World Politics

[Murray]

Universal Health Care is not a personal decision but rather is financial blunder that is being forced on people regardless of their personal choice by a congress is not even planning on reading what they are voting on.

The very fact that in the U.S., society has to even debate about providing good health care to all its citizens is just sad.

 

[Anonymous]

Okay, here we go again:

I have one request for the "Governments should keep their hands off and allow the invisible hand of capitalism to the the sole economic force in our economy" crowd.

Show me one major industrial nation in the 20th Century that has used your philosophy to rise in economic standing. Just one.

Okay, maybe one more question for all of the "FDR's government programs had nothing to do with the recovery, it was only the war that did it and without the war, it would never have worked" crowd.

Name me one major industrial nation that recovered from the world wide depression of the 1930's who DIDN'T use governmental spending to help end the economic crisis in their country. Just one.

Now, while Socialism might be a great big ole boogie man to the Tea Baggers, the fact is that we have had Socialistic principles influencing our economic system for over 100 years. Interestingly, that is also true of all of the major industrialized nations who rose to power in the 20th century. In fact, the incorporation of Socialist principles in the government of the economy has also interestingly coincided with an increase in the largest rise in personal wealth for the greatest number of people in the history of mankind.

So, call me crazy, but a little more Socialism in more severe economic difficulties has yet to prove to be the undoing of any major industrialized nation.

Also note that we owe money to the largest command economy in the history of mankind. We owe them money, a lot of money. I guess that Socialism talk is good for people like Sarah and the Tea Bag Brigade, but the reality is a bit different. Who woulda' thought?

 

[buckwheat]

The difference being that Christ did not suggest his followers force this on anyone - they were to follow this creed as a personal decision..

Yeah, to use the free will his Father gave them. Jesus did try to appeal to their humanity to do the right thing. He laid out a very stark choice. . Guess what this says about the ones who didn't hear Christ's message. The ones on your side whose deaf ears Christ's message fell upon continue to proclaim the loudest that they are devout Christians. Their leaders start illegal discretionary wars saying the "higher" Father told them to do so. You apparently don't understand irony.

Universal Health Care is not a personal decision but rather is financial blunder that is being forced on people regardless of their personal choice by a congress is not even planning on reading what they are voting on.

A plan that works all over the rest of the civilized world.

 

[Anonymous]

Okay, here we go again:

I have one request for the "Governments should keep their hands off and allow the invisible hand of capitalism to the the sole economic force in our economy."

Show me one major industrial nation in the 20th Century that has used your philosophy to rise in economic standing. Just one.

Okay, maybe one more question for all of the "FDR's government programs had nothing to do with the recovery, it was only the war that did it and without the war, it would never have worked" crowd.

Name me one major industrial nation that recovered from the world wide depression of the 1930's who DIDN'T use governmental spending to help end the economic crisis in their country. Just one.

Now, while Socialism might be a great big ole boogie man to the Tea Baggers, the fact is that we have had Socialistic principles influencing our economic system for over 100 years. Interestingly, that is also true of all of the major industrialized who rose to power in the 20th century. In fact, the incorporation of Socialist principles in the government of the economy has also interestingly coincided with an increase in the largest rise in personal wealth for the greatest number of people in the history of mankind.

So, call me crazy, but a little more Socialism in more severe economic difficulties has yet to prove to be the undoing of any major industrialized nation.

Also note that we owe money to the largest command economy in the history of mankind. We owe them money, a lot of money. I guess that Socialism talk is good for people like Sarah and the Tea Bag Brigade, but the reality is a bit difference. Who woulda' thought?

That's not the point. There's tons of data out there to suggest FDR made the Great Depression much worse than it would have been. Interestingly, we are doing the same thing today.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258

"In their understanding of the Depression, Roosevelt and his economic advisers had cause and effect reversed. They did not recognize that prices had fallen because of the Depression. They believed that the Depression prevailed because prices had fallen. The obvious remedy, then, was to raise prices, which they decided to do by creating artificial shortages. Hence arose a collection of crackpot policies designed to cure the Depression by cutting back on production. The scheme was so patently self-defeating that it's hard to believe anyone seriously believed it would work."

"Industry was virtually nationalized under Roosevelt's National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Like most New Deal legislation, this resulted from a compromise of special interests: businessmen seeking higher prices and barriers to competition, labor unionists seeking governmental sponsorship and protection, social workers wanting to control working conditions and forbid child labor, and the proponents of massive spending on public works."

"Yet after all this, the grand promise of an end to the suffering was never fulfilled. As the state sector drained the private sector, controlling it in alarming detail, the economy continued to wallow in depression. The combined impact of Herbert Hoover's and Roosevelt's interventions meant that the market was never allowed to correct itself. Far from having gotten us out of the Depression, FDR prolonged and deepened it, and brought unnecessary suffering to millions.

Even more tragic is the lasting legacy of Roosevelt. The commitment of both masses and elites to individualism, free markets, and limited government suffered a blow in the 1930s from which it has yet to recover fully. The theory of the mixed economy is still the dominant ideology backing government policy. In place of old beliefs about liberty, we have greater toleration of, and even positive demand for, collectivist schemes that promise social security, protection from the rigors of market competition, and something for nothing.

"You can never study Franklin Delano Roosevelt too much," Gingrich says. But if we study FDR with admiration, the lesson we take away is this: government is an immensely useful means for achieving one's private aspirations, and resorting to this reservoir of potentially appropriable benefits is perfectly legitimate. One thing we have to fear is politicians who believe this."


Very sadly we keep repeating history. Insane? By some definitions, yes.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, to use the free will his Father gave them. Jesus did try to appeal to their humanity to do the right thing. He laid out a very stark choice, and made an appeal to their humanity. Guess what this says about the ones who didn't hear Christ's message. The ones on your side whose deaf ears Christ's
message fell upon continue to proclaim the loudest that they are devout Christians. You apparently don't understand irony.




A plan that works all over the rest of the civilized world.

Again, I'd like to point out the govt gives something to someone that has been taken from another.

Cost and access solutions can be achieved without govt running things.

 

[buckwheat]

That's not the point. There's tons of data out there to suggest FDR made the Great Depression much worse than it would have been. Interestingly, we are doing the same thing today.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258

"In their understanding of the Depression, Roosevelt and his economic advisers had cause and effect reversed. They did not recognize that prices had fallen because of the Depression. They believed that the Depression prevailed because prices had fallen. The obvious remedy, then, was to raise prices, which they decided to do by creating artificial shortages. Hence arose a collection of crackpot policies designed to cure the Depression by cutting back on production. The scheme was so patently self-defeating that it's hard to believe anyone seriously believed it would work."

"Industry was virtually nationalized under Roosevelt's National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Like most New Deal legislation, this resulted from a compromise of special interests: businessmen seeking higher prices and barriers to competition, labor unionists seeking governmental sponsorship and protection, social workers wanting to control working conditions and forbid child labor, and the proponents of massive spending on public works."

"Yet after all this, the grand promise of an end to the suffering was never fulfilled. As the state sector drained the private sector, controlling it in alarming detail, the economy continued to wallow in depression. The combined impact of Herbert Hoover's and Roosevelt's interventions meant that the market was never allowed to correct itself. Far from having gotten us out of the Depression, FDR prolonged and deepened it, and brought unnecessary suffering to millions.

Even more tragic is the lasting legacy of Roosevelt. The commitment of both masses and elites to individualism, free markets, and limited government suffered a blow in the 1930s from which it has yet to recover fully. The theory of the mixed economy is still the dominant ideology backing government policy. In place of old beliefs about liberty, we have greater toleration of, and even positive demand for, collectivist schemes that promise social security, protection from the rigors of market competition, and something for nothing.

"You can never study Franklin Delano Roosevelt too much," Gingrich says. But if we study FDR with admiration, the lesson we take away is this: government is an immensely useful means for achieving one's private aspirations, and resorting to this reservoir of potentially appropriable benefits is perfectly legitimate. One thing we have to fear is politicians who believe this."


Very sadly we keep repeating history. Insane? By some definitions, yes.

You're quoting Newt Gingrich? That's beyond funny.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Again, I'd like to point out the govt gives something to someone that has been taken from another.

Cost and access solutions can be achieved without govt running things.

They can, but rarely ever are.

 

[buckwheat]

Again, I'd like to point out the govt gives something to someone that has been taken from another.

Cost and access solutions can be achieved without govt running things.

Well, we've had 30 years of voodoo economics and it hasn't happened yet.

Your whole philosophy as well as that of most conservatives is based on selfishness.

Our form of government enables individuals to attain great wealth and for them to protect it. They're going to be taxed on their income. The selfish are going to be screaming bloody murder like spoiled children and this is something that will never change.

Odd how most self described conservatives won't even consider fighting in all these crazy wars they're fierce advocates of.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The difference being that Christ did not suggest his followers force this on anyone - they were to follow this creed as a personal decision. Universal Health Care is not a personal decision but rather is financial blunder that is being forced on people regardless of their personal choice by a congress is not even planning on reading what they are voting on.

But you could apply that to many things. The financial bailouts for example. Farm bills? How about defense spending for war?

I have one request for the "Governments should keep their hands off and allow the invisible hand of capitalism to the the sole economic force in our economy."

I think the problem TFF is that what we have in our government now, and what many "conservatives' think we partly have isn't really capitalism. And I don't mean all the social programs in our country. I'm talking about what many people view as being free-enterprise, laisse faire. This rarely exists in our country, except on the smallest level. Corruption, bribery, collusion, cronyism, all stretch to the farthest depths of government, often at the highest level. Huge industries and thousands of business and individuals have their hands so dipped in the cookie jar it's absurd. Anyone who thinks if we somehow eliminate all social programs, that we'll have a free-market capitalist society where competition determines the market is incredibly naive.

Does anyone think the $X billions used for the financial bailouts are truly "capitalism"?

 

[Anonymous]

You're quoting Newt Gingrich? That's beyond funny.

No, the author was discussing how wrong Gingrich was about FDR. You may want to read the article.

 

[buckwheat]

They can, but rarely ever are.

He seems to be unaware of the concommitant necessity and benefit of GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS.

Rolling blackouts anyone?

The ENRON scandal was caused by too much Government regulation?

 

[Anonymous]

Well, we've had 30 years of voodoo economics and it hasn't happened yet.

Your whole philosophy as well as that of most conservatives is based on selfishness.

Our form of government enables individuals to attain great wealth and for them to protect it. They're going to be taxed on their income. The selfish are going to be screaming bloody murder like spoiled children and this is something that will never change.
Odd how most self described conservatives won't even consider fighting in all these crazy wars they're fierce advocates of.

Laughable. Really.

You may want to look at who actually pays the taxes in this country.

 

[buckwheat]

No, the author was discussing how wrong Gingrich was about FDR. You may want to read the article.

Oh, I breezed through that nonsense quickly and didn't realize the whole last paragraph wasn't a Gingrich quote. Okay, so Gingrich is right about FDR, even the blind squirrel......

Bro, you're kidding with that article by Higgs? Who the hell is he? He ain't no Keynes or FDR for that matter.

I won't keep arguing here with you, because you believe you help the starving poor by giving a tax break to a billionaire and maybe the poor guy will hang on to get a few drops of water or crumbs off the table.. I believe if a hungry person comes up to you, you give him a PB and J.

The conservatives philosophy is so laughably bad that even GHWB called it

VOODOO.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Laughable. Really.

You may want to look at who actually pays the taxes in this country.

You mean the people with the most money pay the most taxes? Wow you are right that is patently unfair.
I bet none of us on this forum have enough money to really benefit from the programs of the people you support.

 

[Anonymous]

He seems to be unaware of the concommitant necessity and benefit of GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS.

Rolling blackouts anyone?

The ENRON scandal was caused by too much Government regulation?

Black outs and corruption at enron are two different things. Black outs in CA were due to Edison and other energy providers not being allowed by regulation to charge market rates for electricity.

 

[buckwheat]

Laughable. Really.

You may want to look at who actually pays the taxes in this country.

I should have said pathetic. I don't want the guy making minimum wage on a 40 hour work week picking up your $hit, to pay taxes.

You want to keep that guy an indentured servant.

If ol Rushbo is making 100M a year he should be paying 50M at least in taxes. The guy should actually still be in prison with all his doctor shopping bs.

So yes, you're right. The rich pay a lot more in taxes than the people who are doing real work.

 

[buckwheat]

Black outs and corruption at enron are two different things. Black outs in CA were due to Edison and other energy providers not being allowed by regulation to charge market rates for electricity.

When the truth isn't on your side you might as well lie.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/02/eveningnews/main620795.shtml

Consumers like Grandma Millie, mentioned in one exchange recorded between two Enron employees.

Employee 1: "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?

Employee 2: "Yeah, Grandma Millie man.

Employee 1: "Yeah, now she wants her f-----g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a—for f-----g $250 a megawatt hour."

It's clear from the tapes that Enron employees knew what they were doing was wrong, and now lawmakers are responding.

"I will offer an amendment to compel the Bush administration t oget off the dime and get back this money that has been stolen," said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash.

Another taped exchange between different employees regarding a possible newspaper interview goes like this:

Employee 3: "This guy from the Wall Street Journal calls me up a little bit ago…"

Employee 4: "I wouldn't do it, because first of all you'd have to tell 'em a lot of lies because if you told the truth…"

Employee 3: "I'd get in trouble."

Employee 4: "You'd get in trouble."

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, I breezed through that nonsense quickly and didn't realize the whole last paragraph wasn't a Gingrich quote. Okay, so Gingrich is right about FDR, even the blind squirrel......

Bro, you're kidding with that article by Higgs? Who the hell is he? He ain't no Keynes or FDR for that matter.

I won't keep arguing here with you, because you believe you help the starving poor by giving a tax break to a billionaire and maybe the poor guy will hang on to get a few drops of water or crumbs off the table.. I believe if a hungry person comes up to you, you give him a PB and J.

The conservatives philosophy is so laughably bad that even GHWB called it

VOODOO.

I believe you help a hungry person by showing them how to make a PB & J. And then get out of the way and allow him to do so. It's called self sufficiency.

As for Higgs, feel free to look a little.

 

[Anonymous]

When the truth isn't on your side you might as well lie.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/02/eveningnews/main620795.shtml

Consumers like Grandma Millie, mentioned in one exchange recorded between two Enron employees.

Employee 1: "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?

Employee 2: "Yeah, Grandma Millie man.

Employee 1: "Yeah, now she wants her f-----g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a—for f-----g $250 a megawatt hour."

It's clear from the tapes that Enron employees knew what they were doing was wrong, and now lawmakers are responding.

"I will offer an amendment to compel the Bush administration t oget off the dime and get back this money that has been stolen," said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash.

Another taped exchange between different employees regarding a possible newspaper interview goes like this:

Employee 3: "This guy from the Wall Street Journal calls me up a little bit ago…"

Employee 4: "I wouldn't do it, because first of all you'd have to tell 'em a lot of lies because if you told the truth…"

Employee 3: "I'd get in trouble."

Employee 4: "You'd get in trouble."

Never said enron was not corrupt.

The balck outs were caused because providers were paying more for electricty then they were able to charge.

 

[buckwheat]

I believe you help a hungry person by showing them how to make a PB & J. And then get out of the way and allow him to do so. It's called self sufficiency.

The issue isn't whether people know how to get by, although I appreciate your arrogantly simplistic answer. I'm done here but you'll find out the truth of humility and the Grace of God before your time here on Earth is over, one way or another.

As for Higgs, feel free to look a little.

Seriously, there's only so much time in a day to be injesting bs.

 

[Anonymous]

They can, but rarely ever are.

Are they even being seriously considered?

 

[Anonymous]

That's not the point. There's tons of data out there to suggest FDR made the Great Depression much worse than it would have been. Interestingly, we are doing the same thing today.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258

"In their understanding of the Depression, Roosevelt and his economic advisers had cause and effect reversed. They did not recognize that prices had fallen because of the Depression. They believed that the Depression prevailed because prices had fallen. The obvious remedy, then, was to raise prices, which they decided to do by creating artificial shortages. Hence arose a collection of crackpot policies designed to cure the Depression by cutting back on production. The scheme was so patently self-defeating that it's hard to believe anyone seriously believed it would work."

"Industry was virtually nationalized under Roosevelt's National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Like most New Deal legislation, this resulted from a compromise of special interests: businessmen seeking higher prices and barriers to competition, labor unionists seeking governmental sponsorship and protection, social workers wanting to control working conditions and forbid child labor, and the proponents of massive spending on public works."

"Yet after all this, the grand promise of an end to the suffering was never fulfilled. As the state sector drained the private sector, controlling it in alarming detail, the economy continued to wallow in depression. The combined impact of Herbert Hoover's and Roosevelt's interventions meant that the market was never allowed to correct itself. Far from having gotten us out of the Depression, FDR prolonged and deepened it, and brought unnecessary suffering to millions.

Even more tragic is the lasting legacy of Roosevelt. The commitment of both masses and elites to individualism, free markets, and limited government suffered a blow in the 1930s from which it has yet to recover fully. The theory of the mixed economy is still the dominant ideology backing government policy. In place of old beliefs about liberty, we have greater toleration of, and even positive demand for, collectivist schemes that promise social security, protection from the rigors of market competition, and something for nothing.

"You can never study Franklin Delano Roosevelt too much," Gingrich says. But if we study FDR with admiration, the lesson we take away is this: government is an immensely useful means for achieving one's private aspirations, and resorting to this reservoir of potentially appropriable benefits is perfectly legitimate. One thing we have to fear is politicians who believe this."


Very sadly we keep repeating history. Insane? By some definitions, yes.

The point is that Newt has no real world reference for his postulations. Talk about ivory towers. His position is that, contrary to the economic policy of every successful industrialized nation in the 20th century, he and the economists at the Cato Institute know better. Funny thing is that they have NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of their theory in a real world setting. Which makes it still an untested THEORY.

And no, Reagan doesn't count. During Reagan's time in office, we had a PLETHORA of Socialist government policies in place. Clinton was the first to really put a dent in that.

Lastly, data can be used to show just about anything you want it to if you dig hard enough. However, I would ask you to look at the real world, and not data and answer me this. Did every single major industrialized nation in the world recover from the world wide depression of the 1930's? Did any of those nations do ANYTHING other than increase the level of Socialist economic policy in an effort to help their economic problems? If the answer to the first question is "yes," and it is, and the answer to the second question is "no" and it is, then you have nothing but Newt and a theory to back up your claim. Me, I will take the real world.

Sorry, not trying to be snide, but the revisionist history being put forth by the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Rush Limbaugh, and others is laughably misrepresentative of actual outcomes. I have to say that for a group of people who moan about "elitism," they sure do expect us to swallow their's.

 

[Anonymous]

The issue isn't whether people know how to get by, although I appreciate your arrogantly simplistic answer. I'm done here but you'll find out the truth of humility and the Grace of God before your time here on Earth is over, one way or another.



Seriously, there's only so much time in a day to be injesting bs.

You are right. Careful consideration of both sides would be a complete waste of time.

 

[buckwheat]

Never said enron was not corrupt.

The balck outs were caused because providers were paying more for electricty then they were able to charge.

Q:And why was that?

A:Two Enron traders, from the office where the tapes were made, have admitted manipulating energy prices and pled guilty in court. Another goes on trial in October. Former Enron chief Ken Lay is the only top company official who has never been charged with any crime.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/enron-caused-california-blackouts-traders-say



Two days of rolling blackouts in June 2000 that marked the beginning of California's energy crisis were directly caused by manipulative energy trading, according to a dozen former traders for Enron and its rivals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1972574.stm

 

[buckwheat]

You are right. Careful consideration of both sides would be a complete waste of time.

I'd say thirty years of suffering after the Reagan "Revolution" is enough consideration. How old are you anyway?

Oh, goodbye....