Here come the handouts

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
lendingmaestro_IHB

lendingmaestro_IHB

New member
ugghhhh...



How is raising taxes on the persons who pay wages and hire employees while at the same time giving more money to unemployed people supposed to lower unemployment?



<span style="font-size: 14px;">Obama: Give economy $50 billion boost

With a big jump in the unemployment rate and record oil prices, Barack Obama says he wants to extend benefits for those out of work and send out more rebate checks.</span>







<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/09/news/economy/obama_economy_changetour/index.htm?postversion=2008060915">handouts from robin hood</a>
 
He should just say he is going to introduce a new currency if he takes office: the Real Dollar. Unlike those old, funny, greenbacks, these will be worth what he says they are worth so you can buy stuff with it. He'll "reset" the game, if you will. "Please vote for me and I will reset the game, so we all start from square one!" Very catchy.
 
"Still cheaper than an indefinite involvement in Iraq. Actually, chump change compared to that."



Indeed. However, we "signed on" to do Iraq. Leaving early would be like walking away from a house that didn't appreciate like we expected and letting the bank have it. Perhaps this will be the new American way. If something turns out not to our liking - just walk away with a list of excuses.
 
[quote author="Major Schadenfreude" date=1213151503]"Still cheaper than an indefinite involvement in Iraq. Actually, chump change compared to that."



Indeed. However, we "signed on" to do Iraq. Leaving early would be like walking away from a house that didn't appreciate like we expected and letting the bank have it. Perhaps this will be the new American way. If something turns out not to our liking - just walk away with a list of excuses.</blockquote>


So how long should we stay there if things don't get better - 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years?
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1213156972][quote author="Major Schadenfreude" date=1213151503]"Still cheaper than an indefinite involvement in Iraq. Actually, chump change compared to that."



Indeed. However, we "signed on" to do Iraq. Leaving early would be like walking away from a house that didn't appreciate like we expected and letting the bank have it. Perhaps this will be the new American way. If something turns out not to our liking - just walk away with a list of excuses.</blockquote>


So how long should we stay there if things don't get better - 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years?</blockquote>
Until the Iraqi government asks us to leave. Anything sooner is an abdication of our responsibility for the hardship our invasion caused. Bringing our troops home may be politically expedient on the campaign trail, but it's an act of cowardice in the eyes of our enemies and an act of betrayal in the eyes of our allies. We can't go back and undo any of the past 5 years, so we have to accept reality and do the right thing for Iraq and it's people: fix the broken infrastructure, defend the country against outside invasion, and prevent civil disagreement from becoming civil war. Obama's hedging on withdrawal indicates he knows his rhetoric isn't going to last past his election.
 
Actually, most economists will tell you that extending unemployment assistance does help the economy. Politically, it's a harder thing to do.



Sending out rebate checks was and remains just plain stupid. Voodoo economics. Wouldn't help anything in the long run and just run up the deficit. Oh, but it does make the Democrats look good to their base (of nuts).
 
Well, let's stop bitchin about 50 billion then if it's OK to spend an unknown amount in Iraq - possibly measured in trillions and in thousands of human lives.
 
[quote author="alan" date=1213163004]Actually, most economists will tell you that extending unemployment assistance does help the economy. Politically, it's a harder thing to do.



Sending out rebate checks was and remains just plain stupid. Voodoo economics. Wouldn't help anything in the long run and just run up the deficit. Oh, but it does make the Democrats look good to their base (of nuts).</blockquote>


yeah, the nutjob keynesian economists
 
Since you started with the typical right wing whine-fest I just added the sweet fact that most people who oppose any tax handouts are lining up to spend orders of magnitude more in Iraq. So yes, I did bring up Iraq but that war is crucial to ANY discussion about economics these days as well. They are both intertwined and there is no reason not to address them at the same time.



I guess Greenspan did a wonderful job on our economy according to you .... bring back Keynesian fanboys any time.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1213190507]Since you started with the typical right wing whine-fest I just added the sweet fact that most people who oppose any tax handouts are lining up to spend orders of magnitude more in Iraq. So yes, I did bring up Iraq but that war is crucial to ANY discussion about economics these days as well. They are both intertwined and there is no reason not to address them at the same time.



I guess Greenspan did a wonderful job on our economy according to you .... bring back Keynesian fanboys any time.</blockquote>
Your argument would hold more weight if the left wing were arguing that the money spent in Iraq shouldn't have been spent at all. But that isn't their argument, nor is it yours. You want those taxes spent, just not in Iraq, and the marginal increase in the welfare of the average American clearly outweighs the self-rule and freedom now being established in Iraq in your opinion. Not only are you a horrible troll, but a selfish one at that.
 
Fine. I'll stop trolling and get my act together to vote republican.



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
[quote author="lendingmaestro" date=1213164012][quote author="alan" date=1213163004]Actually, most economists will tell you that extending unemployment assistance does help the economy. Politically, it's a harder thing to do.



Sending out rebate checks was and remains just plain stupid. Voodoo economics. Wouldn't help anything in the long run and just run up the deficit. Oh, but it does make the Democrats look good to their base (of nuts).</blockquote>


yeah, the nutjob keynesian economists</blockquote>


Don't know what your axe is lendingmasetro, facts are facts...



Another think that bothers me not mentioned here is "job retraining programs" every politician promises when they go to depressed areas. These programs have never been shown to be effective in getting anyone back to work, they cost a bundle and only benefit the companies that provide this service. But they make the politicians sound good to their constituents. When plants close, people need to relocate to areas where the new jobs are and most likely accept lower salaries. They don't want to here that, they want things the way they were before and that ain't gona happen.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1213190507]Since you started with the typical right wing whine-fest I just added the sweet fact that most people who oppose any tax handouts are lining up to spend orders of magnitude more in Iraq. So yes, I did bring up Iraq but that war is crucial to ANY discussion about economics these days as well. They are both intertwined and there is no reason not to address them at the same time.



I guess Greenspan did a wonderful job on our economy according to you .... bring back Keynesian fanboys any time.</blockquote>


Now you're mixing fiscal policy with monetary policy. I think Greenspan is a fool. He was a major player in the expansion of credit and derivatives. Keynes is the exact opposite of good. What is typical right wing whine fest? LOL. I don't belong to any particular party, but I am NOT for handouts. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Iraq, but regardless of the outcome 50 billion more in handouts is retarded.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1213204032]Your argument would hold more weight if the left wing were arguing that the money spent in Iraq shouldn't have been spent at all. But that isn't their argument, nor is it yours. You want those taxes spent, just not in Iraq, and the marginal increase in the welfare of the average American clearly outweighs the self-rule and freedom now being established in Iraq in your opinion. Not only are you a horrible troll, but a selfish one at that.</blockquote>


I don't think the money being spent on Iraq is tax money. I think it is all debt. I would prefer that only tax money was spent, in general. The war in Iraq has been a tragedy. We were lied to at the start, and the lies have just been changing during the war. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had no WMD. Darfur is big mess and we aren't in there establishing "freedom".
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1213162869]

Until the Iraqi government asks us to leave. Anything sooner is an abdication of our responsibility for the hardship our invasion caused. Bringing our troops home may be politically expedient on the campaign trail, but it's an act of cowardice in the eyes of our enemies and an act of betrayal in the eyes of our allies. We can't go back and undo any of the past 5 years, so we have to accept reality and do the right thing for Iraq and it's people: fix the broken infrastructure, defend the country against outside invasion, and prevent civil disagreement from becoming civil war. Obama's hedging on withdrawal indicates he knows his rhetoric isn't going to last past his election.</blockquote>


What if the Iraqi people want us to leave, but the govt doesn't? We listen to the govt? We didn't listen to their previous govt. If the govt never asks us to leave, do we stay forever?
 
T!m, if you want to play semantics, that's fine, but all 'money' is just way to transfer debt. Taxes collected are for debts due, not expected. Eventually we have to pay those debts, whether for a war you don't support or for a welfare program that you do. The reason we have deficits is because the government spends more than it can reasonably expect to collect in taxes, not because people aren't paying taxes. But you know this, so quit substituting word games for an original thought.



Whatever your feelings or thoughts about how the war in Iraq was started, we have a responsblity to see the country restored to basic functionality on all levels. Ideally, we would remain allies with the new government and have a permanent presence there such as we have in Germany, England, Japan, South Korea, etc. You don't seem to have a problem with us still being in those places, so is it safe to say that you wouldn't have a problem with us being in Iraq if al-Qaeda weren't blowing things up and the sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni was resolved in a political forum instead of mosque bombings? Or are you going to demand a full withdrawal no matter what the consequences to "the people" may be in our absence? Since you brought up Darfur, I think you would be hesistant to inflict that same kind of genocide on "the people" of Iraq which would almost be a certainty if we were not there acting as a stabilizing force. Yes, I know that sounds slightly oxymoronic but the Sunni/Shi'a/Kurd factions have avoided open civil war and wholesale slaughter of the opposition largely because we are there. Yes, attacks still happen but at a fraction of the extent to which it would blossom if we left before they had hammered out a permanent solution. If we just pull out on 1/21/09, Iran will move to support the Shi'a, Syria and Saudi Arabia will move to support the Sunni, and Turkey will move to wipe out the Kurds once and for all which leave a whole lot of "the people" dead.



But hey, screw them right? A politician lied to you and that's all that matters. :-/
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1213368616]T!m, if you want to play semantics, that's fine, but all 'money' is just way to transfer debt. Taxes collected are for debts due, not expected. Eventually we have to pay those debts, whether for a war you don't support or for a welfare program that you do. The reason we have deficits is because the government spends more than it can reasonably expect to collect in taxes, not because people aren't paying taxes. But you know this, so quit substituting word games for an original thought. </blockquote>


Yeah, I needed a <snark> tag on my post.



[quote author="Nude" date=1213368616]Whatever your feelings or thoughts about how the war in Iraq was started, we have a responsblity to see the country restored to basic functionality on all levels. Ideally, we would remain allies with the new government and have a permanent presence there such as we have in Germany, England, Japan, South Korea, etc. You don't seem to have a problem with us still being in those places, so is it safe to say that you wouldn't have a problem with us being in Iraq if al-Qaeda weren't blowing things up and the sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni was resolved in a political forum instead of mosque bombings? Or are you going to demand a full withdrawal no matter what the consequences to "the people" may be in our absence? Since you brought up Darfur, I think you would be hesistant to inflict that same kind of genocide on "the people" of Iraq which would almost be a certainty if we were not there acting as a stabilizing force. Yes, I know that sounds slightly oxymoronic but the Sunni/Shi'a/Kurd factions have avoided open civil war and wholesale slaughter of the opposition largely because we are there. Yes, attacks still happen but at a fraction of the extent to which it would blossom if we left before they had hammered out a permanent solution. If we just pull out on 1/21/09, Iran will move to support the Shi'a, Syria and Saudi Arabia will move to support the Sunni, and Turkey will move to wipe out the Kurds once and for all which leave a whole lot of "the people" dead.



But hey, screw them right? A politician lied to you and that's all that matters. :-/</blockquote>


Well, I am not convinced that Iraq would be the mess you describe if we left. However, I don't think we should just pull everyone out ASAP. I haven't heard either candidate propose that either. However, I get nervous because no one seems to have a good answer on when we should get "out." Yes, we have bases in those countries. But, I don't see us running a lot of military operations in England. I don't really want to argue this whole thing with you cuz I bet we aren't that far apart really. The whole thing boils down to speculation anyway.



Here is a bizarre mental exercise. We went into Iraq to free the people from the violent dictator. And supposedly to protect us from him. After doing this, of course, many more thousands have died than would have otherwise. So, what is to stop other countries from going in to Iraq to free the people from us? And to protect themselves from us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top