Obama's Joint Session of Congress, 9/08/11, Announcing "American Jobs Act"

[Boo Radley]

be sure and tell us how warm your heart is when his stupid ass get's taken out next year.

Politicians lose. politiicans win. Let's us simply hope who ever holds the office is worthy. Let's hope we pay attention and choose wisely. Lets care less about sides and more about our leaders leading, and doing the hard work they are suppose to do.

 

[sangha]

That's not true. A free market is simply a market free of state intervention, not of any regulations at all. That has existed before, just not in our modern society fully. The problem with this is such a marketplace is unreasonable as it will only benefit itself and those that contol it. In other words, the market itself becomes it's own government.... again we're back to a plutocracy.

Free market'er are simply people that desire such a system. Most aren't even aware that they would be the slaves to such a market place.

You can claim that a free market has existed, but that doesn't make it true. As long as there's been a market, there has been interventions in that market.

Free marketeers are simply fantasists

Then explain how everyones gets their dope.

The idea that the drug trade is unaffected by state action is one the more absurd claims I've seen on DP

 

[Tettsuo]

You can claim that a free market has existed, but that doesn't make it true. As long as there's been a market, there has been interventions in that market.

Then I question your definition of Free Market. My definition of free market is one without state intervention. The rules are set by the market and the consumer. There has been such markets, even in early America. The problem is such a market doesn't work for anyone except the market itself, thus forces a state to intervene if one is present.

Free marketeers are simply fantasists

I agree 100%. Their beliefs about a free market is pure fantasy based on pipe dreams and fairy farts.

 

[sangha]

Then I question your definition of Free Market. My definition of free market is one without state intervention. The rules are set by the market and the consumer. There has been such markets, even in early America. The problem is such a market doesn't work for anyone except the market itself, thus forces a state to intervene if one is present.


I agree 100%. Their beliefs about a free market is pure fantasy based on pipe dreams and fairy farts.

Then I question your definition of a state. A market of any type requires organization, otherwise it's just the powerful taking from the weak. As long as humans have engaged in organized economic behavior, there has been someone at the top dictating policies.

The economy of colonial america was influence by policies set by kings in Europe.

But glad to see we can agree on the absurdity of free markets. eace

 

[Tettsuo]

Then I question your definition of a state. A market of any type requires organization, otherwise it's just the powerful taking from the weak.

But if it is the market that is dictating the rules, that would be the premise for a free market. It's when a 3rd party is dictating policy that supposedly makes the market less free.

As long as humans have engaged in organized economic behavior, there has been someone at the top dictating policies.

We 100% agree.

The economy of colonial america was influence by policies set by kings in Europe.

That didn't apply to the Native population. That was a truely free market (as free as one can be). The problem is it was completely destructive to the Native Americans who were often the consumer being exploited by the early colonial tradesman.

Bottom line is of course, neither of us agree that the so-called free market is a good idea for any civilized society.

 

[sangha]

But if it is the market that is dictating the rules, that would be the premise for a free market. It's when a 3rd party is dictating policy that supposedly makes the market less free.

We 100% agree.

That didn't apply to the Native population. That was a truely free market (as free as one can be). The problem is it was completely destructive to the Native Americans who were often the consumer being exploited by the early colonial tradesman.

Bottom line is of course, neither of us agree that the so-called free market is a good idea for any civilized society.

Markets don't dictate rules. Markets are just a non-corporeal concept; an invention of the human mind. Markets are a man made set of rules and it's the men at the top who make the rules and use force to enforce those rules

And Native Americans were organized as tribes, and they had tribal leaders (ie a state) who set the rules. One rule common to many NA tribes (and tribes in general) was that individuals could not own land

 

[BoycottTheDay]

The idea that the drug trade is unaffected by state action is one the more absurd claims I've seen on DP

You are far to smart because apparently you can read into what i wrote what you think i wrote.

The underground only exists if the State outlaws activity,from the book of duh.

 

[sangha]

You are far to smart because apparently you can read into what i wrote what you think i wrote.

Then you are not far too smart because you don't seem able to communicate clearly

The underground only exists if the State outlaws activity,from the book of duh.

Another one-liner, and you wonder why your words are misconstrued :lamo

 

[BoycottTheDay]

Then you are not far too smart because you don't seem able to communicate clearly



Another one-liner, and you wonder why your words are misconstrued :lamo

Oh im sure you think you have a gift when it comes to writing, how many books have you wrote so far?

 

[sangha]

Oh im sure you think you have a gift when it comes to writing, how many books have you wrote so far?

And another one-liner

 

[PzKfW IVe]

Why is it the only solution The Obama, in specific, and the Dems, in general, have for any issue is to spend money we don't have?

 

[Phys251]

Why is it the only solution The Obama, in specific, and the Dems, in general, have for any issue is to spend money we don't have?

When will you stop beating your wife?

 

[sangha]

Why is it the only solution The Obama, in specific, and the Dems, in general, have for any issue is to spend money we don't have?

Because the repubs were so good at reducing the debt :roll:

 

[BoycottTheDay]

And another one-liner

Another non answer, you cant beat consistency.

 

[sangha]

Another non answer, you cant beat consistency.

Another one liner, and self-referential to boot

 

[liblady]

Oh im sure you think you have a gift when it comes to writing, how many books have you wrote so far?

i can't bear this.

 

[BoycottTheDay]

Another one liner, and self-referential to boot

Welcome to ignore, chase your own tail from now on.

 

[Tettsuo]

Why is it the only solution The Obama, in specific, and the Dems, in general, have for any issue is to spend money we don't have?

Because that's the best way to get the economy moving.

 

[Boo Radley]

Why is it the only solution The Obama, in specific, and the Dems, in general, have for any issue is to spend money we don't have?

Kind of like asking why is the only republican solution to any problems is a tax cut?

Though if we tried at all to be fair, radical concept I know, we'd have to say both have other elements to what they are proposing.

But the short answer is it something similar to it takes money to make money. The only way government can actually do anything at all is to spend the money. Then they have to hope. BTW, tax cuts is just another variation on that theme. Cutting revenue can be seen as spending money, and then the government can only sit back and hope.

 

[PzKfW IVe]

Because that's the best way to get the economy moving.

That is indeed the dogma that you have been taught, so it is not a surpirse that you give it as your answer.

It is -a- way to get the economy going to some degree; as we have seen, its effectiveness is, generously, limited.
Given that every penny TSM looks to spend in this regard adds to the deficit/debt, claiming that it is the "best" way is, at the very very best, a doubtful proposition.

At some point, the BEST thing to do is to do nothing and let the economy take care of itself. That point was 2008.

 

[BoycottTheDay]

Best way to get the economy moving is to end the war on capitalism,

your redistribution of wealth policies violate citizens 13th amendment rights.

Why should they even bother producing wealth that is just confiscated and given to the leaching class.

 

[Tettsuo]

That is indeed the dogma that you have been taught, so it is not a surpirse that you give it as your answer.

That's simply the truth. In a stalled economy, someone has to push to get the thing going. Once in motion, it'll pickup and start motoring along on it's own. We've already see this in action during the Great Depression. Unless of course you can show how cutting taxes or doing nothing got the economy moving along.

It is -a- way to get the economy going to some degree; as we have seen, its effectiveness is, generously, limited.

That's the point. It's suppose to be limited. It's only suppose to be a jumpstart, not to actually be the engine itself.

At some point, the BEST thing to do is to do nothing and let the economy take care of itself. That point was 2008.

Ummm, no. Not if you want to avoid a massive depression and total economic collapse. Doing nothing while sinking will only make it easier to drown.

 

[Tettsuo]

Best way to get the economy moving is to end the war on capitalism,

your redistribution of wealth policies violate citizens 13th amendment rights.

So taxes is redistributing wealth? Or do you think Medicare and Welfare is redistributing wealth? Please be specific because the nonsensical talking points are worthless.

Why should they even bother producing wealth that is just confiscated and given to the leaching class.

Leeching class... sounds like the only war is the war of perceptions stemming from the haves towards the have nots.

 

[sangha]

Best way to get the economy moving is to end the war on capitalism,

your redistribution of wealth policies violate citizens 13th amendment rights.

Why should they even bother producing wealth that is just confiscated and given to the leaching class.

Why do you bash the rich?

 

[PzKfW IVe]

That's the point. It's supposed to be limited.

The EFFECT has been limited -- that is, it has had no appreciable effect.
So, what do you do when spendng huge amounts of money doesnt work? Easy -- spend more!!

Ummm, no. Not if you want to avoid a massive depression and total economic collapse

Hyperbole. The market -always- rights itself, and does so in a sustainable way.
The long-term effects of all the debt run up in failed efforts to "jump start" the economy for the last 3+ years are far worse than having done nothing.