Tired of defending/explaining a conservative viewpoint...? Kerry does it for us..!!!

[Good to Go]

In a speech on Feb 6th, 2009, the idiot John Kerry (a label, just to pizz off someone out there) explains really well the problem with liberal ideas. It's scary, but lib's really think like this.

I've supported many tax cuts over the years, and there are tax cuts in this proposal. But a tax cut is non-targeted.

If you put a tax cut into the hands of a business or family, there's no guarantee that they're going to invest that or invest it in America.

They're free to go invest anywhere that they want if they choose to invest.

Linky to story

Seriously, the gall, to be "free" to invest anywhere you want.

There aren't words to describe my contempt for this thinking and where it's taking us....

Did I say idiot yet..?

 

[Wolfrun]

Everyone knows John Kerry is a scumbag.

 

[ruffryder]

So you see nothing wrong with the government spending money (our money) to stimulate the economy, and then having the possibility that it will be spent stimulating some other country? I would rather it be spent on jobs / projects then people buying plasma's... Or just putting it in the bank and doing absolutely nothing with it...

Got to love a change in context.....

 

[Good to Go]

So you see nothing wrong with the government spending money (our money) to stimulate the economy, and then having the possibility that it will be spent stimulating some other country? I would rather it be spent on jobs / projects then people buying plasma's... Or just putting it in the bank and doing absolutely nothing with it...

Got to love a change in context.....

I actually heard his speech...and went looking for it. The little bit I posted above isn't taken out of context, it's how he really thinks. That man (and followers like him) really believe that THEY know better than YOU, what to do and how to spend your money.

It is logically impossible for a government to spend it's way to stimulation of an economy. I see EVERYTHING wrong with the government spending my money in a futile attempt...which is exactly what is going on.

Jobs?? Projects?? By a plasma TV. You just created both. There's a delivery system (trucks, planes, boats, rail), a packaging system, a brick and mortar warehouse (that had to be designed, engineered, built, maintained and staffed) and a brick and mortar store (ditto to the above again), a vehicle to get the consumer there, with a Micky D's along the way, and a gas station, and a Beer business, so they can watch the damn thing and drink. The actual TV is peanuts.

But you tax the people, they lose that money, they don't spend it and you have......wait, this is getting good....here it comes..... Trickle down, self fulfilling, recession.

Bammmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Puff_N_AK]

Sounds to me like the begining of Wealth Re-Distribution to me.

 

[ruffryder]

It is logically impossible for a government to spend it's way to stimulation of an economy. I see EVERYTHING wrong with the government spending my money in a futile attempt...which is exactly what is going on.

You are wrong... that is how we got out of the last one.... we blew through crap loads of money... from the government... WWII, cold war, government was spending money hand over fist and what happened.. the economy got better.

Jobs?? Projects?? By a plasma TV. You just created both. There's a delivery system (trucks, planes, boats, rail), a packaging system, a brick and mortar warehouse (that had to be designed, engineered, built, maintained and staffed) and a brick and mortar store (ditto to the above again), a vehicle to get the consumer there, with a Micky D's along the way, and a gas station, and a Beer business, so they can watch the damn thing and drink. The actual TV is peanuts.

No the TV is a big part of it. What percentage of the above money spent went out of the country and what stayed in? I would guess that the cost of a plasma tv to make is a 1/2 of what they charge. If this assumption is correct, for every dollar that is spent on the tv, half goes toward stimulating another country after only passing through one transaction. If that money is spent by paying someone to work, that directly creates a job, and then it also does exactly what you stated. Seem like the later scenario is better to me... Stimulates jobs DIRECTLY, and then gets all the INdirect benefits that you mentioned.

But you tax the people, they lose that money, they don't spend it and you have......wait, this is getting good....here it comes..... Trickle down, self fulfilling, recession.

Bammmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You give tax breaks to people in a recesion, they don't spend it, they save that money, it gets taken out of circulation and what happens... nothing...

Trickle down is the biggest bunch of bs, just as bad as trickle up... it is a cycle, it trickles down, it trickles up, it is a monetary cycle.... If it only trickles down, does it disintegrate after it gets to the bottem? Where does it go after that? Oh, yah, it trickles up... and then down, and then up... cyclical...

I think the problem is that methods of stimulating the economy during a recession are different then when the economy is going good. I do think that when an economy is good, reducing taxes does also stimulate the economy, because people will spend that money, and spend it quickly. During a recession, reducing taxes does not stimulate the economy as much. Having the governement spend money direclty creating jobs, gets the economy going by stimulating demand. This more easily gets the money flowing again. This is direclty shown by our own government and how much money it through into the private sector.

Why do think when taxing people, the money is lost? The government spends the money it gets from you and I. We give them money (take ) and they spend it. Just like your scenario about the tv above, the same happens with the government, just that it is put into social programs and very captial intensive programs that the private sector is unable to do.

Just some thoughts / opinions on the subject...

 

[rockymking]

Why do think when taxing people, the money is lost? The government wastes more of the money it gets from you and I. They take more of our hard earned money and waste more of it, since there is a surplus. Just like your scenario about the tv above, the same happens with the government, just that it is put into social programs and very captial(capital?) intensive programs that the private sector is unable to do.

Just some thoughts / opinions on the subject...

Fixed it for ya

 

[ruffryder]

Fixed it for ya

Where does the waste go? There is no waste, maybe not the most efficiently used, but there is no waste, it gets spent out to people, who then in turn spend it......

Sounds like you think the money disappears?

 

[Ollie]

Where does the waste go? There is no waste, maybe not the most efficiently used, but there is no waste, it gets spent out to people, who then in turn spend it......

Sounds like you think the money disappears?

OK, that whole statement is an oxymoron.
not the most efficiently used, but there is no waste.
If it's not efficiently used, there most certainly IS waste.

If the pork-zilla package just pasted had been about fixing the crumbling infastruture and not used as a smoke screen for a liberal spending spree, then I think it would have been money well spent.

Shoot, even Putin is warning Obama to stop, that he is taking the US down a socialist path and it doesn't work. When a RUSSIAN politician can see what is happening and ours can't, we are in trouble bigtime.

 

[swampwater]

Typical Ruffy socialist hogwash!!! "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 Swampy

You are wrong... that is how we got out of the last one.... we blew through crap loads of money... from the government... WWII, cold war, government was spending money hand over fist and what happened.. the economy got better.

No the TV is a big part of it. What percentage of the above money spent went out of the country and what stayed in? I would guess that the cost of a plasma tv to make is a 1/2 of what they charge. If this assumption is correct, for every dollar that is spent on the tv, half goes toward stimulating another country after only passing through one transaction. If that money is spent by paying someone to work, that directly creates a job, and then it also does exactly what you stated. Seem like the later scenario is better to me... Stimulates jobs DIRECTLY, and then gets all the INdirect benefits that you mentioned.



You give tax breaks to people in a recesion, they don't spend it, they save that money, it gets taken out of circulation and what happens... nothing...

Trickle down is the biggest bunch of bs, just as bad as trickle up... it is a cycle, it trickles down, it trickles up, it is a monetary cycle.... If it only trickles down, does it disintegrate after it gets to the bottem? Where does it go after that? Oh, yah, it trickles up... and then down, and then up... cyclical...

I think the problem is that methods of stimulating the economy during a recession are different then when the economy is going good. I do think that when an economy is good, reducing taxes does also stimulate the economy, because people will spend that money, and spend it quickly. During a recession, reducing taxes does not stimulate the economy as much. Having the governement spend money direclty creating jobs, gets the economy going by stimulating demand. This more easily gets the money flowing again. This is direclty shown by our own government and how much money it through into the private sector.

Why do think when taxing people, the money is lost? The government spends the money it gets from you and I. We give them money (take ) and they spend it. Just like your scenario about the tv above, the same happens with the government, just that it is put into social programs and very captial intensive programs that the private sector is unable to do.

Just some thoughts / opinions on the subject...

 

[ruffryder]

Typical Ruffy socialist hogwash!!! "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 Swampy

You know what they say... if you got nothing to add, you probably shouldn't say anything...

and who said we were going for prosperity right now? I thought we were going for stopping the recession? Different goals require different means. Prosperity comes afterwords....

I am starting to think you think you can prove your point by doing a little name calling, then posting a quote..... Interesting methods... not saying they are good, but they are interesting.. oh yah, forgot the manditory...

 

[Fosgate]

Someone just say it. In a year or two we'll have a sign at the border "Welcome to South Canada!"

 

[ruffryder]

OK, that whole statement is an oxymoron.
not the most efficiently used, but there is no waste.
If it's not efficiently used, there most certainly IS waste.

Waste implies no benefit... government money spending gets compounded. By not spending it wisely, it doesn't have as large of a compounding factor, nor is the net benefit as large as it could be...

Quite different then waste, or at least the way I was saying it.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Someone just say it. In a year or two we'll have a sign at the border "Welcome to South Canada!"

Hell no we got a conservative govt here now and you all will be wanting to move here as soon as we kick the last few libby's out! Remember bring sleds lots of pow pow!

 

[swampwater]

And what name were you called, do you want me to type your full handle, ruffryder? As for the socialist hogwash it is a description of your philosophy not your name. I hope if you ever get married and have kids you enjoy explaining to them how you supported saddling them with the bill they are going to get for these stimulous packages and bailouts, oh and nothing on here is mandatory. Swampy

You know what they say... if you got nothing to add, you probably shouldn't say anything...

and who said we were going for prosperity right now? I thought we were going for stopping the recession? Different goals require different means. Prosperity comes afterwords....

I am starting to think you think you can prove your point by doing a little name calling, then posting a quote..... Interesting methods... not saying they are good, but they are interesting.. oh yah, forgot the manditory...

 

[Good to Go]

You are wrong... that is how we got out of the last one.... we blew through crap loads of money... from the government... WWII, cold war, government was spending money hand over fist and what happened.. the economy got better.

I'd argue (and we all know I got lot's of company on this one) that the 'government' intervening in fact lengthened the Great Depression. Of course the economy got better. But it could have improved at a lot faster rate without bureaucrat's hands in the mix...

No the TV is a big part of it. What percentage of the above money spent went out of the country and what stayed in? I would guess that the cost of a plasma tv to make is a 1/2 of what they charge. If this assumption is correct, for every dollar that is spent on the tv, half goes toward stimulating another country after only passing through one transaction. If that money is spent by paying someone to work, that directly creates a job, and then it also does exactly what you stated. Seem like the later scenario is better to me... Stimulates jobs DIRECTLY, and then gets all the INdirect benefits that you mentioned.


Trickle down is the biggest bunch of bs, just as bad as trickle up... it is a cycle, it trickles down, it trickles up, it is a monetary cycle.... If it only trickles down, does it disintegrate after it gets to the bottem? Where does it go after that? Oh, yah, it trickles up... and then down, and then up... cyclical...

I think the problem is that methods of stimulating the economy during a recession are different then when the economy is going good. I do think that when an economy is good, reducing taxes does also stimulate the economy, because people will spend that money, and spend it quickly. During a recession, reducing taxes does not stimulate the economy as much. Having the governement spend money direclty creating jobs, gets the economy going by stimulating demand. This more easily gets the money flowing again. This is direclty shown by our own government and how much money it through into the private sector.

A few things here.. My point about the TV isn't about the 'dollar' involved in the TV. Of course that dollar goes elsewhere. But a huge, incomprehensible amount of infrastructure, service jobs, etc, etc, etc, are gained from it, handling it, etc. Import/export is hugely important to our economy, and a good thing. We gain much more for the dollar we send away, in return, than we lose.

Trickle down isn't BS...or trickle up. It's just part of the economy. When Bill Gates doesn't have as many billions, he spends less on gold plated railings..welcome to trickle down; everything from the guy that buys the raw materials, to the shipping, to the manufacture of it, to the shipping, to the salesman, to the installer, to the maid that polish's the thing.

Which brings me to: who said recession's are a bad thing? I believe what most conservatives are arguing for is to ease the cycle up. It's going to happen, and there is a lot of good that comes from it. But the valleys don't need to be as big, or as wide. And that my friend, is exactly what is happening currently...we be dredging a hole that is way to big.

 

[rockymking]

OK, that whole statement is an oxymoron.
not the most efficiently used, but there is no waste.
If it's not efficiently used, there most certainly IS waste.

If the pork-zilla package just pasted had been about fixing the crumbling infastruture and not used as a smoke screen for a liberal spending spree, then I think it would have been money well spent.

Shoot, even Putin is warning Obama to stop, that he is taking the US down a socialist path and it doesn't work. When a RUSSIAN politician can see what is happening and ours can't, we are in trouble bigtime.

Thank you Ollie ... couldn't have said it better. Reps for you!

Regarding Putin's statement ... someone that has experienced the "experiment" first hand warns our politicians about the outcome; ironic isn't it?

 

[Ollie]

Waste implies no benefit... government money spending gets compounded. By not spending it wisely, it doesn't have as large of a compounding factor, nor is the net benefit as large as it could be...

Quite different then waste, or at least the way I was saying it.

Wrong, waste implies a needless spending of money for no benefit.
Explain to me why we should build an airport 40 miles from another airport just because some senator doesn't want to drive.
Explain to me why we should be buying neon signs for Las Vegas.
Explain to me why we are building dog parks in LA.

Explain to me how socializing medical care is going to stimulate the economy.
Explain to me how creating 3 new government agencies stimulets the economy.

This whole stimulus joke was put forward as a way to help the nation.
Explain to me how DOUBLING the national debt and bankrupting the country is helpful?

Everything that idiot has done since he was in office has been in direct conflict with the whole tenant of democracy.
Expanding the size of government (which creates NOTHING but debt).

 

[Rubi]

Government spending is mostly a dead end. Especially in this bill. $30,000,000 to study Nancy Pelosi's mouse. Great, that money goes to a bunch of hippie college liberals and they buy pot and Starbucks with it. $30 million down the crapper.... If that $30 million had been left in the hands of productive Americans, businesses would have been expanded, people hired, and those dollars would have been spent in the most efficient way possible.

Even the infrastructure spending in this bill is tainted. The money is going to be loaded with so much affirmative action bullroar that it will be a giant mess. I heard one Senator whining that "white construction workers are going to benefit too much from this bill," so he advocated attaching stipulations that would make more of the money go to the "longterm unemployed." You know who the longterm unemployed are? The lazy and unambitious who habitually live off the government dole! So basically, the small amount of money that is actually in this bill for infrastructure (about 3% of the total,) probably won't be spent on new projects. It will be spent to have a bunch of affirmative action people stand around with their thumbs up their *sses, watching real construction workers do the projects they would have done anyway!

 

[Jeff C]

Ruffy:

Guess who will be holding the note on the loan?

With our already EXTREME debt load, adding another trillion to the load, we can't service the debt for long.

Eventually the creditors will want their money.

Our kids will have extremely high tax rates on everything. They will not be able to pay............

Even if we can get the economy moving again, every American taxpayer will become a tax slave. Interest rates will soar, dollar will go further into the tank, and we are F.U.k.'d