Sequestration 2013

[wanamingo]

Its a good thing that we have so many economists/mathematicians/statitions/historical policy experts/novelists on these boards..... Or else this would be really confusing.

 

[johnsonma]

5: a ruling class increasingly out of touch with the electorate
6: a government run by academics, ideologues, and law makers
7: only two branches of government without a third to offset any abuses of power
8: eventual combination of the Senate and Executive under the guise of smaller more efficient government
9: tyranny

I do believe that the house is only half of the legislative branch. The other two branches would be the judicial branch and the executive branch.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

And when 1 side, the executive, says its a law, and the other , judicial,says its a tax?

 

[gamerk316]

The House is still controlled by Republicans, regardless of the few seats gained by Democrats in the November elections. Stating that Americans prefer a Democrat House ignores this simple fact, otherwise, the House would also be controlled by Democrats as a result of the Nov election. Any interpretation of the recent redistricting as favoring one party over another is Democrat disagreement with the Congress fulfilling their constitutional duty for evaluating the voting districts based on the 2010 census data.

You ignore the fact that in house races, over 1 million more votes went to Democratic candidates. You even see this at the state level, say a Pennsylvania or Michigan, where over 60% of the vote went Democratic, but the majority of the reps are Republican.

Note that Republicans at the state level totally re-did almost all the districts after 2010 in such a way that guarantees they will win the majority of the seats for the foreseeable future. In states that use non-partisan groups to draw the lines, you see party breakdowns in congress that mirror the overall vote (as would be expected, since population and natural boundaries SHOULD be the only things considered when drawing districts).

Heck, even my district was redone to a west-east district from a north-south district. A few hundred thousand, moved into a new district, despite almost no population growth since the last census. Hmmm...

I'm not going to deny the other side doesn't do this too, but since 2010 was a big year for Republicans, they are much more guilty this go around. In any case, this is why the House HAS to be disbanded, since its no longer representive of the voters.

Actually, it was the direct election of Senators that could be considered the second major blow to the American Republic. The direct election of Senators opened the floodgates for a larger and more controlling centralized government. By removing the States representation to the Federal government, it effectively gave all legislative control over to the federal government. Ever since the 17th Amendment, the focus has shifted from the States providing solutions at the State level to a centralized federal one-size-fits-all-government. Without the passing of the 17th Amendment, the federal government never could have implemented the numerous social programs that are now our financial downfall, i.e.; Social Security, military keynesianism, the New Deal, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the ACA, etc.

Nevermind you NEVER would have seen the growth the US has had in the 20th century without a strong central government. The states NEVER would have invested in a national highway system, you wouldn't have a large standing military (remember, the Civil War was fought by mostly state regiments, not Army troops), and so on. Countries without a strong national government always fail, without exception.

Secondly, you make the (silly) assumption that keeping Senators being picked by the state legislatures would have resulted in a different outcome (which I doubt).

Let me add some additional accomplishments;

Can't wait for this..

5: a ruling class increasingly out of touch with the electorate

Umm...wasn't the "Millionaires Club" the primary argument for the direct election of Senators?

6: a government run by academics, ideologues, and law makers

Good. I WANT a country run by people smarter then me.

7: only two branches of government without a third to offset any abuses of power

Its called the judicial branch, and is (supposed) to be neutral due to supermajority needed to get judges in place.

Note that MANY Federal benches are currently empty as a result; the above is going to be an issue in a few years.

8: eventual combination of the Senate and Executive under the guise of smaller more efficient government
9: tyranny

Yep, theres the tinfoil hat for you.

WHAT?!?! Wow! This is revisionist history if I've ever heard it, as you said, "don't quote history textbooks as absolute truth" especially whatever text books you've been taught from! Ensuring the North could NOT end slavery? WHAT?! Every compromise in the Constitution is about slavery? WTF?! So, the first 12 Amendments were all about slavery? Right, sure they were...

The body of the Constitution was written in such a way to ensure it was impossible for the north to ever revoke slavery.

The Bill of Rights came later, and did little except to found the argument that peoples rights are limited by what is explicit in the Bill of Rights (hence why the Federalists HATED it).

Would your parliamentary government be bicameral or unicameral? As a side note, research the etymology of the word "parliament", it is derived from the word "parley". The definition of the word "parley" is "an informal conference between enemies under a truce, especially to discuss terms, conditions of surrender, etc." Kind of ironic that you would willingly change from a representative republic to a form of government where the very word used to describe the government inherently means that the people are considered enemies of the aristocracy. But, hey! To each his own, you say parliament, I say republicanism!

Ironic that the word "Senate" was taken from the Roman upper house meant to represent the upper class. I can do etymology too you know.

In any case, I would do a single parlimant where every state (because lets face it, thats what the Federal government is: the government that oversees that states. The state governments represent the people) gets the same number of Representatives. The President would them be elected by the Senate. In effect, I want a parliamentary Democracy.

I find it idiotic we would elect a President, but not give him the tools he needs to implement his policy.

Ironically in true liberal/progressive fashion, rather than turning your disgust towards learning the principles of republicanism and what you can do to help steer this country back to it's foundations, you seemingly much rather propose ideas intended to destroy it and remake it into the new ideal; hopefully, after learning the etymology of "parliament" you would reconsider your new ideal.

Right, because the NAME is such a good indicator of success/fail.

Also, we will not see this country break in the next two decades, because all the Hippies and Baby Boomers who started this "revolution" back in the 1960's will be dead and long gone. Their liberal ideology will no longer influence media and politics as much as they do today. Hopefully the next generation will look back on the sins of their fathers with regret and disdain and not double down on stupid with continued deficit spending, creating rights out of societal benefits, and reverse the trend of political debauchery. Well that's at least what I hope for...

I got news for you: Every generation is ALWAYS more liberal then the one who came before.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Then move.
Simple as that.
If you elect a king to do a kings job, with a kings full power and ability to do so, find one running some country, and agrees to your POV, and move there.
This isnt what America was all about, and is the exact opposite

 

[gamerk316]

Transfer payments *do* add nothing to the economy and that is the majority of government spending. There is no new production, no added value in any of that. It's just seizing money from one person to give to another. If the government did something like build roads you could argue that spending has economic value but transfer payments do not.

Bull. Simple example: The government pays me to write software for their planes. I get paid for such work. I spend the money on a new car (a Prius, if anyone cares).

Guess what? I just stimulated the economy, due entirely to government spending. And guess what? That care I brought? It requires gas, repairs, and allows me to go out and purchase other goods (in short: Its a walking multiplier effect), so the net economic gain is several times what I paid for that care.

So don't claim that a transfer of payments doesn't create economic growth, or that you have to physically create some product to create growth. Both are false arguments.

Both arguments are flawed. For the first, understand that the reason you shrink the debt/GDP equation during the good times is to give yourself room to work during the lean times. The best way to handle recessions is to tackle them head on, and make them go away, ASAP, debt be damned. Spending a recession to death early is ALWAYS cheaper then letting them hang around for 5-6 years (see FDR in 1936, Carter in 78, Reagan in 82 for reference).

Secondly, the spending you so decry in 2008 did exactly what it was supposed to do: Plug the hole that vanished in consumer spending, and stopped the downward trend in the economy. For those who forget, the economy lost almost 800,000 jobs January 2009. Just a year later, the job numbers were break even. Thats, frankly, a job turnaround unequaled in american history. The reason we're still stuck in an economic quagmire, is that while the stimulus plugged the economic hole, there was never a second stimulus to get the economy moving again, so we're stuck in the "we can't hire because there's no demand, which there won't be until people spend money, which they can't until we hire" loop.

Wow, I wish I were living in the la-la land you are. Keynesian economics and its bailout/stimulus has been discredited several times over- including the lack of effect during the last four years. The spending in 2008 did not do much of anything. The recession was due to the housing bubble going "pop" and people who spent way more than they could afford on over-inflated housing prices suddenly defaulted. Also there was a big oversupply of housing. All of that cleared out in the next couple of years after the people who were grossly underwater ended up foreclosing and a grinding halt of new construction for a few years corrected the housing oversupply issue. The bailouts didn't do much of anything. The banks sat on and continue to sit on the stimulus money. The auto bailout didn't have much effect on the car makers themselves either. They both ended up going through a bankruptcy, investors took a haircut, and contracts got re-negotiated just as if they had not had any government interference with their bankruptcy. All the stimulus did was guarantee that the UAW just got 100% of its obligations met by the taxpayers rather than taking a haircut like all of the other investors.

Again, false. For one, I ask you this: What entity, in the spring of 2008, was going to give the auto companies the money they needed to continue to operate?

*crickets*

After all, its not like the banks had the cash on hand...

Secondly, you fail to understand that the housing collapse, by itself, wasn't the cause of the recession. The root cause was said housing collapse dragged the banks down with them, drying up credit. And since the consumers share of the economy hasn't grown since the 80's, our economy is based around credit being available. Credit drys up, and so does economic growth.

Secondly, how would you explain the massive job turnaround that occurred within a 2-3 months of the stimulus going into effect? From 800k jobs lost to break even in 9 months? Oh wait, that happened all on its own, because the economy is magic and runs on pixie dust! Find me another period in american history where you had a postive net change in jobs of that ratio at any point in US history (not counting times of war, for obvious reasons).

Then again, you can look at Ireland/Greece/Spain for repudiation of cutting spending during recessions; all that occurs is a loss of economic growth, declining tax revenue, and larger problems then you had then before you started to cut.

And if you want real numbers from the so-called "recovery," economically we are no better off than we were in the middle of 2008 and in many cases worse off. The stock markets are pretty much at the exact same level as they were five years ago. Private sector production is actually a touch down. Employment is not good either as the U6 is about twice what it was five years ago. We have decreasing unemployment only because people "fall out" of the calculation from being unemployed for so long. The Obama "recovery" is anything but. That is not surprising as businesses are scared to do much, lest they get whacked with new regulations and taxes. Obamacare was a huge new expense, for example. That's why everybody is sitting on their money, they are scared of what Obama might come up with next.

Please, stop it.

1: Stocks were far overvalued in 2007-2008, up a good 40% from 2003-2004. A correction was inevitable.
2: Private sector production is slightly down, but I'm sure that has NOTHING to do with the lower amount of workers. Production doesn't occur if the product in question can not be sold, which requires actual consumers. If no one will buy my product, I will not hire someone to make it. Hence, lower production of goods. Even then, manufacturing is up, significantly, from where it was in 2008 as manufacturing jobs continue to drag us back from recession.
3: You fell into the trap of not knowing how unemployment is calculated. It is NOT based on unemployment checks like so many claim (because they don't know better), its calculated via survey. While the number is probably depressed slightly due to people not bothering to look for work, thats why there are a total of SIX rates posted by the labor department each month. [The U3 rate is the most reported since it was the only one that remained unchanged when the definitions were updated during Clintons term [todays U3 = historical U4]]. Secondly, Unemployment is a trailing statistic; I generally look at the job gains/month for a better indication. The private sector has LONG since recovered in full (generally +125k to +200k month to month), but losses in the public sector continue to drag the economy down. [Irony: The same people who complain about government being to big complain about the unemployment that results from shrinking the government.]

There's a reason why the debt/GDP has jumped so much since Reagan: The abandonment of sound economic policy (Keynesian economics).

Keynes was about as correct as a stopped clock, and you know it.

Yep. Its not like the entire Western Worlds economies didn't grow by several times during the 40 years his principles were followed, or the fact that massive amounts of debt didn't begin to accumulate until AFTER his principles were abandoned, or that other economic policies [Supply-Side] has NEVER had a single year where Debt/GDP has shrunk.

Oh right, pure coincidence.

No offense, we're still larger then the rest of the world combined. No one else is CLOSE economically. We drive all economic activity, every other economy is dependent on trade from US, not the other way around.

Last time I checked the EU has a higher GDP than we do and China is about 80% of the GDP as the U.S. We *don't* drive economic activity like we used to.

Do you even LOOK at numbers?

US GDP: $15.811 Trillion
China GDP: $7.30 Trillion
EU GDP: $17.578 trillion

(No, PPP numbers are not applicable here)

Though are you REALLY going to take the entire EU combined? REALLY?

Simple solution: Loosen the immigration rules Reagan put into place. No idea why it takes years to get immigrants in; should take hours instead. This will have to happen at SOME point, due to declining birth rates (which itself points to greater economic problems ahead).

That is one thing I actually somewhat agree with you on. Immigration policy does need some tweaking. However relying on massive population growth to sustain Ponzi scheme entitlement programs like Social Security isn't sustainable for very long and those entitlement programs absolutely need to be addressed.

Please. Social Security works the same way as other insurance programs. Hell, you can fully fund it instantly if you remove the upper level cap on income that is applicable to the Payroll tax. (Though I do support raising the age to match life expectancy, and instituting a "means test").

Plenty of new industries come and go with time. Its always in hindsight that we recognize them.

I am pretty sure the U.S. knew that it was a manufacturing powerhouse after WWII and that the computer boom was well known when it happened. You don't remember all of the "e-this" and ".com" that and "Dow 36,000" during the 90s?

You again assume you need to create some physical good to have an economic effect.

Yet Clinton had no problems making us money. Or the fact revenue is well below historic norms.

The tech boom, a gridlocked government, and the Baby Boomers being in their peak income earning years brought us a roughly balanced budget for a few years. You forget that Clinton was elected in 1992 and had a Democrat Congress until the end of 1994. The economy and budget didn't look very good until the Republicans swept the Democrats out of Congress in 1994 and gridlocked the government for the next 6 years.

I'm sure that the fact he had to clean up Bush's mess first had NOTHING to do with the economy that followed. Then again, lets instead point this out:

1) No Republican President since Nixon has shrunk the Debt/GDP, regardless of which party controlled Congress.
2) Carter/Clinton shrunk the Debt/GDP, regardless of which party controlled Congress.

Both are true statements. So why can a Democratic President shrink the debt, and a Republican can't, regardless of party control of Congress?

Then again, there's number 3 as well:

3) Post WWII, no President, regardless of party, increased the nations debt as a percentage of the countries GDP until Republicans gained control of the Presidency AND Congress (1982).

Hence why I continue to advocate Hunstmans plan: Remove all deductions, and reduce the rates overall for the lower/middle classes. The tax code is NOT the place to try and drive economic activity.

That makes sense but it is absolutely opposite of what Obama and the Democrats are pushing. They are pushing for a small minority of the population to pay huge amounts of taxes while the majority pays little to none.

Oh, so you're one of the "Tax the poor" Republicans then? Watch the cost of every single program skyrocket out of control if you do that. Whats the POINT?

Uh oh, here comes the "lets tax the poorest of us" argument. Nevermind you'll just increase the costs of Medicare and other Federal programs faster then you can tax that segment of the economy.

Secondly, after deductions, I paid my $1 of taxes. Kinda proves my point about needing to get rid of deductions, no?

You contradict yourself. About half of people pay NO federal income tax due to deductions and exemptions meeting or exceeding their low to moderate incomes and thus having no taxable income. Removing deductions and exemptions will largely result in people who currently pay little to no tax paying significantly more because the high earners already are very limited in the amount of deductions and exemptions they can take (see the Alternative Minimum Tax.) So you are actually in favor of "taxing the poorest." You also don't have to increase the amount of federal spending on entitlement programs. You can control that with something called a budget, which Obama has not had in three years.

I said, specifically, to reduce the rates overall. The idea is to significantly reduce the rates while removing deductions, so the poor pay no taxes (economically idiotic to make them pay), the middle class pays about the same (and yes, some people will probably be screwed. No plan is perfect), and the wealthy and business pay more (not due to higher rates, but the removal of deductions).

Failing that, I'd argue for a national sales tax AS A REPLACEMENT to the income tax, even though its slightly more anti-competitive (new business with large startup costs suffer, but its "better" then what we have now).

In this case, the loss in revenue is driven entirely by the decline of people working. No income, no income tax. Hence the argument for a second stimulus, since it gets people to work, and thus starts to restore BOTH GDP and Revenue, all in one stroke. (Even better, get them to work upgrading our infrastructure, so we get a trifecta for one spending measure.)

I already explained this, I only counted the private sector portion of the GDP. And yes, the decrease in revenue was due to fewer people working and paying taxes. However the stimuli did NOT work, otherwise we would have seen a recovery in the U6 unemployment rate and an increase in the revenue/GDP ratio back to what it was prior to the recession. We have seen neither; the stimulus failed. The money got sat on by banks and went to China via people using their checks to buy madeinchina crap at Wal-Mart. The infrastructure projects weren't useful either. In my locale the money went to upgrading transit buses that already ran around empty and putting in fancy bicycle lanes nobody actually uses. In other words, a complete waste.

Again, no.

January 2009, the economy lost ~800,000 jobs.
January 2010, the economy gained ~10,000 jobs.

So don't give me "the stimulus didn't work". Unemployment is a trailing economic indicator. The stimulus plugged the hole in missing economic activity, and was large enough to stop the downward trend. It was NOT large enough to cause an upward trend, however, so we're basically stuck in economic purgatory, with a very slight upward trend.

Secondly, if the infrastructure funds weren't well spent, then I would start voting out the state representatives that pushed the projects in question. I know it was spent well here in NY, as I saw a TON of construction work at that time.

Next up, the BTC's did NOT increase revenue/GDP. The first of the cuts was implemented in 2001. That year, Revenue/GDP was at 19.5. The next three years, this declined to 17.6, 16.2, and 16.1. 2004 was the one year GDP cracked 3% growth under Bush though, so Revenue/GDP recovered the next few years (17.3, 18.2, 18.5), as one would expect with rising GDP. Note the PERCENTAGE of Revenue to GDP, even at its peak under Bush, was still 1% lower then it was in 2001. This is significant, due to the rise in GDP, so that 1% comes out to a few hundred Billion/year in lost revenue.

Likewise, when the economy recovers from this recession, the revenue/GDP will naturally rise as well. But remember, a 1% difference in Revenue/GDP in a 15 Trillion economy is 150 Billion in lost revenue. Thats how much, per year, was lost at the economic peak due to Bush's tax cuts.

And the continued recession due to heavy regulation and threat of yet more regulation from Obama and the Democrats has depressed revenues despite massive failed stimulus programs. You are arguing about $150B/year when Obama increased the deficit by 8 times that much and has continued to run that high of a deficit ever since being anointed. We have a massive spending problem even by your calculations, although you absolutely refuse to admit it.

Also, mark my words, we will not get out of the recession until something gets done about the wet blanket of regulation and threat of more regulation that is smothering the economy.

Obama did not increase the deficit by "8 times as much" as you claim. Remember, the Fiscal Year starts in October, so the FY2009 budget was passed under the watchful eyes of G.W.B. The first budget Obama passed, FY2010, saw a 2.4% DECREASE in Federal Spending. So again, the numbers prove you wrong. [Coincidentally, 2009 saw a 2.6% growth in GDP, and 2010 saw a 2.0% drop in GDP, which kinda proves my economic point in the first place].

And yet, despite a 2.4% spending decrease, the debt increased by 12.5%. Thats your lost revenue due to the recession. So let me ask you: If spending DECREASES and the debt INCREASES, whats the primary driver?

Also, as far as regulation goes: If you hand't seen the Depression era banking regulations overturned in the late 90's [specifically, the separation of investment and banking industries], you wouldn't have had this recession in the first place! Short term profits should NEVER trump long term economic growth.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Understand one thing.
Keynes ideas work when:
The economy is working full blown, with full profit.
The people in these times dont care as to whether their taxes (tied to spending) are high as profits and potential are higher still.
This works well until it isnt so.
So, it isnt so no more.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Gamerk316, you are obviously very ego invested in Keynesian economics and collectivist governance theories. Your humanities professor will be proud of you when you show her your posts. However, discussing the topic with you is impossible because you keep making the same erroneous statements over and over despite what anybody else says to the contrary. I work for a living and don't have the time to keep up with your filibuster.

 

[dogman_1234]

Keynesian economics is intended for short run economic change. It is easy to remember this form Keynes own quote; "In the long run, we are all dead."

Classical economics deals with the long run, for the short run is just a part of the sum of the whole.

Keynesian and Classical are economic principles, not economic systems. We, the United State, are a mixed economy. We have what is called Regulated Capitalism. We are far from Socialism.

Do not mix up Keynesian econ with socialism. Even Keynes himself would frown upon such a fixed idea.

The idea behind our current economic policy is to encourage expansion of the economy during a recess in growth. This is accompanied by a decrease in taxes to allow investment in resources: land, labour, capital, and enterprise. If we are able to invest in these resources, there is a probability we as a nation will be able to employ those resources and expand our production possibility. When we do so, our economy grows on the macro scale. While this is all happening, public agreement to increase federal expenditures is placed in order. This promotes the general investment in subsidized goods, which is also good. Goods like: Education, healthcare, infrastructure, business and accounting, engineering and the sciences, agronomy, and general utilization of potential resources the country may have.
All this will lead to a decrease in revenue and and increase of a negative balance, called a deficit. This deficit is bought by individuals who will be payed later. Before any action is taken, a restructuring plan must be in order. How will the bills be payed 1 year, 5 years, 30 year down the road? This is where a decrease in spending and and increase of revenue is called into order by the public. Debts will be payed to the creditor after the revenue is collected by the then grown economy.

Why did I just go over general Keynesian economics? Well, this is what was suppose to happen to us here in the last 8 years. Yes eight.

However, we have neglected a basic idea in this nation: opportunity cost.

Opportunity cost can be defined as the cost of giving up a good/service for another lesser one. Example: Say you have 10 bucks. you have the choice to get bread milk or eggs for 10 dollars, or a 24 pack of beer for 10 dollars. The opportunity cost is the cost of giving up the other good. This involve a self value judgement. Do you want to eat? Do you want that pack in your fridge?
Let us take it to the national level. Say we have 3 trillion in revenue. We have about 4 trillion in potential investment for goods/services for the nation. do we give up on some spending for education to fund healthcare? Do we give up spending on Social Security to fund defense? Should we cut NASA funding for federal worker pensions? Should we pay of our annual interest first? The opportunity cost is the cost of giving up one g/s for another. This is where our national leader fail to do is to prioritize what is valuable for this nation. Instead of spending on program that have a lower opportunity cost and that will generate a return, they fund a g/s that is politically charged and will get them reelected in 2-6 years. Terrorist are after us, increase defense while you decrease SSI; decrease education to fund national healthcare; federal workers are in need of funding of their pensions the engineers at NASA have enough money.

 

[johnsonma]

Gamerk316, you are obviously very ego invested in Keynesian economics and collectivist governance theories. Your humanities professor will be proud of you when you show her your posts. However, discussing the topic with you is impossible because you keep making the same erroneous statements over and over despite what anybody else says to the contrary. I work for a living and don't have the time to keep up with your filibuster.

I thought he put forth some very good arguments with numerical facts to support them.

 

[wanamingo]

I thought he put forth some very good arguments with numerical facts to support them.

Ditto. I thought it was well thought out, and gave supporting arguments.

He could have just copy and pasted a wall of text from other sites.....

 

[chunkymonster]

Gamerk316, you are obviously very ego invested in Keynesian economics and collectivist governance theories. Your humanities professor will be proud of you when you show her your posts. However, discussing the topic with you is impossible because you keep making the same erroneous statements over and over despite what anybody else says to the contrary. I work for a living and don't have the time to keep up with your filibuster.

I thought he put forth some very good arguments with numerical facts to support them.

Ditto. I thought it was well thought out, and gave supporting arguments.

He could have just copy and pasted a wall of text from other sites.....

No surprise that wanamingo and johnsonma agree with gamerk316, all three of them are cut from the same progressive cloth! All three of then lack the fundamental understanding and knowledge on the mechanics of a representative republic. All three of them are willing slaves to the government because they falsely believe someone else knows how to run their life better than they do. All three of them fail to understand the differences between natural law, rights, and societal benefits. All three of them believe that their rights are given to them by the government. All three of them think that because they believe in government providing a greater good that it grants them a moral superiority over those who disagree with them. All three of them a just useful idiots to the erosion of the american republic and willing players in the sinking of american society to the lowest common denominator.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

What I find interesting is, the elevation of man here, not the evolution.
One can place theuir belief in man, but there is alternatives.
Make no mistake, this is fundamental, and its a shame some dont recognize this

 

[wanamingo]

No surprise that wanamingo and johnsonma agree with gamerk316, all three of them are cut from the same progressive cloth! All three of then lack the fundamental understanding and knowledge on the mechanics of a representative republic. All three of them are willing slaves to the government because they falsely believe someone else knows how to run their life better than they do. All three of them fail to understand the differences between natural law, rights, and societal benefits. All three of them believe that their rights are given to them by the government. All three of them think that because they believe in government providing a greater good that it grants them a moral superiority over those who disagree with them. All three of them a just useful idiots to the erosion of the american republic and willing players in the sinking of american society to the lowest common denominator.

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bunker.....

 

[MU_Engineer]

I thought he put forth some very good arguments with numerical facts to support them.

He posted things, then I replied, and then he posted essentially the same things again. That's when I gave up. In a nutshell, the debate went like this:

- Gamerk316: The economy is recovering because total GDP and U3 unemployment are improving. Debt does not matter as long as we can keep in a boom economy. Keynesian economics must work!
- Me: The economy is not recovering because the increase in the GDP is due to government transfer payments which does not lead to more economic activity. The labor participation rate and U6 unemployment are awful. Debt does matter as we are not in a boom economy and will run out of the ability to borrow any more. Keynesian economics do not work and this has been demonstrated painfully at least twice now.
- Gamerk316: The economy is recovering because total GDP and U3 unemployment are improving. Debt does not matter as long as we can keep in a boom economy. Keynesian economics must work!

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

What was that definition of insanity.........

 

[riser]

My ex-girlfriend nagged me for months about the same thing everyday. Everyday I gave her the same response. I thought she was insane.

After those longs months, I broke up with her. She said to me, "See, I told you I wasn't insane."

Kudos to anyone who gets it. 😀

 

[johnsonma]

No surprise that wanamingo and johnsonma agree with gamerk316, all three of them are cut from the same progressive cloth! All three of then lack the fundamental understanding and knowledge on the mechanics of a representative republic. All three of them are willing slaves to the government because they falsely believe someone else knows how to run their life better than they do. All three of them fail to understand the differences between natural law, rights, and societal benefits. All three of them believe that their rights are given to them by the government. All three of them think that because they believe in government providing a greater good that it grants them a moral superiority over those who disagree with them. All three of them a just useful idiots to the erosion of the american republic and willing players in the sinking of american society to the lowest common denominator.

No surprise you went on another liberal rant when presented with logical reasonings that conflict with your radical views. Every post you have starts with liberal and progressive, yet you fail to realize this only proves how limited your perspective is.

Just like you completely overlooked the fact that even though more people voted for democrats, more republicans were sent to the house. You can't comprehend this idea so you spew forth some nonsense about the states doing their constitutional duty!

 

[wanamingo]

There used to be so many different points of view on this site..... I looked back at some old posts and it made me a bit nostalgic.

So many users lost, all because they had different worldviews than the loudest here.

 

[wanamingo]

 

[chunkymonster]

I was wondering when the peanut gallery was going to respond.

No surprise you went on another liberal rant when presented with logical reasonings that conflict with your radical views. Every post you have starts with liberal and progressive, yet you fail to realize this only proves how limited your perspective is.

Right, because you've done such a stellar job of presenting yourself as a middle of the road rational thinking moderate. The only way gamerk316 and your views are logical is if I remove all understanding of a representative republic, the enumerated powers given to the Congress and President in the Constitution, ignore the rights and responsibilities that are our birthright as Americans, and then disregard any critical thinking skills.

Just like you completely overlooked the fact that even though more people voted for democrats, more republicans were sent to the house. You can't comprehend this idea so you spew forth some nonsense about the states doing their constitutional duty!

Yeah, I love this one, the same progressive BS has been spewed in other threads.

Let me help you out. First off, Obama got 3.6 million LESS popular votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, while Romney got 938,000 MORE popular votes than McCain did in 2008. If anything, that shows a swing in the electorate towards Republicans than it does a swing towards Democrats. And, no, more Republicans were NOT sent to the House in 2012 compared to 2008, the Republicans actually lost 8 seats to Democrats. So again, its only by skewed progressive logic does Democrats gaining 8 seats in the House equal more Republicans sent to the House.

I can't take your posts seriously when you fail to verify the basic facts before spewing your progressive talking points. Just like a progressive, don't confuse you with facts when your mind is already made up.

You know johnsonma, despite your blind faith to the progressive cause, I bet your a pretty decent person. I wish you the best on your journey to intellectual maturity.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Lets see, if say a district is 97% dem, then yes, theyd get more votes for dems, and skew the rationality of some who cant comprehend things like this on a national scale, where in most districts, this simply isnt the case, and a mix of such things are bound to happen, just more often, the given scenario will happen more often in large cities with certain populance.
Hey, mystery solved

 

[riser]

Right, higher population in a city district where the mentality is the same. "Their" next argument would probably be something like breaking those districts into smaller ones so more representatives are available.

 

[dogman_1234]

So, why is the 'other' guy wrong/evil?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Thats the point here isnt it dog?
Only seeing one side, not even accepting the other side, yet both sides have much to prove to all of us.