This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cute video.
Little fact check, however: Conservatives holding "Tea Parties" never called it "teabagging". Liberals did. DailyKos mentioned it first. Keith Olbermann was the first on air with it. Next came Anderson cooper with the "it's hard to talk when you're teabagging"---whoa, a little too much information there Anderson!
No conservatives "got the domain name" or "printed fliers" with that name, as the video suggests. Nice try there. Cute video though.
Griff Jenkins said people were going to "tea bag the White House" on Fox News Channel while wearing a tricorn hat. Jon Stewart played the clip on his show the next day. It was all over the internet.
Nobody who attended the tea parties ever said "teabagging." That word was only used by the media and folks who didn't like the protests. The left came up with the term, not those who supported the tea parties.
Republican Gov.Jindal`s $50 million appropriation to keep a chicken-processing plant open in Farmerville may help Gov. Bobby Jindal win legislative support for an $85 million Superdome overhaul at the other end of the state, some lawmakers say.
Is a chicken plant going to make me like this (Saints deal) better? Probably so," said Rep. Noble Ellington, D-Winnsboro. . This gives me a lot more reasons" to support the use of surplus state funds for the Superdome project.
both parties are the problem and those who support them, keeping us fighting each other so that they can do what they want, the US is not perfect but its still our home and we all lose if this keeps up
What I don't get about these teabag parties is what has gone on between January 20, 2009 and now that they're up in arms about? They're upset about receiving tax breaks? Why weren't they doing this under Bush when he ruined the economy and used the Constitution as toilet paper?
Given the timing of these parties, the type of speeches and signs we're seeing there and the lack of an alternative to Obama's plans I suspect it's a GOP recruitment meet.
"You obviously haven't looked at Obama's budget proposals"
I've looked at them quite in-depth. I'm an amateur economist.
"It makes even Bush look like a fiscal conservative"
1) For the GOP to talk about fiscal conservatism now after rabidly supporting (and calling people "un-American" for disagreeing) one of the most fiscally wasteful presidents in US is like Ozzy Osbourne or Bobby Brown trying to lecture people about clean living.
Well, if you've looked at them, then you must know that he's already tripled the deficit in just his first three months. If Bush was wasteful for running a $500 billion deficit, what does that make Obama for running a $1.5 trillion deficit?
His budget is radical because it provides for government control of the health care industry, the energy industry, the automobile industry, and the banking industry. It's the largest expansion of government in American history. That's what's radical.
"you must know that he's already tripled the deficit in just his first three months"
That's complete bull. The deficit was already over $7 Trillion. Another $4 Trillion is not triple of $7 Trillion. Your math is off. Besides, the difference is that Obama's spending will potentially be repaid when it is offset by an increase in production and consumer spending. Even your hero Ronald Reagan engaged in massive spending to get us out of the 1982 recession.
That's completely impossible. It's only $1.8 right now. I have no idea what you're talking about. You might be confusing the deficit with the national debt, which are two completely different things.
We got out of the '82 recession by lower tax rates, less government spending, tighter control of the money supply (which tamed inflation), and deregulation. Government spending doesn't create prosperity.
Wrong Bush kept the cost of Iraq and Afganistan off the books. 90% of the current deficit belongs to Bush even conservative newspapers admit this now.
"His budget is radical because it provides for government control of the health care industry"
No it doesn't. And that's the problem some liberals have with it. Government control of healthcare works very well in Europe and Japan. If you want to see the miracles of private healthcare see the 45 million people without it or the people who are in debt because they can't afford it. Or see countries like Indonesia and Mozambique.
Government control of healthcare works so well in Europe and Japan that thousands of Europeans and Japanese patients travel here every year just to get surgery.
Plastic surgery you mean or they are rich enough to go to the mayo clinic. Ordinary Japanese and Europeans don't have longer wait times for standard surgeries then Americans do. An MRI in Japan costs then 14 bucks compared to several grand in the US.
Millions of Americans go out of the US each year for medical treatment that is the equal or in fact better then what they get in the US and it costs them a mere fraction what it does here.
"the automobile industry, and the banking industry"
No he isn't. He's calling for temporary government ownership for A FEW of those industries in order to sort out their toxic assets and then release them in a few years when everything is sorted out. FDR and Ronald Reagan did the same thing.
The largest expansion of government in US history was Bush's Patriot Act and his multi-trillion dollar tax spendings on the war and corporate welfare.
"Temporary" government ownership my ass. There is nothing "temporary" about government or its programs. Never in the course of history has government actually gotten smaller. Once you give government power, it never relinquishes it.
All the Patriot Act did was allow law enforcement agencies to share intelligence. No expansion of government resulted.
The government does not want to own these entities, it's another headache for the government and more energy and money they have to spend. Ronald Reagan did the same thing with some companies and re-privatized them.
"All the Patriot Act did was"
Allow the government to spy on you, collect information and deny you Constitutional due process and give Bush emergency powers. It expanded the government. Give it up, your arguments are pathetic.
No, your arguments are pathetic because they are in no way grounded in reality. The Patriot Act in no way deprives citizens of due process. If that were the case, the Supreme Court would have struck it down years ago. Give me one example of an American citizen being deprived of a trial because of the Patriot Act. Good luck with that because it hasn't happened.
"The Patriot Act in no way deprives citizens of due process"
msnbc.msn (dot) com / id/ 20999950/
And you claim I'm not based in reality. Pfft.
"Oh wait! I get it! The New Deal MUST have worked because well..Paul Krugman says so, right?"
Unless you have counter-evidence there is no reason to assume he's wrong. You're using the logical fallacy of attacking the source rather than the information presented. Saying something is incorrect just because Paul Krugman said it is not rational.
Here's my counter-evidence. The economy did not begin to truly recover from the Great Depression until after WWII when Truman slashed spending, taxes, and scrapped much of the New Deal. If the New Deal was so necessary and such a success, why did the economy prosper in the 50's after Truman reversed so much of it?
"The economy did not begin to truly recover from the Great Depression until after WWII"
Bull, the economy recovered mostly by 1938. WWII added an extra surge because of the huge increase in industrial production and the fact that the rest of the world economy was destroyed, especially Europe, while the American economy was left intact.
"when Truman slashed spending, taxes"
Truman started programs similar to the New Deal called the "Fair Deal". It kept most New Deal policies in place.
"WWII added an extra surge because of the huge increase in industrial production."
WWII led to a huge increase in production of weapons, military uniforms, and war machinery. For the millionth time, production of these things doesn't make a society any wealthier. Think of all the things that COULD have been produced with these resources had there been no war. Think of all the productive jobs that COULD have been created instead of young men being hauled off to Normandy.
"WWII led to a huge increase in production of weapons, military uniforms, and war machinery"
Where the heck do you think that stuff came from? Factories. WTF do you think happened to the factories after the war ended? Do you think they were torn down? No. They were converted into industrial production factories. Our wealth went up because the huge increase in factories produced by the New Deal and WWII boosted our production capacity increasing our output and GDP.
"why did the economy prosper in the 50's after Truman reversed so much of it"
When Truman cut taxes and some spending it actually was part of the cause of the 1953 recession. Eisenhower came along and raised taxes on the rich and increased spending which ended the recession. During the 50s economic boom the tax rate on the rich was 90%. The end of the Korean War also ended the recession because war spending is a huge drain on the economy, part of why Bush's wars caused our current recession.
What? The current recession we're in was caused by the popping of a housing bubble and an ensuing credit crunch that resulted from subprime mortgages. I have never heard anyone argue that the Afghanistan or Iraq wars somehow caused the housing bubble. Are you somehow saying that Bush's decision to invade Baghdad somehow induced people decided to start buying up houses they couldn't afford? I'm confused.
"The current recession we're in was caused by the popping of a housing bubble and an ensuing credit crunch that resulted from subprime mortgages"
Hardly.
sadlyno (dot) com / archives/ 11958 (dot) html
Our recession has far more to do with the $2 Trillion we've spent on these wars, the $1.4 Trillion annual budget we spend on corporate welfare and tax cuts which decrease government revenue and leave a budget deficit.
This is what happens when you swallow FOX News talking points.
"Our recession has far more to do with the $2 Trillion we've spent on these wars, the $1.4 Trillion annual budget we spend on corporate welfare and tax cuts which decrease government revenue and leave a budget deficit."
So government spending creates prosperity AND recessions? I'm confused. FDR spent FAR more in real terms on WWII. According to your logic, there must have been a massive recession in 1945 when the war ended.
"So government spending creates prosperity AND recessions?"
It just depends on what the spending is on and how it is spent. Just like a private company can create either prosperity or a recession by spending. The spending a lot of private companies did between 2001-2008 caused this current recession. If you cut wages, increase spending on wasteful projects and gambling it in the stock and futures market and waste money on poor quality products or services you can create a recession.
In proportion to GDP he did spend more. It paid off more because rapid industrialization greatly increased industrial and economic output, offsetting the costs in the long run. The Iraq War has not increased non-military industrial production or created too many new jobs so the spending outpaces the economic gains created by it. The First Gulf War was much more economically sound because it ended the 1991 recession by increasing industrial output.
I had no idea wars could be so good for the economy. Here's an idea, how about we have a "fake" war every 5 years. We can have the gov't take all the money it needs from the taxpayers, which apparently aren't smart enough to know how to invest on their own, and use it to build huge fighter jet hangers, and tank factories. Then we'll roll out thousands of new tanks and planes and blow them up. It would be a great use of resources because "industrial production" will have increased, right?
"I had no idea wars could be so good for the economy"
They can be. WWII and the First Gulf War were a boon for the economy because they increased industrial production and output and increased the federal budget. But not all wars are. The Vietnam War and the current Iraq War are a huge budget drain. They haven't increased production and the profits aren't being passed on to consumers and workers. Tax cuts decrease revenue which makes the government finance these wars on a deficit.
World War 2 a fighter aircraft cost six hundred thousand while a f-16 cost 16 million while a f-22 costs 142 million.
You can buy lots more fighter aircraft at six hundred thousand and therby employ more people not only in building the things but also flying the things.
World War 2 had the taxes raised for instance and a huge amount of gov't spending. Plus all the people employed by the gov't cut down on unemployment so much so that women entered the workforce in unheard of numbers.
While that's true it didn't hurt so much back then because the things the government spent on had great return on investment rates and economies of scale and scope. Spending on industrialization had great benefits.
Government spending has been rising again since the 70s after it decreased in the late 40s. This time it's just racking up debt because the spending is on things which aren't creating more jobs or raising income and investment. Like wars and corporate welfare.
Well Democrats tend to rein spending unless they have to fix huge messes and raise taxes to compensate. Republicans on the other hand spend like mad, do tax cuts on the rich raise taxes on the lower and middle class. Democrats always lower deficit or reduce the growth along with the national debt. Republicans always triple the debt and deficit and have lower economic growth.
That has been the historical trend up until this point. I'm massively disappointed in Obama because he seems to be bridging whatever differences left between Democrats and Republicans. A lot of his policies are rehashes of Bush policy.
Actually he is far better then McCain and guess what he has to act bipartenship otherwise the Republicans will raise more of a stink and lie a hundred times more then they are already lying. Fox News and the conservative media that took over the airwaves and radio and print back in the 1960s have been a toxin and pox on this country.
"Republicans on the other hand spend like mad, do tax cuts on the rich raise taxes on the lower and middle class."
First of all, the lower classes don't pay income taxes. In fact, the entire bottom 50% of wage earners pay income tax. The percentage increased under Bush. So you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
Wrong. Someone who for instance makes 12,000 a year working in legal jobs pays 3-4 thousand of that in taxes that they don't get back. Sales tax, SSI taxes. Students for instance if they have a part time job often see a quarter of what they earn get taken up in taxes and don't recover it.
Also if the person doesn't know how to claim poverty on their tax forms (hence why Acorn helps file a huge percentage of income taxes for free) they pay income tax because the IRS doesn't reimburse.
That's interesting, because I'm a student working part time and only make around $24,000. I do my own taxes and no where did I claim "poverty" on my forms. And I still paid no federal income tax.
You still paid taxes that took a fourth of your income.
It's why when income taxes get lower a person still pays far more the next year because of local taxes being raised due to less federal dollars coming in.
"You still paid taxes that took a fourth of your income."
Um, no. Trust me, I didn't pay any taxes. Local taxes are paid by property owners, and I don't own property. The only thing I paid into was Social Security and Medicaid. Both of which I am all for getting rid of because I will never see that money again.
how did you manage not getting charged for federal tax? thats amazing.. i mean the federal reserve is privately owned by a group of bankers and they hit my check every year with no mercy.. legal mobs i sure wish i can stop this since it is not going to the government at all.. why am i supporting some rich people? i am sorry.. very very very rich people..
Because I'm in the bottom half of wage-earners. I've never heard of someone getting a payroll deduction by the Federal Reserve. Only the Department of Revenue has withholding power for income tax purposes.
Yes, greedy, privately owned businesses are always a bad idea. Like privately owned shoe stores, owned grocery stores, and restaurants. The government ought to take control of all of them. There are too many greedy people out there trying to produce stuff for people.
Cutting taxes then proceeding to engage in 2 wars, which cost more than all of WWII did for FDR and Truman, and increasing corporate welfare handouts, agribusiness subsidation and spending on defense contracting is one of the most monumentally stupid things you could do economically.
"This examines step-by-step how tax cuts caused the recession."
A tax cut cannot cause a recession. Recessions result from overinvestment in a particular sector. This time it was housing. In 2000-2001, it was tech companies. Allowing people to keep more of the money they earn has nothing to do with this.
americanprogress (dot) org/ issues/ 2009/ 02/ bush _ recession (dot) html
cbpp (dot) org/ cms/ ? fa = view &i d = 692
Tax cuts cause recessions because they decrease tax revenue which increases budget deficit and the savings usually fail to be passed along to workers and consumers in reality. The money often ends up in speculative futures markets or to outsourced companies which adds to the GNP of other countries.
"Tax cuts cause recessions because they decrease tax revenue which increases budget deficit."
Again, this makes no sense. Now you're saying tax cuts cause recessions because budget deficits cause recessions. Um, how? Just because the government is spending more than it gets in revenue does not make investors or consumers spend less. Deficits are not good in the long run because they prompt inflation. But they don't cause recessions.
"Now you're saying tax cuts cause recessions because budget deficits cause recessions. Um, how?"
Because, whether you like it or not, the government is the prime economic actor in any economy. When government revenue is down the government cannot run vital public services which businesses need to function. Budget revenue = less train services, less shipping, crappy interstate roads, less subsidies and loans, high repayment interest rates, inflation, etc. All of which businesses use.
The savings are passed on to the PEOPLE THAT PAY THE TAXES. If you pay taxes, then you get a tax cut.
The fundamental question is who knows how to better spend or invest money? The taxpayer, of whom the money actually belongs, or Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank? I already know your answer, but I'm one of those radical right-wingers that think people know how to spend their money better than Washington, D.C. does.
But then again, it shouldn't matter to you, because "money is money," right?
"The savings are passed on to the PEOPLE THAT PAY THE TAXES"
No they aren't:
canadian-lawyers (dot) ca/ understand - your - legal - issue/tax/1022406/
alternet (dot) org/ workplace/ 106410
"The fundamental question is who knows how to better spend or invest money?"
It depends. Either way tax cuts don't generate a large enough rise in disposable income to pay for healthcare, pensions, retirement, etc. A measly tax cut won't make your salary large enough to retire on.
A rich person pays 30% on taxes prior to loopholes exemptions which can make them pay no taxes what so ever.
Thing is someone who gets 60,000 a year winds up spending 20,000 in taxes. A rich person who earns billions pays less overall then the person who earns 60,000.
For some reason taxing the rich more makes the rich invest and work to earn money and therby hire people wheras cutting taxes on the rich causes them to fire people, not invest the money just become idle rich.
"A rich person pays 30% on taxes prior to loopholes exemptions which can make them pay no taxes what so ever."
The only problem with this statement is that it's completely inaccurate. All you have to do is google IRS statistics that show the top 5% pay over half of the taxes in this country.
"Saying something is incorrect just because Paul Krugman said it is not rational.
Sure it's rational, because Krugman has never made a rational statement. Why don't we build hundreds of shiny new aircraft carriers, warships, and fighter jets, position them off the coast of pearl harbor, and then voluntarily sink/demolish all of them so that they'll have to be rebuilt, and repeat this process continuously. According to Krugman's logic, this process would create never-ending prosperity.
"because Krugman has never made a rational statement"
Now prove that.
What you said has nothing to do with what Krugman was saying. Krugman's point is that what creates wealth in an economy is not how much money the rich have the theoretically piss down on the rest of us. What creates wealth is how much money workers (and thus consumers) have, how much we save, how much we produce at home, how much we invest and how much our spending generates more revenue.
Krugman has never made a rational statement because he is a Keynsian. He clings to an economic theory that was discredited 30 years ago.
Wealth is created when people invest money and companies use that money to expand production. It doesn't matter if the people doing the investing are rich or poor. According to Krugman, only poor people should be allowed to keep money to invest, while the rich should be forced to hand over their money to Nancy Pelosi to do the "investing" for them.
"Krugman has never made a rational statement because he is a Keynsian"
1) No he isn't.
2) Another logical fallacy. If I said "Milton Friedman never made a rational statement because he's a neoliberal" that would be the same type of logical fallacy.
3) Not all of Keynesianism is incorrect and much of neoliberlism is incorrect.
Krugman is most certainly a Keynsian. He has said so himself many times. Anyone that adheres to that school of thought doesn't really deserve the title "economist."
Friedman would not call himself a "neoliberal," but a monetarist. But go ahead, give me one theory about neoliberalism that you think is incorrect, because I can't think of one. Free economies consistently outperform socialist ones.
"Krugman is most certainly a Keynsian. He has said so himself many times"
When?
"Anyone that adheres to that school of thought doesn't really deserve the title "economist"
That's bull. Some economists today are Keynesians or Neo-Keynesians. Almost always the latter because the former has flaws which the latter claims to resolve.
"ive me one theory about neoliberalism that you think is incorrect"
The assumption of rational consumers, the belief that tax cuts increase revenue (Laffer Curve).
The assumption of rational consumers is a strawman. No neoliberal economist I know of has argued that all consumers are rational.
The believe that tax cuts increase revenue is another strawman. Yet I've never seen it discredited. Every time taxes have been cut in this country, revenue has increased.
Neoliberals argue that sound money, low tax rates, limited government spending, and modest regulation leads to higher growth rates than socialist economies. I've yet to see this disproven.
That's not creation of wealth, that's simply expansion of a company. Where does that money come from in the first place? That money comes from revenue generated by the output of workers and revenue earned by the sales of consumers. Revenue is not created out of thin air.
"When interest rates and inflation are in double digits in 2 years, you'll understand what these tea bag parties were about"
1) Obama's budget, a grand total of $4.7 Trillion (if you include the $1 Trillion stimulus that already passed) is still much less than Bush's grand total of AT LEAST $9 Trillion in spending.
2) Bush's spending was harmful because it yielded no returns for the economy. Obama's spending is a direct investment in workers and consumers and businesses. That's different.
Bush never even came close to having a $9 trillion budget. That would be impossible. The economy itself is only $10 trillion large. I'm not sure where you get your facts. Bush's largest budget was his last one, which was around $3.5 trillion.
All government spending is harmful because it confiscates dollars that would otherwise have been invested by private individuals. Government's don't "invest" money.
Yeah, that GI Bill and New Deal that created the American middle class was real harmful. If it's so bad why does corporate America beg for corporate welfare checks from the government every year?
Oh wait! I get it! The New Deal MUST have worked because...well....Paul Krugman says so, right?
The New Deal was a complete failure. All it did was deprive the private sector of resources and jobs and divert them into wasteful and uneconomic public sector projects.
According to Krugman, we might as well have the government hire millions of workers to build really big pyramids or dig ditches and fill them back in. Then we'd really get the economy going, right?
Correct, definitely damn the new deal. Suburbia was not "created" by government anymore than downtown apartment buildings were created by government.
If you really want a soaring GDP, and think it's a good indicator of economic health, how bout we do this: let's have the government build 10,000 new pyramids in and around Washington. And lets make all the workers use little shovels to build them instead of modern equipment. Then we'd create LOTS of jobs and REALLY get a soaring GDP!!!
"Suburbia was not "created" by government anymore than downtown apartment buildings were created by government"
Refer to the GI Bill, capital flight caused by government policies attracting new business to the suburbs, etc. The government did indeed have a hand in the creation of suburbia.
"And lets make all the workers use little shovels to build them instead of modern equipment"
WTF? Anyway, the Public Works jobs in the New Deal paid far more than the sweatshop jobs of the 20s.
"Public Works jobs in the New Deal paid far more than the sweatshop jobs of the 20s"
Sure they paid more. Heck, if we wanted to right now we could hire millions of gov't workers to dig ditches and build dams that serve no purpose. And just to make sure we create enough "demand" and require the maximum number of jobs, we could force the workers to use spoons instead of bulldozers and pay them each $500,000 per hour. According to you logic, that would REALLY get the economy going, right?
"we could hire millions of gov't workers to dig ditches and build dams that serve no purpose"
1) Most PWA jobs were not "digging ditches". Most of the digging done with those jobs was for the creation of the interstate highway system. You know, that thing nobody uses anymore and that doesn't help businesses ferry things across the country by moving van?
2) Dams that serve no purpose? Yeah, those dams have nothing to do with our power plants. Nothing at all. (sarcasm)
Things created by Public Works projects: americanheritage (dot) com/ articles/ magazine/ it/ 2009/4/ 2009 _ 4 _ 48_ print (dot) shtml National Roads Hoover Dam Transcontinental Railways Air Traffic Control Oregon Coastal Highway Bridge System Lincoln Tunnel TVA (responsible for a lot of power plants today) Internet Shipping ports Thousands of factories Yep, none of that has anything to do with why America is a 'first world' country. Nothing at all.
America was already a first world country before 1932. Why do you think millions of immigrants risked their lives to come here during the entire course of the 1800s?
None of the works projects you've mentioned were necessary. Air Traffic Control is performed privately in Canada and outperforms our own by leaps and pounds. The TVA was totally unnecessary. There were already plenty of power plants. It was a make work sham.
"America was already a first world country before 1932"
Not nearly to the extent it was in 1952.
"None of the works projects were necessary"
If those PWA projects weren't done none of that shit would exist or it would have come along later and we'd be now where America was in the late 60s or early 70s technologically. Your comments are amusingly nonsensical. There were no bustling interstate highways, $35/hour jobs, suburban mortgage deals and cheap air travel before the New Deal.
The productive capacity of the economy is always in a constant state of expansion. Of course living standards were better in 1952 than 1932. For the same reason living standards were better in 1982 than 1962, or 2002 than 1992.
You of course, fail to recognize this (probably because you don't want to), so your only resort is to credit government when things improve. If something good happens, it MUST be because of the government, right?
"For the same reason living standards were better in 1982 than 1962, or 2002 than 1992"
Living standard have been going down for about 32 years or more now.
epi (dot) org/publications/ entry/ bp195/
"If something good happens, it MUST be because of the government"
No. Bush's government expenditures have been some of the worst in US history. You need to stop this "Two legs (private) = good; Four legs (government) = baaaad" black/white mentality.
"Living standard have been going down for about 32 years or more now."
Really? How much did an ipod cost in 1977? A laptop? What percentage of the population had air conditioning back then compared to now? What was the average sized home back then? How much did cable cost and how many people had flat screen TV's?
Having a laptop or an iPod is not a reflection of wealth. Not being in credit card debt, having high wages, a paid off house, an insured family, a stable job, wealth and land to pass down to your children and low costs of living and low housing prices is a standard of living. Therein lies the flaw with your consumerist measurements of well-being. You equate an excess of consumer goods with "wealth". What good is an iPod when you're $12,00 in debt?
Worker wages have only slightly increased or stagnated (and for blue-collar jobs decreased) over the past 35 years. Costs of living, healthcare costs and housing prices have only gone up. I'd call that a drop in standards of living.
"Having a laptop or an iPod is not a reflection of wealth."
Apparently it is, or else people wouldn't have the disposable income to spend it on such items in the first place. How many cars had anti-lock brakes, airbags, power windows, and power steering in 1977? How many hours of work does it take to buy a washing machine in 2009 compared to 1977? A cellphone? A microwave? These things are most certainly indicators of wealth because they make our every day lives far easier than in 1977.
Did you know this or is one of those facts you chose to ignore? Give it up and stop wasting my time. If you're going to make arguments at least back them up with facts. Come back when you actually know something.
Here's a fact. I own an i-pod, most of my friends own i-pods, and none of us are in debt. Those are the only facts I need. It's not my fault if someone in your articles can't manage their money well. Not my problem.
Now if you're going to keep up with me in this conversation and pose a significant opposition you're going to need to start citing information to back up your claims. Otherwise there's no way to verify that you aren't just pulling claims out of your ass.
Your "data" cites claims that Cuba is a well-off country and that Venezuela is a tropical paradise. Your opinions drive your facts instead of the other way around.
I don't have to cite anything because all you have to do is open your eyes and look around to realize that the average American is far better off today than in 1977. You'd have to be literally blind to not be able to see that.
"Your "data" cites claims that Cuba is a well-off country and that Venezuela is a tropical paradise"
No it doesn't. It just rates them as relatively High. Of course those countries have a laundry list of problems. But so does our country, especially right now. The citations are from the UN report of Index of overall well-being in these countries (mostly economically).
"I don't have to cite anything"
Yes you do. Otherwise it's pure hearsay. Especially if you're making numerical claims.
So someone living in a slum is wealthy since they have a rent to own cell phone, big screen tv, washing machine?
You can get cell phones dirt cheap even charities hand them out to the homeless because guess what without a phone number it's pretty hard to get work and they get a number of minutes on these charity cell phones.
"So someone living in a slum is wealthy since they have a rent to own cell phone, big screen tv, washing machine?"
Depends on your definition of a "slum." Sounds like these alleged "slums" have much higher living standards than just about any other household in history. Name one medieval lord who had the luxury of a cellphone.
The "thousands" of factories that open every year are all funded privately through stock offerings and corporate bonds. The New Deal and government spending has nothing to do with their construction. We had just as many shipping ports in 1932 as in 1942. We had plenty of railways before the New Deal as well.
In short, if something is profitable and worth building, the private sector will provide it.
"The "thousands" of factories that open every year are all funded privately through stock offerings and corporate bonds"
Many are now but not "all". Not to mention most private factories receive corporate welfare and public subsidies. Trillions a year.
zompist (dot) com/ richtax (dot) htm
Funny how you go on and on about how the private sector >>>> the government but most of these private companies are getting welfare checks. Just stop. You're obviously very uninformed.
"most of these private companies are getting welfare checks."
So your argument is basically this: "Because a handful of powerful corporations are able to lobby the government for corporate subsidies, this proves that subsidies are necessary in order for thousands of factories to open and operate every year."
There's no logic in this statement at all. If you took away all the subsidies to big business, capitalism would actually function better, not worse.
"78,000 bridges, 650,000 miles of roads, 700 miles of airport runways, 13,000 playgrounds, hundreds of airports built and 125,000 military and civilian buildings were constructed"
Either you're very uninformed or an extreme ideologue uninterested in reality.
I'm so uninformed that I've never even heard of the case of Japan, which had 12 stimulus packages during the course of the 1990s, spent billions repaving roads, building new transit systems, and airports, building shiny new bridges to nowhere in towns that didn't even need them. And, after 18 years, their economy is still in a recession and their public debt to GDP ratio is off the charts. Japan has stimulated itself into the ground. It's a good thing we're following their lead.
"I'm so uninformed that I've never even heard of the case of Japan"
I know where this is going and it's complete bullshit. Not only was Japan not in a recession before 2008 but the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 was ended by government spending which also kept it from becoming a depression. Expenditure saved Japan.
money.cnn (dot) com/ 2009/01/21/ news/ economy/ yang _ japan .fortune/index (dot) htm
"if something is profitable the private sector will provide it"
Not everything that is profitable in the long-run is profitable in the short-run. Markets run on short-run interests. A clean environment, healthcare of citizens, a living wage, retirement care, good transportation, and low prices for high quality (which costs a lot) and even space travel are long-run interests of workers and consumers. Markets don't have an incentive to be concerned about these things. Especially space travel.
Yea space travel is really a pressing need right now. Damn that private sector for not focusing enough on that.
If the private sector cares only about the short run, why are shopping centers and office buildings constantly being renovated? Why do tech companies and pharmaceutical firms often spend a decade before they know they'll finally turn profit?
"Yea space travel is really a pressing need right now"
It is. The moon may hold untold trillions of hectoliters of a certain hydrogen gas in its polar ice caps which would fuel some alternative energy sources. It could potentially allow us to get off of oil and fossil fuels.
"why are shopping centers and office buildings constantly being renovated"
Because it's in the short-run interest of companies to keep attracting consumes. Renovations are sometimes financed by government tax dollars.
I like how you respond to my claim about shopping centers and office buildings, but not to the part about tech firms or drug companies. Or any other small business that spends years before it even makes a profit. Or a skyscraper that takes 7 years to construct.
And I know why you didn't respond: because it require you to realize that the market process is far better equipped at coordinating long-term projects than gov't bureaucrats and politicians thinking only of 24-month election cycles.
"but not to the part about tech firms or drug companies"
What about them? Tech companies charge high prices for some goods which are of relatively inferior quality and most Americans are in debt struggling to pay off and finance all the shit they own but can't afford. Half of the drugs on the market today from drug companies are unsafe due to deregulation of health and safety standards. A lot of that shit out there will either kill you or fuck you up.
So now you're doing a bait-and-switch. You say private companies think only in the short term, but as soon as I mention how drug companies spend decades in the red before finally turning a profit, you change the subject to how evil drug companies are.
"Half of the drugs on the market today from drug companies are unsafe." Really? That's funny. I've never been harmed by an over-the-counter or prescription drug. Sounds like a strawman.
"That's funny. I've never been harmed by an over-the-counter or prescription drug"
And I've never been in a car accident. But tens of thousands of people die from car accidents every year anyway even though I've had the good fortune to not be in one.
"I own an i-pod, most of my friends own i-pods, and none of us are in debt"
How old are you? Do you own your own place? How long have you been living on your own?
"You say private companies think only in the short term"
If they were thinking in the long-term they wouldn't put half the drugs that are out there on the market. This has nothing to do with ethics or "evil". This is a purely utilitarian argument. Half the shit does not work. Literally. A lot of it is deadly. If selling shit drugs that don't work and have deadly side effects is "evil" so be it.
"market process is far better equipped at coordinating long-term projects than gov't bureaucrats and politicians thinking only of 24-month election cycles"
I guess that's why we're in the 2008 recession now because of the private sector and the fact that the god-like market wasn't able to forsee the environmental impact of fossil fuels and the combustion engine and couldn't coordinate efforts to stop it. Lol. Yes, execs who only think about bottom line profits above all else did a bang-up job.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If greedy CEO's in fact are the cause of recessions, then why aren't we ALWAYS in a recession? CEO's are always greedy. In fact, everyone is greedy. So, according to you, we should always be in a downturn.
The recession was caused, like most, by the Federal Reserve's fueling of an unsustainable boom in housing. When the Fed lowers rates, it misleads investors into backing projects they would never have otherwise undertaken.
"If greedy CEO's in fact are the cause of recessions, then why aren't we ALWAYS in a recession? CEO's are always greedy."
Because the ratio of average employee wages-to-CEO wages used to be more even. In Japan it's 1:10 (CEOs only get 10 times what employees get). Here in the US it's 1:462. Our parents and grandparents made more money than we do because wages were higher, good paying jobs were easier to get and costs of living were lower.
"The recession was caused, like most, by the Federal Reserve's fueling of an unsustainable boom in housing"
That's part of it but a relatively minor part. Most of the unstable housing boom was actually upper-middle class and wealthy real estate purchases. Most of it has to do with low wages, national budget deficit (partially due to tax cuts and foreign borrowing), two expensive wars, outsourcing of good jobs and low consumer buying (due to low wages).
Because companies were deregulated over the past 30 years by the Republican controlled Congress. It was the scandals that came out of the Reagan Administration (225 indictments) and then came the S&L scandal which brought the country's economy lower in the early 90s. the only thing that brought us up a bit was the technology sector which became saturated and opened doors to international outsourcing. This did no help at all. We are in a deep spiral now since losing about 40% of American jobs.
"Most PWA jobs were not "digging ditches." Yes, they pretty much were. Cleaning up parks, digging ditches for the TVA, etc. None of these jobs were necessary.
The interstate system wasn't constructed until the 1950s and 60s and was not part of the New Deal.
"The interstate system wasn't constructed until the 1950s and 60s"
fhwa. (dot) gov/ interstate/quotable (dot) htm
"The Interstate program was the last New Deal Program and the first space program, combining the economic and social ambitions of the former with the technological and organizational virtuosity"
It was one of the last programs in the New Deal but the New Deal ended before it completed the system. Eisenhower completed it when he adopted some New Deal programs.
Yeah, the TVA, the GI Bill (which largely created the middle class), the creation of suburbs and interstate highways, massive public transportation systems that also increased the shipping and transportation abilities of private sector companies several-fold (developing African and Asian countries would kill for national public transportation and intercontinental highways), the minimum wage, pensions, 401k, healthcare and life insurance was a huge waste. Get rid of all of it.
Yes, definitely get rid of all of it. The TVA was a make work project that contributed no economic value to the economy. The GI Bill merely provided funds for kids to attend college that credit unions and thrift institutions would have provided anyway. Private roads can be built more cheaply and operated far more efficiently than government-run ones. Life insurance, healthcare, and pension plans are all run privately and do fine without government interference.
Because the 1890s-1920s was so much better for the average American. Please excuse me while I laugh at you implying America was better off before the New Deal when the average Joe broke his back 12 hours a day 6 days a week for what would be the equivalent of $9.50/hr today. LOL!
"The TVA was a make work project that contributed no economic value"
Yeah, power plants across America have nothing to do with our industrial prowess. Nothing.
"Because the 1890s-1920s was so much better for the average American"
Here you clearly engage in the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy that most liberals do. You carelessly assume that because outcome B occurred AFTER action A, then B must have been CAUSED by A.
Of course we are far better off today than we were 100 years ago. But this is because the productive capacity of the economy is in a constant state of expansion. It is NOT because the federal government has grown.
"Why do you think our economy magically rapidly expanded?"
First of all, nothing "magically" does anything. Economies expand for one reason and one reason only: capital investment. When people save the money they earn and invest it, banks lend that money to businesses which use that money to expand production, buy new equipment, create jobs, and invest in new technologies. This is a natural, ongoing process that has been happening since the industrial revolution.
"Economies expand for one reason and one reason only: capital investment"
No. Capital investment is pretty worthless if output is low or if prices are high or wages are so low that it does not create prosperity. You can't bullshit me, man (or woman). I'm a trained economist.
Not to mention that investment can be private or public. There is nothing magical about public investment that makes it of less worth. Money is money.
"You can't bullshit me, man (or woman). I'm a trained economist."
Apparently you aren't, because you know nothing about economics.
"There is nothing magical about public investment that makes it of less worth."
I am rolling on the floor after reading this statement. In other words, all of the public "investments" that Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro make are just as worthy as private investments made here. I guess that's why N. Korea and Cuba are just as wealthy as the U.S., right?
"Is that why I just whooped your ass in this conversation?"
You're the one who just said Cuba is a well-off country. You might want to just stop right there. Cuba is in fact so well off that hundreds of thousands of Cubans who are lucky enough to have rafts risk their lives every year just to have a CHANCE to come to our shores.
You couldn't whoop Ashlee Simpson in an economics debate.
This statement is so atrocious, it would make Chavez or Mugabe proud.
If indeed "money is money," then why don't we just print lots of it and hand it out to every man, woman, and child? Why don't we just double, triple, or quadruple the money supply by having Obama or Bernanke fly around in a helicopter and drop billions of newly-printed dollars on every major city? Then we'd create LOTS of wealth, right?
"This statement is so atrocious, it would make Chavez or Mugabe proud"
Haha, now I know you're a right-winger. Venezuela is better off now than it was during the 90s. Wages and living standards are increasing in the country. South Africa's government makes somewhat heavy expenditures and it has one of the strongest and best-growing economies in Africa.
No one said shit about printing money. If anything it would probably be better to burn money to increase the value.
Um, Mugabe is president of Zimbabwe. I have no idea what South Africa has to do with this conversation. Thanks for bringing it up though because it is completely irrelevant.
I am one of those far-right fringe loons that actually believes Chavez is a bad leader. Things are so great in Venezuela that anyone with $ is fleeing to Miami. The state controls all the means of production, and the media. Meat shelves are empty because of price controls. Sounds like a real worker's paradise.
Who brought up South Africa? But anyway, believe whatever you want. I'll stick with the facts. The facts are Venezuela is better off now than where it was 10 years ago. I judge all leaders, right-wing and left-wing, by the fruits they produce.
About Miami I don't know what you're talking about. There is no huge emigration from Venezuela to Miami. But there is one from Mexico (a right-wing deregulated capitalist country) to the US.
"I judge all leaders, right-wing and left-wing, by the fruits they produce."
Herein lies the underlying fallacy stated so blatantly: you believe the fruits are produced by macho leaders and government. I believe the fruits are produced by individuals, free men and women pursuing their separate interests.
Governments don't create wealth. Private individuals do. The government has no wealth to begin with. All it can do is take from Peter and give to Paul
"you believe the fruits are produced by macho leaders and government"
Bullshit. Stop ASS-U-MING what I believe and just ask. I believe everything in any economy, regardless of what type it is, is generated by the labor of workers and the expenditures of consumers. Everything is ultimately created by labor.
WTF do you think the national budget is? If government has no wealth why does the private sector line up every year with hands out for government welfare checks for their companies and begging for subsidies, tax breaks and investments/loans from Uncle Sam?
"The GI Bill merely provided funds for kids to attend college that credit unions and thrift institutions"
Are you truly this uninformed or are you so much of a die-hard ideologue that you're willing to lie just to prove your ideology "correct"? I can't believe any American is this uninformed about our history.
defenselink (dot) mil / news/ newsarticle (dot) aspx ? id = 26226
My evidence is the vast, extensive networks of private roads and turnpikes that existed in Great Britain and the U.S. before government began taking them over. The few areas left where private companies ARE actually still allowed to build and operate roads have been phenomenal success stories. Hwy 91 in LA and the Dulles Greenway in northern VA for example. Both have far less traffic problems and are far more responsive to drivers' needs and concerns than surrounding interstates.
Yor argument is a false dilemma because I never said markets are bad for foodstuffs or cell phones.
"the vast, extensive networks of private roads and turnpikes that existed in Great Britain and the U.S. before government began taking them over"
When the hell was this? There was no vast interstate network of these things before WWII. And if you want to get into traffic congestion air travel had far less delays in the past when it was more regulated. Deregulating traffic makes no sense.
I think it's time to teabag the tea bag party.
thesensireport 1 year ago
Maybe the White House needs some tea bagging. (Congress too)
Q: What percentage of elected officials sleep with their mouths hanging open?
A: exactly 16 percent.
I have a funny taste in my mouth (I'm sure it's just psychological) Anyone have a breath mint?
fuzzywuzy 1 year ago
Typical liberal obama pansy!!!
hibio06 1 year ago
Teabaggers - I await your oral administrations! (Preferably paying greater attention to the one on the left than that on the right.)
Carrying on, Teabaggers!
SoINeedAName48 1 year ago
Theyre teabaggers.... and 0bama obsessed leftist=Chicago steamers
axe863 1 year ago
You are a smarmy liberal and making excuses.You are disgusting.
Mikevdog 1 year ago
This guy is awesome. Thanks for posting!!!
madandbugged 1 year ago
Andy is an idiot! anyone who listens to this has lost 25% of their IQ.
Antiglobalist2010 2 years ago
Tea baggers are to America what fleas are to dogs.
Rexcetera 2 years ago
LOLOLOLOL there's another video here that says fox is pushed to "Tea Bag The White House"
Meda01 2 years ago
Dude.
Coolbeans
Really
ksecus 2 years ago
Pure genius!
ProudLiberal2008 2 years ago
Michele Bachmann.... I nearly spit my teeth out I laughed so hard.
The visuals are really, really scary.
MrMDLeather99 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cute video.
Little fact check, however: Conservatives holding "Tea Parties" never called it "teabagging". Liberals did. DailyKos mentioned it first. Keith Olbermann was the first on air with it. Next came Anderson cooper with the "it's hard to talk when you're teabagging"---whoa, a little too much information there Anderson!
No conservatives "got the domain name" or "printed fliers" with that name, as the video suggests. Nice try there. Cute video though.
FreepShop 2 years ago
Comment removed
BipsTheSecond 2 years ago
Comment removed
Meda01 2 years ago
Little fact check for you...
Griff Jenkins said people were going to "tea bag the White House" on Fox News Channel while wearing a tricorn hat. Jon Stewart played the clip on his show the next day. It was all over the internet.
I guess you missed it.
gtrumpnc 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are humour what water is to a fire.
acinodras 2 years ago
"...Michelle Bachmann's freaky lady balls..."
oh my GOD I almost died.
BipsTheSecond 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this fag looks like he belongs on an upsidedown bar stool....and probably has been practicing by sitting on beer bottles.
TnTonto 2 years ago
Classic!
sexyfunklova 2 years ago
haha tea bagging parties!!
ckyross 2 years ago
who couldn't laugh at john fingerbang xDD?
CrapperBlink 2 years ago
That's great. The right wing in America is crying out desperately to be made fun of.
2indulgent 2 years ago
Nobody who attended the tea parties ever said "teabagging." That word was only used by the media and folks who didn't like the protests. The left came up with the term, not those who supported the tea parties.
kangarookirby 2 years ago
Funny how all you fag loving liberal make gay jokes. Hypocrits.
LloydBraun14 2 years ago
hehhe nice!
grandtheftm0tt0 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Republican Gov.Jindal`s $50 million appropriation to keep a chicken-processing plant open in Farmerville may help Gov. Bobby Jindal win legislative support for an $85 million Superdome overhaul at the other end of the state, some lawmakers say.
Is a chicken plant going to make me like this (Saints deal) better? Probably so," said Rep. Noble Ellington, D-Winnsboro. . This gives me a lot more reasons" to support the use of surplus state funds for the Superdome project.
Welfare for the rich
spock8585 2 years ago
both parties are the problem and those who support them, keeping us fighting each other so that they can do what they want, the US is not perfect but its still our home and we all lose if this keeps up
tony543111 2 years ago
freaky lady balls..
daveidduha 2 years ago
DON`T forget Brian & Clair.
rsweetjr16 2 years ago
Freaky leadyballs. Lulz!
notparistexas 2 years ago
excellent! good work!
Katranon 2 years ago 2
What I don't get about these teabag parties is what has gone on between January 20, 2009 and now that they're up in arms about? They're upset about receiving tax breaks? Why weren't they doing this under Bush when he ruined the economy and used the Constitution as toilet paper?
Given the timing of these parties, the type of speeches and signs we're seeing there and the lack of an alternative to Obama's plans I suspect it's a GOP recruitment meet.
A86 2 years ago 7
You obviously haven't looked at Obama's budget proposals. It makes even Bush look like a fiscal conservative.
When interest rates and inflation are in double digits in 2 years, you'll understand what these tea bag parties were about.
pholland 2 years ago
"You obviously haven't looked at Obama's budget proposals"
I've looked at them quite in-depth. I'm an amateur economist.
"It makes even Bush look like a fiscal conservative"
1) For the GOP to talk about fiscal conservatism now after rabidly supporting (and calling people "un-American" for disagreeing) one of the most fiscally wasteful presidents in US is like Ozzy Osbourne or Bobby Brown trying to lecture people about clean living.
2) What's so radical about Obama's budget?
A86 2 years ago
Well, if you've looked at them, then you must know that he's already tripled the deficit in just his first three months. If Bush was wasteful for running a $500 billion deficit, what does that make Obama for running a $1.5 trillion deficit?
His budget is radical because it provides for government control of the health care industry, the energy industry, the automobile industry, and the banking industry. It's the largest expansion of government in American history. That's what's radical.
pholland 2 years ago
"you must know that he's already tripled the deficit in just his first three months"
That's complete bull. The deficit was already over $7 Trillion. Another $4 Trillion is not triple of $7 Trillion. Your math is off. Besides, the difference is that Obama's spending will potentially be repaid when it is offset by an increase in production and consumer spending. Even your hero Ronald Reagan engaged in massive spending to get us out of the 1982 recession.
A86 2 years ago
"The deficit was already over $7 trillion."
That's completely impossible. It's only $1.8 right now. I have no idea what you're talking about. You might be confusing the deficit with the national debt, which are two completely different things.
We got out of the '82 recession by lower tax rates, less government spending, tighter control of the money supply (which tamed inflation), and deregulation. Government spending doesn't create prosperity.
pholland 2 years ago
Wrong Bush kept the cost of Iraq and Afganistan off the books. 90% of the current deficit belongs to Bush even conservative newspapers admit this now.
toomanyaccounts 2 years ago
"His budget is radical because it provides for government control of the health care industry"
No it doesn't. And that's the problem some liberals have with it. Government control of healthcare works very well in Europe and Japan. If you want to see the miracles of private healthcare see the 45 million people without it or the people who are in debt because they can't afford it. Or see countries like Indonesia and Mozambique.
"the energy industry"
That's every president before Reagan.
A86 2 years ago
Government control of healthcare works so well in Europe and Japan that thousands of Europeans and Japanese patients travel here every year just to get surgery.
pholland 2 years ago
Plastic surgery you mean or they are rich enough to go to the mayo clinic. Ordinary Japanese and Europeans don't have longer wait times for standard surgeries then Americans do. An MRI in Japan costs then 14 bucks compared to several grand in the US.
Millions of Americans go out of the US each year for medical treatment that is the equal or in fact better then what they get in the US and it costs them a mere fraction what it does here.
toomanyaccounts 2 years ago
"the automobile industry, and the banking industry"
No he isn't. He's calling for temporary government ownership for A FEW of those industries in order to sort out their toxic assets and then release them in a few years when everything is sorted out. FDR and Ronald Reagan did the same thing.
The largest expansion of government in US history was Bush's Patriot Act and his multi-trillion dollar tax spendings on the war and corporate welfare.
A86 2 years ago
"Temporary" government ownership my ass. There is nothing "temporary" about government or its programs. Never in the course of history has government actually gotten smaller. Once you give government power, it never relinquishes it.
All the Patriot Act did was allow law enforcement agencies to share intelligence. No expansion of government resulted.
pholland 2 years ago
"Temporary" government ownership my ass"
The government does not want to own these entities, it's another headache for the government and more energy and money they have to spend. Ronald Reagan did the same thing with some companies and re-privatized them.
"All the Patriot Act did was"
Allow the government to spy on you, collect information and deny you Constitutional due process and give Bush emergency powers. It expanded the government. Give it up, your arguments are pathetic.
A86 2 years ago
No, your arguments are pathetic because they are in no way grounded in reality. The Patriot Act in no way deprives citizens of due process. If that were the case, the Supreme Court would have struck it down years ago. Give me one example of an American citizen being deprived of a trial because of the Patriot Act. Good luck with that because it hasn't happened.
pholland 2 years ago
"The Patriot Act in no way deprives citizens of due process"
msnbc.msn (dot) com / id/ 20999950/
And you claim I'm not based in reality. Pfft.
"Oh wait! I get it! The New Deal MUST have worked because well..Paul Krugman says so, right?"
Unless you have counter-evidence there is no reason to assume he's wrong. You're using the logical fallacy of attacking the source rather than the information presented. Saying something is incorrect just because Paul Krugman said it is not rational.
A86 2 years ago
Here's my counter-evidence. The economy did not begin to truly recover from the Great Depression until after WWII when Truman slashed spending, taxes, and scrapped much of the New Deal. If the New Deal was so necessary and such a success, why did the economy prosper in the 50's after Truman reversed so much of it?
pholland 2 years ago
"The economy did not begin to truly recover from the Great Depression until after WWII"
Bull, the economy recovered mostly by 1938. WWII added an extra surge because of the huge increase in industrial production and the fact that the rest of the world economy was destroyed, especially Europe, while the American economy was left intact.
"when Truman slashed spending, taxes"
Truman started programs similar to the New Deal called the "Fair Deal". It kept most New Deal policies in place.
A86 2 years ago
"WWII added an extra surge because of the huge increase in industrial production."
WWII led to a huge increase in production of weapons, military uniforms, and war machinery. For the millionth time, production of these things doesn't make a society any wealthier. Think of all the things that COULD have been produced with these resources had there been no war. Think of all the productive jobs that COULD have been created instead of young men being hauled off to Normandy.
pholland 2 years ago
"WWII led to a huge increase in production of weapons, military uniforms, and war machinery"
Where the heck do you think that stuff came from? Factories. WTF do you think happened to the factories after the war ended? Do you think they were torn down? No. They were converted into industrial production factories. Our wealth went up because the huge increase in factories produced by the New Deal and WWII boosted our production capacity increasing our output and GDP.
A86 2 years ago
"why did the economy prosper in the 50's after Truman reversed so much of it"
When Truman cut taxes and some spending it actually was part of the cause of the 1953 recession. Eisenhower came along and raised taxes on the rich and increased spending which ended the recession. During the 50s economic boom the tax rate on the rich was 90%. The end of the Korean War also ended the recession because war spending is a huge drain on the economy, part of why Bush's wars caused our current recession.
A86 2 years ago
"Bush's wars caused our current recession"
What? The current recession we're in was caused by the popping of a housing bubble and an ensuing credit crunch that resulted from subprime mortgages. I have never heard anyone argue that the Afghanistan or Iraq wars somehow caused the housing bubble. Are you somehow saying that Bush's decision to invade Baghdad somehow induced people decided to start buying up houses they couldn't afford? I'm confused.
pholland 2 years ago
"The current recession we're in was caused by the popping of a housing bubble and an ensuing credit crunch that resulted from subprime mortgages"
Hardly.
sadlyno (dot) com / archives/ 11958 (dot) html
Our recession has far more to do with the $2 Trillion we've spent on these wars, the $1.4 Trillion annual budget we spend on corporate welfare and tax cuts which decrease government revenue and leave a budget deficit.
This is what happens when you swallow FOX News talking points.
A86 2 years ago
"Our recession has far more to do with the $2 Trillion we've spent on these wars, the $1.4 Trillion annual budget we spend on corporate welfare and tax cuts which decrease government revenue and leave a budget deficit."
So government spending creates prosperity AND recessions? I'm confused. FDR spent FAR more in real terms on WWII. According to your logic, there must have been a massive recession in 1945 when the war ended.
pholland 2 years ago
"So government spending creates prosperity AND recessions?"
It just depends on what the spending is on and how it is spent. Just like a private company can create either prosperity or a recession by spending. The spending a lot of private companies did between 2001-2008 caused this current recession. If you cut wages, increase spending on wasteful projects and gambling it in the stock and futures market and waste money on poor quality products or services you can create a recession.
A86 2 years ago
"FDR spent FAR more in real terms on WWII"
In proportion to GDP he did spend more. It paid off more because rapid industrialization greatly increased industrial and economic output, offsetting the costs in the long run. The Iraq War has not increased non-military industrial production or created too many new jobs so the spending outpaces the economic gains created by it. The First Gulf War was much more economically sound because it ended the 1991 recession by increasing industrial output.
A86 2 years ago
I had no idea wars could be so good for the economy. Here's an idea, how about we have a "fake" war every 5 years. We can have the gov't take all the money it needs from the taxpayers, which apparently aren't smart enough to know how to invest on their own, and use it to build huge fighter jet hangers, and tank factories. Then we'll roll out thousands of new tanks and planes and blow them up. It would be a great use of resources because "industrial production" will have increased, right?
pholland 2 years ago
"I had no idea wars could be so good for the economy"
They can be. WWII and the First Gulf War were a boon for the economy because they increased industrial production and output and increased the federal budget. But not all wars are. The Vietnam War and the current Iraq War are a huge budget drain. They haven't increased production and the profits aren't being passed on to consumers and workers. Tax cuts decrease revenue which makes the government finance these wars on a deficit.
A86 2 years ago
World War 2 a fighter aircraft cost six hundred thousand while a f-16 cost 16 million while a f-22 costs 142 million.
You can buy lots more fighter aircraft at six hundred thousand and therby employ more people not only in building the things but also flying the things.
World War 2 had the taxes raised for instance and a huge amount of gov't spending. Plus all the people employed by the gov't cut down on unemployment so much so that women entered the workforce in unheard of numbers.
toomanyaccounts 2 years ago
While that's true it didn't hurt so much back then because the things the government spent on had great return on investment rates and economies of scale and scope. Spending on industrialization had great benefits.
Government spending has been rising again since the 70s after it decreased in the late 40s. This time it's just racking up debt because the spending is on things which aren't creating more jobs or raising income and investment. Like wars and corporate welfare.
A86 2 years ago
Well Democrats tend to rein spending unless they have to fix huge messes and raise taxes to compensate. Republicans on the other hand spend like mad, do tax cuts on the rich raise taxes on the lower and middle class. Democrats always lower deficit or reduce the growth along with the national debt. Republicans always triple the debt and deficit and have lower economic growth.
toomanyaccounts 2 years ago 2
That has been the historical trend up until this point. I'm massively disappointed in Obama because he seems to be bridging whatever differences left between Democrats and Republicans. A lot of his policies are rehashes of Bush policy.
A86 2 years ago
@A86
Actually he is far better then McCain and guess what he has to act bipartenship otherwise the Republicans will raise more of a stink and lie a hundred times more then they are already lying. Fox News and the conservative media that took over the airwaves and radio and print back in the 1960s have been a toxin and pox on this country.
toomanyaccounts 2 years ago
"Republicans on the other hand spend like mad, do tax cuts on the rich raise taxes on the lower and middle class."
First of all, the lower classes don't pay income taxes. In fact, the entire bottom 50% of wage earners pay income tax. The percentage increased under Bush. So you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
pholland 2 years ago
Wrong. Someone who for instance makes 12,000 a year working in legal jobs pays 3-4 thousand of that in taxes that they don't get back. Sales tax, SSI taxes. Students for instance if they have a part time job often see a quarter of what they earn get taken up in taxes and don't recover it.
Also if the person doesn't know how to claim poverty on their tax forms (hence why Acorn helps file a huge percentage of income taxes for free) they pay income tax because the IRS doesn't reimburse.
toomanyaccounts 2 years ago
That's interesting, because I'm a student working part time and only make around $24,000. I do my own taxes and no where did I claim "poverty" on my forms. And I still paid no federal income tax.
pholland 2 years ago
@pholland
You still paid taxes that took a fourth of your income.
It's why when income taxes get lower a person still pays far more the next year because of local taxes being raised due to less federal dollars coming in.
toomanyaccounts 2 years ago
"You still paid taxes that took a fourth of your income."
Um, no. Trust me, I didn't pay any taxes. Local taxes are paid by property owners, and I don't own property. The only thing I paid into was Social Security and Medicaid. Both of which I am all for getting rid of because I will never see that money again.
pholland 2 years ago
how did you manage not getting charged for federal tax? thats amazing.. i mean the federal reserve is privately owned by a group of bankers and they hit my check every year with no mercy.. legal mobs i sure wish i can stop this since it is not going to the government at all.. why am i supporting some rich people? i am sorry.. very very very rich people..
shadowlesswalls 2 years ago
Because I'm in the bottom half of wage-earners. I've never heard of someone getting a payroll deduction by the Federal Reserve. Only the Department of Revenue has withholding power for income tax purposes.
Yes, greedy, privately owned businesses are always a bad idea. Like privately owned shoe stores, owned grocery stores, and restaurants. The government ought to take control of all of them. There are too many greedy people out there trying to produce stuff for people.
pholland 2 years ago
This examines step-by-step how tax cuts caused the recession:
hussmanfunds (dot) com/ wmc/ wmc 080721 (dot) htm
commondreams (dot) org/ archive/ 2008/ 03/11/ 7603
Cutting taxes then proceeding to engage in 2 wars, which cost more than all of WWII did for FDR and Truman, and increasing corporate welfare handouts, agribusiness subsidation and spending on defense contracting is one of the most monumentally stupid things you could do economically.
A86 2 years ago
"This examines step-by-step how tax cuts caused the recession."
A tax cut cannot cause a recession. Recessions result from overinvestment in a particular sector. This time it was housing. In 2000-2001, it was tech companies. Allowing people to keep more of the money they earn has nothing to do with this.
pholland 2 years ago
"A tax cut cannot cause a recession"
They can and have.
americanprogress (dot) org/ issues/ 2009/ 02/ bush _ recession (dot) html
cbpp (dot) org/ cms/ ? fa = view &i d = 692
Tax cuts cause recessions because they decrease tax revenue which increases budget deficit and the savings usually fail to be passed along to workers and consumers in reality. The money often ends up in speculative futures markets or to outsourced companies which adds to the GNP of other countries.
A86 2 years ago
"Tax cuts cause recessions because they decrease tax revenue which increases budget deficit."
Again, this makes no sense. Now you're saying tax cuts cause recessions because budget deficits cause recessions. Um, how? Just because the government is spending more than it gets in revenue does not make investors or consumers spend less. Deficits are not good in the long run because they prompt inflation. But they don't cause recessions.
pholland 2 years ago
"Now you're saying tax cuts cause recessions because budget deficits cause recessions. Um, how?"
Because, whether you like it or not, the government is the prime economic actor in any economy. When government revenue is down the government cannot run vital public services which businesses need to function. Budget revenue = less train services, less shipping, crappy interstate roads, less subsidies and loans, high repayment interest rates, inflation, etc. All of which businesses use.
A86 2 years ago
The savings are passed on to the PEOPLE THAT PAY THE TAXES. If you pay taxes, then you get a tax cut.
The fundamental question is who knows how to better spend or invest money? The taxpayer, of whom the money actually belongs, or Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank? I already know your answer, but I'm one of those radical right-wingers that think people know how to spend their money better than Washington, D.C. does.
But then again, it shouldn't matter to you, because "money is money," right?
pholland 2 years ago
"The savings are passed on to the PEOPLE THAT PAY THE TAXES"
No they aren't:
canadian-lawyers (dot) ca/ understand - your - legal - issue/tax/1022406/
alternet (dot) org/ workplace/ 106410
"The fundamental question is who knows how to better spend or invest money?"
It depends. Either way tax cuts don't generate a large enough rise in disposable income to pay for healthcare, pensions, retirement, etc. A measly tax cut won't make your salary large enough to retire on.
A86 2 years ago
A rich person pays 30% on taxes prior to loopholes exemptions which can make them pay no taxes what so ever.
Thing is someone who gets 60,000 a year winds up spending 20,000 in taxes. A rich person who earns billions pays less overall then the person who earns 60,000.
For some reason taxing the rich more makes the rich invest and work to earn money and therby hire people wheras cutting taxes on the rich causes them to fire people, not invest the money just become idle rich.
toomanyaccounts 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"A rich person pays 30% on taxes prior to loopholes exemptions which can make them pay no taxes what so ever."
The only problem with this statement is that it's completely inaccurate. All you have to do is google IRS statistics that show the top 5% pay over half of the taxes in this country.
pholland 2 years ago
"Saying something is incorrect just because Paul Krugman said it is not rational.
Sure it's rational, because Krugman has never made a rational statement. Why don't we build hundreds of shiny new aircraft carriers, warships, and fighter jets, position them off the coast of pearl harbor, and then voluntarily sink/demolish all of them so that they'll have to be rebuilt, and repeat this process continuously. According to Krugman's logic, this process would create never-ending prosperity.
pholland 2 years ago
"because Krugman has never made a rational statement"
Now prove that.
What you said has nothing to do with what Krugman was saying. Krugman's point is that what creates wealth in an economy is not how much money the rich have the theoretically piss down on the rest of us. What creates wealth is how much money workers (and thus consumers) have, how much we save, how much we produce at home, how much we invest and how much our spending generates more revenue.
A86 2 years ago
Krugman has never made a rational statement because he is a Keynsian. He clings to an economic theory that was discredited 30 years ago.
Wealth is created when people invest money and companies use that money to expand production. It doesn't matter if the people doing the investing are rich or poor. According to Krugman, only poor people should be allowed to keep money to invest, while the rich should be forced to hand over their money to Nancy Pelosi to do the "investing" for them.
pholland 2 years ago
"Krugman has never made a rational statement because he is a Keynsian"
1) No he isn't.
2) Another logical fallacy. If I said "Milton Friedman never made a rational statement because he's a neoliberal" that would be the same type of logical fallacy.
3) Not all of Keynesianism is incorrect and much of neoliberlism is incorrect.
A86 2 years ago
Krugman is most certainly a Keynsian. He has said so himself many times. Anyone that adheres to that school of thought doesn't really deserve the title "economist."
Friedman would not call himself a "neoliberal," but a monetarist. But go ahead, give me one theory about neoliberalism that you think is incorrect, because I can't think of one. Free economies consistently outperform socialist ones.
pholland 2 years ago
"Krugman is most certainly a Keynsian. He has said so himself many times"
When?
"Anyone that adheres to that school of thought doesn't really deserve the title "economist"
That's bull. Some economists today are Keynesians or Neo-Keynesians. Almost always the latter because the former has flaws which the latter claims to resolve.
"ive me one theory about neoliberalism that you think is incorrect"
The assumption of rational consumers, the belief that tax cuts increase revenue (Laffer Curve).
A86 2 years ago
The assumption of rational consumers is a strawman. No neoliberal economist I know of has argued that all consumers are rational.
The believe that tax cuts increase revenue is another strawman. Yet I've never seen it discredited. Every time taxes have been cut in this country, revenue has increased.
Neoliberals argue that sound money, low tax rates, limited government spending, and modest regulation leads to higher growth rates than socialist economies. I've yet to see this disproven.
pholland 2 years ago
"No neoliberal economist I know of has argued that all consumers are rational"
Read the "Rational Consumer Theory".
"Every time taxes have been cut in this country, revenue has increased"
Wrong.
huppi (dot) com/kangaroo/ L - taxcollection (dot) htm
This is why debating with ideologues can be fun to me. They are oblivious to reality and shoving their nose in it can be fun.
A86 2 years ago
"Wealth is created when people invest"
That's not creation of wealth, that's simply expansion of a company. Where does that money come from in the first place? That money comes from revenue generated by the output of workers and revenue earned by the sales of consumers. Revenue is not created out of thin air.
distributedresearch (dot) net / blog/ 2008/ 10/11/ how- is-wealth -destroyed - and-where - does- wealth- come- from
What you described is debunked trickle-down theory.
A86 2 years ago
"When interest rates and inflation are in double digits in 2 years, you'll understand what these tea bag parties were about"
1) Obama's budget, a grand total of $4.7 Trillion (if you include the $1 Trillion stimulus that already passed) is still much less than Bush's grand total of AT LEAST $9 Trillion in spending.
2) Bush's spending was harmful because it yielded no returns for the economy. Obama's spending is a direct investment in workers and consumers and businesses. That's different.
A86 2 years ago
Bush never even came close to having a $9 trillion budget. That would be impossible. The economy itself is only $10 trillion large. I'm not sure where you get your facts. Bush's largest budget was his last one, which was around $3.5 trillion.
All government spending is harmful because it confiscates dollars that would otherwise have been invested by private individuals. Government's don't "invest" money.
pholland 2 years ago
"Bush never even came close to having a $9 trillion budget. That would be impossible"
$9 Trillion debt, I said. Over 8 years. Our GDP is $14 Trillion, not $10 Trillion.
npr (dot) org / templates/ story/ story (dot) php ? storyId = 5282521
"All government spending is harmful"
Yeah, that GI Bill and New Deal that created the American middle class was real harmful. If it's so bad why does corporate America beg for corporate welfare checks from the government every year?
A86 2 years ago
The New Deal created the middle class? Really? Do you have evidence of this?
The New Deal was so successful that it only took 14 years to start working.
pholland 2 years ago
"The New Deal created the middle class? Really?"
Yeah.
krugman.blogs.nytimes (dot) com / 2008/ 11/ 08/ new - deal - economics/
The New Deal worked about a few years after it started. There was a brief recession in 1936 when FDR eased up on the New Deal to appease Republicans.
"thousands of Europeans and Japanese patients travel here every year"
Not really. More people travel there to get surgery than here. Thousands of Americans run to Canada and France for healthcare every year.
A86 2 years ago
Oh wait! I get it! The New Deal MUST have worked because...well....Paul Krugman says so, right?
The New Deal was a complete failure. All it did was deprive the private sector of resources and jobs and divert them into wasteful and uneconomic public sector projects.
According to Krugman, we might as well have the government hire millions of workers to build really big pyramids or dig ditches and fill them back in. Then we'd really get the economy going, right?
pholland 2 years ago
"The New Deal was a complete failure"
Now THAT'S a statement not grounded in reality.
unreasonable (dot) org / node/ 2230
open.salon (dot) com / blog/ caveat _ canem _ croceum/ 2009/ 02/ 17/ the _ new _ deal _ worked _ deal _ with _ it_neanderthals
"All it did was deprive the private sector of resources and jobs and divert them into wasteful and uneconomic public sector"
Yeah, damn you New Deal for creating suburbia, interstate highways, public transportation and a soaring GDP!
A86 2 years ago
Correct, definitely damn the new deal. Suburbia was not "created" by government anymore than downtown apartment buildings were created by government.
If you really want a soaring GDP, and think it's a good indicator of economic health, how bout we do this: let's have the government build 10,000 new pyramids in and around Washington. And lets make all the workers use little shovels to build them instead of modern equipment. Then we'd create LOTS of jobs and REALLY get a soaring GDP!!!
pholland 2 years ago
"Suburbia was not "created" by government anymore than downtown apartment buildings were created by government"
Refer to the GI Bill, capital flight caused by government policies attracting new business to the suburbs, etc. The government did indeed have a hand in the creation of suburbia.
"And lets make all the workers use little shovels to build them instead of modern equipment"
WTF? Anyway, the Public Works jobs in the New Deal paid far more than the sweatshop jobs of the 20s.
A86 2 years ago
"Public Works jobs in the New Deal paid far more than the sweatshop jobs of the 20s"
Sure they paid more. Heck, if we wanted to right now we could hire millions of gov't workers to dig ditches and build dams that serve no purpose. And just to make sure we create enough "demand" and require the maximum number of jobs, we could force the workers to use spoons instead of bulldozers and pay them each $500,000 per hour. According to you logic, that would REALLY get the economy going, right?
pholland 2 years ago
"we could hire millions of gov't workers to dig ditches and build dams that serve no purpose"
1) Most PWA jobs were not "digging ditches". Most of the digging done with those jobs was for the creation of the interstate highway system. You know, that thing nobody uses anymore and that doesn't help businesses ferry things across the country by moving van?
2) Dams that serve no purpose? Yeah, those dams have nothing to do with our power plants. Nothing at all. (sarcasm)
A86 2 years ago
A86 2 years ago
America was already a first world country before 1932. Why do you think millions of immigrants risked their lives to come here during the entire course of the 1800s?
None of the works projects you've mentioned were necessary. Air Traffic Control is performed privately in Canada and outperforms our own by leaps and pounds. The TVA was totally unnecessary. There were already plenty of power plants. It was a make work sham.
pholland 2 years ago
"America was already a first world country before 1932"
Not nearly to the extent it was in 1952.
"None of the works projects were necessary"
If those PWA projects weren't done none of that shit would exist or it would have come along later and we'd be now where America was in the late 60s or early 70s technologically. Your comments are amusingly nonsensical. There were no bustling interstate highways, $35/hour jobs, suburban mortgage deals and cheap air travel before the New Deal.
A86 2 years ago
"Not nearly to the extent it was in 1952."
The productive capacity of the economy is always in a constant state of expansion. Of course living standards were better in 1952 than 1932. For the same reason living standards were better in 1982 than 1962, or 2002 than 1992.
You of course, fail to recognize this (probably because you don't want to), so your only resort is to credit government when things improve. If something good happens, it MUST be because of the government, right?
pholland 2 years ago
"For the same reason living standards were better in 1982 than 1962, or 2002 than 1992"
Living standard have been going down for about 32 years or more now.
epi (dot) org/publications/ entry/ bp195/
"If something good happens, it MUST be because of the government"
No. Bush's government expenditures have been some of the worst in US history. You need to stop this "Two legs (private) = good; Four legs (government) = baaaad" black/white mentality.
A86 2 years ago
"Living standard have been going down for about 32 years or more now."
Really? How much did an ipod cost in 1977? A laptop? What percentage of the population had air conditioning back then compared to now? What was the average sized home back then? How much did cable cost and how many people had flat screen TV's?
pholland 2 years ago
"How much did an ipod cost in 1977? A laptop?"
Having a laptop or an iPod is not a reflection of wealth. Not being in credit card debt, having high wages, a paid off house, an insured family, a stable job, wealth and land to pass down to your children and low costs of living and low housing prices is a standard of living. Therein lies the flaw with your consumerist measurements of well-being. You equate an excess of consumer goods with "wealth". What good is an iPod when you're $12,00 in debt?
A86 2 years ago
Now read this article:
epi (dot) org/publications/ entry/ bp195/
Worker wages have only slightly increased or stagnated (and for blue-collar jobs decreased) over the past 35 years. Costs of living, healthcare costs and housing prices have only gone up. I'd call that a drop in standards of living.
A86 2 years ago
"Having a laptop or an iPod is not a reflection of wealth."
Apparently it is, or else people wouldn't have the disposable income to spend it on such items in the first place. How many cars had anti-lock brakes, airbags, power windows, and power steering in 1977? How many hours of work does it take to buy a washing machine in 2009 compared to 1977? A cellphone? A microwave? These things are most certainly indicators of wealth because they make our every day lives far easier than in 1977.
pholland 2 years ago
"Apparently it is, or else people wouldn't have the disposable income to spend it on such items in the first place"
They don't. Which is why your average Joe Blow American is in debt up to their eyeballs.
gather (dot) com/ view Article (dot) jsp ? articleId = 281474976753606
Did you know this or is one of those facts you chose to ignore? Give it up and stop wasting my time. If you're going to make arguments at least back them up with facts. Come back when you actually know something.
A86 2 years ago
Here's a fact. I own an i-pod, most of my friends own i-pods, and none of us are in debt. Those are the only facts I need. It's not my fault if someone in your articles can't manage their money well. Not my problem.
pholland 2 years ago
Oh, BTW, check this out:
cbpp (dot) org/ cms/ ? fa = view & id = 854
Now if you're going to keep up with me in this conversation and pose a significant opposition you're going to need to start citing information to back up your claims. Otherwise there's no way to verify that you aren't just pulling claims out of your ass.
A86 2 years ago
Your "data" cites claims that Cuba is a well-off country and that Venezuela is a tropical paradise. Your opinions drive your facts instead of the other way around.
I don't have to cite anything because all you have to do is open your eyes and look around to realize that the average American is far better off today than in 1977. You'd have to be literally blind to not be able to see that.
pholland 2 years ago
"Your "data" cites claims that Cuba is a well-off country and that Venezuela is a tropical paradise"
No it doesn't. It just rates them as relatively High. Of course those countries have a laundry list of problems. But so does our country, especially right now. The citations are from the UN report of Index of overall well-being in these countries (mostly economically).
"I don't have to cite anything"
Yes you do. Otherwise it's pure hearsay. Especially if you're making numerical claims.
A86 2 years ago 2
So someone living in a slum is wealthy since they have a rent to own cell phone, big screen tv, washing machine?
You can get cell phones dirt cheap even charities hand them out to the homeless because guess what without a phone number it's pretty hard to get work and they get a number of minutes on these charity cell phones.
toomanyaccounts 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"So someone living in a slum is wealthy since they have a rent to own cell phone, big screen tv, washing machine?"
Depends on your definition of a "slum." Sounds like these alleged "slums" have much higher living standards than just about any other household in history. Name one medieval lord who had the luxury of a cellphone.
pholland 2 years ago
The "thousands" of factories that open every year are all funded privately through stock offerings and corporate bonds. The New Deal and government spending has nothing to do with their construction. We had just as many shipping ports in 1932 as in 1942. We had plenty of railways before the New Deal as well.
In short, if something is profitable and worth building, the private sector will provide it.
pholland 2 years ago
"The "thousands" of factories that open every year are all funded privately through stock offerings and corporate bonds"
Many are now but not "all". Not to mention most private factories receive corporate welfare and public subsidies. Trillions a year.
zompist (dot) com/ richtax (dot) htm
Funny how you go on and on about how the private sector >>>> the government but most of these private companies are getting welfare checks. Just stop. You're obviously very uninformed.
A86 2 years ago
"most of these private companies are getting welfare checks."
So your argument is basically this: "Because a handful of powerful corporations are able to lobby the government for corporate subsidies, this proves that subsidies are necessary in order for thousands of factories to open and operate every year."
There's no logic in this statement at all. If you took away all the subsidies to big business, capitalism would actually function better, not worse.
pholland 2 years ago
"The New Deal and government spending has nothing to do with their construction. We had just as many shipping ports in 1932 as in 1942"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
newgeography (dot) com/ content/ 00165 -the - new - deal - legacy -public-works
"78,000 bridges, 650,000 miles of roads, 700 miles of airport runways, 13,000 playgrounds, hundreds of airports built and 125,000 military and civilian buildings were constructed"
Either you're very uninformed or an extreme ideologue uninterested in reality.
A86 2 years ago
I'm so uninformed that I've never even heard of the case of Japan, which had 12 stimulus packages during the course of the 1990s, spent billions repaving roads, building new transit systems, and airports, building shiny new bridges to nowhere in towns that didn't even need them. And, after 18 years, their economy is still in a recession and their public debt to GDP ratio is off the charts. Japan has stimulated itself into the ground. It's a good thing we're following their lead.
pholland 2 years ago
"I'm so uninformed that I've never even heard of the case of Japan"
I know where this is going and it's complete bullshit. Not only was Japan not in a recession before 2008 but the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 was ended by government spending which also kept it from becoming a depression. Expenditure saved Japan.
money.cnn (dot) com/ 2009/01/21/ news/ economy/ yang _ japan .fortune/index (dot) htm
iie (dot) com/ publications/ newsreleases/ newsrelease (dot) cfm ? id = 142
A86 2 years ago
"if something is profitable the private sector will provide it"
Not everything that is profitable in the long-run is profitable in the short-run. Markets run on short-run interests. A clean environment, healthcare of citizens, a living wage, retirement care, good transportation, and low prices for high quality (which costs a lot) and even space travel are long-run interests of workers and consumers. Markets don't have an incentive to be concerned about these things. Especially space travel.
A86 2 years ago
Yea space travel is really a pressing need right now. Damn that private sector for not focusing enough on that.
If the private sector cares only about the short run, why are shopping centers and office buildings constantly being renovated? Why do tech companies and pharmaceutical firms often spend a decade before they know they'll finally turn profit?
pholland 2 years ago
"Yea space travel is really a pressing need right now"
It is. The moon may hold untold trillions of hectoliters of a certain hydrogen gas in its polar ice caps which would fuel some alternative energy sources. It could potentially allow us to get off of oil and fossil fuels.
"why are shopping centers and office buildings constantly being renovated"
Because it's in the short-run interest of companies to keep attracting consumes. Renovations are sometimes financed by government tax dollars.
A86 2 years ago
I like how you respond to my claim about shopping centers and office buildings, but not to the part about tech firms or drug companies. Or any other small business that spends years before it even makes a profit. Or a skyscraper that takes 7 years to construct.
And I know why you didn't respond: because it require you to realize that the market process is far better equipped at coordinating long-term projects than gov't bureaucrats and politicians thinking only of 24-month election cycles.
pholland 2 years ago
"but not to the part about tech firms or drug companies"
What about them? Tech companies charge high prices for some goods which are of relatively inferior quality and most Americans are in debt struggling to pay off and finance all the shit they own but can't afford. Half of the drugs on the market today from drug companies are unsafe due to deregulation of health and safety standards. A lot of that shit out there will either kill you or fuck you up.
A86 2 years ago
So now you're doing a bait-and-switch. You say private companies think only in the short term, but as soon as I mention how drug companies spend decades in the red before finally turning a profit, you change the subject to how evil drug companies are.
"Half of the drugs on the market today from drug companies are unsafe." Really? That's funny. I've never been harmed by an over-the-counter or prescription drug. Sounds like a strawman.
pholland 2 years ago
Comment removed
A86 2 years ago
"That's funny. I've never been harmed by an over-the-counter or prescription drug"
And I've never been in a car accident. But tens of thousands of people die from car accidents every year anyway even though I've had the good fortune to not be in one.
"I own an i-pod, most of my friends own i-pods, and none of us are in debt"
How old are you? Do you own your own place? How long have you been living on your own?
A86 2 years ago 2
"You say private companies think only in the short term"
If they were thinking in the long-term they wouldn't put half the drugs that are out there on the market. This has nothing to do with ethics or "evil". This is a purely utilitarian argument. Half the shit does not work. Literally. A lot of it is deadly. If selling shit drugs that don't work and have deadly side effects is "evil" so be it.
A86 2 years ago
"market process is far better equipped at coordinating long-term projects than gov't bureaucrats and politicians thinking only of 24-month election cycles"
I guess that's why we're in the 2008 recession now because of the private sector and the fact that the god-like market wasn't able to forsee the environmental impact of fossil fuels and the combustion engine and couldn't coordinate efforts to stop it. Lol. Yes, execs who only think about bottom line profits above all else did a bang-up job.
A86 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If greedy CEO's in fact are the cause of recessions, then why aren't we ALWAYS in a recession? CEO's are always greedy. In fact, everyone is greedy. So, according to you, we should always be in a downturn.
The recession was caused, like most, by the Federal Reserve's fueling of an unsustainable boom in housing. When the Fed lowers rates, it misleads investors into backing projects they would never have otherwise undertaken.
pholland 2 years ago
"If greedy CEO's in fact are the cause of recessions, then why aren't we ALWAYS in a recession? CEO's are always greedy."
Because the ratio of average employee wages-to-CEO wages used to be more even. In Japan it's 1:10 (CEOs only get 10 times what employees get). Here in the US it's 1:462. Our parents and grandparents made more money than we do because wages were higher, good paying jobs were easier to get and costs of living were lower.
A86 2 years ago 3
"The recession was caused, like most, by the Federal Reserve's fueling of an unsustainable boom in housing"
That's part of it but a relatively minor part. Most of the unstable housing boom was actually upper-middle class and wealthy real estate purchases. Most of it has to do with low wages, national budget deficit (partially due to tax cuts and foreign borrowing), two expensive wars, outsourcing of good jobs and low consumer buying (due to low wages).
A86 2 years ago 7
Because companies were deregulated over the past 30 years by the Republican controlled Congress. It was the scandals that came out of the Reagan Administration (225 indictments) and then came the S&L scandal which brought the country's economy lower in the early 90s. the only thing that brought us up a bit was the technology sector which became saturated and opened doors to international outsourcing. This did no help at all. We are in a deep spiral now since losing about 40% of American jobs.
MARANTZamp 2 years ago 3
"Most PWA jobs were not "digging ditches." Yes, they pretty much were. Cleaning up parks, digging ditches for the TVA, etc. None of these jobs were necessary.
The interstate system wasn't constructed until the 1950s and 60s and was not part of the New Deal.
pholland 2 years ago
"The interstate system wasn't constructed until the 1950s and 60s"
fhwa. (dot) gov/ interstate/quotable (dot) htm
"The Interstate program was the last New Deal Program and the first space program, combining the economic and social ambitions of the former with the technological and organizational virtuosity"
It was one of the last programs in the New Deal but the New Deal ended before it completed the system. Eisenhower completed it when he adopted some New Deal programs.
A86 2 years ago
Yeah, the TVA, the GI Bill (which largely created the middle class), the creation of suburbs and interstate highways, massive public transportation systems that also increased the shipping and transportation abilities of private sector companies several-fold (developing African and Asian countries would kill for national public transportation and intercontinental highways), the minimum wage, pensions, 401k, healthcare and life insurance was a huge waste. Get rid of all of it.
A86 2 years ago
Yes, definitely get rid of all of it. The TVA was a make work project that contributed no economic value to the economy. The GI Bill merely provided funds for kids to attend college that credit unions and thrift institutions would have provided anyway. Private roads can be built more cheaply and operated far more efficiently than government-run ones. Life insurance, healthcare, and pension plans are all run privately and do fine without government interference.
pholland 2 years ago
"Yes, definitely get rid of all of it"
Because the 1890s-1920s was so much better for the average American. Please excuse me while I laugh at you implying America was better off before the New Deal when the average Joe broke his back 12 hours a day 6 days a week for what would be the equivalent of $9.50/hr today. LOL!
"The TVA was a make work project that contributed no economic value"
Yeah, power plants across America have nothing to do with our industrial prowess. Nothing.
A86 2 years ago
"Because the 1890s-1920s was so much better for the average American"
Here you clearly engage in the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy that most liberals do. You carelessly assume that because outcome B occurred AFTER action A, then B must have been CAUSED by A.
Of course we are far better off today than we were 100 years ago. But this is because the productive capacity of the economy is in a constant state of expansion. It is NOT because the federal government has grown.
pholland 2 years ago
"But this is because the productive capacity of the economy is in a constant state of expansion"
Why do you think our economically magically rapidly expanded? Because of the New Deal. And no, the New Deal was not all federal programs, you idiot.
"So you're suggesting that a for-profit system leads to ridiculously high prices and deadly products"
When it comes to medical care, yes. Markets are bad for things such as medicine, roads, pensions, defense and regulating rail travel.
A86 2 years ago
"Why do you think our economy magically rapidly expanded?"
First of all, nothing "magically" does anything. Economies expand for one reason and one reason only: capital investment. When people save the money they earn and invest it, banks lend that money to businesses which use that money to expand production, buy new equipment, create jobs, and invest in new technologies. This is a natural, ongoing process that has been happening since the industrial revolution.
pholland 2 years ago
"Economies expand for one reason and one reason only: capital investment"
No. Capital investment is pretty worthless if output is low or if prices are high or wages are so low that it does not create prosperity. You can't bullshit me, man (or woman). I'm a trained economist.
Not to mention that investment can be private or public. There is nothing magical about public investment that makes it of less worth. Money is money.
A86 2 years ago
"You can't bullshit me, man (or woman). I'm a trained economist."
Apparently you aren't, because you know nothing about economics.
"There is nothing magical about public investment that makes it of less worth."
I am rolling on the floor after reading this statement. In other words, all of the public "investments" that Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro make are just as worthy as private investments made here. I guess that's why N. Korea and Cuba are just as wealthy as the U.S., right?
pholland 2 years ago
"because you know nothing about economics"
Is that why I just whooped your ass in this conversation?
"In other words, all of the public "investments" that Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro make are just as worthy as private investments"
1) I did not say all public investment is good. Neither is all private investment bad or good.
2) Cuba is actually a relatively well-off country:
en.wikipedia (dot) org/ wiki/ List _ of _ countries _ by_Human _Development _ Index # High
0.75 and above is good.
A86 2 years ago
"Is that why I just whooped your ass in this conversation?"
You're the one who just said Cuba is a well-off country. You might want to just stop right there. Cuba is in fact so well off that hundreds of thousands of Cubans who are lucky enough to have rafts risk their lives every year just to have a CHANCE to come to our shores.
You couldn't whoop Ashlee Simpson in an economics debate.
pholland 2 years ago
"You're the one who just said Cuba is a well-off country"
And I proved it with that link that I'm sure you didn't look at.
en.wikipedia (dot) org/ wiki/ List _ of _ countries _ by_Human _Development _ Index # High
What does Venezuela or Zimbabwe have to do with Cuba?
"hundreds of thousands of Cubans who are lucky enough to have rafts risk their lives"
No they don't. Immigration from Cuba has largely slowed since the early 90s. People leave the US to get healtcare in Canada and France.
A86 2 years ago
"Money is money."
This statement is so atrocious, it would make Chavez or Mugabe proud.
If indeed "money is money," then why don't we just print lots of it and hand it out to every man, woman, and child? Why don't we just double, triple, or quadruple the money supply by having Obama or Bernanke fly around in a helicopter and drop billions of newly-printed dollars on every major city? Then we'd create LOTS of wealth, right?
pholland 2 years ago
"This statement is so atrocious, it would make Chavez or Mugabe proud"
Haha, now I know you're a right-winger. Venezuela is better off now than it was during the 90s. Wages and living standards are increasing in the country. South Africa's government makes somewhat heavy expenditures and it has one of the strongest and best-growing economies in Africa.
No one said shit about printing money. If anything it would probably be better to burn money to increase the value.
A86 2 years ago
Um, Mugabe is president of Zimbabwe. I have no idea what South Africa has to do with this conversation. Thanks for bringing it up though because it is completely irrelevant.
I am one of those far-right fringe loons that actually believes Chavez is a bad leader. Things are so great in Venezuela that anyone with $ is fleeing to Miami. The state controls all the means of production, and the media. Meat shelves are empty because of price controls. Sounds like a real worker's paradise.
pholland 2 years ago
Who brought up South Africa? But anyway, believe whatever you want. I'll stick with the facts. The facts are Venezuela is better off now than where it was 10 years ago. I judge all leaders, right-wing and left-wing, by the fruits they produce.
About Miami I don't know what you're talking about. There is no huge emigration from Venezuela to Miami. But there is one from Mexico (a right-wing deregulated capitalist country) to the US.
A86 2 years ago
"I judge all leaders, right-wing and left-wing, by the fruits they produce."
Herein lies the underlying fallacy stated so blatantly: you believe the fruits are produced by macho leaders and government. I believe the fruits are produced by individuals, free men and women pursuing their separate interests.
Governments don't create wealth. Private individuals do. The government has no wealth to begin with. All it can do is take from Peter and give to Paul
pholland 2 years ago
"you believe the fruits are produced by macho leaders and government"
Bullshit. Stop ASS-U-MING what I believe and just ask. I believe everything in any economy, regardless of what type it is, is generated by the labor of workers and the expenditures of consumers. Everything is ultimately created by labor.
"Governments don't create wealth. Private individuals do"
Labor creates the wealth of both. Private individuals just make money from labor.
A86 2 years ago
"The government has no wealth to begin with"
WTF do you think the national budget is? If government has no wealth why does the private sector line up every year with hands out for government welfare checks for their companies and begging for subsidies, tax breaks and investments/loans from Uncle Sam?
A86 2 years ago
"The GI Bill merely provided funds for kids to attend college that credit unions and thrift institutions"
Are you truly this uninformed or are you so much of a die-hard ideologue that you're willing to lie just to prove your ideology "correct"? I can't believe any American is this uninformed about our history.
defenselink (dot) mil / news/ newsarticle (dot) aspx ? id = 26226
No wonder you probably voted for Bush.
"Private roads can be built more cheaply"
What's your evidence?
A86 2 years ago
My evidence is the vast, extensive networks of private roads and turnpikes that existed in Great Britain and the U.S. before government began taking them over. The few areas left where private companies ARE actually still allowed to build and operate roads have been phenomenal success stories. Hwy 91 in LA and the Dulles Greenway in northern VA for example. Both have far less traffic problems and are far more responsive to drivers' needs and concerns than surrounding interstates.
pholland 2 years ago
Yor argument is a false dilemma because I never said markets are bad for foodstuffs or cell phones.
"the vast, extensive networks of private roads and turnpikes that existed in Great Britain and the U.S. before government began taking them over"
When the hell was this? There was no vast interstate network of these things before WWII. And if you want to get into traffic congestion air travel had far less delays in the past when it was more regulated. Deregulating traffic makes no sense.
A86 2 years ago