Where do these congress people learn economics? From Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck?
t r u t h o u t | Rep. Jason Altmire: Job Killing Deficit Hawk
t r u t h o u t | Rep. Jason Altmire: Job Killing Deficit Hawk
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Congress Throws 300,000 People Out of Work
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
You know Phil, you hardly ever hear conservatives rail against Rachel Maddow or Jon Stewart. Actually, I enjoy watching their shows.
I listen to Rush probably two or three times a month for a good laugh. I watch Glen Beck maybe once a week. It is really the same old rhetoric each time I tune in.
The biggest reason I catch these shows, is because I love to see liberals foam at the mouth. Why do they give me that satisfaction?
:clap Just note that some liberals are foamier than others ...
I don't get what is so attractive about foamy people. 
Btw Jay, I had a dream about you last night. It was fun! You kept telling me how right I am. :bounce
Btw Jay, I had a dream about you last night. It was fun! You kept telling me how right I am. :bounce
Rachel Maddow gets death threats from conservatives, Rick. That's hardly the image you spin of her relationship to some in the conservative base.
Are you seriously suggesting that liberals are the only ones who foam at the mouth in this world of ours, Rick? If so, then I thought even a conservative was more aware of reality than that.
It's nice to know that you imagine me at my best.
I guess I am isolated from these kinds of people.
In reality you are probably right Phil. In this forum, I have not seen any conservatives railing against Jon and Rachel.
I hope that you can admit that the common liberal mentions Rush, Hannity, FOX news or whatever far more than than common conservative would mention liberal newscasters.
It is just entertainment, (for me anyway).
Surely you don't expect me to defend any bat poop crazies out there who threaten folks. I'm sure O Riely and Hannity get their fair share of hate mail too.
That really isn't too hard to do actually.
The dream was sooooo cool. You kept saying, "Heather, I didn't realize just how right you are about so many things. Heather, I didn't realize just how right you are about so many things. Heather, I didn't realize (and on and on)......."
I woke up smiling from ear to ear.
We're getting off-topic, here, but I don't think you can take this forum as indicative of what the average conservative and average liberal are like for the country. And you certainly cannot say that you are average or typical for a conservative, Rick. For one thing, you appear to be more thoughtful than the average conservative -- or liberal.
Thank you Phil, I appreciate that. Just remember, it was you that labeled me a neo-con here once upon a time.
Your article didn't have any actual economic analysis in it....just insults & pronouncements about the stupidity of deficit reduction.
It's preaching to the choir.....or just cheerleading, but without the short skirts & pom poms.
Now, I'm going to reprise an earlier unanswered post.
Let's say we spend another trillion on stimulus packages.....how would they be paid for? Is it by borrowing, taxation, or the printing of fiat currency?
Each has its costs, which will reduce the planned economic benefit. Borrowing will increase costs later, & dampen the economy by requiring increased taxation & by raising interest rates. Taxation alone will take money out of the hands of productive businesses. Fiat currency...
..well....need I explain that nightmare?
I saw no consensus among economists (ignoring those in gov't employ) that even more money should be spent. But even if there were such
agreement, are these thesame economists who approved of Fannie & Freddie's risky lending? Are these economists merely opining from
the seat of their pants, or do they have accurate (ie, tested against the real world) quantitative models predicting success?
So back to deficit reduction. It has the disadvantage of less money spent by gov't. It has the advantage of more money being spent in the
private sector. Where's the evidence based analysis showing that giving more money to the gov't is the better stimulus? What it all really
boils down to is that gov't generally has one solution to all problems: Raise tax revenue & increase spending. Analysis is just window
dressing.
Last edited:
Yes - I was there, but, to be honest, I remember it somewhat differently ...
The dream was sooooo cool. You had just finished expressing your love and admiration and I kept saying, "Heather, I didn't realize just how bright you are about so many things. Heather, I didn't realize just how bright you are about so many things. Heather, I didn't realize (and on and on)......."
:flower2::flower2::flower2:
That is the basic difference in a nut shell, who gets to spend the money, the people who earned it or the folks who benefit from redistribution of wealth?
The thing is, right now if you and I had more money, we would be paying down our debt instead of blowing it on other things. While it will help our personal economy, paying down our debt does not stimulate the economy.
My personal opinion is, if we spend a trillion, in a couple of years the economy will get going again. If we do nothing, in a couple of years pent up demand will get the economy going again. This is kinda like going to the doctor when you have a cold.
Where is the evidence that we would spend money that way? In my case, I need money to pay for deferred maintenance & to make loan payments. This helps the economy because I hire people to do work, I buy materials, & my bank stays solvent...& able to lend money to other businesses. This last one is crucial because of the commercial debt crisis, ie, we cannot borrow money anywhere. Of course, if Al Gore wants the gov't to back Fisker's luxury sports car start-up company with a $529,000,000 loan, there's plenty of money for that.
The problem with the gov't spending money which doesn't accomplish much is that it must be taken from someone. That someone shouldn't have to give it up just so the gov't can give it to the more politically connected. This does not help the economy.
Case study:
I recently hired a broker to negotiate a $750,000 principal reduction with a bank on 2 loans I have secured by underperforming (ie,underwater & drowning) properties. (Such deals are complex. I'll skip those details.) If my equity situation improved by $750,00, this would've solved many problems for both me & the bank. Why turn down free money? It cost too much. My CPA & I calculated that about $400,000 of the proceeds would go to the state & fed gov's in taxes & fees. Moreover, none of my costs are deductable because of how the IRS classifies the types of "income" & types of losses. The fed is doing the opposite of helping recovery. Politicians are primarily helping their friends at the expense of us lowly shlubs.
Last edited:
:beach: You just made my day.
Isn't derailing threads fun? I love making things all about me. :angel2:
You're a gem, my dear friend.
Always an enhancement! :bow: