Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Are the republicans actually trying to lose?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


veganclimber


Mar 15, 2012, 6:03 PM
Post #1 of 26 (2672 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Are the republicans actually trying to lose?
Report this Post
Can't Post

First, here's Romney:

http://news.yahoo.com/...waves-224357108.html

In reply to:
Is the program so critical that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And on that basis, of course you get rid of ObamaCare, that's the easy one. But there are others: Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that. The subsidy for Amtrak, I would eliminate that. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, both excellent programs, but we can't afford to borrow money to pay for these things.

Then Santorum:

http://news.yahoo.com/...raphy-222833811.html

In reply to:
America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.

The former Pennsylvania senator states that, "as a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."

Santorum criticized the Obama administration for turning "a blind eye ... to the scourge of pornography" and for refusing to enforce obscenity laws.

"If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," Santorum writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration."

This is what America wants from a president right now? Someone to go after pornography?


curt


Mar 15, 2012, 6:08 PM
Post #2 of 26 (2665 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18226

Re: [veganclimber] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I believe Santorum intends to outlaw vaginas altogether.

Curt


wjca


Mar 15, 2012, 8:26 PM
Post #3 of 26 (2633 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7533

Re: [curt] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I think I'd be alright with getting rid of funding for the NEA with borrowed dollars. In lean times, the responsible person cuts back on luxury items: vacations, eating out a lot, going to the movies, etc. They don't simple start putting these things on a credit card and hope to pay them off one day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of financially irresponsible people that have done just that, and are now paying the price. Bankruptcy and foreclosure suck, but they happen to people that live above and beyond their means on borrowed dollars.

In my mind, I think things like the NEA are luxury items. I don't think it's financially responsible to pay for them with borrowed dollars. There are other programs I wouldn't fund either. I don't feel the same way about Planned Parenthood and others. The problem is that no one is ever going to agree on every program that should be put on hold until such time as we get our financial house in order. Hence the endless fighting. We may be doomed as a civilization because of our diversity.


blondgecko
Moderator

Mar 15, 2012, 10:38 PM
Post #4 of 26 (2617 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [wjca] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

wjca wrote:
I think I'd be alright with getting rid of funding for the NEA with borrowed dollars. In lean times, the responsible person cuts back on luxury items: vacations, eating out a lot, going to the movies, etc. They don't simple start putting these things on a credit card and hope to pay them off one day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of financially irresponsible people that have done just that, and are now paying the price. Bankruptcy and foreclosure suck, but they happen to people that live above and beyond their means on borrowed dollars.

In my mind, I think things like the NEA are luxury items. I don't think it's financially responsible to pay for them with borrowed dollars. There are other programs I wouldn't fund either. I don't feel the same way about Planned Parenthood and others. The problem is that no one is ever going to agree on every program that should be put on hold until such time as we get our financial house in order. Hence the endless fighting. We may be doomed as a civilization because of our diversity.

That sort of thing's a dangerous strategy, though. Cutting long-running programs (arts, research, etc., etc.) in lean times might seem like a good way to save money, but in practice what happens is that they become very, very hard to reinstate when things improve. Why? Because all of the people previously funded by these programs suddenly find themselves in the unemployment queue and drift off into new careers. Many of them don't come back even when the funding does, meaning that there's nobody there to train the next generation. In the end, a great deal of experience and knowledge is simply lost.


scrapedape


Mar 16, 2012, 5:50 AM
Post #5 of 26 (2594 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [blondgecko] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

blondgecko wrote:
wjca wrote:
I think I'd be alright with getting rid of funding for the NEA with borrowed dollars. In lean times, the responsible person cuts back on luxury items: vacations, eating out a lot, going to the movies, etc. They don't simple start putting these things on a credit card and hope to pay them off one day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of financially irresponsible people that have done just that, and are now paying the price. Bankruptcy and foreclosure suck, but they happen to people that live above and beyond their means on borrowed dollars.

In my mind, I think things like the NEA are luxury items. I don't think it's financially responsible to pay for them with borrowed dollars. There are other programs I wouldn't fund either. I don't feel the same way about Planned Parenthood and others. The problem is that no one is ever going to agree on every program that should be put on hold until such time as we get our financial house in order. Hence the endless fighting. We may be doomed as a civilization because of our diversity.

That sort of thing's a dangerous strategy, though. Cutting long-running programs (arts, research, etc., etc.) in lean times might seem like a good way to save money, but in practice what happens is that they become very, very hard to reinstate when things improve. Why? Because all of the people previously funded by these programs suddenly find themselves in the unemployment queue and drift off into new careers. Many of them don't come back even when the funding does, meaning that there's nobody there to train the next generation. In the end, a great deal of experience and knowledge is simply lost.

An important distinction, I think, is between luxuries and necessities. In a lot of people's minds, research is not the same as the arts. Research is a necessity, the arts are a luxury.

An analogy: When you fall on hard times, you should probably still find a way to fix the roof, even if it means borrowing money. But at the same time, you should probably put off those kitchen renovations.
---
An even more important distinction, however, is between those who think that you can balance the budget by cutting funding for NEA and repealing health care reform;and those based in reality, where the NEA is a drop in the ocean and health care reform was designed to be deficit-reducing.


traddad


Mar 16, 2012, 6:32 AM
Post #6 of 26 (2588 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129

Re: [scrapedape] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

scrapedape wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
wjca wrote:
I think I'd be alright with getting rid of funding for the NEA with borrowed dollars. In lean times, the responsible person cuts back on luxury items: vacations, eating out a lot, going to the movies, etc. They don't simple start putting these things on a credit card and hope to pay them off one day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of financially irresponsible people that have done just that, and are now paying the price. Bankruptcy and foreclosure suck, but they happen to people that live above and beyond their means on borrowed dollars.

In my mind, I think things like the NEA are luxury items. I don't think it's financially responsible to pay for them with borrowed dollars. There are other programs I wouldn't fund either. I don't feel the same way about Planned Parenthood and others. The problem is that no one is ever going to agree on every program that should be put on hold until such time as we get our financial house in order. Hence the endless fighting. We may be doomed as a civilization because of our diversity.

That sort of thing's a dangerous strategy, though. Cutting long-running programs (arts, research, etc., etc.) in lean times might seem like a good way to save money, but in practice what happens is that they become very, very hard to reinstate when things improve. Why? Because all of the people previously funded by these programs suddenly find themselves in the unemployment queue and drift off into new careers. Many of them don't come back even when the funding does, meaning that there's nobody there to train the next generation. In the end, a great deal of experience and knowledge is simply lost.

An important distinction, I think, is between luxuries and necessities. In a lot of people's minds, research is not the same as the arts. Research is a necessity, the arts are a luxury.

An analogy: When you fall on hard times, you should probably still find a way to fix the roof, even if it means borrowing money. But at the same time, you should probably put off those kitchen renovations.
---
An even more important distinction, however, is between those who think that you can balance the budget by cutting funding for NEA and repealing health care reform;and those based in reality, where the NEA is a drop in the ocean and health care reform was designed to be deficit-reducing.

There is good precedent for fostering the arts in hard times. http://www.wpamurals.com/wpabios.html http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Federal_Art_Project
Really, this “bitter pill”, punitive mentality that is being adopted by the trickle downers, in all its aspects, makes me ill. Raising tuition, more porous safety net, foreclosing on homes while bankers pull down fat bonuses, underfunding libraries….This is just more Social Darwinism/Prosperity Theology; the rich MUST be more fit/favored by God…because they're rich! If you’re poor, you MUST be a bad person. No art for you!


(This post was edited by traddad on Mar 16, 2012, 10:42 AM)


saint_john


Mar 16, 2012, 10:21 AM
Post #7 of 26 (2562 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [wjca] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Maybe if we weren't spending six billion dollars a month in Afghanistan (a war that history will tell us was pointless) we'd have more money for the NEA.


petsfed


Mar 16, 2012, 11:59 AM
Post #8 of 26 (2553 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [wjca] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

wjca wrote:
I think I'd be alright with getting rid of funding for the NEA with borrowed dollars. In lean times, the responsible person cuts back on luxury items: vacations, eating out a lot, going to the movies, etc. They don't simple start putting these things on a credit card and hope to pay them off one day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of financially irresponsible people that have done just that, and are now paying the price. Bankruptcy and foreclosure suck, but they happen to people that live above and beyond their means on borrowed dollars.

In my mind, I think things like the NEA are luxury items. I don't think it's financially responsible to pay for them with borrowed dollars. There are other programs I wouldn't fund either. I don't feel the same way about Planned Parenthood and others. The problem is that no one is ever going to agree on every program that should be put on hold until such time as we get our financial house in order. Hence the endless fighting. We may be doomed as a civilization because of our diversity.

I think I'd be more ok with cutting funding to the NEA if it weren't like somebody cutting back on ketchup as their only effort towards paying off 40 credit cards.

Really, the NEA, Planned Parenthood, NEH. We spend more collecting taxes than we actually give to those organizations.

But not word fucking one about the OIL subsidies. We export more oil than we import. The oil is stuck in the ground. What, are we worried the oil companies will take their business elsewhere? If it was cheaper to drill elsewhere, they WOULD.


ubu


Mar 16, 2012, 12:05 PM
Post #9 of 26 (2551 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1476

Re: [saint_john] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
Maybe if we weren't spending six billion dollars a month in Afghanistan (a war that history will tell us was pointless) we'd have more money for the NEA.

^^^This...

petsfed wrote:
I think I'd be more ok with cutting funding to the NEA if it weren't like somebody cutting back on ketchup as their only effort towards paying off 40 credit cards.

and ^^^this.

End of story.


wjca


Mar 17, 2012, 2:38 PM
Post #10 of 26 (2500 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7533

Re: [petsfed] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
wjca wrote:
I think I'd be alright with getting rid of funding for the NEA with borrowed dollars. In lean times, the responsible person cuts back on luxury items: vacations, eating out a lot, going to the movies, etc. They don't simple start putting these things on a credit card and hope to pay them off one day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of financially irresponsible people that have done just that, and are now paying the price. Bankruptcy and foreclosure suck, but they happen to people that live above and beyond their means on borrowed dollars.

In my mind, I think things like the NEA are luxury items. I don't think it's financially responsible to pay for them with borrowed dollars. There are other programs I wouldn't fund either. I don't feel the same way about Planned Parenthood and others. The problem is that no one is ever going to agree on every program that should be put on hold until such time as we get our financial house in order. Hence the endless fighting. We may be doomed as a civilization because of our diversity.

I think I'd be more ok with cutting funding to the NEA if it weren't like somebody cutting back on ketchup as their only effort towards paying off 40 credit cards.

Really, the NEA, Planned Parenthood, NEH. We spend more collecting taxes than we actually give to those organizations.

But not word fucking one about the OIL subsidies. We export more oil than we import. The oil is stuck in the ground. What, are we worried the oil companies will take their business elsewhere? If it was cheaper to drill elsewhere, they WOULD.


I completely agree. The NEA is only a drop in the bucket. I'm we accrue many times the NEA's annual budget just in debt interest on any given day, but I'm sure there are other drops out there. After enough drops in the bucket, you'll eventually have more than just a few drops in the bucket.

My post was really more about the concept of living beyond our country's metaphorical means.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Mar 17, 2012, 4:00 PM
Post #11 of 26 (2490 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [wjca] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I don't disagree that Romney's tool (*) of questioning if something is worth borrowing against is a good thought experiment. One could equally ask "is it better to borrow the money or to raise taxes". (cough 14% cough). But let us be honest here, this isn't about balancing the budget, it is about going after those programs the Republican's disagree with.

It is nothing more than trying to get the excuse "the budget made me do it" sound credible. It doesn't.


(*) heh, he said tool.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Mar 17, 2012, 4:06 PM
Post #12 of 26 (2487 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [veganclimber] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Since, for the most part, Santorum's foamy quote has gotten a free pass here, let us take a second and say that it is utter crap that we need a president to patrol porn.

And for fun, a link to the relationship between gay porn and the bible:
http://oscarloveslife.blogspot.com/...-lead-us-in-gay.html


styndall


Mar 18, 2012, 5:46 PM
Post #13 of 26 (2455 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741

Re: [scrapedape] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

scrapedape wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
wjca wrote:
I think I'd be alright with getting rid of funding for the NEA with borrowed dollars. In lean times, the responsible person cuts back on luxury items: vacations, eating out a lot, going to the movies, etc. They don't simple start putting these things on a credit card and hope to pay them off one day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of financially irresponsible people that have done just that, and are now paying the price. Bankruptcy and foreclosure suck, but they happen to people that live above and beyond their means on borrowed dollars.

In my mind, I think things like the NEA are luxury items. I don't think it's financially responsible to pay for them with borrowed dollars. There are other programs I wouldn't fund either. I don't feel the same way about Planned Parenthood and others. The problem is that no one is ever going to agree on every program that should be put on hold until such time as we get our financial house in order. Hence the endless fighting. We may be doomed as a civilization because of our diversity.

That sort of thing's a dangerous strategy, though. Cutting long-running programs (arts, research, etc., etc.) in lean times might seem like a good way to save money, but in practice what happens is that they become very, very hard to reinstate when things improve. Why? Because all of the people previously funded by these programs suddenly find themselves in the unemployment queue and drift off into new careers. Many of them don't come back even when the funding does, meaning that there's nobody there to train the next generation. In the end, a great deal of experience and knowledge is simply lost.

An important distinction, I think, is between luxuries and necessities. In a lot of people's minds, research is not the same as the arts. Research is a necessity, the arts are a luxury.

An analogy: When you fall on hard times, you should probably still find a way to fix the roof, even if it means borrowing money. But at the same time, you should probably put off those kitchen renovations.
---
An even more important distinction, however, is between those who think that you can balance the budget by cutting funding for NEA and repealing health care reform;and those based in reality, where the NEA is a drop in the ocean and health care reform was designed to be deficit-reducing.

The trouble is that running a national economy isn't very much like keeping a house in good repair. In lean times, it makes a lot of sense to use deficit spending to build and repair infrastructure, make scientific advancements, essentially, to spend to get money into middle class pockets while also making national improvements. It's demand for goods and a large number of people with dollars to spend that gets an economy back on track.


scrapedape


Mar 19, 2012, 6:18 AM
Post #14 of 26 (2427 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [styndall] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

styndall wrote:
scrapedape wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
wjca wrote:
I think I'd be alright with getting rid of funding for the NEA with borrowed dollars. In lean times, the responsible person cuts back on luxury items: vacations, eating out a lot, going to the movies, etc. They don't simple start putting these things on a credit card and hope to pay them off one day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of financially irresponsible people that have done just that, and are now paying the price. Bankruptcy and foreclosure suck, but they happen to people that live above and beyond their means on borrowed dollars.

In my mind, I think things like the NEA are luxury items. I don't think it's financially responsible to pay for them with borrowed dollars. There are other programs I wouldn't fund either. I don't feel the same way about Planned Parenthood and others. The problem is that no one is ever going to agree on every program that should be put on hold until such time as we get our financial house in order. Hence the endless fighting. We may be doomed as a civilization because of our diversity.

That sort of thing's a dangerous strategy, though. Cutting long-running programs (arts, research, etc., etc.) in lean times might seem like a good way to save money, but in practice what happens is that they become very, very hard to reinstate when things improve. Why? Because all of the people previously funded by these programs suddenly find themselves in the unemployment queue and drift off into new careers. Many of them don't come back even when the funding does, meaning that there's nobody there to train the next generation. In the end, a great deal of experience and knowledge is simply lost.

An important distinction, I think, is between luxuries and necessities. In a lot of people's minds, research is not the same as the arts. Research is a necessity, the arts are a luxury.

An analogy: When you fall on hard times, you should probably still find a way to fix the roof, even if it means borrowing money. But at the same time, you should probably put off those kitchen renovations.
---
An even more important distinction, however, is between those who think that you can balance the budget by cutting funding for NEA and repealing health care reform;and those based in reality, where the NEA is a drop in the ocean and health care reform was designed to be deficit-reducing.

The trouble is that running a national economy isn't very much like keeping a house in good repair. In lean times, it makes a lot of sense to use deficit spending to build and repair infrastructure, make scientific advancements, essentially, to spend to get money into middle class pockets while also making national improvements. It's demand for goods and a large number of people with dollars to spend that gets an economy back on track.

Are you implying that there are no differences in the macroeconomic effects from increased spending on scientific R&D, infrastructure, education, and the arts? It doesn't seem like you are, but if you accept that there is a difference, then I don't see what your beef is with my statement.

I wasn't saying that we shouldn't be increasing government spending in a recession (or a recovery). I was saying that not all spending is created equal.


rmsusa


Mar 19, 2012, 9:28 AM
Post #15 of 26 (2399 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017

Re: [scrapedape] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
The trouble is that running a national economy isn't very much like keeping a house in good repair. In lean times, it makes a lot of sense to use deficit spending to build and repair infrastructure, make scientific advancements, essentially, to spend to get money into middle class pockets while also making national improvements. It's demand for goods and a large number of people with dollars to spend that gets an economy back on track.

Well, you've managed to put Keynes into a couple of sentences. The next step in that chain, of course, is grow fast enough during the fat times to pay off the debt that was just incurred by spending more than you make.


rmsusa


Mar 19, 2012, 9:37 AM
Post #16 of 26 (2395 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017

Re: [veganclimber] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

It really does seem like they're trying to lose. The primary system, as it exists now, brings out the worst in everyone. If the dems had to go through it this year, it'd be the same with with their team.

Who votes in primaries? The people with very strong beliefs. Very strong beliefs are usually out in the wings of the bell curve. If you don't pander to them you don't get the nomination. If you don't get the nomination, you don't get the chance to win. You wind up battling a single wide receiver way out in left or right field when the real game is back there over home plate.

It's ugly. Will the electorate be able to put the past behind and vote for the guy with the most sensible policies, or will it vote for the candidate who's suffered least from character assasination in the process?


flesh


Mar 19, 2012, 1:48 PM
Post #17 of 26 (2375 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 413

Re: [rmsusa] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I can't believe Mitt wants to cut something, he must want to lose.

There's no way it has anything to do with the fact that we'll all be fugged if it doesn't get under control.

He must really want to lose, what an idiot. Shit, maybe the idiot's even thinking about things that don't have to do with winning or losing, what a moron.

He should tell the truth, everyone knows that what really needs to be done is a 5 TRILLION DOLLAR stimulus, who cares about debt. Spend the 5 Trillion and everything will be candy canes and teddy bears. Mitt really just need to make it clear that Obama's spending simply wasn't enough. Cut programs? What? That's silly, why would we do that when we can strenthen ties with the next dominant economy, China. He just wasn't thinking bit enough. If it was up to Mitt, we'd have at least a few trillion more debt than we do now. Also, the poor would all be sucessful and the middle income earners would be telling the business owners what to do! Heaven on earth.....

Spending our way out of a recession is great if it works. Problem is, anything that potentially creates significant growth is always by nature risky. If it doesn't work, or work well enough, we are still in massive, growing, debilitating debt. What do we do then? Spend more? There isn't a definitive, proven model for what spending works, until then, were at risk.

Do you want to do something that may work, or do something that will work?

There's clear examples of when debt spending as a country works, but not many.

Generally, when companies go into debt, it's either because they have to and bankruptcy is always an option, or because they already are back ordered on products/services and its clear that debt to grow will produce specific, predictable results.


veganclimber


Mar 19, 2012, 2:38 PM
Post #18 of 26 (2365 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [flesh] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

flesh wrote:
I can't believe Mitt wants to cut something, he must want to lose.

There's no way it has anything to do with the fact that we'll all be fugged if it doesn't get under control.

So Planned Parenthood and the National The National Endowment for the Arts are going to be our downfall? He is using our debt as an excuse to go after programs that the republicans don't like. Nothing more to it than that.


rmsusa


Mar 19, 2012, 2:45 PM
Post #19 of 26 (2360 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017

Re: [flesh] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I'm glad you're so certain you know what will work to fix the problems you perceive with the economy.


dr_feelgood


Mar 20, 2012, 8:24 AM
Post #20 of 26 (2323 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25628

Re: [flesh] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

flesh wrote:
I can't believe Mitt wants to cut something, he must want to lose.

There's no way it has anything to do with the fact that we'll all be fugged if it doesn't get under control.

He must really want to lose, what an idiot. Shit, maybe the idiot's even thinking about things that don't have to do with winning or losing, what a moron.

He should tell the truth, everyone knows that what really needs to be done is a 5 TRILLION DOLLAR stimulus, who cares about debt. Spend the 5 Trillion and everything will be candy canes and teddy bears. Mitt really just need to make it clear that Obama's spending simply wasn't enough. Cut programs? What? That's silly, why would we do that when we can strenthen ties with the next dominant economy, China. He just wasn't thinking bit enough. If it was up to Mitt, we'd have at least a few trillion more debt than we do now. Also, the poor would all be sucessful and the middle income earners would be telling the business owners what to do! Heaven on earth.....

Spending our way out of a recession is great if it works. Problem is, anything that potentially creates significant growth is always by nature risky. If it doesn't work, or work well enough, we are still in massive, growing, debilitating debt. What do we do then? Spend more? There isn't a definitive, proven model for what spending works, until then, were at risk.

Do you want to do something that may work, or do something that will work?

There's clear examples of when debt spending as a country works, but not many.

Generally, when companies go into debt, it's either because they have to and bankruptcy is always an option, or because they already are back ordered on products/services and its clear that debt to grow will produce specific, predictable results.

For a republican primary candidate to propose anything that even resembles keynesianism during the primary is political suicide in today's neoliberal economic climate.


chadnsc


Mar 20, 2012, 9:31 AM
Post #21 of 26 (2312 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [flesh] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

flesh wrote:
I can't believe Mitt wants to cut something, he must want to lose.

There's no way it has anything to do with the fact that we'll all be fugged if it doesn't get under control.

He must really want to lose, what an idiot. Shit, maybe the idiot's even thinking about things that don't have to do with winning or losing, what a moron.

He should tell the truth, everyone knows that what really needs to be done is a 5 TRILLION DOLLAR stimulus, who cares about debt. Spend the 5 Trillion and everything will be candy canes and teddy bears. Mitt really just need to make it clear that Obama's spending simply wasn't enough. Cut programs? What? That's silly, why would we do that when we can strenthen ties with the next dominant economy, China. He just wasn't thinking bit enough. If it was up to Mitt, we'd have at least a few trillion more debt than we do now. Also, the poor would all be sucessful and the middle income earners would be telling the business owners what to do! Heaven on earth.....

Spending our way out of a recession is great if it works. Problem is, anything that potentially creates significant growth is always by nature risky. If it doesn't work, or work well enough, we are still in massive, growing, debilitating debt. What do we do then? Spend more? There isn't a definitive, proven model for what spending works, until then, were at risk.

Do you want to do something that may work, or do something that will work?

There's clear examples of when debt spending as a country works, but not many.

Generally, when companies go into debt, it's either because they have to and bankruptcy is always an option, or because they already are back ordered on products/services and its clear that debt to grow will produce specific, predictable results.

How would you have attempted to fix the economy? Seriously I'm very interested in hearing your viewpoint on this subject. Feel free to PM your response, I won't repost it here.


flesh


Mar 20, 2012, 10:18 AM
Post #22 of 26 (2302 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 413

Re: [chadnsc] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I consider myself neutral. I didn't vote for Bush or Obama. I'd prefer B. Clinton or Mitt.

I just finished Clinton's book, Back to work, half of it I loved, half of it not so much. It's worth reading if you care about the economy, especially if your a D. He's the best D I've heard when it comes to the economy. He has a good business sense and has an accurate vision of where we are headed this century.

Chadsnc,

I'd love to share my ideas, maybe I'll pm them to you but I can't begin to talk to folks on this forum about them, it's too unbalanced, just look at the thread titles. It would take many pages, it's very complicated. I need to finish my training schedule and philosophy I'll be posting in the technique and training forum soon.


camhead


Mar 20, 2012, 10:42 AM
Post #23 of 26 (2296 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [flesh] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

This video of Mitt rapping is awesome.

http://youtu.be/bxch-yi14BE


Partner j_ung


Mar 22, 2012, 4:37 AM
Post #24 of 26 (2253 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [wjca] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

wjca wrote:
I think I'd be alright with getting rid of funding for the NEA with borrowed dollars. In lean times, the responsible person cuts back on luxury items: vacations, eating out a lot, going to the movies, etc. They don't simple start putting these things on a credit card and hope to pay them off one day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of financially irresponsible people that have done just that, and are now paying the price. Bankruptcy and foreclosure suck, but they happen to people that live above and beyond their means on borrowed dollars.

In my mind, I think things like the NEA are luxury items. I don't think it's financially responsible to pay for them with borrowed dollars. There are other programs I wouldn't fund either. I don't feel the same way about Planned Parenthood and others. The problem is that no one is ever going to agree on every program that should be put on hold until such time as we get our financial house in order. Hence the endless fighting. We may be doomed as a civilization because of our diversity.

A government is nothing like a person. Comparing what a responsible government should do with what a responsible person should do is ridiculous. How about a war that only seems to make our situation worse? How about the money we borrow to hunt down and prosecute weed smokers?

It's easy to say, oh, the NEA is a luxury item, and maybe it is. But it's not luxury items we should be cutting first, it's the ones that have us borrowing money to, in effect, fuck ourselves over.


(This post was edited by j_ung on Mar 22, 2012, 4:41 AM)


Partner j_ung


Mar 22, 2012, 4:45 AM
Post #25 of 26 (2249 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [camhead] Are the republicans actually trying to lose? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
This video of Mitt rapping is awesome.

http://youtu.be/bxch-yi14BE

Maybe it's me, but I couldn't follow a single fucking word of that.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook