Quote: Original post by nobodynews

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
More on the Obama subject than Steele, but the concept of paying people to dig holes one day then fill them the next is a decent analogue to Obama's stimulus plan.

I'm fine with arguing about the overall effectiveness of government spending (well, reading arguments as I don't want to spend a lot of time arguing about it), but free market ideals aside in what way are the programs listed here a "decent" analogue "paying people to dig holes one day then fill them the next". It's only a decent analogue if one agrees with you in the first place about the effectiveness of government spending.

Some statements against the stimulus that don't use sucky analogies: while it may provide jobs, the jobs provided won't be the ones needed most by society and it will just prop up failed industries; it may be affective, but tax cuts will be more affective as strong businesses will better be able to use the money than would the government, while weak businesses will still fail as they should; and so on.



Also, pet peeve I've had for awhile, but I hate your signature. Not because of the content as the quotes are vague enough to not offend anyone, but because it takes up too much verticle space when you post multiple times in a row (as you often do) and because the color choice distracts from message content. I keep thinking "something import... no just his signature". Last, you 'sign' all of your posts which I find tacky on a forum that lists your username with every post.

edit: the signing actually isn't a big deal was just looking for stuff to complain about.

Sorry just needed to get that off my chest, carry on.

I'll defer to your post on the whole, including the signature issue :) It was a lot less distracting when GDNet was a black background.

My point about digging holes is that the entire stimulus concept is based on the idea of creating jobs. Job creation misses the point entirely. Production creates wealth, job creation is a symptom of productivity. Self-proclaimed experts should understand this fundamental concept.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
Please provide a historical example in which a specific policy has failed but the nation has benefited from the failure,

1)Prohibition- outlawed the production distribution and consumption of alcohol, which raised prices, did not curb useage, and increased crime related to the aforementioned. Discarding this law made it possible to have or sell a beer without resorting to small arms fire.

Congress passed Prohibition over Wilson's veto. Who's policy was it?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
2) Immigration laws- over a million people took advantage of this failed albatross of a law and are productive members of our workforce. Further they've bettered their economic position and made a better future for their progeny.

You're mixing up plural and singular. Is there a particular immigration law that you dislike or do you dislike all of them?

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
Nothing here I would disagree with too much, but that's given that you are apparently defining the success or failure of a policy based on whether or not it's been implemented or passed as law. That's not what I was talking about, however. In the context of Limbaugh's remarks, where he chastises Republicans in Congress (who certainly oppose many or all of Obama's policies) for hoping that Obama's policies succeed whether or not they agree with them, it's clear that he defines the success or failure of a policy as something other than simply being allowed to be implemented.

Rush is bought and paid for and was in lock-step with the soft facism of GW so please don't take this as a defense of Rush, but I believe he is operating from the position of Obama's policies failing irrespective of anyone's wishes.

My reading understands his position to be that he hopes his policies fail in a very pronounced trainwreck so we can move on and start addressing the issue in a sane way.

It took me quite a while to realize that the RNC is as full of it as the DNC, but they're close to indistinguishable when they're in power. The mess Obama is left with is a result of Bush, but Obama is just going to be Bush by some exponential power on fiscal issues.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Congress passed Prohibition over Wilson's veto. Who's policy was it?

Still wearing the pom-poms I see. Go team!

Quote:
You're mixing up plural and singular. Is there a particular immigration law that you dislike or do you dislike all of them?

The topic was policy I believe. I dislike our immigraion policy. The solutions have been hopelessly muddled by free social services, so the two parties combined created a nice little wedge issue to bring up during political season so people of a like mind to you can propagate the idea that there are meaningful differences between them.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
More on the Obama subject than Steele, but the concept of paying people to dig holes one day then fill them the next is a decent analogue to Obama's stimulus plan.

How exactly is that the decent analog? What in Obama's stimulus plan amounts to that?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
When he stated that both Keynesian and Classical economists agree that federal stimulus was good for the economy I cringed. It's a blatant falsehood. Being ignorant of economic schools of thought is no crime but he knows better, and is knowingly lying to the world writ large.

When did he state that? Can you find the quote or are you paraphrasing in order to support your claim that he's lying? It seems more likely to me, given your ideological prejudices, that you would cringe at any federal spending program, regardless of it's philosophical pedigree.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Further, he's not even adhering to true Keynesian policy. It's just a give away for his pet lobbies at the cost of everyone that pays taxes.

How is he not adhering to true Keynesianism? How is it a give away to his pet lobbies? What lobbies are those?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Obama, "Hey, I have an idea, in these times of economic hardship what we should do is tax productive ventures and use the money to subvene non-productive train wrecks, that'll fix us right up."

That sounds like your ideological prejudices speaking.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
My point about digging holes is that the entire stimulus concept is based on the idea of creating jobs. Job creation misses the point entirely. Production creates wealth, job creation is a symptom of productivity. Self-proclaimed experts should understand this fundamental concept.

Spoken like a true supply sider. What creates demand?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Congress passed Prohibition over Wilson's veto. Who's policy was it?

Still wearing the pom-poms I see. Go team!

I see that you're still unable to respond to questions in a mature fashion. Holding your assertions up to scrutiny isn't cheerleading.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
You're mixing up plural and singular. Is there a particular immigration law that you dislike or do you dislike all of them?

The topic was policy I believe. I dislike our immigraion policy. The solutions have been hopelessly muddled by free social services, so the two parties combined created a nice little wedge issue to bring up during political season so people of a like mind to you can propagate the idea that there are meaningful differences between them.

Yes, the topic was policy, but you denounced immigration laws and then immigration law, so I asked for clarification. Immigration wasn't an issue in the election last year, much less a wedge issue. McCain and Obama were pretty much on the same page on it, so it fell off the radar. Please take off your ideological blinders.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Rush is bought and paid for and was in lock-step with the soft facism of GW so please don't take this as a defense of Rush, but I believe he is operating from the position of Obama's policies failing irrespective of anyone's wishes.

My reading understands his position to be that he hopes his policies fail in a very pronounced trainwreck so we can move on and start addressing the issue in a sane way.

Would it not be much more preferable that Obama's policies succeed and that Limbaugh's (and yours, if applicable) assessment of the consequences of said policies be wrong? Isn't the preservation of the rightness of one's politics a trivial concern compared to the well-being of the nation?

I mean, you never heard me wishing for Iraq to become a spectacular failure, as much as I knew it to be inevitable. Given such a choice, I would have said "Let Sean be horribly wrong and let Iraq turn out super." Given a choice between one or the other, I would say "Let Obama's appeasement of Republicans in the stimulus package be a wise move, even though it would shatter my conceptions of economics." Given a choice between one or the other, I would have said "let the lack of oversight in the bailout of Wall Street be an inconsequential triviality, despite the fact that it would force me to seriously rethink human nature." Given the choice between one or the other, I would say "Let Obama's health care plan be a boon to the nation's uninsured and under-insured and bring down costs, even though it would mean that I would be made to look hopelessly stupid."

I did so miss talking to somebody who listens and allows progress of the discussion, BTW.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
How exactly is that the decent analog? What in Obama's stimulus plan amounts to that?

2 people on a deserted island scrapping out a subsistence have a 100% employment rate. It misses the point entirely.

Quote:
When did he state that? Can you find the quote or are you paraphrasing in order to support your claim that he's lying? It seems more likely to me, given your ideological prejudices, that you would cringe at any federal spending program, regardless of it's philosophical pedigree.

Link

Quote:
According to Mr Biden: "Every economist... from conservative to liberal, acknowledges that direct government spending on a direct program now is the best way to infuse economic growth and create jobs."

Barack Obama said earlier this month that: "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."

Quote:
How is he not adhering to true Keynesianism? How is it a give away to his pet lobbies? What lobbies are those?

Keynesianism doesnt include rent seeking or public choice, nor was it a green initiative.

Quote:
That sounds like your ideological prejudices speaking.

It's an accurate summation of the current direction of the proposed "stimulus"

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
My point about digging holes is that the entire stimulus concept is based on the idea of creating jobs. Job creation misses the point entirely. Production creates wealth, job creation is a symptom of productivity. Self-proclaimed experts should understand this fundamental concept.

Spoken like a true supply sider. What creates demand?

Desired goods are scarce, where are you going with that?