Looks like Obama is having issues convincing his own party to not sign their death warrant.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101209/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts
Funny how when it was about growing the deficit through a national health care system they lined up and hit that yes button with no problems. But now that I want to keep a few dollars in my pocket it’s an issue.
But you TOTALLY IGNORE the fact that right now, there aren’t many customers, and there would be a lot fewer without the government propping up the economy. Without the government, you wouldn’t have customers. So please, explain to me for the first time how removing the last leg of the economy will help to revive it. You seem not to have considered that there is a certain amount of circulation required to keep the economy functioning.
OK, this is more reasonable, but I still think you’re ignoring the reason WHY people are dependent on government. But at least I think I know now you’re not a total nutbag.
Nope, just that age doesn’t necessarily make people any smarter. And no, I don’t think the average young person is any smarter than the average older person.
Changing? I’ve spent this entire thread trying to get you to write a coherent sentence. At least have your insults sort of make sense.
Sorry, econ students are subjected to the same propaganda you’ve swallowed. They don’t have any idea how the economy really works. As an example, you still can’t explain why you’re right. You can only chant over and over again that I am wrong. If you can’t think of any reasons why your theory is correct, that should tell you something.
OK, now you’re starting to irritate me. Please, have whatever opinion you want, but don’t lie. Right now, you’re a liar.
What’s that?
How about that?
Hmm?
http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html
You have ignored these, then claimed they weren’t there, and then somehow made the claim that socialists are dishonest/stupid. Do you really think you’re being honest?
No. I need you to clearly support your statements. I know your hand-waving explanations and equivocation is good enough for your conservative buddies, but now you have been confronted with a fair bit of evidence that shows that you are wrong. Either back yourself up, or just admit you’re wrong. No big deal. I used to be conservative too, but I eventually realized that only a pussy waves away the real world so he can go thinking more comfortable thoughts.
[quote]The list could go one but you get the idea. It’s tough out there kid. I am not putting you down for going to college I have my business degree, those were good times. But, it’s not the real world and stop pretending that it is. I don’t know everything, I never said I did. But I do know what I’m talking about when it comes to operating a real business in the real world. Saying that you know more about that is like me saying that I can play baseball better than Derek Jeter because I’ve studied the game and watch it all the time on TV - Less a matter of age than of actual experience (which you get with age by the way).
Sorry man, it’s not an insult, just a fact.[/quote]
That’s well and good, and I even acknowledge that there’s something to your statement here (not much, but something), but my point is, it doesn’t have the first thing to do with what we’re talking about. I’m glad that you soldiered on and made your business an success. I really bear you no ill will, but we’re talking policy here, which is theory-based, and no amount of waking up at 5 AM to go in early gets you any closer to understanding macroeconomics. Do you see what I mean? It’s like me saying that because I’ve been playing around with radio circuit boards for 20 years, I’m an expert about electrical engineering. I may be GREAT with circuits, but I don’t have the theoretical knowledge that an engineering degree confers.
[quote]Oh but I did. Go back to the part where I told you about jobs in the free market system. And how employees hired by new and growing business spend money in the market place.
You have to stop ignoring this stuff -[/quote]
You’re AGAIN ignoring the point. No one cares about the abstract case of a healthy market economy. I’m talking NOW. NOW we are painfully close to depression. What should we do NOW, and why? That’s what you keep avoiding.
Yes, but you STILL don’t. The only reason official unemployment isn’t 20% right now is BECAUSE the government is spending more than it has. Let me know once you’ve figured out this supply and demand thing, and its effect on employment.
[quote]It was people going to work for a real cause making real products. Yeah. What was Obama’s stimulus? Nonsense.
We didn’t do that BECAUSE YOU CALLED HIM A SOCIALIST, remember? If had HAD announced a sweeping job creation program, you’d STILL be on here calling him a communist. Quit moving the goalposts. Do you want the government involved in the economy or not?[/quote]
YOU JUST SAID YOU DID IN THE LAST POST! “It was people going to work for a real cause making real products. Yeah. What was Obama’s stimulus? Nonsense.” What was that, if not a call for a program creating real jobs? What was that earlier, when you asked if the jobs from the stimulus were permanent, implying you thought that only permanent jobs were desirable?
You need to clearly state your position, or just own up to the fact that you want to oppose Obama, no matter what he does. Now, there are plenty of reasons to be upset with Obama, but you don’t need to contradict yourself to do it.
[quote]I loved it more than I thought - You don’t really want to walk down that road do you Ryan? No, and I don’t blame you. It’s a path that will only make your argument look bad.
[/quote]
Can’t think of a real question to ask? I didn’t think so. What “road” don’t I want to walk down? Calling for high taxes? Fine, under a capitalist system, I have no problem calling for 90%+ tax rates on incomes over, oh, say $2 million. Is that what you want to hear? I don’t see your point, but whatever.
Whatever. He killed no more people than the average post-WWII American president. And he saved Europe, but I run hot and cold on him.
Uh, I’ve had a job for over 8 years now, but thanks for your concern.
And you’d be surprised. It’s not going to become more capitalist. The more Republicans you get in there, the more entitlements you have. Is it a conincidence? No, but I’m not sure if you’re prepared to understand why.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote: You like the addition of Stalin? It’s not like he ever killed anyone he was a good ole’ boy who was just misunderstood.
Whatever. He killed no more people than the average post-WWII American president. And he saved Europe, but I run hot and cold on him.
[/quote]
Name one that killed 50 million people.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:Been through that twice now. Want it a third time? Okay, but this is it. The more businesses that are created (by individuals not government) the more people are employed. The more jobs there are the more spending there is. You see Ryan when people spend they become customers. Just as I said below.
But you TOTALLY IGNORE the fact that right now, there aren’t many customers, and there would be a lot fewer without the government propping up the economy. Without the government, you wouldn’t have customers. So please, explain to me for the first time how removing the last leg of the economy will help to revive it. You seem not to have considered that there is a certain amount of circulation required to keep the economy functioning. [/quote]
No, Ryan the government has stepped in where private enterprise should be. If they were not involved in the first place the scenario would not have been kicked into play ie freddie and fannie. Government, when it becomes too large, not only gets in the way of economic growth but actually makes things worse when they try to help. for the 5th time—CUSTOMERS ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LEGITIMTE LONG LASTING JOBS. That comes from economic growth in the private sector.
[quote]So your argument is now what? That age never gives people wisdom? And that all 20 somethings college students can take over the world?
Nope, just that age doesn’t necessarily make people any smarter. And no, I don’t think the average young person is any smarter than the average older person.[/quote]
It’s not really a matter of “smarter” as in raw IQ. I don’t think IQ changes much through a persons life. What changes is their perspective on reality as they’ve had more brushes with it. For example, you do get on your high horse around here. Why? Because you’re a smart guy who probably does well in college. What you fail to realize is that I’ve done what you are now doing AND I have been doing what you have not yet had the opportunity to do, that is live an additional 20-25 years.
Just as I said earlier and have gotten no response to, your beloved government won’t even consider allowing anyone under the age of 35 to run for President. There are reasons for this. So let’s stop pretending like age doesn’t matter - in most cases it does.
[quote]Yes, if you understood economics you would agree with me. Glad you see my point. And if you were actually in business or had any sort of experience other than asking people if they want french fires with their burger you’d also agree with me.
Sorry, econ students are subjected to the same propaganda you’ve swallowed. They don’t have any idea how the economy really works. As an example, you still can’t explain why you’re right. You can only chant over and over again that I am wrong. If you can’t think of any reasons why your theory is correct, that should tell you something.[/quote]
I’ve explained it numerous times, you’ve ignored it numerous times. Shall I do it again? No, not worth it, scroll back. Bottom line is customers come from businesses that employ them.
Just as I thought - And that’s why socialists (and collge students) do not get elected to high office. Do that and you’ll break the economy faster than Obama’s policies already are.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote: You like the addition of Stalin? It’s not like he ever killed anyone he was a good ole’ boy who was just misunderstood.
Whatever. He killed no more people than the average post-WWII American president. And he saved Europe, but I run hot and cold on him.
[/quote]
Name one that killed 50 million people.
[/quote]
None did. But neither did the Soviet Union. And even if they did, they weren’t socialist, as many people have noted before.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote: You like the addition of Stalin? It’s not like he ever killed anyone he was a good ole’ boy who was just misunderstood.
Whatever. He killed no more people than the average post-WWII American president. And he saved Europe, but I run hot and cold on him.
[/quote]
Name one that killed 50 million people.
[/quote]
None did. But neither did the Soviet Union. And even if they did, they weren’t socialist, as many people have noted before.[/quote]
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
Those people just starved themselves to death why?
Stop right there. It’s clear that you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Why was the stimulus passed? Answer: because unemployment was too high. That means, the government didn’t come in until after private enterprise had already receded. Which everyone but you already knew.
Yeah, I can tell.
In your case, you have no perspective on reality, as you still mindless repeat falsehoods, that
a. I’ve shown to be demonstrably false, and
b. don’t make sense given an even rudimentary understanding of the economy.
Like I said, that’s fine, but like I said, this is a theoretical discussion (not at all advanced, but still), in which your business expereince DOES NOT help you, no matter how much you want it to. Your business experience does not give you any insight into appropriate fiscal or monetary policy. It gives you no insight into the effectiveness of a stimulus package.
So, the point is, I am not on a high horse. What you are saying is factually incorrect, I have shown you that it is incorrect, yet all you do is say “no.” Do you really not understand that this is how children behave?
My “beloved” government? Perhaps you have not paying attention when I have said it is the tool of the capitalist class. See, that’s your other problem–you can’t help but demean people, and you won’t even consider ideas that you don’t like, regardless of how much evidence they have in their favor.
But you haven’t answered the question, why would they employ them when they have no customers to serve? This is not a healthy, “equilibrium” economy. None of the things you keep repeating even make any sense in this context.
You have not even started to answer it. You keep dodging the question. You say, “let them grow,” but that’s not an explanation. You must explain HOW it would help. What is the mechanism? Explain it in terms of economic fundamentals. You must believe, like orion, that the market is simply magical, and requires no explanation.
The fact is, we were leaving them alone, and we were losing 500,000+ jobs a month. We passed the stimulus, and it gradually slowed, to zero, then we started gaining them slowly. I’m not sure how you think it would have helped to pull the bottom out and let it crash. That’s what you need to explain.
Misguided as this opinion is, it is a legitimate opinion. But, it has absolute 0 to do with the current situation. See? This is how I can tell that you don’t know anything about economics. The things you’re suggesting are supply-side measures. That’s fine, but the problem now is lack of demand. Increasing supply doesn’t do anything if there’s no demand there. Factories do not hire workers to manufacture products when their inventories are sitting full and idle. Shopkeepers do not hire help if they have no patrons.
Again, you’re just making the problem worse. Making poor people poorer is not the road to economic health.
Haha, after 2 years of recession, and over a year of 9%+ unemployment, and last month’s dvastating jobs report, he thinks we’ll be out of this in 3 months. You know, you say you’re experienced, but you sound about 10 years old here. We’ve gone nowhere in two years. We haven’t even started to climb out of the ditch. What’s 3 more years?
And all of this, surprisingly (or not), is looking a lot like what Karl Marx wrote, over a hundred years ago. If you weren’t so stubborn, you could learn something.
There you go. You should have just told me you were having fun with me, and jerking me around. It makes sense now.
Ha, you’re damn right that’s why they don’t get elected. Socialists and progressives are the only challenge to the capitalist-controlled government, and exploiters never willingly give up their privileges.
I like you how end it by talking about how Obama has broken the economy. If pulling an economy out of its nosedive, and going from -800,000 jobs/month, to gaining jobs, is “breaking” it, then maybe me in office is not a bad idea.
PS I like how you COMPLETELY IGNORED the documents I posted once again.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote: You like the addition of Stalin? It’s not like he ever killed anyone he was a good ole’ boy who was just misunderstood.
Whatever. He killed no more people than the average post-WWII American president. And he saved Europe, but I run hot and cold on him.
[/quote]
Name one that killed 50 million people.
[/quote]
None did. But neither did the Soviet Union. And even if they did, they weren’t socialist, as many people have noted before.[/quote]
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
Those people just starved themselves to death why?[/quote]
I guess for the same reason they starved themselves to death under the Tsar. Whatever that was.
Oh ZEB, just so you don’t forget, you wrote this:
And I wrote this:
[quote]OK, now you’re starting to irritate me. Please, have whatever opinion you want, but don’t lie. Right now, you’re a liar.
http://online.wsj.com/...9218478087.html
What’s that?
http://obrag.org/…_or_surplus.gif
How about that?
http://yglesias.thinkprogress…
Hmm?
http://www.econdataus.com/taxc…
You have ignored these, then claimed they weren’t there, and then somehow made the claim that socialists are dishonest/stupid. Do you really think you’re being honest?[/quote]
Just wanted to let you know, so it doesn’t look like you’re dodging the question.
if you (capitalist posters) can say that the USA is not really a capitalist country because it’s not perfect, Ryan has every right to say that Soviet Russia wasn’t really socialist because it’s not perfect.
it may be hypocrit and/or dogmatic.
but it works on both sides.
and btw, kid or not, dogmatic or not, socialist or not, Ryan made a few actually good points.
if you really believes in the free market, you should be opposed to copyrights, royalties, and patents, because it goes against the “free and equal access to production technology” which is necessary in a “perfect market”.
if you really believes in the free market, you should be opposed to economic rents, excess profits, interests and monopolies, because a perfect market requires that no one is able to set prices or artificially affect prices.
if you really believes in the free market, you should be opposed to financial speculation, because, again, a perfect market requires “perfect market information”.
or you should at least acknowledge that your “free market” is a theoretical chimera, and that it doesn’t exist anymore than his socialist utopia.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote: You like the addition of Stalin? It’s not like he ever killed anyone he was a good ole’ boy who was just misunderstood.
Whatever. He killed no more people than the average post-WWII American president. And he saved Europe, but I run hot and cold on him.
[/quote]
Name one that killed 50 million people.
[/quote]
None did. But neither did the Soviet Union. And even if they did, they weren’t socialist, as many people have noted before.[/quote]
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
Those people just starved themselves to death why?[/quote]
I guess for the same reason they starved themselves to death under the Tsar. Whatever that was.
[/quote]
I don’t understand, was it OK under the commies but bad under the royalists?
It seems too much power in the hands of the government was responsible either way.
Do you think government is the answer to all our problems if we could just implement the right form of government?
it’s not what he said.
he probably think that soviet russia was not a socialist state at all. but a “state capitalism”.
obviously a oh-so-convenient definition, but an interesting one nonetheless.
[quote]kamui wrote:
it’s not what he said.
he probably think that soviet russia was not a socialist state at all. but a “state capitalism”.
obviously a oh-so-convenient definition, but an interesting one nonetheless.[/quote]
It all comes down to socialism being a utopia but no one can implement it properly.
no one can implement it properly because it violates human nature.
Socialism works as a safety net for the lowest in society and for unprofitable ventures, such as police, prisons, treating sewage etc.
It does not work for creation, innovation and advancements.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote: You like the addition of Stalin? It’s not like he ever killed anyone he was a good ole’ boy who was just misunderstood.
Whatever. He killed no more people than the average post-WWII American president. And he saved Europe, but I run hot and cold on him.
[/quote]
Name one that killed 50 million people.
[/quote]
None did. But neither did the Soviet Union. And even if they did, they weren’t socialist, as many people have noted before.[/quote]
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
Those people just starved themselves to death why?[/quote]
I guess for the same reason they starved themselves to death under the Tsar. Whatever that was.
[/quote]
The Tsar took all of their seed grains and livestock and shot anyone who tried to leave?
No wonder they rebelled!
Or did he collectivize farmland to see productivity drop like a stone?
That fucker!
I don’t know, you tell me. All I know is that there were famines under the Tsar, and famines under the Soviets, but you only seem to care about the ones under the Soviets. I won’t pretend that forced collectivization didn’t contribute. I don’t think I’ve ever said that. But the fact that famines happened every decade or so there pretty routinely for quite a while still stands, and when you add in deleterious effects from WWI, the Russian Revolution, and then WWII, it gets a little harder to paint the Soviets as a bunch of monsters plotting the starvation of their own country.
Or, it could just be what everybody who knows anything about Russia thinks: sometimes, the weather is bad, and they just have a bad harvest. The government doesn’t literally control absolutely everything. Actually, for the first decade or so, the Bolsheviks really had little control of the country. The countryside more or less did as they pleased, as the Party didn’t have the manpower or the resources to regulate everything.
No, I think the answer is that people must be allowed to take control of their own affairs and their own communities. If this takes the form of government intervention, as it usually does in a market economy (which is uncontrolled [more or less] by design), fine. If it’s informal neighborhood groups, fine. If it’s workplace associations, fine. In my mind, the most telling fact is that every society which has purported or set out to run things on behalf of the people has failed. I’s failed in the form of capitalism, and it’s failed in the form of “socialism” led by a vanguard party. The people themselves must be empowered, not their fickle representatives. This is challenging with any government, as there will always be those who seek to exploit the population and game the system, but the difference, in my view, is that it will be difficult under socialism, but next to impossible under capitalism.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:It all comes down to socialism being a utopia but no one can implement it properly.
no one can implement it properly because it violates human nature.
Socialism works as a safety net for the lowest in society and for unprofitable ventures, such as police, prisons, treating sewage etc.
It does not work for creation, innovation and advancements.
[/quote]
ACtually, in all seriousness, I think you, like many others, have a false view of socialism. It does not violate human nature. It actually comes closer to satisfying it than capitalism, as socialism pays only for work, not for property. In a fully socialist society, there would be no welfare, no food stamps, except for people who are unable to work for some reason. When full employment is guaranteed, why would you need welfare?
[quote]kamui wrote:
if you (capitalist posters) can say that the USA is not really a capitalist country because it’s not perfect, Ryan has every right to say that Soviet Russia wasn’t really socialist because it’s not perfect.
it may be hypocrit and/or dogmatic.
but it works on both sides.
and btw, kid or not, dogmatic or not, socialist or not, Ryan made a few actually good points.
if you really believes in the free market, you should be opposed to copyrights, royalties, and patents, because it goes against the “free and equal access to production technology” which is necessary in a “perfect market”.
if you really believes in the free market, you should be opposed to economic rents, excess profits, interests and monopolies, because a perfect market requires that no one is able to set prices or artificially affect prices.
if you really believes in the free market, you should be opposed to financial speculation, because, again, a perfect market requires “perfect market information”.
or you should at least acknowledge that your “free market” is a theoretical chimera, and that it doesn’t exist anymore than his socialist utopia. [/quote]
Meh.
That is a primitive caricature of a free market philosophy.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:It all comes down to socialism being a utopia but no one can implement it properly.
no one can implement it properly because it violates human nature.
Socialism works as a safety net for the lowest in society and for unprofitable ventures, such as police, prisons, treating sewage etc.
It does not work for creation, innovation and advancements.
[/quote]
ACtually, in all seriousness, I think you, like many others, have a false view of socialism. It does not violate human nature. It actually comes closer to satisfying it than capitalism, as socialism pays only for work, not for property. In a fully socialist society, there would be no welfare, no food stamps, except for people who are unable to work for some reason. When full employment is guaranteed, why would you need welfare?
[/quote]
And how would you pay for it if noone works?
So, no welfare, I agree.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:It all comes down to socialism being a utopia but no one can implement it properly.
no one can implement it properly because it violates human nature.
Socialism works as a safety net for the lowest in society and for unprofitable ventures, such as police, prisons, treating sewage etc.
It does not work for creation, innovation and advancements.
[/quote]
ACtually, in all seriousness, I think you, like many others, have a false view of socialism. It does not violate human nature. It actually comes closer to satisfying it than capitalism, as socialism pays only for work, not for property. In a fully socialist society, there would be no welfare, no food stamps, except for people who are unable to work for some reason. When full employment is guaranteed, why would you need welfare?
[/quote]
And how would you pay for it if noone works?
So, no welfare, I agree.
[/quote]
People are lazy and will not work unless motivated. This is true from billionaire to bum.
It is inherent in the nature of all animals.
