Sen. Al Franken On The Economy, Unemployment, And The Budget

[Jucon]

Please explain how Bush ruined the country. This should be fun...I'll pop popcorn. I cant wait to see how the head of the executive branch of government passed laws, budgets, regulations, etc over the legislative branch.

Here are a few off of the top of my head:
- Huge tax cuts that were not paid for
- Allowed an expansion of Medicare (Part D)
- Turned our budget surplus into a deficit
- Increased our debt
- Increased our spending
- Left behind this mess of an economy which came with an increasing rate of unemployment
- Left behind a TERRIBLE trade deficit
- Got us involved in Iraq (and came in WAY over budget)
- Ruined our image around the world
- Allowed the torturing of prisoners
- USA PATRIOT Act... we may never know how intrusive this has been and will be into our lives

Haven't you wondered why so many people both in America and around the world hated the man?

True, Congress and the Senate deserve much of the blame as well, but the buck stopped with him... he had the vetoing power... he was the "Decider in Chief"... and he decided wrong on many occasions... and the successors are left to pick up the pieces.

Nope...he lost me as soon as he went into the partisan bull****. Well...not as soon as...that happened fairly quickly. But not long therafter thereafter...yep. About 5 minutes of him is all I can stomach.

If you cannot stomach the entire 40 minutes (even I had a hard time focusing during the whole thing), here are some shorter clips of the same speech that cover the main points:

YouTube - Sen. Franken Explains The Sources Of Our Long Term Deficits

YouTube - Sen. Franken Points Out The Important Effect Of The Recovery Act

YouTube - Sen. Franken Explains Some Of The Flaws In Our Current Tax System

YouTube - Sen. Franken Explains Why Extending Unemployment Insurance Is Important And Smart Economic Policy

I hope you'll pop another bag of popcorn and watch these clips. opcorn2:

 

[Hicup]

I watched the video. I wish more senators were like this.

Deficits are never good, short, medium, or long term. Frankin, is talking through his hat. First of all, there is zero, nadda, nil evidence that ANY of the Government spending helped in any measurable way. His little graph is cute, and all, but Gov't spending isn't the reason for the "trend", and his conclusion that it would have been a lot worse is, frankly spurious at best.

Let's turn the logic around on Mr. Frankin for a second. What would have happened, if everyone was allowed to fail? A "short-term" drop, followed by a short-term, or potentially long term growth period. Yes, some people would have lost a lot of dough in their investment savings, but so what? That's what RISK is. However, when Mr. Gov't comes a calling with its big plan to save everyone, what we have is a redistribution of that loss through long term debt responsibilities. Put on Mr., and Mrs. Tax payer, their kids, and their kids, and their kids. So, the ones not taking the risk, are now left holding the empty bag of money.

If Mr. Frankin had taken a second year economics class, he'd have known this, but of course, it doesn't fit the narrative. It is precisely why free markets are best when left free, and consumer risk is disclosed as a regulatory product only. If you want to hear about real economics, try listening to Milton Friedman, perhaps the greatest of them all.

Remember, debt, loss, of any kind, is mitigated somewhere. You're always better off if that somewhere isn't legislated for.


Tim-

 

[Jucon]

Deficits are never good, short, medium, or long term. Frankin, is talking through his hat. First of all, there is zero, nadda, nil evidence that ANY of the Government spending helped in any measurable way. His little graph is cute, and all, but Gov't spending isn't the reason for the "trend", and his conclusion that it would have been a lot worse is, frankly spurious at best.

Let's turn the logic around on Mr. Frankin for a second. What would have happened, if everyone was allowed to fail? A "short-term" drop, followed by a short-term, or potentially long term growth period. Yes, some people would have lost a lot of dough in their investment savings, but so what? That's what RISK is. However, when Mr. Gov't comes a calling with its big plan to save everyone, what we have is a redistribution of that loss through long term debt responsibilities. Put on Mr., and Mrs. Tax payer, their kids, and their kids, and their kids. So, the ones not taking the risk, are now left holding the empty bag of money.

I agree that deficits are never good, but sometimes in times of emergencies they are necessary. Blame the politicians over the past 50+ years for not having a surplus. Actually... over most of the history of the U.S.


To your main points: What if this "short term" drop wasn't short term? What if there wasn't this short or long term growth period? Then where would we be? I'd have to say "in a depression". I'd rather see a temporary increase in our debt and a recession than a full blown depression. I guess we'll see what happens in the next few years though.

People wanted tax cuts, and they got tax cuts with the recovery package. And another portion of the act was to save or create jobs (teachers, police, firemen, construction workers, etc). And spent money is spent money, no matter where is comes from. The government spent this money to make up for the decrease in private sector spending (which Franken talked about). As long as the money from the recovery package was spent within the U.S., I am in support of it. However, I'd have preferred seeing more money being spent on projects that would have created businesses and longer lasting jobs. I'd be very hesitant to believe tax cuts alone could create more jobs than what we got from the recovery package. And tax cuts alone would have increased our deficit / debt anyways.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Nope...he lost me as soon as he went into the partisan bull****. Well...not as soon as...that happened fairly quickly. But not long therafter thereafter...yep. About 5 minutes of him is all I can stomach.

And you don't find that problematic? I do. There's a simple theory of rational discourse--rational discourse is supposed to move us closer to the truth, the best position, or at least the most effective position. But rational discourse requires that everyone listen, understand, and open themselves to what someone else has to say, even if (especially if) that point of view is radically different from one's own. Libs are just as guilty of this as conservatives, so don't think I'm picking on one side in particular. Nor are you the only person on these boards or in public discourse to have said something like this.

 

[BDBoop]

Thank you. Seems like so many people on this board are able to verbalize exactly what I'm thinking but don't have the verbiage for.

And you don't find that problematic? I do. There's a simple theory of rational discourse--rational discourse is supposed to move us closer to the truth, the best position, or at least the most effective position. But rational discourse requires that everyone listen, understand, and open themselves to what someone else has to say, even if (especially if) that point of view is radically different from one's own. Libs are just as guilty of this as conservatives, so don't think I'm picking on one side in particular. Nor are you the only person on these boards or in public discourse to have said something like this.

 

[USA_1]

No, my hires usually did a fine job and I did look at relevant experience.

Very unnuanced question.

Just pointing out that experience is useless if the person doesn't learn from it. I know a mechanic that has 30 years experience and he is still a horrible mechanic. Just because you have done something or done something for a long time really doesn't necessarily make you better at it than someone that has natural talent.

 

[washunut]

Just pointing out that experience is useless if the person doesn't learn from it. I know a mechanic that has 30 years experience and he is still a horrible mechanic. Just because you have done something or done something for a long time really doesn't necessarily make you better at it than someone that has natural talent.

If your point is that experience by itself is no end all be all, I agree.

 

[USA_1]

If your point is that experience by itself is no end all be all, I agree.

My point is experience can be meaningless. For example George W Bush has more experience at being president than all but one other person in the world. It does not mean he would make a good president.

 

[washunut]

My point is experience can be meaningless. For example George W Bush has more experience at being president than all but one other person in the world. It does not mean he would make a good president.

No offense but I find this a meaningless statement. Someone who has proven he/she can't do a job is not usually considered as proof of experience to be sucuessful.
I wish my competition in business looked at things with your black and white views.

 

[USA_1]

No offense but I find this a meaningless statement. Someone who has proven he/she can't do a job is not usually considered as proof of experience to be sucuessful.
I wish my competition in business looked at things with your black and white views.

I guess you just don't get it.

 

[washunut]

I guess you just don't get it.

Experience is one of many things I look at. That is what I get. It is not meant to be the only thing to look at.

Saying that for most things, there are many people who have some relevant experience. Looking at their other traits, what accomplishments they had with their experience etc.

So my point is having experience is something on the checklist, not the only thing.

I do not get YOUR point that just because someone who failed at their job and thus had " Experience" in view your makes them a good candidate for hire.

Talking about someone who had a job and failed, is the silly logic that allowed the American people to hire someone with one real credentials to take on the hardest job in America.

 

[Jucon]

My point is experience can be meaningless. For example George W Bush has more experience at being president than all but one other person in the world. It does not mean he would make a good president.

Experience is measured by your credentials, not by your title.

A ****ty manager was a manager... but they sucked at it. Would you want to put them in another managerial position?

BTW there are more than two living presidents right now...

 

[USA_1]

Experience is measured by your credentials, not by your title.

A ****ty manager was a manager... but they sucked at it. Would you want to put them in another managerial position?

BTW there are more than two living presidents right now...

That's my point. Experience can be useless.
With 8 years experience?

 

[USA_1]

I do not get YOUR point that just because someone who failed at their job and thus had " Experience" in view your makes them a good candidate for hire.
.

My point is bad experience does not make a good candidate for anything.

 

[Jucon]

That's my point. Experience can be useless.
With 8 years experience?

My point is experience is important, not necessary always, but my main point is: just because someone had a certain title at one point does not mean they were good at it nor does it mean they would be good at it in the future.

Bush was president for 8 years... that doesn't mean he was good at it.

 

[USA_1]

Bush was president for 8 years... that doesn't mean he was good at it.

But he has the most experience at it.