E
estesbob
Guest
I am curious also as to who said that
- Status
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
This is exactly correct. Supply-side seems to posit this theory of “make more stuff and people will buy it.” Demand-side posits, “create more demand and you’ll need to make more stuff…and people to make the stuff.”
Yes, exactly. Those great, holy and glorious health insurance companies that the Republicans have been defending during the health-care debate have bureaucracies so byzantie that the Federal Government’s org chart look like a miniature tree.
It really depends on the issue. Some issues deal with us as a People and others are services best met by more local means.
Yep…the either/or, black/white style of thinking is enough to drive those of us who know about the whole World of Color nuts.
I
ishii
Guest
Sorry. I like to respond to some longer posts that way so I can itemize certain points and respond to them one at a time. The best way to create jobs is unleash the private sector and streamline regulations in order to make it easier to do business and create jobs. Now I can see from your earlier posts that you favor regulation of business and I would agree- there needs to be some regulation. But the fact is, if the climate is hostile to businesses, they will go elsewhere. In my state, we have watched businesses move to other states that are more friendly to businesses overall. The effect is fewer jobs. Now, just to clarify, I know that some businesses are run by unethical people and that regulation is necessary. However, there comes a point when there is too much tax and regulation of business. None other than the ultra liberal George McGovern was horrified when he tried to open his own hotel in New England and realized how many unecessary and costly regulation there were. Regarding deregulation, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts: it was the Democrats under Carter who started the deregulation of business with the deregulation of the airlines and the telecommunication industry. Think about that next time you rail against “Republican deregulation”. Another point to make is on taxes. Cutting taxes increases revenue and stimulates tha economy. It was JFK and the Democrats who proposed cutting taxes in 1960 to “get the country moving again” and later Reagan with the help of many Democrats cut taxes further and that set stage for the economic boom of the '80’s. Revenue went up but spending went up even more so we had the deficits as well. I find your continuous railing against Republicans to be overwrought and unfair. Most Republicans I know simply want whats best for people - they think that less regulation and taxes will achieve that. As another poster has been saying - we agree on the ends, but disagree on the means.
Ishii
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Generally speaeking, politicians are repugnant to me as a working person and as an American.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
Yeah, and both types of policies have, at times, done what society needed them to do. No matter how much people complain about the government meddling in the economy, it has worked at least once before. Just compare Herber Hoover’s laissez faire “just walk it off” response to the Great Depression, to Roosevelt’s successful policies (of course, the war also helped push things back on track).
Of course. It’s thought by so many though that the solution to every problem is more or less government, or more or less federalism. Sometimes it’s not a matter of more or less, but how or what kind, and of course even the most extreme federalists or state-righters should realize that there are always exceptions.
I know, I can’t stand the restrictions of having two options, R or D. I was taught in AP Gov class in high school that the reason we tolerate this black and white system in the US is because most Americans suposedly think that we only need one winner and one loser in elections, while those dainty Europeans have all their in-betweens and whatnot. Our textbooks showed a picture of a Ukrainian guy looking a bulletinboard listing the 18 parties running in an election, to show how good we have it here. Personally, the idea of having 18 choices actually sounds great to me. So many choices.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
That’s one opinion. Some regulations are rather silly, but others are absolutely necessary in order to make sure that some businesses don’t run roughshod over their employees, customers and the places where they operate.
Wow, I’ve rarely heard a Republicanist say that. Good for you!
On one level, I’m with you. It has long been a requirement for employers to report accidents resulting in fatality, amputations or serious inury to Cal-OSHA. Several years ago, the penalty for failure to report was flexible and determined based on several factors, including employer size, history, etc. Generally, the penalty on a small business with a good history who can demonstrate that they weren’t trying to hide would be about $85.00. A “bad actor” employer who fails to report an accident would be given little to no adjustments and would get penalties up to $500. That was until the legislature decided that the penalty will be $5,000 with no adjustments permissible. This is a good example of an onerous regulation.
On the other hand, there is a regulation enforced by Cal-OSHA requiring an injury and illness prevention program (IIPP) which requires training of employees and inspections to check for safety and health problems in a worksite. What’s been found is that a large number of accidents can be avoided by simply following the requirements of the IIPP, which makes it logical and useful regulation. The fact that Cal-OSHA investigates hundreds of serious accidents of year citing the IIPP standard shows that a lot of employers are just too lazy to do their due diligence and set up a plan that is pretty much already written for you in the regulations (check it out…it’s Title 8, California Code of Regulations, 3203(a) - the program pretty much writes it self!).
And yet, which party is always whinging about regulation and taxes? The Republicans.
I’ve yet to see it. Bush cut taxes early in his presidency and real wages continued to slide and prices, especially on energy, continued to spiral upwards.
Cutting rates and eliminating loopholes at the same time. Less money is hidden from taxation, so the lower rate will logically result in greater revenues…but increasing revenue is NOT a Republican value.
Well, we had to build all those weapons systems.
When I talk about Republicans, I’m not talking about the grassroots level tea party person. When I talk about Republicans, I’m talking about the party movers and shakers. I’m talking about those who are only concerned with Republican power and victory and those who will do or say anything to get Republicans elected. I also criticize any ideology that puts the pursuit and love of money first above all other considerations, which is what I see Republicanism being about.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
I wonder how long it will take for the typical Republican canard of, “Roosevelt didn’t get us out of the Depression, WWII did!” Well, if you consider that the war effort of WWII entailed a HUGE Keynesian domestic stimulus program (somoene had to build the ships, bullets, planes, etc. to fight the war), yes, WWII did help get us out of the depression…and it was doing what Roosevelt did in implementing Keynesian economics except on steroids!
Yep. It’s not as simple as some would have us believe. Sometimes, we need to actually think about what’s going on and act accordingly instead of reacting from our base ideologies.
Same here. I’d love for us to change our election system to something that is more…representative of the large range of opinion we have here in our country.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
LCMS-
You made some accusations against “Rich” people getting tax credits to send jobs out of the country. You have yet to back that up.
You made some accusations against “Rich” people getting tax credits to send jobs out of the country. You have yet to back that up.
I
ishii
Guest
Herbert Hoover was no shining example of “laissez faire”. He was a tinkerer who believed in using govt. (albeit not to the extent of FDR) to change society and the economy and allowed the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariff to go through. Coolidge was the last “laissez faire” president of that era. Also, if FDR’s policies were successful in ending the Depression, then why did we have a “depression within the Depression” in 1937 five years after the implementation of the New Deal? FDR’s policies made the depression worse and last longer. The war got us out of the Depression, not FDR’s policies.
Ishii
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Herbert Hoover grew the federal government by 82% under his presidency. I would most assuredly say that Hoover was NOT “laissez-faire”. The only real government shrinking President we’ve ever had was Calvin Coolidge.
I
ishii
Guest
Ha! So maybe next time there’s a bad recession we should start WW3 to get out of it?
You should take your own advice and “think about what’s going on” instead of reacting from your base ideology of liberalism. It works both ways you know. If you want to truly learn about the Great Depression (instead of always operating from the assumption of your base ideology, then I would recommend the excellent book " The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes.
Ishii
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
What are you talking about, Progressives (both Democrat and Republican) have kept us engaged in wars of some fashion for the last 70 years.
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Granada
Beirut
Iraq 1
Serbia
Afganistan
Iraq 2
And when there isn’t an ACTUAL armed conflict, they are always declaring war on something.
Poverty
Drugs
Terrorism
Illiteracy
R
Roy5
Guest
** I’m an independent who voted for Obama for several reasons.**, among them: (1) He articulated high ideals in a very convincing way, ideals I live by. (2) I was happy when we elected a biracial president, evidence that nost of us had put aside the bigotry of the past and showing the world that we really do believe in ‘liberty and justice for all’. (3) I strongly opposed the Iraq War for many reasons, certainly because it cost so heavily in lives and money and it diverted our attention from Al Qaeda which was responsible for 9-11(4) I was very disappointed that McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, a person totally ill-equipped for such a position.
** Obama had been a bit disappointing,** so I watched his speech with some doubts. However, he gave an outstanding address. His job is an immense one, especially because he came into office when the country was already deep in an economic crisis. I’m ready to give him a little more time, and I do worry about those within the GOP (I was raised strongly GOP) who seem to want to make it the party of NO. The bitter and warped attacks on Obama by Rush, Hannity, Savage, O’Reilly and many other extreme prophets of doom tend to push me toward Obama, not away from him.
** Obama had been a bit disappointing,** so I watched his speech with some doubts. However, he gave an outstanding address. His job is an immense one, especially because he came into office when the country was already deep in an economic crisis. I’m ready to give him a little more time, and I do worry about those within the GOP (I was raised strongly GOP) who seem to want to make it the party of NO. The bitter and warped attacks on Obama by Rush, Hannity, Savage, O’Reilly and many other extreme prophets of doom tend to push me toward Obama, not away from him.
We'll see what happens. God bless Obama and all those in high office, God bless America, and God bless his children of every creed, color, culture and country. May we have peace in our lives, our homes, our country and our world.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I am still firmly convinced that America would be better off if it split in 2.
S
SamH
Guest
I was thinking more along the lines of 4 or 5 pieces.
I
ishii
Guest
What I was talking about was the idea of war expenditures as a way out of a depression. The wars you list are nowhere near the scope of WW2 in terms of the mobilization, effect on increased manufacturing and even cost as a percent of GNP. You compare Granada with WW2? What are you talking about?
Ishii
S
SamH
Guest
The policies of neither helped end the depression and many now agree that they actually deepened and extended the depression. While the rest of the world had emerged from the depression in late 1936 and 1937 the US was mired in it until the demand from warring nations fired up factories that had sat idle for years. The depression ended before the US entered WW2.
Unemployment in the US at the end of 1929 was still only 3.2% and after a year of Hoover’s tinkering with the economy the unemployment rate rose to 8.7%. It then jumped to 15% in 1931. In 1937 after 7 years of Keynesian economics the unemployment rate was still above 14% and rose above 19% in 1938 – a period when most of the world had emerged from the depression. From 1939 to December 1941 US manufacturing increased over 50% and little (in relation to the entire economy) was do to government spending and unemployment had dropped to 9%. There is little doubt that the improvement would have continued had the US not been attacked in December 1941.
So no, the depression did not end because the government borrowed and spent money, it ended because goods and services were bought and sold on the open market. If all it took was the government spending money it didn’t have the current economic situation wouldn’t exist.
G
gilliam
Guest
From the White House:
‘We are monitoring the situation. Violence should not be used by either side. The Egyptian government should stop blocking access to the internet and social networking sites. The Egyptian people have legitimate grievances. Those grievances should be addressed. Obama has not spoken directly with Mubarak. We will review our assistance to Egypt according to how events play out.’
‘We are monitoring the situation. Violence should not be used by either side. The Egyptian government should stop blocking access to the internet and social networking sites. The Egyptian people have legitimate grievances. Those grievances should be addressed. Obama has not spoken directly with Mubarak. We will review our assistance to Egypt according to how events play out.’
S
SamH
Guest
The ongoing war on poverty has actually cost many times more than WW2. I keep hoping to hear our exit strategy.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Or maybe go back to 50 soveriegn states that actively limit the power of the federal government.
- Status