Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-17-2011, 4:12 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
John,
What the heck are you talking about in your most deluded posts? How is reducing the size of government and government spending unsustainable and how does this cause an instant crash and massive poverty? Please explain and please give an example! Under your viewpoint we would have the best economy if everyone worked for the government... Do you want a nanny-state?
Now let me see if I can parse your deluded reply. Oh I see... you don't have a clue even though the first paragraph of my post answered your question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
I do see that you, at least in part, agree with the libertarians which is interesting seeing how it is as far away from the liberal (democrat) party as possible. The libertarians have most things correct; however, we must have an ordered society. This is why a conservative-libertarian approach is the best answer.
Conservative != Republican

Yes if you look at my post the libertarian is the closest to where we need to be. But not the best answer unless you mean the best of three bad answers.

If you cannot understand what I'm saying in the first paragraph then there is no point in trying to simplify it. Now I'm pretty sure you are smart enough, but your bias apparently won't allow it to sink in. It's elementary, as in elementary school level arithmetic.
Old    SamIngram            11-17-2011, 4:35 PM Reply   
John,
First, let me apologize in saying that I didn't mean that your post was deluded. I was referring to your post with the deluded references.

What I have learned from you, is that in many instances we have similar beliefs; however, I can't always comprehend what you are trying to say. That is what I was asking? I still have no idea what you believe. Are you advocating for more government control and larger government or not?

Being conservative libertarian or libertarian conservative can be greatly different from being "Republican". Although Ron Paul and Gary Johnson both run under the Republican name they are pretty darn far from other Republicans like Bush or McCain.

In the Republican primary Gary Johnson has the best record. He has created more jobs per capita and basically turned his state around, which was predominantly Democrat.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-18-2011, 3:01 AM Reply   
John,

I think you are on track except for a couple of items.

Spreading the wealth is unsustainable especially when one party is trying to spread it to other countries and when the people receiving the benefits can continue to vote more of the benefits for themselves. (Democrats). Why do you always hear that you are stupid for voting against your best interests? Because a large block of people believe in voting for money to go into their pockets and that model will fail every time.

The Republican model is sustainable but it is going to be painful and has to be stepped down gradually. Here is the rub to all this and this is why I believe that one way works and the other does not. If you reduce the size of government (reduce regulation and payouts), you lessen the tax burden. You lessen the tax burden, you make it cheaper to live. You make it cheaper to live you either have money in the hands of people who can now spend it and also you don't have to pay those people as much because the cost of living is less. You also make it cheaper to do business in the country and businesses will return. If you continue the spread the wealth model, you will keep bringing us down and the others up. Americans don't want to go down. They want to stay the same or go up. Share the wealth drags you down with the others. A good fence makes good neighbors. You have to have your house in order before helping the neighbors. You can not help/ lead someone from a position of weakness.

I think you also have to stop trading with people who do not have the same regulations as you. That is why China is getting all the trade. Money is going to move to the easiest location. We either have to wait them out like we did Japan or stop trading with them. Japan used to be cheaper then their cost of living raised and then it was no longer cheaper. China is so large that they will not be saturated for a long time.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-18-2011, 4:14 AM Reply   
I absolutely do not advocate larger govt. Just the opposite. Govt is bloated and oppressive to our freedoms. I advocate smaller govt, in many cases less regulation, and larger manufacturing of products. The primary argument centers around the point that exporting over 1/2 trillion a year of our economy is unsustainable. Any model that ignores this is failure. The medication for this flaw in our thinking is govt spending to replenish the economy. If you cut govt spending then the decline will accelerate. If you want to cut govt spending you must also fix the model and cut the trade deficit.

Republicans want to cut the social safety net to cut spending and keep military spending. This is the worst approach and lines a lot of pockets. The most useful way to inject cash into the economy is probably giving it to poor people. They are the most efficient and putting right back into the local economies and they never keep a cut to enrich themselves. It would be great if we could having them building roads and bridges at the same time or performing some other useful task, but when ever you put a middle man in there people start getting rich.

Democrats are just confused but know that Republicans are f**k'd in the head.

Libertarians are on the right track to cut the size of govt, but are dangerous because they don't understand the deficit economy and will destroy the only leverage we have without addressing the problem. The leverage that makes our dollar worth anything is that the world is sucking off our t*t and is willing to overlook the US govt's massive increasing debt as long as we keep the gravy train rolling.

What we need is for American's to face the truth about an unsustainable economic paradigm and make moves in the right direction in a controlled pace. We must target a zero trade deficit, which entails a return to manufacturing goods and a deemphasis on services. Delta's last paragraph hits it on the head. You cannot require American manufacturers to meet high financial requirements and then let goods into the US from countries that don't meet the same requirements of burdening their manufacturers. It's economic suicide.

We have led ourselves down a path that's going to be difficult to extricate ourselves from. First, we have hyperinflated healthcare by making it the recipient of govt welfare in several forms. Now the govt is responsible for everyone's healthcare because it's made it unaffordable. Second, we have created a fake economy in the stock market with govt welfare. Now our money is locked up in a huge gambling system that is making people rich by producing nothing. The problem is the money isn't really there. If everyone took their pensions all at once they wouldn't exist. The market would crash to a tiny fraction of it's value. Unless we return to a economy that produces true wealth i.e. products it's hard to predict anything but uncertainty and the potential for a severe economic crash.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-18-2011, 4:19 AM Reply   
Or we could all just take drugs and forget about our problems. Anybody that believes we need all these drugs is either on them or making money pushing them. This is pretty freak'n sad, but that's what happens when the govt is in healthcare's pocket...

Quote:
More than 20 percent of American adults took at least one drug for conditions like anxiety and depression in 2010
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/...eds/51241236/1

Last edited by fly135; 11-18-2011 at 4:22 AM.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-18-2011, 8:26 AM Reply   
Sam, you just don't get it. I gave you accurate employment figures from the time of the Depression. You found another source, in which I identified flaws. You can believe your source and dispute my source (which is what the US govt uses), I don't give a sheet. AGAIN, THIS DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT AND ME WRONG. You can read ten different history books and read what each says about a particular time period. There may be differences in all ten books. So you choose which one you want to believe, but when you get on here and act like you are some kind of expert in economics and you have done this massive amount of research on the effects of the New Deal, it doesn't make you seem like you are smarter than everyone else, it just makes you appear to be a plagiarizer of other's work. (Sorry for the run-on sentence).
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-18-2011, 8:32 AM Reply   
Jeremy, forget about it. You guys are arguing about something that doesn't even apply to the current economy.
Old    Ben (kamighazi)      Join Date: Nov 2008       11-18-2011, 8:50 AM Reply   
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/4ec...eatured_videos
Old    SamIngram            11-18-2011, 9:13 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Sam, you just don't get it. I gave you accurate employment figures from the time of the Depression. You found another source, in which I identified flaws. You can believe your source and dispute my source (which is what the US govt uses), I don't give a sheet. AGAIN, THIS DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT AND ME WRONG. You can read ten different history books and read what each says about a particular time period. There may be differences in all ten books. So you choose which one you want to believe, but when you get on here and act like you are some kind of expert in economics and you have done this massive amount of research on the effects of the New Deal, it doesn't make you seem like you are smarter than everyone else, it just makes you appear to be a plagiarizer of other's work. (Sorry for the run-on sentence).
I do get it... employment figures just don't matter.... I can employ everyone in the world if I can charge them an employment tax... The Federal Government taking your money, employing you to do work, and then giving it back to you is not employment... A prison or gulag is the same thing...
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-18-2011, 12:03 PM Reply   
^So what about the military? Is every service member unemployed by your rationale? They pay taxes, they are employed, and then they are given back money in the form of their pay from the US government.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-18-2011, 1:04 PM Reply   
You guys are barking up the wrong tree. If someone is out of work they'll be happy to take a govt job. This has little to do with the long term health of the economy, except the govt creates little wealth. Basically infrastructure and some utilities, that's it. The problem is that we are getting too much govt and too many private jobs that don't create wealth.
Old    SamIngram            11-18-2011, 1:18 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^So what about the military? Is every service member unemployed by your rationale? They pay taxes, they are employed, and then they are given back money in the form of their pay from the US government.
Yes, a very good example! Our military budget is largely unpaid for and is a major contributor to the national debt. We tax our people and take out loans on their behalf in order to pay for all the military action we take part in. If every citizen were required to join the military and were then paid a military salary and every bit of commerce was a result of military action we still wouldn't have a net overall gain because we would all have to pay for the salaries. If we had a conquering military system where the winner takes the spoils then the military could pay for itself, versus costing us. I would even argue that in many, many cases our military action has NO net benefit to me at all, in any form.

This example reminds me of the Bonus Army...

President Calvin Coolidge vetoed a bill granting bonuses to veterans of World War I, saying: "patriotism... bought and paid for is not patriotism."

One very interesting thing that I have learned from this thread is from my previous post. I looked libertarian-conservatism up on Wikipedia and one of the comments led me to another article by a libertarian-conservative commentator and mises.org (<---my favorite website). I think it is pretty interesting...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo74.html
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-18-2011, 2:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
President Calvin Coolidge vetoed a bill granting bonuses to veterans of World War I, saying: "patriotism... bought and paid for is not patriotism."
I'm pretty sure that there were plenty who'd like to tell him that they don't care to be paid in patriotism.
Old    SamIngram            11-18-2011, 2:43 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
I'm pretty sure that there were plenty who'd like to tell him that they don't care to be paid in patriotism.
Yup, 17,000 veterans and 26,000 members of their families showed up with a Hooverville type camp on the Anacostia Flats across from the river from Washington DC to do just that.

President Hoover's response was to send Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George S. Patton with 500 infantry, 500 cavalry, 6 battle tanks, and 800 police to get rid of them...
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-19-2011, 1:23 AM Reply   
Military is a type of unemployment. You are buying value. Just because the military people are paying taxes does not mean they are paying for themselves. Let's say a military person is being paid $50,000 and they end up paying $5000 in taxes, they are never going to pay enough taxes to make up for the cost of them. They are a negative cash flow item. All government workers are negative cash flow to society. The way you make up for it is the government is to print money or pull in more taxes from the non government population. What you have to decide as a population is how much value does the government worker provide to your society. How many prison guards do you want? Police? Fire? Administration? Military? so on. Even Government contractors. Unless the government is making product and selling it, any employee will be a negative cash flow. Government contractors have chance to pay for themselves if the good they produce for the government can also in turn be sold to other nations (typically weapons and vehicles)

Businesses are a little different. Employees are all about value but they have the ability to generate product directly in most cases. Most small businesses look at a person and ask how much revenue can you generate for me. If you can not produce enough you are worthless to the business owner. Maybe if the owner can make enough money they can then look into a person who provides value to them despite their negative cash flow (administrative staff). Problem is, businesses many times have to carry extra people on staff that understand regulatory requirements. These people do nothing for cash flow and are a drain on staying in business so the business has to raise it's prices, move to a less regulatory state/ country or shut down. Case in point, I don't think California has anymore car manufacturers in the state (at least in the bay area).

Basically businesses have to carry the burden of their employees, government workers, regulatory requirements. The general worker has to carry the burden of government workers and the carry the burden of the people who don't pay taxes (49%).

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:47 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us