• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

damned socialist president!

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
President Obama this week will call for tax incentives that would allow businesses to write off 100% of new capital investment through 2011 — moves that the White House says could save businesses $200 billion over two years.
- L. A. Times

yep... creeping marxism is what it is. we are all doomed.

geo.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
- L. A. Times

yep... creeping marxism is what it is. we are all doomed.

geo.
Nah, not doomed... but it's good to know that the american people have a promise to produce 200billion dollars to save, what will most likely target the biggest of businesses (IE : Those least needing assistance or "too big to fail").

Its' just a little redistribution of wealth... which will eventually turn into 'it's just a little breadline'. No worries though, we'll still have tv and video games and our iphones.
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
- L. A. Times

yep... creeping marxism is what it is. we are all doomed.

geo.
I think this tax write off is a great idea. It directly incentives new investment in business growth.

Come to think of it, I've payed less in taxes under Obama than under Bush so far. Haters gonna hate.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,031
Reaction score
32,882
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So have I! Of course it was because I had a JOB under Bush...
Bush was in the driver's seat when we went off the cliff, and people are blaming Obama for not making the car fly.
NOTE TO MORONS: I'M NOT PLACING BLAME ON BUSH FOR THE CURRENT ECONOMY
 

dontworrybehappy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
1,559
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Youd've lost it no matter who was elected in 2008.
Yes, but had that asshat moron in the white house not put a drilling moratorium up in my state, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT WAS FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE ASSHAT IDIOT DECIDED TO REINSTATE IT ANWAY, I'd be able to find a job as a helicopter mechanic. Right now, nobody is hiring because nobody is flying, after all, without drilling, what is there to really fly out to? The heli companies have cut back so much they are not only not hiring, but some are laying off dozens of mechanics. These mechanics were employed under Bush.
 
Last edited:

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
- L. A. Times

yep... creeping marxism is what it is. we are all doomed.

geo.
The White House is trying every tool in the toolbox trying to stop companies from sitting on their cash. This isn't a bad plan. I hope it works....

I see it as giving companies a perfectly good reason to invest in their own infrastructure...kinda' like encouraging them to do their own stimulus program.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Bush was in the driver's seat when we went off the cliff, and people are blaming Obama for not making the car fly.
NOTE TO MORONS: I'M NOT PLACING BLAME ON BUSH FOR THE CURRENT ECONOMY
Coulda' fooled me.
 

dontworrybehappy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
1,559
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I think he actually managed to contradict himself 180 degrees in two sentences. That takes a hell of a liberal mind to do.

I don't think Bobo is a socialist president, I just think he's one of the dumbest people to ever take office. The liberals managed to find the one person on the planet that would make GWB look like Einstein. The only person that could prove that a high level of book knowledge can transfer to a low level of practical knowledge.

I know someone else personally who is book smart, but doesn't have a lick of common sense. But thank God he's not president. Unfortunately, the other one I know is.
 
Last edited:

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't think Bobo is a socialist president, I just think he's one of the dumbest people to ever take office.
you reallize that this, all by itself, nullifies your entire post. Dumb is one thing he absolutely is not. nor are the folks that he has working for him, regardless of how much you disapprove of them.
I know someone else personally who is book smart, but doesn't have a lick of common sense. But thank God he's not president. Unfortunately, the other one I know is.
*sigh*

How we express disdainful disregard for educated people in this nation, all the while bemoaning the terrible state of education is painfully saddening... and a harsh reminder of just how badly we have failed at educating.

Shall i remind you of what "common" means?

"belonging to or shared by all members of a group"

common sense is sense that we all have - bitching about anyone's lacking it demonstrates a lack of it.

but, that is not what you mean, is it? Perhaps you take the older meaning "characterized by a lack of privilege or special status"... but of course, that could apply to m. Obama, belonging as he does to a subdominant group and raised in family of rather straitened means.

No, i would think more likely you must mean "falling below ordinary standards: second-rate: lacking refinement : coarse", which would certainly seem to apply to your usage.

it is this sorta thinking that got that got us into this hellish state in the first place.... putting Goober Pyle in the whitehouse because he did not even pretend to be even a little smarter than the troglodytes hanging out around the pickle barrel in the gen'rl sto', but boy howdy, did he put on a gooood bobacue!

we are doomed,
geo.
 
Last edited:

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
As opposed to the trillions of frivilous spending?
frivolous?

shall we go to webster... or would you prefer to qualify your usage?

geo.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
frivolous?

shall we go to webster... or would you prefer to qualify your usage?

geo.
Let's first agree that the stimulus bill's primary justification was to spur the development of jobs.

Now, let's examine the evidence, straight from the horse's mouth:

Recovery.gov

Notice the funds received in CA (different from the total funds awarded)

$10,794,330,000

Notice the number of jobs reported:

76383

What is 10,794,330,000 divided by 76383?

141318

That means each job created cost the national taxpayer an estimated $141,318.

Would you like to argue the stimulus bill wasn't frivilous spending by the top elected bureaucrats?
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Let's first agree that the stimulus bill's primary justification was to spur the development of jobs.
well, we can certainly agree that that was a major aspect, yes.

but, to be specific, according to the statement of purpose, the act was enacted to:
preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery - assist those most impacted by the recession - provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health. - invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. - stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases.

Would you like to argue the stimulus bill wasn't frivilous spending by the top elected bureaucrats?
sure.... i'll take a whack at it.

let's start with defining "spending". A significant amount of this spending actually comes in the form of 'lost revenue' - that is, tax cuts amounting to some $95 billion. if there is anything "of little weight or importance, lacking in seriousness, marked by unbecoming levity" in tax cuts it is on the part of the folks that received them, not the bloated gummint. I have no doubt that some portion of that 95b went to whores and whisky and what did not probably went to paying down debt and into savings, neither of which does much to refuel the economy, but it helps to slow the slide or, as Moody's puts it "While spending has not rebounded sharply, without the stimulus it would still be declining."

some has definitely been well spent on education saving 250,000 jobs (according the the Washington Post).

in fact the major criticisms among economists is that there was not enough allocated and the spending has been too slow. According to Moody's, that has been corrected recently with $80b going out the door in recent months. ProPublica maintains a website where the pace of spending can be monitored.

Moody's actually has pretty firm opinions about the Stimulus:
The federal fiscal stimulus is working.
simple enough.

as for monies allocated and jobs created, yep, there have not been enough. one reason is that most of those monies have not yet been spent. f'r instance, as you bring up my good old home state, 2.25b has been allocated for high speed rail. not much of it has been spent because.... there is a lotta preliminary work to be done (epa reports and such) before laying track from which the jobs will grow.

if yer gonna criticize the allocations for being to projects that do not generate speedier results you will be in good company... lots of folks agree. but that does not make high speed ELECTRIC rail frivolous.

and it is in such projects that fall under the heading of 'infrastructure' that have gotten shortest shrift.... but, within the last week have move to the top of the priority list.

no, you can hate the principle or disagree with the allocations or criticize the pace or dispute the spending... but calling it frivolous is, well, frivolous.

geo.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Let's first agree that the stimulus bill's primary justification was to spur the development of jobs.

Now, let's examine the evidence, straight from the horse's mouth:

Recovery.gov

Notice the funds received in CA (different from the total funds awarded)

$10,794,330,000

Notice the number of jobs reported:

76383

What is 10,794,330,000 divided by 76383?

141318

That means each job created cost the national taxpayer an estimated $141,318.

Would you like to argue the stimulus bill wasn't frivilous spending by the top elected bureaucrats?
This is distortion of facts. As a consequence of the spending bill,infrastructure is being repaired/replaced and other projects are off hold and on target. Not like this $141,318 went into a worker's pocket. Look, I'm not an Obama fan, but I don't like ridiculously wrong comparisons. And yours is one of those.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
well, we can certainly agree that that was a major aspect, yes.

but, to be specific, according to the statement of purpose, the act was enacted to:
preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery - assist those most impacted by the recession - provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health. - invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. - stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases.



sure.... i'll take a whack at it.

let's start with defining "spending". A significant amount of this spending actually comes in the form of 'lost revenue' - that is, tax cuts amounting to some $95 billion. if there is anything "of little weight or importance, lacking in seriousness, marked by unbecoming levity" in tax cuts it is on the part of the folks that received them, not the bloated gummint. I have no doubt that some portion of that 95b went to whores and whisky and what did not probably went to paying down debt and into savings, neither of which does much to refuel the economy, but it helps to slow the slide or, as Moody's puts it "While spending has not rebounded sharply, without the stimulus it would still be declining."

some has definitely been well spent on education saving 250,000 jobs (according the the Washington Post).

in fact the major criticisms among economists is that there was not enough allocated and the spending has been too slow. According to Moody's, that has been corrected recently with $80b going out the door in recent months. ProPublica maintains a website where the pace of spending can be monitored.

Moody's actually has pretty firm opinions about the Stimulus:

simple enough.

as for monies allocated and jobs created, yep, there have not been enough. one reason is that most of those monies have not yet been spent. f'r instance, as you bring up my good old home state, 2.25b has been allocated for high speed rail. not much of it has been spent because.... there is a lotta preliminary work to be done (epa reports and such) before laying track from which the jobs will grow.

if yer gonna criticize the allocations for being to projects that do not generate speedier results you will be in good company... lots of folks agree. but that does not make high speed ELECTRIC rail frivolous.

and it is in such projects that fall under the heading of 'infrastructure' that have gotten shortest shrift.... but, within the last week have move to the top of the priority list.

no, you can hate the principle or disagree with the allocations or criticize the pace or dispute the spending... but calling it frivolous is, well, frivolous.

geo.
I think it's quite easy to hypothetically argue that things would be worse if we didn't spend. As if the world would come crashing down if we hadn't bailed out the banks or the auto comapnies or spent x number of dollars "improving infrasturcture." The bottom line is that since the bill was enacted, something like 450,000 government jobs had been created while 2.5 million private jobs were lost. And the best way to improve the economy is to create jobs. I think that, and the deficit (which can't help you in this debate) are the two most important factors in improving the economy.

As for high speed rail, I'll let my friends at reason.tv handle this one:

 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is distortion of facts. As a consequence of the spending bill,infrastructure is being repaired/replaced and other projects are off hold and on target. Not like this $141,318 went into a worker's pocket. Look, I'm not an Obama fan, but I don't like ridiculously wrong comparisons. And yours is one of those.
As I've stated to another poster, the best way to improve the economy is to create jobs and reduce debt. I think the Obama administration used that "repairing infrastructure" point as an excuse to fall back on if the bill didn't create the jobs they promised (sort of like Bush and company using the liberation of the Iraqi people as a fall back reason in case the WMD were never found). The bottom line is job creation and debt reduction, and how's that stimulus bill working out for your unemployed friends? How's it working out for the deficit?

And btw, I never implied that 141,318 would be the workman's salary, as you and another poster have claimed. Only that in this instance, government spent more than was needed in order to create a certain number of jobs, while simultaneously being unable to meet their original quotas. It's typical for the government to spend more for less.
 

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
28,159
Reaction score
10,403
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Does anybody know if there are short forms for capitalism and socialism like "From each according to ability, to each according to his needs"? I grow weary of the communism=socialism, "the soviet union is an example of what happens when a nation adopts communism as it's economic philosophy" claptrap that muddies our discussions to such a ridiculous extent. I truly feel that America would do itself a favor by taking a refresher course on economic philosophies and how they differ from political ideologies, so that we can have actual discussions about the actual things we're discussing. And before the flaming begins in knee jerk defense of capitalism, have you ever considered the possibility that socialism and communism are deliberately conflated because if communism is the Left and capitalism is the Right, then socialism is the Center? Or at least much more so than either? That as far as I know socialism has the incentive to excel that communism lacks, and the mechanisms to address the threats unrestrained accumulation of wealth pose that capitalism lacks. So what's so wrong with socialism? And please no cut and paste, scientifically engineered responses. Let's start by agreeing what capitalism, socialism, and communism actually are, and what they are not. Because until then we're just repeating things we've heard from someone else, and that's never a good idea.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I think it's quite easy to hypothetically argue that things would be worse if we didn't spend. As if the world would come crashing down if we hadn't bailed out the banks or the auto comapnies or spent x number of dollars "improving infrasturcture."
probably not. I do not think the Bank rescue was wholly a good idea, but it had some merit. We should have obliged them to pay more for the rescue, but...

the auto industry i think WAS truly needed and worthwhile. Our industrial base is a shadow of it greatness and the Auto industry is still the best symbol of what remains. The result has been gratifying. Leaner, meaner production and better cars in the pipeline.

I am not an economist and there are certainly questions in my mind about some of the choices made, but overall it was the best approach. it has proven itself in the past, here and elsewhere. the criticism of japan in its faltering in the late 80's was that it chose NOT to spend in order to jump start flagging industries. i tend to align with those who say we should have spent more, faster.

The bottom line is that since the bill was enacted, something like 450,000 government jobs had been created while 2.5 million private jobs were lost.
we have to be careful about conflating cause and effect. the government jobs are certainly largely a part of the stimulus. that is fine with me. i am not opposed to the government putting folks to work. we are facing a future where 10%-12% unemployment may be the norm.

the 2.5m lost is hardly a result of the recovery efforts.
And the best way to improve the economy is to create jobs.
that is arguable. and it is perspective dependent. there are a LOT of financial groups out there happy as clams.... money is rolling in and they don't have to put as much out because they simply are not hiring. there is good reason to think that they may not for years, even that they may NEVER again employ the numbers they have in the past. to those folks, putting people to work only bleeds the economy.
I think that, and the deficit (which can't help you in this debate) are the two most important factors in improving the economy.
the deficit borders on the irrelevant, in fact. as long as we are covering the nut and the repo man is not at the door, we can spend as we need.

i think, and apparently, I am not alone in thinking, that we are facing a future where the pool of unemployed labor is large and constant. a 'finance' and/or 'information' based economy, towards which we have been moving for decades, requires far fewer workers than an industrial one. the work that will be available is likely to be low paid. remember the day when a man could make a living even maintain a family working as a janitor?

those days are long past.

as for HS Rail, who am i to qualify it? and who is Nick Gillespie to do so? i wish i had his M.A. in lit... but that doesn't qualify him as an economic analyst. I resent the magazine's title of' Reason'.... better would be 'Ideology', as nothing the does not fit the 'dollar first', libertarian mindset is likely to get much approval there. I got a buck in my Pocket that if Bill Gates decided to build a high speed rail line, m. Gillespie would be all for it. anyone who equates 'free minds' and 'free markets' as though one were dependent upon the other has a very questionable thinking process.

geo.
 
Last edited:

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I think the Obama administration used that "repairing infrastructure" point as an excuse to fall back on if the bill didn't create the jobs they promised
i would say that there are two errors in this argument. the first is that infrastructure investment is a PROVEN means for countering a faltering economy - Roosevelt was very successful in his efforts. secondly, the first step in reversing direction is slowing down, then stop... THEN reverse.

keeping people working while the recession slows is needed. putting people to work is needed. fixing and improving roads and transportation networks, for instance, even your pal Gillespie thinks a good idea. and few people go hungry or sacrifice their dignity by taking 'charity'. all by itself, that last bit makes it worth doing.

geo.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
So what's so wrong with socialism? .
Nothing, it's a wonderful idea.
Here's how it works.
Jay works hard and makes good money. Obama takes a big chunk to give to Joe who makes minimum wage so he can have a living wage. That's only fair.
Jay decides he would be OK with only a living wage.
Jay lays-off ( Ben and Jerry) who make a living wage.
Before Obama came along you had 4 people working. Jay making more than the others.(that's not fair) Ben and Jerry making a living wage,(that is fair) and Joe making minimum wage. (that's not fair)

Now you have 4 people making a living wage......oh wait
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Nothing, it's a wonderful idea.
Here's how it works.
Jay works hard and makes good money. Obama takes a big chunk to give to Joe who makes minimum wage so he can have a living wage. That's only fair.
Jay decides he would be OK with only a living wage.
Jay lays-off ( Ben and Jerry) who make a living wage.
Before Obama came along you had 4 people working. Jay making more than the others.(that's not fair) Ben and Jerry making a living wage,(that is fair) and Joe making minimum wage. (that's not fair)

Now you have 4 people making a living wage......oh wait
vivid fantasy... if a trifle morbid.

I DO like how you admit that the legal minimum wage is not sufficient to live on. not many radical conservatives will.

the bizarre notion that m. Obama is a socialist would be laughable it it were not demonstrable of either pathetic ignorance, a seriously deranged thinking process or (as is most likely) an irresponsible, even rabid dedication to an ideology.

anyway, your understanding of 'socialism' seems a tad... weak. At best it is outdated and even when it was in vogue, it was inaccurate. perhaps you would care to clear it up for us? Can you identify a single existing economy that works this way?

geo.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
vivid fantasy... if a trifle morbid.

I DO like how you admit that the legal minimum wage is not sufficient to live on. not many radical conservatives will.

the bizarre notion that m. Obama is a socialist would be laughable it it were not demonstrable of either pathetic ignorance, a seriously deranged thinking process or (as is most likely) an irresponsible, even rabid dedication to an ideology.

anyway, your understanding of 'socialism' seems a tad... weak. At best it is outdated and even when it was in vogue, it was inaccurate. perhaps you would care to clear it up for us? Can you identify a single existing economy that works this way?

geo.
No and I was trying to keep it simple. What if... didn't want any cut and paste stuff. I just took Obama's spread the wealth around and went with it. I know socialism isn't that simple, but it still sucks big time.
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes, but had that asshat moron in the white house not put a drilling moratorium up in my state, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT WAS FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE ASSHAT IDIOT DECIDED TO REINSTATE IT ANWAY, I'd be able to find a job as a helicopter mechanic. Right now, nobody is hiring because nobody is flying, after all, without drilling, what is there to really fly out to? The heli companies have cut back so much they are not only not hiring, but some are laying off dozens of mechanics. These mechanics were employed under Bush.
Thanks for clarifying.
 
Top Bottom