[quote]drunkpig wrote:
That graph is almost a carbon copy of the health care cost graph I posted a few days ago.
Hmmmm…what could have possibly happened in the mid-late 70’s that would cause the beginning of an exponentiation in housing prices? Couldn’t possibly have been Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, could it?
Hell no. It was all the fault of the evil bankers and predatory lending practices.
But let’s regulate the housing industry more because the 80’s and 90’s were such a bitchin’ good time. [/quote]
Wow I thought Reagan would have been your personal Jesus. So you didn’t like the 80’s?
Better idea. Why don’t we have publicly owned banks like they do in North Dakota and avoid the calamitous nature of the private banking disease?
[/quote]
If you can buy stock in a bank, it is a publicly owned bank. Do you mean government owned bank? It would help if you had at least a working knowledge of the subject matter on which you wax expert.
[/quote]
Ahh bullshit. Two different things. Why have your version of publically owned banks needed a bailout but the publically owned bank I’m speaking of did just fine? No difference huh?[/quote]
They still sell stevia in the head shops where you live?
[/quote]
Typical non- answer.
But more answer than any of your inane, radical progressive monkey dung deserves.
[/quote]
Yes anything that is evidence and goes against your ideology has to be false because you have to mold the truth to fit your beliefs.
But more answer than any of your inane, radical progressive monkey dung deserves.
[/quote]
Yes anything that is evidence and goes against your ideology has to be false because you have to mold the truth to fit your beliefs.[/quote]
LOL. When you produce evidence of anything not propagated by a progressive, left-wing mouthpiece, then perhaps we might be able to test your hypothesis. You occupy one position, cling to it like it is your mother, and have the temerity to accuse me of being close-minded?
I guess that’s more of the typical progressive mindset: “agree with me or you are an intolerant racist pig”.
But more answer than any of your inane, radical progressive monkey dung deserves.
[/quote]
Yes anything that is evidence and goes against your ideology has to be false because you have to mold the truth to fit your beliefs.[/quote]
LOL. When you produce evidence of anything not propagated by a progressive, left-wing mouthpiece, then perhaps we might be able to test your hypothesis. You occupy one position, cling to it like it is your mother, and have the temerity to accuse me of being close-minded?
I guess that’s more of the typical progressive mindset: “agree with me or you are an intolerant racist pig”.
Got it. Thanks for sharing. [/quote]
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!! You intolerant racist pig.
But more answer than any of your inane, radical progressive monkey dung deserves.
[/quote]
Yes anything that is evidence and goes against your ideology has to be false because you have to mold the truth to fit your beliefs.[/quote]
LOL. When you produce evidence of anything not propagated by a progressive, left-wing mouthpiece, then perhaps we might be able to test your hypothesis. You occupy one position, cling to it like it is your mother, and have the temerity to accuse me of being close-minded?
I guess that’s more of the typical progressive mindset: “agree with me or you are an intolerant racist pig”.
Got it. Thanks for sharing. [/quote]
You are an infant in your line of reasoning. You accuse others of being intolerant who provide evidence that just happens to be contrary to your propagandized positions but then set up your argument that states if you say and provide evidence to anything that may be considered on the political left you are automatically wrong. What an intellectual idiot.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
So far as I see, the evidence shows that demand-side economics outperforms supply-side.
It would take an enormous amount of evidence to the contrary to dissuade me.[/quote]
There’s about 18 trillion reasons why the Keynesian theory is bunk, and does very little in the long run but concentrate power in the central government and run up enormous debts for future generations to pay.
Government is not a producer. It is a taker. It is a redistributor of wealth. It cannot create anything except debt when it spends more than it takes in. Then they print money to monetize the debt, and well…
The US credit rating has been downgraded at least once, we have debt that your grandchildren will not be able to pay off, and the Fed is printing $40B per month of money.
The Keynesian scam allows politicians to buy votes now with free stuff, or pork barrel pet projects, and fools the uneducated into thinking that they are entitled to free stuff because the rich need to pay their fair share.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
That graph is almost a carbon copy of the health care cost graph I posted a few days ago.
Hmmmm…what could have possibly happened in the mid-late 70’s that would cause the beginning of an exponentiation in housing prices? Couldn’t possibly have been Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, could it?
Hell no. It was all the fault of the evil bankers and predatory lending practices.
But let’s regulate the housing industry more because the 80’s and 90’s were such a bitchin’ good time. [/quote]
Wow I thought Reagan would have been your personal Jesus. So you didn’t like the 80’s?
Better idea. Why don’t we have publicly owned banks like they do in North Dakota and avoid the calamitous nature of the private banking disease?
[/quote]
If you can buy stock in a bank, it is a publicly owned bank. Do you mean government owned bank? It would help if you had at least a working knowledge of the subject matter on which you wax expert.
[/quote]
Ahh bullshit. Two different things. Why have your version of publically owned banks needed a bailout but the publically owned bank I’m speaking of did just fine? No difference huh?[/quote]
Dude…
There were many many many publicly owned/traded banks that not only didn’t need a bailout, but actually bought other smaller troubled banks, and some that just held an even keel because they weren’t heavily saddled with sub-prime investments.
You are probably thinking of a smaller money center type of bank that did well, versus a diversified investment/financial services leviathan like Citi which finances countries and does business in the trillions, but was also weighed down heavily with subprime investment.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
So far as I see, the evidence shows that demand-side economics outperforms supply-side.
It would take an enormous amount of evidence to the contrary to dissuade me.[/quote]
There’s about 18 trillion reasons why the Keynesian theory is bunk, and does very little in the long run but concentrate power in the central government and run up enormous debts for future generations to pay.
Government is not a producer. It is a taker. It is a redistributor of wealth. It cannot create anything except debt when it spends more than it takes in. Then they print money to monetize the debt, and well.
The US credit rating has been downgraded at least once, we have debt that your grandchildren will not be able to pay off, and the Fed is printing $40B per month of money.
The Keynesian scam allows politicians to buy votes now with free stuff, or pork barrel pet projects, and fools the uneducated into thinking that they are entitled to free stuff because the rich need to pay their fair share.[/quote]
It looks more like a problem of wasteful spending versus productive spending to me.
A universal health insurance plan for all Americans would be productive spending.
A bridge to nowhere would not.
Refinancing student loans to 0.75% so that graduates can actually pay down their debt, start saving, and invest. That is productive spending.
War is wasteful spending, with estimates as low as 30 cents return in GDP growth for every dollar taxed and spent on the Iraq war. Whereas upgrading domestic infrastructure with union labour, all paying income taxes on their union wages to their State and US treasury, and spending their take-home pay domestically would be productive spending creating a real economic return.
As for “entitled to free stuff”, the majority of the rich don’t even pay taxes and what they have they get directly from their parents for performing the very difficult task of being born. Others’ parents had the money and connections to get them into an ivy league school and set them up with the right networks and associations for success, not because they “earned it”. So given that reality, I have no sympathy when they whine and complain about progressive taxation. They are spoiled children raised by spoiled children raised by spoiled children.
But the problem is not so simple as “government bad, private good!” because if that were so, then being working class in Mexico would be awesome, because government is only 13% of GDP, and yet no reasonable person from the US, Europe, or Canada would ever trade places with any working Mexican.
The problem is not that keynesian economics doesn’t work, it’s that politicians are doing it wrong. So horribly wrong.
It looks more like a problem of wasteful spending versus productive spending to me.[/quote]
From a libertarian perspective, government spending on anything that is not explicitly enumerated in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution is wasteful spending at best, and more likely a gross violation of the 10th Amendment.
A real anarchist’s perspective would be that there is no need for any government spending whatsoever.
[quote]A universal health insurance plan for all Americans would be productive spending.
A bridge to nowhere would not.[/quote]
I disagree. One need look no further than medicare for proof. A noble idea in theory, it is now a corrupt, inefficient money hole.
I would submit that if:
a.) the government got completely out of the health care business,
b.) 98% of the punitive federal regulations regarding doctors and insurance companies were removed, and
c.) any regulation needed for doctors and insurance were turned over to the states, two pretty amazing things would happen:
1.) healthcare costs would fall very quickly due to immediate increase in competition and reductions in regulatory overhead.
2.) The crony capitalism which is currently rampant particularly in the healthcare industry would be eliminated.
I don’t think the US taxpayer should be responsible for the bad financial decisions of a college kid and/or his family. There’s a student loan bubble right now. In a few years, it will burst just like the housing bubble did - which was largely caused by government intervention into home financing. Government intervention was the wrong answer to begin with. More government intervention would be throwing good money after bad. Or, more accurately, bad money after worse.
I partially agree with what you said up to the comma. Preceding “war” with “waging a politically correct” would have been more accurate. War is not supposed to yield an ROI. But if you must measure it, one would have to factor in the opportunity cost of not having a national defense. But regardless, crony capitalism infected the DOD immediately post WWII and DC doesn’t seem to mind. I don’t think the framers had the MIC in mind when they wrote Article I.
Ironically, the only area of government spending you take issue with is a responsibility which is explicitly granted the federal government in the constitution.
How about delegating the responsibility for upkeep of infrastructure to the states? We already do so with the highway system. Why must the US taxpayer subsidize labor unions? Would non-union labor yield no economic return? I am a staunch right-to-work supporter, which is why I refuse to own an automobile made by any of the Big Three.
I would like to see some proof that “the majority of the rich don’t even pay taxes”. What is your definition of rich? You do know that some of the biggest pro-Keynesian guys inside the beltway are trust fund babies who pay little to no tax, right? But that’s beside the point.
A rich kid spending money that was given to him does not cost the taxpayer, or society, nearly as much as the government subsidizing and encouraging poverty, racism, and illiteracy.
Class envy is a classic progressive tool used to divide a populace and create anger and jealousy.
I think it is almost that simple. Government, working within its constitutional boundaries is not bad, but even then - the framers intent was for the federal government to be highly restrained in its power and for everyone in our government to fear the people. What we have today is the mirror opposite.
Given the fact that Mexico decides to spend almost nothing on infrastructure, they have no real entitlement spending, and their national defense is a joke - 13% of GDP must go largely to regulatory enforcement. This is merely an assumption on my part, however. It is prohibitive to enter markets without piles of paperwork, and cash. Mexican Small business - which is the backbone of our economic skeleton - rarely grows much taller than mom-and-pop shops. Government owns the oil and the communications. Hardly a rational comparison in my opinion.
I would suggest that the problem with Keynesian economics is that it only works in theory. It provides a short term boost, but creates long term problems that politicians are loathe to address because it would cost them votes.
A universal health insurance plan for all Americans would be productive spending.
A bridge to nowhere would not.[/quote]
So, in your example here you list a project that is pointless, that proves without question government makes bad choices with the money it spends, yet want them in control of your health and welfare?
I don’t understand how you reconcile that in your mind.
This is the worst idea to come out of Washington in a long, long time. It sounds real good in stump speeches and gets the low information voter that can’t think, nor understands how interest rates work or what they are for all riled up.
Congratulations for buying into a massive scam, and possibly the dumbest move in a long long time. But shit you are in Canada, it isn’t dollars out of your pocket.
Um… Not so much. When the pay of the union employees comes from those same tax dollars, I’d venture to guess you’d get a similar “30 cents on the dollar” increase in GDP…
The money they are spending is tax taken from someone else, and in your example, themselves. Think. All that does is shuffle the money around, it doesn’t grow the pie.
No you’re just making shit up. This is literally a complete and total fairy tale. “Finding Nemo” has more basis in reality than this statement, and that is a movie with talking fish.
Translation: booo hooo, someone else has more money than me…
No one is poor because someone else is rich.
You know what is unfair, that some beings are born seagulls when others are born hawks. Poor seagulls, we should get the government to make all the seagulls turn into hawks, yeah that is the ticket.
[quote]
The problem is not that keynesian economics doesn’t work, it’s that politicians are doing it wrong. So horribly wrong.[/quote]
So the government is proven, over and over, they can’t use that model. Yet, for whatever reason you want them to keep trying? Why?
But more answer than any of your inane, radical progressive monkey dung deserves.
[/quote]
Yes anything that is evidence and goes against your ideology has to be false because you have to mold the truth to fit your beliefs.[/quote]
LOL. When you produce evidence of anything not propagated by a progressive, left-wing mouthpiece, then perhaps we might be able to test your hypothesis. You occupy one position, cling to it like it is your mother, and have the temerity to accuse me of being close-minded?
I guess that’s more of the typical progressive mindset: “agree with me or you are an intolerant racist pig”.
Got it. Thanks for sharing. [/quote]
Yes cause my side is closer to the truth. That is what there primary concern is not profits. So if it comes from a side or journalist who isn’t motivated by profit it can’t be true?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Yes cause my side is closer to the truth. That is what there primary concern is not profits. So if it comes from a side or journalist who isn’t motivated by profit it can’t be true?[/quote]
So let me see if I have this straight - being motivated by profit is a bad thing. There can be no truth when profit is one’s main objective. Is that your contention? I will assume that it is - given your unintelligible gibberish quoted above.
Being motivated politically means that one is more truthful and therefore more noble in his reasons for pushing his political motivations?
A simple yes or no will suffice. No need to use words you don’t understand or ones you can’t spell. Just yes or no.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Yes cause my side is closer to the truth. That is what there primary concern is not profits. So if it comes from a side or journalist who isn’t motivated by profit it can’t be true?[/quote]
So let me see if I have this straight - being motivated by profit is a bad thing. There can be no truth when profit is one’s main objective. Is that your contention? I will assume that it is - given your unintelligible gibberish quoted above.
Being motivated politically means that one is more truthful and therefore more noble in his reasons for pushing his political motivations?
A simple yes or no will suffice. No need to use words you don’t understand or ones you can’t spell. Just yes or no. [/quote]
I don’t think he has the ability to spell Yes or No.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Yes cause my side is closer to the truth. That is what there primary concern is not profits. So if it comes from a side or journalist who isn’t motivated by profit it can’t be true?[/quote]
So let me see if I have this straight - being motivated by profit is a bad thing. There can be no truth when profit is one’s main objective. Is that your contention? I will assume that it is - given your unintelligible gibberish quoted above.
Being motivated politically means that one is more truthful and therefore more noble in his reasons for pushing his political motivations?
A simple yes or no will suffice. No need to use words you don’t understand or ones you can’t spell. Just yes or no. [/quote]
Let me give you a little lesson moron. Healthcare is a perfect example of how the profit motive is dangerous and inefficient. Adult stem cells cannot be patented so the pharmaceutical companies-who own the FDA- purposefully put up roadblocks to keep this from coming to market. Because the treatment works so much better than there garbage pharmaceuticals it represents a huge economic threat to their bottom line. So it pays to make people suffer. And just out of curiosity, since you’re a bonehead conservative, do you think GE is a socialsit style company?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Yes cause my side is closer to the truth. That is what there primary concern is not profits. So if it comes from a side or journalist who isn’t motivated by profit it can’t be true?[/quote]
So let me see if I have this straight - being motivated by profit is a bad thing. There can be no truth when profit is one’s main objective. Is that your contention? I will assume that it is - given your unintelligible gibberish quoted above.
Being motivated politically means that one is more truthful and therefore more noble in his reasons for pushing his political motivations?
A simple yes or no will suffice. No need to use words you don’t understand or ones you can’t spell. Just yes or no. [/quote]
Let me give you a little lesson moron. Healthcare is a perfect example of how the profit motive is dangerous and inefficient. Adult stem cells cannot be patented so the pharmaceutical companies-who own the FDA- purposefully put up roadblocks to keep this from coming to market. Because the treatment works so much better than there garbage pharmaceuticals it represents a huge economic threat to their bottom line. So it pays to make people suffer. And just out of curiosity, since you’re a bonehead conservative, do you think GE is a socialsit style company?[/quote]
You failed.
This thing you do where you take a flying leap straight off of the cliff of rational though and head first into evil corporate conspiracy land is fucking hilarious, But you aren’t going to school anybody like that.
Let me give you a little lesson moron. Healthcare is a perfect example of how the profit motive is dangerous and inefficient. Adult stem cells cannot be patented so the pharmaceutical companies-who own the FDA- purposefully put up roadblocks to keep this from coming to market. Because the treatment works so much better than there garbage pharmaceuticals it represents a huge economic threat to their bottom line. So it pays to make people suffer. And just out of curiosity, since you’re a bonehead conservative, do you think GE is a socialsit style company?[/quote]
It was a yes or no question. You literally had only to successfully type, at the most, three letters. It’s like you have keyboard turret syndrome.
And by the way - using GE as a symbol of free market capitalism shows how very little you know about free market capitalism, and how little you know about GE.
Dude - you totally scored an ignorance two-fer. Kudos.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Yes cause my side is closer to the truth. That is what there primary concern is not profits. So if it comes from a side or journalist who isn’t motivated by profit it can’t be true?[/quote]
So let me see if I have this straight - being motivated by profit is a bad thing. There can be no truth when profit is one’s main objective. Is that your contention? I will assume that it is - given your unintelligible gibberish quoted above.
Being motivated politically means that one is more truthful and therefore more noble in his reasons for pushing his political motivations?
A simple yes or no will suffice. No need to use words you don’t understand or ones you can’t spell. Just yes or no. [/quote]
Let me give you a little lesson moron. Healthcare is a perfect example of how the profit motive is dangerous and inefficient. Adult stem cells cannot be patented so the pharmaceutical companies-who own the FDA- purposefully put up roadblocks to keep this from coming to market. Because the treatment works so much better than there garbage pharmaceuticals it represents a huge economic threat to their bottom line. So it pays to make people suffer. And just out of curiosity, since you’re a bonehead conservative, do you think GE is a socialsit style company?[/quote]
You failed.
This thing you do where you take a flying leap straight off of the cliff of rational though and head first into evil corporate conspiracy land is fucking hilarious, But you aren’t going to school anybody like that.
Especially not yourself, which is kinda sad.
[/quote]
So what I wrote is not true? So where are all the stem cell facilities in the U.S. and why are other countries whose healthcare is not run by corporations making great strides in this field?
You contribute nothing of substance here, as usual.