What kind of drugs are these people on? [modified]
-
They could put it into some kind of job creation, even if it is infficient. You consider homophobia a deviance then? :-D
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
-
Tis is an emotionally difficult issue, but, how did Roosavelt get the US out of recession in the 30's? By govt spending on public projects. Print the dollars and build dams and roads. Of corse the war, with its massive govt expenditure is what put the final nail in the recession of the 30's. So, is this very much diffrent? Wouldnt you rather see 14 billion pumped into the lowest level of society than see it pumped into the higher levels trough, say, arms expenditure in the Iraq war? (And backahanders to Halliburton and asorted expenditure in Iraq).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Tis is an emotionally difficult issue, but, how did Roosavelt get the US out of recession in the 30's?
He didn't. His policies turned a recession into a depression. Probably intentionally.
fat_boy wrote:
Of corse the war, with its massive govt expenditure is what put the final nail in the recession of the 30's.
No, it didn't. What put a nail in the coffin was that the US had the only significant industrial capacity left on the planet in 1945 and which remained more free than others (although not nearly free enough) to exist in a free market economy. That, and that alone, (and the fact that FDR was finally dead and could do no more harm) is what created the middle class boom of post WWII America. The history of that era does not in any possible way support any notion of a validation of leftist economic theory, but rather a complete and utter repudiation of it.
fat_boy wrote:
Wouldnt you rather see 14 billion pumped into the lowest level of society than see it pumped into the higher levels
No, I would rather see it stay with those who actually earned it, regardless of their standard of living.
fat_boy wrote:
say, arms expenditure in the Iraq war?
I ahve never suppored the war in Iraq, but if things work out to our advantage it could well turn out to have been a very good investment. So, economically, I don't have a huge problem with it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
They could put it into some kind of job creation, even if it is infficient. You consider homophobia a deviance then? :-D
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Trollslayer wrote:
They could put it into some kind of job creation
Unfettered free markets are the most efficient means of creating jobs. Leaving my money with me will create more real jobs than will any amount of money given to a government bureaucrat.
Trollslayer wrote:
You consider homophobia a deviance then?
Sorry,but that went right over my head. As a proud homophobe myself who has come out of the closet, I believe I was born that way. Get used to it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
fat_boy wrote:
Tis is an emotionally difficult issue, but, how did Roosavelt get the US out of recession in the 30's?
He didn't. His policies turned a recession into a depression. Probably intentionally.
fat_boy wrote:
Of corse the war, with its massive govt expenditure is what put the final nail in the recession of the 30's.
No, it didn't. What put a nail in the coffin was that the US had the only significant industrial capacity left on the planet in 1945 and which remained more free than others (although not nearly free enough) to exist in a free market economy. That, and that alone, (and the fact that FDR was finally dead and could do no more harm) is what created the middle class boom of post WWII America. The history of that era does not in any possible way support any notion of a validation of leftist economic theory, but rather a complete and utter repudiation of it.
fat_boy wrote:
Wouldnt you rather see 14 billion pumped into the lowest level of society than see it pumped into the higher levels
No, I would rather see it stay with those who actually earned it, regardless of their standard of living.
fat_boy wrote:
say, arms expenditure in the Iraq war?
I ahve never suppored the war in Iraq, but if things work out to our advantage it could well turn out to have been a very good investment. So, economically, I don't have a huge problem with it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
He didn't. His policies turned a recession into a depression. Probably intentionally.
Please, do prove that. Of course, as we know the US has two real problems: 1) Trade deficit. 2) The euro. If the US doesnt want to be a third world country in 20 years it has to do two things. 1) Put some serious effort into non oil based energy so you can get off it totally because when it gets sold in euros you arent going to be able to afford the stuff. 2) Stop off shoring jobs. Dont do this through import tax, but do it by creating a special tax for companoes that have off shore manufacturing. This way you wont get tit for tat tax levied on your goods when you export them. Do these two and the US will suceed. Dont, and its down the pan time.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
He didn't. His policies turned a recession into a depression. Probably intentionally.
Please, do prove that. Of course, as we know the US has two real problems: 1) Trade deficit. 2) The euro. If the US doesnt want to be a third world country in 20 years it has to do two things. 1) Put some serious effort into non oil based energy so you can get off it totally because when it gets sold in euros you arent going to be able to afford the stuff. 2) Stop off shoring jobs. Dont do this through import tax, but do it by creating a special tax for companoes that have off shore manufacturing. This way you wont get tit for tat tax levied on your goods when you export them. Do these two and the US will suceed. Dont, and its down the pan time.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I can't any more than you can prove it didn't, but you can look at this..[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Of course, as we know the US has two real problems:
There is no possible way for the US to retain its 20th century economic hegemony into the future short of a military conquest of the rest of the world. It is absolutely inevitable, regardless of any economic policy the US takes, that we will either be dragged down to the standard of living of the rest of the world, or the rest of the world will rise to our standard of living. As long as we remain committed to free market economics and reject any flavor of Marxist social or economic principles, we will be fine. If the rest of the world becomes more free market, they will rise to our level. If we do abandon free markets, than we will fall to the standard of living of the socialist economies around the world. The issue is just that simple
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
modified on Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:58:57 AM
-
I can't any more than you can prove it didn't, but you can look at this..[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Of course, as we know the US has two real problems:
There is no possible way for the US to retain its 20th century economic hegemony into the future short of a military conquest of the rest of the world. It is absolutely inevitable, regardless of any economic policy the US takes, that we will either be dragged down to the standard of living of the rest of the world, or the rest of the world will rise to our standard of living. As long as we remain committed to free market economics and reject any flavor of Marxist social or economic principles, we will be fine. If the rest of the world becomes more free market, they will rise to our level. If we do abandon free markets, than we will fall to the standard of living of the socialist economies around the world. The issue is just that simple
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
modified on Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:58:57 AM
Stan Shannon wrote:
I can't any more than you can prove it didn't, but you can look at this..[
Even on Friedman's (biased) view, the US was clearly in a depression well before Roosevelt was elected and, with one blip, the economy grew steadily once he was elected. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gdp20-40.jpg[^] and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg[^]
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I can't any more than you can prove it didn't, but you can look at this..[
Even on Friedman's (biased) view, the US was clearly in a depression well before Roosevelt was elected and, with one blip, the economy grew steadily once he was elected. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gdp20-40.jpg[^] and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg[^]
John Carson
All of which proves nothing except that there was no reason at all for a depression of any kind. The economy was prepared for a complete rebound all through the '30s and was prevented from doing so only by the purposeful policies of the federal government to prevent it. One might forgive the feds initial screw ups in the 1929-1933 time frame, but to continue those policies when they were so clearly misquided was a criminal act of incompetnece at the least, and at the worst an overt attempt to turn US society into something it was never intended to be - a european social welfare state. The ease with which the US ramped up for WWII proves more than anything the latent wealth and industrial capacity that was being actively suppressed by Roosevelt's administration for his own purposes in wrenching American society from Jefferson's grasp and handing it over to Karl Marx.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
All of which proves nothing except that there was no reason at all for a depression of any kind. The economy was prepared for a complete rebound all through the '30s and was prevented from doing so only by the purposeful policies of the federal government to prevent it. One might forgive the feds initial screw ups in the 1929-1933 time frame, but to continue those policies when they were so clearly misquided was a criminal act of incompetnece at the least, and at the worst an overt attempt to turn US society into something it was never intended to be - a european social welfare state. The ease with which the US ramped up for WWII proves more than anything the latent wealth and industrial capacity that was being actively suppressed by Roosevelt's administration for his own purposes in wrenching American society from Jefferson's grasp and handing it over to Karl Marx.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
All of which proves nothing except that there was no reason at all for a depression of any kind. The economy was prepared for a complete rebound all through the '30s and was prevented from doing so only by the purposeful policies of the federal government to prevent it. One might forgive the feds initial screw ups in the 1929-1933 time frame, but to continue those policies when they were so clearly misquided was a criminal act of incompetnece at the least, and at the worst an overt attempt to turn US society into something it was never intended to be - a european social welfare state.
Actually it proves nothing of that. What it proves is that your statement regarding Roosevelt that: "His policies turned a recession into a depression. Probably intentionally." was complete bullshit. I won't attempt to engage you further on this since you are clearly in batshit crazy mode.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
All of which proves nothing except that there was no reason at all for a depression of any kind. The economy was prepared for a complete rebound all through the '30s and was prevented from doing so only by the purposeful policies of the federal government to prevent it. One might forgive the feds initial screw ups in the 1929-1933 time frame, but to continue those policies when they were so clearly misquided was a criminal act of incompetnece at the least, and at the worst an overt attempt to turn US society into something it was never intended to be - a european social welfare state.
Actually it proves nothing of that. What it proves is that your statement regarding Roosevelt that: "His policies turned a recession into a depression. Probably intentionally." was complete bullshit. I won't attempt to engage you further on this since you are clearly in batshit crazy mode.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
His policies turned a recession into a depression. Probably intentionally."
So, you're saying that there wasn't a depression?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
John Carson wrote:
His policies turned a recession into a depression. Probably intentionally."
So, you're saying that there wasn't a depression?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, you're saying that there wasn't a depression?
You write remarkably well for someone who is apparently unable to read (hint: get someone to read you my first post).
John Carson
-
I can't any more than you can prove it didn't, but you can look at this..[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Of course, as we know the US has two real problems:
There is no possible way for the US to retain its 20th century economic hegemony into the future short of a military conquest of the rest of the world. It is absolutely inevitable, regardless of any economic policy the US takes, that we will either be dragged down to the standard of living of the rest of the world, or the rest of the world will rise to our standard of living. As long as we remain committed to free market economics and reject any flavor of Marxist social or economic principles, we will be fine. If the rest of the world becomes more free market, they will rise to our level. If we do abandon free markets, than we will fall to the standard of living of the socialist economies around the world. The issue is just that simple
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
modified on Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:58:57 AM
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is no possible way for the US to retain its 20th century economic hegemony into the future short of a military conquest of the rest of the world.
I was going to add, the other solution to the US's problems is to keep on bommbing the dissenters.
Stan Shannon wrote:
we will either be dragged down to the standard of living of the rest of the world,
Stan, Europe has a standard of living the equal, and in many respects, exceeding that of the US!
Stan Shannon wrote:
they will rise to our level
Bull. We are at, and beyond that level already. America thinks it started the free market and democracy. Europe has been doing just that centuries BEFOREZ the US existed. In fact if ti wasnt for Europe, the US wouldnt have a free market and be a democracy! I am talking about the Dutch influence particularly here as well as English. You really need to get your head out of your butt hole Stan. Come to Europe, just see how backwards we are!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I can't any more than you can prove it didn't, but you can look at this..[
Even on Friedman's (biased) view, the US was clearly in a depression well before Roosevelt was elected and, with one blip, the economy grew steadily once he was elected. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gdp20-40.jpg[^] and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg[^]
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is no possible way for the US to retain its 20th century economic hegemony into the future short of a military conquest of the rest of the world.
I was going to add, the other solution to the US's problems is to keep on bommbing the dissenters.
Stan Shannon wrote:
we will either be dragged down to the standard of living of the rest of the world,
Stan, Europe has a standard of living the equal, and in many respects, exceeding that of the US!
Stan Shannon wrote:
they will rise to our level
Bull. We are at, and beyond that level already. America thinks it started the free market and democracy. Europe has been doing just that centuries BEFOREZ the US existed. In fact if ti wasnt for Europe, the US wouldnt have a free market and be a democracy! I am talking about the Dutch influence particularly here as well as English. You really need to get your head out of your butt hole Stan. Come to Europe, just see how backwards we are!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Come to Europe, just see how backwards we are!
I was referring more to 'the world' than to Europe per se. But fine, if Europe is better off than the US, great. We can stop worrying about you now. Good work.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Trollslayer wrote:
They could put it into some kind of job creation
Unfettered free markets are the most efficient means of creating jobs. Leaving my money with me will create more real jobs than will any amount of money given to a government bureaucrat.
Trollslayer wrote:
You consider homophobia a deviance then?
Sorry,but that went right over my head. As a proud homophobe myself who has come out of the closet, I believe I was born that way. Get used to it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Unfettered free markets are the most efficient means of creating jobs. Leaving my money with me will create more real jobs than will any amount of money given to a government bureaucrat.
That is bull Stan. If there were no govt there would be no govt mental policy. No man on the moon, no atellites, no roads, no trains, no planes. If we all existed as standalone folks in our little empires then that is exactly what we would have.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Come to Europe, just see how backwards we are!
I was referring more to 'the world' than to Europe per se. But fine, if Europe is better off than the US, great. We can stop worrying about you now. Good work.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, you're saying that there wasn't a depression?
You write remarkably well for someone who is apparently unable to read (hint: get someone to read you my first post).
John Carson
John, you cannot possible absolve FDR for being in charge during the entirity of the great depression except for the first few years of it. The figures you posted are meaningless unless you are trying to imply that Roosevelt's policies ended the depression. They didn't. Were there jobs? Yes, there were government jobs. Was there some improvement in the GDP, yes there was some small improvment in GDP. So what? The robust economy of the 20's returned in the 40s after the era of big government interventionism had passed. Truman, if nothing else, was wise enough to let the post war economy bubble along on its own with very little effort to change it. True, there was a continuing attempt to inject Marxism into the society via policies such as the GI Bill, but it would not be until Johnson's great society again began the wholesale assault on free markets that our economy would begin to suffer once more. Now that such "social reforms" have given the Amercan socialist party (ie Democrats) a reliable voting block and they no longer need to pander to any traditional American political concerns, we are faced every election with shouting down a continuing socialistic threat to our society. Every election becomes ever more critical to those of us who refuse to abandon our Jeffersonian traditions.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Better or the same at least. The US isnt so great you know. In many respects it looks pretty backwards to us. Design, fashion, dress sense for one.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
In many respects it looks pretty backwards to us. Design, fashion, dress sense for one.
Yeah, we spend a lot of time worrying about that... :rolleyes:
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Better or the same at least. The US isnt so great you know. In many respects it looks pretty backwards to us. Design, fashion, dress sense for one.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
BTW, I work with a few people who have spent considerable time living in Europe (mainly Indians) and they routinely assure me how much they prefer living in the US to living in Europe both for social and economic reasons. I can't validate that personnally, still...
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Unfettered free markets are the most efficient means of creating jobs. Leaving my money with me will create more real jobs than will any amount of money given to a government bureaucrat.
That is bull Stan. If there were no govt there would be no govt mental policy. No man on the moon, no atellites, no roads, no trains, no planes. If we all existed as standalone folks in our little empires then that is exactly what we would have.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
If there were no govt there would be no govt mental policy. No man on the moon, no atellites, no roads, no trains, no planes. If we all existed as standalone folks in our little empires then that is exactly what we would have.
NO one is advocating 'no government'. We are advocatig minimal government. Man on the moon is a perfect example of how stupid bureaucracic managment is. Obviously government is needed to ensure transportations systems, for example, comply with easily established standards. As far as atheletics are concerned, I think it could be argued that there was more atheleticism, and music, and other culture in our society before the era of big government than afterwards.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Tis is an emotionally difficult issue, but, how did Roosavelt get the US out of recession in the 30's? By govt spending on public projects. Print the dollars and build dams and roads. Of corse the war, with its massive govt expenditure is what put the final nail in the recession of the 30's. So, is this very much diffrent? Wouldnt you rather see 14 billion pumped into the lowest level of society than see it pumped into the higher levels trough, say, arms expenditure in the Iraq war? (And backahanders to Halliburton and asorted expenditure in Iraq).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Tis is an emotionally difficult issue, but, how did Roosavelt get the US out of recession in the 30's? By govt spending on public projects.
Actually, history suggests that that was not working, and it was really WWII that pulled us out. In any case, what the Senate is doing will insure we need the public works in the end, since they will cause the current downturn to become a full blown recession through a combination of delay and actions that increase the cost (and the deficit) without generating any quick stimulus. Roosevelt had massive unemployment as a symptom that had to be addressed. The US is presently at the lowest level of unemployment (4.9%) in modern history, so it is unlikely that the public works programs will even find people to put to work (perhaps more work for illegal aliens...). Harry Reid and his compatriots in the Senate are idiots, and even the Democrats in the House agree (they considered all the same things Reid & Co. are adding, and rejected most of them as either being inappropriate to the problem, too late in impact or too expensive).
