lead of the former east block countries with the new proposed healthcare reform is ****ing on the graves of those who died in the GULags.

I deleted the post before you even posted this. We both would have done better to check before posting. (I notice your quote of me doesn't exist in your post.)

The word Democracy goes in the place of Capitalism in the aforementioned quote.

Here is his quote on capitalism: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;
the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
-- Churchill

I haven't the foggiest idea what your last paragraph is referencing. I am going to presume that is directed to a different poster. Of course, there are some in this forum, you know who you are, who will purposely misquote their ideological adversaries without saying so, so if you see that in a post quoted from me, I'd sure like to know which post.

Thou doth protest....

Shake a spear.

 

[Carboncrank]

I deleted the post before you even posted this. We both would have done better to check before posting. (I notice your quote of me doesn't exist in your post.)

The word Democracy goes in the place of Capitalism in the aforementioned quote.

Here is his quote on capitalism: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;
the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
-- Churchill

Sounds like capitalism with a sense of social responsibility would be just about right.

 

[Carboncrank]

Geez, how about the active hurricane seasons being attributed to global warming?

Thank God for AlGore.

They are, and they will get worse. There is a direct correlation between higher air temps that allow more moisture content in the air, and extreme long lived cyclonic events. And the Gulf of Mexico creates a collision zone that makes hurricanes and tornadoes worse.
Welcome to life in the US.

Climate change science predicts more extreme weather events. Global temps for Jan. were the highest in the history of the satellites that record them.

 

[ravens]

Dear Cartman,

Sincerely
Ravens

 

[Anonymous]

They are, and they will get worse. There is a direct correlation between higher air temps that allow more moisture content in the air, and extreme long lived cyclonic events. And the Gulf of Mexico creates a collision zone that makes hurricanes and tornadoes worse.
Welcome to life in the US.

Climate change science predicts more extreme weather events. Global temps for Jan. were the highest in the history of the satellites that record them.

Moronic drivel. Something you are quite good at.

Climate change science is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Moronic drivel. Something you are quite good at.

Climate change science is a contradiction in terms.

Kinda like compassionate conservative.

 

[Anonymous]

Kinda like compassionate conservative.

Exactly. We hate everyone and everything except all the money we can steal.

 

[ravens]

Exactly. We hate everyone and everything except all the money we can steal.

muahhahhahhhahhhahhaaa

Gotta run, I have to go dine on the flesh of young children.....

 

[Carboncrank]

Moronic drivel. Something you are quite good at.

Climate change science is a contradiction in terms.

This is not even something denied by half the stupid people any longer.
That puts you in the bottom half of stupid people.

Did you graduate high school? They teach the scientific method of investigation there.

Climate science is based on physical science. Even your TV weather man knows that.

You may not be familiar with the concept of too cold to snow, but where we've been hit by these record snows it's happening because temps aren't staying in the teens and lower twenties. So instead of having some snow followed by dry cold spells we have snow after snow after snow as the temp spends more time in the upper twenties and lower thirties. Extreme weather is a climate change prediction.

Next you're going tell me the world is only 6000 years old.

 

[Anonymous]

This is not even something denied by half the stupid people any longer.
That puts you in the bottom half of stupid people.

Did you graduate high school? They teach the scientific method of investigation there.

Climate science is based on physical science. Even your TV weather man knows that.

You may not be familiar with the concept of too cold to snow, but where we've been hit by these record snows it's happening because temps aren't staying in the teens and lower twenties. So instead of having some snow followed by dry cold spells we have snow after snow after snow as the temp spends more time in the upper twenties and lower thirties. Extreme weather is a climate change prediction.

Next you're going tell me the world is only 6000 years old.

You really should catch up on current events.

I saw that movie too. Global warming made it really cold. Great flick. Hey did Dennis Quaid get an Oscar for that one?

You really gonna lecture me on the climate? Ok, bring it.

 

[Carboncrank]

"Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.

President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama's economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry."

But WTF, at least we can feel good about "saving" the planet.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46453

.

This guy, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, who's study you quote is in the pocket of big oil and his study has been complete debunked.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...-spanish-clean-energy-push-a-cautionary-tale/

Dr. Calzada serves as a senior fellow at the Centre for the New Europe

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=106

And argued against climate change at Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. Funded by..

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland...-conference-new-york-funding-history-sponsors

You believe stupid stuff.

I can find you articles that prove green jobs to be a good idea. Would you like to see them?

Oh what the heck.. why not.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akjbUdlowd9c&refer=home

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akjbUdlowd9c&refer=home

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/03/gov_jennifer_granholm_tours_un.html

One thing for certain? The kind of manufacturing jobs we lost? Most of them we are not getting back no matter who's in the Whitehouse.