Politics

[irishpat183]

Why is it unsustainable?

It worked out fine during the FDR, and Eisenhower (republican) adminstrations. Once you spend enough to get demand going, you are going to get provide sector growth. As the private sector grows the government spending gets cut back.

Government spending got us out of the Great Depression did it not?

And right back into one.....Again, it's unsustainable.


And the war got us outta the depression. People went to work for the cause (women worked in factories). Our country was at an all time high on the rah-rah scale.

Look at use now? Wars, all time high government spending...and we're in a depression. And it's probably gonna get worse.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I don't even think WWII got us out of the Depression. Things were still just as bad in terms of standard of living, but everyone was too busy fighting the Krauts to know how miserable they still were.

I think that the late 1940's having a huge, now-industrialized and disciplined work-force (i.e. a bunch of hard-fought soldiers), coupled with the incentive of the American dream and a national highway system is what really made America take-off economically.

And then Kennedy cut tax rates across the board and we really took off.

Should probably add that a new level of 50's consumerism presented itself like the world had never seen before.

 

[chicago51]

And right back into one.....Again, it's unsustainable.


And the war got us outta the depression. People went to work for the cause (women worked in factories). Our country was at an all time high on the rah-rah scale.

Look at use now? Wars, all time high government spending...and we're in a depression. And it's probably gonna get worse.

So you agree that government spending got us out of the depression. Building tanks, planes, and bombs is somehow okay but building roads, railroads, and bridges is not?

If you want to know what was different between now and then look at the taxes. In FDR's day people making what would be between 3 and 4 million dollars in today's money got taxed 90%. Not saying we should go that high but the fact is we that and it worked.

Has austerity ever worked?

 

[chicago51]

I don't even think WWII got us out of the Depression. Things were still just as bad in terms of standard of living, but everyone was too busy fighting the Krauts to know how miserable they still were.

I think that the late 1940's having a huge, now-industrialized and disciplined work-force (i.e. a bunch of hard-fought soldiers), coupled with the incentive of the American dream and a national highway system is what really made America take-off economically.

And then Kennedy cut tax rates across the board and we really took off.

Should probably add that a new level of 50's consumerism presented itself like the world had never seen before.

The Kennedy tax cut is a bit decieving. He cut the rates big time. From a top rate of 91% down to 68%. The tax for Medicare through was added as the him cutting the rates was a compromise he made to get Medicare through. Kennedy closed a bunch of loopholes so the cut was not as big as it seemed just from looking at the rates.

The Kennedy tax rate was 68% for people in today's income that would be making a couple million. You suggest we go back to that?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

The Kennedy tax cut is a bit decieving. He cut the rates big time. From a top rate of 91% down to 68%. The tax for Medicare through was added as the him cutting the rates was a compromise he made to get Medicare through. Kennedy closed a bunch of loopholes so the cut was not as big as it seemed just from looking at the rates.

The Kennedy tax rate was 68% for people in today's income that would be making a couple million. You suggest we go back to that?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant by my comment regarding the Depression

 

[irishpat183]

So you agree that government spending got us out of the depression.

If you want to know what was different between now and then look at the taxes. In FDR's day people making what would be between 3 and 4 million dollars in today's money got taxed 90%. Not saying we should go that high but the fact is we that and it worked.

Has austerity ever worked?

Has socialism ever worked?


Austerity is never given a good chance as government steps in a sh*ts all over it the minute things get tough. Austerity is a cruel b*tch that has both winners and losers.

We can't all be winners, no matter what the media tells you.

Capitialism has made it possible to define "poor" in this country as making about 40k a year. And people are STILL whining.

People have been babied to the point that they actually believe that we are all "created equally". We're not. And a free market will point that out. Can't have that now, can we?

 

[irishpat183]

Austerity would work if we acutally stuck too it and followed through...

 

[chicago51]

Exactly, but Id prefer investment through personal savings, since any saving is invested into the economy theres no need for the government to spend (other than public goods)

Actually a tax stimulus rather it be a cut or rebate does work very well if it goes to people that spend a high percentage of their income; as close to 100% as possible. The payroll tax holiday actually helped the past couple of years before it expired in January.

When throw the money to the top though that money does not get spent at least not a high percentage. It gets thrown into Swiss Bank account or gets gambled. Money in a bank account rather it be Swiss or American does not help create any jobs. Neither does throwing it in the stock market.

When there was high tax rates on the rich the rich kept the money in their company. They figured they might as well pay their workers a bit more or try improve their products rather let Uncle Sam get that money. So when Reagan slashed the top tax rate by 50%, people start pulling their money out and were looking for ways to gamble it and make more money. That is why we had the .com bubble, the housing bubble, the market crash in 2008.

 

[irishpat183]

Actually a tax stimulus rather it be a cut or rebate does work very well if it goes to people that spend a high percentage of their income; as close to 100% as possible. The payroll tax holiday actually helped the past couple of years before it expired in January.
When throw the money to the top though that money does not get spent at least not a high percentage. It gets thrown into Swiss Bank account or gets gambled. Money in a bank account rather it be Swiss or American does not help create any jobs. Neither does throwing it in the stock market.

When there was high tax rates on the rich the rich kept the money in their company. They figured they might as well pay their workers a bit more or try improve their products rather let Uncle Sam get that money. So when Reagan slashed the top tax rate by 50%, people start pulling their money out and were looking for ways to gamble it and make more money. That is why we had the .com bubble, the housing bubble, the market crash in 2008.

Where have you spend the last couple of years?

Uh no. We had the housing bubble because we believed that "everyone deserved a house" whether they could afford it or not. Had nothing to do with rich guys and their money. It was another idiotic "act on emotion" legsilation by Billy Boy.

 

[chicago51]

Has socialism ever worked?


Austerity is never given a good chance as government steps in a sh*ts all over it the minute things get tough. Austerity is a cruel b*tch that has both winners and losers.

We can't all be winners, no matter what the media tells you.

Capitialism has made it possible to define "poor" in this country as making about 40k a year. And people are STILL whining.

People have been babied to the point that they actually believe that we are all "created equally". We're not. And a free market will point that out. Can't have that now, can we?

Let me ask. Were we capitalist from 1945 to 1980? When median income grew by 75%? Last time I checked were vastly different than the Soviet Union during that period.

From 1945 to 1975 the middle (not the average) income grew by 75%. The top 1% during that period had their income grow by 80% so everyone got rich together. Since 1980 the middle or median income has grown by 1% while top 1%1 as grown by over 200%.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Where have you spend the last couple of years?

Uh no. We had the housing bubble because we believed that "everyone deserved a house" whether they could afford it or not. Had nothing to do with rich guys and their money. It was another idiotic "act on emotion" legsilation by Billy Boy.

...don't forget the speculative land developers, construction firms, and big mortgage banks which could rake in billions upon billions upon billions of dollars.

 

[chicago51]

Where have you spend the last couple of years?

Uh no. We had the housing bubble because we believed that "everyone deserved a house" whether they could afford it or not. Had nothing to do with rich guys and their money. It was another idiotic "act on emotion" legsilation by Billy Boy.

I'll admit the housing bubble was complicated.

So I say that decreasing taxes helped and you disagree with it. I though you guys liked tax decreases? I didn't say the economy is good right now. Consumer spending did increase following the pay roll tax holiday.

 

[Downinthebend]

You seem to present opposing views here. First you claim government should be as small as possible so that power that can be bought within it does not effect the average person. Then you say the government needs to do its "job" to prevent people from being killed by those with too much power. If the government is "as small as possible" then said individuals and entities with money and power will impose their will unimpeded on the average citizen as they did during much of the industrial age. Unfortunately, it seems as though the Supreme Court does not understand that "money" is power and for our Republic to function as intended money needs to have restraints placed on it.

As to how you choose to define "violence", I think you're referring to physical violence. There are all kinds of "literal" definitions of violence. For example, is psychological violence more acceptable than physical violence? If so to what level? What about symbolic violence?

"As small as possible" doesn't mean I'm an anarchist, I think government does have legitimate roles, one of those is preventing people being murdered, frauded, or other violent/harmful acts from other people. The point I'm trying to make is that those with money will try to buy off those with power, and if we give those with power a very small amount of it (just enough that is necessary) there will be a lot smaller incentive to "buy" them (and alot smaller effect).

I'm not sure what symbolic violence means. I don't know if psychological violence is more acceptable than physical violence, and I'm not sure why it matters. Enlighten me about the importance if you will.

I googled "Violence" and this definition seemed acceptable to me

"Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.[2] This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces."

Why is it unsustainable?

It worked out fine during the FDR, and Eisenhower (republican) adminstrations. Once you spend enough to get demand going, you are going to get provide sector growth. As the private sector grows the government spending gets cut back.

Government spending got us out of the Great Depression did it not?

Chicago, have you ever heard the term "rainy day Keynesian" ? It is the idea that governments should spend money during "rainy days" and cut back during "sunny days", the only problem is, that the government virtually never cuts back for fear of plunging the country into another "rainy day".

Goverment spending didn't alone get us out of the great depression. It was a combination of factors including sending roughly 40%? (I'm not sure on this number) of our people away, blowing up virtually every economic challenger, etc. Oh, don't forget that FDR also threatened to pack the Supreme Court if they didn't bow to his (unconstitutional) legislative acts.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

So when Reagan slashed the top tax rate by 50%...that is why we had the .com bubble, the housing bubble, AIDS, the market crash in 2008, the tech bubble, Enron, WorldCom, pets.com, the financial crisis, the Newtown shooting, gonorrhrea, Michael Jackson's death, Waterworld, the Big Ten Network, TomKat, bath salts, and Dr. Phil.

fixed

 

[irishpat183]

Let me ask. Were we capitalist from 1945 to 1980? When median income grew by 75%? Last time I checked were vastly different than the Soviet Union during that period.

From 1945 to 1975 the middle (not the average) income grew by 75%. The top 1% during that period had their income grow by 80% so everyone got rich together. Since 1980 the middle or median income has grown by 1% while top 1%1 as grown by over 200%.

Again...poor in this country is making about 40k a year. And that was back in the era when we actually made stuff.

We don't make things anymore(most of our economy is service related). It's a different world now.

But there are tons of ways now to make a fortune by simply lifiting a finger. People can become millionaires overnight.

 

[chicago51]

...don't forget the speculative land developers, construction firms, and big mortgage banks which could rake in billions upon billions upon billions of dollars.

The fact is every president since Reagan basically Obama, Clinton the Bushes have all done a horrible horrible job of enforcing the Sherman Anti Trust Act. That is what has allowed the banks be too big to fail.

I defended the bank bailout. I really have reconsidered my position on that. We should have either done what FDR would have done. Which was insure all accounts up $100k per FDIC and let the banks fail, as the economy regrouped so would they. The option would be to give them the bailout but break them up in the process using the Sherman Anti Trust Act. We have the legistlation we just don't have a president with guts to use it.

 

[chicago51]

Chicago, have you ever heard the term "rainy day Keynesian" ? It is the idea that governments should spend money during "rainy days" and cut back during "sunny days", the only problem is, that the government virtually never cuts back for fear of plunging the country into another "rainy day".

It is alot like modern monetary theory. MMT is basically that principle.

Let me ask if the government did (not if they will) cut back during sunny days would it be a good idea?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

The fact is every president since Reagan basically Obama, Clinton the Bushes have all done a horrible horrible job of enforcing the Sherman Anti Trust Act. That is what has allowed the banks be too big to fail.

I defended the bank bailout. I really have reconsidered my position on that. We should have either done what FDR would have done. Which was insure all accounts up $100k per FDIC and let the banks fail, as the economy regrouped so would they. The option would be to give them the bailout but break them up in the process using the Sherman Anti Trust Act. The legistlation we just don't have a president with guts to use it.

FYI, "Antitrust" is one word when used in reference to the Sherman Act.

 

[Bluto]

Unsustainable. You can't stimulate the economy with artifical (government) spending. It doesn't work.

How'd this exact plan work out for GM and Volt?? Or Solyandra?

Hate to break it to you but our entire existing economic model is "unsustainable", particularly those segements that rely on resource extraction.

If you mean unsustainable in that we can not tax at certain levels because the upper tier investment and management class are going to just up and quit working or investing I don't buy that for a second.

In the case of Solyndra it was cheap Chinese solar panels (with lots of subsidies from the Chinese Government) flooding the market and driving down prices that did them in.

 

[chicago51]

Again...poor in this country is making about 40k a year. And that was back in the era when we actually made stuff.

We don't make things anymore(most of our economy is service related). It's a different world now.

But there are tons of ways now to make a fortune by simply lifiting a finger. People can become millionaires overnight.

We can still make stuff it is all about the United States letting itself be victimized in trade.

One thing as far as the sequester goes. If we are going to cut military spending which I agree with if done right. Lets get the heck out of Europe and some of these places.

Our "allies" have done nothing but screw us over in trade. Germany, South Korea, Japan, you name it they've taken advantage of the United States.

 

[chicago51]

FYI, "Antitrust" is one word when used in reference to the Sherman Act.

Thanks

 

[irishpat183]

The fact is every president since Reagan basically Obama, Clinton the Bushes have all done a horrible horrible job of enforcing the Sherman Anti Trust Act. That is what has allowed the banks be too big to fail.

I defended the bank bailout. I really have reconsidered my position on that. We should have either done what FDR would have done. Which was insure all accounts up $100k per FDIC and let the banks fail, as the economy regrouped so would they. The option would be to give them the bailout but break them up in the process using the Sherman Anti Trust Act. We have the legistlation we just don't have a president with guts to use it.

And we shouldn't have bailed out the auto industry either.

All businesses shoudl be allowed to fail. That's what happens when you don't do biz the right way. You fail and start again.

 

[chicago51]

Again...poor in this country is making about 40k a year. And that was back in the era when we actually made stuff.

We don't make things anymore(most of our economy is service related). It's a different world now.

Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats passed a bill back in the 110th Congress that stopped giving tax breaks to companies that shipped jobs over seas and rewarded and cut taxes on companies that brought jobs back.

And... wait for it. The republicans in the Senate filibustered it and did not go into law.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats passed a bill back in the 110th Congress that stopped giving tax breaks to companies that shipped jobs over seas and rewarded and cut taxes on companies that brought jobs back.

And... wait for it. The republicans in the Senate filibustered it and did not go into law.

What's the name of the bill?

 

[Downinthebend]

Chicago, have you ever heard the term "rainy day Keynesian" ? It is the idea that governments should spend money during "rainy days" and cut back during "sunny days", the only problem is, that the government virtually never cuts back for fear of plunging the country into another "rainy day".

It is alot like modern monetary theory. MMT is basically that principle.

Let me ask if the government did (not if they will) cut back during sunny days would it be a good idea?

Well, I'm not an economics expert, but to my knowledge there are two schools of thought. The Keynesians have the government excersise a (much) higher degree of economic policy. For their ideas to work, government has to be efficient and foresightful and smart.

The other school of thought is the Austrians. They don't advocate much government economic spending, as they believe it ultimately is not useful and that the government isn't efficient, foresightful or smart.

Whether the Keynesian school of thought if implemented perfectly would be better than the Austrian school of thought is not a question I feel qualified to answer. I've heard opinions toward both sides.

I am, on the other hand, convinced that government inherently isn't very efficient, foresightful, or smart on economic policy, and beyond that, I prefer the "inefficiencies" of a free market to the "inefficiencies" of government, as when one happens, people lose their jobs, when the other happens people get murdered or put in concentration camps, or forced to fight (and die) in unnecessary wars, or indoctrinated etc.

 

[irishpat183]

Hate to break it to you but our entire existing economic model is "unsustainable", particularly those segements that rely on resource extraction.

If you mean unsustainable in that we can not tax at certain levels because the upper tier investment and management class are going to just up and quit working or investing I don't buy that for a second.

In the case of Solyndra it was cheap Chinese solar panels (with lots of subsidies from the Chinese Government) flooding the market and driving down prices that did them in.[/QUOTE]

Good lord...are you THAT drunk on the kool-aid?

Solyandra shoud've NEVER BEEN GIVEN ANY MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!

And that's just one of the many failed investments our government just writes off and tries to make excuses for. Since when is it the governments job to gamble with our money??


And resource extraction is no where close to being done. We're finding new ways to get to oil that will carry us so far into the future that it's not going to be a problem. The only problem I see would be that China is the worlds leader in precious metal extraction...

 

[BobD]

And we shouldn't have bailed out the auto industry either.

All businesses shoudl be allowed to fail. That's what happens when you don't do biz the right way. You fail and start again.

That makes no sense at all. If something can be saved and it will help people, then it should be saved.

If your heart quits, you don't want the doctor to resuscitate you? Just chalk it up to a poor diet or something and you'll wait for reincarnation?

 

[irishpat183]

Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats passed a bill back in the 110th Congress that stopped giving tax breaks to companies that shipped jobs over seas and rewarded and cut taxes on companies that brought jobs back.

And... wait for it. The republicans in the Senate filibustered it and did not go into law.

And...wait for it......What else was in that bill?

Sadly, people like Nazi Pelosi dont' like to read bills before they pass them. I'm betting there was a fair amount of pork in that one.

Every single penny in a bill should be voted on seperately.

Typical politican will try and say republicans are greedy and want all our jobs to go to china because they won't vote for that bill....(yet it's full of other garbage that they fail to mention)

 

[irishpat183]

That makes no sense at all. If something can be saved and it will help people, then it should be saved.

If your heart quits, you don't want the doctor to resuscitate you? Just chalk it up to a poor diet or something and you'll wait for reincarnation?

If the cost is going to be 10 hearts down the line for only yours....then you should fail.


Again, who's fault was it in the first place?


Only a lib would compare this to life and death...sheesh. Again with the emotional card.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

And...wait for it......What else was in that bill?

Sadly, people like Nazi Pelosi dont' like to read bills before they pass them. I'm betting there was a fair amount of pork in that one.

Every single penny in a bill should be voted on seperately.

Typical politican will try and say republicans are greedy and want all our jobs to go to china because they won't vote for that bill....(yet it's full of other garbage that they fail to mention)

lol.

But...You have to admit, she looks pretty good for 75...I think she sleeps in Michael Jackson's hyperbaric chamber. She's basically Joan Rivers of the House.