AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

That's not a rebuttal, it's a non-sequitur. It doesn't directly address the TARP program.

Quote:

What if instead of the goverment spending us into oblivion, it had chosen to restrain spending for anything we didn't absolutely have to do, and rather focus on providing incentives for busineses to begin to hire and take reasonable risks again and other measures that encourage the private sector to recover and grow.

It is entirely likely that the recession would have worsened, considerably. Growth would definitely have been worse for the last two quarters and States would have been forced to lay off thousands more people.

Remember that the ARRA was 1/3rd tax cuts.

Quote:

I think if we had done that we would be seeing ourselves climbing out of the mess by now.

Sure, but this is an ideological position of yours, not something you've arrived at after carefully studying the actual economic situation.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Maybe it is an ideological perspective because my ideological perspective is that the government cannot tax us into prosperity and it cannot spend us into prosperity, and the more the government attempts to do so, the more it will hinder if not completely squelch real prosperity.

(And yes, I have posted credible support for that opinion in the past in this thread and will choose not to do so again since you blew it off the first time.)

You may believe that the government can rob Peter to sustain Paul indefinitely. But my ideological perspective is that Peter will inevitably rebel and either stop producing at all or will remove his means of production to where the government can't get at any of it. In either scenario we all suffer negative consequences.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Maybe it is an ideological perspective because my ideological perspective is that the government cannot tax us into prosperity and it cannot spend us into prosperity, and the more the government attempts to do so, the more it will hinder if not completely squelch real prosperity.

In a normal economic cycle, this carries more weight; but we aren't in a normal situation. Sometimes, when the normal cycle isn't working, government intervention is very helpful.

Let us compare it to a brother or sister of yours, who has lost their job. Is it productive to help them out for a while? Yes. Is it productive to support them forever? No. Short-term interventions, event though they can be costly, often lead to long-term positive results.

Quote:

(And yes, I have posted credible support for that opinion in the past in this thread and will choose not to do so again since you blew it off the first time.)

You may believe that the government can rob Peter to sustain Paul indefinitely. But my ideological perspective is that Peter will inevitably rebel and either stop producing at all or will remove his means of production to where the government can't get at any of it. In either scenario we all suffer negative consequences.

Ah, the 'going Galt' argument? I dare them. Seriously. If the rich feel they are getting a raw deal, let them stop working. This is an empty threat. As I stated earlier, at no point in American history have the rich rebelled and stopped producing, not even a little; and the ENTIRETY of that time was under higher income taxes than we pay today.

In short, there is precious little evidence that the wealthy will in fact do what you claim, and tons of evidence that they won't.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Maybe it is an ideological perspective because my ideological perspective is that the government cannot tax us into prosperity and it cannot spend us into prosperity, and the more the government attempts to do so, the more it will hinder if not completely squelch real prosperity.

In a normal economic cycle, this carries more weight; but we aren't in a normal situation. Sometimes, when the normal cycle isn't working, government intervention is very helpful.

Let us compare it to a brother or sister of yours, who has lost their job. Is it productive to help them out for a while? Yes. Is it productive to support them forever? No. Short-term interventions, event though they can be costly, often lead to long-term positive results.

The key is whether it is more productive for me to help my brother or sister out for awhile or whether it is more productive for me to forceyou to help my br4other or sister out for awhile. If I force you to be altruistic, but it causes you to have to lay off a couple of other folk or postpone hiring other folks because you have to help out over here, then the net benefit is lost.

This is a principle that progressives don't seem to quite be able to grasp, but then the agenda of most true progressives seems too often not to benefit the poor in any material way but rather to punish the rich.

Quote:

Quote:
(And yes, I have posted credible support for that opinion in the past in this thread and will choose not to do so again since you blew it off the first time.)

You may believe that the government can rob Peter to sustain Paul indefinitely. But my ideological perspective is that Peter will inevitably rebel and either stop producing at all or will remove his means of production to where the government can't get at any of it. In either scenario we all suffer negative consequences.

Ah, the 'going Galt' argument? I dare them. Seriously. If the rich feel they are getting a raw deal, let them stop working. This is an empty threat. As I stated earlier, at no point in American history have the rich rebelled and stopped producing, not even a little; and the ENTIRETY of that time was under higher income taxes than we pay today.

In short, there is precious little evidence that the wealthy will in fact do what you claim, and tons of evidence that they won't.

There is a huge amount of evidence that the wealthy will in fact do what I claim. Look at the thousands of jobs that are leaving California because businesses are no longer willing to absorb ever higher taxes and excessive regulation there.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush went along with Congress and agreed to increase taxes on the very rich by taxing luxury items such as private planes, boats, high value jewelry etc. Result? The rich either didn't buy or went elsewhere for their toys. Our private plane industry took a huge hit and our domestic boat building industry was almost destroyed costing more than 50,000 jobs, and billions in high value jewelry fled to places like Grand Cayman. The tax policy was quickly rescinded after it was observed how destructive it was, but much damage had been done and some of it was never repaired.

But the radical progressives felt righteous. In their minds they did the right thing.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The key is whether it is more productive for me to help my brother or sister out for awhile or whether it is more productive for me to forceyou to help my br4other or sister out for awhile. If I force you to be altruistic, but it causes you to have to lay off a couple of other folk or postpone hiring other folks because you have to help out over here, then the net benefit is lost.

This is a principle that progressives don't seem to quite be able to grasp, but then the agenda of most true progressives seems too often not to benefit the poor in any material way but rather to punish the rich.

Uh; this is another non-sequitur. It doesn't directly address what I wrote, but instead changes the topic to something else.

The government helping out various state and local agencies - who have been really fucked during this economic downturn - isn't forcing anyone to lay off or postpone hiring anyone. This isn't relevant to the discussion, but just another expression of your ideology.

Quote:

There is a huge amount of evidence that the wealthy will in fact do what I claim. Look at the thousands of jobs that are leaving California because businesses are no longer willing to absorb ever higher taxes and excessive regulation there.

No, there isn't. You have no real answer to my point that taxes are currently much, much lower than they have been historically, yet the rich have not rebelled in any way.

Quote:

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush went along with Congress and agreed to increase taxes on the very rich by taxing luxury items such as private planes, boats, high value jewelry etc. Result? The rich either didn't buy or went elsewhere for their toys. Our private plane industry took a huge hit and our domestic boat building industry was almost destroyed costing more than $50,000 jobs, and billions in high value jewelry fled to places like Grand Cayman. The tax policy was quickly rescinded after it was observed how destructive it was, but much damage had been done and some of it was never repaired.

But the radical progressives felt righteous. In their minds they did the right thing.

Oh no! Industries which had sprung up to cater to the super-rich took a hit. Whatever will our economy do?

This is an example you guys love to use, but it isn't reflective of our overall economic situation at all. Yes, changes in taxation can have direct effect upon very specialized industries, but overall, there has been zero reduction in effort on the part of the rich when their taxes are raised - which was the point of my paragraph.

Cyclotpichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

so where are those weapons of mass destruction, by the way?

They could possibly be in Syria by the way. And some were in Iraq at one time, just ask the people whose relatives were slaughtered by them.

in the case of sending americans to get shot at, "possibly" isn't good enough. and that statement has been shown to be valid.

if you are referring to the kurds being gassed, remember that happened way back, while reagan was in office. and the u.s. was still backing iraq against iran.

am i the only one that remembers gulf I and how much time was spent there looking for stuff afterward? and how we were told that his unconventional weapons had been destroyed by at least 98%.

i don't know why we really invaded iraq; whether it was because we got kicked out by the saudis or if it was because "saddam tried to kill my (bush's) dad" or what. but i'm pretty sure that weapons of mass destruction had nothing to do with it.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

What if instead of the goverment spending us into oblivion, it had chosen to restrain spending for anything we didn't absolutely have to do,....

i'm just wondering if by that, you would be for a immediate withdrawl of all personnel and materiel from iraq and afghanistan?

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DTOM, how do you explain the CIA head saying it was a "slam dunk?" Another question, how do you explain Valerie Plame, a WMD expert in the CIA, saying in her book that she feared for our soldiers having WMD used on them when they entered Iraq? If she knew there was no danger, how come she was worried? I realize there were some people that did not believe WMD was in Iraq, but others most certainly did, and that also includes foreing intel agencies. I don't really wish to plow this ground, its been plowed so many times, but just curious about your take on the above points.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

DTOM, how do you explain the CIA head saying it was a "slam dunk?"

Tenet was a political ally of Bush, who was saying what Bush and Cheney needed him to say. To wit, Tenet was lying. He was rewarded with a Medal of Freedom.

Quote:

Another question, how do you explain Valerie Plame, a WMD expert in the CIA, saying in her book that she feared for our soldiers having WMD used on them when they entered Iraq? If she knew there was no danger, how come she was worried?

This is a black swan argument; the lack of evidence for WMD does not mean evidence that they don't exist. It's reasonable to fear that an opponent, whom you don't know for sure has weapons, may use them if they have them.

Quote:

I realize there were some people that did not believe WMD was in Iraq, but others most certainly did, and that also includes foreing intel agencies. I don't really wish to plow this ground, its been plowed so many times, but just curious about your take on the above points.

Anyone who knows the history of the US and Iraq knows that they at least HAD WMD at one point, because we sold it to them. Perhaps you forgot this part?

http://28thamendment.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

The question was: Is Iraq a threat to the US in any way? The answer was no, even if you believed they still had some chemical weapons laying about. You can deny a threat to the US while still worrying that Iraq will use these weapons on soldiers who are attacking them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Because I am sure of one thing does not mean I am sure about everything.

Because I am unsure about one thing does not mean I 'm not sure about anything.

TARP money allegedly went to private persons or to private organizations (see Foxfyre's previous post).

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

DTOM, how do you explain the CIA head saying it was a "slam dunk?"

he was wrong, wasn't he? how sure are you that he wasn't saying what some wanted to hear?

also, doesn't it strike you as a little weird that the bush cabinet was chocked full of people belonging to the same radical right think tank? a think tank started by cheney that aggressively pushed for a return engagement with iraq?

Another question, how do you explain Valerie Plame, a WMD expert in the CIA, saying in her book that she feared for our soldiers having WMD used on them when they entered Iraq? If she knew there was no danger, how come she was worried?

i haven't read her book, so i can't fairly comment on that.

I realize there were some people that did not believe WMD was in Iraq, but others most certainly did, and that also includes foreing intel agencies. I don't really wish to plow this ground, its been plowed so many times, but just curious about your take on the above points.

i don't really want to get deep with it either. we all believe what we believe at this point. however, let me just say that absent the discovery of the weapons of mass destruction ( which i don't believe could have left iraq unnoticed), the only two viable conclusions are that 1) somebody and everybody screwed up royal. or, 2) there was another agenda involved as i said above.

the reason i believe we do need to know, is that, as a nation, we have hurt ourselves far more badly by following a half baked scheme than any terrorist ever could. i don't mean whether or not the french like us, i mean whether or not we like each other here in america. or ourselves for that matter.

and as usual for post ww II america, the people who are doing the real fighting and dying are left hanging fire. that pretty much sucks, don't you think?

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
What if instead of the goverment spending us into oblivion, it had chosen to restrain spending for anything we didn't absolutely have to do,....

i'm just wondering if by that, you would be for a immediate withdrawl of all personnel and materiel from iraq and afghanistan?

I am for withdrawal of all personnel and equipment from Iraq an Afghanistan the same day that our mission is completed there. I think it would be a terrible cruelty to the Iraqi and Afghani people and the worst kind of insult we could heap our brave young men and women who have put their lives, many literally, on the line for the effort and not see that the best possible good came out of it.

I loathe and despise all war and think it is the ultimate stupity and failure of humankind. But if we are going to fight one, we should fight it with everything we have and accept nothing less than unequivocable victory. It is the best possible way and often the only way to make friends out of the enemies we are at war with.

1 Reply

Quote:

White House: Cheney Has His Facts Wrong
(Stephanie Condon, CBS News.com, August 31, 2009)

A White House spokesman on Monday said former Vice President Dick Cheney had his facts wrong when he criticized the Obama administration's decision to investigate allegedly abusive CIA interrogation techniques.

Cheney on Sunday called the Justice Department investigation an "outrageous political act" that will do significant long term damage to the nation.

At his regular press briefing Monday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs brushed aside the criticism as "the same song and dance we've heard since literally the first day of our administration."

"I'm not entirely sure that Dick Cheney's predictions on foreign policy have borne a whole lot of fruit over the last eight years in a way that have been either positive or, to the best of my recollection, very correct," Gibbs said.

Cheney said on Sunday that the harsh interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects were "directly responsible" for the fact that there have been no further mass casualty attacks against the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.

"I think the (former) vice president, if you watched some of his interview, clearly had his facts on a number of things wrong," Gibbs said Monday.

Gibbs contrasted Cheney's statements with Republican Sen. John McCain's comments on CBS's "Face the Nation." Though McCain said it was a "serious mistake" to investigate the interrogations, he said the interrogation techniques of the CIA under the Bush administration were harmful to the U.S.

"What was also illuminating were Sen. McCain's comments yesterday about... the impact that these enhanced interrogation techniques that the president looked at and has now outlawed, the effect that they've had on our standing in the world and our foreign policy," he said. "Given his experience, I think they are tremendously illuminating."

Gibbs said that the president has banned American-run so-called "black sites," has outlawed "enhanced interrogation techniques" and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"We're going to repair the image of this country and make this country safer," he said.

He said suspected terrorists are not shipped abroad to be tortured but stopped short of saying they are not shipped abroad for interrogations.

"Some may go to other countries to face charges that they have in those countries, but they're not shipped in the dark of night to be tortured," he said.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
What if instead of the goverment spending us into oblivion, it had chosen to restrain spending for anything we didn't absolutely have to do,....

i'm just wondering if by that, you would be for a immediate withdrawl of all personnel and materiel from iraq and afghanistan?

I am for withdrawl of all personnel and equipment from Iraq an Afghanistan the same day that our mission is completed there. .....

that being?

2 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
What if instead of the goverment spending us into oblivion, it had chosen to restrain spending for anything we didn't absolutely have to do,....

i'm just wondering if by that, you would be for a immediate withdrawl of all personnel and materiel from iraq and afghanistan?

I am for withdrawl of all personnel and equipment from Iraq an Afghanistan the same day that our mission is completed there. .....

that being?

When we have won.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Quote:
...Cheney Has His Facts Wrong

what a surprise.

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

Quote:

that being?

-6 years or so

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
What if instead of the goverment spending us into oblivion, it had chosen to restrain spending for anything we didn't absolutely have to do,....

i'm just wondering if by that, you would be for a immediate withdrawl of all personnel and materiel from iraq and afghanistan?

I am for withdrawl of all personnel and equipment from Iraq an Afghanistan the same day that our mission is completed there. .....

that being?

When we have won.

won what?

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

Quote:

won what?

Dude, you know where this is headed -

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4/ouroborosdragonlogomh6.jpg

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Because I am sure of one thing does not mean I am sure about everything.

Because I am unsure about one thing does not mean I 'm not sure about anything.

But we're not comparing apples and oranges here. You're sure about the unconstitutionality of wealth transferral because it's not mentioned in the constitution, yet you're unsure about the constitutionality of printing money, even though that's not mentioned in the constitution either. Why aren't you as sure about the latter as you are about the former?

Let me offer one likely explanation for your evident confusion: you don't like what you term "wealth transfers," and so you're sure they're unconstitutional. On the other hand, you like printed money, so you're not sure about whether that's constitutional or not.

ican711nm wrote:

TARP money allegedly went to private persons or to private organizations (see Foxfyre's previous post).

TARP money went to a lot of people. But to whom was it given?

Look, this is all very simple: you said that TARP was unconstitutional because it involved a "transfer of wealth" from those that earned it to those that didn't. Upon closer examination, however, it appears that a "transfer of wealth" only occurs when someone actually owns the benefit that the government confers -- in other words, receiving a loan doesn't constitute a "transfer of wealth," since the recipient doesn't own the loaned money. Yet TARP, as far as I can determine, didn't involve giving the federal funds to anyone, and you have failed to identify a single instance where a TARP funds recipient was given money under that program. So, according to your definition, TARP didn't involve a "transfer of wealth" at all. Isn't that right?

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know