Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
What good have they done?
Does driving the country leftward count?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Good column
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson030409.html
All government officials talk of spending wisely, but they never tell us the true extent of their financial malfeasance. Imagine if last week, in his address to Congress, President Obama had said something like the following: “We must cut spending, since the borrowed money must come from somewhere. Either we print more paper dollars, and eventually ruin the value of our currency in the manner now common in Zimbabwe or Argentina; or we continue to borrow from the Chinese, Japanese, and Europeans, and therefore mortgage both our honor and our autonomy; or, in the manner of War Bonds during the Second World War, we will have to ask you all to forgo stocks, 401(k)s, and real-estate investments, and instead each month, as part of your patriotic duty, buy U.S. government savings bonds that garner almost no interest, to subsidize our nation’s lavish borrowing and spending.”
Only that way could we have an honest national debate on whether the proposed high-speed rail between Vegas and LA is worth making Americans soon pay $10 for a Big Mac; or whether federally subsidized community organizing justifies more begging for help from the Communist government in Beijing; or whether we would all like to accept 0.05 interest on our government bonds to finance the mortgage bailout of those in arrears on their home debt.
In short, for each word devoted to spending, we need one word of honest exegesis about “paying for it.”
For the last 20 years, all our presidents have talked much about health care, education, and spending, while saying little. Either they were not honest enough to tell us the truth — or they were convinced that, like children, we simply couldn’t handle it if they did.
©2009 Victor Davis Hanson
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I agree.
BUT
"Only that way could we have an honest national debate on whether the proposed high-speed rail between Vegas and LA "
THAT was not part of the stimulus, despite numerous conservative pundits saying otherwise.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
The Bush administration used the 9/11 crisis and threat (if these are the right descriptive words) as the cover to accomplish all of the wettest dreams of the Right.
Flash forward to the current administration, only this time, the 'crisis and threat' is economic in nature, and the current administration is being accused of pursuing the spending wet dreams of the Left.
Deja vu, eh?
Plus ca change, plus cest la meme chose. (I'm only saying this frenchy stuff to get the Scumbaugh listeners all in a dither, and because John ELeazarian used some cool latin in an earlier post.)
In the case of the Bush Admin, the outcome was obvious, clear, and disastrous- the economy is a sh*thole, we're in an unending, unjustified war, most of his supporters evaporated, and even the GOP melted down. It remains to be seen if Obama can wreak the same havoc- it would be extremely difficult to imagine how he could do worse.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
apogee,
I'm always flattered when someone actually notices what I write. What's more, mirabile dictu, I agree with the thrust of your comment.
Seriously, (and in English)the Democrats are doing what I would expect them to do now that they control congress and the White House -- propose legislation and programs that veer to the left. Of course, I think they're on the wrong track, but I was outvoted.
As for what the Republicans did (I assume you mean recently, Dr. F. Remember it was the Republicans who ended slavery over the strong opposition of the Democratic party):
Reagan's policies ended an economic disaster under Carter. His insistance on the SDI, again over vicious Democratic opposition, was the single biggest factor ending the Cold War.
Republican policies have kept prices lower by resisting calls for protectionism and calls for punishing the successful.
Republican judges regained the proper balance between law enforcement and criminals.
Republicans have been the only bulwark against those who want to micromanage our lives. Those who disagree need only look at the California legislature to see what happens when Republicans become irrelevant.
Of course, they've also done some quite silly things, like the Schiavo case intervention, but most of the really stupid ideas I've heard from Republican individuals are just that -- ideas of individuals.
The Democratic party, on the other hand, has become the party of envy, sloth, and hypocrisy.
Envy: their attacks on "the rich" really attempt to legitimize covetousness. Some of us still think of "thou shalt not covet" as a commandment, not a suggestion. More importantly, the Democrats' attacks on "the rich" are actually attacks on those with high incomes which, as any economist (sorry, Norton) will tell you, are those whose wealth is changing. The Democrats have become the party of the wealthy precisely because they do the most to prevent changes in wealth -- in particular, new people becoming wealthy.
Sloth: The Deomocrats' policies have at their root a belief that no one is entitled to his or her income. They hate the idea that, in a free county, people are free to earn differing amounts of money for differing jobs and differing amounts of work. The feelings (they don't rise to thoughts) expressed on why "the rich" should do all the paying have their basis in a belief that differences in income reflect, primarily, luck.
Republicans believe that those who want to better themselves should work harder, learn better, try harder. Democrats think that those who want to better themselves should get the government to muscle what they want away from those who have it now.
Hypocrisy: Democrats advocate policies where someone else pays for their toys. Rob Reiner is the poster child for this. He advocates all sorts of taxes that fall on a very small percentage of people to pay for programs that, in theory, benefit many more than pay for them. I wonder how many people saw the irony of the movie industry tax break built into the latest California budget. Until the Democrats start proposing programs where everyone pays (and, just as importantly, knows what they pay [this is a dig at corporate taxation, lest you wonder], they demonstrate their hypocrisy.
Sadly, Democrats have no monopoly on hypocrisy. Republicans, too, try to pin the cost of some programs on those who don't benefit, and they certainly aren't above making a big government bigger on social issues.
John
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
"Reagan's policies ended an economic disaster under Carter."
Better look up reaganomics and reality. Unemployment? A one shot, short term recovery from a recession.
Income growth - sure, if you were rich (that's the rich in red - the rest of us in blue).
Lower tax rates bringing in more federal receipts? In your dreams - didn't happen.
Reality - the bill for Vietnam and Nixon/Ford policies came do during Carter's presidency. If anything, Carter's biggest mistake was he deregulated way, way too agressively. He deregulated airlines, trucking, railroads, oil and interest rates simultaneously which turned into a clusterf*#k. Deregulation was, on the other hand, at the very bottom of the Reagan priority list.
"His insistance on the SDI, again over vicious Democratic opposition, was the single biggest factor ending the Cold War."
And SDI? You clearly know nothing whatsoever about SDI. This claim is just devoid of fact in every respect. SDI did not, and will not, ever work. The Soviets have never had the slightest concern about SDI/Starwars. Why? Because they've always known that they could unbalance their warheads at any time, yet still be within acceptable targeting parameters and impervious to the threat of defensive anti-ballistic missile systems. Their cost to completely negate SDI? How about something on the order of $0.000001 for every $1.00 we spend on SDI / Starwars. SDI spending was completely irrelavant to the fall of the Soviet Union. SDI was and is a quintessential fool's dream. Let me repeat reality for you - Starwars will never, ever be capable of stopping a Chinese or Russian ballistic missile attack (and is useless against a swarm of dirt cheap cruise missles).
"Republican policies have kept prices lower by resisting calls for protectionism and calls for punishing the successful. "
Republicans and democrats share the blame for policies which have shipped American jobs overseas. Both have supported extremely protectionist agricultural price supports - until now, you know, Obama.
The rest of your rant isn't worth the effort to respond to. The right is so fond of folksy tales and they rarely ever let reality get in the way of a good lie.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Just passing thu, y ouare a like a kindy stone, will you ever just pass on thu adn be GONE?
I hope so, it can't happen qquick enough..
idiots like you ruined the country, and we may never recover..
FVCk yo uaand that limbergerbaugh shytehead, what a fvcking idiot he is.
YO uclearly do NOT undrstand hte dynamics of the republican party, your post sshow taht clearly.
you area fvcking moron, and I hope you get exasctly waht your kind desesrve, which will not be pleaseant at all.
A pox on you damned blind fools.
now go away for the good of the country.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
helyje and Dr. F., you're on:
I don't know what statistics you purport to show regarding unemployment, healyje. Here are the annual national unemployment rates as shown by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
This flatly contradicts your statement that there was one short-lived recovery. Swing and a miss, strike one.
"Income growth - sure, if you were rich (that's the rich in red - the rest of us in blue). " Read your own chart. It shows income growth, not income. In other words, the income of "the rest of us" grew. Sure, the highest incomes grew faster, but so what? Would you be happier if our incomes were shrinking, as long as those of "the rich" were sinking, too? Your griping about that only proves my point that the Democrats have become the party of envy. Swing and a miss. Strike two.
"Lower tax rates bringing in more federal receipts? In your dreams - didn't happen" Nice try, but I never said that it did or would. Unlike Democrats, I don't consider higher federal receipts something inherently desirable. I said lower tax rates (and specifically, lower marginal rates) stimulate economic growth, not governmental growth. Swing and a miss. Strike three.
You see, Dr. F., my arguments rest on facts. Yours on fiction.
John
Edit: I'd forgotten to mention, healyje, that your federal receipts chart shows the change in federal receipts. You're interpreting the first derivative as the function.
John
|
|
lockcrime
Boulder climber
Yukon
|
|
Ann Lamot said it well. "All spiritual traditions agree that if you dont look after the poor you are so doomed that not even Jesus or the Bhudda can help you".
Conservatives in America are now reaping what they have sown.
God help us!
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"As we go into the future, the graphs will show very high unemployment during the Obama administration."
Uhh...yeah. Pretty dang obvious, fattrad. The economic collapse and unemployment trends started on YOUR president's watch, remember? Or has the kool-aid effectively skewed your memory (again)?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
The Repub credo (as evidenced in jpt's pathetic 'rock chipping' thread) is basically, everyone is on their own- those who succeed get the stuff they earned (i.e. healthcare), and those who fail, don't get anything (especially anything from me). Anyone who fails is written off as a society-sucking welfare case who is just too lazy to get a job.
Apply this credo to the healthcare system, and they are quite happy to have it stay in the private sector- you get it (healthcare) if you pay for it; and you don't if you don't earn it.
A very narrow, self-oriented view of the world. Fact: the majority of those who are out of work are out for very valid reasons- probably related to the whims and challenges of the corporations Repubs hold so dear. The 'everyone for themselves' mentality is not conducive to a healthy, growing, evolving (oops- didn't mean to use that word with you R-Right types) society or country. If healthcare isn't made available to ALL members of society, even those who have it will be affected by those who don't.
Face it, guys- you live in a society with other people- it ain't all about YOU.
|
|
rescue76
Trad climber
colorado springs
|
|
I have been told for the last 6 years that there was no seperation between the president and the mission....and the troops. I was told, by republicans that I could NOT support the troops and not the President. Then they called me a traitor, coward and terrorist sympathizer. Funny how the rhetoric changes so quickly.
This is why the republican party has become the enemy.
sgt pasto
OIF 2003-2004
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
fattrad, put the fecking kool-aid down!
An 8-baby IVF is a clear example of abuse to the system that EVERYONE agrees is ridiculous and should not fall on the shoulders of others. The assertion that Obama somehow supports this and has integrated that kind of support into his policies is absurd, fattrad. Your position is much more valid and worth considering when it stays closer to facts.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Fattrad, let's you and me try to play nice.
Please point us all to the web link that indicates that what you just said is true.
You said that Obama is proposing that Americans, presumably through Medicare - your hated big government healthcare program,
should have IVF to induce pregnancy paid for, and also that he proposed that Medicare pay $100.000 for the latest biotech drug.
I think you are full of sh#t and am asking you to back up these allegations with proof.
Have at it, show us exactly, specifically, WHERE this language of Obama's is being proposed.
Oh, and ps Fatty, I just covered the rest of my DOW shorts you mocked yesterday and banked another $18,500 on today's decline.
But back to the question of you providing proof, lets see it.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
The current health care system is broken.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know anything we do should probably have a patient co-pay that is a percentage of the total bill with a cap, then people will search out the most cost effective treatments.
It's telling that the conservatives are against universal health care just due to their ideology. What if universal health care saves money, means people do preventative care instead of getting really sick and then go to ERs and cost everybody else more money, and results in a stronger overall economy for everybody? Well it doesn't matter if the net result is good, conservatives will reject the premise.
That is the problem with conservatives, it doesn't matter what the net result is, they'll cling to their ideas due to some brainwashed ideology instead of looking at what's best for all of us in the real world. Of course this also applies to liberals who want unlimited free health care for all, health care isn't a right, society/govt. should figure out the most effective way to provide coverage for everyone but individuals also need to contribute to their own care.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
This is a little dated, but appropos nonetheless:
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Again, Fattrad. Answer the question.
Show us where you read the statements you said Obama was proposing.
Come on, you said it so it just must be true.
Now prove it.
Don't try to dance around what you said, prove it.
Either that, or admit that you are a delusional liar.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Fattrad, thank you for the trade ackowledgement, why I believe that's the first nice thing you ever said to me.
But lets not let your being nice divert us from the task at hand. Again, will you please answer my question and provide verification of your Obama Medicare statements.
Now Fattrad, we ALL know you cannot, because you just plain made it up.
So, how about being a man, and just admitting you made it up and apologize to us all for being a delusional liar?
Then, we can go on to debunking other conservative fairy tales
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Norton- give it up- fattrad ain't gonna respond- you're pissing in the wind, and the backspray is getting in your face.
fattrad is like any good, kool-aid brewing repub- make fear-based hyperbolic statements with little basis in fact that reasonate with constituents with lower IQ's that will support their self-oriented needs. Pretty hard to change that kind of BS, unless we begin providing sterilization procedures at CPAC and the GOP convention.
Hmmm. Not a bad idea. I'd chip in for that...
Edit to khanom: Good one.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Apogee, you are right, he won't provide proof OR apologize for lying. Thanks, I needed that.
Fattrad, you get paid to take profits, 85% of more of the move down in financials is over. You are now holding your shorts trying to squeeze a little more out of them.
That's called greed.
Taking a profit at this point is prudent.
Sure we can decline lower, maybe a lot, or maybe not
At some point it becomes an executive decision, and not a trading decision. You also risk hellacious gap ups from this level as much as further gradual decline.
Just my two cents, your call, good luck either way.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!