why won't Obama stop talking?

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: senseamp
Cato institute is a right wing think tank. Nice objective source? LOL

Yah sure it is because you said it was. And all those economists are working at all those right wing universities.

The Cato Institute is a self described libertarian think tank. As far as economics go, libertarianism is about as far to the right as you can go. So no, it's not because he said it was, it's because they say they are.

The purpose of their ad was to call out Obama for saying there is 'no disagreement' on the need for a stimulus package, and they were right on that. Your post that 'people who understand stimulus disagree strongly', is equally misleading however as there are legions and legions of economists, professors, and Nobel laureates who strongly agree that we need a stimulus package.

Actually, that's not their self-description if you'd bothered to read their website. And libertarianism is not right wing, economics or otherwise.

Lastly their are legions of people agreeing stimulus is needed, myself included. Too bad that's not what this bill is mostly comprised of.

The bill will pass and it will be relatively ineffective as stimulus, at best slowing the descent. The president and and congress you longed for will pile up debt at a far greater rate than GWB, with a far worse economy. That's my prediction. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[theeedude]

The federal government needs to assist states through this crisis, something the Republicans demanded be reduced to get their puny 3 vote support.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: senseamp
Cato institute is a right wing think tank. Nice objective source? LOL

Yah sure it is because you said it was. And all those economists are working at all those right wing universities.

No, because they said they were on their website:

Cato's Mission

The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.

Their mission is limited government. Which is fine, but they are not objective on the subject.
As far as economists, OK, so not everyone agrees. Not everyone agrees with theory of relativity either.

Do you even know what right wing means? The right wing has nothing to do with free markets. See: GW Bush.

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe it time to put this all in perspective.

GWB&co is almost beyond all doubt the worst President in American history with his spend and borrow polices that have wrecked not only the American economy, but the world economy as well.

Well cheer up, GWB&co financed a two trillion dollar expansion of the American economy, but it only cost 4.5 trillion in expanded national debt. Which does not even count the tarp bailout plan of 800 billion
administered by Hank the Crank Paulson which has amounted to a Monty hall leave no banker behind bailout with zero accountability.

Is there any wonder that the American people fired the republirats?

Leaving the GOP no room to say their policies worK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Yet the GOP who cannot lead, cannot follow, and can't get out of the way have any room to claim the democratic plan is sure to fail when it has not even started yet?????????????????????????????????????

Get over it GOP, YOU GOT FIRED TWICE. AND NO ONE WILL REHIRE YOU UNTIL YOU GET OVER OBSTRUCTIONISM.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The Cato Institute is a self described libertarian think tank. As far as economics go, libertarianism is about as far to the right as you can go. So no, it's not because he said it was, it's because they say they are.

Are you stupid?

Do you know what it means to be to "the right?"

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Actually, that's not their self-description if you'd bothered to read their website. And libertarianism is not right wing, economics or otherwise.

Lastly their are legions of people agreeing stimulus is needed, myself included. Too bad that's not what this bill is mostly comprised of.

The bill will pass and it will be relatively ineffective as stimulus, at best slowing the descent. The president and and congress you longed for will pile up debt at a far greater rate than GWB, with a far worse economy. That's my prediction. I hope I'm wrong.

You realize they named themselves after a 'series of libertarian pamphlets', right? I will quote from their "About" section on their website, that you definitely should have 'bothered to read'.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

Secondly, libertarianism is most certainly economically right wing by the commonly accepted interpretation of the political and economic spectrum. If you want to use some other non-mainstream metric to evaluate it you are more than welcome to do so.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The Cato Institute is a self described libertarian think tank. As far as economics go, libertarianism is about as far to the right as you can go. So no, it's not because he said it was, it's because they say they are.

Are you stupid?

Do you know what it means to be to "the right?"

Give it up already, you are just making yourself look like a moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_right

Today, the term right is used to describe political groups who stress the importance of conspectuses like nationalism, tradition, and/or religion and who oppose socialism and communism in favor of laissez-faire capitalism and free markets.

Libertarians and right wingers have same positions on economic policy. The difference is on social issues.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

FDR was a failure and has caused us many of the problems we have today with his new deal crap.

prove? bringing us out of the great depression is a failure? wtf?

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
What we don't need is more gov't dependence

FYI, many states are already bankrupt.. so you want all state governments to disassemble due to bankrupsy? which will end up with only one single federal governemnt? wtf is wrong with you?

this

now in stock at $0.99 book store bargain bin, take additional 70% off.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alchemize

Actually, that's not their self-description if you'd bothered to read their website. And libertarianism is not right wing, economics or otherwise.

Lastly their are legions of people agreeing stimulus is needed, myself included. Too bad that's not what this bill is mostly comprised of.

The bill will pass and it will be relatively ineffective as stimulus, at best slowing the descent. The president and and congress you longed for will pile up debt at a far greater rate than GWB, with a far worse economy. That's my prediction. I hope I'm wrong.

You realize they named themselves after a 'series of libertarian pamphlets', right? I will quote from their "About" section on their website, that you definitely should have 'bothered to read'.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

Secondly, libertarianism is most certainly economically right wing by the commonly accepted interpretation of the political and economic spectrum. If you want to use some other non-mainstream metric to evaluate it you are more than welcome to do so.

Oh, bravo to you for getting to the first paragraph. Curse you Thomas Jefferson, you wingnut!

Guess you didn't bother with this part:

How to Label Cato
Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law--call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy.

Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is--or used to be--the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, China, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society's problems. We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The Cato Institute is a self described libertarian think tank. As far as economics go, libertarianism is about as far to the right as you can go. So no, it's not because he said it was, it's because they say they are.

Are you stupid?

Do you know what it means to be to "the right?"

No, but it would appear that you are. Actually, taking into account your posting history it's more likely you're just ignorant. Do YOU know what it means to be to the right?

The common left/right political economic spectrum puts pure libertarianism at the far end of both economic freedom, (which is on the right of the spectrum), and at the maximum personal freedom (which is at the top of the spectrum).

Do yourself a favor, do a Google image search for 'political spectrum'. There you will see the most commonly used iteration of the charts by which ideology are plotted. You will see economic liberalism on the right. (note: sometimes this is shifted 45 degrees) Left and right are of course arbitrary distinctions, as it might as well be up or down, but since we are human beings speaking English, we tend to use common phrases and symbols to communicate. Thus, libertarianism is economically on the right.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alchemize

-cut-

No, I read the whole thing. They state that in their opinion none of those labels accurately describes them, and that they consider themselves liberals.

Then they go on to say that in the common terms used today what they stand for has come to be known as 'libertarianism'.

This is not difficult.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

FDR was a failure and has caused us many of the problems we have today with his new deal crap.

prove? bringing us out of the great depression is a failure? wtf?

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
What we don't need is more gov't dependence

FYI, many states are already bankrupt.. so you want all state governments to disassemble due to bankrupsy? which will end up with only one single federal governemnt? wtf is wrong with you?

this

now in stock at $0.99 book store bargain bin, take additional 70% off.

May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. ... I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt, to boot."

 

[nageov3t]

can't believe how this thread exploded... I was eating breakfast before setting about to do chores around the house and was just really annoyed that all the news channels were broadcasting Obama give the same speech we've heard a thousand times before instead of telling me what's going on in the world.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. ... I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt, to boot."

bolded was proven false due to :

1. we successfully ended the Great Depression
2. became #1 world power for many years
2. and prospered for another 60+ years.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The Cato Institute is a self described libertarian think tank. As far as economics go, libertarianism is about as far to the right as you can go. So no, it's not because he said it was, it's because they say they are.

Are you stupid?

Do you know what it means to be to "the right?"

Lassiez faire is a staple of contemporary right-leaning thought.

Left wing Libertarians Bakunin, Kropotkin for example having nothing to do with CATO or Ayn Rand type idealogies and are pretty much their opposites.


Just because lassiez faire was called "Liberal" a few centuries ago does not = the modern left.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: alchemize
People who understand stimulus disagree, strongly.

Or is the Cato institute and all those economists at those universities...wingnuts?

Oh, gee. I've got a big list of economists too, all of whom AGREE with Obama's stimulus. How many Nobel prize winners in YOUR list?

Text

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Budmantom

May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. ... I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt, to boot."

bolded was proven false due to :

1. we successfully ended the Great Depression
2. became #1 world power for many years
2. and prospered for another 60+ years.

No WWII ended the great depression. Building tank, airplanes and ammo etc put people to work and ended the great depression. All this porkulus will do is put us more in debt which will come back to bite us in the ass. Things like porkuls will be paid for by young people getting screwed by SS.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Budmantom

May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. ... I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt, to boot."

bolded was proven false due to :

1. we successfully ended the Great Depression
2. became #1 world power for many years
2. and prospered for another 60+ years.

No WWII ended the great depression. Building tank, airplanes and ammo etc put people to work and ended the great depression. All this porkulus will do is put us more in debt which will come back to bite us in the ass. Things like porkuls will be paid for by young people getting screwed by SS.

the New Deal helped to ease the depression and build important road and rails which were necessary for transportation of WWII goods to end depression.

Transportation build during New Deal has given us great foundation for economic trade etc, whch helped us proper for 60 yrs until now.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: loki8481
why won't Obama stop talking?

After reading today's news - another $trillion for banks and the Healthcare stuff hidden in the stimulus bill - he's probably gonna be doing a lot more talking.

I don't think those 2 items I mention above are helpful to his cause (pass the bill NOW!!!!), I'm surpised they didn't hold off on the new/extra $1 trillion bank plan?

Fern

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Budmantom

May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. ... I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt, to boot."

bolded was proven false due to :

1. we successfully ended the Great Depression
2. became #1 world power for many years
2. and prospered for another 60+ years.

You may want to show your proof to Henry Morgenthau.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Budmantom

May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. ... I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt, to boot."

bolded was proven false due to :

1. we successfully ended the Great Depression
2. became #1 world power for many years
2. and prospered for another 60+ years.

No WWII ended the great depression. Building tank, airplanes and ammo etc put people to work and ended the great depression. All this porkulus will do is put us more in debt which will come back to bite us in the ass. Things like porkuls will be paid for by young people getting screwed by SS.

the New Deal helped to ease the depression and build important road and rails which were necessary for transportation of WWII goods to end depression.

Transportation build during New Deal has given us great foundation for economic trade etc, whch helped us proper for 60 yrs until now.

To bad most of this porkulus is not infrastructure spending. It is mostly tax cuts welfare and misc pork very little infrastructure. If the bill was 50% infrastructure then I could get behind it. I just can't get behind spending a trillion on welfare and Frisbee parks.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: quest55720

To bad most of this porkulus is not infrastructure spending. It is mostly tax cuts welfare and misc pork very little infrastructure. If the bill was 50% infrastructure then I could get behind it. I just can't get behind spending a trillion on welfare and Frisbee parks.

Spoken like somebody who lets others do the thinking for them.... congrats!

I can't speak for the whole nation but over here in Cali much of the 'Calworks' projects that have been postponed are chomping at the bit to get these federal funds to continue working.

That means a TON of contracts get paid, and a TON of people earning paychecks. Which means more money being spent in the local economy.

And those projects aren't 'frisbee' parks either.

You say, "If the bill was 50% infrastructure then I could get behind it" but I really don't believe you know wtf you are talking about. The Department of Transportation here in CA is looking at a HUGE boost in Federal funds....its going to get more projects online than it can currently handle and again that translates into jobs and spending.

I think realistically the proper amount of moneys are being proposed on infrastructure...any more money allocated towards infrastructure and you would have an overflow of cash that States wouldn't know how to spend rapidly enough.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Budmantom

May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. ... I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt, to boot."

bolded was proven false due to :

1. we successfully ended the Great Depression
2. became #1 world power for many years
2. and prospered for another 60+ years.

No WWII ended the great depression. Building tank, airplanes and ammo etc put people to work and ended the great depression. All this porkulus will do is put us more in debt which will come back to bite us in the ass. Things like porkuls will be paid for by young people getting screwed by SS.

the New Deal helped to ease the depression and build important road and rails which were necessary for transportation of WWII goods to end depression.

Transportation build during New Deal has given us great foundation for economic trade etc, whch helped us proper for 60 yrs until now.

To bad most of this porkulus is not infrastructure spending. It is mostly tax cuts welfare and misc pork very little infrastructure. If the bill was 50% infrastructure then I could get behind it. I just can't get behind spending a trillion on welfare and Frisbee parks.

build hybrid engine , renewable energy development, reduce waste, science facilities, high-speed Internet access to rural areas, transportation projects, transite project, water projects, school modernization, preventive care, health insurance subsidies, education..

are ALL INFRASTRUCTURE SPEND for a better future.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123202946622485595.html

Energy
$32 billion Funding for "smart electricity grid" to reduce waste
$20 billion + Renewable energy tax cuts and a tax credit for research and development on energy-related work, and a multiyear extension of renewable energy production tax credit
$6 billion Funding to weatherize modest-income homes



Science and Technology
$10 billion Science facilities
$6 billion High-speed Internet access for rural and underserved areas



Infrastructure
$32 billion Transportation projects
$31 billion Construction and repair of federal buildings and other public infrastructure
$19 billion Water projects
$10 billion Rail and mass transit projects



Education
$41 billion Grants to local school districts
$79 billion State fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid
$21 billion School modernization



Health Care
$39 billion Subsidies to health insurance for unemployed; providing coverage through Medicaid
$90 billion Help to states with Medicaid
$20 billion Modernization of health-information technology systems
$4 billion Preventative care

TOTAL: 400 billion infrastructure spending ~50% of stimulus bill

other 50% are for tax deduction (stimulate economy) + rescue business.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: loki8481
can't believe how this thread exploded... I was eating breakfast before setting about to do chores around the house and was just really annoyed that all the news channels were broadcasting Obama give the same speech we've heard a thousand times before instead of telling me what's going on in the world.

Now you know that millions of other petty little fools with nothing to do but bitch about this or that neurotic quirk are out there too.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: quest55720

To bad most of this porkulus is not infrastructure spending. It is mostly tax cuts welfare and misc pork very little infrastructure. If the bill was 50% infrastructure then I could get behind it. I just can't get behind spending a trillion on welfare and Frisbee parks.

Spoken like somebody who lets others do the thinking for them.... congrats!

I can't speak for the whole nation but over here in Cali much of the 'Calworks' projects that have been postponed are chomping at the bit to get these federal funds to continue working.

That means a TON of contracts get paid, and a TON of people earning paychecks. Which means more money being spent in the local economy.

And those projects aren't 'frisbee' parks either.

You say, "If the bill was 50% infrastructure then I could get behind it" but I really don't believe you know wtf you are talking about. The Department of Transportation here in CA is looking at a HUGE boost in Federal funds....its going to get more projects online than it can currently handle and again that translates into jobs and spending.

I think realistically the proper amount of moneys are being proposed on infrastructure...any more money allocated towards infrastructure and you would have an overflow of cash that States wouldn't know how to spend rapidly enough.

That is the problem with peoples thinking that this needs to be fast a quick. I think a slower longer term is better. If it is quick they will be right back asking for more money in 2 years. If we would of put 400 billion into infrastructure over the next 5 years we would be much better off. Business people could plan for the next 5 years of producing goods to go into the infrastructure projects. That and we could get better planning for spending that money by taking a little time.

Also this is the government they always find a way to spend the money damn fast. Almost every community has a lot of infrastructure that needs repair or replacement.