OT: OBAMA SOAKS THE RICH: CHURCHES, DAY CARE, HOMELESS SHELT

[DreamStalker]

It certainly will not cover the estimated $3,000.00 average increase per household in energy cost due to Cap and Trade. This increased energy cost will drive up the price of every product may in the good old USA. That sucking sound you hear is the jobs moving to China were cheap coal runs their new factories.

So did congress pass legislation on Cap-n-Trade?

I thought congress had to ratify those kinds of treaties with a 60% majority or something like that ... the truth comes out! -- I'm not 100% familiar with our US constitution ... and obviously, current news

[travismcgee]

Here is a link to an interesting paper that argues that recovery from the "Great Depression" was stifled by the policies of FDR; http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/3643. The author's conclusion has an eerie
feeling of deja vu. ''The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,'' Cole said. ''Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.''

Obama, his cabinet, and the Democrat controlled Congress are undermining confidence in the private sector in every way possible; from firing private companies' CEO's to dictating who should get a bonus and at what amount. He is using the fear of economic uncertainty to convince people that only government can bring prosperity back. His next target is nationalizing health care and if you think your DME is a PITA now just wait till the government controls your well-being. Think about it.

[roster]

When I get confused about economics, I try to remember that it is just plain immoral for a person or a group to dictate what individuals do with their lives and their money.

Individuals living free, making their own decisions every day, millions of consumers making millions of small economic decisions every day - everything from what to buy for lunch, what education to get, where to work, how to allocate 401-k investments, what medical treatment to seek, what charities to give to, where to live, what to borrow, what to lend, all the daily decisions - protecting their rights to live free is the moral thing to do. And, not just coincidentally, history shows it creates the highest standard of living when measured in economic terms.

Our Constitution is our great legacy - support it.



Rooster


Give me back that filet of fish,
Give me that fish.
If it were you up here on the wall ...

[Dpursi]

With but a few exceptions some may call it a safety net I with you Roster.

[oh_possum]

Here is a link to an interesting paper that argues that recovery from the "Great Depression" was stifled by the policies of FDR; http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/3643. The author's conclusion has an eerie
feeling of deja vu. ''The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,'' Cole said. ''Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.''

Although this research has been trotted out as an indictment of the Obama administration, it really points to 2 reasons the FDR policies hindered the recovery: 1) Waving anti-trust legislation to allow industry-wide collusion (although this creates a feeling of Deja Vu, it is not because of the Obama administration or the stimulus package); 2) Working with labor to fix wages above where they were estimated to be without the economic downturn (also not part of the stimulus package as some of the largest Unions have already negotiated deals that include lower wages).

I certainly have no problem indicting FDR for these policies that lasted for 2 years before being declared unconstitutional but making an equivalency argument is a good example of the misuse of science. Although that is a nice quote about the "recovery being more rapid had the government not intervened," it's quite possible that the government needs to intervene in a system that has spent over a decade looking the other way from anti-trust and collusion.

[WearyOne]

When I get confused about economics, I try to remember that it is just plain immoral for a person or a group to dictate what individuals do with their lives and their money.

Individuals living free, making their own decisions every day, millions of consumers making millions of small economic decisions every day - everything from what to buy for lunch, what education to get, where to work, how to allocate 401-k investments, what medical treatment to seek, what charities to give to, where to live, what to borrow, what to lend, all the daily decisions - protecting their rights to live free is the moral thing to do. And, not just coincidentally, history shows it creates the highest standard of living when measured in economic terms.

Our Constitution is our great legacy - support it.

I'm with ya, Rooster. (Loved that cartoon, too!)

Pam

[roster]

With but a few exceptions some may call it a safety net I with you Roster.

Sure, the government needs some limited taxation powers to go about its proper business of protecting the rights of its citizens.

Regards,

Rooster


Give me back that filet of fish,
Give me that fish.
If it were you up here on the wall ...

[DreamStalker]

It certainly will not cover the estimated $3,000.00 average increase per household in energy cost due to Cap and Trade. This increased energy cost will drive up the price of every product may in the good old USA. That sucking sound you hear is the jobs moving to China were cheap coal runs their new factories.

So did congress pass legislation on Cap-n-Trade?

... or are you just making this stuff up?

[alnhwrd]

In case you have not seen these before, enjoy. My favortites are 3,4,5,8, & 19.

1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.-- John Adams

2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.-- Mark Twain

3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain

4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.-- Winston Churchill

5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.-- George Bernard Shaw

6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.-- G. Gordon Liddy

7. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries..-- Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at GeorgetownUniversity

8. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.-- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

9. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keep s moving, regulate it.. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.-- Ronald Reagan (1986)

10. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.-- Will Rogers

11. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke

12. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. -- Mark Twain (1866)

13. Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it.-- Anonymous

14. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.-- Winston Churchill (Let us pray Obama will read Churchill)

15. The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.-- Mark Twain

16. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

17. There is no distinctly native American criminal class...save Congress.-- MarkTwain

18. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.-- Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)

19. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.-- Thomas Jefferson

20. The biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is the spelling. -- Anonymous

21. Anyone who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart. Anyone who is not a conservative at 40 has no brain.-- Winston Churchill.






__._,_.

[travismcgee]

Here is a link to an interesting paper that argues that recovery from the "Great Depression" was stifled by the policies of FDR; http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/3643. The author's conclusion has an eerie
feeling of deja vu. ''The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,'' Cole said. ''Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.''

Although this research has been trotted out as an indictment of the Obama administration, it really points to 2 reasons the FDR policies hindered the recovery: 1) Waving anti-trust legislation to allow industry-wide collusion (although this creates a feeling of Deja Vu, it is not because of the Obama administration or the stimulus package); 2) Working with labor to fix wages above where they were estimated to be without the economic downturn (also not part of the stimulus package as some of the largest Unions have already negotiated deals that include lower wages).

I certainly have no problem indicting FDR for these policies that lasted for 2 years before being declared unconstitutional but making an equivalency argument is a good example of the misuse of science. Although that is a nice quote about the "recovery being more rapid had the government not intervened," it's quite possible that the government needs to intervene in a system that has spent over a decade looking the other way from anti-trust and collusion.

My main point was to illustrate how government intervention in a free market economy can make things worse. I wasn't implying FDR and Obama's policies were equivalent in their substance I was suggesting they are similar in their unprecedented manipulation of market forces (hence the deja vu reference). Please show me what authority the President has to fire the CEO of any private company.

Furthermore, please point out what authority Congress has to override the checks and balances of state government. I am refering specifically to a provision in the stimulus bill that requires states to accept the government money allocated to a particular state even if the governor of that state has decided not to accept those funds. Several governers have already expressed there disinterest in participating in the stimulus bill handouts. The provision allows for the state legislature to supercede the governor's authority as head of that state and become the arbitar of any stimulus money reserved for that state. Essentially, neutering 1/3 of a state's legislative body. I hope this isn't also an example of what you would identify as useful government intervention

[oh_possum]

My main point was to illustrate how government intervention in a free market economy can make things worse. I wasn't implying FDR and Obama's policies were equivalent in their substance I was suggesting they are similar in their unprecedented manipulation of market forces (hence the deja vu reference).

And my point is that the distinction is very important because 1/2 of what apparently sunk FDR's policies (if we accept the results of this study at face value, which I'm inclined to do) was essentially NON-intervention by government in not enforcing anti-trust. Does free market mean unregulated free market? If it does than I will argue against allowing free market forces to do their stuff. I've had my fill of this.

Please show me what authority the President has to fire the CEO of any private company.
Furthermore, please point out what authority Congress has to override the checks and balances of state government. I am refering specifically to a provision in the stimulus bill that requires states to accept the government money allocated to a particular state even if the governor of that state has decided not to accept those funds. Several governers have already expressed there disinterest in participating in the stimulus bill handouts. The provision allows for the state legislature to supercede the governor's authority as head of that state and become the arbitar of any stimulus money reserved for that state. Essentially, neutering 1/3 of a state's legislative body. I hope this isn't also an example of what you would identify as useful government intervention

My argument is not about supporting Obama's policies, it's about NOT opposing them by muddying the waters with memes. I haven't argued for firing a CEO or made any statement about state governance, but I would point out that there is a big difference between philosophically expressing disinterest in stimulus bill handouts and actually turning away the money. This strikes me as a political game of chicken.

[oh_possum]

OK, now I will argue point about Obama having the authority to "fire" Wagoner. I have the same problem with this meme that has simply a grain of truth. Wagoner resigned after Obama threatened to withhold bailout funds. I have heard it argued that this amounts to a virtual firing but arguing about whether Obama has the authority to fire him is moot and furthers a misleading meme. Using the weight of economic pressure is an age-old free-market tactic.

I think the better argument has to do with the possibility that it is political grand-standing, rather than a decision designed to improve the economy.

[roster]

........ Forcing human will, in the name of a creator and belief system, is an overly recurring sad failure in the history of mankind, IMHO.

.......

-SWS,

In my opinion it is sad when this happens to even one individual.

But I believe this has been a very small part of the world history of atrocities. If you count deaths, more than 95% of the history was dominated by non-religious encounters.

Check out what happened in the recently closed century at http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm and let me know what small percentage has been due to religious conviction. I can't remember who the world history major among us is, but I need him to look at that list.

I want to stress that I don't regularly practice comparing sins. A sin is a sin and I am pleased to have found a Christian church in my neighbor hood that realizes we members are a "society of sinners" that frowns upon pointing fingers. However, the sins of Christianity are routinely exaggerated and I would like to see the record set straight.

Regards,

Rooster


Give me back that filet of fish,
Give me that fish.
If it were you up here on the wall ...

[Fredman]

I wonder how many people died in the Crusades, admittedly the crusades were not in the twentieth century.

Doesn't matter faith or not, it is a sad world economics, death and taxes!

Can't speak to the American experience, but being a Canadian we do have far too much political interference in our lives...and too much taxes!

[-SWS]

In my opinion it is sad when this happens to even one individual.

As it turns out, Rooster, our views probably don't diverge much here---if at all.

........ Forcing human will, in the name of a creator and belief system

The above is social tyranny under the guise of religion. I truly believe the key words above are "in the name of" which, IMO, fairly equates to "under the guise of". That sadly recurring situation is never what any benevolent religion was meant to be. Tyrannical leaders have absolutely no qualms about mercilessly exploiting any social structure and belief system to their corrupt and all-too-often sociopathic ends.

When that social situation occurs, the inherently benevolent nature of religion is not reflected, so much as social tyranny devastates religion itself. That's religion very sadly subverted... But it is not at all the true essence of any religion preaching love and human fellowship.

Benevolent religion is a very beautiful thing IMHO.