Obama's Plan to Fix the Economy

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
You seem like a bright guy, I’m going to assume you realize the burden of proof falls on you when you make an assertion. I can check out that bill and see what it was about, but you need to show that it improved the economy in the ways you say it does.

I know your 2nd comment wasn’t directed at me, but I’m not a bible thumper, am not a steadfast follower of Ayn Rand principles, and would also like to point out there is a difference between advocating certain principles and exploiting the system to one’s own benefit. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I will see what I can come up with for you. Seeking the truth is often a burdensome task and I would say it is everyones responsibility to seek it once aware. I kind of thought that it was common knowledge, like if you can find it in more than 4 places than you do not have to site it. J/K There is a section on the Wiki page called, after the war. It has citations to back up the information. G.I. Bill - Wikipedia

The second point was not direct at you, but I will say that the difference you describe is called being a hypocrite and is generally considered a most undesirable characteristically in a person. That with the fact that to advocate a principle and then not practice it yourself makes ones argument rather suspect to the validity, and definitely should raise the question of how seriousness anyone else should consider it. I feel like I am back in the Catholicism Q&A topic. I guess my problem is I don’t believe in postmodern philosophy, and think that we can all actually communicate and understand one another. Just because you hold a view point that is argumentatively sound like a political ideology it does not make it the only valid ideology or true for that matter.

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
You seem like a bright guy, I’m going to assume you realize the burden of proof falls on you when you make an assertion. I can check out that bill and see what it was about, but you need to show that it improved the economy in the ways you say it does.

I know your 2nd comment wasn’t directed at me, but I’m not a bible thumper, am not a steadfast follower of Ayn Rand principles, and would also like to point out there is a difference between advocating certain principles and exploiting the system to one’s own benefit. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I will see what I can come up with for you. Seeking the truth is often a burdensome task and I would say it is everyones responsibility to seek it once aware. I kind of thought that it was common knowledge, like if you can find it in more than 4 places than you do not have to site it. J/K There is a section on the Wiki page called, after the war. It has citations to back up the information. G.I. Bill - Wikipedia

The second point was not direct at you, but I will say that the difference you describe is called being a hypocrite and is generally considered a most undesirable characteristically in a person. That with the fact that to advocate a principle and then not practice it yourself makes ones argument rather suspect to the validity, and definitely should raise the question of how seriousness anyone else should consider it. I feel like I am back in the Catholicism Q&A topic. I guess my problem is I don’t believe in postmodern philosophy, and think that we can all actually communicate and understand one another. Just because you hold a view point that is argumentatively sound like a political ideology it does not make it the only valid ideology or true for that matter. [/quote]

I will check out the wiki page.

As for your 2nd paragraph, if I don’t believe in unemployment compensation but take advantage of it when I’m laid off, does that make me a hypocrite? After all, I’ve been paying into the system for years. Same deal with SS, medicaid, etc., IMO. It’s not that I (hypothetically speaking, of course) am advocating a principle and not following it, but am forced to follow a system which does not adhere to my principles because I don’t have a choice in paying into those systems.

Edit - the “after the war” portion of the wiki page doesn’t have any citations, and furthermore doesn’t even state what alleged benefits, if any, the bill had on the economy.

“Contrary to some stereotypes of Vietnam veterans, most who served in Vietnam used their benefits to construct productive and successful lives after service.[citation needed] Education benefits during the Vietnam era did not have the same impact on higher education as the original 1944 Bill because higher education had become much more commonplace in America.[citation needed] But the G.I. Bills of this period did have a similarly positive impact on the lives of the beneficiaries.[citation needed]”

This is the closest paragraph I can find that asserts your point of view, however, there are no citations, no facts, no data, etc. Honestly, it’s just someone’s opinion of the effects of the bill. I’m actually surprised the wiki page didn’t (at least) try to draw a weak correlations between money spent on this bill and unemployment rates, GDP, average pay, etc.

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

Look up the the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the G.I. Bill of Rights. and interpret it for yourself. You can tell me if I am wrong.

Just to throw a little gas on the fire since I feel like this is the source of so much of the disdain out there today.

â??“It’s a good time to remind fans that Ayn Rand HATED Christianity & died on Medicare & Social Security.” ~ John Fugelsang

The Truth About GOP Hero Ayn Rand - YouTube The truth about Ayn Rand[/quote]

I was about to jump in when you mistakenly said the federal reserve was part of the federal government, but I can’t bit my tongue on this.

Ayn Rand advocated individualized selfishness as a virtue. She claimed that socialism(s) always fail because the individual is selfish and will abuse the system for individual advantage. Her life, including dieing on medicare and social security, is actually the opposite of being hypocritical. It actually proves her point.

But even further she advocated a system without things like social security, she did not advocate not using it once a government has already made you pay for it. The 2 are not logically equivalent. And there is no hypocrisy in her getting what she can out of the system.

I am no fan of Woodrow Wilson or Ayn Rand.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am no fan of Woodrow Wilson or Ayn Rand.[/quote]

Like every person in this world I find stuff I agree with and disagree with. It is why I pretty well never subscribe myself to any person’s beliefs.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am no fan of Woodrow Wilson or Ayn Rand.[/quote]

Like every person in this world I find stuff I agree with and disagree with. It is why I pretty well never subscribe myself to any person’s beliefs.[/quote]

I don’t prescribe myself to anyone else’s beliefs, but off the top of my head I can’t remember ever disagreeing with Thomas Sowell, primarily on economic issues. Check him out if you haven’t.

You can confiscate the entire profits of every Fortune 500 company this year, take all income above $250,000, sell all the real estate of the richest Americans in Beverly Hills, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, take all the advertising revenue of pro sports (and the athlete’s salaries) - you won’t be able to pay for one year’s Federal Budget.

We need an adult conversation, with adults in Washington D.C. to stave off the impending fiscal collapse. Talking about birth certificates and wealth envy and blood for oil is a childish waste of time. $4 gallon of gas, food prices… this is just the start.

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

Forget all this democrat republican nonsense. They are both playing for the same team.
[/quote]

That’s why the republicans to a man tried to prevent the catastrophe of national health care. And also why the republicans constantly push for tax cuts for EVERYBODY.

Do you have any idea what this country would look like if the democrats controlled the white house and both houses of congress for a long period of time? Take a look at a couple of the blue states like California or New York to find out.

There is a huge difference between the two parties. But you actually have to fully understand what each party represents and then keep abreast of what they do to understand this.

[/quote]

Yeah they are both ends to the same mean. You have the republicans short sightedness in privatizing and selling off programs and things that are already paid for or budgeted for through tax dollars. For example Rick Perry here in Texas trying to sell the state lotto or toll rights on a freeway that is already completed and paid for in exchange for a small percentage of what would be made by simply increasing the cost of those services as both corporations would stipulated in the contracts and which would yield them over 5 times their investment. We either have the dumbest public officials or the dumbest public and seeing who is going to benefit financially I think I know which one it is.

Or you have the democrats that pass a healthcare bill that violates my freedom of speech as was ruled by the supreme courts decision that money = Freedom of speech in the case that said no cap could be placed on campaign contributions by corporations because it would violate their freedom of speech.

Someone else mention that Obama kept the same players as Bush and Clinton and I posted a link showing that his financial cabinet did involve those same players. Both agendas have a complete disregard for the public welfare and the rights of the citizens of this country, while showing a favoritism to corporations and the ultra wealthy. Keep clinging to you Tea Bagger reformist hopes, what a bunch of winners came out of there in the election.

For the record the whole notion of Insurance was always a social welfare program even when run for profit. The idea is that you take a risk and spread it over a larger population to minimize the cost to the individual in the event that they suffer a loss. Doesn’t get more socialist. Companies like Blue Cross and Blue shield use to be non-profit insurance companies, and still are in a few parts of the country, but do to the ability of for profit insurance to cut the services and deny claims and deny eligibility it made it increasingly harder for them to stay competitive.

This is not necessarily a good thing since as well all know as we get old our likely hood to need these services increases greatly. The US has 1/3 of its population reaching the end of their life in the next 30 years and these costs are going to sky rocket. Private insurance is not going to continue to accept that exposure if given the opportunity to drop these people, and the current system will allow them all to receive the most expensive end term care by checking into the emergency room when they are sick or dieing. Health care reform as a discussing is not an option, it will bankrupt our country if we do not do something now. I agree that what was passed is insufficient and a blowjob to corporate america as Bill Maher put it, but the ideas I have heard thrown around by the republicans are a ridiculous fantasy. The most current being a voucher system with a 15K cap. What happens when they use up the 15K? I know as republicans you cannot think 3 step ahead to see what will happen, but you want to talk about a death panel being the decision maker in these peoples end of care fate, this is just telling them to fuck of and die. Which to be honest with, I am actually for, as I hate that whole generation of baby boomer’s, those greedy self entitled bunch of hypocrites.

Anyway, I am not a republican or a democrat and I think that accepting either a blanketing political view is lazy. I also think that it is pointless as I mentioned as both are being propped up with funding from the same corporations. Until we pass meaningful campaign reform or term limits it is a sinking ship that will not likely be saved no matter who you put in office. Greed seems to continually put immediate profit before the longterm success of both the companies and the populations. That is how the corporation is designed to work so it is really working perfectly.

[/quote]

What makes you think that your world view is ambitious, or unique in any way? Lumping democrats and republicans together? That’s perhaps the laziest, and certainly most naive point of view that can be held. As I’ve already pointed out there are large and very clear differences between the two political parties from taxes to abortion and everything in between.

If you think that a third party is going to rise up and take control think again. And even if they did they would have to work with a both houses of congress filled with democrats and republicans. So, tell me how much would an “independent” President get done? So you have two problems here. The first, you are (for some reason) unable to see major differences in the two parties which I think is a spectacularly narrow view. And the second, you are waiting for a boat that is NEVER going to dock called a third party.

[quote]steadfastred wrote:

I heard this on the radio about two weeks ago and was impressed. If more people actually watched this video they would soon fully understand why an Obama “soak the rich” tax policy is destined for failure. What we need is to expand the tax base where more people are actually working and paying taxes. And those taxes should be at a lower rate. We need to put money in the hands of job creators. Is it not logical to assume that those who create jobs would do more of it if they could actually keep more of their money? How is taking money away from people who need it to creat jobs going to help the US in the long-term? It isnt! The class warfare owned by the democrats and used by Obama in a recent speech harms people and the economy.

I agree. I believe that the fastest and most effective approach to producing a better conservative party is to improve, or even capture the one that we have. I also think, contrary to the views of some, that the constitution was written with a “two major party” system in mind. History had shown that smaller parties tended to chose one of two sides in governments over time.

The purpose of a party is to win elections. The purpose of individuals, and movements is to affect the way the party chooses its candidates.

On the subject of Ayn Rand, you do have to take anything anyone writes or proposes with the grain of salt appropriate to the fact that they approach their given opinions within the context of a singular human experience. Given one lifetime and one experience, and her own unique perspective, she wrote about what impassioned and disgusted her about the condition of the human race and it’s attempts to self govern.

I greatly agree with some of her assertions and disagree with others. I would consider anyone who in whole subscribes to Rand’s or anyone elses ideology to be intellectually lazy.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. I tend to read, within context, differing points of view rejecting, or at least ignoring, what would appear ridiculous, inconsequential, or preposterous. I tend to find that where the best, most truthful and beneficial aspects of any philosophy lie they are in agreement with or are at the least complimentary to, the best, most truthful and beneficial aspects of a seemingly opposing philosophy.

As for the comments on the two party system being little more than a ruse to befuddle the populous to the real threat of the ‘evil central bank and its American arm the Federal Reserve’, I would say wipe it out and see what would take it’s place. While you’re at it dissolve all religion as well. See how long it would take for Man to raise it all back again in different forms with different names, but the same underlying focus and intent. The following link is a liberal playing devil’s advocate and arguing the case for the political and ideological right, while entertaining an interesting insight into the thinking processes of both ‘types’.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

This is the closest paragraph I can find that asserts your point of view, however, there are no citations, no facts, no data, etc. Honestly, it’s just someone’s opinion of the effects of the bill. I’m actually surprised the wiki page didn’t (at least) try to draw a weak correlations between money spent on this bill and unemployment rates, GDP, average pay, etc.[/quote]

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf?sequence=1

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And to Jackson: How does contributing to the war effort by giving scrap iron etc to the government constitute ‘a bit of Socialism’? (Rhetorical) - Also, whilst your assertion that US aircraft production increased at an astonishing rate during the war is correct, the US was already producing over 5000 aircraft a year by 1939.

‘Self reliance is a myth’? In your case I’d agree.[/quote]
Lol… You can deny history as much as you want. Would you agree that the GI bill that grated money for returning soldiers to buy homes and get vocational training and education are social programs? Would you also agree that these were major contributing factors to the economic groth that followed? possibly through the creation of jobs to build the homes, Ect. Ect ect?[/quote]

Sigh…I knew this would happen if I responded.

  1. I didn’t deny history as you well know otherwise you would’ve indicated where I had allegedly done so.

  2. I have never said I am against vetererns’ payments.

  3. Veterens payments, whilst a good idea, did not ‘creat(e) jobs’

[quote]ZEB wrote:
What makes you think that your world view is ambitious, or unique in any way? Lumping democrats and republicans together? That’s perhaps the laziest, and certainly most naive point of view that can be held. As I’ve already pointed out there are large and very clear differences between the two political parties from taxes to abortion and everything in between.

If you think that a third party is going to rise up and take control think again. And even if they did they would have to work with a both houses of congress filled with democrats and republicans. So, tell me how much would an “independent” President get done? So you have two problems here. The first, you are (for some reason) unable to see major differences in the two parties which I think is a spectacularly narrow view. And the second, you are waiting for a boat that is NEVER going to dock called a third party.[/quote]

To everyone that called me on my flawed logic with the notion that one can be against something but participate because they are forced I will agree that I see your point. However, I prefer people with conviction that will say I am against it even though I am forced to contribute and I will voice my dissent by not accepting that which I reject. I don’t think that my logic is totally flawed when you see that perspective?

Let me clarify, I do understand the differences between conservatives and liberals or Republican and Democrats. At the local and state level and for individuals ideologies I think that it is understandable and good that you can lean one way or the other. That being said, I believe that once a person reaches the level of President, Senator, or Congressmen while they speak the ideologies of the cohort. The policies, at least with the last several democrats and republicans in the presidency, seem to be overwhelmingly the same. Did Bush act like a fiscally conservative republican? Was Clinton a corporate democrat? You can pretend that having huge campaign contributions made by corporations to both candidates does not impact policy but I will continue to argue that it does and to the point that the corporations will almost always get what they want before the american people.

Also, I think that the idea of term limits on all members or congress would help reduce the likely hood of corporations or interest groups wanting to or being able to sway their support with obscene donations.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And to Jackson: How does contributing to the war effort by giving scrap iron etc to the government constitute ‘a bit of Socialism’? (Rhetorical) - Also, whilst your assertion that US aircraft production increased at an astonishing rate during the war is correct, the US was already producing over 5000 aircraft a year by 1939.

‘Self reliance is a myth’? In your case I’d agree.[/quote]
Lol… You can deny history as much as you want. Would you agree that the GI bill that grated money for returning soldiers to buy homes and get vocational training and education are social programs? Would you also agree that these were major contributing factors to the economic groth that followed? possibly through the creation of jobs to build the homes, Ect. Ect ect?[/quote]

Sigh…I knew this would happen if I responded.

  1. I didn’t deny history as you well know otherwise you would’ve indicated where I had allegedly done so.

  2. I have never said I am against vetererns’ payments.

  3. Veterens payments, whilst a good idea, did not ‘creat(e) jobs’[/quote]

See the link to the paper I posted above this comment.

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

This is the closest paragraph I can find that asserts your point of view, however, there are no citations, no facts, no data, etc. Honestly, it’s just someone’s opinion of the effects of the bill. I’m actually surprised the wiki page didn’t (at least) try to draw a weak correlations between money spent on this bill and unemployment rates, GDP, average pay, etc.[/quote]

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf?sequence=1[/quote]

As entertaining as that book may be, mind being more specific? Lol.

I’m not evading, but I’ll be damned if I’m about to read 85 pages in search of your point, and I’m more than a little skeptical that you read it, either.

Edit - I even read the conclusion at the end and no where did I see references to the positive effect of that bill on the economy, although it did seem to indicate that the bill helped white men achieve a higher home ownership %. Even based on the title it doesn’t look like it’s connecting the dots where you want it to.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

This is the closest paragraph I can find that asserts your point of view, however, there are no citations, no facts, no data, etc. Honestly, it’s just someone’s opinion of the effects of the bill. I’m actually surprised the wiki page didn’t (at least) try to draw a weak correlations between money spent on this bill and unemployment rates, GDP, average pay, etc.[/quote]

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf?sequence=1[/quote]

As entertaining as that book may be, mind being more specific? Lol.

I’m not evading, but I’ll be damned if I’m about to read 85 pages in search of your point, and I’m more than a little skeptical that you read it, either.

Edit - I even read the conclusion at the end and no where did I see references to the positive effect of that bill on the economy, although it did seem to indicate that the bill helped white men achieve a higher home ownership %. Even based on the title it doesn’t look like it’s connecting the dots where you want it to.

[/quote]

Maybe I do believe in post modernism. You think that over 6 million homes were built and it had no impact on the economy. you think that millions of men went to college and it had no impact on the economy?

You do understand that this specified period of time is the beginning of the baby boomer era? It went something like this. Home ownership boom, automobile ownership boom, creation of baby and all of the things babies need baby food, diapers, toys boom, those babies become adults want cars boom, they go to college boom, they buy homes boom, they fail to reproduce at the same rate that their parents did current decline.

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Also, Germany’s hyperinflation started after the First World War and the November revolution was a major factor. There were many other factors I couldn’t be bothered going into(reparation payments, French occupation of the Ruhr, borrowing to fund the war effort etc).

[/quote]

What November Revoution? Do you mean the Sparticists in 1919, the Kapp Putsch of 20 or the Hitler’s Beer hall putsch. The latter was an utterly inconsequential event. The main reason, as you correctly say, was the invasion of the Ruhr, where people refused to go to work so the government just kept printing money

Sorry just asking for some historical clarification.

As for the thread, from this viewpoint, Obama looks awfully like his predecessor. [/quote]

No, I mean the November revolution. It’s actually easier to google it then ask me. The November revolution of 1918-1919(also known as the German revolution) refers to all the Socialist/Communist upheavals that occured during that time. It began with the Sailors’ revolt in Kiel and the formation of Soviet style workers/soldiers councils, spread throughout Germany and resulted in Bavaria being declared a ‘Soviet republic’ amongst other things. The crushing of the Spartacist uprising by FreiKorps ended said revolution.

Lastly, you are correct regarding spending/pork barrelling under Dubya. It was insane. That doesn’t excuse Hussein Obama continuing and expanding upon the trend.

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

This is the closest paragraph I can find that asserts your point of view, however, there are no citations, no facts, no data, etc. Honestly, it’s just someone’s opinion of the effects of the bill. I’m actually surprised the wiki page didn’t (at least) try to draw a weak correlations between money spent on this bill and unemployment rates, GDP, average pay, etc.[/quote]

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf?sequence=1[/quote]

As entertaining as that book may be, mind being more specific? Lol.

I’m not evading, but I’ll be damned if I’m about to read 85 pages in search of your point, and I’m more than a little skeptical that you read it, either.

Edit - I even read the conclusion at the end and no where did I see references to the positive effect of that bill on the economy, although it did seem to indicate that the bill helped white men achieve a higher home ownership %. Even based on the title it doesn’t look like it’s connecting the dots where you want it to.

[/quote]

Maybe I do believe in post modernism. You think that over 6 million homes were built and it had no impact on the economy. you think that millions of men went to college and it had no impact on the economy? [/quote]

No, I think that in order for you to claim that this specific bill resulted in millions of people going to college and millions of homes to be built you should prove that. Stating how many people went to college and took advantage of these programs doesn’t quite get us there as there are more variables. How many of them would have went to college anyway? What were college attendance rates before and after these programs were implemented? How may of these men would have purchased homes regardless of this specific bill?

Also, I alluded to it before, were there any unintended consequences (higher tuition costs, etc.)?

I’m a big fan of economics and I can say that looking at 1 statistic (X million people took advantage of this program) does not show the bill/program had a net positive result and furthermore, does not show causation of a growing economy.

FTR, I’m not even saying you’re definitely wrong about this bill having a net positive result, but I’d like to see some evidence because as a principle I tend to believe social programs have a net negative result.

For a different perspective on the GI Bill.