The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Economics => Topic started by: Allentownjake on September 06, 2010, 10:46:38 PM
-
Every solution I hear being bandied about involves some sort of stimulus spending or another, the debate is often what sort of stimulus spending we should engage in. It is really a nasty victory of the Keynsians and banking clans (people who loan money love the idea of people going deeper in debt).
Even the conservative solution of tax cuts is in fact a stimulus argument. It is an argument of not paying off debt and giving money to the private sector in hopes it stimulates demand.
I have a different opinion. I view this as a debt problem. Sacrifice as a nation, pay off our debt, bunker down and we regain prosperity. Let people learn from the pain.
Any thoughts?
-
Every solution I hear being bandied about involves some sort of stimulus spending or another, the debate is often what sort of stimulus spending we should engage in. It is really a nasty victory of the Keynsians and banking clans (people who loan money love the idea of people going deeper in debt).
Even the conservative solution of tax cuts is in fact a stimulus argument. It is an argument of not paying off debt and giving money to the private sector in hopes it stimulates demand.
I have a different opinion. I view this as a debt problem. Sacrifice as a nation, pay off our debt, bunker down and we regain prosperity. Let people learn from the pain.
Any thoughts?
Yep. cut spending and cut taxes. More pain is not we need. BTW, the government does give me a damn thing without taking it from me or someone else.
-
Even the conservative solution of tax cuts is in fact a stimulus argument. It is an argument of not paying off debt and giving money to the private sector in hopes it stimulates demand.
I'll disagree with you here because the liberal mantra from a few months ago was that the Bush tax cuts were never funded in the budget year they passed. Regan's tax cuts weren't funded in the budget either, however, if you stop looking at government budgets the way governments do and start looking at them the way businesses do you'll see the smart investment of tax cuts. Both the Regan and Bush tax cuts grew revenue, period. So under the budget they were passed they show a loss, yet over the next few years the treasury takes in more money then it would have otherwise, thus using a business world view, tax cuts are not only funded; they are profitable. Tax cuts don't stimulate demand, they create growth. Growth creates wealth, wealth creates new tax revenue.
As an example of the government outlook: this past fiscal year CT showed a surplus of over 400 million dollars. They did that through nothing short of generational theft by not making scheduled pension payments (which have to be made later), taking money out of the "rainy day" fund (which has to be paid back later) and by accounting for all possible future federal stimulus payments (which may or may not ever be allocated. And if they are they will not just drop into the general fund, they will go to other projects already planned). Next year the outlook is a very bleak .5-1.3 BILLION dollar deficit. But this year by golly we had a surplus, so that's good news. CT never had a surplus, but by accounting like a government they were able to lie and say we did.
-
I'll disagree with you here because the liberal mantra from a few months ago was that the Bush tax cuts were never funded in the budget year they passed. Regan's tax cuts weren't funded in the budget either, however, if you stop looking at government budgets the way governments do and start looking at them the way businesses do you'll see the smart investment of tax cuts. Both the Regan and Bush tax cuts grew revenue, period. So under the budget they were passed they show a loss, yet over the next few years the treasury takes in more money then it would have otherwise, thus using a business world view, tax cuts are not only funded; they are profitable. Tax cuts don't stimulate demand, they create growth. Growth creates wealth, wealth creates new tax revenue.
As an example of the government outlook: this past fiscal year CT showed a surplus of over 400 million dollars. They did that through nothing short of generational theft by not making scheduled pension payments (which have to be made later), taking money out of the "rainy day" fund (which has to be paid back later) and by accounting for all possible future federal stimulus payments (which may or may not ever be allocated. And if they are they will not just drop into the general fund, they will go to other projects already planned). Next year the outlook is a very bleak .5-1.3 BILLION dollar deficit. But this year by golly we had a surplus, so that's good news. CT never had a surplus, but by accounting like a government they were able to lie and say we did.
CT appears to be stupid. Our problem is debt in the country right now on all balance sheets whether you are talking about the governments, private sector employers, and consumers.
Going back to basic Macro-Economic theory.
This is a demand problem, it is not an inventory problem i.e. supply.
A tax cut could free up the supply side of the equation. It will not have the desire effect on the demand side.
In any economic policy, whether it be a tax cut or tax hike there are diminishing returns to what happens after said policy is enacted. Tax cuts have reached their diminishing returns.
The Bush tax cuts did not provide lasting wealth, they freed up money to be lent into the system that led to a large debt crisis while increasing the debt of the federal government.
As a nation we have reached our credit card limit, the only solutions are
1) Insolvency (that won't be pretty) and that is what taking on more debt will do
2) Inflate your way out of the debt problem (totally unfair to savers and the responsible in society)
3) Pay down the debt (Painful, but better than option 2 or option 3)
-
Supply side economics isn't getting us out of the problem this time.
We've neglected demand for way too long.
-
Money in my pocket means I will buy more, meaning more demand, if I know another government agency isn't going to take it out of the other pocket. Federal tax breaks that create a perceived loss in state funding will cause my state taxes to go up, leaving me with the same empty pockets.
For demand to increase in all sectors the government has to get off the field. Uncertainty about the next tax, health, or other change is causing people & companies to stay out of the game. No players, no demand. Remember the stories of trillions of corporate dollars not being spent? That money will never be spent under the current circumstances. We need a true small government administration with a friendly congress to see any real turn around.
-
A major part of the problem is the insecurity of the unknown of what the current administration is going to do. Obama needs to come clean and tell folks just exactly what does he have in mind as far as tax increases, Tax incentives etc etc.
All the Class envy stick it to the "rich" policies are squeezing out the small business owner. Small Business still do the majority of the job creation and hiring.
If Obama wants to really see the economy pick up all he needs to do is say he want's the Bush Taxcuts of 2 001/2003 made permanent in Total. That would be akin to a couple trillion in stimulus.
No additional spending needed that money has already been accounted for. Any spending cuts able to be inacted would be gravy.
-
Every solution I hear being bandied about involves some sort of stimulus spending or another, the debate is often what sort of stimulus spending we should engage in. It is really a nasty victory of the Keynsians and banking clans (people who loan money love the idea of people going deeper in debt).
That's why the imposter in the Oval Office should making the "correct" calls, instead of driving us deeper into debt. But yet, he fails!!!!
Even the conservative solution of tax cuts is in fact a stimulus argument. It is an argument of not paying off debt and giving money to the private sector in hopes it stimulates demand.
I have a different opinion. I view this as a debt problem. Sacrifice as a nation, pay off our debt, bunker down and we regain prosperity. Let people learn from the pain.
Any thoughts?
Of course tax cuts is a stimulus of sorts, but would you rather "spend" our lives and future away, or pay less in taxes and maybe get this economy moving in the right direction again! I agree with you there.
-
The 800 pound gorilla in ATJ's room, that is never mentioned by the left in discussions of our economy is the subject of SPENDING........
Some of ATJ's points are valid, however, without a Constitutional Amendment that mandates a balanced budget every year, it is just rhetoric.
His suggestion that we all pony up and pay off the debt is a valid economic premise, however, what safeguard do we have against a bunch of limp-wristed liberals hoodwinking the public into another majority and running up the deficit again in the future........the answer, unfortunately is none. The entire political effort of the left is to buy the votes of the uninitiated by promising them 'bread and circuses" for their votes, witness ObamaCare........."free" housing, a "living wage", free university educations, and on and on are all on their list........all of which have to be paid for by someone.
There is only one universal economic concept, vis-a-vis government budgets, and that is.....short of printing more currency, the government doesn't produce a dime in revenue ALL wealth is created by the private sector.......the government in the strictest economic terms is simply "burden".
Without an inviolate spending limit, "supply side" is the only method of increasing government revenues to a sufficient extent to reduce the deficit measurably.
doc
-
The 800 pound gorilla in ATJ's room, that is never mentioned by the left in discussions of our economy is the subject of SPENDING........
Some of ATJ's points are valid, however, without a Constitutional Amendment that mandates a balanced budget every year, it is just rhetoric.
His suggestion that we all pony up and pay off the debt is a valid economic premise, however, what safeguard do we have against a bunch of limp-wristed liberals hoodwinking the public into another majority and running up the deficit again in the future........the answer, unfortunately is none.
Without an inviolate spending limit, "supply side" is the only method of increasing government revenues to a sufficient extent to reduce the deficit measurably.
doc
Substitute liberal with politicians.
Spending money isn't something only democrats love to do. It is part of the D.C. culture. You are correct on your premise.
I would include a provision of allowing for deficit spending in a declared war by the US congress.
-
Substitute liberal with politicians.
Spending money isn't something only democrats love to do. It is part of the D.C. culture. You are correct on your premise.
I would include a provision of allowing for deficit spending in a declared war by the US congress.
To an extent you are correct.......however the current crop has managed to increase spending more than any administration in history, with the possible exception of WW II.
In order for our economy to flourish, government spending must be capped at around 3% of GDP........which means absolutely no more promises of givaways by politicians, or if they do, the giveaways are limited to only a single budget year.........the goal being the death of the "entitlement" as we know it, and THAT would be a giant step forward.
You DO realize that "discretionary spending" by congress is a relatively small portion of the budget, right? The rest is "entitlements", of one type or another.
doc
-
To an extent you are correct.......however the current crop has managed to increase spending more than any administration in history, with the possible exception of WW II.
In order for our economy to flourish, government spending must be capped at around 3% of GDP........which means absolutely no more promises of givaways by politicians, or if they do, the giveaways are limited to only a single budget year.........the goal being the death of the "entitlement" as we know it, and THAT would be a giant step forward.
You DO realize that "discretionary spending" by congress is a relatively small portion of the budget, right? The rest is "entitlements", of one type or another.
doc
Social Security is not a terrible program and is funded for a long period of time. I don't really understand why it is being talked about other than it is a huge pot of money they want to loot further than they already have.
Medicare needs to be totally revamped and there is no political will to do so.
The largest line item in the budget outside of Social Security is the department of defense, which has its own issues. Mostly with the contracting process and how weapon systems are determined to be built. We build a lot of things no one wants in the Military or needs.
-
Social Security is not a terrible program and is funded for a long period of time. I don't really understand why it is being talked about other than it is a huge pot of money they want to loot further than they already have.Medicare needs to be totally revamped and there is no political will to do so.
The largest line item in the budget outside of Social Security is the department of defense, which has its own issues. Mostly with the contracting process and how weapon systems are determined to be built. We build a lot of things no one wants in the Military or needs.
Actually it is not......estimates vary, but it will not remain solvent without modification more than a few decades at absolute best (we ARE depending on "government accounting" to make that determination after all) SS can and should be "privatized", as a mandatory savings program funded as it is now, but placed in trust for every citizen, and placed beyond the clutches of the politicians. It would be a gradual process.......likely over 50 years, but is can be done without trauma.
We don't need Medicare at all.......people were not dying in the streets prior to 1965, and the government has absolutely no place in the arena of healthcare.......people are just beginning to wake up to the nightmare that is ObamaCare, and when they fully do, so long as you are going to rip it apart and start from scratch, eliminating Medicare gradually would be relatively easy, and replacing it with long-term competitive health insurance contracts, individually funded in the same manner as retirement.
doc
-
Actually it is not......estimates vary, but it will not remain solvent without modification more than a few decades at absolute best (we ARE depending on "government accounting" to make that determination after all) SS can and should be "privatized", as a mandatory savings program funded as it is now, but placed in trust for every citizen, and placed beyond the clutches of the politicians. It would be a gradual process.......likely over 50 years, but is can be done without trauma.
We don't need Medicare at all.......people were not dying in the streets prior to 1965, and the government has absolutely no place in the arena of healthcare.......people are just beginning to wake up to the nightmare that is ObamaCare, and when they fully do, so long as you are going to rip it apart and start from scratch, eliminating Medicare gradually would be relatively easy, and replacing it with long-term competitive health insurance contracts, individually funded in the same manner as retirement.
doc
I don't think you want to have the privatization fight in the next 2 years. Just a feeling. The equity market is not going to look so hot in a few months nor are the 401(k) statements.
:popcorn:
-
I don't think you want to have the privatization fight in the next 2 years. Just a feeling. The equity market is not going to look so hot in a few months nor are the 401(k) statements.
:popcorn:
Who said anything about the equity market........it can be invested in T-bills, and will likely do as well as the present system......
The difference between your position and mine (I surmise), is that my heart does not weep for those too stupid to make decent decisions in their lives.......and I frankly resent having to pay for those poor decisions on the part of others.
I'm more than willing to give a hand to those who have fallen on hard times, but fostering a system that makes a "career" out of multi-generational entitlements, just isn't in my political or economic repertoire.
doc
-
Who said anything about the equity market........it can be invested in T-bills, and will likely do as well as the present system......
The difference between your position and mine (I surmise), is that my heart does not weep for those too stupid to make decent decisions in their lives.......and I frankly resent having to pay for those poor decisions on the part of others.
I'm more than willing to give a hand to those who have fallen on hard times, but fostering a system that makes a "career" out of multi-generational entitlements, just isn't in my political or economic repertoire.
doc
I frankly think the system is a little unfair to force everyone to buy an annuity. Some people know they have lower life expectancies than others.
Frankly asking someone who has cancer and knows they are going to die in 3 years to pay social security when they are still able to work is a little disgusting.
On the other side, I trust Wall Street less than the government. Any such vehicles would require maximum scrutiny. The separate accounts of 401(k) and IRAs and variable annuities.
I also believe the money saved should be tax free in its entirety. It makes no sense to tax retirement.
-
I frankly think the system is a little unfair to force everyone to buy an annuity. Some people know they have lower life expectancies than others.
Frankly asking someone who has cancer and knows they are going to die in 3 years to pay social security when they are still able to work is a little disgusting.
.
If you are going to nit pick the tax system, it is rigged in favor or to the detriment of others. For example, why should I have to pay property taxes for schools when I don't have any kids. A consumption tax for federal and state governments would be a better way to fly .
Medicare is a good program. The politicians under LBJ decided to rob and pillage the fund. Money goes in the front door and comes out the back into the general fund. Trillions that should be there has been spent by Democrat and Republician Administration. If that money had been invested, the SS Trust Fund and Medicare would have their coffers filled with money. They have stole our money. Instead it is loaded with worthless IOU's.
-
If you are going to nit pick the tax system, it is rigged in favor or to the detriment of others. For example, why should I have to pay property taxes for schools when I don't have any kids. A consumption tax for federal and state governments would be a better way to fly .
Medicare is a good program. The politicians under LBJ decided to rob and pillage the fund. Money goes in the front door and comes out the back into the general fund. Trillions that should be there has been spent by Democrat and Republician Administration. If that money had been invested, the SS Trust Fund and Medicare would have their coffers filled with money. They have stole our money. Instead it is loaded with worthless IOU's.
You aren't talking about a lock box now are you :rotf:
-
You aren't talking about a lock box now are you :rotf:
It is locked with IOU's dumb ass, and the horse left that barn over 40 years ago.
-
It is locked with IOU's dumb ass, and the horse left that barn over 40 years ago.
It was a tease. We can't have a sense of humor.
-
It was a tease. We can't have a sense of humor.
Okey dokey Smokey :cheersmate:
-
It is locked with IOU's dumb ass, and the horse left that barn over 40 years ago.
You and I are likely in the same boat, as my wife and I are both at the mercy (to an extent) of the Medicare system, and it really isn't a good program. I've been paying "premiums" since 1965, and if they would write me a check for my premiums, plus compound interest over that time I could buy a "Cadillac" health care plan, plus pay Obama's penalty tax on it, and they could forget I exist.
The program was "good" only for the first decade or so, for the folks that received the benefits, but didn't have to pay the premiums for very long.......I don't consider a plan that I pay forty plus years of premiums on, and (actuarily at least) receive perhaps ten/fifteen years of benefits from.......a good deal.
I feel the same about SS, not a good deal from an investment perspective. In actuality, the program has been "bastardized" through SSI, and SSDI, to include a plethora of people that it was never intended to cover.....hence the problem......hell, at least half the denizens of DU are receiving some form of SSI/SSDI/Medicaid/welfare........and we can logically ask why it's going broke?
Now they have removed the "Advantage" plans (which we have), so I don't really have the option to even pay extra to get a decent version of the program.......I'm more than happy to pay my own way........I planned for that eventuality, as every thinking person should. Unfortunately the "equality of outcomes" folks struck again......
doc
-
You and I are likely in the same boat, as my wife and I are both at the mercy (to an extent) of the Medicare system, and it really isn't a good program. I've been paying "premiums" since 1965, and if they would write me a check for my premiums, plus compound interest over that time I could buy a "Cadillac" health care plan, plus pay Obama's penalty tax on it, and they could forget I exist.
The program was "good" only for the first decade or so, for the folks that received the benefits, but didn't have to pay the premiums for very long.......I don't consider a plan that I pay forty plus years of premiums on, and (actuarily at least) receive perhaps ten/fifteen years of benefits from.......a good deal.
I feel the same about SS, not a good deal from an investment perspective. In actuality, the program has been "bastardized" through SSI, and SSDI, to include a plethora of people that it was never intended to cover.....hence the problem......hell, at least half the denizens of DU are receiving some form of SSI/SSDI/Medicaid/welfare........and we can logically ask why it's going broke?
Now they have removed the "Advantage" plans (which we have), so I don't really have the option to even pay extra to get a decent version of the program.......I'm more than happy to pay my own way........I planned for that eventuality, as every thinking person should. Unfortunately the "equality of outcomes" folks struck again......
doc
I am retired and waiting to see how my Medicare supplemental plan with the state is going to shake out. It looks like a huge cut in Medicare Advantage plans is going to take place in the next year or two to pay for those that do not have any coverage. I don't mind an increase in costs but I damn sure want a plan that pays for approximately 90% of my medical costs.
I might get pissed and go Galt.
-
Even the conservative solution of tax cuts is in fact a stimulus argument. It is an argument of not paying off debt and giving money to the private sector in hopes it stimulates demand.
Any thoughts?
How is not taking money out of the economy the same as giving money?
The Kenysians want raw debt, money borrowed from the future (yet interest must come due) or fiat currency (inflation).
Not taxing people out of taking risk is not debt unless government spending outpaces tax revenue.
Keynes cannot work even in the best of times.
Supply side only works if there is spending discipline but then again nothing will ever allow you to spend more than you make.
-
Even the conservative solution of tax cuts is in fact a stimulus argument.
Yes and the best kind of stumulus. Letting people keep more of the money they earn so they can decide how and where it's spent.
It is an argument of not paying off debt and giving money to the private sector in hopes it stimulates demand.
Tax cuts don't cause the debt...nor do they prevent the government from paying it off. That's typical Liberal tripe.
OUt of control spending of other people's money and an unwillingness to put actual meaningful reform and cuts into the bloated social welfare programs run by the Fed are a large part of the problem.
Name one welfare program or aid program that has EVER been cut.
Any thoughts?
Yes. You're misguided.
-
Yes and the best kind of stumulus. Letting people keep more of the money they earn so they can decide how and where it's spent.
Tax cuts don't cause the debt...nor do they prevent the government from paying it off. That's typical Liberal tripe.
OUt of control spending of other people's money and an unwillingness to put actual meaningful reform and cuts into the bloated social welfare programs run by the Fed are a large part of the problem.
Name one welfare program or aid program that has EVER been cut.
Yes. You're misguided.
Income = Revenue - Expenses
Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity
Taxes are Revenue, Spending are expenses
I'd prefer to focus on capital expenditures in the government. Power plants, Roads, Bridges, Schools, Milatary Equipment, maintaining national parks etc.
Transfer payments are a problem, I will agree there.
With all this talk of capitalism and socialism the very notion of a democratic republic is socialist in nature. Shared assets controlled by elected representatives.
There is also a capitalist component to our way of life in the form of private ownership.
However we are mix of socialism and capitalism the argument is how much of a mix we should be. I think the answer is in the US Constitution and the State Constitutions.
A court system everyone has access to, is a socialist endeavor as is a Military that protects the country as a whole.
I'm very socialist about the Military. I want that controlled by elected representatives and not private forces.
I'm very capitalist about my Grocery store.
I look at the country from an accounting perspective. I'm sure a lawyer looks at it from a legal perspective.
-
I'd prefer to focus on capital expenditures in the government. Power plants, Roads, Bridges, Schools, Military Equipment, maintaining national parks etc.
You want to "focus" on all the things the government is supposed to spend money on. Everything after this line was drivel, I believe you have run your course.
-
You want to "focus" on all the things the government is supposed to spend money on. Everything after this line was drivel, I believe you have run your course.
Thanks
-
Income = Revenue - Expenses
Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity
Taxes are Revenue, Spending are expenses
And it's amazing how that revenue to the federal coffers grows when taxes are cut.
I'd prefer to focus on capital expenditures in the government. Power plants, Roads, Bridges, Schools, Milatary Equipment, maintaining national parks etc.
I would too. But I think the Federal government would be better suited and would actually improve the tings you mention...if they were to let the states and private firms do it.
With all this talk of capitalism and socialism the very notion of a democratic republic is socialist in nature. Shared assets controlled by elected representatives.
It's only socialist to those that don't understand the principals this country was founded on under the Republic form of government.
If you truly comprehended that...not only would you NOT call is "socialist in nature" you'd weep at how far our elected officials have taken us from our establishment.
There is also a capitalist component to our way of life in the form of private ownership.
Which is a good thing that Liberals seem to despise for some reason.
However we are mix of socialism and capitalism the argument is how much of a mix we should be. I think the answer is in the US Constitution and the State Constitutions.
Socialism is ONLY mixed in there because the Democrats have shoved it down our throats and told us to like it. Were we to go back to our roots so to speak as a nation...Socialism would still be the dirty word that it should be. And NOT something even remotely associated with the word America.
A court system everyone has access to, is a socialist endeavor as is a Military that protects the country as a whole.
Care to elaborate on this genius? Sounds like typical Liberal clap trap/moral equivalence to me.
Not to mention a fundemental lack of understanding about this country and it's history. Which with you being a leftist is not really surprising.
I'm very socialist about the Military. I want that controlled by elected representatives and not private forces.
Well you've finally gotten one thing right...you're Socialist.
I look at the country from an accounting perspective. I'm sure a lawyer looks at it from a legal perspective.
And neither one of them look at it from the perspective of the every day regular American.
-
You seem to deny that public ownership of land or resources under democratically elected officials, which is what representative government is, is basically is socialism.
If we want to go back to founders intent we could talk about their absolute disgust over the East Indies company which used its relationship with the king to screw with colonial competition.
Our founders were weary of many things. Central banking, standing armies, and corporations.
I can quote Jefferson and be called a commie.
-
You have now proven yourself worthless, truly it was only a matter of time.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.
Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
-
You have now proven yourself worthless, truly it was only a matter of time.
We can pick and choose Jefferson...or Smith, which a few of you seem to do, a great deal.
"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363
"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323
"That we are overdone with banking institutions which have banished the precious metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium, that these have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness, that the wars of the world have swollen our commerce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for our own wants, and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our society who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the whole, the peace of the whole is endangered and all our present difficulties produced, are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Salimankis, 1810. ME 12:379
"The system of banking have... ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:18
"The banks... have the regulation of the safety-valves of our fortunes, and... condense and explode them at their will." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:224
"The States should be urged to concede to the General Government, with a saving of chartered rights, the exclusive power of establishing banks of discount for paper." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:431
"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23
I'm sure if I said such things as a candidate right now, you'd have choice words for me.
-
Don't know if you figured it out yet, my biggest problem is an Island of off NY State called Manhattan where the money lenders need to be chased from our Temple.
-
Don't know if you figured it out yet, my biggest problem is an Island of off NY State called Manhattan where the money lenders need to be chased from our Temple.
Without them in some form we'd be Kenya. Only not as hot.
-
Without them in some form we'd be Kenya. Only not as hot.
We are in some form of Kenya. Just wait.
Zimbabwe is probably a better description.
-
We are in some form of Kenya. Just wait.
Zimbabwe is probably a better description.
Thanks to 4 years of a Liberal congress and 2 years of a totally incompetent boob surrounded by American hating, far far left socialist advisers, cabinet, and staff.
-
Thanks to 4 years of a Liberal congress and 2 years of a totally incompetent boob surrounded by American hating, far far left socialist advisers, cabinet, and staff.
40 years of banking dominance in Washington more likely. Obama is just the death throws of a 40 year march.
I have no problem with banks, that do banking. Our banks do everything but banking.
-
40 years of banking dominance in Washington more likely. Obama is just the death throws of a 40 year march.
I have no problem with banks, that do banking. Our banks do everything but banking.
Not banks, government. Lobbyists, and congress critters that enter "public service" as upper middle-class, and leave or die in office as multi-millionaires. No one should get rich while working in office. Congress - both party's - have so broken the trust of the people as to be truly criminal. The people that run the banks just do what comes natural to people; try to make as much money as possible.
-
Not banks, government. Lobbyists, and congress critters that enter "public service" as upper middle-class, and leave or die in office as multi-millionaires. No one should get rich while working in office. Congress - both party's - have so broken the trust of the people as to be truly criminal. The people that run the banks just do what comes natural to people; try to make as much money as possible.
I'm still bitter about the federal repeals of state banking laws.
As to the rest of what you said, Amen.
-
"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184
Appllingly inaccurate, really, but then Jefferson was far more interested in bending history to support his political arguments than accurately recounting it, and we probably know a much deeper version of it today than he had from simply reading the surviving classics.
-
You seem to deny that public ownership of land or resources under democratically elected officials, which is what representative government is, is basically is socialism.
You seemy to be in complete denial that those public lands have been stolen by said elected officials either without the knowledge or consent of the people that elected the representatives. And it's been done for whackjob leftist environmental groups who donate large sums of money to the political party that is addicted to these land grabs.
Funny how you leave reality and proveable fact out of your little America = Socialism rant.
If we want to go back to founders intent we could talk about their absolute disgust over the East Indies company which used its relationship with the king to screw with colonial competition.
Ok
Our founders were weary of many things. Central banking, standing armies, and corporations.
Considering that most of them were small business men or farmers themselves...your revisionist history doesn't fly.
They had noproblem with standing armies. One of the few clearly defined powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution is to maintain a standing army for our national defense.
You need to actually read the Constitution and not rely on DU for your information.
I can quote Jefferson and be called a commie.
And I can show you parts of the Virginia State Constitution that he wrote that would make him look like a bible thumping Islamophobic religous zealot.
Your point?
-
We pick and choose based on our ideology.
I love Adam Smith as well.
I never said I had any problem with small businesses, I have a problem with a legal entity that limits the liability of those who manage it and get wealthy of it from their actions. Oh wait, personal responsibility from leaders...scary concept.
-
40 years of banking dominance in Washington more likely. Obama is just the death throws of a 40 year march.
I have no problem with banks, that do banking. Our banks do everything but banking.
How much tinfoil do you have to wrap your head in when you write this stuff?
-
How much tinfoil do you have to wrap your head in when you write this stuff?
I'm going to enjoy watching you guys after November
-
I'm going to enjoy watching you guys after November
:whatever:
-
:whatever:
Hey I think we are screwed regardless of who wins the election, the hand wringing of anyone who thinks the GOP is going to be able to fix anything with Keynsian tax cuts (tax cuts done without spending cuts to offset them).
-
Hey I think we are screwed regardless of who wins the election, the hand wringing of anyone who thinks the GOP is going to be able to fix anything with Keynsian tax cuts (tax cuts done without spending cuts to offset them).
Riiiiiiiiiiight because they've been such a failure before. :whatever:
Tel that to Reagan and Bush 43. Hell it even worked for Kennedy in the 60's.
Every time a Republican President or Congress tries to reduce how much of a budget increase a Liebral social welfare program gets the Dems and their willing allies in the MSM start screaming that the Republicans are going to cut (program) and take food out of peoples mouths...starve kids and kill old people.
Every attempt at fiscal restraint is demogouged to death by the left and the media.
You and the rest of the left are only interested in lipservice to fiscal and budgetary restraint.
-
Riiiiiiiiiiight because they've been such a failure before. :whatever:
Tel that to Reagan and Bush 43. Hell it even worked for Kennedy in the 60's.
Every time a Republican President or Congress tries to reduce how much of a budget increase a Liebral social welfare program gets the Dems and their willing allies in the MSM start screaming that the Republicans are going to cut (program) and take food out of peoples mouths...starve kids and kill old people.
Every attempt at fiscal restraint is demogouged to death by the left and the media.
You and the rest of the left are only interested in lipservice to fiscal and budgetary restraint.
You seriously want to talk about Bush 43.
I mean Reagan we can have substantive arguments on policy successes and failures and a few of his former advisors have looked at the current economic problems and made some insightful remarks (tax cuts aren't the first words out of their mouths). At the end of the day, the outsourcing began under his watch.
Bush 43 will go down as the 3rd or 4th worst President in US history. All depending on how big Obama screws up the next 2 years with a GOP house.
We can have periods of awful insignificant Presidents and awful philosophy for long cycles.
-
40 years of banking dominance in Washington more likely. Obama is just the death throws of a 40 year march.
I have no problem with banks, that do banking. Our banks do everything but banking.
The comment above, coupled with a remark you made in another thread regarding "mark to market" accounting (Sorbanes-Oxley) leads me to ask another question.
Since you distain the government involvement in the banking system (and vice versa), are you equally outraged by the constant efforts of the likes of Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd (both Democrats BTW), whose efforts over the past several decades have been more or less singularly responsible for the legislation required to force the banking industry, as well as Fanny and Freddy, into providing mortgages to worthless deadbeats (primarily minorities) in order that they could aquire houses that they could not afford.
These "affirmative action" home loan policies (no docs, welfare as income, etc) that are the main element in the recent collapse of the housing market........and these same individuals, and their party, are still campaigning for "affordable housing" in order to both buy votes, and further impede the recovery of the housing market?
An intellectially honest answer would be "Tes, of course......even if it means that poor and minority families will NEVER be able to purchase a home without accumulating enough assets to qualify for a conventional loan like the rest of us......
I'm curious if your position on economics and politics has changed to that extent......
doc
-
I don't like laws that dictate how something is to be done. I like laws that prohibit a practice.
In PA we used to have usury laws. The PA legislature determined it didn't want to deal with the societal consequences of high interest rates. However if you do that, you can't dictate who can and cannot get a loan from a lender.
For instance if it has been determined that having a securities firm and a bank together ends up with a failed bank countless times, I have no problem with saying these businesses should be separate.
I like the fact that 401(k) assets are segregated from the securities firm assets in a separate account and you are prohibited from commingling assets.
I don't think the federal government should dictate medical standards to doctors. I think there should be some oversight into how the board makes decisions but I don't think the government should be creating manuals on how to do a medical procedure.
I don't think the government should dictate to accountants how to do an audit. I think the government can step in and say if you are doing an audit you can't have consulting with the client because it is a conflict.
I think the government can decide that the partner on an engagement is personally liable if the audit fails.
Fannie and Freddie are the worst of government and business getting together.
Private firm with an unlimited federal guarantee with political appointees on a board.
This was initially set up to encourage low income housing financing. I think the question should have been asked should we be financing low income housing.
Our regulatory code would be clearer if it simply said you can't do this you can do that. Instead it is a complex mess.
I also think productivity and adherence to the rules would be clearer.
As for what is going on in housing, this wouldn't have happened if everyone had to save 20% for a down-payment of a house.
-
I don't like laws that dictate how something is to be done. I like laws that prohibit a practice.
In PA we used to have usury laws. The PA legislature determined it didn't want to deal with the societal consequences of high interest rates. However if you do that, you can't dictate who can and cannot get a loan from a lender.
For instance if it has been determined that having a securities firm and a bank together ends up with a failed bank countless times, I have no problem with saying these businesses should be separate.
I like the fact that 401(k) assets are segregated from the securities firm assets in a separate account and you are prohibited from commingling assets.
I don't think the federal government should dictate medical standards to doctors. I think there should be some oversight into how the board makes decisions but I don't think the government should be creating manuals on how to do a medical procedure.
I don't think the government should dictate to accountants how to do an audit. I think the government can step in and say if you are doing an audit you can't have consulting with the client because it is a conflict.
I think the government can decide that the partner on an engagement is personally liable if the audit fails.
Fannie and Freddie are the worst of government and business getting together.
Private firm with an unlimited federal guarantee with political appointees on a board.
This was initially set up to encourage low income housing financing. I think the question should have been asked should we be financing low income housing.
Our regulatory code would be clearer if it simply said you can't do this you can do that. Instead it is a complex mess.
I also think productivity and adherence to the rules would be clearer.
As for what is going on in housing, this wouldn't have happened if everyone had to save 20% for a down-payment of a house.
Geez.....my eyes are bleeding from all that.....
However, from the bolded portions, I assume that your answer to my basic question is "yes"......
doc
-
Sorry was answering more of a general question on government regulation.
Fannie and Freddie are a failed experiment and should be ended. Immediately. There is no way to ever make a private entity that has potential unlimited government guarantees work.
-
You seriously want to talk about Bush 43.
Sure. If you can do more than regurgitate talking points form the left.
I mean Reagan we can have substantive arguments on policy successes and failures and a few of his former advisors have looked at the current economic problems and made some insightful remarks (tax cuts aren't the first words out of their mouths). At the end of the day, the outsourcing began under his watch.
Link? Don't just pull stuff out of your ass...back it up.
Bush 43 will go down as the 3rd or 4th worst President in US history. All depending on how big Obama screws up the next 2 years with a GOP house.
Horseshit. That is your BDS talking. Just like I feared...you an't have an honest debate about President Bush without letting your typical Liberal BDS jump out.
We can have periods of awful insignificant Presidents and awful philosophy for long cycles.
No they only tend to last 8 years...four if we're lucky...and those Presidents with "awful philosophy" are replaced by Republicans.
-
Thanks to 4 years of a Liberal congress and 2 years of a totally incompetent boob surrounded by American hating, far far left socialist advisers, cabinet, and staff.
And communists.
This administration just "ensured" that we will be hurting for a LONG, LONG time to come. :bird: