Conservatives Turn On Scott Brown Over Jobs Bill Vote

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
:lol:

Ay conservatives: You do know that he voted for Mitt Romney's Universal Health Care in MA, right?

grab your ankles and get ready for compromise!

He will sell you out, peace



source: Huffington Post

Conservatives Turn On Scott Brown Over Jobs Bill Vote: 'Low Life Scum Hypocrite!'

Not long ago, Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was elected to the United States Senate and a nation rejoiced, because he was going to drive down to Washington D.C. and become the President of Filibusters. But a funny thing happened yesterday, when Brown decided not to cast the 41st vote, and instead to vote as if he'd like to one day get re-elected to office in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

"It's a small step, but it's still a step," Brown told reporters after casting a procedural vote in favor of the Democratic jobs bill, bucking his party leaders and the strategy of opposition they have carried out since President Obama took office.

For Senate Democrats, it was much bigger step. Four Republicans followed Brown's lead, giving the jobs legislation 62 votes, two more than needed to cut off a GOP filibuster.


That was enough to earn Brown the Drudge banner, complete with the demon-red tint of betrayal! And, subsequently, Scott Brown's honeymoon came to an end like all political honeymoons: amid hotheaded recriminations on Twitter. Ken Layne at Wonkette documented the carnage.

Over at Scott Brown's Facebook page, the mood is much the same, probably because David Broder hasn't written a column yet telling America that the jobs in this jobs bill are so much more awesome than the jobs that came before them because they are "bipartisan." Some of Brown's fans are giving him some support, but the lion's share of comments read like "LYING LOW LIFE SCUM HYPOCRITE!" and "What a bummer dude. We didn't need another Olympia Snowe," and "BROWN, YOU JUST REMEMBER YOU DOUCHEBAG...WE ARE WATCHING YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! AND YOU FAILED AT THE FIRST CHANCE...YOU SCUM SUCKING ASS!!! GUESS MY 10-15 HOUR WORK DAYS WILL HELP PAY FOR THIS TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!"

Brown was joined in his vote by fellow Republican Senators Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), and George Voinovich (R-Ohio). Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson -- the Coke Classic of being the 41st vote -- voted against cloture.
 
Didn't I call it Thought? I'm surprised it happened so soon.

I don't really know the contents of the bill so I'm not gonna comment, however, Wasn't the $787bn stimulus was supposed to be the "Jobs" bill? Has it been deemed a failure yet

Keynesian economics :smh:
 
Didn't I call it Thought? I'm surprised it happened so soon.

I don't really know the contents of the bill so I'm not gonna comment, however, Wasn't the $787bn stimulus was supposed to be the "Jobs" bill? Has it been deemed a failure yet

Keynesian economics :smh:

The first stimulus worked, the tax cuts in it failed.
 
wow Thought, we should scrap the jobs bill and have Stimulus 2.0 with 3 Trill budgeted! Think of all the jobs that will create.

As a matter of fact, let's have an annual stimulus. That'll solve everything.
 
wow Thought, we should scrap the jobs bill and have Stimulus 2.0 with 3 Trill budgeted! Think of all the jobs that will create.

As a matter of fact, let's have an annual stimulus. That'll solve everything.

The thinking by several economists was the original stimulus was too small.
I know you don't like it, but all honest parties are saying that the stimulus was successful. Maybe not a runaway, restructure the nation successful but still a success.
 
wow Thought, we should scrap the jobs bill and have Stimulus 2.0 with 3 Trill budgeted! Think of all the jobs that will create.

As a matter of fact, let's have an annual stimulus. That'll solve everything.

Typical Republican/Libertarian talking point. You expect Obama to turn around eight plus years of Libertarian/Ayn Rand policies in 11 months? Once again where were your posts about jobs and defects 13 months ago? Don’t you think things would be better if he got some cooperation from your side?
 
Lamarr
You know what you did, right? You challenged thought to show you where the stimulus was successful and when he did, you switched up and became sarcastic, without even acknowledging the dude's counterpoint.
You didn't break any rules of the board but c'mon bruh, play fair. :)
 
Nor was was all the money spent in this stimulus bill spent either. Only 1/3 has been spent since passage. Jobs have been created and saved.

-VG

that's exactly why the "Jobs" bill is a fraud ! ! ! ! The country doesn't need another bill when there is atleast 300bn still allocated from the 1st stimulus.
 
Lamarr
You know what you did, right? You challenged thought to show you where the stimulus was successful and when he did, you switched up and became sarcastic, without even acknowledging the dude's counterpoint.
You didn't break any rules of the board but c'mon bruh, play fair. :)

agreed, to an extent..................Yes, my intention was to be "SuperSarcastic" to refute the article. To me, this is not a partisan issue! It's Economics & many just don't see the fundamentals deteriorating "right before your eyes". It just behooves me to see the blatant manipulation of the public
 
I don't think it's partisan either, though it fought like one. But, despite your objections, Keynesian economics has a better record of success in this country than the supply side that keeps getting pushed like it works.
 
These cats are doing some serious infighting. :lol:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl1179

Conservative infighting heats up as focus shifts to important policy debates

When Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election to fill liberal icon Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat, he was hailed as a conservative hero and a symbol of the start of a revolution in American politics. But Brown's recent vote in favor of a Democrat-sponsored spending bill inspired thousands of conservatives to direct a firehose of anger at the newly-minted Senator via social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. The sudden turn against Brown is just one of a few current internal squabbles on the right that could distract the conservative movement's focus away from what's been its main focus over the past year: opposing the efforts by President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress to expand the role of government.

Here's a rundown of the three most significant current conflicts:

Conservatives vs. Scott Brown: You'd be hard-pressed to find a single instance in U.S. political history when a single vote by a politician has affected his or her popularity more dramatically than Brown's vote in favor of the Democrats' jobs bill.

Glenn Beck vs. Republicans/conservative commentators vs. Glenn Beck: On Saturday night, widely popular and always controversial Fox News host Glenn Beck delivered the keynote address at the annual gathering of conservatives known as CPAC. In his speech, Beck took some shots at the Republican party, comparing its inability to control its spending impulses to Tiger Woods' inability to control his sexual urges, and hinted that the creation of a third party might be in order since he thinks there are few differences between Republicans and Democrats in Washington.

Michael Steele vs. the party faithful: One seemingly constant source of controversy within the Republican party for the last year has been the words and actions of RNC Chairman Michael Steele. The former Maryland lietenant governor has come under fire numerous times for comments deemed by some as embracing moderate to liberal policy stances. Additionally, Steele's handling of party finances has angered many within the ranks, a scab that was peeled off again this week when a Politico story revealed that not only is Steele lagging behind his predecessors in raising money for the party, but that he's also spent nearly twice as much as any past chairman on things such as charter flights, pricey meals, and chauffered cars.
 
I don't think it's partisan either, though it fought like one. But, despite your objections, Keynesian economics has a better record of success in this country than the supply side that keeps getting pushed like it works.

This country currently enjoys the world reserve currency status, so it may work as long as the world subsidizes our debt. This will be challenged.

But look around the world: Greece, Iceland, Spain etc. are being destroyed by Keynesian economic policies. It cuts directly to my argument that central economic planning does not work.
 
This country currently enjoys the world reserve currency status, so it may work as long as the world subsidizes our debt. This will be challenged.

But look around the world: Greece, Iceland, Spain etc. are being destroyed by Keynesian economic policies. It cuts directly to my argument that central economic planning does not work.

Not familiar enough to with Iceland or Spain but Greece, like us, ran up huge deficits and that's a killer under any economic philosophy. The problem with them, and (if we keep going the same way)us is not attacking entitlement spending seriously and not managing your debt. Keynesian economics has worked here in the past so maybe it's not the system that faulty but the implementation.
When the private sector's not spending, the government should and they should do so in a way that most directly benefits small businesses and individuals because that will lead to jobs and growth, creating more tax revenue to reverse those deficits. We tried supply side during Reagan and then Bush II and both times were an utter failure because the principle doesn't even make sense just saying it aloud.
 
This country currently enjoys the world reserve currency status, so it may work as long as the world subsidizes our debt. This will be challenged.

But look around the world: Greece, Iceland, Spain etc. are being destroyed by Keynesian economic policies. It cuts directly to my argument that central economic planning does not work.

Lamarr is all over the place with is arguments. Ok, I'll play along.

BTW, what’s up with this highlighted attack on Keynesianism? Cruise brought this up in a thread recently also. Is this one of Ron Paul’s latest talking points? I heard him say in a recent interview that we are all Keynesians and Neo Cons. Teddy Roosevelt won that argument, which I don’t understand since John Maynard Keynes’ theories weren’t implanted until FDR’s administration.

Banks Helped Create Greece's Crisis -- Now They're Betting It Will Get Worse

source: New York Times

Banks Bet Greece Defaults on Debt They Helped Hide

Bets by some of the same banks that helped Greece shroud its mounting debts may actually now be pushing the nation closer to the brink of financial ruin.

Echoing the kind of trades that nearly toppled the American International Group, the increasingly popular insurance against the risk of a Greek default is making it harder for Athens to raise the money it needs to pay its bills, according to traders and money managers.

These contracts, known as credit-default swaps, effectively let banks and hedge funds wager on the financial equivalent of a four-alarm fire: a default by a company or, in the case of Greece, an entire country. If Greece reneges on its debts, traders who own these swaps stand to profit.

“It’s like buying fire insurance on your neighbor’s house — you create an incentive to burn down the house,” said Philip Gisdakis, head of credit strategy at UniCredit in Munich.

As Greece’s financial condition has worsened, undermining the euro, the role of Goldman Sachs and other major banks in masking the true extent of the country’s problems has drawn criticism from European leaders. But even before that issue became apparent, a little-known company backed by Goldman, JP Morgan Chase and about a dozen other banks had created an index that enabled market players to bet on whether Greece and other European nations would go bust.

Last September, the company, the Markit Group of London, introduced the iTraxx SovX Western Europe index, which is based on such swaps and let traders gamble on Greece shortly before the crisis. Such derivatives have assumed an outsize role in Europe’s debt crisis, as traders focus on their daily gyrations.

A result, some traders say, is a vicious circle. As banks and others rush into these swaps, the cost of insuring Greece’s debt rises. Alarmed by that bearish signal, bond investors then shun Greek bonds, making it harder for the country to borrow. That, in turn, adds to the anxiety — and the whole thing starts over again.

On trading desks, there is fierce debate over what exactly is behind Greece’s recent troubles. Some traders say swaps have made the problem worse, while others say Greece’s deteriorating finances are to blame.

“This is a country that is issuing paper into a weakening market,” said Ashish Shah, co-head of credit strategy at Barclays Capital, referring to Greece’s need for continual borrowing.

But while some European leaders have blamed financial speculators in general for worsening the crisis, the French finance minister, Christine Lagarde, last week singled out credit-default swaps. Ms. Lagarde said a few players dominated this arena, which she said needed tighter regulation.

Trading in Markit’s sovereign credit derivative index soared this year, helping to drive up the cost of insuring Greek debt, and, in turn, what Athens must pay to borrow money. The cost of insuring $10 million of Greek bonds, for instance, rose to more than $400,000 in February, up from $282,000 in early January.

On several days in late January and early February, as demand for swaps protection soared, investors in Greek bonds fled the market, raising doubts about whether Greece could find buyers for coming bond offerings.

“It’s the blind leading the blind,” said Sylvain R. Raynes, an expert in structured finance at R&R Consulting in New York. “The iTraxx SovX did not create the situation, but it has exacerbated it.”

The Markit index is made up of the 15 most heavily traded credit-default swaps in Europe and covers other troubled economies like Portugal and Spain. And as worries about those countries’ debts moved markets around the world in February, trading in the index exploded.

In February, demand for such index contracts hit $109.3 billion, up from $52.9 billion in January. Markit collects a flat fee by licensing brokers to trade the index.

European banks including the Swiss giants Credit Suisse and UBS, France’s Société Générale and BNP Paribas and Deutsche Bank of Germany have been among the heaviest buyers of swaps insurance, according to traders and bankers who asked for anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

That is because those countries are the most exposed. French banks hold $75.4 billion worth of Greek debt, followed by Swiss institutions, at $64 billion, according to the Bank for International Settlements. German banks’ exposure stands at $43.2 billion.

Trading in credit-default swaps linked only to Greek debt has also surged, but is still smaller than the country’s actual debt load of $300 billion. The overall amount of insurance on Greek debt hit $85 billion in February, up from $38 billion a year ago, according to the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, which tracks swaps trading.

Markit says its index is a tool for traders, rather than a market driver.

In a statement, Markit said its index was started to satisfy market demand, and had improved the ability of traders to hedge their risks. The index and similar products, it added, actually make it easier for buyers and sellers to gauge prices for instruments that are traded among players over the counter, rather than on exchanges.

“These indices have helped bring transparency to the sovereign C.D.S. market,” Markit said. “Prior to their creation, there was no established benchmark index enabling investors to track the performance of segments of the sovereign C.D.S. market.”

Some money managers say trading in Greek swaps alone, not the broader index, is the problem.

“It’s like the tail wagging the dog,” said Markus Krygier, senior portfolio manager at Amundi Asset Management in London, which has $40 billion in global fixed-income assets. “There is a knock-on effect, as underlying positions begin to seem riskier, triggering risk models and forcing portfolio managers to sell Greek bonds.”

If that sounds familiar, it should. Critics of these instruments contend swaps contributed to the fall of Lehman Brothers. But until recently, there was little demand for insurance on government debt. The possibility that a developed country could default on its obligations seemed remote.

As a result, many foreign banks that held Greek bonds or entered into other financial transactions with the government did not hedge against the risk of a default. Now, they are scrambling for insurance.

“Greece is not a small country,” said Mr. Raynes, at R&R in New York. “Credit-default swaps give the illusion of safety but actually increase systemic risk.”
 
that's exactly why the "Jobs" bill is a fraud ! ! ! ! The country doesn't need another bill when there is atleast 300bn still allocated from the 1st stimulus.

Jobs bill a fraud? Why is the government putting people to work fraudulent?

I don't know if you've even visited the Hoover Dam but that was built during the depression and it was a works bill as well. It is principally how Southern Nevada was able to grow. Why are you guys against it? What are you're solutions to getting people back to work?

-VG
 
Jobs bill a fraud? Why is the government putting people to work fraudulent?

it's fraudulent because the first stimulus bill was pushed as a mechanism to put people back to work. How is this different from the aims of the $787bn

Why are you guys against it?

-VG

by creating another $15bn, it further devalues the currency

What are you're solutions to getting people back to work?

1) Get rid of NAFTA - doesn't cost a thing. Pres. Obama could void this jacked up trade agreement with the stroke of a pen. It's interesting that no one has said a word about it.

2) Restructure the tax code for corporations - Their tax rate would be consistent to the value-added work done in this country. The more work done domestically to bring a product to the market, the less their tax rate would be. That decreases the demand for cheap labor abroad and incentivizes companies to keep / bring jobs back! Doesn't cost a thing

These are policy issues, something Pres. Obama can do something about. It's responsible, it benefits the people & it's free.
 
Keynesian economics has worked here in the past so maybe it's not the system that faulty but the implementation.

I would agree with that. Here's the twist, I'm of the belief that govt (or the politicians acting on behalf of the govt) is going to allocate money to strengthen their voter's base. Politicians have 1 goal, and that is to be re-elected, so that is how $$$ will be disbursed.

Does this intervention lead to economic recovery or a successful re-election campaign?

Austrian economics teaches us the success of an economy is consistent with the amount of govt intervention! The less intervention, the healthier the economy.
 
it's fraudulent because the first stimulus bill was pushed as a mechanism to put people back to work. How is this different from the aims of the $787bn



by creating another $15bn, it further devalues the currency



1) Get rid of NAFTA - doesn't cost a thing. Pres. Obama could void this jacked up trade agreement with the stroke of a pen. It's interesting that no one has said a word about it.

2) Restructure the tax code for corporations - Their tax rate would be consistent to the value-added work done in this country. The more work done domestically to bring a product to the market, the less their tax rate would be. That decreases the demand for cheap labor abroad and incentivizes companies to keep / bring jobs back! Doesn't cost a thing
These are policy issues, something Pres. Obama can do something about. It's responsible, it benefits the people & it's free.


I really liked that second one. Not a NAFTA fan but that sounds like heavy lifting I'd have to look into before I jumped on the bandwagon.

I would agree with that. Here's the twist, I'm of the belief that govt (or the politicians acting on behalf of the govt) is going to allocate money to strengthen their voter's base. Politicians have 1 goal, and that is to be re-elected, so that is how $$$ will be disbursed.

Does this intervention lead to economic recovery or a successful re-election campaign?

Austrian economics teaches us the success of an economy is consistent with the amount of govt intervention! The less intervention, the healthier the economy.

The problem is that every time we try a laissez faire approach to corporations here, they go apeshit and the ultimate beneficiaries are never consumers or employees but stockholders and taxpayers end up holding the bag.
 
Not a NAFTA fan but that sounds like heavy lifting I'd have to look into before I jumped on the bandwagon.

Trust me bruh, NAFTA has decimated our industrial capacity. Being from Detroit, when I first got on with one of the Big 3, the unions were fiercely against it. All the arguments they presented are coming to fruition today. Look around the Midwest at the devastation (Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indy etc.) I don't care who promoted or signed the bill, they fucked us "big time" with NAFTA. The scenario hits the heart of my opposition to Keynesian economics: They always address the symptoms of the problem and not the problem itself.

But...as Richard Nixon famously said "We are all Keynesians now!"
http://www.swissamerica.com/article.php?art=04-2003/200304071105f.txt

The problem is that every time we try a laissez faire approach to corporations here, they go apeshit and the ultimate beneficiaries are never consumers or employees but stockholders and taxpayers end up holding the bag.

As long as corps grow as a result of consumer "choice", I have no problems but when they start getting tax breaks, land grants & preferential regulatory treatment, I'm very much in agreement with you
 
Trust me bruh, NAFTA has decimated our industrial capacity. Being from Detroit, when I first got on with one of the Big 3, the unions were fiercely against it. All the arguments they presented are coming to fruition today. Look around the Midwest at the devastation (Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indy etc.) I don't care who promoted or signed the bill, they fucked us "big time" with NAFTA. The scenario hits the heart of my opposition to Keynesian economics: They always address the symptoms of the problem and not the problem itself.

But...as Richard Nixon famously said "We are all Keynesians now!"
http://www.swissamerica.com/article.php?art=04-2003/200304071105f.txt

Oh, I'm from NC, I know about devastated industries and that was before NAFTA. I mean researching if the President could just undo it. It's been in play a minute and somebody on this side is profitting and would put up a hell of a fight.
But on the Act itself, I never liked it. Replacing 1000 high paying industrial jobs with 2000 service jobs is NOT a fair trade off.



As long as corps grow as a result of consumer "choice", I have no problems but when they start getting tax breaks, land grants & preferential regulatory treatment, I'm very much in agreement with you

Unfortunately, that's what happens. They've gotten so good at it, corporations play municipalities against each other looking for the best deal.
Man, if your company makes a better product, I wish you all the success in the world but if, like so many of these investment banks and health insurance companies, you don't actually make shit but money, I don't want to my tax money going to bail you out when it all comes down.
 
The problem is that every time we try a laissez faire approach to corporations here, they go apeshit and the ultimate beneficiaries are never consumers or employees but stockholders and taxpayers end up holding the bag.

I have yet to find one so called libertarian/free marketer that can give me one country or period of time in which laissez faire capitalism has worked without exploitation. It’s kind of like the right pining for a time when everyone was free, every family was heterosexual and happy with perfect children and hard honest work was rewarded with a lifetime of economic security for everyone.
 
Oh, I'm from NC, I know about devastated industries and that was before NAFTA. I mean researching if the President could just undo it. It's been in play a minute and somebody on this side is profitting and would put up a hell of a fight.
But on the Act itself, I never liked it. Replacing 1000 high paying industrial jobs with 2000 service jobs is NOT a fair trade off.





Unfortunately, that's what happens. They've gotten so good at it, corporations play municipalities against each other looking for the best deal.
Man, if your company makes a better product, I wish you all the success in the world but if, like so many of these investment banks and health insurance companies, you don't actually make shit but money, I don't want to my tax money going to bail you out when it all comes down.



insurance broker


An independent agent who represents the buyer, rather than the insurance company, and tries to find the buyer the best policy by comparison


investment broker



An individual or firm which acts as an intermediary between a buyer and seller, usually charging a commission. For securities and most other products, a license is required.


If you can't join them...beat them. Nothing stopping people from organizing and competing with insurance and investment companies. If done right the internet could revolutionize the way business is done and it would be a better distributor of wealth than the market but it will never happen if govt has to do it.
 
Typical Republican/Libertarian talking point. You expect Obama to turn around thirty plus years of Libertarian/Ayn Rand policies in 11 months? Once again where were your posts about jobs and defects 13 months ago? Don’t you think things would be better if he got some cooperation from your side?

*Fixed*
 
It's been in play a minute and somebody on this side is profitting and would put up a hell of a fight.

Correct me if I'm wrong: The scenario you present puts the Pres. + the people who have been displaced against the money interests? Yet, some on the board call me a corporatist :) I'd stand with the Pres 150% plus 90% of the nation would be supportive,however, his silence on the issue speaks volumes to me!

Unfortunately, that's what happens. They've gotten so good at it, corporations play municipalities against each other looking for the best deal.

I don't want to my tax money going to bail you out when it all comes down.

That's what happens when govt intervenes in the market.

How else do these corps get land grants?
How else do the corps get tax breaks?
How else do the corps preferential treatment?
Who makes the bailouts possible?

These are products of political kickbacks, thus a product of Keynesian econmic policies! The very definition of Keynesian economics advocates govt intervention in the market. You indicated, with others on the board, that you disagree with the bailouts, right? Won't you admit govt serves as the enablers to the conditions we strongly disagree with?

Austrian economic theory, NOT Keynesian theory, but Austrian economic theory teaches us the success of an economy is consistent with the amount of govt intervention! The less intervention, the healthier the economy.

Like it or not Thought, every president since Nixon has been a Keynesian.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong: The scenario you present puts the Pres. + the people who have been displaced against the money interests? Yet, some on the board call me a corporatist :) I'd stand with the Pres 150% plus 90% of the nation would be supportive,however, his silence on the issue speaks volumes to me!



That's what happens when govt intervenes in the market.

How else do these corps get land grants?
How else do the corps get tax breaks?
How else do the corps preferential treatment?
Who makes the bailouts possible?

These are products of political kickbacks, thus a product of Keynesian econmic policies! The very definition of Keynesian economics advocates govt intervention in the market. You indicated, with others on the board, that you disagree with the bailouts, right? Won't you admit govt serves as the enablers to the conditions we strongly disagree with?

Austrian economic theory, NOT Keynesian theory, but Austrian economic theory teaches us the success of an economy is consistent with the amount of govt intervention! The less intervention, the healthier the economy.

Like it or not Thought, every president since Nixon has been a Keynesian.

Every president since Roosevelt has been a Keynesian. Remember the Interstate highway system under Ike? That is one reason why we had the largest increase of middle class in the history of the world and the creation of the wealthiest and most powerful nation, not just military in the history of the world from 1948 thru 1980.

Lamarr, here is a direct question, please answer it directly. Name a time in the history of the world when Lassie Faire economics has worked?
 
Every president since Roosevelt has been a Keynesian. Remember the Interstate highway system under Ike? That is one reason why we had the largest increase of middle class in the history of the world and the creation of the wealthiest and most powerful nation, not just military in the history of the world from 1948 thru 1980.

The creation of the highway system doesn't create wealth, it's just beneficial to the 'common good' of the country. If the govt could create wealth they wouldn't be 12 Trill in debt, duh!

Real "Wealth" is a product of savings coupled with production from the private sector. The govt allowed people to keep more of their income for saving's (Dare I say we had a considerably lower tax rate back then)

Lamarr, here is a direct question, please answer it directly. Name a time in the history of the world when Lassie Faire economics has worked?

From a macro standpoint, govts always end up intervening in some way, and not allowing the business cycle to run its course.

At the grassroots level, it works everyday! BGOL, for instance. Its a voluntary agreement between the entity and an individual. They provide a platform that people like, in exchange people sign up for the benefits of the membership. They are giving members what they want without govt mandates on the people! Simple


Thought, here's a direct question in return: Given that we have irresponsibly borrowed and spent $$$ that we didn't have to get into this financial debacle, Is it realistic that we can spend our way out?
 
Last edited:
The creation of the highway system doesn't create wealth, it's just beneficial to the 'common good' of the country. If the govt could create wealth they wouldn't be 12 Trill in debt, duh!

Real "Wealth" is a product of savings coupled with production from the private sector. The govt allowed people to keep more of their income for saving's (Dare I say we had a considerably lower tax rate back then)



From a macro standpoint, govts always end up intervening in some way, and not allowing the business cycle to run its course.

At the grassroots level, it works everyday! BGOL, for instance. Its a voluntary agreement between the entity and an individual. They provide a platform that people like, in exchange people sign up for the benefits of the membership. They are giving members what they want without govt mandates on the people! Simple


Thought, here's a direct question in return: Given that we have irresponsibly borrowed and spent $$$ that we didn't have to get into this financial debacle, Is it realistic that we can spend our way out?

So you can't give me an example. You talking points are just theory. Objectivism is just a theory, Ayn Rand libertarianism is just a theory and can never work in the real world. For the life of me I cannot understand why people latch on to this philosophy.
 
So you can't give me an example. You talking points are just theory. Objectivism is just a theory, Ayn Rand libertarianism is just a theory and can never work in the real world. For the life of me I cannot understand why people latch on to this philosophy.

My bad, almost forgot about this gem.... Here you go!

Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920

Presented by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., at "The Great Depression: What We Can Learn From It Today," the Mises Circle in Colorado; sponsored by Limited Government Forum of Colorado Springs and hosted by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Recorded Saturday, 4 April 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI

You wanna answer mine now?

Given that we have irresponsibly borrowed and spent $$$ that we didn't have to get into this financial debacle, Is it realistic that we can spend our way out?
 
Back
Top