• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama's Deficit Lies

Upchurch said:
If you can stimulate the economy without raising taxes or government spending, I'm all for it. As you have been unable to suggest a method to do so, can I assume that you just don't care about the economy, small businesses, and/or the general welfare of the country?
Click to expand...
How do you stimulate an economy by removing money from it?
 
Darat said:
What are his socialist policies?
Click to expand...

Sigh. Since you insist on trying to derail this thread with a side topic (and since I know there's no hope of an appeal if I complain ;)):

How about redistribution of wealth? Would you not agree that's a hallmark characteristic of socialist (and communist) systems? Would you not agree that redistribution of wealth is a major component of his announced budget plans and objectives?

How about Universal Health Care? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism defines socialism as "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." That sounds a lot like what Obama is proposing for healthcare. He will be taxing the wealthy to pay for health care for everyone. And the government will be in total control of that. In fact, language in the recently passed bill even made the government, not the doctor, the final word on what health care an individual needs. And here's what Ronald Reagan had to say on this subject http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs . :D
 
BeAChooser said:
Sigh. Since you insist on trying to derail this thread with a side topic (and since I know there's no hope of an appeal if I complain ;)):

How about redistribution of wealth? Would you not agree that's a hallmark characteristic of socialist (and communist) systems?
Click to expand...

No. "Redistribution of wealth" is a vague term that could apply to any economic system. Reagan's "trickle down economics" was, in every sense, "redistribution of wealth." It was not socialist.

How about Universal Health Care?
Click to expand...

No. Obama's vision of "universal health care" involves as many people as possible being able to buy health coverage from private insurers. That isn't remotely socialist.

Care to try again?
 
WildCat said:
Taxes do.
Click to expand...
That's not what he asked. He asked if government spending removes money from the economy. As BAC loves to point out, the government is running at a deficit, which means there is drawing less in taxes than it is sending out in spending.

Not the ideal situation, but assuming you don't want the US economy to collapse, something needs to be done to get things moving again. Cutting taxes is a meaningless gesture when there is no money flowing to tax. Do you have a better idea?
 
Upchurch said:
That's not what he asked. He asked if government spending removes money from the economy. As BAC loves to point out, the government is running at a deficit, which means there is drawing less in taxes than it is sending out in spending.

Not the ideal situation, but assuming you don't want the US economy to collapse, something needs to be done to get things moving again. Cutting taxes is a meaningless gesture when there is no money flowing to tax. Do you have a better idea?
Click to expand...
The reality is the Obama admin. is increasing taxes on businesses. Do you think this is stimulus to hire more workers?
 
WildCat said:
He'd have been better off sending every man, woman, and child in the USA a check for $6,500. Would have been cheaper too.
Click to expand...

Anyone who sends my family a $26,000 check can have my vote for at least one more election.
 
WildCat said:
The reality is the Obama admin. is increasing taxes on businesses. Do you think this is stimulus to hire more workers?
Click to expand...
You've never actually been a part of running a business, have you?

I don't know what "increased taxes on businesses" you are referring to, but it irrelevant. Taxes are part of the cost of doing business. You don't hire or fire employees based on the amount of taxes you have to pay. That cost is past along to the client.

Employees are hired or fired based on the cost of labor versus the amount of work needed to be done over a given period of time. If the amount of work coming in can support the extra cost of more employees, you expand your work force to accommodate the work load. (The goal being to increase your capacity, to allow even more work to come in.) If the amount of work coming in dwindles to the point where you can't support your current work force, you cut back on employees.

Complaining about taxes in this situation is a red herring.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
By the way, I'm not a libertarian.
Click to expand...

Saying you are not does not mean that you are not, any more than saying that Obama is a socialist makes him a socialist.

You have stated on numerous occasions that you think taxation is theft at the point of a gun. That is a libertarian POV, and makes you a libertarian.
 
BeAChooser said:
When are you going to wake up and realize that this thread isn't about the stimulus bill? I suggest you re-read the OP. Do that and you'll discover that my quote from Krugman is spot on the topic regarding the MASSIVE deficits and National Debt that will build under Obama over the next ten years if OMB projections are correct.
Click to expand...
Krugman thinks the stimulus should be 1 trillion dollars larger. Would this not add to the deficit? You seem to be implying that Krugman does not think we should be running a deficit right now. This is patently false. Krugman clearly thinks the government should run a massive deficit for the next several years. Is that not the topic of the OP? :D
It is you that is cherry picking statements from Krugman and the others in an obvious attempt to derail the thread.
Click to expand...
It is a derail to a thread about the eeevils of deficits that a nobel laureate has quite loudly stated that he thinks a much higher deficit is warranted right now? It is cherry picking when this has been headline news from multiple sources? :rolleyes:
 
WildCat said:
He'd have been better off sending every man, woman, and child in the USA a check for $6,500. Would have been cheaper too.
Click to expand...
Are you honestly suggesting this as a course of action or are you being sarcastic?

If every man, woman, and child took that $6,500 and immediately spent it, then maybe. Odds are more likely that people would either save the money in light of the current crisis or use it to pay off debt. That does us no good, on the whole.
 
BeAChooser said:
Sigh. Since you insist on trying to derail this thread with a side topic (and since I know there's no hope of an appeal if I complain ;)):

How about redistribution of wealth? Would you not agree that's a hallmark characteristic of socialist (and communist) systems? Would you not agree that redistribution of wealth is a major component of his announced budget plans and objectives?
Click to expand...

Such as the Alaskan model of re-distribution of wealth then?

How about Universal Health Care? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism defines socialism as "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." That sounds a lot like what Obama is proposing for healthcare. He will be taxing the wealthy to pay for health care for everyone. And the government will be in total control of that. In fact, language in the recently passed bill even made the government, not the doctor, the final word on what health care an individual needs.
Click to expand...

Well it ain't that way in Canada.
My doctor , the doctor I choose, determines what measures I may need. I can change doctors any time I wish to, in fact my wife has changed doctors twice.

Now perhaps you'd like to list all of the developed countries in the world in which a strictly Capatalist health care system exists. After all it will be shorter than the list of developed countries with a universal health care system.
Are all of those on the longer list Socialist nations?
 
Cleon said:
No. "Redistribution of wealth" is a vague term that could apply to any economic system.
Click to expand...

Let's see what Wikipedia says about "redistribution of wealth": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth .

Proponents of redistribution may point to the fact that capitalism results in an unequal wealth distribution; for example the three richest people in the world possess more financial assets than the poorest 10% of the world's population (that is, the poorest 670 million people) combined.[citation needed] They also argue that economic inequality contributes to crime. There is also the issue of equal opportunity to access services such as education and health care.
Click to expand...

That sure looks to me like redistribution of wealth is not an argument that proponents of capitalism use to *justify* their system. Creation of wealth, yes. But redistribution? No. Because capitalism and the free market promise only equal *opportunity* ... not equality *of lifestyle*. Let's see what else Wikipedia says:

Historically, the phrase redistribution of wealth specifically refers to when assets are seized from one entity and redistributed to another entity in a process to cause economic equality (e.g land being taken from feudal lords and given to serfs). Communists believe redistribution of wealth is an approach to achieve economic equality. Socialists deem it necessary to keep the inequality gap from widening any further.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't see mention of capitalism requiring redistribution of wealth.

Cleon said:
Reagan's "trickle down economics" was, in every sense, "redistribution of wealth."
Click to expand...

ROTFLOL! What nonsense. Again, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics

"Trickle-down economics" and "trickle-down theory" are terms of political rhetoric that refer to the policy of providing tax cuts or other benefits to businesses and rich individuals, in the belief that this will indirectly benefit the broad population. ... snip ... Proponents of these policies claim that if the top income earners invest more into the business infrastructure and equity markets, it will in turn lead to more goods at lower prices, and create more jobs for middle and lower class individuals.
Click to expand...

That's clearly not socialism. That's capitalism.

Cleon said:
Obama's vision of "universal health care" involves as many people as possible being able to buy health coverage from private insurers. That isn't remotely socialist.
Click to expand...

More nonsense (is that all you can spout, Cleon?).

First, Obama's plan is socialist because the government would take control of about 1/7th of the US economy. Individuals will no longer have the freedom they now have where health care choices are concerned. Doctors will lose the power to make decisions. It will be politicians and bureaucrats in Washington who decide who gets treated for what, where, when and to a great extent by who.

Second, some 45 million people are claimed (true or not) by Obama to be without proper healthcare and the stated intent of his agenda is to provide them with as good a coverage as he and Biden got as Senators in Congress. Since Obama also claims they are without healthcare because they can't afford it, obviously someone else will have to pay for their healthcare. That implies a redistribution of wealth, with the "wealthy" paying for the health care of those 45 million people through government seizure of some of their wealth. That makes it socialist. Why else do you think they call it "socialized medicine"? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom