Cash For Clunkers - Puppet Mark Schauer Explains

[mbjl1758]

hey there is something to your position - sounds like a libertarian perspective. In my mind it's far too idealistic. But if this is the path you want to take - the FIRST thing is to get campaign form immediately. I think if anything - that platform is one we can agree on. The other topics can be tackled later.

[mbjl1758]

It would seem to me that Americans (for the most part) agree on a few things:

Social security, medicare and universal coverage are all value calls that the majority can believe in - therefore we should find ways to pay for it.

It seems like folks like you believe in outrageous spending when and only when it involved war or supporting the military industrial complex - WITH NO ASSOCIATED PAIN AS RELATED TO TAXES!

Why is that?

[politicalpuppetshow]

You make quite a few assumptions about me for someone who has never met me. For example, you assume I'm a republican so far as I can tell. I'm not. You assume I'm for the wars in the middle east... I'm not. you assume I'm for the millitary industrial complex... I'm not. You assume I'm for taxation and inflation to support such things automatically... I'm not. Assumption as they say, is the mother of all... well you get the picture.

As to SS, M and UC, should not be forced upon people.

[politicalpuppetshow]

Forcing people to participate in programs they do not want to be a part of is tyranny. Taking the fruit of their labor unwillingly to pay for them is slavery.

[mbjl1758]

The simplicity of your argument is the root of comedy sprouting the branches of ignorance: Lower all taxes, stop spending (meaning stop ALL FEDERAL PROGRAMS including medicare and medicade) and stop all defense spending.

I wonder what society has ever succeeded with this platform to build off of. Oh wait - it's called ANARCHY!

You certitude is so telling.

[politicalpuppetshow]

Well, we can keep chasing our tails all day or just agree to disagree I suppose. I believe in having a government, but that the role of that government should be limited. It's quite obvious you believe in the opposite. I find your willingness to push the pain on future generations to be the most disturbing thing about our conversation.

It's been fun, but like I said, neither one of us is going to change the others mind, so enjoy your endevors.

[mbjl1758]

BTW - I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on Arthur Laffer. Looking forward to it.

[mbjl1758]

cont...Do you support tax cuts that are not paid for? Or, as it sounds, you support tax cuts and massive spending cuts? It that really your recipe? If so name me one economist with any credibility (don't quote Glen Beck here please) that would advocate this.

Tax cuts - by any historical measure are terrible multipliers. you know this right?

[politicalpuppetshow]

Tax cuts and massive shrinking of government burachracy go hand in hand. A balanced budget in conjuncture with this would do wonders. Economists that would support this (I'll give you four)...

Ludwig von Mises

Robert Higgs

Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize Economics)

F. A. Hayek (Nobel Prize Econommics)

Keep spewing Keynesian propaganda long enough and maybe you'll get some other people to take a bite out of the poop sandwich, but I'm not buying it.

[mbjl1758]

You are the same folks who said "Don't bail out the banks!" "Let them fail." My conversation with folks like you should end there given that sentiment is about as retarded on Corky on acid.

As for the stimulus - are you saying there is no need for stimulus? Or do you think it should be concentrated in tax cuts (again whereby their multipliers are horrendous).

[politicalpuppetshow]

Cutting taxes without shrinking the size of government will accomplish nothing. Both must occur.

[mbjl1758]

You might want to hit the books. It was Friedman who wrote,

"The Fed was largely responsible for converting what might have been a garden-variety recession, although perhaps a fairly severe one, into a major catastrophe. Instead of using its powers to offset the depression, it presided over a decline in the quantity of money by one-third from 1929 to 1933 ... Far from the depression being a failure of the free-enterprise system, it was a tragic failure of government."

Words suck eh?

[politicalpuppetshow]

Eh? I don't quite take your slight I guess. The FED is the culprit in just about any unsavory monetary developments. There is no true free-market. The FED dictates the cost of credit, therefore the FED dictates the cost of just about everything. I agree with Friedman, so I'm not sure how words suck I guess.

[mbjl1758]

BTW - you know Friedman was also for a negative income tax right?

[politicalpuppetshow]

Boy you are a kool-aid drinker aren't you? Apparently with you, one must embrace every ideal a person holds or everything else they stand for is garbage. Do I agree with a negative income tax? No, but since when do you agree with everything one person says about socioeconomic theory?

[mbjl1758]

cash for clunkers = jobs.

[politicalpuppetshow]

Would you be kind enough to please give us a systematic explaination of how a short-term government gimmick leads to long-term job growth in the private sector?

[mbjl1758]

It's called a stimulus (and part thereof). There is nothing long term about it - BY DEFINITION!!! It's a bridge to get through a recession. Nothing more. And it is WORKING!

BTW - this is predicted to add 1% to our qauarterly GDP figures. How is that a bad thing?

I'm a little tired of this whining about EVERYTHING Obama -your fake rage looks foolish.

If you recall the GOP response to the depression - raise interest rates, up taxes and stop spending - all UTTER FAILURES.

[politicalpuppetshow]

So by your very definition cash for clunkers does not equal jobs. You can't have it both ways. Either cash for clunkers equals jobs or it is a bridge to get us through the recession. Which is it?

I never asked you about a long-term stimulus. I asked about long-term job growth.

What leads you to believe it is working? Because people are using it? Long term issues of inflation and debt repayment far outweigh any short-term gain.

[politicalpuppetshow]

Government predictions are seldom accurate, but assuming what you say is true, how is a 1% increase (which I higly doubt will happen) something to rejoice about when it's all the money that has been sucked out of the private sector in the form of taxes? It's simply shuffling numbers.

When have you seen me enraged about Obama? I do think the democrat party needs to worry with all of this talk of "manufactured rage". They're going to end up paying come election time.

[politicalpuppetshow]

Now let's pull your head out of the past with the great depression to the recession of the early 80's which was solved by shrinking the size of government, cutting taxes, and cutting the red tape for businesses.

Instead of doing something that works, we take the failed economic policies of the Bush Administration, and increase them under the Obama Administration. Doesn't seem like much of a solution.

[mbjl1758]

So much to take down - so little time. Stimulus is nothing more than a short term solution. But it does keep people in jobs by accelerating eventual demand. Hence the cash for clunkers program.

You compare the 80's recession with the depression? LMFAO! And then leave out Reagan's runaway spending? Talk about being selective.

And yes - it is all about shuffling numbers. Alleviating the pain today and by spreading it in the years to come. The alternative is what?

[politicalpuppetshow]

Please forgive me. I had no idea you were an economic psychic who can predict future market demands that need to be accelerated by programs such as cash for clunkers.

I site the 80's recession becasue the speedy recovery is an example of what happens when government gets out of the way. I don't bring up Regan's runaway spending because it doesn't pertain to the topic. Do I agree with it? No, but shrinking the size of government, cutting taxes, and getting rid of red tape sped recovery.

[politicalpuppetshow]

"Alleviating the pain today by spreading it in the years to come"

This has got to be the most immoral thing I have ever heard in my fricking life. That you openly propose punishing future generations for the stupidity of the present so you don't have to feel the pain today literally makes me sick to my stomach. It's people like you that want to rob my children of their future. Pathetic. Simply (insert chosen explative here) pathetic.

Alt. - tighten belts now instead of being cowards

[stockclassninja]

hehe... its true... everyone should call that number and ask for combat frogs

[Eisen89]

Here's what I don't understand. As soon as liberal policy comes into play the conservatives say that the policy is something the people didn't ask for and/or didn't want. What does voting for a representative in a democratic republic mean? It means you vote for someone to make the decision for you, which means the majority rules. So in a sense, the people did ask for this by voting for their representatives into office.

[politicalpuppetshow]

Just because someone is elected into office, it does not automatically mean that their constituency supports bad policy and legislation espoused by them.

Voting in a democratic republic means that all are represented, including the minority. There is not supposed to be tyranny of the majority. The whole purpose behind a DR is that people are represented, not led about like mindless sheeple by officials "who know what's best for the constituents."

So, no it wasn't asked for.

[armsteck]

This government runs on the stupidity of it's citizens!

[ad356]

i like this. this program is a terrible idea, and im many cases it takes perfectly servicable cars off the road and creates more waste and more pollution building a new car. what a senseless waste

[Sashia48]

I think the rest of us need to quit our jobs and go live in a tent city....hell, lots of time for fishin, and sitting under the stars. Maybe I'll take up something at the local college. I hear Obama has college money for mothers to go back to school. What a life!!!!!!!!!!