[Merged] Is the economy under Obama worse or better? - Page 9

BenBurch · 13th June 2012, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Joe Scarborough who I sometimes agree with was going on and on last night that somehow if the federal gov was to spend on teachers, police and fire fighters as well as rebuilding infrastructure it would only create a new bubble.

What do these people think would stimulate the economy? The stock market is doing fine and businesses are sitting on a spare couple trillion so it isn't cash flow that is the problem. Lowering taxes on anyone who wouldn't spend it immediately couldn't possibly stimulate the economy.

I understand the propaganda that stops people from thinking, "it's uncertainty, it's the burden of regulation, it's big government," and so on. It makes zero sense. So let's hear the SPECIFICS.

It's all double-talk. Their goal is not RUNNING the USA, it is DISSOLVING the USA.

As I posted in another thread, they want the federal government small enough to drown in a bathtub. (And I have no doubt they really WOULD literally drown people to get their sick agenda.)

RandFan · 13th June 2012, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

It's all double-talk. Their goal is not RUNNING the USA, it is DISSOLVING the USA.

As I posted in another thread, they want the federal government small enough to drown in a bathtub. (And I have no doubt they really WOULD literally drown people to get their sick agenda.)

As a former conservative I would have said that you don't get it. A smaller govt would benefit everyone. It would result in more jobs and increased salaries. See, what liberals don't get is that govt is THE problem. It gets in the way of those greatest gift to mankind ever, job creators. Conservatives aren't bleeding hearts. They realize that there will always be people who refuse to work and want a hand out. So they will accept that some will have to pay the price. But social Darwinism ensures the survival of the fittest. Those who have the drive and the talents and the skill necessary to move society forward.

Trust me on this one point, Republicans see themselves as noble creatures who are fighting for the downtrodden and huddled masses of this world by giving the less fortunate dignity and a work ethic. They really, really believe that. I know I did.

applecorped · 13th June 2012, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

A smaller govt would benefit everyone. It would result in more jobs and increased salaries. See, what liberals don't get is that govt is THE problem. It gets in the way of those greatest gift to mankind ever, job creators.

Truer words were never spoken.

RandFan · 13th June 2012, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

Truer words were never spoken.

If, and I emphasize "if", if you ignore that whole science thing. If you ignore the fact that humans are an evolved social species. If you ignore that among social species the societies that flourish the best are those that cooperate best. If you ignore the fact that flourishing societies are negatively correlated to societies with inadequately small governments.

Yeah, I said, "as a former conservative". Like religion, science killed my faith in ideological dogma. I'm still a fan of capitalism, personal responsibility, entrepreneurship, investment, risk, hard work, etc., etc. I just figured out that it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. The key is a balanced approach.

applecorped · 13th June 2012, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

A smaller govt would benefit everyone. It would result in more jobs and increased salaries. See, what liberals don't get is that govt is THE problem. It gets in the way of those greatest gift to mankind ever, job creators.

Originally Posted by applecorped

Truer words were never spoken.

qft

RandFan · 13th June 2012, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

Originally Posted by RandFan http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/...s/viewpost.gif
A smaller govt would benefit everyone. It would result in more jobs and increased salaries. See, what liberals don't get is that govt is THE problem. It gets in the way of those greatest gift to mankind ever, job creators.

qft

So now you are arguing ad nauseam. Do you want a gold star? Do you honestly believe that repeating something over and over makes it true? Do you think "qft" somehow makes it true?

More importantly, why do you suppose I no longer subscribe to that point of view? Are you capable of having a substantive discussion? If it's such truth why do I not bow down and worship it as you do?

Help me out here.

RandFan · 13th June 2012, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Trust me on this one point, Republicans see themselves as noble creatures who are fighting for the downtrodden and huddled masses of this world by giving the less fortunate dignity and a work ethic. They really, really believe that. I know I did.

Let's repeat this part also.

shuize · 13th June 2012, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

A smaller govt would benefit everyone. It would result in more jobs and increased salaries.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by applecorped

Truer words were never spoken.

Agreed.

RandFan · 13th June 2012, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by shuize

Agreed.

Agreed.

Dogma and rhetoric will give a conservative a hard on. Now if we could just figure a way to keep the brown people out of America.

DavidJames · 13th June 2012, 10:33 PM

Smaller government is a simple minded mantra for simple minded people. By itself, smaller government hurts the economy as it means less people with jobs which means less consuming of goods by those people which means reduced income/profits for businesses which means less jobs in the private sector.

You don't need to believe me, all you need to do is look around, the data has been posted, you see the impact of less government.

shuize · 13th June 2012, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Dogma and rhetoric will give a conservative a hard on. Now if we could just figure a way to keep the brown people out of America.

You know, for someone who seems very quick to take ideological offense when you think someone is misinterpreting your position, you sure seem pretty loose with your statments toward others.

Skeptic Ginger · 13th June 2012, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

Truer words were never spoken.

And yet you have nothing more specific to support your case.

Skeptic Ginger · 13th June 2012, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by shuize

You know, for someone who seems very quick to take ideological offense when you think someone is misinterpreting your position, you sure seem pretty loose with your statments toward others.

"Smaller government solves all problems" is not only dogma and rhetoric it's nonsense.

RandFan · 13th June 2012, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by shuize

You know, for someone who seems very quick to take ideological offense when you think someone is misinterpreting your position, you sure seem pretty loose with your statments toward others.

I don't think anyone is misinterpreting my position. It would be nice though if people could actually engage me in discussion and not quote me out of context for rhetorical purpose.

easycruise · 14th June 2012, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Smaller government is a simple minded mantra for simple minded people. By itself, smaller government hurts the economy as it means less people with jobs which means less consuming of goods by those people which means reduced income/profits for businesses which means less jobs in the private sector.

Not true at all. You are assuming that government is as efficient or more efficient than private enterprise when clearly it is not. Big government "crowds out" private enterprise and private equity so much that it hampers capital formation, productivity and job growth.

easycruise · 14th June 2012, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

The Democrats offered spending cuts for tax decreases (sp. should read increases) last summer. The GOP flatly turned them down.

That's because the GOP has been snookered before by the Democrats. Reagan-Tip O'Neill. Democrats never came through with the spending cuts they promised. Does anyone actually think the democrats will hold to their promise this time around? Never.

Which BTW: Was very close to the optimum ratio (85:15) identified in a report commissioned by the GOP Spend Less Grow More. (there were other offers by the GOP for tax rate increases but only if taxes were reduced on the very wealthy).[/quote]

Didn't you misread this report earlier? A mea culpa when you were called on it here at JREF forums?

elbe · 14th June 2012, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by easycruise

That's because the GOP has been snookered before by the Democrats. Reagan-Tip O'Neill. Democrats never came through with the spending cuts they promised. Does anyone actually think the democrats will hold to their promise this time around? Never.

What's it like to live in a world where everything is "the other guys' fault"?

DavidJames · 14th June 2012, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by easycruise

Not true at all. You are assuming that government is as efficient or more efficient than private enterprise when clearly it is not. Big government "crowds out" private enterprise and private equity so much that it hampers capital formation, productivity and job growth.

As evidence I have life, reality, walk outside your door, outside of Fox News and see the way the real world is working. Government is smaller, where is the private enterprise and equity creating all those jobs to make up for the smaller government? Sorry, the conservative trickle down narrative is a hoax perpetrated on the ignorant and naive.

BenBurch · 14th June 2012, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by elbe

What's it like to live in a world where everything is "the other guys' fault"?

That's ignorance, and as we all know, ignorance is bliss.

The righteous ideologue always has a good night's sleep until he finally gets punk-slapped by reality.

RandFan · 14th June 2012, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by easycruise

That's because the GOP has been snookered before by the Democrats. Reagan-Tip O'Neill. Democrats never came through with the spending cuts they promised. Does anyone actually think the democrats will hold to their promise this time around? Never.

There is a simple solution, get what you want up front. At least demand for it up front, then if it's turned down you have a reason for turning it down. Otherwise that's just a load of nonsense.

Quote:

Which BTW: Was very close to the optimum ratio (85:15) identified in a report commissioned by the GOP Spend Less Grow More. (there were other offers by the GOP for tax rate increases but only if taxes were reduced on the very wealthy).

Quote:

Didn't you misread this report earlier? A mea culpa when you were called on it here at JREF forums?

Excuse me? The report features a chart with that 85:15 ratio and refers to it as optimum. The argument was whether the report summary included a recommendation for tax rate increases. I conceded that other than the the chart and data they didn't. But the facts of the report are NOT in dispute. The 85:15 ratio WAS found to be optimum and WAS featured prominently in a chart in the report.

RandFan · 14th June 2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by easycruise

Not true at all. You are assuming that government is as efficient or more efficient than private enterprise when clearly it is not. Big government "crowds out" private enterprise and private equity so much that it hampers capital formation, productivity and job growth.

Businesses often crowd out competition. That's the nature of business. Business isn't about ensuring that there is competition. It's about crushing the competition. What the hell is "big government"? I assume you mean simply "too much" government. Well, how much is that? Even the nations that are rated highest in economic freedom have big governments. So what are you talking about?

Skeptic Ginger · 14th June 2012, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by easycruise

Not true at all. You are assuming that government is as efficient or more efficient than private enterprise when clearly it is not. Big government "crowds out" private enterprise and private equity so much that it hampers capital formation, productivity and job growth.

So you think someone is offering to rebuild bridges into for profit toll bridges we would all prefer if only government would get out of the way?

Are you also a fan of states hiring companies like Blackwater to police their communities because it is more efficient than publicly accountable police?

If private health insurers are doing such a great job, is Wendell Potter making his whistle blowing story up?

The problem as I see it is this blanket mantra that private enterprise solves all problems and government is never better. What is wrong with a mix?

Shalamar · 14th June 2012, 10:06 AM

If conservatives are so hell-bent on 'smaller government', why does the GOP keep trying to legislate for bigger government?

BenBurch · 14th June 2012, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Shalamar

If conservatives are so hell-bent on 'smaller government', why does the GOP keep trying to legislate for bigger government?

Pay NO ATTENTION to the MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!

Peephole · 14th June 2012, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by easycruise

Not true at all. You are assuming that government is as efficient or more efficient than private enterprise when clearly it is not. Big government "crowds out" private enterprise and private equity so much that it hampers capital formation, productivity and job growth.

It's less efficient at some things, it's more efficient at other things (healthcare for example which is a complete and utter disaster in the US). On top of that, there's a huge need for more government spending in times of economic depression, like the one we're all in now. Crowding out doesn't count at the moment, as the US is nowhere near full employment. People aren't consuming, businesses aren't investing, and it's all because of a lack of demand. You're only going to make the problem of low demand worse by cutting government spending today, so you need to do the opposite.

Skeptic Ginger · 14th June 2012, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Pay NO ATTENTION to the MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!

And whatever you do, remember Bush wasn't a real Republican.

RandFan · 14th June 2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Shalamar

If conservatives are so hell-bent on 'smaller government', why does the GOP keep trying to legislate for bigger government?

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Pay NO ATTENTION to the MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!

BenBurch · 14th June 2012, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

*I* am the GREAT and Powerful ... wizard... of... oz...

keale · 14th June 2012, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

*I* am the GREAT and Powerful ... wizard... of... oz...

Hello Mr. Wizard um I dont need a heart or courage but I could use health insurance is there something you can do for me?

easycruise · 14th June 2012, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by elbe

What's it like to live in a world where everything is "the other guys' fault"?

What's it like to ignore history and evidence?

Originally Posted by DavidJames

As evidence I have life, reality, walk outside your door, outside of Fox News and see the way the real world is working. Government is smaller, where is the private enterprise and equity creating all those jobs to make up for the smaller government? Sorry, the conservative trickle down narrative is a hoax perpetrated on the ignorant and naive.

Government is not smaller and businesses are afraid to hire due to Obama's penchant to instill new regulations on every business. Upcoming Obamacare ain't exactly making businesses confident either.

Originally Posted by RandFan

There is a simple solution, get what you want up front. At least demand for it up front, then if it's turned down you have a reason for turning it down. Otherwise that's just a load of nonsense.

That's naive thinking. Especially in politics. "Demand for it up front?" Yea, that'll get solid results.

Originally Posted by Shalamar

If conservatives are so hell-bent on 'smaller government', why does the GOP keep trying to legislate for bigger government?

Well, there are the GOP republicans and then there are the Tea party Republicans. Big difference. That's why we came up with the term RINO's.

Peephole · 14th June 2012, 04:23 PM

Are Obama's regulations (what specific regulations by the way? no Republican ever talks about this) holding back business in the Eurozone and the UK as well?

Or do these new regulations, fictional or not, have in fact nothing to do with the US economy's troubles and are it's problems just part of the wider North Athlantic crisis?

BenBurch · 14th June 2012, 04:33 PM

The ONLY regulatory regime that Obama has "meddled" in is mining. His EPA has denied permission for a mine that was certain to cause major pollution because of the location, and character of the spoil. But Coal is the big money behind the GOP right now, so that trumps everything else to these evil people.

Shalamar · 14th June 2012, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by easycruise

Well, there are the GOP republicans and then there are the Tea party Republicans. Big difference. That's why we came up with the term RINO's.

So those members of the GOP who are trying to legislate to deny gay marriage, reduce women's reproductive health, and bring creationism into science classes are really just 'RINO's?

DavidJames · 14th June 2012, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by easycruise

Government is not smaller

You obviously don't read the the links presented which show there are hundreds of thousands of less government employees over the past few years. Here is another.

Originally Posted by easycruise

... and businesses are afraid to hire due to Obama's penchant to instill new regulations on every business. Upcoming Obamacare ain't exactly making businesses confident either.

Speaking of hiding your ass in Fox News, how about some details, evidence, data. Please avoid Republican talking points (if you can), otherwise further responses will be ignored.

BenBurch · 14th June 2012, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Shalamar

So those members of the GOP who are trying to legislate to deny gay marriage, reduce women's reproductive health, and bring creationism into science classes are really just 'RINO's?

No matter what evil thing one of the darlings of their party does, the minute it becomes a negative they are "no true Republican."

So, you can be free to ignore those things for what they are; lies of compulsive liars.

RandFan · 14th June 2012, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by easycruise

That's naive thinking. Especially in politics. "Demand for it up front?" Yea, that'll get solid results.

Oh nonsense. You are simply arguing by assertion. What's silly is that you are in essence saying we can't get solid results with promises and we can't get solid results without them. And I'm naive?

BenBurch · 14th June 2012, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

You obviously don't read the the links presented which show there are hundreds of thousands of less government employees over the past few years. ...

Until the Federal Government finally employs nobody at all, people like this are going to claim (and they KNOW they are LYING to you) that it is growing at record rates.

elbe · 14th June 2012, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by easycruise

What's it like to ignore history and evidence?

I dunno, what is it like?

Skeptic Ginger · 14th June 2012, 06:10 PM

I have yet to see specific, righties.

applecorped · 14th June 2012, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by elbe

I dunno, what is it like?

Soft.

13th June 2012, 04:56 PM	#321
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,102	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Joe Scarborough who I sometimes agree with was going on and on last night that somehow if the federal gov was to spend on teachers, police and fire fighters as well as rebuilding infrastructure it would only create a new bubble. What do these people think would stimulate the economy? The stock market is doing fine and businesses are sitting on a spare couple trillion so it isn't cash flow that is the problem. Lowering taxes on anyone who wouldn't spend it immediately couldn't possibly stimulate the economy. I understand the propaganda that stops people from thinking, "it's uncertainty, it's the burden of regulation, it's big government," and so on. It makes zero sense. So let's hear the SPECIFICS. It's all double-talk. Their goal is not RUNNING the USA, it is DISSOLVING the USA. As I posted in another thread, they want the federal government small enough to drown in a bathtub. (And I have no doubt they really WOULD literally drown people to get their sick agenda.)
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

13th June 2012, 05:44 PM	#322
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,144	Originally Posted by BenBurch It's all double-talk. Their goal is not RUNNING the USA, it is DISSOLVING the USA. As I posted in another thread, they want the federal government small enough to drown in a bathtub. (And I have no doubt they really WOULD literally drown people to get their sick agenda.) As a former conservative I would have said that you don't get it. A smaller govt would benefit everyone. It would result in more jobs and increased salaries. See, what liberals don't get is that govt is THE problem. It gets in the way of those greatest gift to mankind ever, job creators. Conservatives aren't bleeding hearts. They realize that there will always be people who refuse to work and want a hand out. So they will accept that some will have to pay the price. But social Darwinism ensures the survival of the fittest. Those who have the drive and the talents and the skill necessary to move society forward. Trust me on this one point, Republicans see themselves as noble creatures who are fighting for the downtrodden and huddled masses of this world by giving the less fortunate dignity and a work ethic. They really, really believe that. I know I did.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

13th June 2012, 05:49 PM	#323
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,631	Originally Posted by RandFan A smaller govt would benefit everyone. It would result in more jobs and increased salaries. See, what liberals don't get is that govt is THE problem. It gets in the way of those greatest gift to mankind ever, job creators. Truer words were never spoken.
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

13th June 2012, 06:05 PM	#324
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,144	Originally Posted by applecorped Truer words were never spoken. If, and I emphasize "if", if you ignore that whole science thing. If you ignore the fact that humans are an evolved social species. If you ignore that among social species the societies that flourish the best are those that cooperate best. If you ignore the fact that flourishing societies are negatively correlated to societies with inadequately small governments. Yeah, I said, "as a former conservative". Like religion, science killed my faith in ideological dogma. I'm still a fan of capitalism, personal responsibility, entrepreneurship, investment, risk, hard work, etc., etc. I just figured out that it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. The key is a balanced approach.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

13th June 2012, 06:21 PM	#325
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,631	Originally Posted by RandFan A smaller govt would benefit everyone. It would result in more jobs and increased salaries. See, what liberals don't get is that govt is THE problem. It gets in the way of those greatest gift to mankind ever, job creators. Originally Posted by applecorped Truer words were never spoken. qft
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

13th June 2012, 07:14 PM	#326
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,144	Originally Posted by applecorped Originally Posted by RandFan http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/...s/viewpost.gif A smaller govt would benefit everyone. It would result in more jobs and increased salaries. See, what liberals don't get is that govt is THE problem. It gets in the way of those greatest gift to mankind ever, job creators. qft So now you are arguing ad nauseam. Do you want a gold star? Do you honestly believe that repeating something over and over makes it true? Do you think "qft" somehow makes it true? More importantly, why do you suppose I no longer subscribe to that point of view? Are you capable of having a substantive discussion? If it's such truth why do I not bow down and worship it as you do? Help me out here.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

13th June 2012, 07:16 PM	#327
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,144	Originally Posted by RandFan Trust me on this one point, Republicans see themselves as noble creatures who are fighting for the downtrodden and huddled masses of this world by giving the less fortunate dignity and a work ethic. They really, really believe that. I know I did. Let's repeat this part also.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

13th June 2012, 10:03 PM	#328
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Japan Posts: 2,308	Originally Posted by RandFan A smaller govt would benefit everyone. It would result in more jobs and increased salaries. Agreed. Originally Posted by applecorped Truer words were never spoken. Agreed.

13th June 2012, 10:08 PM	#329
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,144	Originally Posted by shuize Agreed. Agreed. Dogma and rhetoric will give a conservative a hard on. Now if we could just figure a way to keep the brown people out of America.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

13th June 2012, 10:33 PM	#330
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,084	Smaller government is a simple minded mantra for simple minded people. By itself, smaller government hurts the economy as it means less people with jobs which means less consuming of goods by those people which means reduced income/profits for businesses which means less jobs in the private sector. You don't need to believe me, all you need to do is look around, the data has been posted, you see the impact of less government.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

13th June 2012, 10:38 PM	#331
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Japan Posts: 2,308	Originally Posted by RandFan Dogma and rhetoric will give a conservative a hard on. Now if we could just figure a way to keep the brown people out of America. You know, for someone who seems very quick to take ideological offense when you think someone is misinterpreting your position, you sure seem pretty loose with your statments toward others.

13th June 2012, 11:04 PM	#332
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,519	Originally Posted by applecorped Truer words were never spoken. And yet you have nothing more specific to support your case.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

13th June 2012, 11:06 PM	#333
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,519	Originally Posted by shuize You know, for someone who seems very quick to take ideological offense when you think someone is misinterpreting your position, you sure seem pretty loose with your statments toward others. "Smaller government solves all problems" is not only dogma and rhetoric it's nonsense.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

13th June 2012, 11:08 PM	#334
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,144	Originally Posted by shuize You know, for someone who seems very quick to take ideological offense when you think someone is misinterpreting your position, you sure seem pretty loose with your statments toward others. I don't think anyone is misinterpreting my position. It would be nice though if people could actually engage me in discussion and not quote me out of context for rhetorical purpose.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 13th June 2012 at 11:41 PM.

14th June 2012, 05:50 AM	#335
easycruise Muse Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: In chains I can bereave in Posts: 720	Originally Posted by DavidJames Smaller government is a simple minded mantra for simple minded people. By itself, smaller government hurts the economy as it means less people with jobs which means less consuming of goods by those people which means reduced income/profits for businesses which means less jobs in the private sector. Not true at all. You are assuming that government is as efficient or more efficient than private enterprise when clearly it is not. Big government "crowds out" private enterprise and private equity so much that it hampers capital formation, productivity and job growth.
	__________________ ""Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money."" - Margaret Thatcher

14th June 2012, 06:06 AM	#336
easycruise Muse Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: In chains I can bereave in Posts: 720	Originally Posted by RandFan The Democrats offered spending cuts for tax decreases (sp. should read increases) last summer. The GOP flatly turned them down. That's because the GOP has been snookered before by the Democrats. Reagan-Tip O'Neill. Democrats never came through with the spending cuts they promised. Does anyone actually think the democrats will hold to their promise this time around? Never. Which BTW: Was very close to the optimum ratio (85:15) identified in a report commissioned by the GOP Spend Less Grow More. (there were other offers by the GOP for tax rate increases but only if taxes were reduced on the very wealthy).[/quote] Didn't you misread this report earlier? A mea culpa when you were called on it here at JREF forums?
	__________________ ""Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money."" - Margaret Thatcher

14th June 2012, 06:31 AM	#337
elbe Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: near a man named leroy brown Posts: 3,552	Originally Posted by easycruise That's because the GOP has been snookered before by the Democrats. Reagan-Tip O'Neill. Democrats never came through with the spending cuts they promised. Does anyone actually think the democrats will hold to their promise this time around? Never. What's it like to live in a world where everything is "the other guys' fault"?
	__________________ "If ever I stray from the path I follow take me down to the english channel, throw me in where the water is shallow, and then drag me on back to shore." realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...

14th June 2012, 06:35 AM	#338
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,084	Originally Posted by easycruise Not true at all. You are assuming that government is as efficient or more efficient than private enterprise when clearly it is not. Big government "crowds out" private enterprise and private equity so much that it hampers capital formation, productivity and job growth. As evidence I have life, reality, walk outside your door, outside of Fox News and see the way the real world is working. Government is smaller, where is the private enterprise and equity creating all those jobs to make up for the smaller government? Sorry, the conservative trickle down narrative is a hoax perpetrated on the ignorant and naive.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

14th June 2012, 08:17 AM	#339
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,102	Originally Posted by elbe What's it like to live in a world where everything is "the other guys' fault"? That's ignorance, and as we all know, ignorance is bliss. The righteous ideologue always has a good night's sleep until he finally gets punk-slapped by reality.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th June 2012, 09:24 AM	#340
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,144	Originally Posted by easycruise That's because the GOP has been snookered before by the Democrats. Reagan-Tip O'Neill. Democrats never came through with the spending cuts they promised. Does anyone actually think the democrats will hold to their promise this time around? Never. There is a simple solution, get what you want up front. At least demand for it up front, then if it's turned down you have a reason for turning it down. Otherwise that's just a load of nonsense. Quote: Which BTW: Was very close to the optimum ratio (85:15) identified in a report commissioned by the GOP Spend Less Grow More. (there were other offers by the GOP for tax rate increases but only if taxes were reduced on the very wealthy). Quote: Didn't you misread this report earlier? A mea culpa when you were called on it here at JREF forums? Excuse me? The report features a chart with that 85:15 ratio and refers to it as optimum. The argument was whether the report summary included a recommendation for tax rate increases. I conceded that other than the the chart and data they didn't. But the facts of the report are NOT in dispute. The 85:15 ratio WAS found to be optimum and WAS featured prominently in a chart in the report.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 14th June 2012 at 09:28 AM.

14th June 2012, 09:27 AM	#341
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,144	Originally Posted by easycruise Not true at all. You are assuming that government is as efficient or more efficient than private enterprise when clearly it is not. Big government "crowds out" private enterprise and private equity so much that it hampers capital formation, productivity and job growth. Businesses often crowd out competition. That's the nature of business. Business isn't about ensuring that there is competition. It's about crushing the competition. What the hell is "big government"? I assume you mean simply "too much" government. Well, how much is that? Even the nations that are rated highest in economic freedom have big governments. So what are you talking about?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

14th June 2012, 09:39 AM	#342
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,519	Originally Posted by easycruise Not true at all. You are assuming that government is as efficient or more efficient than private enterprise when clearly it is not. Big government "crowds out" private enterprise and private equity so much that it hampers capital formation, productivity and job growth. So you think someone is offering to rebuild bridges into for profit toll bridges we would all prefer if only government would get out of the way? Are you also a fan of states hiring companies like Blackwater to police their communities because it is more efficient than publicly accountable police? If private health insurers are doing such a great job, is Wendell Potter making his whistle blowing story up? The problem as I see it is this blanket mantra that private enterprise solves all problems and government is never better. What is wrong with a mix?
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 14th June 2012 at 09:42 AM.*

14th June 2012, 10:06 AM	#343
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Super Star Destroyer Executor Posts: 2,396	If conservatives are so hell-bent on 'smaller government', why does the GOP keep trying to legislate for bigger government?
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

14th June 2012, 10:15 AM	#344
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,102	Originally Posted by Shalamar If conservatives are so hell-bent on 'smaller government', why does the GOP keep trying to legislate for bigger government? Pay NO ATTENTION to the MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th June 2012, 10:36 AM	#345
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,245	Originally Posted by easycruise Not true at all. You are assuming that government is as efficient or more efficient than private enterprise when clearly it is not. Big government "crowds out" private enterprise and private equity so much that it hampers capital formation, productivity and job growth. It's less efficient at some things, it's more efficient at other things (healthcare for example which is a complete and utter disaster in the US). On top of that, there's a huge need for more government spending in times of economic depression, like the one we're all in now. Crowding out doesn't count at the moment, as the US is nowhere near full employment. People aren't consuming, businesses aren't investing, and it's all because of a lack of demand. You're only going to make the problem of low demand worse by cutting government spending today, so you need to do the opposite.
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,245	__________________ 911science

14th June 2012, 10:43 AM	#346
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,519	Originally Posted by BenBurch Pay NO ATTENTION to the MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!! And whatever you do, remember Bush wasn't a real Republican.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

14th June 2012, 10:55 AM	#347
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,144	Originally Posted by Shalamar If conservatives are so hell-bent on 'smaller government', why does the GOP keep trying to legislate for bigger government? Originally Posted by BenBurch Pay NO ATTENTION to the MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

14th June 2012, 12:52 PM	#348
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,102	Originally Posted by RandFan *I* am the GREAT and Powerful ... wizard... of... oz...
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th June 2012, 01:15 PM	#349
keale Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 813	Originally Posted by BenBurch *I* am the GREAT and Powerful ... wizard... of... oz... Hello Mr. Wizard um I dont need a heart or courage but I could use health insurance is there something you can do for me?
keale Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 813

14th June 2012, 04:20 PM	#350
easycruise Muse Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: In chains I can bereave in Posts: 720	Originally Posted by elbe What's it like to live in a world where everything is "the other guys' fault"? What's it like to ignore history and evidence? Originally Posted by DavidJames As evidence I have life, reality, walk outside your door, outside of Fox News and see the way the real world is working. Government is smaller, where is the private enterprise and equity creating all those jobs to make up for the smaller government? Sorry, the conservative trickle down narrative is a hoax perpetrated on the ignorant and naive. Government is not smaller and businesses are afraid to hire due to Obama's penchant to instill new regulations on every business. Upcoming Obamacare ain't exactly making businesses confident either. Originally Posted by RandFan There is a simple solution, get what you want up front. At least demand for it up front, then if it's turned down you have a reason for turning it down. Otherwise that's just a load of nonsense. That's naive thinking. Especially in politics. "Demand for it up front?" Yea, that'll get solid results. Originally Posted by Shalamar If conservatives are so hell-bent on 'smaller government', why does the GOP keep trying to legislate for bigger government? Well, there are the GOP republicans and then there are the Tea party Republicans. Big difference. That's why we came up with the term RINO's.
	__________________ ""Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money."" - Margaret Thatcher

14th June 2012, 04:23 PM	#351
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,245	Are Obama's regulations (what specific regulations by the way? no Republican ever talks about this) holding back business in the Eurozone and the UK as well? Or do these new regulations, fictional or not, have in fact nothing to do with the US economy's troubles and are it's problems just part of the wider North Athlantic crisis?
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,245	__________________ 911science Last edited by Peephole; 14th June 2012 at 04:25 PM.

14th June 2012, 04:33 PM	#352
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,102	The ONLY regulatory regime that Obama has "meddled" in is mining. His EPA has denied permission for a mine that was certain to cause major pollution because of the location, and character of the spoil. But Coal is the big money behind the GOP right now, so that trumps everything else to these evil people.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th June 2012, 04:42 PM	#353
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Super Star Destroyer Executor Posts: 2,396	Originally Posted by easycruise Well, there are the GOP republicans and then there are the Tea party Republicans. Big difference. That's why we came up with the term RINO's. So those members of the GOP who are trying to legislate to deny gay marriage, reduce women's reproductive health, and bring creationism into science classes are really just 'RINO's?
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

14th June 2012, 04:43 PM	#354
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,084	Originally Posted by easycruise Government is not smaller You obviously don't read the the links presented which show there are hundreds of thousands of less government employees over the past few years. Here is another. Originally Posted by easycruise ... and businesses are afraid to hire due to Obama's penchant to instill new regulations on every business. Upcoming Obamacare ain't exactly making businesses confident either. Speaking of hiding your ass in Fox News, how about some details, evidence, data. Please avoid Republican talking points (if you can), otherwise further responses will be ignored.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand. Last edited by DavidJames; 14th June 2012 at 04:44 PM.

14th June 2012, 04:51 PM	#355
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,102	Originally Posted by Shalamar So those members of the GOP who are trying to legislate to deny gay marriage, reduce women's reproductive health, and bring creationism into science classes are really just 'RINO's? No matter what evil thing one of the darlings of their party does, the minute it becomes a negative they are "no true Republican." So, you can be free to ignore those things for what they are; lies of compulsive liars.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!