General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
imzjustplayin
 
Reading the newspaper today and found this nice little article



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Of course the left will keep their heads in the sand and continue to deny that government intervention rarely leads to anything positive.


Found the wiki article on this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

Got some good stuff in there..
__________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmicist.
Is hindsight 20/20 for someone who is legally blind?

Last edited by imzjustplayin; 09-10-2010 at 11:21 AM..
Old 09-10-2010, 11:15 AM imzjustplayin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Redrum
Crate&Barrel Roll
 
Redrum's Avatar
 
>left will keep their heads in the sand and continue to deny that government intervention rarely leads to anything positive.

my brain is full of fuck.jpg
__________________
lol
Old 09-10-2010, 11:30 AM Redrum is offline  
Reply With Quote
#2  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Keep in mind that Thomas Sowell writes articles *and* books *and* papers.
His books and papers read much differently than his articles; and anybody interested in proofs and better factual basis should look there.
He also wrote a nice piece a while back called "do faces matter"

He is, of course, biased; but he has very valid points and he is quite qualified to make conclusions.

EDIT:
Here's a cleaner link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...on_107025.html

EDIT2:
Quote:
Of course the left will keep their heads in the sand and continue to deny that government intervention rarely leads to anything positive.
We the people are supporting "leaders" on both sides who we want to intervene in particular ways.
There are very few "small government" candidates; and this is less connected to party than you imply.
__________________
09 F9

Last edited by Zangmonkey; 09-10-2010 at 11:48 AM..
Old 09-10-2010, 11:40 AM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#3  

ephekt
 
Funny how an idiot's comment can ruin what would've otherwise been a decent article.

I'm LOLing at the notion that "the right" is pro-small govt or even fiscally competent anymore. This hasn't been true for at least 30 years. The Austrian religionism of the Old Party was rather absurd, but I'd take that party over the modern republican cretins any day. At least they had an intellectual tradition.
Old 09-10-2010, 11:54 AM ephekt is offline  
Reply With Quote
#4  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Uncle Tom! Disregard article..he ain't keepin it real dawg. Probably has a fat bank account paid by the RNC...as well as *insert your own conspiracy theory here*!! Even if he is speaking on his own (wait, does that sound racist?) he doesn't know what he's talking about.
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 09-10-2010, 01:52 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#5  

imzjustplayin
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt View Post
Funny how an idiot's comment can ruin what would've otherwise been a decent article.

I'm LOLing at the notion that "the right" is pro-small govt or even fiscally competent anymore. This hasn't been true for at least 30 years. The Austrian religionism of the Old Party was rather absurd, but I'd take that party over the modern republican cretins any day. At least they had an intellectual tradition.

what about Ron Paul? Or am I just another Ron Paul retard?
__________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmicist.
Is hindsight 20/20 for someone who is legally blind?
Old 09-10-2010, 02:22 PM imzjustplayin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#6  

ephekt
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imzjustplayin View Post
what about Ron Paul? Or am I just another Ron Paul retard?
Aside from having some troubling ideology (war on Christmas, abortion issues, creationism, removal of the fed court's ability to hear separation, abortion etc cases), Paul is utterly unelectable - so if you genuinely think he could ever be president, yes, probably.

Personally, I would like to see some true intellectual moderates step up from either side. Modern politics is too polarized and treated closer to a team sport than a frank dialogue about our country's direction.
Old 09-10-2010, 02:41 PM ephekt is offline  
Reply With Quote
#7  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Yes, things would be so much better if we had done nothing and GM and other major businesses went under and we had 25+% unemployment. Just think how smashingly the economy would be booming.

The simple fact is that downturns will continue to last longer and longer as long as we keep giving the bulk of the rewards of our economy to the very few. A strong middle class helps create and sustain more middle class jobs. The top 3% can't buy everything and even with their vast wealth they cannot sustain our economy alone.

I like how he leaves out that the cessation of massive government spending was one of the things that helped create the great depression. When we stopped our massive war spending from WW1 our economy took a hit. You know what else is similar...

Throughout the 1920s, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than 6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations will control over half of all American industry.

By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade.

By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.

Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from 1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156 to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners.

Go talk to the invisible hand.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 09-10-2010, 05:35 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#8  

imzjustplayin
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
Yes, things would be so much better if we had done nothing and GM and other major businesses went under and we had 25+% unemployment. Just think how smashingly the economy would be booming.

The simple fact is that downturns will continue to last longer and longer as long as we keep giving the bulk of the rewards of our economy to the very few. A strong middle class helps create and sustain more middle class jobs. The top 3% can't buy everything and even with their vast wealth they cannot sustain our economy alone.

I like how he leaves out that the cessation of massive government spending was one of the things that helped create the great depression. When we stopped our massive war spending from WW1 our economy took a hit. You know what else is similar...

Throughout the 1920s, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than 6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations will control over half of all American industry.

By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade.

By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.

Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from 1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156 to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners.

Go talk to the invisible hand.
lulz
You sound just like the politicians... Yes we need a "stronger middle class", love to pander to that group, there is only one problem.. How can you have a middle class if there is no upper class? Oh that's right, you can't.. The more you attack the rich, the greater the disparity in wealth and income grows. Why else would the elite be so very "elite" in the shittiest of shitholes around the world? Pick a country and I can assure you, there is an elite, there, so far high above everybody else, that it makes you wonder how they ever came to be. Central planning doesn't work and the fact that you created this rant says to me you need to read Thomas Sowell's wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell#Thought

Also about this whole "wealth being funneled to the top" thing is a bunch of bullcrap not because it's not true, but because you people behave like some how if you had that wealth, that somehow everyone would be better off when in the reality, nothing would change. Nothing would change because pricing and "value" is determined by its scarcity, if you take a fixed sum of money and hand it to everyone, now everyone is at equal parity, so how exactly does that give everyone more "buying power"? "Buying power" is a function of who has more or less than another. To give you an example, look at what happened in the last 8 years or even the last 50 years if you want to get real philosophical. . Easy credit and easy money led to a surge in home buying. Homes, like a lot of things are a scarce resource, and when you have a scarce resource, what you have effectively is a bidding system. Those who pay top dollar get the property, so what you ended up with is a skyrocketing in prices thanks to inflation which was caused by a huge influx of money being lent by the banks. The quality of life as a whole didn't go up yet you ended up with inflation. Essentially, you're shifting money around and aren't accomplishing anything except forcing people to write larger numbers for the same shit.

You want prosperity? Make things cheaper.. How do you make things cheaper? Make it so that it cost less to make shit while making more of said shit. It doesn't matter how much money you have, it's how much STUFF you have. If you want to be a billionaire so freaking bad
+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
, go to zimbabwe, you'll have all the money you could ever want, problem is you'll want to kill yourself because you'll be incapable of buying a loaf of bread..
__________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmicist.
Is hindsight 20/20 for someone who is legally blind?
Old 09-10-2010, 10:03 PM imzjustplayin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#9  

imzjustplayin
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
Yes, things would be so much better if we had done nothing and GM and other major businesses went under and we had 25+% unemployment. Just think how smashingly the economy would be booming.
25% unemployment for 2 years isn't a big deal.. shit we're already AT 25% unemployment, problem is, people who fail to continue to see work aren't counted in the unemployment numbers. I'm unemployed but I can assure you they're not counting me in the unemployed. Get a reality check, shit is far worse than the government is saying it is, it's only after this mess will they admit to it so they can further reason their existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
The simple fact is that downturns will continue to last longer and longer as long as we keep giving the bulk of the rewards of our economy to the very few. A strong middle class helps create and sustain more middle class jobs. The top 3% can't buy everything and even with their vast wealth they cannot sustain our economy alone.
You act like as if some how capitalism is the cause for this.. it's not. Things have been getting more tumultuous in the last 100 years in this country, conveniently around the time the government has stepped in. Point to me a country with central planning and I'll point to you a dystopia or a future dystopia. All those European countries with the huge pensions and entitlements are shitting themselves right now, wondering how they're going to pay for them. The only way they're going to survive is to cut payments. Look at china, it only started to take off when they finally embraced capitalism. You only enjoy the quality of life you do thanks to capitalism. Maybe you'll get your way and either you'll eventually figure out that you're wrong or you'll continue to blame the "rich" long after this country has hit the skids..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
I like how he leaves out that the cessation of massive government spending was one of the things that helped create the great depression. When we stopped our massive war spending from WW1 our economy took a hit. You know what else is similar...
Then that's a false economy.. Government spending money isn't something to get giddy over, any bureaucrat can do that with a sleight of hand. Shit, I can see it now, 18 months from now, you and many others will be whining about "not enough stimulus" when the economy goes back into the shitter. You watch, you can't spend your way out of debt..
__________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmicist.
Is hindsight 20/20 for someone who is legally blind?
Old 09-10-2010, 10:26 PM imzjustplayin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#10  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Pyramid, government interference is a major cause of the business mergers. Price floors killed off the smaller companies. Even(especially) when they had superior products.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 09-11-2010, 02:37 AM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#11  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imzjustplayin View Post
lulz
You sound just like the politicians... Yes we need a "stronger middle class", love to pander to that group, there is only one problem.. How can you have a middle class if there is no upper class? Oh that's right, you can't..



there will always be an upper class but they don't need to have all the money and they will always be a tiny minority. and it's not pandering, you can't have a fucking economy without the middle class and you can't have a strong economy that can weather a downturn without a strong middle class.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html


Quote:
Central planning doesn't work
Who is talking about communism? I'm talking about progressive taxation and realistic regulations. and if need be some government intervention to get things back on track.

That's an interesting timeline the professor there lays out for the great depression. try this one on for size:

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n...epression.html

Quote:
Also about this whole "wealth being funneled to the top" thing is a bunch of bullcrap not because it's not true,
except that it is. the amount of wealth going to the top few percent continues to grow, meanwhile median income workers haven't seen any real gains in income since the 70s.

ask your grandma what it was like to have a strong middle class back in the day. I bet she rather enjoyed it.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/1481...on?page=entire

Quote:
but because you people behave like some how if you had that wealth, that somehow everyone would be better off
if the middle class weren't drowning in debt, unemployment and underemployment then the economy would be doing just fine because they would have money to spend and they would spend it, which is kind of how an economy works. The money has to circulate, not sit in a wealthy persons bank account or stock portfolio. Rich people can't buy all the cars, houses, services and food items in the country. The vast majority of the people need to do that but they need to get paid a living wage for that to happen.

sure you can try to keep making things cheaper, but if that means no one is getting paid because they are seen as too expensive, then it doesn't fucking matter how cheap the shit is.

Quote:
when in the reality, nothing would change. Nothing would change because pricing and "value" is determined by its scarcity,
I'm not talking about supply and demand.
Quote:
if you take a fixed sum of money and hand it to everyone, now everyone is at equal parity, so how exactly does that give everyone more "buying power"? "Buying power" is a function of who has more or less than another.
I'm not talking about buying power either. I'm talking about people not having to work two jobs and 60+ hours a week to be able to afford to just scrape by from paycheck to paycheck. That shit is not sustainable and if we try to build our economy on the backs of people like that it's not going to go very far.

Quote:
To give you an example, look at what happened in the last 8 years or even the last 50 years if you want to get real philosophical. . Easy credit and easy money led to a surge in home buying. Homes, like a lot of things are a scarce resource, and when you have a scarce resource, what you have effectively is a bidding system. Those who pay top dollar get the property, so what you ended up with is a skyrocketing in prices thanks to inflation which was caused by a huge influx of money being lent by the banks. The quality of life as a whole didn't go up yet you ended up with inflation. Essentially, you're shifting money around and aren't accomplishing anything except forcing people to write larger numbers for the same shit.
Yes, that is how bubbles work. That's not what I'm talking about either.

Quote:
You want prosperity? Make things cheaper.. How do you make things cheaper? Make it so that it cost less to make shit while making more of said shit. It doesn't matter how much money you have, it's how much STUFF you have. If you want to be a billionaire so freaking bad, go to zimbabwe, you'll have all the money you could ever want, problem is you'll want to kill yourself because you'll be incapable of buying a loaf of bread..
The economy is not a zero sum game.

I'm sorry but this race to the bottom is why we don't have a manufacturing base anymore and why all our jobs were sent overseas. If we keep sending what were good paying jobs overseas and every ten of those jobs is replaced with one or two openings for a barista at starbucks, where do you see us in 20 years? Where do you see yourself? Or were you planning on being a billionaire too?

I'm not talking about taking rich peoples money away, I'm talking about realistic tax rates and having a government that works for americans not just for big businesses who don't give two shits about america, americans, or the american worker.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 09-11-2010 at 03:00 AM..
Old 09-11-2010, 02:38 AM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#12  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imzjustplayin View Post
25% unemployment for 2 years isn't a big deal.. shit we're already AT 25% unemployment, problem is, people who fail to continue to see work aren't counted in the unemployment numbers. I'm unemployed but I can assure you they're not counting me in the unemployed. Get a reality check, shit is far worse than the government is saying it is, it's only after this mess will they admit to it so they can further reason their existence.
And if we let the last of our manufacturing base go to hell because we couldn't come up with what amounts to a pretty small damn loan then the government would be reporting 25% unemployment when it was even worse then that. Don't be ridiculous. You are trying to tell me that we would somehow be better off without GM and the thousands and thousands of jobs it creates. They are already profitable again and the loan will be paid off. That seems like a fucking wise investment in america to me, especially considering we aren't actually out any money in the long run...

Quote:
You act like as if some how capitalism is the cause for this.. it's not.
No, it's crony capitalism where the rich get richer by gaming and controlling the system.

Quote:
Things have been getting more tumultuous in the last 100 years in this country, conveniently around the time the government has stepped in. Point to me a country with central planning and I'll point to you a dystopia or a future dystopia. All those European countries with the huge pensions and entitlements are shitting themselves right now, wondering how they're going to pay for them.
We have the most debt in the world and we didn't even spend it on our own damn country or people. If they are fucked, what are we? Also, their systems are actually a lot cheaper than ours in many ways. Universal health care for one. The entire EU (with 27 countries and 500 million people) spends about a trillion dollars less than we do on health care per year. Too bad we can't have universal health care and put that trillion dollars back into other areas of our economy, but that would be "socialism" and we are afraid of words here.

Quote:
The only way they're going to survive is to cut payments. Look at china, it only started to take off when they finally embraced capitalism. You only enjoy the quality of life you do thanks to capitalism. Maybe you'll get your way and either you'll eventually figure out that you're wrong or you'll continue to blame the "rich" long after this country has hit the skids..
Dude, I'm not a communist. I just don't believe the invisible hand of the market is attached to the altruistic genius you seem to think it is. No shit capitalism is where it is at, but it does need to be regulated to save it from itself from time to time. Most of our current economic woes stem from us deregulating. We got rid of rules that had been in place for decades for very good reasons because wealthy people lobbied for it and they got what they wanted. And we got screwed.

Just because capitalism works doesn't mean we need to let it run amok unchecked. That is exactly how we got into the mess we are in now.

Quote:
Then that's a false economy.. Government spending money isn't something to get giddy over, any bureaucrat can do that with a sleight of hand. Shit, I can see it now, 18 months from now, you and many others will be whining about "not enough stimulus" when the economy goes back into the shitter. You watch, you can't spend your way out of debt..
And if the economy gets better with stimulus and worse without it, what does that tell you about your half-assed economic theories? Most of the stimulus money hasn't even been used yet because unlike under the lazyfaire republican rule we didn't just go handing it out to people who already had lots of money. They actually had to look into worthwhile projects and see how best to use the money. The bulk of those projects just passed final approval recently. It wont help them win any elections this year but it will help our country in the long run.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 09-11-2010 at 04:03 AM..
Old 09-11-2010, 02:58 AM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#13  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
Yes, things would be so much better if we had done nothing and GM and other major businesses went under and we had 25+% unemployment. Just think how smashingly the economy would be booming.

The simple fact is that downturns will continue to last longer and longer as long as we keep giving the bulk of the rewards of our economy to the very few. A strong middle class helps create and sustain more middle class jobs. The top 3% can't buy everything and even with their vast wealth they cannot sustain our economy alone.

I like how he leaves out that the cessation of massive government spending was one of the things that helped create the great depression. When we stopped our massive war spending from WW1 our economy took a hit. You know what else is similar...

Throughout the 1920s, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than 6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations will control over half of all American industry.

By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade.

By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.

Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from 1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156 to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners.

Go talk to the invisible hand.

You're wrong because:
-he says you're wrong IN A NEWSPAPER
-he is black
-ronald reagan
-small gubmint
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 09-11-2010, 07:00 AM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#14  

imzjustplayin
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
And if we let the last of our manufacturing base go to hell because we couldn't come up with what amounts to a pretty small damn loan then the government would be reporting 25% unemployment when it was even worse then that. Don't be ridiculous. You are trying to tell me that we would somehow be better off without GM and the thousands and thousands of jobs it creates. They are already profitable again and the loan will be paid off. That seems like a fucking wise investment in america to me, especially considering we aren't actually out any money in the long run...
Right NOW.. Shit, I love how everyone points out how the gubermint is "so smart" cause they've made money in interest off of the companies they bailed out..Problem is, the only reason they made money is because the market doubled in value from its lows and it only did that because of false optimism. Essentially the government is an insider trader since it made a trade knowing information only the government would know. The government's stake in these companies is so large, it would be the equivalent of the CEO just selling his shares one day, without any prior notification to the SEC that he was doing so. Either way, if and when the shit hits the fan, people are going to be asking themselves, what was the point in all of this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
We have the most debt in the world and we didn't even spend it on our own damn country or people. If they are fucked, what are we? Also, their systems are actually a lot cheaper than ours in many ways. Universal health care for one. The entire EU (with 27 countries and 500 million people) spends about a trillion dollars less than we do on health care per year. Too bad we can't have universal health care and put that trillion dollars back into other areas of our economy, but that would be "socialism" and we are afraid of words here.
Yes because universal health care would somehow solve all of our problems and we'd magically be able to pay for it. We're already in deep shit with social security and other entitlement programs, why not add to the pile while we're at it? Most of the government debt is money that WAS spent in this country, so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The war in Iraq was expensive, but was steadily being paid down while the spending spree bush and Obama went on in order to "save" the economy makes the cost of the Iraq war like it was nothing. As for other countries spending less on healthcare, that's because we've got a fucked up pseudo capitalist, socialist system where it doesn't reward people for not using up social services while at the same time allowing them to consume as much as they want. Our current system doesn't hold people accountable for the services they consume like a capitalist system would do. A socialist system can very easily contain costs by having a fixed allotted amount, but if you go that route, what ends up happening is EVERYONE gets a crappy service, with no will to innovate nor to contain costs. Socialism may work in your fucking dream world you go to when you sleep at night but has no place in reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
Dude, I'm not a communist. I just don't believe the invisible hand of the market is attached to the altruistic genius you seem to think it is. No shit capitalism is where it is at, but it does need to be regulated to save it from itself from time to time. Most of our current economic woes stem from us deregulating. We got rid of rules that had been in place for decades for very good reasons because wealthy people lobbied for it and they got what they wanted. And we got screwed. [

Just because capitalism works doesn't mean we need to let it run amok unchecked. That is exactly how we got into the mess we are in now.
This goes back to the whole socialism thing.. Socialism, the idea, works on the principle that a group of people know more than the sum of everyone else, they know all the facts and can make prudent, unbiased decisions when that is never the case. The idea sounds nice, you let the "kids" (capitalism) play around until they get into trouble, then "mommy and daddy" (socialism) comes in and first calms everyone down and then "fixes" what ever is ailing the "kids" (capitalism).. Problem is, as you should know, parents are generally out of touch and have certain expectations of how things should and do work when the reality is far from it... When you start expecting the parents to fix every little problem or argument kids get into, you end up with a bunch of whiners who are then incapable of solving their own problems. After the parents get flustered in dealing with the now whiny brats, the parents finally turn into dictators..


Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
And if the economy gets better with stimulus and worse without it, what does that tell you about your half-assed economic theories? Most of the stimulus money hasn't even been used yet because unlike under the lazyfaire republican rule we didn't just go handing it out to people who already had lots of money. They actually had to look into worthwhile projects and see how best to use the money. The bulk of those projects just passed final approval recently. It wont help them win any elections this year but it will help our country in the long run.
Giving money to people who are going to do nothing but waste it just like the money they had prior to the economic slump doesn't "stimulate" the economy.. You can't just hand out money to people and expect it to "fix" everything.. Money rarely fixes anything, I mean if this was actually true, our public school system wouldn't be the abomination that it currently is. Schools are retarded when it comes to money, and so is every other government entity. Shit, when you really think about it, when you start to look at people, like the individuals they are, you might even start to see a pattern emerging where those who spend their whole lives blaming others and looking to others (like the govt.) to solve their problems tend to be the ones most financially fucked up (and rightly so).
__________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmicist.
Is hindsight 20/20 for someone who is legally blind?

Last edited by imzjustplayin; 09-11-2010 at 08:01 PM..
Old 09-11-2010, 07:50 PM imzjustplayin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#15  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:54 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.