Jump to content

Does He Really Think People Are This Gullible?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Assume that you agree that a stimulus bill is the right way to deal with the current economy:What part of the article offends you?If you can't answer this, then your problem is with the bill and not Obama.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow cnn really protected him there. they quoted him and stuff. crazy.president bush "called on congress" to pass stuff all the time. how is this different?

Link to post
Share on other sites
wow cnn really protected him there. they quoted him and stuff. crazy.president bush "called on congress" to pass stuff all the time. how is this different?
Think. He wants this to be bi partisan, and as fast as possible. Why?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Assume that you agree that a stimulus bill is the right way to deal with the current economy:What part of the article offends you?If you can't answer this, then your problem is with the bill and not Obama.
My problem is with both in this case.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Think. He wants this to be bi partisan, and as fast as possible. Why?
because he thinks the stimulus bill is a good idea and because he wants to look like he reaches across the aisle. i dont read minds but that is pretty plausible.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Assume that you agree that a stimulus bill is the right way to deal with the current economy:What part of the article offends you?If you can't answer this, then your problem is with the bill and not Obama.
The Fear Mongering Glen Beck said it bestWe're never going to recover if we don't get the $50 million for the National Endowment For the Arts, we may never recover if we don't get $380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children's program, we may never recover if we don't get $300 million for grants to combat violence against women, we may never recover if we don't have $6 billion for university building projects, we may never recover if we don't have $1.2 billion to provide youth summer jobs, and this bill defines "Youth" to people up to the age of 24. You'll be paying for those. We will never recover if we don't have $2.4 billion for neighborhood stabilization activities. We may never recover if we don't have $650 million for digital TV coupons. We may never recover if we don't get $150 million for the Smithsonian. We may never recover if we don't have $34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters. We may never recover if we don't have $500 million for the improvement projects for the national institute of health facilities. We may never recover if we don't have $44 million for repairs to the Department of Agriculture headquarters or $350 million for agriculture department computers. We may never recover if we don't have $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building, not for a new building. To help them move to a new building. We may never survive if we don't have that $88 million for a moving truck! We may never survive if we don't have the money to convert federal auto fleets to hybrids. This country may never recover if we don't have a billion dollars for the census bureau. We may never recover if we don't have $89 billion for Medicaid or $30 billion for COBRA extensions or $36 billion for expanded unemployment or $20 billion for more food stamps. We may never recover if we don't have $850 million for Amtrak, a train that hasn't turned a profit in 50 years. America as we know it may never recover if we don't have $87 million for a polar ice breaking ship, never recover. Let's not look too deeply into why we would need a polar ice breaking ship if the poles are melting and won't have any ice! We may never recover if we don't have $1.7 million for the national park system or $55 million for the historic preservation fund. We may not survive if we don't have $7.6 million for the rural advancement program or $150 million for the agriculture commodity purposes or $150 million for producers of livestock, farm-raised fish and honeybees. We may never survive. We may never recover unless we have $160 million for paid volunteers at the Corporation for National and Community Service for the community volunteers, the National -- wait a minute. Why are we paying the volunteers? By The Way, The two major Republican alternatives – costing less than the administration’s plan – remain stymied as well. A $421 billion stimulus package—heavily tilted toward tax cuts and offered by the president’s old rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — was rejected 57-40 Thursday. McCain's plan would have cut the bottom two income tax brackets and lowered corporate income taxes. It also would have extended unemployment benefits and provide money to repair and replace military equipment worn out in Iraq and AfghanistanA second GOP option, focused more on housing issues, fared even worse, going down 62-35. Under Ensign’s plan, American homeowners would be able to refinance their current mortgages or finance the purchase of a new home for about 4 percent. On average, this means monthly payments would be $400 lower – a savings of up to $150,000 over the course of a 30-year loan. Ensign’s plan costs half as much as the trillion dollar stimulus bill currently being considered. The Fix Housing First Act also includes a $15,000 homebuyer tax credit, tax cuts for the lowest tax brackets and tax relief for small businesses so they can help boost our economy. The lowest tax brackets would be lowered from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. For small businesses, Ensign’s plan would eliminate capital gains taxes for start-ups and extend bonus depreciation, both helping to create jobs, stimulate spending and boost our economy.http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?...f8-ca13911620e2
Link to post
Share on other sites
because he thinks the stimulus bill is a good idea and because he wants to look like he reaches across the aisle. i dont read minds but that is pretty plausible.
No. Because he knows it's a pile, and he needs to be able to point fingers back come re-election. If it's so much awesomeness he should be selling it like that, but instead it's doom and gloom and outright lies. Mostly, though, it's gotta be quick because people are learning what it's about and they support it to the tune of 30% and fading fast.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm very open minded, but I stopped reading here.Edit: Okay, I actually did read it, but the overall point still stands.
Doesn't it strike you that if the polar ice caps are melting an 87 million ice breaker is just a boat?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't it strike you that if the polar ice caps are melting an 87 million ice breaker is just a boat?
Actually it's exactly the opposite and you're choosing something to focus on that is most likely very useful and not very much money.The more the polar ice cap melts the more opportunities for shipping and commercial traffic in the high arctic. There are competing claims to the undersea resources and shipping lanes ( ever hear of the North West Passage ) among Arctic nations like Russia, The US, Canada and Norway.Even if the icecap melts during parts of the Summer in more places there are still large amounts of ice and to have any sort of shipping in the high Arctic you have to have large ice breakers. Canada has them but they need replacing, Russia has a lot of them and the US has them and $87 million for one is actually very very cheap since most large icebreakers are in the half billion dollar range.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it's exactly the opposite and you're choosing something to focus on that is most likely very useful and not very much money.The more the polar ice cap melts the more opportunities for shipping and commercial traffic in the high arctic. There are competing claims to the undersea resources and shipping lanes ( ever hear of the North West Passage ) among Arctic nations like Russia, The US, Canada and Norway.Even if the icecap melts during parts of the Summer in more places there are still large amounts of ice and to have any sort of shipping in the high Arctic you have to have large ice breakers. Canada has them but they need replacing, Russia has a lot of them and the US has them and $87 million for one is actually very very cheap since most large icebreakers are in the half billion dollar range.
O.k. I will give you that. Now defend the rest of this turd. And, if we have them, why do we need another?
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Fear Mongering Glen Beck said it bestWe're never going to recover if we don't get the $50 million for the National Endowment For the Arts, we may never recover if we don't get $380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children's program, we may never recover if we don't get $300 million for grants to combat violence against women, we may never recover if we don't have $6 billion for university building projects, we may never recover if we don't have $1.2 billion to provide youth summer jobs, and this bill defines "Youth" to people up to the age of 24. You'll be paying for those. We will never recover if we don't have $2.4 billion for neighborhood stabilization activities. We may never recover if we don't have $650 million for digital TV coupons. We may never recover if we don't get $150 million for the Smithsonian. We may never recover if we don't have $34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters. We may never recover if we don't have $500 million for the improvement projects for the national institute of health facilities. We may never recover if we don't have $44 million for repairs to the Department of Agriculture headquarters or $350 million for agriculture department computers. We may never recover if we don't have $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building, not for a new building. To help them move to a new building. We may never survive if we don't have that $88 million for a moving truck! We may never survive if we don't have the money to convert federal auto fleets to hybrids. This country may never recover if we don't have a billion dollars for the census bureau. We may never recover if we don't have $89 billion for Medicaid or $30 billion for COBRA extensions or $36 billion for expanded unemployment or $20 billion for more food stamps. We may never recover if we don't have $850 million for Amtrak, a train that hasn't turned a profit in 50 years. America as we know it may never recover if we don't have $87 million for a polar ice breaking ship, never recover. Let's not look too deeply into why we would need a polar ice breaking ship if the poles are melting and won't have any ice! We may never recover if we don't have $1.7 million for the national park system or $55 million for the historic preservation fund. We may not survive if we don't have $7.6 million for the rural advancement program or $150 million for the agriculture commodity purposes or $150 million for producers of livestock, farm-raised fish and honeybees. We may never survive. We may never recover unless we have $160 million for paid volunteers at the Corporation for National and Community Service for the community volunteers, the National -- wait a minute. Why are we paying the volunteers? By The Way, The two major Republican alternatives – costing less than the administration’s plan – remain stymied as well. A $421 billion stimulus package—heavily tilted toward tax cuts and offered by the president’s old rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — was rejected 57-40 Thursday. McCain's plan would have cut the bottom two income tax brackets and lowered corporate income taxes. It also would have extended unemployment benefits and provide money to repair and replace military equipment worn out in Iraq and AfghanistanA second GOP option, focused more on housing issues, fared even worse, going down 62-35. Under Ensign’s plan, American homeowners would be able to refinance their current mortgages or finance the purchase of a new home for about 4 percent. On average, this means monthly payments would be $400 lower – a savings of up to $150,000 over the course of a 30-year loan. Ensign’s plan costs half as much as the trillion dollar stimulus bill currently being considered. The Fix Housing First Act also includes a $15,000 homebuyer tax credit, tax cuts for the lowest tax brackets and tax relief for small businesses so they can help boost our economy. The lowest tax brackets would be lowered from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. For small businesses, Ensign’s plan would eliminate capital gains taxes for start-ups and extend bonus depreciation, both helping to create jobs, stimulate spending and boost our economy.http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?...f8-ca13911620e2
I loathe Glen Beck, but no one can deny there is some seriously wasteful/ill timed bullshit here.
Link to post
Share on other sites

let's see how many of these i can address during the duration of a single beer..... aaaaaand, go!

The Fear Mongering Glen Beck said it besti don't think that this statement has ever or will ever be true.We're never going to recover if we don't get the $50 million for the National Endowment For the Arts, my sister works in the arts and lost her job because of the economy. believe it or not, some people work in museums, orchestra halls, etc.we may never recover if we don't get $380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children's program, we may never recover if we don't get $300 million for grants to combat violence against women, we may never recover if we don't have $6 billion for university building projects, virginia tech, a state-funded university, employs over 70% of the working public of my hometown. js.we may never recover if we don't have $1.2 billion to provide youth summer jobs, and this bill defines "Youth" to people up to the age of 24. You'll be paying for those. when the provision can't be dishonestly cast without the use of the actual word "jobs," we'd better include something vague and unjournalistic like "you'll be paying for those" at the end to make sure that the faux news audience stays scared of any government spending whatsoever.We will never recover if we don't have $2.4 billion for neighborhood stabilization activities. We may never recover if we don't have $650 million for digital TV coupons. careful, faux news analyst. most of your target demographic is poorly educated, low-income whites. they might need those converters to keep watching. let's just all cross our fingers and hope that none of those converters go to black people.We may never recover if we don't get $150 million for the Smithsonian. not sure if you're aware of this, but people work at the smithsonian, and the more exhibits they have, the more people go, and the more people they can employ.We may never recover if we don't have $34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters. We may never recover if we don't have $500 million for the improvement projects for the national institute of health facilities. We may never recover if we don't have $44 million for repairs to the Department of Agriculture headquarters or $350 million for agriculture department computers. you do realize that actual, real-life human beings renovate shit, right? like, it's not like robots do that. also, computers are pretty useful for stuff like, um, genetically engineering food to increase yields, calculating optimal crop organization/rotation, etc.We may never recover if we don't have $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building, not for a new building. To help them move to a new building. We may never survive if we don't have that $88 million for a moving truck! the only expenses involved in moving inhere in the renting of a truck. right.We may never survive if we don't have the money to convert federal auto fleets to hybrids. as pretty much anyone in any military industry would tell you, large-scale government purchases made through private industries (cough, struggling american car companies, cough) spur those industries to streamline processes and the government acts like one big, rich consumer dancing around in the big, gay free marketplace. This country may never recover if we don't have a billion dollars for the census bureau. We may never recover if we don't have $89 billion for Medicaid or $30 billion for COBRA extensions or $36 billion for expanded unemployment or $20 billion for more food stamps. i believe sen. jim webb of va said it pretty well--you don't stockpile food stamps like you do money in times of risky investments and asset purchases--people actually spend them. like, all of them. people also need unemployment benefits currently, or they'd, like, die on the streets more often than you'd like to hear about.We may never recover if we don't have $850 million for Amtrak, a train that hasn't turned a profit in 50 years. a lot of the US mail travels via amtrak. just fyi. but of course, everything that doesn't turn a profit is useless, so meh. you know, like literally everything the government requires taxes to do. including killing brown people.America as we know it may never recover if we don't have $87 million for a polar ice breaking ship, never recover. as bob said, this is a pretty good price, actually.Let's not look too deeply into why we would need a polar ice breaking ship if the poles are melting and won't have any ice! not if we get our government agencies driving hybrids!We may never recover if we don't have $1.7 million for the national park system or $55 million for the historic preservation fund. We may not survive if we don't have $7.6 million for the rural advancement program or $150 million for the agriculture commodity purposes or $150 million for producers of livestock, farm-raised fish and honeybees. We may never survive. We may never recover unless we have $160 million for paid volunteers at the Corporation for National and Community Service for the community volunteers, the National -- wait a minute. Why are we paying the volunteers? because they, like the people that work for the park service, like people who work at museums, like people who renovate buildings, like people who make paintings for a living but need subsidized education at their technique, make our country a better place, in a way different from but no less valuable than a teacher, a senator (sometimes), a garbage man, a construction worker, whoever. but obviously, just because you don't go to national parks or museums or the south side of chicago, the things they do are utterly useless for everyone. i forgot about that.By The Way, The two major Republican alternatives – costing less than the administration’s plan – remain stymied as well. A $421 billion stimulus package—heavily tilted toward tax cuts and offered by the president’s old rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — was rejected 57-40 Thursday. McCain's plan would have cut the bottom two income tax brackets and lowered corporate income taxes. It also would have extended unemployment benefits and provide money to repair and replace military equipment worn out in Iraq and Afghanistan oh, mr. anti-pork himself. cutting taxes, extending unemployment, and funding military equipment, all in one cohesive amendment? streamlined as a motherfucker, that one.A second GOP option, focused more on housing issues, fared even worse, going down 62-35. Under Ensign’s plan, American homeowners would be able to refinance their current mortgages or finance the purchase of a new home for about 4 percent. On average, this means monthly payments would be $400 lower – a savings of up to $150,000 over the course of a 30-year loan. Ensign’s plan costs half as much as the trillion dollar stimulus bill currently being considered. The Fix Housing First Act also includes a $15,000 homebuyer tax credit, tax cuts for the lowest tax brackets and tax relief for small businesses so they can help boost our economy. The lowest tax brackets would be lowered from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. For small businesses, Ensign’s plan would eliminate capital gains taxes for start-ups and extend bonus depreciation, both helping to create jobs, stimulate spending and boost our economy.according to the same interview with sen. webb that i referenced earlier, the large reason that democrats didn't back the housing amendment was that they didn't like the tax cut package (which would also significantly lower taxes for the highest tax brackets, which the esteemed herr beck seems to have utterly whiffed during his ever-awesome practice of journalistic integrity). webb said that on its own, the housing thing was something that most democrats in the senate were willing to back.http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?...f8-ca13911620e2
i don't mean to imply that all of the above is something that i'd support spending money on, but it's more than a little retarded to state things so one-sidedly under the guise of proper journalism, or to be the one reading it as such. when you're talking about stimulating the economy with an influx of government dollars, as most of the world's economists agree is necessary unless you're willing to sacrifice the next ten years or so, a period in which people will straight up die if we don't do anything, it's not a matter of flatly stating that money being used here is bad or money being used here is good. it's about prioritizing things, and since literally every sector that mr. beck seems to disdain actually employs real, live, human beings--americans even!--he's doing his country a great disservice by acting as if everything in this bill is utterly useless. and yes, 85suited, you're doing your country the same disservice by parroting the bloviating twatbag.ok, i lied. that took me about 1.75 beers. but that still makes me a lot more honest than glen beck, who i can say with 100% certainty that the world would be better off without.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fundamental problem is that BHO is spending money he doesn’t have. The government doesn’t make money, it takes it. It is not capable of stimulating the economy by spending in a quick reckless and wasteful manner…it is a net loss. –EV comes to mind. It is like spending a 1.00 to recoup .50 cent. I don’t know the math on what percentage we are losing on every dollar spent but I do know it is a HUGE leak and won’t work. Even IF it stimulates in the short term it will prolong the slump and ultimately cost more to our kids and our grandkids then any short term benefit it MAY or MAYNOT have…it really is just sad and dumb. Granted the liberals (good but misguided souls) on here just won’t be convinced otherwise but at the end of the day it is simple money management, risk assessment and fundamental operations of managing any organization. There is no organization be it a business, club, charity or anything else that can make these kinds of stupid moves and 1. survive and 2. prosper and yet you guys support them and HONESTLY BELIEVE it is good!! It is kind of funny and kind of sad that a group of people could be so well educated, so well written, so intelligent and yet….just plain stupid about very simple things. I make no claims to be smart (average maybe slightly more), I don’t write well (OBV) and yet if you pay attention and learn from your mistakes you will successful. That is unarguable. The US has been successful in spite of our government….and hopefully will continue to do so but we continue to go down the wrong path – farther – and farther and farther all the time. We have enough competition in the world and at home, why would we feel the need to put us in a disadvantage for the next 2 or 3 or more generations?? So we can simulate the economy quickly?? Sorry guys it is just dumb. :club:

Link to post
Share on other sites
let's see how many of these i can address during the duration of a single beer..... aaaaaand, go!i don't mean to imply that all of the above is something that i'd support spending money on, but it's more than a little retarded to state things so one-sidedly under the guise of proper journalism, or to be the one reading it as such. when you're talking about stimulating the economy with an influx of government dollars, as most of the world's economists agree is necessary unless you're willing to sacrifice the next ten years or so, a period in which people will straight up die if we don't do anything, it's not a matter of flatly stating that money being used here is bad or money being used here is good. it's about prioritizing things, and since literally every sector that mr. beck seems to disdain actually employs real, live, human beings--americans even!--he's doing his country a great disservice by acting as if everything in this bill is utterly useless. and yes, 85suited, you're doing your country the same disservice by parroting the bloviating twatbag.ok, i lied. that took me about 1.75 beers. but that still makes me a lot more honest than glen beck, who i can say with 100% certainty that the world would be better off without.
This just wrong, there is NO agreement to that. Some do support it many do not. You statment is no different then Al Gore and the rest of the tree huggers stating there is total agreement on global warming...and if you say it often enough it must be true!! Sorry to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Check, This is one of the dumbest things you have ever said... you cant really believe that the government kills brown peopleWe may never recover if we don't have $850 million for Amtrak, a train that hasn't turned a profit in 50 years. a lot of the US mail travels via amtrak. just fyi. but of course, everything that doesn't turn a profit is useless, so meh. you know, like literally everything the government requires taxes to do. including killing brown people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This just wrong, there is NO agreement to that. Some do support it many do not. You statment is no different then Al Gore and the rest of the tree huggers stating there is total agreement on global warming...and if you say it often enough it must be true!! Sorry to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
perhaps "sacrifice" is a bit too strong, but yes, literally every economist understands that the stimulus package isn't intended to be some sort of far-reaching economic policy. it's something that's done in the short term to make the huge swings of the market be a bit less severe. the problem that conservatives generally have when it comes to market regulation is that they somehow forget that when the economy tanks like this, and unemployment hits 10% or higher, etc., it's the poor people that get hit first and hardest--just because the more affluent among us don't get to the point where they're not eating to make sure their kids can doesn't mean that some parents aren't being forced to make that choice, no matter how hardworking they are. and sure, billionaires might lose hundreds of millions of dollars when the stock market crashes, but what matters more to the country as a whole is the actual, physical well-being of the literally millions of people that are losing their jobs, being foreclosed upon (though there there's probably more blame to go on the homeowner), and yes, literally straight up dying sometimes. what the stimulus package intends to do is have the government in a sense bail out those who have lost their jobs. sure, there is some extra shit in there that shouldn't be, and i hope that goes away, but the basic idea is that the government creates jobs in a very direct way--and yes, at our grandkids' expense, to some extent, although the livelihood of a lot of those grandkids depends on us doing something right now, as well--so that the people looking for work right now aren't stuck in abject poverty until things straighten out.it's very, very well documented that the "more free" a market is, the greater stratification of wealth exists under such a system, and the greater amplitude of the natural fluctuations that occur within it. we have very concrete examples of transitions from centralized systems to radically privatized ones all over south america, and literally every one of them, from bolivia to argentina to chile, experienced a dramatic period of economic downturn that left large segments of the populations in complete and utter poverty. some of those countries righted themselves afterward to some extent, but not in every case. regardless, the reason for using centralized funds is to infuse job growth in the short term and thus avoid those devastating periods while minimizing the long term effects of doing so. no one WANTS to have to stimulate the economy--the point of contention is whether the taking on of more national debt is worth the short term benefits. to the extent that the lower classes of society are losing jobs at nearly record numbers with no sign of stopping, the general liberal position isn't "omg spending money is fun!" but rather "we need to do something so that we don't have a class of millions of americans living farther below the poverty line than they already do." you can cast the issue as "liberals like to spend taxpayer money" or "liberals are just sentimental idiots" or whatever you want, just like you can cast conservatives as bible thumping backwoodsmen, but that's outright dishonest and doesn't do the country or intellectualism a lick of good. the way political debate is undertaken in this country today is a direct assault on the principles on which the US was founded, and simpletons like glen beck, who someone quoted above, spit in the face of madison, franklin, jefferson, washington, et al every time they open their mouths.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Check, This is one of the dumbest things you have ever said... you cant really believe that the government kills brown peopleWe may never recover if we don't have $850 million for Amtrak, a train that hasn't turned a profit in 50 years. a lot of the US mail travels via amtrak. just fyi. but of course, everything that doesn't turn a profit is useless, so meh. you know, like literally everything the government requires taxes to do. including killing brown people.
you think the hundreds of thousands of iraqis that we killed were purple? or just that the trillions of dollars we spent on the war over there shot up from the red sea?americans that don't take responsibility for all the consequences of war are fairly repugnant to me.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no possible way that a *involuntary transfer* of money can create more money. If I come to your house and steal $100, no new wealth is created. If the government takes $100 from me and gives it to my neighbor, no new wealth is created.WHY IS EVERYONE PRETENDING THAT TRANSFERS CREATE WEALTH!!????!!!This is pissing me off so much! Transfers do not create wealth. They just don't. There is no logical, practical, or theoretical reason why moving money from one pile to another creates any wealth or economic growth. The media has bought into it and insists on calling this piece of shit pile of pork "stimulus", and it just isn't. It's just redistribution. Redistribution DOES NOT create wealth, never has, never will.Don't they teach economics in school anymore? Hasn't ANYONE in Congress ever cracked a book? Or had a thought?The idiocy has reached new levels not seen in 70 years, and last time they didn't have a precedent showing how stupid their ideas were. This time, we have 70 years of historical evidence all pointing in the same direction.If this is the level of stupidity Obama is going to force on us for the next 8 years, this country is in deep doo-doo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
it's very, very well documented that the more free a market is, the greater stratification of wealth exists under such a system, and the greater amplitude of the natural fluctuations that occur within it. we have
This is just a total, outright lie. The exact opposite is true. Unless you can provide a theoretical reason why this would be true, you're just blowing smoke. All data points otherwise, as a look at socialist countries vs capitalist countries shows. The leaders in socialist countries live in mansions, the other 99% live in mud huts.In capitalist countries, the leaders live in mansions, 98% live in nice houses, and 1% lives in crappy houses that the people in the mud huts would give their left arm for.It is impossible for money to become increasingly concentrated in a free market society. A few moments thought about money flow in a capitalist economy will demonstrate why. If you can't figure it out, I can step you through ti.
Link to post
Share on other sites

it was a pretty bad economic decision to free the slaves, henry. the government ain't always supposed to act with only balance sheets in mind.i'm not trying to imply that the influence of special interests on our legislative practice isn't disgusting or anything like that, but i do think that it's a little naive or narrowminded to suggest that our government is only in the business of dealing with money. in times of severe economic distress, the livelihood of a sizeable segment of the american people is put at risk, and sometimes that needs to be thought about alongside dry economics when banging out legislation to deal with it.keynes was a pretty smart economist, and he was all for stuff like the new deal. just because friedman became all the rage in an influential american economics school doesn't mean that he's automatically right thereby. keynesian economics is still far more influential worldwide than radical free marketeering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...