More Biden Buffoonery

[stebo0728]

Trickle down - I'm pointing to ALLLLLLLLLL the jobs it was suppose to create. See them, look there's one.....McDonald's needs a....never mind, they bought a Chinese machine with the tax saving and eliminated a position....

I wish it was as simple as you are making it out to be. But it simply isn't.

Economics "cause-and-direct-effect" simply does not happen - particularly with the time lags involved in making changes that are expected to have an impact.

Z

Not to mention the time lag in reporting the data that we see.

[AZhitman]

...all while paying far less than their fair share of taxes....

Businesses don't pay taxes per se.

But ANY intervention (whether it benefits a Mom & Pop or a Big Box Store), is inappropriate in my view. I believe in letting an unfettered market work itself out, and let the chips fall where they may. People are adaptable.

[Encryptshun]

And see that's where I break with the rest of the free-market capitalists out there -- I believe that in order for there to be a true free market, there needs to be a common and socialized infrastructure that acts as a foundation for everything else.

1) Transportation (backbone)
2) Energy (grid)
3) Communications (backbone)
4) Healthcare (backbone)

I hold this view partially because a business needs all the above in order to thrive and should therefore not be allowed to assert some unfair advantage over the competition through collusion with other sectors (and it does happen all the time). Not everything can be caveat emptor because all of us would get burned by dishonest shysters at some point or another, potentially to a disasterous degree. There are only so many hours in a day, and if there are not some things we can just coast on, our entire lives would be spent either working or shopping. We'd have to be experts on literally everything in order to avoid being cheated, and I know I certainly don't have the inclination to spend all my available time doing consumer research. If I'm sick, I don't want to spend half a day calling doctors to see which one will be the cheapest and they don't want to staff a call-center just to do spot-quotes. I don't want to plan my driving vacation based on which toll roads are least expensive. Etc etc.

Bottom line is that, in my perfect world, there would be certain advantages to being a loyal citizen to this country, and I'm willing to pay for them so long as they are held accountable for performing at a high level of efficiency and honesty. Neither is realistic today, of course, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't support all available plans that would get us there.

Oh, and I should also probably point out that, in my perfect eventuality, money would not exist. A true free market is a barter system, where manipulation of the currency is removed as a constraint to trade.

[AZhitman]

I loooove me some horse tradin'.

[Encryptshun]

Greg, I can't tell if you agree with me or you consider me so whacked-out that you don't even bother contradicting me anymore.

[AZhitman]

So, a while back, Sleepy Joe Biden calls Tea Party members "terrorists" (on tape, on film, no argument there), and when confronted, POTUS denies it.

When pressed, he responds with some weaksauce excuse, "Listen, I get called lots of names too..."

Puss. Throw your moron VP under the bus and move on. Preserve your credibility instead of toeing the party line.

[IBCoupe]

They were terrorists, though. No bus necessary.

[heliochrome85]

They were terrorists, though. No bus necessary.

truth. and this comes from an arab. we know our terrorists.

[Encryptshun]

*snort*

[szh]

They were terrorists, though. No bus necessary.

Didja hear the story about the blond UCLA terrorlst who tried to blow up a schoolbus?
.
.
.
And burned her lips on the tailpipe?

Seriously, though, I don't like the Tea Party members and positions either. But calling them terrorists is simply wrong.

Having seen what the real terrorists are doing in my home country, with over 35,000 people dead as a direct result of their vicious actions, putting this label on the Tea Party members is over the top and unnecessary.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Terrorism is a tactic. Economic terrorism was exacted against the United States by roughly half the Republicans in the House. If you don't like the label, denounce the behavior that befits it.

[szh]

Terrorism is a tactic. Economic terrorism was exacted against the United States by roughly half the Republicans in the House. If you don't like the label, denounce the behavior that befits it.

Terrorism is not a tactic or a label - it is a direct and morally wrong thing to do against human beings (my definition).

Since the "label" is wrong, I do not need to denounce anything to which it is incorrectly applied.

You and I disagree on all of the items you raise above, I guess.

Z

[heliochrome85]

Terrorism is a tactic. Economic terrorism was exacted against the United States by roughly half the Republicans in the House. If you don't like the label, denounce the behavior that befits it.

truth.

[AZhitman]

Nope.

Way to diminish the victims of real terrorism. You, of all people, should know better.

I'd never call BO's foreign policy failures a "holocaust".

I'd never call Obamacare "Naziism".

I'd never call Nancy Pelosi "Hitler".

Normally, you're a sensible and rational person. Your emotions are way too high on this one.
_________________________________________________

On a side note, Tea Party members (and those who support the movement) are regular, hard-working Americans just like all of us. They're not even a real political party, but a group of adherents to a set of principles, just like liberals and independents. They believe as strongly in their position as you do in yours. You don't have to like their position or agree with it, but it's NO MORE "radical" than the idea of mandatory purchase of health insurance, truth-in-sentencing, drug testing for welfare recipients, or marriage equality for same-sex partners.

So, for our dunderhead VP, perhaps he should keep his big mouth shut. Nothing useful or profound has come out of it since the election.

[heliochrome85]

thanks for a real response rather than "i define it differntly and thus am right"

it was economic terrorism. for a party that loves the country so much, it was sure as hell willing to destroy it in order to stick to their prinicples, however ill founded, ill advised they were. THE GOVERNMENT IS BROKE. WE CAN NOT SIMPLY SLASH FUNDING TO THE PEAS WITHOUT SLASHING FUNDING TO THE STEAK AND POTATOES OF DEFENSE.

just because you dont call obamacare "naziism" doesnt mean the people you are defending aren't.

[heliochrome85]

furthermore, for a party taht loves the constitution so much, they sure as hell have no clue as to how things work. OBAMA CAN NOT PASS LAWS ON HIS OWN. HE CAN NOT INTRODUCE LEGISLATION ON HIS OWN. Laws are strictly the responsibility of Congress, and thus, their ire should be directed at the fatcats who posture on Capitol Hill, rather than the Black man.

but what do i know.

[heliochrome85]

Nope.

Way to diminish the victims of real terrorism. You, of all people, should know better.

I'd never call BO's foreign policy failures a "holocaust".

I'd never call Obamacare "Naziism".

I'd never call Nancy Pelosi "Hitler".

Normally, you're a sensible and rational person. Your emotions are way too high on this one.
_________________________________________________

On a side note, Tea Party members (and those who support the movement) are regular, hard-working Americans just like all of us. They're not even a real political party, but a group of adherents to a set of principles, just like liberals and independents. They believe as strongly in their position as you do in yours. You don't have to like their position or agree with it, but it's NO MORE "radical" than the idea of mandatory purchase of health insurance, truth-in-sentencing, drug testing for welfare recipients, or marriage equality for same-sex partners.

So, for our dunderhead VP, perhaps he should keep his big mouth shut. Nothing useful or profound has come out of it since the election.

lastly, the democrats did not stop every bill during bush. democrats did not come out and publically announce how pleased that they got 98% of what they wanted by destroying the nations financial credibility. democrats did not come out and say that they are 100% against giving bush a single bulletpoint on his agenda.

the level of discourse exhibited by the right and its members is borderline treasonous. and largely disproportionate to the few voices on the left who made such statements during the previous administration.

if you think democrats speak with one voice, you are seriously mistaken. by definition, the democrats are a spectrum of people who do not fit and are not welcome in the current republican party.


you know how much i respect you greg. trust me when i say there are many voices in the Tea Party that scare me and make me question my long term future in the US given how the country's politics is heading.

[AZhitman]

you know how much i respect you greg. trust me when i say there are many voices in the Tea Party that scare me and make me question my long term future in the US given how the country's politics is heading.

The feeling is 100% mutual. I feel the same way about both the extreme left, the extreme right, and even some of the TP people.

But the dangerous territory here is the willingness to see things as "all extreme". I support many TP positions. I'm also a social liberal. And a fiscal conservative. And I long for a libertarian-like minimization of government intrusion into my (and your) life.

So, I guess my advice is, don't get so blinded by the extremes that you fail to see the continuum.

What's really making people freak out (and maybe you too) is that the continuum is no longer A to Z, but it's now added a couple new dimensions. Whoa.

[AZhitman]

thanks for a real response rather than "i define it differntly and thus am right"

Werd.

Let me try something here:

it was economic terrorism. for a party that loves the country so much, it was sure as hell willing to destroy it in order to stick to their prinicples, however ill founded, ill advised they were. THE GOVERNMENT IS BROKE. WE CAN NOT SIMPLY SAVE EVERYONE, BE ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE, BABYSIT THE HUDDLED MASSES, CODDLE THE LAZY AND PANDER TO THE ENTITLED.

Can you perhaps see why "economic terrorism" doesn't fit? It didn't fit when Isaac floated it, and it's not fitting for you either.

Love you homey.

[IBCoupe]

Holocaust: a great fire.

Nazism: a political and social ideology, originating early-mid 20th Century Europe, that blends fascism with racist theories and a desire to impose global control accordingly.

Hitler: The leader of Germany and of German Nazism in the 1930s and 40s.

Terrorism: the use of threats or violence to achieve political demands.


I don't call the TEA Party Republicans "terrorists" because they're extreme. I don't even call all of the TEA Party terrorists (or extreme, for that matter). I call the House Republicans willing to push us to a default if they didn't get what they wanted "terrorists." That their views were extreme is not material to the label. It's possible for your demands to be met and for your demands to be reasonable, but if you threaten to crash the economy if you don't get what you want, that makes you a terrorlst.

This is not emotion. I am beyond emotion. This is cold, calculating, objective examination. These Republicans in particular are dangerous. They may think they want what's best for the country, but they are willing to hurt people to get it. I do not hate these Republicans; they may be perfectly wonderful people. But they're wrong and they have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with the responsibility that comes with power. They need to leave Washington, D.C., and we need to never invite them back.

[szh]

Way to diminish the victims of real terrorism.

In case I was not clear, this is my point exactly.

Z

[szh]

I don't call the TEA Party Republicans "terrorists" because they're extreme. I don't even call all of the TEA Party terrorists (or extreme, for that matter). I call the House Republicans willing to push us to a default if they didn't get what they wanted "terrorists." That their views were extreme is not material to the label. It's possible for your demands to be met and for your demands to be reasonable, but if you threaten to crash the economy if you don't get what you want, that makes you a terrorlst.

This is not emotion. I am beyond emotion. This is cold, calculating, objective examination. These Republicans in particular are dangerous. They may think they want what's best for the country, but they are willing to hurt people to get it. I do not hate these Republicans; they may be perfectly wonderful people. But they're wrong and they have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with the responsibility that comes with power. They need to leave Washington, D.C., and we need to never invite them back.

And, my problem, is that the Democrats (like Pelosi and others) are totally willing to push government financial problems out indefinitely ... without any thought to the fact that they will hurt my son's generation (and the generations after that) when the country's financial bills pile up to the point of no return.

Then, even small glitches in the economy, or tax revenue collections, will cause a Financial Holocaust (oh ... did I undermine the Holocaust by applying it here? Sorry!) that will make the past few years look like a walk in the park. We are already drifting towards losing our economic power standing in the world. If we end up being a third-rate, poor country, it will be because of unchecked Democratic rampant spending excesses.

I don't know if there is a convenient label for what the Democrats want to do. You can call the Republican's whatever you want too, I suppose. I don't like extremes either, but for people willing to put rational government spending brakes on (not by running into brick walls, I agree), I call them far-sighted. They are thinking hard about the future life of my son and his kids, etc., and for that, I thank them.

Z

[Encryptshun]

Before we call out the Dems for pushing government financial problems out indefinitelly, let's keep in mind that every bill they proposed or co-proposed cut spending both in the short and long-terms. The debate was how MUCH was cut and WHERE, not whether it was.

The Dems (and I agree with them) understand that hard economic times is when you SHOULD borrow, build, and innovate so that when the economy bounces back you are in a better position to capitalize on that. Not only does the country need the jobs that stimulus provides, but infrastructure projects are CHEAPER when the economy is bad because the PPI is flat/down, interest rates are down, and wages are down. The fact that they happened to be in power when we were already in or headed in to a (previously disregarded) recession gave the Republicans the perfect platform from which to hurl their slings and arrows.

Image how much better it would have been for EVERYBODY if, by the time the recession was over, we had new roads, new high-speed rail, a 21st-Century smart-grid energy distribution system, and a bunch of new solar, wind, and geothermal energy production facilities ready to distribute cheap and clean power.

How much do you think smart and capable entrepreneurs could grow their businesses and compete internationally with faster and cheaper transportation, revolutionary energy-optimization programs, and power so cheap it's practically free?

[szh]

The problem is not that those would not be fine things to have. The problem is that we do NOT have the money in government to put into them right now.

Heck, I would love to be able to spend millions on my next house, or my next car, or my next <fill-in-the-blank>.

The point is I do not have the money to do so, and neither does the government. Admittedly, at the moment.

Sure, I could borrow - that is what I did for my current house. But that is the only debt I have - everything else is paid for when I get it. To me, credit cards are a convenience not to carry large sums of cash.

I don't want to borrow ever increasingly without any checks or controls (or the ability to raise my personal debt ceiling myself). Neither should the government.

Yes, I am fiscally quite conservative - not with regard to spending (we do spend including many luxury items). But to borrow to do so - particularly for things we don't absolutely have to have immediately, and particularly in hard times - is not going to happen. Neither should it for the government.

When the economy forced a 50% pay cut on me two years ago - for many months - we cut back on spending and used up some savings. But, the cut back was across the board - we still did not increase our borrowing (fortunately, we made it through those hard times). The government needs to do the same.

Z

[Encryptshun]

And that is exactly where we find our ideological rift, Z.

To me (and to quite a few very well-respected economists), you borrow in bad times and pay back in good. What we need in order to cut down our debt is not reduced spending now, but increased spending on certain strategic efforts and a requirement to pay back what we borrow when certain future economic thresholds are met (unemployment at x%, GDP at x level or above, etc etc). If no one in the private sector is creating jobs, and no one in the public sector is creating jobs, then the only result will be underemployment and stagnation. Meanwhile it's cheaper for US companies to expand overseas to meet the growing consumer demand in China, so they don't need us. Thus China's economy continues to grow (did I forget to mention that they are a totalitarian communist nation) due to the efforts of US companies which are actively encouraged by our government (Dems and Republicans alike).

And the question that I still can't get answered (Z, maybe you can succeed whether others have elected not to respond) is "How do we get our economy going again, and what makes you think that your solution will work?"

[stebo0728]

Here's what bothers me. I understand your Keynesian philosophy there, run a defict in hopes for better times. The may just work too. BUT what we are doing now is not quite what I would picture. The biggest mistake I think we made, was to consider the government wiser and in a better position to spend stimulus money than the people who ARE the economy. Rather we should have put that money right into pockets to be spent, on whatever, doesnt matter, the market will decide, and will correct itself. But for that to happen, the people who actually drive the market have to have the pieces to play with, not the government. Now there is another small problem with this, in that you get a segment of folks (how large Im not sure) that either pays debt with, or saves the stimulus money. I think thats why we set out to let the government do it, with programs like water heater discounts if you bought one, or rebates for weatherizing your house, yada yada. But the question I ask there is, does reducing debt or saving HURT the economy? Perhaps it slows the uptake a bit, but enough to take the choice from the people?

[Encryptshun]

I'm not talking about stimulus like the $300 checks we got back in 2002. I'm talking about federal funding of huge infrastructure projects, bid out to private companies and putting people to work.

[stebo0728]

What about some vocational classes instead. The market's flooded with garbage men and burger flippers. Some industries are BEGGING for employees but either people are content to keep collecting unemployment, or just to lazy to aspire to the positions. Infrastructure spending employs temporarily. I dont see any real added benefit to the economy buy building new stuff to replace stuff we already have that works OK. Sure maybe in good times some improvements would help, but I dont see that as a tenable stimuli to the economy plagued with unemployment.

[Encryptshun]

First, regarding "temporary employment", it depends. If the funding goes to construction, technology, and energy production companies, lots of those jobs may become permanent. But the funding is temporary. Thus ensuring we don't have to keep doling out salaries straight from the government coffers.

Second, you really think our current transportation and energy production/distribution infrastructure "works OK"?

How much state money is spent every year (augmented by federal money) to repair highways which were never designed to carry the volume of traffic they now see (or the weight of individual vehicles)? Or how much faster distribution could occur if we had high-speed rail (or were able to allow OTR trucks to safely drive over 55mph)? How much cheaper would utilities get if we had a smart grid that depended primarily on energy production that had no input, processing or distribution costs and could maximize usage and avoid outages?

I think we might have to agree to disagree on this topic.

[stebo0728]

True, we may just be at odds, it happens. You have proclaimed before that your a free market kind of person, unless im confused. Do you not think if there were a real need or angle in improving our infrastructure, that the private sector would have already jumped on it? No we dont have the best, thats why I said "ok". But what the rate of return for these projects. I'd project next to nil. For one, its replacing things we already have. It may be an improvement, but its still only a nominal one. High speed rail has already been shown by many studies to be pointless and useless for the US. We dont function like Europe. For all the money you would pour into it, the rate of use would be too low to be able to keep from having to perpetually subsidize it.

I guess I just believe in people, and the free market more than I do government and social engineering.