Obama: 'We can't spend our way out of this recession'

[werepossum]

Why would we want to artificially redistribute wealth?

If I build a business up from nothing and employ 1000s of people, is that not me redistributing my wealth to other people? When the government steps in and says "You need to redistribute MORE of your wealth" is when we start getting problems. My 1000s of workers now don't feel the need to work as hard as they used to, because now they'll get the same benefits anyway.

Artificial redistribution of wealth distorts the economy and causes a massive devaluation of the dollar. In addition, it causes prices to increase.

Right now, at this very minute, we can blame our economic hardship on the fact that the government decided that wealth should be redistributed and that more people should own homes. This, and the credit the Fed created out of thin air along with the CRA forcing lower lending standards on banks and the governmental guarantee over Fannie and Freddy, drove home prices up to levels that were not sustainable in the free market. People saw this equity and felt more wealthy than they really were. They stopped saving as much and started buying things they could not really afford, which in turn caused artificially high demand in all sectors of the economy. When the reality of these funny loans started to show itself, people simply defaulted.

Had the Fed not artificially increased the amount of credit available, and had the government not guaranteed the investments of Fannie and Freddy, the free market would have held these investment practices in check. They would not have been profitable. Right this very minute, we would have lower average prices in all aspects of the economy, we would have more wealth overall, and we would in general be better off.

You can't argue this. It is the reality of the situation. Tampering with the free market is not a good thing.

Personally I don't want to redistribute wealth at all, or at least as little as possible, but liberals believe government must do this to make a fair and equitable society. For instance, the thread about how conservatives view fairness. If you work hard and succeed, your children have more advantages. Conservatives would say this is the point of life - to work hard and provide your children with advantages you didn't have, so that they can have a better life in turn. Liberals would say this is systematic discrimination because the children of poor people start off at a severe disadvantage - which is true - and thus think they should seize wealth and redistribute it so that each generation starts off even.

I'm more of the conservative bent myself but it's important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses for both viewpoints. Whether the conservative or liberal positions are better morally, or better for the economy and society, must be determined by each individual according to his or her beliefs and the evidence around us, as both are largely subjective and untestable, at least directly.

 

[drebo]

I'm more of the conservative bent myself but it's important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses for both viewpoints. Whether the conservative or liberal positions are better morally, or better for the economy and society, must be determined by each individual according to his or her beliefs and the evidence around us, as both are largely subjective and untestable, at least directly.

I think you're somewhat wrong on this last point.

Entitlement programs and forced redistribution of wealth have shown demonstrably negative effects on both local and national economies. Whether it's the recent housing bust or the higher price of milk at the grocery store, these higher prices are direct results of artificially inflated credit markets which lead people to believe they had more money than they really did.

I will never begrudge a person their food, but it is not the federal government's job to make sure that everyone is fed. Long ago, before entitlement programs were formalized, there existed private charity organizations (most of which run by religious entities) which took care of people who were on tough times. The Red Cross, Gospel Missions, Soup Kitchens, Salvation Army, Good Will, Meals-on-Wheels...these are all places where people can go to get aid, none of which need to be government sponsored. Charity is a virtue that exists in most humans without the forced redistribution of wealth the government see as necessary. Let the market take care of itself.

 

[bamacre]

LOL

"'We can't spend our way out of this recession, but dammit, we're going to try!"

 

[blackangst1]

Wait what?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CF8SIO0&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama outlined new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals Tuesday, saying the nation must continue to "spend our way out of this recession" until more Americans are back at work.

 

[Sinsear]

Wait what?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CF8SIO0&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama outlined new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals Tuesday, saying the nation must continue to "spend our way out of this recession" until more Americans are back at work.

Priceless. President of Lies.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Priceless. President of Lies.

...and the brave Republicans would do a better job because...? To hear you tell it, you make it sound like the Republicans would lie less and that they would enact policies to promote a healthier economy.

So, why haven't those brave Republicans advocated an end to the H-1B and L-1 visa programs yet? Why haven't they advocated for tariffs and an end to foreign outsourcing? Why haven't they called for an end to mass legal immigration and an end to illegal immigration and the deportation of the illegals? Oh, yeah, that's right! The Republicans represent wealthy interests that benefit from all of those global labor arbitrage policies at the expense of the lower classes.

 

[werepossum]

I think you're somewhat wrong on this last point.

Entitlement programs and forced redistribution of wealth have shown demonstrably negative effects on both local and national economies. Whether it's the recent housing bust or the higher price of milk at the grocery store, these higher prices are direct results of artificially inflated credit markets which lead people to believe they had more money than they really did.

I will never begrudge a person their food, but it is not the federal government's job to make sure that everyone is fed. Long ago, before entitlement programs were formalized, there existed private charity organizations (most of which run by religious entities) which took care of people who were on tough times. The Red Cross, Gospel Missions, Soup Kitchens, Salvation Army, Good Will, Meals-on-Wheels...these are all places where people can go to get aid, none of which need to be government sponsored. Charity is a virtue that exists in most humans without the forced redistribution of wealth the government see as necessary. Let the market take care of itself.

I would never deny that entitlements and wealth distribution are bad economically. My point was that liberals believe these things make us a more fair society and that the economic hit is worth it to achieve that fairness. And I have no problem with private charities using their resources to feed the hungry, especially as opposed to lobbying Congress for a gay marriage amendment or a ban on teaching evolution or whatever nutbag legislation the left wants at the moment, but I can also appreciate the dignity and peace of mind in having a regular check and a place to live, as opposed to soup kitchens, for those truly unable to work or for periods of double-digit unemployment like today.

I would relabel all entitlement programs as charity, though, if I had my druthers.

 

[exar333]

Hear, hear!

BTW, Dan Quayle is actually very smart. Al Gore, by contrast, is dumb as a box of rocks.

True. His infamous spelling incident wouldn't have been anything these days. He would have been in the classroom, on a computer with a projector, and spellcheck would have fixed the issue instantly.

I wasn't a huge fan of his, but he really did get a bad rap...

 

[piasabird]

What Obamma really means is it is ok for all his rich liberal friends to get your money, but the little people do not deserve any unless they want an abortion or child support for unwed sluts.