Barry's inauguration

[Gypsiyee]

The man doesn't understand the constitution very well, but he isn't retarded either.

bahahaha, what

[KaiineTN]

Alright then, he understands it but has little respect for and a twisted interpretation of it. Is that better?

I am well aware that he studied constitutional law. Time will tell if he follows the rule of law or just ignores it like those before him.

[brinstar]

can you define "twisted interpretation" or is it just another catch phrase of your failed third party

[Evermore]

we need a mindia moratorium.


Every time the guy opens his mouth he just proves how stupid and retarded he is. kinda makes you understand how Bush got elected to a 2nd term...

[KaiineTN]

We'll have to wait and see how he acts, but I highly doubt he's going to give up the unconstitutional executive branch power grabs from the Bush administration, for one.

What about Obama's promise to create jobs? I don't think the President has any constitutional authority to do any such thing. What could he do? Push for subsidies to further distort the market and cause malinvestment? Get ready for more bailouts! Businesses create jobs, and the best thing the government can do to stimulate the creation of businesses is to make it easier for them to get started by getting the hell out of the way.

I hope he does follow the Constitution to the letter. I hope he sets an example for the rest of Government to do the same.

[vonkaar]

Why do people write like he's going to write back...

[ClakarEQ]

I hope he does follow the Constitution to the letter. I hope he sets an example for the rest of Government to do the same.

Kaiine, I don't understand why you'd post something like this. The prior president destroyed many constitutional liberties IMO, frankly I don't see how anyone could do worse in this space than Bush. You make it sound like Obama is making statements that step all over the constitution, where are you getting this from?

How is making a statement like "create green jobs" or something like that, not within his constitutional right or authority? Everyone has the constitutional right to say that.

I don't think I've ever heard him say, "the constitution gives me the authority to create green jobs" or anything like that.

You've made a few posts now with a recurring theme of the constitution re: a president that just started his job yesterday. Perhaps I've just forgotten but I don't recall seeing posts from you regarding all the constitution trampling that Bush did.

[Tossica]

He's just parroting right wing talk radio bullshit.

[Tikker]

What about Obama's promise to create jobs? I don't think the President has any constitutional authority to do any such thing. What could he do?

infrastructure

build dams, roads, etc

[KaiineTN]

Well, yeah, just doing "better" than Bush would be setting my expectations far too low. Yes, he did stomp on a lot of our liberties. Will Obama give them back to us, or will he take advantage of it to push a Democratic agenda, just as Republicans did in order to push theirs?

For the record, I am not your typical Republican. I'd have rather seen Obama take office than McCain, so I'm happy he got his ass kicked. I just don't want us in Iraq, or Afghanistan. I don't want America to be a global empire. I'm more or less pro-abortion, gay marriage, all that junk. The only thing that makes me a Republican is fiscal conservatism and the belief that the federal government should be minimized and the power should rest in the states, and ultimately, locally. Low taxes, no income tax, balanced budgets, etc. Also, I see Democrats embracing the whole "take from all to give to some" philosophy, and that just bothers me. Though, as of late, you can say the same about Republicans. I am not one of those Republicans, however.

Anyways! The government can't create jobs. The government has no wealth. The government has to take money from you to pay people for the jobs it "creates." If they don't directly raise taxes to do it, they add it to the deficit, and if they can't get foreigners to buy up our debt, we have to print it. Regardless of the method, it is a tax, and it's counter-productive, except perhaps in the short-term for those few that manage to get those jobs, and are then dependant on the government for employment.

Do you recall during his speech, he mentioned the question is not whether government is too big or too small, but whether or not it works? That's fucking scary. So if it doesn't work, which direction do you think he's going to go in? And what if it keeps not working?

[ClakarEQ]

Fair enough, but I would agree that our government is broken. If you have this broken thing, this thing you can't not escape from, you have a limited choice, leave it broken or try to fix it. If after an attempted fix, it remains broken, would you not attempt to fix it again, and again, in hopes that one day it will "work" again?

The government can empower companies to create jobs, in fact states make all sorts of tax exceptions, etc in attempts to "sell" their states land, worker, etc. The government and private sector are directly connect in this regard. There is a reason pharmaceutical companies love MI, there is a reason Auto companies now love the south (and no it is NOT union related).

The government does create jobs, it does it everywhere. Public defenders to firemen. It can also kill jobs, I know in MI several state police and other city/state folks have lost jobs.

Our government does have wealth, in my mind it is an issue that Obama spoke of, remove the things that don't work and fix or put in things that work better (or hope that work better).

If the government said, ok, this 30billion dollar budget for doing xyz, that has been in place for 5 years, yet xyz is no where in sight, lets kill xyz and try abc. Say abc is redoing bridges or whatever. That 30billion in tax revenue the gov already gets, now, re-enters the system and into the back pocket of the gravel hauler, the asphalt layer, etc etc.

Say the GOV says any startups or existing companies that are entering "green tech" (whatever you want to call it), you get $$$ in "cash" or this subsidy, etc. Again that money comes out of our pocket to the gov who injects it into the private sector in a sense making a full circle.

[vonkaar]

I think Flink is totally confused by the 'create jobs' thing.

quick example:
A bill gets passed that gives massive incentives to a random industry... say, bio-fuel refineries - turning garbage into diesel. New companies are created to take advantage of these grants and/or tax incentives, and existing ones are flooded with additional capital... they can hire more people. Ergo, jobs are 'created' - thanks to the government. There are thousands of areas where this is possible...

[ClakarEQ]

Vonk, thanks you summed up what I was trying to say much better /bow

[KaiineTN]

You don't see the problem with that, Vonk? I mean, turning garbage into fuel sounds nice and all, but at what cost? Jobs would be created in that situation thanks to government intervention of a free market system. That is precisely what causes things like bubbles to occur, and massive malinvestment. What if an entire industry gets propped up by the government that otherwise could not exist without government funding? There is a REASON why things like that can't exist, and that's because of market forces and alternatives. When the government gets involved and makes it possible for them to make a profit at everyone else's expense... I just... can't understand how anyone could not have a problem with that.

Besides, who chooses what industries get government funding and which don't? The government has already fucked up the biodiesel industry for one, and not just in this country, but worldwide.

And no, the government absolutely does NOT have wealth. It has to tax to fund ANYTHING it does. That is how governemnts work. They do not produce anything. If we cut a program and that 30 billion doesn't get wasted, we have a few options. We can pay down the deficit, lower taxes so that 30 billion less is taken in, or use that 30 billion on something else.

I'd prefer to have lower taxes and keeping it in the economy, rather than having it circulate through the government's hands. I trust the market infintiely more than I trust our government when it comes to allocating resources.

[Tossica]

I trust the market infintiely more than I trust our government when it comes to allocating resources.

Yeah, because the corporate world has shown over and over again how compassionate and flexible it is when it comes to money.

[vonkaar]

I roflz at your idea of a free market system. We've basically 'never' had a true free market... and you are tremendously naive to think otherwise.

I *really* predict that this will be a "flink vs the world" debate (jury duty, et al), so I'm not really going to get into it with you. You are sooooo trying to broaden this into a bigger picture. Abandoning the free market system blahblah... which began before your parents were born, but w/e... VS "governments can't create jobs." Which - we've shown to be untrue. Are you now changing your point to, "I believe governments SHOULDN'T create jobs." ???

[ClakarEQ]

Kaiine lower taxes won't keep shit in the economy it will just keep the growing separation between the haves and have not's.

Who is going to pay for all the 50+ year old infrastructure that needs to be made current?

You trust the market, the market that finds any and every loophole possible to maximize profits. The market that cooks books, that lies to shareholders, that pay exec's millions and workers pennies in comparison.

Hey, our GOV is broken you'll not hear me say otherwise, but I also know business practice and if you think the market is far more "slick" than the GOV, if you think otherwise then I'll be shocked.

The market is made of business's, these business have leaders that set the tone of the market, these leaders are CEO's, chair members, etc. They set a vision for their company and the workers carry the vision out. These leaders say who wins and who loses. They decide how much of that pie you are allowed to have, etc. They can kill competition, they can rig the market, they can rob you blind.

Who do you think sets the tone for our country? Provides the vision for our country? Who makes our nation a better place? The market? the market who cares not for the country but only for the profit?

[KaiineTN]

Okay, Vonk, I'll admit the government can create jobs. They can take my money and pay you to dig a hole, fill it up, and dig it again. Zomg, unemployment rate is down! Our economy will be better in no time! Right?

If you want to bring up the whole corporate greed argument, the government deserves just as much of the blame. With all the lobbying that goes on, and how big corporations are in bed with big government, what do you expect? The government is what kills off the competition by making it difficult to enter a given industry.

It's not like the playing field will be even if we just get rid of the barriers of entry either, because the damage has already been done, but that doesn't mean the government should try to fix it by throwing our money at the new guys and hoping things work out.

I'd argue that we have been very close to a true free market system, but not in a very, very long time. Free market capitalism is what propelled the United States to its dominant position in the world. Our government has been destroying that position for nearly a century.

[ClakarEQ]

Kaiine,
Who will set a vision for our country?
Who will set the tone of our country?
Who puts it in motion?

We've never had anything close to a free market. I don't give a shit what book you think you read that gave you some "fact" that claimed we have EVER had a free market. No, that never existed. The market was under control from it's birth, the market is still under control and that controlling body is NOT the gov.

You already said it, the gov has no wealth, wealth controls the market, hmm, so who I wonder controls the market, could it be wealthy people? Could it be the 2% of our country that controls the 98%, isn't that sort of like a dictatorship (tongue in cheek here).

Who employs all those lobbyists, you think it is the GOV, or is it the market? That disdain you have for the gov from what you write is misguided and you should have that hate directed at the market.

[KaiineTN]

Supply and demand controls the market. The wealthy are those that know how to best take advantage of the market's resources.

What do you want? Do you want the Government to be Robin Hood? Take from the rich and give to the poor! Government price controls? Do you want to stand in bread lines for 2 hours? Then would you feel better? That's the government trying to solve the problem right there. That's what will happen when the government gets too involved with the economy. I hope it never comes to that in this country.

I'll admit that wealth redistribution happens cyclically, but it's definitely not as great of a thing as people would like to think it is. It causes problems.

Besides, do wealthy people not have the right to be wealthy, to act to preserve their wealth, to use their resources as they see fit? The only thing that pisses me off is the manipulation in the government, the apparent fascism... That is what I have hatred for if anything.

[vonkaar]

Okay, Vonk, I'll admit the government can create jobs. They can take my money and pay you to dig a hole, fill it up, and dig it again. Zomg, unemployment rate is down! Our economy will be better in no time! Right?

If you want to bring up the whole corporate greed argument, the government deserves just as much of the blame. With all the lobbying that goes on, and how big corporations are in bed with big government, what do you expect? The government is what kills off the competition by making it difficult to enter a given industry.

Are you just talking to hear yourself talk or do you have a point here? We are talking about Barack Obama TRAMPLING ON THE CONSTITUTION here, right? Lobbying is bad... okay...

moving on...

I'd argue that we have been very close to a true free market system, but not in a very, very long time. Free market capitalism is what propelled the United States to its dominant position in the world. Our government has been destroying that position for nearly a century.

wtf, really? We peaked, like... 50 years ago... 28% of the worldwide GDP. 100 years ago, we were Britain's bitch. Do you have a fucking point here?? You are sooooo off-topic and into never-never land, I'm half expecting you to blame all of this on a Fijian roommate.

[Arlos]

Oh please. You don't have any idea what the fuck you are talking about.

We tried Lassaisz-faire capitalism. It gave us monopolies along the lines of Standard Oil and William Randolph Hearst, and set the stage for the Great Depression.

When was this country most prosperous? Arguably, it's the period immediately after WW2 through the 1950s and into the early 1960s, yes? Well, that was when the market had the MOST controls and oversight on it, coming out of all the New Deal reforms. Not to mention, the top tax bracket was OVER 90%. You're whining that the government is trying to screw the rich with a 37% tax rate, when as recently as late in Reagan's 2nd term it was over 50%? Go on, pull the other one.

The reason for the latest meltdown is because for years now the oversights and controls on the market have been systematically dismantled and removed, mostly by GOP governments, but Clinton had his fault as well. Without oversight and controls, the market goes berserk, and focuses solely on maximizing short term profits. It created financial items no one understood, and then gave such massive incentives via the bonus structure for everyone to keep their mouth shut so that the house of cards wouldn't collapse, that those who were supposed to be monitoring risk stopped, and there was no longer any governmental agency with the ability to tell them Stop.

Also, your argument that the government is necessarily incredibly ineffecient is also bullshit. Just look at, say, the overhead percentages for medicare vs private insurance companies. Last I looked, medicare had a 3% overhead. ie, of every dollar they take in, 97 cents went directly to pay for medical care. Private insurance generally runs at a 20-30% overhead. That's 10 times less efficient than the government....

Seriously, you don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do.

-Arlos

[ClakarEQ]

You keep dancing around my direct questions, why?

I didn't say a thing about wealth distribution in this thread. No I don't expect nor want the gov being robin hood. All I know is what we've been doing is not working and I'm all for trying something new.

The gov controlling prices, IMO that is too slippery a slope. I'll be honest and say, it burns my ass knowing a company is making a 500% profit on their product when they control the supply (sort of puts a hole in your supply and demand control the market).

Wealthy people have every right to be wealthy, however they do not have the right to lie to me, steal from me, cook books, etc in order to make that wealth and that is how many have done it and do it today. Without the gov being "forced" to make BS laws to keep crooks "honest", then the gov won't be shrinking anytime soon. IMO the market has forced much of the bloat in the gov.

I also do not agree that supply and demand "control" the market, supply and demand is just one component of the market. Money controls the market more IMO and if you have enough of it, you can make your own demand, then control the supply to maximize your profit. You can see this in all types of industry.

[Drem]

Why do people write like he's going to write back...

I don't know why you guys write stuff to Mindia...

[Drem]

I'd argue that we have been very close to a true free market system, but not in a very, very long time. Free market capitalism is what propelled the United States to its dominant position in the world. Our government has been destroying that position for nearly a century.

okay i have to say WTF here:

before the progressive era started (about the turn of the 20th century) the US was chuggin along with laissez-faire and was not an eminent economy. when the middle class suddenly emerged they wanted government regulation. that's when all sorts of things started showing up, like the Sherman Antitrust Act, Interstate Commerce Act, the Federal Trade Commission, etc. Our economy wasn't dominant or anything even remotely close to that until governments started regulating businesses to ensure competition and an active market.

We kept this model with high taxes etc for a good 30 years or so until a REPUBLICAN (Hoover) decided to try and make everything normal and lower taxes like you're talking about. Then bam, 8 or 9 years later the stock market crashed and we were fucked

Then Keynesian economics kicked in, saved us, and brought us into the most prosperous couple of decades the country's ever seen. Then when we switched to a microeconomic system in the '70s it's been pretty much slowly downhill ever since. I have no idea why a Keynesianistic approach to our economy would be a bad thing right now. Or did you just say that because you read somewhere that the Austrian school thinks Keynesianism is too collective