namelesstavern.net

Arlos wrote:Congratulations. You can cut and paste from the Ron Paul website.

Did you even look at that study from Moody's I posted in the other thread? The one that shows that, gosh, federal funding DOES stimulate the economy, up to 5-10 times MORE than tax cuts do?

Hell, have you even read stuff from economists OUTSIDE the Ron Paul clique? Try reading, say, Krugman sometime. He is, after all, a Nobel Laureate. How about Warren Buffett? He's only regarded as perhaps the most savvy investor alive.

Unregulated Lassaisz-faire market-knows-best policy has been tried. IT DOESN'T WORK. PERIOD. First it gave us monopolies and trusts like Standard Oil, and right now, deregulation is a huge part of what got us INTO this mess. No one forced any of the financial companies to engage in trading complicated derivatives that no one understood, no one forced them to set their pay and bonus structure to encourage quarterly thinking instead of long-term planning, but perhaps if real regulation and oversight had been in place they could have been STOPPED from doing so before the damage was done.

Let the rich have their way and remove their restraints gave us the current destruction of the middle class that we're seeing. Just about never has the gap between the richest 1% and everyone else been wider.

So no, the kind of economic policy you parrot is *NOT* one we should pursue, as it helped create this disaster, and is utterly incapable of fixing it. All it accomplishes is to make the ultra-rich even richer, while the rest of us just have to hope particularly choice morsels make it into the dumpsters. Hell no. You had your chance. Time for a new policy.

-Arlos

P.S. Mindia, the chief economist of Moodies disagrees with you rather completely. I call your attention again to: http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/docum ... 012109.pdf They did significant research, and found that exactly the kind of spending the Democrats are pushing for helps the MOST, and the tax cuts the GOP pushes for help the LEAST. And, sorry to say this, but if you try and label Moody's as some sort of liberal organization, I will be forced to a great deal of mirthful laughter, as they are nothing of the sort.

Ron Paul wrote:Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism

Harvard Economist wrote:This is probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s. I don't know what to say. I mean it's wasting a tremendous amount of money. It has some simplistic theory that I don't think will work, so I don't think the expenditure stuff is going to have the intended effect. I don't think it will expand the economy. And the tax cutting isn't really geared toward incentives. It's not really geared to lowering tax rates; it's more along the lines of throwing money at people. On both sides I think it's garbage. So in terms of balance between the two it doesn't really matter that much.

Naethyn wrote:Actually, congress does not have oversight of the FED. It is not a public entity. The FED is about as federal as fedex.

mappatazee wrote:

Naethyn wrote:Actually, congress does not have oversight of the FED. It is not a public entity. The FED is about as federal as fedex.

uhm, the federal reserve act was enacted by congress. you can read it here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fract.htm
i think that's at least a little more federal than fedex.

audio is out of sync, but i like this guy

Evermore wrote:

Narrock wrote:This porkulous package is a nightmare. There's billions of dollars in it that will not stimulate the economy one bit, but our grandchildren's children will still be paying for it. IMPEACH OBAMA NOW, before he fucks us even more.

but it was ok for that cockspash of a "conservative" president to just hand 700 billion to the banks. Which btw has not done a fucking thing except increase the amount of money that moron stole.

Narrock wrote: but our grandchildren's children will still be paying for it

I think you are referring to this worthless money sink of a war. You know the one thats breaking the country's back and allowing bush and cronies to line their pockets.

Arlos wrote:To be fair, though, Mindia, Bush *DID* request it first, before the Senate got involved. Also to be fair though, what they DID pass wasn't what he asked for initially. To be totally fair as well, though, if Bush didn't approve it, he could have vetoed it, there weren't even close to 2/3 of the senate in support.

Of course, what he DID ask for initially was beyond stupid and insane. The initial request was for 700 billion, to be spent at the *SOLE* discretion of the treasury secretary, with no involvement of any other person or agency. ALSO written in there was a provision that made it illegal to challenge or otherwise dispute those decisions in any way whatsoever, including through the court system.

So yes, basically Bush requested complete 1-man absolute control over 700 billion dollars with not only no oversight whatsoever, but also no potential path to change anything he did, EVER.

Compared to THAT request, what the Senate DID pass was akin to the Magna Carta, regardless of how bad a bill you think finally got crafted and signed by Bush. So, yes, you can blame the senate, but they were acting at the direct request of the president to pass something, and as a result he deserves at least as much blame, if not more.

-Arlos

Drem wrote:it just runs our dollar further into the ground. i don't see how it's good if bush did it or if obama does it. granted obama's might actually save a bunch of state jobs and other stuff, it's still just instant gratification for a much larger problem (we can't manage our money)

Arlos wrote:Well, I know some positive effect it's already having, actually. A guy I know runs a contractor business. Up to recently he employed about 50 people, but he just laid off 15 of them, because business had slowed so much. With all of the infrastructure, school, etc. construction in the bill, he's already preparing bids for some of the projects, and if he even gets part of what he's bidding on, he'll be adding those 15 people back on again, and even hiring additional people on.

Since I can't imagine he's unique, I for one view that as a good sign, especially since construction has been one of the hardest hit sectors in all this mess.

-Arlos

Narrock wrote:

Arlos wrote:Well, I know some positive effect it's already having, actually. A guy I know runs a contractor business. Up to recently he employed about 50 people, but he just laid off 15 of them, because business had slowed so much. With all of the infrastructure, school, etc. construction in the bill, he's already preparing bids for some of the projects, and if he even gets part of what he's bidding on, he'll be adding those 15 people back on again, and even hiring additional people on.

Since I can't imagine he's unique, I for one view that as a good sign, especially since construction has been one of the hardest hit sectors in all this mess.

-Arlos

He better hope he's not caucasian.

brinstar wrote:alright then porkchop, please explain to us how the market will "correct itself" if left to its own devices

this ought to be good

Diekan wrote:

brinstar wrote:alright then porkchop, please explain to us how the market will "correct itself" if left to its own devices

this ought to be good

It wont. Out-of-control capitalism can be tanked for this entire mess. Eight years of the government turning a blind eye to the goings on of what big business was doing and you get what we see.