George Bush the Socialist, stealing money from you and me

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Hooray for less taxes... too bad it doesn't matter a damn when you have a ballooning federal defecit coming from this administration. If you have ever taken a course on Macroeconomics, you know that in order to counter these defecits, you have to take one of these steps: a) Print more money b) Borrow more money or c) Eventually hike taxes back up. Please tell me how any of these scenarios spur long-term economic growth? In fact, if you print more money (which the government is doing), all you do is create inflation and in essence hike the price of products, in effect, giving the consumer a 'hidden tax'. Essentially, it's a sneaky way of making simpletons think they'll have more money with a tax cut. It would only be true if you cut government spending as well.

Here's my take on what is going to happen: Government spending will grow to such an astronomical proportion, government's 'bubble' will burst, thus we will have to raise taxes again. It happened during the Reagan/Bush Sr. Era, i guarantee you, it will happen again. This, folks, is why Keneysian economics will always fail.

And here's an excellent article by Libertarian commentator, Llana Mercer, on her take on Keneysian economics relating to the war:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32310

"It is often sadly remarked," wrote Henry Hazlitt, the distinguished free-market writer, "that the bad economists present their errors to the public better than the good economists present their truths." This, averred Hazlitt, comes about because the bad economists are presenting half-truths.

These wholesale liars owe their perpetual popularity to the intellectual legitimacy they provide to the plundering class, the politicians. For what politician would not welcome an economist who, with the aid of indecipherable econometrics, legitimizes immoral power and property grabs?

This is why the anti-free-market central planning advocated by the late John Maynard Keynes has been embraced with renewed verve by George Bush. Like any good Keynesian, Bush believes that big government ? huge public works ? and big deficits are not a bane but a blessing, to be adopted as the key to economic boom.

Hazlitt further hammered home that "the art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

Although you won't find a Keynesian suggesting that in order to create jobs in their own communities, people should set fire to their homes, and so help spur economic activity among local builders, landscapers, plumbers and electricians, the very same "experts" have no qualms touting the economic benefits that accrue from taking a wrecking ball to an entire country. They do, after all stand by the absurdity that war is good for the economy.

The truth is that a war ? especially a gratuitous one ? always destroys individually owned real assets and capital. In the short term, it will benefit some at the expense of others; in the long run, it benefits none.

According to figures provided by Yale professor William Nordhaus and the Council of Foreign Relations, the eventual costs of the war on Iraq will be roughly $1.2 trillion.

Mr. Bush, however, proudly presides over a budget deficit, the official upbeat estimate of which is $375 billion. Since this figure doesn't include off-budget spending, and since estimates of the preliminary costs of the war run to $200 billion, the deficit is more likely to be close to $600 billion.

And since there's no free lunch, who will pay for the debauchery?

The finances for the war, of course, will come from the private economy. For every dollar the government spends, a dollar is suctioned from you and me. For every new smiling military recruit sitting pretty with a home, a porch and a pension, some poor sod will join the army of (9 million) unemployed. Wartime socialism thus involves a massive transfer of private property to state ownership ? it's a confiscation of large portions of the private economy.

Given its debt, the U.S. government is fast becoming a bad risk as a borrower. To finance the war, then, it'll have to steal over and above the usual call of duty.

Unlike "The Shrub" currently in power, Ronald Reagan understood a thing or two. He said this: "The truth is that inflation is caused by government. It's caused by government spending more than it takes in, and it will go away just as soon as government stops doing that."

More precisely, having adopted deficit spending as an article of faith, Bush will call on the Federal Reserve and the printing press to print money in order to pay the costs of the war. Inflation is an increase in the money supply. The endemic price hikes and economic distortions that follow are but a byproduct of this legalized counterfeiting.

The reports of freshly minted dollars making their way from the Federal Reserve Bank to millions of Iraqis, now on the U.S. payroll, suggest that the money market is already being flooded. The first counterfeit downpayment on the war will be making its way shortly into the coffers of the selected war contractors and their employees.

So why is this so bad? Doesn't more paper money make us all richer?

Hazlitt's lucidity applies here too. When the initial $1 billion worth of new money is given to corporate cronies like Kellogg Brown & Root, the construction arm of Cheney's Halliburton, and the Bechtel Corporation, it will immediately spur an artificially created demand, causing their suppliers to raise their prices. It'll take time, but the new money will generate price hikes throughout the economy.

Rest assured, though, that Bechtel's George Schultz, the former secretary of state, who is also the chairman of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, will get his honey well before you taste any, unless, of course, you work for said company or for the Parsons Corporation, or the Louis Berger Group or any other of the industries involved in war profiteering.

Rest assured too that another Bechtel senior vice president by the name of Jack Sheehan, who, according to the Observer, is also "a retired general who sits on the Defense Policy Board which advises the Pentagon," will enjoy a fat check well before the general price increases caused by all the new money affect his purchasing power. Jack will get to spend the new wads before counterfeit coinage spreads across the economy, causing prices to rise.

By the time you and I, politically unconnected suckers that we are, experience a meager rise in money income, rising prices will have obliterated the tiny gain.

Bush's wartime socialism involves diverting massive amounts of privately owned property to inherently unproductive government endeavors. In the process of forcibly creating a demand for certain wartime products and shifting production away from others, the government skews a consumer-driven production pattern. Since there are no freebies, those working for this centrally planned command economy will benefit while others will foot the bill.
 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
Hooray for less taxes... too bad it doesn't matter a damn when you have a ballooning federal defecit coming from this administration. If you have ever taken a course on Macroeconomics, you know that in order to counter these defecits, you have to take one of these steps: a) Print more money b) Borrow more money or c) Eventually hike taxes back up. Please tell me how any of these scenarios spur long-term economic growth? In fact, if you print more money (which the government is doing), all you do is create inflation and in essence hike the price of products, in effect, giving the consumer a 'hidden tax'. Essentially, it's a sneaky way of making simpletons think they'll have more money with a tax cut. It would only be true if you cut government spending as well.

Here's my take on what is going to happen: Government spending will grow to such an astronomical proportion, government's 'bubble' will burst, thus we will have to raise taxes again. It happened during the Reagan/Bush Sr. Era, i guarantee you, it will happen again. This, folks, is why Keneysian economics will always fail.

And here's an excellent article by Libertarian commentator, Llana Mercer, on her take on Keneysian economics relating to the war:


Sometimes you folks crack me up LMFAO

:D

Edit: I quoted the whole damn thing......aren't the keneysians the ones who cloned the baby with that ugly French broad???
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
What else would you expect from a 'C' student that couldn't grasp what he took in college.
He has failed in every business he tried to run, but was cashed out by Family Contacts.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
What else would you expect from a 'C' student that couldn't grasp what he took in college.
He has failed in every business he tried to run, but was cashed out by Family Contacts.
Correction, he failed every business he tried to run that wasn't subsidized by public money (Texas Rangers Stadium).
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
What else would you expect from a 'C' student that couldn't grasp what he took in college.
He has failed in every business he tried to run, but was cashed out by Family Contacts.

Only an America can a completely inept moron grow up to become president of the US. God bless the US. Oh wait, his daddy was rich and was also the president. Never mind.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
The funny part, is this guy has called George Bush everything but a Democrat!

Communist, Fascist, Socialist, Nationalist, Warmonger.

So what he's going to do, if I understand things correctly...

First he'll get everyone on-bard (Nationalist)
Then he'll go to war (warmonger)
Then he'll turn into a dictator and take everything away from us (Fascist)
Then he'll decide that was a bit too much, so change over and share power with his party (communist)
But that will still be too much, so he'll return most stuff to the private sector (socialist)
Only one step left to the D-word!!

C student guys? this Phokus guy slept through every politics class he ever attended...
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
Short Description of Keynesian Economics

besides milton friedman, john keynes is probably one of the most famous "household" name economists.

i agree with phokus, government spending needs to be reined in in order for these tax cuts to have any affect (as greespan alluded to a few months ago). republicans like to say they're the "fiscally" responsible ones, but the last few that we've had have created so much government bloat and deficits it really leads me to wonder....anyway, it looks like bush will probably take 2004, but at least the president in 2008 (non-republican hopefully), will ride the coattails of bush's economic mishaps into recovery, much like clinton did with reagan and bush sr.'s mishaps.
 

bulldawg

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,215
1
76
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
What else would you expect from a 'C' student that couldn't grasp what he took in college.
He has failed in every business he tried to run, but was cashed out by Family Contacts.

Only an America can a completely inept moron grow up to become president of the US. God bless the US. Oh wait, his daddy was rich and was also the president. Never mind.

Economics - Yep

English Grammer - Nope.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
What else would you expect from a 'C' student that couldn't grasp what he took in college.
He has failed in every business he tried to run, but was cashed out by Family Contacts.

Only an America can a completely inept moron grow up to become president of the US. God bless the US. Oh wait, his daddy was rich and was also the president. Never mind.

And you've been you Yale and Havard I suppose?
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
What else would you expect from a 'C' student that couldn't grasp what he took in college.
He has failed in every business he tried to run, but was cashed out by Family Contacts.

Only an America can a completely inept moron grow up to become president of the US. God bless the US. Oh wait, his daddy was rich and was also the president. Never mind.

And you've been you Yale and Havard I suppose?

I would have if my daddy was a legacy and I hailed from a rich and famous family.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
I have to agree the Republicans are offering very little in the way fiscal restraint. That being said they are better than the alternative. The democrats in DC that are screaming the loudest right now about a lack of balanced budget are the same ones that were pushing for more spending.
 

prometheusxls

Senior member
Apr 27, 2003
830
0
0
Originally posted by: drewshin
Short Description of Keynesian Economics

besides milton friedman, john keynes is probably one of the most famous "household" name economists.

i agree with phokus, government spending needs to be reined in in order for these tax cuts to have any affect (as greespan alluded to a few months ago). republicans like to say they're the "fiscally" responsible ones, but the last few that we've had have created so much government bloat and deficits it really leads me to wonder....anyway, it looks like bush will probably take 2004, but at least the president in 2008 (non-republican hopefully), will ride the coattails of bush's economic mishaps into recovery, much like clinton did with reagan and bush sr.'s mishaps.

Who says bush will take 2004? I swear there is very little going right in this country with the economy and all that. High unemployment, hiring freezes, and cut backs throughout industry. So who is doing so well right now? I just graduated from university in engineering and I can't find a job anywhere. All my friends are unemployed or employed significantly below their expectations. That is a very bad sign IMO.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
I have to agree the Republicans are offering very little in the way fiscal restraint. That being said they are better than the alternative. The democrats in DC that are screaming the loudest right now about a lack of balanced budget are the same ones that were pushing for more spending.

What spending would that be? Homeland security?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: prometheusxls
Originally posted by: drewshin
Short Description of Keynesian Economics

besides milton friedman, john keynes is probably one of the most famous "household" name economists.

i agree with phokus, government spending needs to be reined in in order for these tax cuts to have any affect (as greespan alluded to a few months ago). republicans like to say they're the "fiscally" responsible ones, but the last few that we've had have created so much government bloat and deficits it really leads me to wonder....anyway, it looks like bush will probably take 2004, but at least the president in 2008 (non-republican hopefully), will ride the coattails of bush's economic mishaps into recovery, much like clinton did with reagan and bush sr.'s mishaps.

Who says bush will take 2004? I swear there is very little going right in this country with the economy and all that. High unemployment, hiring freezes, and cut backs throughout industry. So who is doing so well right now? I just graduated from university in engineering and I can't find a job anywhere. All my friends are unemployed or employed significantly below their expectations. That is a very bad sign IMO.

I would have to agree Bush is not a shoe in for 2004. But 5.8% unemployment is not high, as 5% is considered full employment. The economy is in slowgrowth at this point and hopefully will pick up now that most of the dotcom ugliness, corperate scandals and the uncertainty of war is gone.

The economy could be alot better right now, but by the same token, it could be alot worse.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
I have to agree the Republicans are offering very little in the way fiscal restraint. That being said they are better than the alternative. The democrats in DC that are screaming the loudest right now about a lack of balanced budget are the same ones that were pushing for more spending.

What spending would that be? Homeland security?

That would be one of the many items that the democrats think Bush did not spend enough on. I am quite disappointed that the Bush busted the budget as bad as he did given the war at this point has only cost around $20billion.
 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,305
0
76
he will probably ask you if you're retarded and write something like republican.txt
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,588
6,713
126
I'm impressed that somebody who called the original poster a possible C student would now use his thesis to condemn Obama.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Hooray for less taxes... too bad it doesn't matter a damn when you have a ballooning federal defecit coming from this administration. If you have ever taken a course on Macroeconomics, you know that in order to counter these defecits, you have to take one of these steps: a) Print more money b) Borrow more money or c) Eventually hike taxes back up. Please tell me how any of these scenarios spur long-term economic growth? In fact, if you print more money (which the government is doing), all you do is create inflation and in essence hike the price of products, in effect, giving the consumer a 'hidden tax'. Essentially, it's a sneaky way of making simpletons think they'll have more money with a tax cut. It would only be true if you cut government spending as well.

Here's my take on what is going to happen: Government spending will grow to such an astronomical proportion, government's 'bubble' will burst, thus we will have to raise taxes again. It happened during the Reagan/Bush Sr. Era, i guarantee you, it will happen again. This, folks, is why Keneysian economics will always fail.

And here's an excellent article by Libertarian commentator, Llana Mercer, on her take on Keneysian economics relating to the war:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32310

lulz! Nice one, Phokus.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
I knew something was amiss as soon as I saw Phokus refer to an article by a libertarian as excellent.