McCain Promises To Ruin Economy

Try starting a business with no regard for making profits.

Go on.

Oh, wait, that's right; you think the gov't is going to create a business for you and provide your customers for you.

Wow, way to knock down that straw man you just constructed. It just fell right over, didn't it?

And no, conservatives do NOT believe in laisse faire.

And Christians don't believe in God.

It creates an environment for fraud and waste. For markets to be truly free and fair the terms of the transaction have to be defined.

For example, if 2 men agree to the sale of 10 pounds of flour for a dollar the government is within its proper role of defining what constitutes the terms "pound" and "flour" and "dollar". In practical terms that means the weight has a set example (the US government actually retains such things) and flour can be defined by its ingredients and grind (thus, say, cutting it with chalk dust would constitute fraud) and the dollar is the medium of economic activity.

Not only do conservatives agree with such things these things are enumerated in the Constitution. Did you know that?

Yes, I agree. Government should regulate markets, because individuals can't be trusted. Welcome to the Democratic Party.
 
Wow, way to knock down that straw man you just constructed. It just fell right over, didn't it?
Please provide argument as to how governments create markets and how markets--government or private--survive without profit motive.

And Christians don't believe in God.
How about showing where conservatives have called for laisse faire...

...or shall we just save ourselves the time and consider this your half-hearted, grumbling concession?

Yes, I agree. Government should regulate markets, because individuals can't be trusted. Welcome to the Democratic Party.
You don't suppose governments would happen to be run by individuals...do you? Why are you so eager to turn every facet of your life over to individuals with the force of government power at their disposal?

The scheme I was referring to gives the transactors legal recourse if either party violates the terms of the agreement but neither party had to beg government license to produce, sell or consume the flour. If you could at least learn the difference you may not necessarily be persuaded to set aside your socialist leanings but you would at least be able to properly formulate a counter argument as opposed to these non-statements that keep dribbling from your fingertips.
 
Please provide argument as to how governments create markets and how markets--government or private--survive without profit motive.

1. There is no such thing as a "free market."

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative belief in "free markets" is a bit like the Catholic Church's insistence that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System in the Twelfth Century. It's widely believed by those in power, those who challenge it are branded heretics and ridiculed, and it is wrong.

In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.

Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work.

Which explains why conservative economics wiped out the middle class during the period from 1880 to 1932, and why, when Reagan again began applying conservative economics, the middle class again began to vanish in America in the 1980s - a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush.

ThomHartmann.com - Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class
 
Dude! WTF!

He calls conservatives feudalists? FYI - feudal landlords lived on fixed incomes, not progressive taxation. They could only charge X rent for Y area and it was set.

As for governments creating currency...they PRINT currency but economic discourse governs its value. Print too much or two little and you have inflation/stagnantion.

And there is no need to refer to education, fire fighters and police as essential government services. Protecting populaces from force, fraud and calamity are natural functions of government (so too are militaries but naming that as a matter of economic health could lead to some uncomfortable--albeit misguided--confessions over the supposed motives for our war in Iraq). Those public services are locally provided so Obama and the dems lose their national mandate to confiscate those services.

Additionally, education can be provided privately--at lower cost and higher quality--so his argument falls flat.

So all in all we have sad caricatures, misstatements and self-contradiciting examples to once again illustrate everything that is wrong with progressive ideas.

Oh...that and the hundreds of ruined centrally-planned economies littered throughout history.
 
You read every page of your mortgage loan? That's really funny... because I can promise you didn't. Your lawyer said "sign here"; "sign here" and "sign here" and you did. Then they handed you a HUD 1 and maybe explained your charges. And that's a maybe IF you had a good attorney.
You sign so many papers, reams and reams of small print, you sign checks til you're hand hurts.

Damned right nobody reads that oiler plate crap. They have the money, you've busted your ass to find a place and do the paperwork. You wouldn't care if you were signing over your first born at a closing.

All you want is the keys so you can go have a smoke and start drinking champagne.


*Edit* And why do I believe that? Because a) you can't negotiate your mortgage loan, so if you want the money, there's pretty much no point to do anything but "sign here"; and b) things go pretty quickly at a closing and no one's waiting around while you read 50 pages of mortgage docs.

right. You can negotiate. You can walk out. That's you choice of course, but it's no choice really given how hard you worked to get to the closing.

Who among us had the interest rate mysteriously go up the day of closing?

I did. I refused to pay for the lock, so the bastards jimmied an 1/8 of a point out of me.

And, in case its escaped your attention, the free market doesn't correct for predatory lending... until things go BOOM... like they are.

Correct it?

It applaudes it!
 
You read every page of your mortgage loan? That's really funny... because I can promise you didn't. Your lawyer said "sign here"; "sign here" and "sign here" and you did. Then they handed you a HUD 1 and maybe explained your charges. And that's a maybe IF you had a good attorney.
You sign so many papers, reams and reams of small print, you sign checks til you're hand hurts.

Damned right nobody reads that oiler plate crap. They have the money, you've busted your ass to find a place and do the paperwork. You wouldn't care if you were signing over your first born at a closing.

All you want is the keys so you can go have a smoke and start drinking champagne.




right. You can negotiate. You can walk out. That's you choice of course, but it's no choice really given how hard you worked to get to the closing.

Who among us had the interest rate mysteriously go up the day of closing?

I did. I refused to pay for the lock, so the bastards jimmied an 1/8 of a point out of me.



Correct it?

It applaudes it!
My GAWD!

How do you people even get up in the morning. Do you need some government subsidzed nanny to wake you up, wash you, dress you and send you off to a government run job.

Grow up and grow a set. If you can't then maybe you do deserve to be slaves.
 
Barack Obama has a tax cut plan that pays for itself, and is fiscally responsible. It restores the tax system for the upper class to what it was pre-Bush, when the budget was actually balanced (and we ran a surplus, remember that?). John McCain's tax plan is fiscally irresponsible and depends heavily on deficit spending (which is in record territory with every year of the Bush administration). Barack Obama's tax plan will put return more income to more people, who will use it to help stimulate the economy through consumerism, while not paying for it with deficit spending. John McCain's tax plan returns income to very few people, who will have a negligible impact on the economy with their new spending.

The fiscally responsible thing to do is not to raise taxes and steal more people's money, it's to stop wasting so much of it in the first place on a bloated bureaucracy, pet projects, and military escapades around the world.

Cutting spending is the only thing that MIGHT fix this economy. And even THAT is a big MIGHT. I just fail to see how it's ever good in the long run to take money out of people's pockets, especially in a consumer-driven economy.

And please do tell how Universal Health Care is going to save us 200 billion dollars.
 
Obama will pull us out of Iraq, which will save us $200 billion dollars a year. Then universal healthcare will save us another $200 billion a year and make us more competitive. That's $1.6 trillion saved in Obama's first term.

You must have missed his interview with O'Rielly then. Obama stated that MOST ALL the troops currently in Iraq will simply be REDEPLOYED to Afghanistan!!! They ARE NOT coming home. And he intends to leave AT LEAST 20,000 there PERMANENTLY. That is Obama saying that, NOT McCain.
 
Barack Obama has a tax cut plan that pays for itself, and is fiscally responsible. It restores the tax system for the upper class to what it was pre-Bush, when the budget was actually balanced (and we ran a surplus, remember that?). John McCain's tax plan is fiscally irresponsible and depends heavily on deficit spending (which is in record territory with every year of the Bush administration). Barack Obama's tax plan will put return more income to more people, who will use it to help stimulate the economy through consumerism, while not paying for it with deficit spending. John McCain's tax plan returns income to very few people, who will have a negligible impact on the economy with their new spending.

We ran a surplus for two years because of the Tech boom which increased tax revenue from capital gains much faster than the government expected and so fast it took them two years to figure out how to spend it all. Then the boom busted, as all booms bust, and tax revenue caved in.

That's how tax revenue works. Has nothing to do with tax rates. The ONLY way Obama gets a balanced budget in his first term is if we have some sort of massive economic boom in something. What? I have no idea. There is a boom coming, in alternative energy technology, but it's going to take a lot longer than four years to get here and it will have nothing to do with a Presidential fiscal policy of any party.
 
I thought the New Deal was AFTER the war?

I heard something a while back about the GI bill after ww2 and how it not only helped the economy, it smarted up America.

Please explain what you mean by "it took a world war to fix the economy"?

And before Social Security, a lot of Americans died without dignity. Most Americans want it. It's not the program that sucks. It's the politicians, specifically the Republicans that are assuring that it won't be there in the future. The republicans are right that government doesn't work. At least not when they are running it. So maybe start putting two and two together, huh? The GOP doesn't like or want social security so the last three presidents each doubled the debt trying to bankrupt the treasury. Doesn't it seem that way to you? The same way they spread the military too thin so they could outsource it to Haloburton & blackwater & kbr, which all happen to be the same companies, run by Chaney and his buddies. How dumb are American voters? McCain you want? HA!!! He's a maverick? He was in Warshington even when Reagan was president.

Reagan $200 billion deficit
HW Bush $300 billion deficit
Clinton, $200 billion surplus
GW Bush $482 billion deficit

Facts are facts.

Social Security going bankrupt has nothing to do with how the program is run. It is a very simple to run program. It's simply that the rules behind the program did not keep the payments vs benifits equation in line by tieing the retirement age to the life expectancy age.

SS was first implemented in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 63. The age to collect was 65, two years BEYOND the average life expectancy. The average American in 1935 did not usually live long to "retire". It truly was an OLD AGE pension and you had to be VERY VERY OLD by the standard at the time to collect! SS collection age today should be 81 today by the same standard. If it was, SS would be in very excellent financial shape and it would still be true to its original intent, an OLD AGE pension for those who have EXCEEDED their life expectancy.

The term "retirement" was not even known in this country before the 1950's.
 
Clinton balanced his budget. He didn't pay down the debt. By design, the debt will NEVER be paid off. All our income taxes do is pay down interest on the national debt.

JP Morgan, Rockafellor & Carnege started the Federal Reserve. The more we go into debt, the more the people that own the Federal Reserve today benefit.

Bail out the banks? Sure, just put it on the debt. Everyone except the people of this country win.
Clinton had NO fiscal policy. Not one single Clinton economic legislative initiative was ever passed by Congress. He had a Republican congress for six of his eight years and in the first two, the Senate successfully fillibustered every single Clinton economic and tax bill.

We had a surplus because of massive unexpected capital gains and income tax revenue due to the .com and tech boom. the surplus took Congress so much by surprise that it took two years for them to figure out how to spend it all....which they did. then, pop! the boom busted and we went right back into deficit. Had NOTHING to do with anyones fiscal policy
 
My GAWD!

How do you people even get up in the morning. Do you need some government subsidzed nanny to wake you up, wash you, dress you and send you off to a government run job.

Grow up and grow a set. If you can't then maybe you do deserve to be slaves.

Don't get yourself all into a snit, 'roid. You'll drive yourself right into tizzy.

We, the American people, are fed up with the corporate aristocracy that has been slowly robbing us of our quality of life for the last 30 years. We're sort of like the French masses just before the Revolution, and if we don't get some satisfaction soon, heads will roll (metaphorically {probably}). We are THIS CLOSE to electing politicians who promise to SOAK THE RICH!
 
Don't get yourself all into a snit, 'roid. You'll drive yourself right into tizzy.

We, the American people, are fed up with the corporate aristocracy that has been slowly robbing us of our quality of life for the last 30 years. We're sort of like the French masses just before the Revolution, and if we don't get some satisfaction soon, heads will roll (metaphorically {probably}). We are THIS CLOSE to electing politicians who promise to SOAK THE RICH!

Well, Obama is hardly poised to "soak the rich".

This is Obama's declared Tax Policy based on his Bill O'Rielly interview

1) Raise the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 39%

2) Raise Capital Gains tax rate from 15% to 20%

3) Keep the SS tax cap where it is except remove it for that portion of income between $250,000 and $500,000


That's it! That's such as SMALL and INSIGNIFICANT, change that it will have NO real effect at all.

So what other politician are you thinking about? Obama sure isn't going to soak anyone. (He'd be soaking himself and even he's not that stupid)

And as for all those troops he intends to pull out of Iraq? According to his interview, he's simply going to redeploy them, NOT bring them home!!!

Guess you'd better find another politician.....
 
So what other politician are you thinking about? Obama sure isn't going to soak anyone.

No, I didn't mean Obama. I'm thinking of someone like Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders. Hell, maybe Nader if things get bad enough. If we get four more years of economic corn-holing we'll give America a REAL leftist.
 
Damned right nobody reads that oiler plate crap. They have the money, you've busted your ass to find a place and do the paperwork. You wouldn't care if you were signing over your first born at a closing.

So the argument is that the government should bail out people who sign legal documents without knowing what they are signing?

Yeah, ok. Leave it to Democrats to want to give the ignorant a hand up and scold the educated for doing the responsible thing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top