You know what, the government helps most americans, regardless of income, and I never hear middleclass people or rich people complain about the direct and indirect benefits they themselves receive. In fact, I would argue that at my high income, I get alot more financial help than some "ghetto" person. My mortgage tax writeoff alone is probably bigger than most people's yearly WIC/food stamp budget. Last year, the government gave middle class people lots of free money to buy houses.

On Walter Williams, that tool is so intellectually dishonest it's ridiculous; him and Stossel make a good team in that respect. Talk about racial quotas: the only reason WW is given a platform (syndicated columns, etc) for his opinion is because he is an extreme right wing black person that is willing to loudly criticize african americans to white audiences.

But to facts. If you look at every economic statistic, black americans are much more better off than they were in the 60s. Before 1960, most blacks were under the poverty line, now most are above. The number of middle class black people since then has widely expanded. There are more black managers and executives. Surely the Great Society and affirmative action had something to do with this great progress? This video was from the early 80s; we can also see that there has been significant progress since 1980 in terms of poverty, education and other areas. To suggest that government programs have not only not helped but have hindered this progress requires a stronger argument than huxters like WW and JS can muster.

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla-bla bla bla bla bla bla. bla bla bla bla bal bla bal bla bla bal "bla" bla. Bla bla bla bla bal bla bla bla bla bla bla rightist bla.

Do you see how that bullshit works both ways and accomplishes absolutely nothing?

"I'm laughing at your superior intelect"

>> ^quantumushroom:

That fool that resigned was hoist with his own petard. It's about time these one-sided parasites unlatch from the taxpayer teat. At least one of them admits they don't need the "free" money. Let's see if anyone wants to actually pay to listen to leftist claptrap.

That fool that resigned was hoist with his own petard. It's about time these one-sided parasites unlatch from the taxpayer teat. At least one of them admits they don't need the "free" money. Let's see if anyone wants to actually pay to listen to leftist claptrap.

The point he should have been trying to make and the point he made are close, but not quite the same.

He would have you believe that the extra money the rich get will be spent (if it's spent at all) on one type of product, and it may very well be. It's like getting free money, so why not spend it on something you would not have otherwise bought this year?

But what he should have been trying to point out is that a lot of people spending a little bit of money motivates the economy more than one person spending a lot of money on one big item.

If a lot of people are spending 100 dollars here and there, it creates a need for additional people working to handle those extra customers. Especially in customer service type jobs such as restaurants. Basically the non-rich people will use the money more reliably and usually more locally than the rich. It was shown in some studies of unemployment funds.. that tax cuts for the rich don't generate near as much money as unemployment funds. It was something like 1 dollar toward unemployment causes 1.6 dollars to be generated in the economy, and has the added benefit of allowing an unemployed person to keep their home and the lights on instead of defaulting. Basically ever dime an unemployed person gets off unemployment went into bills and necessities, and all that spending caused others to spend another 60 cents for every dollar that guy spent...keeping other people employed.

And the rich tax cuts did nothing even close to that kind of money generation....

Or simpler. Poorer people will spend tax cuts on more necessities and therefore more reliably spend it. While richer people will spend it on luxury and therefore less reliably spend it.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Do you realize that, in your attempt to refute his point, you are actually providing evidence to support it? Nationalized student loan industry? Do you ever stop and think of how stupid some of the things that you've been trained to say actually sound? I'm not trying to insult. A "nationalized student loan industry" is literally, LITERALLY, one of the dumbest phrases I've heard in months.
How "trained" does one have to be to see the results of obamania? High unemployment, weakness to delight our enemies, cronies and closested communists infiltrating DC, the demoting of American exceptionalism by a community organizer who never worked a day in his life?
This POS Bill was snuck into obama's commiecare atrocity...
Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act
By having the government take over all federal student loan organizations, it would involve one of the largest expansions of a government program in recent memory. It would dismantle a system that has successfully served generations of Americans. Within a decade the Federal Direct Loan Program would be a trillion dollar operation, making it one of the biggest banks in the world. It would ultimately have responsibility for tens of millions of borrowers...
-- America's Student Loan Providers (July 21, 2009)


Holy shit, shroom. Direct lending of student loans is the only reasonable way to fix the mess of a system that we had. Do you have any idea what the status quo was? 1) Student Loan Industry lends money to students. 2) The loans are ZERO RISK to the Industry because a) it is the only type of debt that bankruptcy does not wipe out and b) the government guarantees the loans. 3) The Industry gets the interest on the loans--paid by the government, in the case of subsidized loans.

Student loans are FREE, RISK FREE money for the banks. They are guaranteed to collect. That is why they have such an axe to grind. This is their golden goose. And the government was already the one lending the money, in effect, because they were guaranteeing them in the first place.

>> ^FNORDcinco:

It seems like the camera being in a place where people can see it might of thrown off the results a bit. But hey free money!


Unless they edited it out (I wouldn't be surprised) looking directly at the camera is one thing no one did. Which I found sort of odd, looking around for a camera would have been my first instinct.

It seems like the camera being in a place where people can see it might of thrown off the results a bit. But hey free money!

The fat cat "straight arrows" love the fact that drugs are illegal for purely monetary reasons.

More invisible, free money for them to launder.

Hell, the CIA couldn't afford to do half of the shit it does if they couldn't sell drugs.

Who do you think is pushing those bumper crops of opium coming out of Afghanistan?

He thought he was getting a great deal at $800 and would make some free money. "You can't con an honest man."

This site would be so much more pleasant if it wasn't completely overwhelmed by 16 year old liberal nutjobs like Nithern who haven't done enough research to realize that both Dems and Repubs have been complete fiscal retards for a really long time. Nithern, you bring up the old Clinton surplus myth. Read this:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

If you can't understand it, let me break it down for you: there was never a surplus under Clinton. Ever. There are two parts of the national debt. Imagine you're a household and you have a mortgage and credit card debt. You take out a second mortage on your home and pay down some of your credit card debit. Home debt goes up, credit card debt goes down. Then you go all over the city and tell people you reduced your credit card debt! Whee! You don't tell them you went deeper into debt elsewhere in order to do it. Do you realize how ridiculous of an accomplishment this is?

Moreover, Social Security payments are adjusted for the CPI. The CPI is the government's way of calculating rises in the cost of living. In the 90s, the Boskin commission was formed to look for "bias" in the way the CPI was calculated. Let me translate that for you: hey guys, we need reduce Social Security obligations without anyone noticing by subjectively omitting certain price increases, thereby artificially lowering the CPI against which SS payments are adjusted.

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

Perhaps there is no accurate measure for the underemployed, but discouraged workers (jobless for over a year) are no longer counted when they used to be prior to the Clinton admin. It's a goofy new category created to intentionally make the number look more timid that historical numbers and nothing more. Both the CPI and the way unemployment are calculated changed during the Clinton administration as short term "fixes" of problems that need real solutions that no citizen is ever going to vote for. So if you think Clinton solved jack shit fiscally, I've got news for you: we're going to need something 100x more potent. And it won't happen, because people are retards like you. Think about it. You bitch about the Iraq war, and rightfully so, but before you were born the Democrats started a useless little war called "Vietnam" that led to Nixon severing our currency's last link to gold. Oh, and we lost about 50k soldiers. Which is sad, because you can always count on communism to fail by itself, which is exactly what happened after we pulled out.

You cry about the lack of Republican regulation. We need more regulation like we need a hole in the head. You don't even know what the word means, it's just some magical decree for officiating infractions in a game that can't exist without "subsidy fever". I mean, there's laws against stealing and killing and defrauding, and then there's handing out free money while impossibly trying to stop people from gambling with it. People's hope for gain is NORMALLY offset by their fear of loss. That goes out the window in an economy where anyone can borrow foreign money cheaply for a depreciating asset that they're convinced is an infinitely appreciating piggy bank. It goes out the window WITHIN the government, because politicians are by nature operating with money it appropriated rather than labored for. A "GSE" like Fannie and Freddie need way more regulation that any bankruptcy-fearing company.

Moreover, no one cares what bank they give their money because all bank deposits are insured by the FDIC. No investor gave a shit what loans Freddie and Fannie were spewing out because they were implicitly backed by the federal government. The home bubble got a huge boost from a 97 tax law excepting certain home sales from capital gains taxes. Because politicians like being the candyman. They don't think about the unintended consequences of creating artificial demand and employment in certain sectors with all their subsidy intervention bullshit. TO THIS DAY, FHA loans are being made requiring only 3% down. All the private subprime lenders? Couldn't have happened unless a politically motivated central bank exists to PRICE FIX the cost of borrowing in the market. Spike the punch, see mayhem that ensues, then resolve that the solution isn't to kill the spiker, but rather to hire more police officers to regulate the effects caused by the spiker. That's great logic. I hope you're regulating your regulators, too, because the SEC was told of Madoff's scheme 8 FUCKING TIMES and didn't do jack shit about it. I have more confidence in genuine personal risk of loss regulating behavior than some fucknut at the SEC. If only you would support an economy that wasn't so awash in fucking subsidies.

Social Security is another Democrat timebomb. Why not bring that shit up? It operates like a ponzi scheme and if you know how ponzi schemes work, you know that early investors win at the supreme expense of later investors. Guess who that later investor is? It's you!

Then when they bite, you exploit them with all of the things written in the fine print in that contract they signed.

People keep acting like bank credit with interest is some 'secret'. Everyone knows that credit cards have high interest rates and fees. When a bank hits you with fees then you pay off the balance and cancel the account. Or (better) never run a balance and you'll never have a fee. Or (best) never borrow money from a bank. It isn't complicated.

Also, some are acting as if banks should behave like altruists. It's as if you are pretending the world is Bedford Falls, that banks are the Building & Loan, and bankers are George Bailey. No no no... Customers must walk into the bank with the mindset that they are dealing with Mr. Potter. Banks sell a useful, but dangerous product. If you are smart and careful you can come out well. If you are stupid and careless you will lose every time. Pretending that banks should act like friendly charities is foolish.

I don't know why the government hasn't made strict guidelines as to how a bank must conduct itself.

They did. The government was the entity that opened the 'free money' floodgates by repealing Glass-Steagal because they wanted more people buying homes & cars. Banks were cool with it because it allowed them to be one-stop-shops, repackage debt into paper commodities, and government promised Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae would cover it all. Government set the table & provided the food. Banks sold the tickets to the banquet. Customers gorged until they ruptured internally. Three parties were involved, and the blame is shared by all three equally.

I'm just saying the government needs to protect those less savvy about credit and debt and keep the banks from exploiting these poor fools.

I'm all for the concept, but how do you implement it? Force everyone to take a class or sit down with a lawyer before they can get a loan? I don't think that will help except maybe 1 case in a million. Almost no-one goed to banks with the delusion that they don't have to make payments or incur interest.

I volunteer time as a sort of career/money counseller to help people out of financial trouble. I've sat down and explained the whole 'never borrow money because of interest...' formula very patiently and clearly. It doesn't matter. People hear the speech, and turn right around and get in debt to the gills buying crap they didn't need. They don't want to sell the stuff and pay the bill either. They want someone to pay the bill or absolve the debt so they can keep their stuff. That's just the way human beings are. So forcing banks to sit people down and go through a "here is how debt & interest work" education is helpful, but will not make the problem go away.

The only sure fire way to 'protect these fools' (as you put it) is to have the banks use a means-testing system by which they deny credit to 'risky borrowers'. "Sorry - we're not lending you money for your own safety." That's a recipie just asking for a lather-rinse-repeat of the whole 'red lining' accusation in the 90s. Can't win for losing. Banks are 'evil' if they expect to be paid back.... Banks are 'evil' if they refuse to lend money to people who can't afford it... Nice catch 22.

^Curse you and your capitalist mentality! I deserve free money!

Federal...provincial

I expect the opposition would be a lot less strident to Obamacare if there was specific language in any of hte bills that created a system of state programs with only loose federal oversight. Problem is, the bills in Congress aren't talking about that. People like me have a hard time believing the feds are just going to step back. All current bills point to the creation of a large federal system where money is sent to Washtington and then doled out from there ala Medicare & Medicaid.

CBO estimates

I only brought up the CBO as an example to show that even Obama's own agency does not expect this plan to 'save' money. You're using it like a Jungian archetype. "If the CBO says it will cost 2 trillion, that means it'll only cost 1.4 trillion." Uh - sure - that's how it all works... :eyeroll:

Use whatever 'estimate' you like. Use some estimate that says Obamacare will magically produce free money on trees and the whole ball of wax will only cost $6.50 and a pack of Mentos. The specific estimate in question you prefer is utterly irrelevant. The point is that any federal program created to manage health care will end up costing WAY more than estimated and will manifest as a massive money pit that sucks in billions and spits out below-average results ala Medicare/aid.

What we should be comparing is out of pocket cost for health care as a percentage of after tax income

No - I'd say we should be looking at total out of pocket costs including taxes. That means we don't just look at how much I'm spending on private care, but we also look at how much we have to pay for the whole deal. Every bill in congress to date is not projected to cost individual taxpayers 'less' when all costs are tallied. There will be taxes, monthly payments to a 'plan', office visit fees, co-pays, prescription drug costs, 'for service' fees for any 'non approved' treatments. And on and on and on.

People talking as if Obamacare will just be "Yay - I can go anywhere and get treated for anything and it's all FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" Uh - no - that's total bullcrap. You have only to look at Medicare and Medicaid today to see the future of Obamacare. Substandard coverage, high costs, and big fat government involvement in what you can & can't have. The writing is right there on the wall. It's as plain as a Bulgarian pin-up. How anyone can delude themselves into thinking Obamacare will be the FIRST program in government history to buck the trend is beyond me.

Winstonfield lives in a world where if everyone owns a gun, everyone is safer.

Typical neolib issue avoidance. I live in a world where common sense & reality must be dealt with. Obamacare ignores both.

winston , no there has not been a period since we have been able to measure it , or in ANY historical sample that has carbon ppm as high as it is now . That's in 400,000 years.

Go back further. This is one of the key problems with the many flawed "global warming" models that people are trying to pass off as science. Why only look 400,000 years back? If you are going to do a comprehensive analysis then you have to look at the entire record. Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic... In the past, atmosphereic C02 levels have been as high as 4,000+ PPM. TEN TIMES the current measley 380 PPM. When you look at the whole record, our current C02 levels are at a very low point.

Now - the way global warming alarmists discuss C02 you would think that at 10X the C02 levels our planet would be a wasteland of acidified oceans, baking deserts, and inhospitable wastes. Pht. Those periods of time were points where earth had far greater variety in plant and animal life and far more of earth's surface could sustain life. So why are global warming alarmists so all-fired paranoid about the relatively tiny increase from the LOW point of 280 PPM to a miniscule 390 PPM?

The only thing that is political in this movement is that studied observation may lead the way to better governance

The carbon taxes they want to impose would amount to one of the largest (if not THE largest) transfers of wealth to government in all of human history. Literally trillions of unaccountable dollars will be pouring into world governments all supposedly to 'fix' global warming. And you are trying to say that this isn't political? This is a cash grab, and they are getting useful idiots to play along by making the scientific community their little dancing monkeys in a game of modern-day patronage. When you follow the money trail, all these so-called 'climate studies' are bought and paid for by governments who winnow the results to get the scary headlines they need to spook the slow-witted and gullible into happily giving up their freedoms.

And government doesn't have to do squat except rake in the free money. They can't influence C02 levels any more than they can stop the sun, but they'll take your trillions of dollars - thanks. It is simple matter of Return on Investment. Is there ANY possibility that trillions of dollars going into government will in any way move the dial? There is no evidence that it will do a blessed thing. Therefore, why should we give up trillions to accomplish nothing except make paranoid people feel better about themselves? If you want to feel better about yourself then just go plant a tree and keep out of everyone's wallet.

>> ^Psychologic:
Would slander laws be included under government censorship of free speech?
Would laws prohibiting intercourse in public places be considered a law regarding sex between consenting adults?


Yes. Though, I think it was aimed more towards gay marriage, hard to say. It also doesn't really draw a difference between levels of government. I scored 100% assuming it was all federal.

Also, your ideals there seem a bit distant from history Jigga

^1. Why weren't any dot-coms bailed out back in the day? Because they didn't have powerful lobbies. Corporate welfare encourages corporate interference in government, as some have called it, a corpocracy. Where the rich write the laws for their benefit at the cost of every other competing business. It also encourages coercion and collusion in government against the good of the people. Why do Americans pay twice as much as the rest of the world for sugar? Because sugar lobbies have successfully "protected" themselves from compeating in the world market, at the tune of 6 billion a year. There is no logical limit to bailing out one company vs another either. It is completely arbitrary. To contine with the original idea of the dot-coms, we are doing fine again even without the bail out that didn't happen. You don't need free money to make things work, in fact, it was the easy free money that make the dot-com bubble in the first place...easy money is bad money usually.

^2. You don't seem to understand exchange rates or trends in labor vs cost when it comes to trade. Either that, or you are purposefully being inflammatory, I can't figure out which. When money goes out of a country and into another, that foreign money becomes more valuable over time. In due course it becomes more costly to buy overseas goods than domestic goods, jobs that fled overseas come back. In my industry, we are seeing that happen right now; all the phone desk jobs went overseas, now jobs are coming back in droves because of the weak dollar. Some would say that because places like japan subsidies things like cars, then we should tariff them so our cars can compete. But, if the government of japan wants to buy every American part of a car, then over time the dollar will become stronger and it will not be cost effective for them to do so for long. Things shift in this model, from country to country until things more of less reach an equilibrium. Protectionism encourages those gaps that you would seek to rectify. Your heart is in the right place my friend, we just need to move your head there as well.

^3. I don't think you understand the circumstances of SS. You are trying to spin it like Bush did the war. First it was about one thing, now another. It was about weapons, now it is about freeing Iraq and terrorism. SS was about the great depression. You had peoples savings wiped out in what was arguably a government caused financial catastrophe (a failure of the fabled fed, lender of last resort who didn't lend as a last resort...oops). Once the mistake had been made, and the bank system collapsed, large portions of savings of American's were wiped out instantly. SS was created to solve this problem. So it is not that people can't and didn't save, but they did and now it is gone. If you want to spin SS, then realize that is what you are doing. But the great depression is over, and so should SS.

^4. Are you saying you don't think organizations like the red cross exist? Are you saying that you can't have a charity that isn't faith based? If that is so, then you are free to make one, like right now...this very instant. It isn't very hard now with the web, you just need gumption to go and do it...and that is the American way (Gumption I mean, not the internet...although...)!

^5. This isn't really an argument. I might as well say not cutting the budget is naive. An argument needs a real predicate, this is just an attack. You would have to show why it is naive. I could talk about why it is good, but that would be giving this non-argument more credit than it is worth.