TARP Price Tag Continues to Fall

http://tinyurl.com/2b3w4p4

So what do you guys think about this? I know this will get political but it seems like the $700 billion price tag has come down significantly. Does this count as a good job by the Obama administration? Considering the alternatives, it looks like they may have made the right choice. Also did you guys see the DOW almost hit 11,000?

just a spin . turn the numbers how you want it's still a waste. how much better is job market and unemployment. it still sucks.

The Dow has been changed... the companies have been changed... when calculated with the past companies it would be in the 7,000's

The Obama Administration can't do good, Obama is a radical Marxist
Any man who claims you owe him a living is a cannibal.
Whether foreign or domestic, he is a cannibal.
If you choose to help him, that is one thing.
If he demands you “help” as his “right,” he is a leech,
a sycophant, a parasite.
He is a cannibal seeking to survive by consuming you.

America has become a cannibal society, devouring its best. The competent, numerically outnumbered by the incompetents, are being corralled, restrained, confined and milked like barnyard cattle. The giants who created our skyscraper civilization are now ordered to obey Lilliputian bureaucrats. Common men—who owe their jobs to uncommon men who create jobs—gang together to shackle their providers.

Americans are becoming congenital dependents. Even as loafing relatives extort a livelihood by claiming they have a “right” to your money—so today eight million homegrown moochers insist that you are responsible for their welfare! Thus, we subsidize promiscuous mothers and their illegitimate babies and lazy feather bedders and goldbricking government pay rollers…While we penalize the strong, the purposeful, the productive with disproportionate burdens of taxes, pressures, red tape.

We praise ventures which are “non-profit” and grant them tax advantages and social acceptance, yet we damn the men who make the profits which make the “non-profit” ventures possible. Americans want to keep the electric lights but destroy the generators. What if the men of brains and initiative and industry should go on strike?

It happened once. “The Dark Ages” were a period of stagnation when men of exceptional ability gave up, figured “what’s the use?” and went underground—for a thousand years. Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged,” thinks it may have to happen that way again. Dr. Charles Mayo says, “I know of no individual, no nation, that ever did anything worthwhile on a five-day week.” Already many American industrialists are turning the keys on their corporations and going to Florida—either part-time or full-time—to become non-productive beachcombers.

Curiously, Russia is beginning to reward the uncommon men. Soviet scholar Vadim A. Trapeznikov—not without Kremlin sanction—is now referring to the Soviet system as “obsolete.” He says Russia’s economy must now rely on the “more productive profit motive.”

We, on the other hand, continue to play the democratic con-game which pretends that all men are equal and that anybody who demonstrates any inequality should be punished for it.

Any insolent beggar can wave his sores in your face and plead for help in the tone of a threat. You are expected to feel “guilty” for having more than he. Any barefoot bum from the pestholes of Asia or Africa cries out, “How dare you be rich!” And we beg them to be patient and we promise to give it all away as fast as possible.

Robert, unemployment is historically a lagging indicator. Don't you think that with the depth of the economic crisis that was being faced it may take time to fix everything? If you think things are bad now, I'd love to hear what you'd be saying if the banks were allowed to fail or if a company like AIG or Chevrolet were allowed to crumble.

Also, how is it a spin? The article even mentions that "...even with profits in TARP's core programs, taxpayers will be saddled with other bailout-related costs, such as the assumption of the debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." While not politically popular, I would say TARP helped prevent our entire economy from falling off the cliff.

Sam, you speak volumes. Just today, we were at lunch and watching CNN. There was someone speaking that was like you say: A non-profit who probably makes a very good living producing nothing and pretending to do good work. This brought up the subject of another individual at work who buys welfare checks from someone and how he says it's like "Mothers Day" twice a month. Yes, he buys these checks from a mother. He told my co-worker he did (defending himself) this because she was paying rent, not paying for her to buy beer or drugs. I asked: "Why didn't you ask him why he just gave her 50% since it was such a noble cause?". Of course, I wouldn't have thought of it either since I would have been ready to explode!

On the way home I was listening to talk conservative radio and the subject was non-working, able-bodied people who mooch from the system. At some point, there will be such a hatred by the able bodied working class that this insanity will stop. I have to admit that earlier today or yesterday, I considered a very strong letter to my representatives, as well as, the Pres himself airing my frustration. Of course, it wouldn't do any good, but I work hard for what I make, don't really waste any money, do without quite a bit, but do have a few toys. Meanwhile, I have all that I need, but why should I subsidize someone who can work, but has no desire to work, just because some liberal wants to enslave them as a voter?

Damn, Sam! Good stuff, well said. Did you write that?

when obama got in office he said he would make things better and all his plans would help america prosper. all he has done is spend more money in one year than all the previous presidents combined.the unemployment rate is higher than it was a year ago. companies are still failing NO new jobs are being created. the only thing obama has done is create DEBT so much DEBT their is no way we or our children can pay it back. he has mortgaged our futures with no visible end in sight. their has been no productive outcome to all his spending. if you did your research you would see huge profits by the mortgage companies,but no new jobs, in fact more companies are moving out of america and outsourcing to india.all the companies are taking the free dough and laughing all the way to the bank because there were no measures in place to police how the money was spent.

"Thus, we subsidize promiscuous mothers and their illegitimate babies"

Sam, does this statement imply that you are pro-choice?

Originally Posted by stephan

http://tinyurl.com/2b3w4p4

Does this count as a good job by the Obama administration?

Probably not, since it was signed into law by George W. Bush.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...081003-17.html

But while we are on the subject of government spending, let's bring back this blast from the past:

"Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut."

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/pr...al-debate.html

That was in response to this question:

This question goes to you first, Senator Obama.

We found out yesterday that this year's deficit will reach an astounding record high $455 billion. Some experts say it could go to $1 trillion next year.

Both of you have said you want to reduce the deficit, but the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget ran the numbers on both of your proposals and they say the cost of your proposals, even with the savings you claim can be made, each will add more than $200 billion to the deficit.

Aren't you both ignoring reality? Won't some of the programs you are proposing have to be trimmed, postponed, even eliminated?

Give us some specifics on what you're going to cut back.

Senator Obama?

This from the same president who has been accusing the GOP of using math that "doesn't add up":

http://www.politico.com/politico44/p...37073c4f4.html

“I know your congressman here, you know, I think has strong ideas about what he says he wants to do,” Obama said. “Last week, the Republicans put forward what they called a 'Pledge to America,' which purported to say, 'We're going to cut your taxes ... control spending ... and balance the budget.' "

He continued, "Now, when you looked at the numbers, it's hard to figure out how they all added up.”

“I’ve got some very smart people working for me in my budget office, but they will tell me that one thing they can’t do is cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans by $700 billion, protect Social Security, Medicare, veterans' funding, and balance the budget,” he said. "They just can’t do it. The math just doesn’t add up.”

No mention of the success thus far of his "net spending cut." Wonder why that is?

Originally Posted by cwb4me

when obama got in office he said he would make things better and all his plans would help america prosper. all he has done is spend more money in one year than all the previous presidents combined.the unemployment rate is higher than it was a year ago. companies are still failing NO new jobs are being created. the only thing obama has done is create DEBT so much DEBT their is no way we or our children can pay it back. he has mortgaged our futures with no visible end in sight. their has been no productive outcome to all his spending. if you did your research you would see huge profits by the mortgage companies,but no new jobs, in fact more companies are moving out of america and outsourcing to india.all the companies are taking the free dough and laughing all the way to the bank because there were no measures in place to police how the money was spent.

NO new jobs are being created

You sure about that statement? The company I work for has hired at least 30 new people in the past year. Coincidentally 90% of the stuff we work on is ARRA funded. So I think it has created some jobs........ We are also in the process of hiring about 15 more people.

Edit: I guess TARP and ARRA are different programs. However it seems to me ARRA is working since I can look around my office and see visual proof it is creating jobs.

well it must be better in colorado. in virginia unemployment is at all time record high . NO TRICKLE DOWN HERE. and no new jobs or business created. just established businesses droping like flys.

Originally Posted by bruizza

NO new jobs are being created

You sure about that statement? The company I work for has hired at least 30 new people in the past year. Coincidentally 90% of the stuff we work on is ARRA funded. So I think it has created some jobs........ We are also in the process of hiring about 15 more people.

Edit: I guess TARP and ARRA are different programs. However it seems to me ARRA is working since I can look around my office and see visual proof it is creating jobs.

You sir are part of the problem! CANNIBAL!!!

What do you think will happen to the company that you work for when the money dries up?

The government does not create jobs and neither does the ARRA. Any jobs created through the government or the ARRA are artificial and will go away when the money behind the projects goes away. Where does the money for those jobs come from? Either taxes or borrowing, both have a net negative effect on employment. The only thing that can create jobs is consumer demand for a product or service and someone who sees that demand and provides the product or service at rate deemed acceptable by the marketplace.

Why Government Can't Create Jobs!

Any nation needs a certain number of government employees in order to function. But ever since the Employment Act of 1946 a different view of government employment has emerged: that government can alleviate downturns in economic activity by spending—or “investing”—funds on projects that will stimulate employment. The government may be either a direct employer (as when it increases the numbers in our armed forces) or an indirect employer (as when it increases spending on highways, which increases employment in construction companies). As a nation we may need larger armies or more and better highways, but that is not germane to the discussion at hand.

The insidious notion persists that government job creation actually generates an increase in employment. According to this view, if construction companies increase employment by 100,000 jobs due to a $3 billion government spending program to finance highway construction, then employment is 100,000 jobs ahead of what it might be in the absence of the program.

Rarely does the public debate focus on how employment in other sectors is affected when the government seeks the $3 billion necessary to finance its program. These effects are important but, unfortunately, less visible because they are spread among hundreds, if not thousands, of employers.

Government spending, including spending designed to stimulate employment, may be derived from three sources. The first is taxes. If individual income taxes are raised by $3 billion to fund our highway project, disposable income is reduced by $3 billion. Consequently, individuals will demand less clothing, fewer appliances, and so on. Private sector employers will notice and respond by laying off workers. Since most of us will agree that we can spend our income more efficiently than can the government if only for the fact we do not have to pay a bureaucratic overhead charge—lay-offs in the affected companies will exceed the employment added by companies constructing the new highways.

If corporate taxes are raised instead of individual income taxes, they will eventually result in higher prices for consumers, lower real wages for workers, and lower returns for investors. All of these result in a decreased ability to buy clothing and appliances with the net result that unemployment increases, not decreases.

A second source of funds is government borrowing, but this borrowing increases the price of lendable funds, which reduces the amount of investment in the private sector. Consequently, fewer new factories, machines, and homes will be built. Not only does this decrease in private investment slow economic growth, it results in additional unemployment in these industries.

A final source of funds is the government’s central bank, which can create new money. However, this monetary inflation results in price inflation by eroding the purchasing power of the dollar. This decrease in purchasing power will eventually increase unemployment as well.

Unfortunately, the political appeal of government spending stems from the fact that the jobs created are noticeable to the average voter, while the handful of jobs lost here and there are not attributed to the government spending program. Interestingly, from 1960 to 1988 there has been a positive, and statistically significant, correlation between public aid (as a percentage of GNP) and the unemployment rate. Conventional wisdom would have the public believe that as government “invests” in people the unemployment rate decreases. Yet the opposite is the case. For the same years there has been a positive, though statistically insignificant, correlation between government employment (as a percentage of total employment) and the unemployment rate. This suggests that as government work is created more jobs are lost elsewhere resulting in a rising unemployment rate.

As a nation, we undoubtedly need government employees for such things as national defense, police protection, and administering our court system (though I do question our founders’ wisdom in relegating the delivery of first-class mail to government employees). But it is a fallacy of the Keynesian legacy that government can reduce unemployment by priming the pump with spending programs. Government needs to reduce spending and taxes in order to leave income in the hands of individuals who earned it and who can spend it much more efficiently than the government can.

Geez Sam Ingram; easy on the apocalyptic, "america is doomed," language. If you are trying to incite a revolution, thats all you but it's a little far to start namecalling children who have zero choice of who they are born to. "Thus, we subsidize promiscuous mothers and their illegitimate babies and lazy feather bedders and goldbricking government pay rollers..." If you want to use great words like lilliputian and goldbricking to make your point more dramatic, no skin off my teeth, you are entitled to your opinion...but I am going to call your BS on taking stabs at children born into poverty. Gimme a break

Originally Posted by cwb4me

well it must be better in colorado. in virginia unemployment is at all time record high . NO TRICKLE DOWN HERE. and no new jobs or business created. just established businesses droping like flys.

Of course "NO TRICKLE DOWN" is there... It's called TRICKLE UP POVERTY, that is how socialism and Marxism works. You have to get everyone on a level playing field first.

I would suggest everyone here who gives a crap start reading this website:

MISES.ORG

But most of you will never care and never understand - CANNIBALS!!

Originally Posted by lfadam

Geez Sam Ingram; easy on the apocalyptic, "america is doomed," language. If you are trying to incite a revolution, thats all you but it's a little far to start namecalling children who have zero choice of who they are born to. "Thus, we subsidize promiscuous mothers and their illegitimate babies and lazy feather bedders and goldbricking government pay rollers..." If you want to use great words like lilliputian and goldbricking to make your point more dramatic, no skin off my teeth, you are entitled to your opinion...but I am going to call your BS on taking stabs at children born into poverty. Gimme a break

Damn.... oh the children, the poor children - Isn't that the liberal tagline?? The answer is simple! Make Norplant and male chemical sterilization mandatory for anyone on welfare...

BTW, my original statement is from Paul Harvey in 1964!!

Cannibals Converge on Washington

Originally Posted by SamIngram

Damn.... oh the children, the poor children - Isn't that the liberal tagline?? The answer is simple! Make Norplant and male chemical sterilization mandatory for anyone on welfare...

LOL, who is going to do that once we've dismantled the government?

If you want government out of your business it has to be out of everyone's. As much as I'd (jokingly) like to see a test for parenthood, reproduction is right up there with life and liberty in the list of fundemental, unalienable rights.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

LOL, who is going to do that once we've dismantled the government?

If you want government out of your business it has to be out of everyone's. As much as I'd (jokingly) like to see a test for parenthood, reproduction is right up there with life and liberty in the list of fundemental, unalienable rights.

CORRECT

However, welfare is not a right! It's simple, when you go on welfare and become a cannibal and live off someone else's productivity you have give up something - no free rides. What about the damn children? Everyone is so worried about the damn children, what about those children not having the ability to live in a free society? Let's worry about that. So it is simple, if you want welfare, you can't have kids, we can't reward cannibals and the activity of producing babies because we have nothing better to do. WHAT ABOUT THESE KIDS?

The problem with liberals is that they pick one little concept of the argument and take it to the extremes... who cares about what I call kids born into poverty, when we are talking about those kids not only being born into poverty, but socialism too??

Sam Ingram for President !

How do you create a job?

"Make Norplant and male chemical sterilization mandatory for anyone on welfare..."

Ok now I know you are either a complete whackjob or have an interesting sense of humor so I am no longer concerned by your posts.

"The problem with liberals is that they pick one little concept of the argument and take it to the extremes... who cares about what I call kids born into poverty, when we are talking about those kids not only being born into poverty, but socialism too??"

Im guessing you are referring to me. Fun fact-Im not a liberal

Originally Posted by lfadam

"Make Norplant and male chemical sterilization mandatory for anyone on welfare..."

Ok now I know you are either a complete whackjob or have an interesting sense of humor so I am no longer concerned by your posts.

Actually Adam, you were the second person to pick on that little part of the greater statement. The just of my point is that we keep rewarding cannibals and need to stop.

Originally Posted by lfadam

"The problem with liberals is that they pick one little concept of the argument and take it to the extremes... who cares about what I call kids born into poverty, when we are talking about those kids not only being born into poverty, but socialism too??"

Im guessing you are referring to me. Fun fact-Im not a liberal

I don't care what you are or what you call yourself, what I do care about is your beliefs. Do you have any? What are they? Do you have an opinion or do you just pick points of other peoples opinion to counter?

Adam - Tell me what you believe in...

"Actually Adam, you were the second person to pick on that little part of the greater statement. The just of my point is that we keep rewarding cannibals and need to stop."

I can go along with that...eliminating freeloaders (sorry, "cannibals") would be a good thing. Unfortunately, its near impossible to do without doing anything drastic and unconstitutional (like controlling who has kids and who doesnt). If you take more rational methods, the cost adds up quickly, leading to diminishing benefits and you are right where you started. It's a lose-lose situation.

"what I do care about is your beliefs. Do you have any? What are they? Do you have an opinion or do you just pick points of other peoples opinion to counter?"

My view on politics can be summed up as this: Everything in politics comes down to the balance of one idea. How responsible you hold your fellow man versus how willing you are to help your fellow man.

In this case, I do not hold children born into poverty responsible for their position. On the subject of freeloaders, I hold people responsible to better themselves on their own, but I realize often times they do not have the means. That distinction is difficult to make and neither blanket solution (welfare for everyone vs. no welfare for anyone) is a good answer in my opinion. I dont claim to have the answers, I just try to show both sides of each story.

Originally Posted by lfadam

"Actually Adam, you were the second person to pick on that little part of the greater statement. The just of my point is that we keep rewarding cannibals and need to stop."

I can go along with that...eliminating freeloaders (sorry, "cannibals") would be a good thing. Unfortunately, its near impossible to do without doing anything drastic and unconstitutional (like controlling who has kids and who doesnt). If you take more rational methods, the cost adds up quickly, leading to diminishing benefits and you are right where you started. It's a lose-lose situation.

This is where you are WRONG! Freeloading/Welfare is not an inherent right! It is a choice. I would not advocate controlling who has kids, but advocate the choice of going on welfare. If you are actively receiving welfare of any kind you can not have a kid - that is a choice! If you want to have kids, get off welfare. This would very similar to the choice of driving a car, if you drive you have to have liability insurance, it's a choice.

The other side of the argument is the current healthcare argument, which forces people to buy insurance. Here their is no choice and this is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because we get penalized for doing nothing.

Everyone should read and try to understand the:

The Federalist Papers

Do you really think that is a good idea?
A. Me and you both know that there is no way your bill would be voted into legislation. Whether you agree with it or not, the public uproar would be huge.
B. If it did pass, the implications could be extreme. Take China's one child policy for example. When you penalize/fine/tax people for having too many children, the result is a rise in abortions, infanticide, etc. Plain and simple, people are going to bang and have kids no matter what, especially impoverished people with nothing else to do. Id rather not see the children thrown into the river.

A lot of what Sam says is right on point. Extreme, but on point. I agree with much of what he says.

I'm so tired of paying 50% of my income in taxes so people can loaf around on welfare. I'm tired of the public school system, that I fund, sucking. I'm tired of being called wealthy because we make over $250k and being penalized for it. I'm tired of crumbling infrastructure and government finger pointing.

In this country it is almost impossible to really get ahead and leave something for your kids (legally). Why punish the so-called "wealthy"? I've got no problem paying taxes, but give me something for my "investment".

As for democrat or republican... I couldn't care less about what you call yourself. Liberal or Conservative. You either get it, or you don't. It'll be interesting to see what we get in the next 10 years. We've got a lot of backwardness to turn around. It's been building for a long time. Those that don't think collapse is possible need to do a quick look back through history. We are not exempt. I'm not a political theorist or doomsday predictor, but I think we all need to keep our eyes open and watch what's going on around us.

For all the people who say that we have to have all the government regulation, I would like to share this video. It is in Portishead, Somerset, England where the government has its hands in everything. The video was part of today's Mises.org articles, The Praxeology and Ethics of Traffic Lights.

Watch the video, this same concept of less government control is the answer to many of our problems. Deregulation and the free market system works, who could imagine people making decisions for themselves and taking accountability for their own actions, like when and how to proceed through an intersection.

Sam, you advertise yourself as wanting govt out of the private sector, yet you post something like this:

"If you are actively receiving welfare of any kind you can not have a kid - that is a choice! If you want to have kids, get off welfare."

This in essence means that private citizens are not allowed to have sex if they are receiving welfare. (I agree with you to an extent that something needs to be done with people exploiting the system). You may disagree, but the only 100% sure way to not have children is abstinence. It would immediately infringe on a person's rights to demand that they use birth control, as many religions are against birth control. So then what, we institute the Sex Police to ensure no hanky-panky is occurring between two people receiving govt assistance? Obviously, that is not feasible, so I am guessing that your answer is; if a person receiving welfare and they are impregnated, their benefits are ended.

Who suffers in the end?

Originally Posted by cwb4me

just a spin . turn the numbers how you want it's still a waste. how much better is job market and unemployment. it still sucks.

Since you asked... We went from losing 100's of thousands of jobs a month to about break even. A significant improvement by anyone's measure.

And there's a reason why our economy is in the sh*tter, but everyone is so busy playing politics 24/7 that no political party gets it. And it isn't deficit spending or failing banks that are the real reason.

Originally Posted by wake77

Sam, you advertise yourself as wanting govt out of the private sector, yet you post something like this:

"If you are actively receiving welfare of any kind you can not have a kid - that is a choice! If you want to have kids, get off welfare."

This in essence means that private citizens are not allowed to have sex if they are receiving welfare. (I agree with you to an extent that something needs to be done with people exploiting the system). You may disagree, but the only 100% sure way to not have children is abstinence. It would immediately infringe on a person's rights to demand that they use birth control, as many religions are against birth control. So then what, we institute the Sex Police to ensure no hanky-panky is occurring between two people receiving govt assistance? Obviously, that is not feasible, so I am guessing that your answer is; if a person receiving welfare and they are impregnated, their benefits are ended.

Who suffers in the end?

DAMN IT ALL TO HELL!!! IT WOULD NOT INFRINGE ON THEIR RIGHTS IF THEY ARE ON WELFARE! YOU PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED!

It's very simple, if you are on welfare and have a baby you get penalized, thats simple. Make it so that you have to do 10,000 of community service or work on the state penal farm. Or even better, since you can't provide for your children, they are taken away... Make it so the person has wear a green jumpsuit everywhere they go so people make fun of them. Make them shave their heads, etc... none of this violates their rights, when they go on welfare they give up those rights... very similar to how when you join the military you sign a contract, in that contract you give away some of your rights, make it the same with welfare.

Make welfare a contractual agreement, we will help you out, but in order to get it you have to do these things...

Originally Posted by SamIngram

How do you create a job?

The irony is that no one knows how you create a job wrt the big picture.

Originally Posted by fly135

The irony is that no one knows how you create a job wrt the big picture.

What are you trying to say? Not sure if it the typo or just my density that is stopping from understanding what you are trying to say.

wrt=with respect to

"It would not infringe on their rights if they are on welfare! You people have been brainwashed"

Here is where we disagree. I think you are the brainwashed one but whatever, Im not worried about titles here. I see your side of the coin, that voluntarily going onto welfare means you voluntarily give up rights, but I think you are oversimplifying the people on welfare into nothing more than "cannibals." I realize there are leeches in the system but there are plenty of people who are doing their best to make ends meet who could not live without welfare. Therefore their "choice" to use welfare is basically choosing welfare to live or not to choose welfare and die or be homeless and go hungry, leading to more crime and less chance that they could become a functioning member of society. Its like the decision to change the drinking age to 21 being a state decision, but if states do not mandate 21, then they lose funding for their roads. Its technically a choice, but there really is only one option. In that way, putting these kind of stipulations on your welfare idea for people who really need welfare is detestable. It goes back to the idea of self-responsibility vs. compassion to help one when in need. Im not OK with screwing people out of their rights due to their economic situation. If you dont see it that way, thats fine. I can see why you can justify it as constitutional (albeit terrible IMO), but regardless, the side effects of implementing something like that would be very big, perhaps outweighing what you see as the potential benefit.

Originally Posted by lfadam

wrt=with respect to

"It would not infringe on their rights if they are on welfare! You people have been brainwashed"

Here is where we disagree. I think you are the brainwashed one but whatever, Im not worried about titles here. I see your side of the coin, that voluntarily going onto welfare means you voluntarily give up rights, but I think you are oversimplifying the people on welfare into nothing more than "cannibals." I realize there are leeches in the system but there are plenty of people who are doing their best to make ends meet who could not live without welfare. Therefore their "choice" to use welfare is basically choosing welfare to live or not to choose welfare and die or be homeless and go hungry, leading to more crime and less chance that they could become a functioning member of society. Its like the decision to change the drinking age to 21 being a state decision, but if states do not mandate 21, then they lose funding for their roads. Its technically a choice, but there really is only one option. In that way, putting these kind of stipulations on your welfare idea for people who really need welfare is detestable. It goes back to the idea of self-responsibility vs. compassion to help one when in need. Im not OK with screwing people out of their rights due to their economic situation. If you dont see it that way, thats fine. I can see why you can justify it as constitutional (albeit terrible IMO), but regardless, the side effects of implementing something like that would be very big, perhaps outweighing what you see as the potential benefit.

Now you are taking my freedoms away from, by mandating and stealing from me, my choice to help these people. Before the New Deal were people dying in the streets? No! You can not and should not try to legislate your compassion and morals. You should read Mises.org, try this article for starters

Everyone wants to "help" someone with some new legislation or law, but who are you really helping? Do you think affirmative action helps minorities? No! It only lets unqualified minorities get jobs that they shouldn't have. Things are easier for them. It helps white males, by throwing another obstacle in the way of the white male, we make them stronger, they learn to overcome new things and to work harder. The minority who go the job who was lessor qualified is hurt because they are artificially promoted and put in a place where they don't have to better themselves.

BTW, did you know that your statement

I can see why you can justify it as constitutional (albeit terrible IMO)

implies a possible socialist/Marxist viewpoint? This is Obama's viewpoint!

In 2001 Obama said,

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

The Founding Father's wrote the Constitution to tell the government what they couldn't do, not what they should do.

Originally Posted by SamIngram

What are you trying to say? Not sure if it the typo or just my density that is stopping from understanding what you are trying to say.

I didn't watch the video but from the title I'm assuming they are making fun of him because he can't give a good answer on how to create jobs. What I'm saying is that I don't see anyone, politician or pundit that has recognized why we are having problems creating jobs or why the economy is in the shape it's in. So it's ironic that anyone would make fun of anyone else for not knowing how to create jobs.

Originally Posted by fly135

I didn't watch the video but from the title I'm assuming they are making fun of him because he can't give a good answer on how to create jobs. What I'm saying is that I don't see anyone, politician or pundit that has recognized why we are having problems creating jobs or why the economy is in the shape it's in. So it's ironic that anyone would make fun of anyone else for not knowing how to create jobs.

I believe that Linda McMahon has created a few jobs in her day...

"Well I'm very proud of the fact that I've created over 600 jobs here in Connecticut," McMahon responded, "and in the past 28 years have created an average of 20 jobs per year. And I think that's a good record to hold up. How many jobs have you created over here?"

BTW, what is your opinion why we are having problems creating jobs?

Again... read Mises, start with this article....

Yes the dow hit 11000 , but look how it got there .. Market makers are manipulating the market by gaping the stocks over resistance b/c they can't break out on their own. The feds are crushing the dollar, so you have a few stocks that lead the way like catipillar, and mc'donalds. The banks are laging and that is a not good. The feds are gonna have to come back in and start buying the bonds to support Freddi and Ginnie . The only ones really buying right now are the 401's and the people getting in late in the game. Earnings come out tomarrow and the elections are coming up ,so they are gonna try to hold up the market at the expense of the dollar. We have had a 10% run already!

Originally Posted by deneng

Yes the dow hit 11000 , but look how it got there .. Market makers are manipulating the market by gaping the stocks over resistance b/c they can't break out on their own. The feds are crushing the dollar, so you have a few stocks that lead the way like catipillar, and mc'donalds. The banks are laging and that is a not good. The feds are gonna have to come back in and start buying the bonds to support Freddi and Ginnie . The only ones really buying right now are the 401's and the people getting in late in the game. Earnings come out tomarrow and the elections are coming up ,so they are gonna try to hold up the market at the expense of the dollar. We have had a 10% run already!

Hasn't the DOW formula also changed? Didn't it previously include AIG? If you include the DOW companies over the last 50 years, the DOW would be around 7,500...

I believe the DOW is made up of 30 big stocks. S&P is a much better indicator 500 stocks. Yes since it is only 30 stocks it is much easier to be manipulated. And stocks chase each other. When the dollar go's down money go's into hard assests like gold to fight inflation. Gold is at it's highest and when the dollar go's back up gold drops. They are usually inverse of each other.

"Now you are taking my freedoms away from, by mandating and stealing from me, my choice to help these people."

You can take this argument and apply it to just about any government program. Are you mad that the government makes you pay for its interstates instead of using private toll roads? The government also makes you pay for its army, instead of using militias. Social security too, as Im sure you know. Your second point Im not really following. The part you quoted I just said that I can see your point of view, but that I didnt agree...Im not sure how that has to do with Obama, Marxism, the Easter Bunny, or anyone else.

Sam, at the end of my post I asked you: "Who suffers in the end?"

Your response, IMO, is summed up by theses lines:

"It's very simple, if you are on welfare and have a baby you get penalized, thats simple. Make it so that you have to do 10,000 of community service or work on the state penal farm. Or even better, since you can't provide for your children, they are taken away... "

I'm sorry, but that does not jive with me. In the end, you can punish the parents, (hell, you probably would like to give the "cannibals" the death penalty) but it is the child that suffers.

I am going to go out on a limb, judging by your posts and what you have posted in other threads in the past, and assume you are pro-life, as it is a big issue for conservatives. Why do you guys only care about children when they are an embryo inside of the woman? Obviously, you could give a crap less what happens to them after birth because of the financial burden that it places on you. It seems like hypocrisy in its purest form.

Hopefully, none of your family or future family suffers from sort of handicap or disability that prevents them from working and turning into a "cannibal" that needs the govt assistance to live.

One more thing, I suggest you read about the Great Depression. There were people dying on the streets.
How would you have liked to go to a bank in 1933, knowing that you had money in your checking or savings account, and not being able to get a dime because the state governors had closed every bank in the nation?

Originally Posted by lfadam

"Now you are taking my freedoms away from, by mandating and stealing from me, my choice to help these people."

You can take this argument and apply it to just about any government program. Are you mad that the government makes you pay for its interstates instead of using private toll roads? The government also makes you pay for its army, instead of using militias.

Actually, it can't. Some of the services that listed are within the enumerated powers and are constitutional and beneficial....

Social security too, as Im sure you know. Your second point Im not really following. The part you quoted I just said that I can see your point of view, but that I didnt agree...Im not sure how that has to do with Obama, Marxism, the Easter Bunny, or anyone else.

I made this point because of the last part of your statement,

I can see why you can justify it as constitutional (albeit terrible IMO)

Wake77,

I'm sorry, but that does not jive with me. In the end, you can punish the parents, (hell, you probably would like to give the "cannibals" the death penalty) but it is the child that suffers.

I agree, that is why I think we need to influence the people on welfare to stop having babies while not financially able to take care of them. The first step in doing this is by not rewarding them with additional monies and making sometime type of consequence that directly affects them.

I am going to go out on a limb, judging by your posts and what you have posted in other threads in the past, and assume you are pro-life, as it is a big issue for conservatives. Why do you guys only care about children when they are an embryo inside of the woman? Obviously, you could give a crap less what happens to them after birth because of the financial burden that it places on you. It seems like hypocrisy in its purest form.

Actually, I'm a libertarian and a constitutionalist. I think abortions should be greatly limited with no partial-birth or late term abortions, other than I will never have an abortion. I do care about kids and think the first thing that we need to do is actually educate them,otherwise the cycle repeats itself over and over.

Hopefully, none of your family or future family suffers from sort of handicap or disability that prevents them from working and turning into a "cannibal" that needs the govt assistance to live.

Actually, I have an aunt with down syndrome, and we take care of our own! My family actually established an adult living center in IL called Heritage 51 where 82 adults with disabilities live. It was fully funded with private money and operates through a large investment fund that was funded by the original family members.

One more thing, I suggest you read about the Great Depression. There were people dying on the streets.
How would you have liked to go to a bank in 1933, knowing that you had money in your checking or savings account, and not being able to get a dime because the state governors had closed every bank in the nation?

You need to read about the Great Depression! People were not dying in the streets, except at the hands of the government! You can not rely on the government, in tough times, like when the money runs out, your government will do whatever necessary to defend itself including turning on the people.

The Great Depression, like the Second Great Depression (that's what it will be called) that we are entering today, were avoidable. If the government would not have promoted them with poor fiscal and social policy. My last two words on the subject are ones that mean a great deal to me, I have researched them to the extreme...

BONUS ARMY!

"People were not dying in the streets, except at the hands of the government!"

I don't think it's irrational to construct a link between malnourishment and illness. "In 2006, more than 36 million people died of hunger or diseases due to deficiencies in micronutrients. According to the World Health Organization, malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases."
I think anyone would agree that food was scarce for many during the Depression, so while people may not have been literally dying in the streets (but considering many resided in refugee-like shanteys, it was not as though they were dying peacefully), many lost their lives. The New Deal was necessary considering it was 4 years after the Depression had begun and the country had not yet rebounded.

"Actually, it can't. SOME of the services that listed are within the enumerated powers and are constitutional and beneficial...."

Youre right, some are covered under the constitution, but not all. Would you like to expand, because it sounds like you are nit-picking to support your agenda, something you accused me of a few posts ago.

"It was fully funded with private money and operates through a large investment fund that was funded by the original family members."

Thats great, but Im sure you know exactly what I am about to ask. What do you recommend a family does that is not fortunate enough to have plenty of money to privately fund something of that magnitude? Serious question-A. Do you think that they should have worked harder, so its their fault? B. Do the best they can on their own (in this case, it would be completely insufficient care or massive debt) so that they are not leeches? C. Use government assistance? D. None of the Above

Talk to me when the bailed out banks start failing again next year due to housing/foreclosure crap on their books that is only going to get worse. Not to mention the fact that absolutely nothing has been done to fix the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problem (conspicuously left out of the latest "reform" bill), so we'll be bailing that mess out again as well. There is a lot of ugliness in our future and this administration is stringing it out longer and exacerbating the problem by making the business environment unpredictable.

One way to help create jobs would be to stop passing bills that have adverse effects on businesses sometime in the future with no explanation of what those effects will be. Its called uncertainty, and there is way to much of it in the market right now.

They can twist the numbers how they want; but it's never going to change as long as the "gimme" programs are still in place, until we cutoff the leeches that are well able to work, but instead allow those who are willing to work and pay for their way, while the rest of us work 6mths out of the year to pay for these people who basicaly demand that we do it because we OWE them? BULLS#!T!!

those who are physically or mentally unable to work is what these programs were created for and programs like ARC's (like we have here in Bradford County) are created so that those people are able to contribute to society.

Adding to the problem of this, congress and president Obama continue to spend more money than the country can generate while they look for any reason to tax us further when the American people are already taxed at half (if not more) of what they make from everyday goods to renewable necessities (drivers licenses, insurances, vehicle tags) while they sit up on high spending insane amounts of taxpayers money on frivolous things such as catered luncheons, bottled water, and trying to slip in added benefit funding to finance limos and private jets (for themselves no less) into already bloated and pork filled congressional bills, adding to the fact that their retirements, Medical benefits, etc. are already in place (and paid for permanently by the taxpayer) whether they spend 4 yrs or 40 yrs in office and this is separate from Obamacare when none of them should be exempt from such things. this is the fact of career politicians or politicians in general regardless of good or bad, democrat or republican.

All the while millions of Americans are jobless and can't find a job similar to their former job because they are considered in the gray area that they are not qualified to have the job, though they have the experience and in some cases the education to back it up. and with the housing market bottoming out, very few have the ability to move elsewhere to find a job/career to get back on track.

so this is nothing that indicates to me that the Obama Admin is doing a "good job". Sam is saying best IMO

Originally Posted by SamIngram

I believe that Linda McMahon has created a few jobs in her day...



BTW, what is your opinion why we are having problems creating jobs?

We're not talking about running a business and hiring employees. We're talking about running a country's econony. The fundamental problem with our economy isn't something that Obama can solve. Or any other politician. It's going to require awareness and cooperation on the part of all political parties and American alike.

The reason why we are in so much trouble is because of the exodus of over 1/2 trillion of cash from our economy every year. That's the trade deficit, and it doesn't even include govt foriegn spending. How long can a economy sustain losing a 1/2 trillion per year before it collapses? How long can people continue to blame spending deficits or socialist behavior before coming to terms with this issue?

It's a hard problem to solve because part of the reason for the deficit is we like to buy stuff cheap. Right off the bat if there was a solution prices would go up. If China would just revalue it's currency to what's generally believed to be a correct exchange rate, prices would rise on imported goods by 25-50% or more. I can't tell you how to fix the problem and politicians don't dare tell you that prices need to rise for any real change. All I can do is laugh at the focus on welfare and domestic stimulis as the reson for our problems. No cash in the economy spells doom for the avg American and we keep shipping our cash overseas in copious amounts.

A stimulus or any govt spent dollar that remains in the economy continues to employ people and generate tax revenue. It's like the blood in your body in that it's reuseable and works indefinitely. But when that dollar gets sent overseas permanently, it stops working in our benefit. In the current politcal atmosphere we are staring at an infection in our left arm while the severed artery in our right arm is pouring blood. So I really don't expect any progress in our economic future unless someone can tell me what mitigating factors are going to offset the depletion of the cash in our economy. Less money in the economy means less jobs.

It scares me that people have conformed to the idea that its the governments job to create jobs. Its the governments job to create an environment were the private sector can create jobs.

When any candidate says "I will create jobs" just how in the hell are they? You know its going to be with more tax dollars that will create unsustainable programs.

We're not talking about running a business and hiring employees. We're talking about running a country's econony. The fundamental problem with our economy isn't something that Obama can solve. Or any other politician.

I sooooo disagree. As Paul said above, uncertainty hurts business and puts them in "on hold" mode. The simplest example is whether or not the Bush tax cuts will be extended. There is no reason why they can't make a decision on that right now, but the pussies in congress don't want to be held accountable during the election, so they have chosen not to take it up (but they somehow have time to listen to Steven Colbert). Not knowing what your future taxes will be puts you in a wait-and-see position. That means no hiring, no investment until you know if you can afford it. The biggest problem with growing the economy right now is uncertainty.

As a self-employed businessman who works with a lot of other self employed entrepreneurs, I can totally concur with Dave's statement above. The business community could even handle the expiration of the tax cuts. Not letting them expire would be better, but it's the not knowing that is the problem. You can't plan (or price, or estimate inventory orders, sales projections, project returns, etc.) without the basic structure of the business environment known. So, while not knowing what's ahead, who wants to risk $millions on decisions where basic facts about returns and regulations are unknown?

All of my clients are multi-millionaires who are trying to figure out what to do with their money, how to invest it and how to keep it. It sound like an easy, wonderful place to be, but how to invest and handle a large portfolio of money is no small problem and can be very stressful. I've seen plenty make not so good decisions and lose millions. When you don't know what the rules and regulations will be, especially when there's an air of changing things up but it's not done or known yet, investors just sit on their hands. That's why there are very few transactions going on now (buildings being built, factories ramping up, new business being started, new locations, etc.). As someone dependent on the volume of commercial real estate transactions,

I am surviving but feeling the effects of this environment every day. I have an excellent former assistant I'd like to re-hire (providing a part-time job to a mom), but I am on the fence about whether I can afford it while waiting for the deals I'm working on to become real (remember those investors sitting on their hands?). Just a microcosm, but multiply me by 1,000,000's.

and then there is this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39548132...new_york_times

Its a bad plan and he knows it. It will hurt business so he is already letting some out. Do you think small business will get the same treatment?

Just came across this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclus...s-the-spending

exerpt:
"The bottom line with the candidates — as well as with many Ask America readers — seems to be: Cut spending, but not if it takes money from what's nearest and dearest to me.
Poll after poll shows that doing something to rein in runaway government spending is what people are focusing on as Nov. 2 approaches. One of the most recent is a Reuters Ipsos poll that has 57 percent of Americans wanting the U.S. government to cut the deficit, despite arguments by the White House and many economists that cutting spending could further damage the sluggish economys raised."

Same old story - people hate the deficit. We want to cut spending - but not if affects me and don't raise taxes.

I know people are upset that all our economic woes weren't fixed with all this excessive spending, but few have any idea if it would have gotten much worse short and long term without that spending. Long term, this huge deficit (most of which was here before Obama) is going to hurt, but if we got into a full blown depression, maybe things would be much worse long term. Who knows? Not me.

Well put Dave. On a VERY similar note Arnold (CA Gov.) has been trying like crazy to get CA's politicians to fix the budget and water issues. So much that he was refusing to sign anything put before him UNTIL those two issues were resolved. Sadly it never happened and he had some sort of ridiculous number of bills before him...like 155 or something crazy like that. Case in point: Somehow even in a SMALLER state government our politicians continue to dodge what is really needed in order to push through their respective individually targeted bills. There was a time when politicians prided themselves in being patriots; that time was lost a long long time ago, none of them care about their country...just themselves and whats in it for them.

You guys in CA are screwed. You will have to raise local and state taxes to fix the many problems you have. I don't remember the exact # but your debt to GDP is worse than the P.I.G.S.

CA is screwed and it is going to take a long time to dig themselves out of that hole. It's just too bad that the people who are going to pay for it by-and-large were not the ones who caused it! But CA is not isolated, across the country big changes need to take place.

We need to get our priorities straight and start spending wisely on the important things and stop spending frivilously. I think too large a portion of this country has forgotten what the purpose of government is; because it's not your ATM and it doesn't owe you everything. It's basic purpose it to provide Security and Public/Social order (incl. justice, basic infastructure and education).

I'm tired of hearing about the gov't spending money to bail people out while cutting funding for security and increasing the deficit, I'm tired of education being cut so we can fund the arts and leisure, I'm tired of taxes and fees getting raised so someone else can do nothing. I'm tired of people running around with their hands out thinking that this country owes them something! It's a shame that too many people think they are entitled and the government is the most ineffecient big business in this country. Until we figure out a good way to seperate those who are productive memebers of society and truly deserve help from those who are not, the gimmie programs probably will not go away which in turn keeps the negative spiral going...

It's basic purpose it to provide Security and Public/Social order (incl. justice, basic infastructure and education).

WRONG!!

The government was never intended to provide ANYONE with an education!

Karl Bunday points out, ". . . democratic republican government developed first in countries without government-operated schools; the founders of the United States learned without a public school system. By contrast, the first countries to have compulsory school attendance laws were all militaristic dictatorships, including the countries that later formed Hitler's Third Reich, a fact well documented in books on school and state relations throughout history."

Apart from the Old Deluder Satan Act and other local laws passed (largely in New England, and largely in furtherance of and favoritism toward the locally prevailing organized religion), government control and management of universal, compulsory, tax-funded education didn't even begin until the mid-nineteenth century, and not until the 1920s did it spread to every state!

Clearly, to suggest that compulsory government-controlled schooling had any relationship to the founding of this country or that State schooling in any way supports "freedom" is ridiculous. On the other hand, many regimes and governments have relied heavily on compulsory government-controlled schooling from the get-go: the USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Pol Pot regime, and Sparta all found compulsory government-administered schooling an essential tool in controlling their populations, as do Cuba and China today.

Between 1650 and 1795, male literacy climbed from 60 to 90 percent and female literacy rose from 30 to 45 percent. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the North rose from 75 percent to between 91 and 97 percent, and from 50-60 percent to 81 percent in the South. Literacy was growing across every population in the years prior to the government take-over of education.

Today, after more than 100 years of government schooling, according to the US Department of Education National Adult Literacy Survey , 25% of adult Americans read (if they can read at all) at the lowest, rock-bottom level of literacy. Examples of Level 1 literacy are: being able to locate one piece of information in a sports article, locating the time of a meeting on a form, and totaling a bank deposit entry. Another 25% function at Level 2 literacy, examples of which are: locating two features of information in a sports article, locating an intersection on a street map, or determining the difference in price between tickets for two shows. One-half our adult population is unable to function at full Level 3 literacy, which includes such abilities as writing a brief letter explaining an error made on a credit card bill; using a sign-out sheet to respond to a call about a resident; or using a calculator to calculate the difference between the regular and sale price from an advertisement.

What this means is that half our adult population can not comprehend the contents of a voter pamphlet (so much for Jefferson's "informed discretion"). Furthermore, colleges and universities complain that incoming high-school graduates require remedial courses in writing and math, and businesses complain that an alarming number of college graduates have skills insufficient for performing entry-level jobs.

@Sam. You are correct, originally it was not intended to include education but over time our country has adopted basic education of a fundemental item which gov't provides. just because people can't read, or don't go to school, does not mean it is not a fundemental service our government provides. History happens everyday and that some things have changed since hundreds of years ago. The basic purpose now and years ago is very similar but slightly different. btw - i agree with alot of what you have to say but not to the same exteme... however, quoting everything from here to there and throwing out stats left and right and the whole delivery of your posts trying to sound super smart and telling everyone they are wrong in big bold letters instead of thinking critically and developing your own opinion about things reminds me of "the guy in the bar who get told "how do you like them apples?" in the movie Good Will Hunting. I mean really man, you have paragraphs about about the literacy rate above and its means essentially nothing in regards to your primary assertion which you stated in the first line, come on really?

Jon,
Read what you want, its the internet...

Originally Posted by SamIngram

The government was never intended to provide ANYONE with an education!

Well that statement is clearly wrong. I think you meant that govt did not originally intend to provide anyone with an education. I can't comment one way or another on what the initial intentions of the govt were over 200 years ago. But the govt has clearly intended to provide an education for as long as I've been around.

Education is a matter of national security.

Also, I have a feeling that the lowest level of literacy today was what people considered literate in the 1700's.

Well, I think you are wrong...