Hey you liberal ass wipes, why do you let politicians spend your money?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wyldgusechaz, Mar 12, 2009.

  1. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you let politicians tell you how your money should be spent? Who is better at deciding the best place to spend your money? You or Nancy Pelosi?

    What they are telling you, in no uncertain terms, is that they know better than you how your money should be spent.

    I don't get it.

    Wouldn't a serious tax reduction have given a better shot in the arm to the economy? You would have kept more of your money and you would have spent it in the way you thought best suited you.

    You seem like sheep.
     
  2. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    See, in America we have this wacky thing called "elections" where we choose "representatives" who carry out the will of the majority of the people. They kind of act for us, see, and make the big decisions based on what we want them to do. And every few years or so, we have the opportunity to change those representatives if we don't like what they're doing.

    It fascinating, really. You should study up on it.
     
  3. D_Carroll Condomripper

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    All presidents regardless of political party use tax payer money. Your statement makes no sense.
     
  4. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    Uh, tax cuts are actually the least stimulative use of resources. This was demonstrated in the 30s, 80s, and 00s. In the long term, lower taxes help build the economy, but tax cuts generally just increase net savings rates, across all income levels.

    Ironically, direct aid to poor families - increased food stamps, extended unemployment benefits, etc - are the most stimulative.
     
  5. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,725
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    We do it to piss you off, D'uh.
     
  6. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Every single word in this post is incorrect. Every one.
     
  7. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    Prove me wrong, and hacks from the Hoover Institute (sic) are not credible.

     
  8. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,725
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    Is that black sheep and white sheep? Is there a difference?
     
  9. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX

    as demonstrated by the example of the California Welfare State:biggrin1:
     
  10. D_Rod Staffinbone

    D_Rod Staffinbone Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    0
    did you actually read thoreau or did you get that quote on your profile from "bartlett's familiar quotations"?
     
  11. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I read a LOT.

    I just read a really fun book called *Agincourt* a really fun historical novel that emphasized the power of the British longbow and the archer in wars with France.

    First off I hold Obama in fairly high regard although I am starting to get nervous with him not paring the earmarks like he said. Pelosi and Reid and Dodd and Frank can go to hell.

    All this spending is counting on a multiplier effect of somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2, meaning for every dollar spent 1.5 to 2.0 dollars will be created. This has soundly been refuted by Keynes himself. If this were so a spending profligate country like Italy would be an economic powerhouse and its not. Ultimately we will see about 600,000 new jobs but it will cost $1.2 million for each of those jobs. Does that make sense?

    The only way out of a recession is to cut taxes. That is it.
     
  12. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,725
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    "Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism." (Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867)

    Run for the hills. :biggrin1:
     
  13. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow rather prescient of old Karl. Good find!!
     
  14. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,725
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    Most economists will tell you Goosey, that capitalism is fundamentally a self destructive system. Actually they use more complex terms than that, but I can't remember them. :redface:

    Don't you read Karl every night? It's the law here in Europe. :tongue:
     
  15. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Now I know you are lying. I have been to Europe. They eat dinner at 9 pm and then go clubbing till 4 am. I think they read in the afternoon.

    No its not fundamentally self destructive. It does have winners and losers and then government tries to make winners out of losers, thats when it runs amok.

    The present crisis is case in point. Citibank is a loser and has been for years, It should die. General Motors is a loser and should die. Housing is now a loser let it fall as far as it can. Guess who wins? Renters!!.

    Notice that the stock market plunged on everything Obama did? And now it has had a nice little pop cause Citibank turned a profit. I am all for letting bad companies die and in fact would love to see the government confiscate monies earned by bad CEOs like the guys at Citibank and GM.

    Our collective error is believing a company is too big to die. Let them die and new entrepreneurs will take their place. We just need to make sure we cultivate the entrepreneurs.
     
  16. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    can you buy liberal asswipes at any supermarket?
     
  17. tripod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    5,250
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Statesville N.C.
    I have no idea what you are talking about... I doubt that Keynes was against infrastructure spending, social programs, education and renewable energy. Keynes definitely said that short term tax cuts are unlikely to be effective, while short term investment tax credits can be extremely powerful. Investment spending is equal to or more stimulative than consumer spending and has numerous other benefits to a more stable economy over the long run.

    Larry Summers and Brad DeLong are big equipment and machinery advocates so we might sees the ITC come back again which would be awesome for business.
     
  18. earllogjam

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    5,027
    Likes Received:
    21
    We should buy more thermonuclear weapons. That's a great investment for the future of America. Non revenue producing junk is just what we need. Also the world is a much safer place because of the nuclear stockpile build up and escalation during the wonderful Regan years. Unfortunately the end of the cold war peacetime dividend never quite made it to taxpayers yet.
     
  19. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    Here is a good summary of the viewpoint of spending over tax cuts. I'll follow up with some statistics about the relative stimulative affects of types of spending. (This is from Debate: 2009 US economic stimulus - Debatepedia. You can view the 'con' arguments there.)

    * Spending provides more economic stimulus than tax cuts "Filling the hole". Economist. Dec 11th 2008 - "Tax rebates or tax cuts will get more money into consumers’ hands quickly, but in today’s environment much of that boost will simply be saved, as people plug the holes in their finances left by the collapsing values of their houses and retirement portfolios, or just pay off debts. If consumers are unwilling to spend, the best way for a government to boost demand is to spend more itself. One approach is to send large dollops of federal cash directly to America’s struggling states"

    * Americans voted for progressive thinking of 2009 US stimulus President Barack Obama - "The notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence and the high cost of health care, that we can somehow deal with this in piecemeal fashion and still expect our economy and our country to thrive. I reject those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."[3]

    * Majority of US stimulus is immediate to fight recession now. Jim Horney, director of federal fiscal policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - "The vast majority of what is in these two bills is pretty good stimulus."[5] This includes "automatic stimulators", such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, money that is typically quickly and fully spent. In addition, the majority of money will be spent within the first year of the stimulus package, providing more short-term, "good" stimulus to get the economy rolling quickly.

    * Longer-term spending is not "waste"; helps sustain stimulus Steven Pearlstein. "Wanted: Personal Economic Trainers. Apply at Capitol." Washington Post. February 6, 2009 - "Let’s review some of the more silly arguments about the stimulus bill, starting with the notion that 'only' 75 percent of the money can be spent in the next two years, and the rest is therefore 'wasted.' As any economist will tell you, the economy tends to be forward-looking and emotional. So if businesses and households can see immediate benefits from a program while knowing that a bit more stimulus is on the way, they are likely to feel more confident that the recovery will be sustained. That confidence, in turn, will make them more likely to take the risk of buying big-ticket items now and investing in stocks or future ventures."

    * Much stimulus rightly goes toward long-term societal needs Steven Pearlstein. "Wanted: Personal Economic Trainers. Apply at Capitol." Washington Post. February 6, 2009 - "what's striking is that supposedly intelligent people are horrified at the thought that, during a deep recession, government might try to help the economy by buying up-to-date equipment for the people who protect us from epidemics and infectious diseases, by hiring people to repair environmental damage on federal lands and by contracting with private companies to make federal buildings more energy-efficient."

    Good/bad stimulus: Does the stimulus package contain mostly "good" stimulus?

    * Almost all government spending has some stimulus effect Scot Lehigh. "A large stimulus bill for large problems". The Boston Globe. February 6, 2009 - "Although one can debate the necessity or importance of various projects, almost any new spending will have a stimulative effect - including resodding the National Mall."

    * Stimulus funding for unemployed ensures immediate spending. Barack Obama. "We Can't Afford to Wait". February 9, 2009 - "this plan will provide for extended unemployment insurance, health care and other assistance for workers and families who have lost their jobs in this recession. [...] That will mean an additional $100 per month in unemployment benefits to more than 450,000 Indiana workers, extended unemployment benefits for another 89,000 folks who've been laid off and can't find work, and job training assistance to help more than 51,000 people here get back on their feet. [...] That is not only our moral responsibility - to lend a helping hand to our fellow Americans in times of emergency - but it also makes good economic sense. If you don't have money, you can't spend it. And if people don't spend, our economy will continue to decline."
     
  20. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Not one economist is the bunch you have quoted. What a dolt you are to use a journalists opinion on economic issues.. Please please reference *economists* and not journalists. Your post has zero validity. Its liberal poppycock.

    Please read this and learn:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681403239101741.html

    Now you might be enlightened, but I doubt it. You sound like a sheep to be sheared.

    More actual scholarship, not political commentary. You might learn a thing or two. But you sound rather calcified in your thought to be duped by political opinion masquerading as economic theory. I provide meat and potatoes not your brand of fluff.

    http://www.volkerwieland.com/docs/CCTW Mar 2.pdf
     
    #20 Wyldgusechaz, Mar 12, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2009
Draft saved Draft deleted