POLITICAL ISSUES

[hoosier]

I seem to be missing the coordinated subway attacks in London and Spain on this list...

There were no "US interests" directly affected by those events, so they don't count.

[MJZiggy]

They were our allies and attacks against western interestsas retribution for working with us.. And if he's going to list that there were no successful attacks in the later years, he should remove the failed attacks from the earlier ones.

[texaspackerbacker]

I seem to be missing the coordinated subway attacks in London and Spain on this list...

There were no "US interests" directly affected by those events, so they don't count.

It's a shame when bad things happen to good people, but what those events do more than anything else are highlight our security compared to their security. Also, they serve as a reminder of the tip of the iceberg of how bad it could be if that was allowed to happen here--as would be highly probable, given the STATED policies of Obama and everybody else on your side of the spectrum.

[MJZiggy]

What did he say he'd do that would allow it to happen here? Which policy in particular are we discussing?

[HarveyWallbangers]

They were our allies and attacks against western interestsas retribution for working with us.. And if he's going to list that there were no successful attacks in the later years, he should remove the failed attacks from the earlier ones.

You are not this naive, are you? Any thoughts on the attempted attacks that were thwarted in France and Germany? Two countries that haven't exactly supported us. Go on believing that appeasing the terrorists works. Blame America left at its finest. When Reagan was in office, we were supposedly hated. When Clinton was in office, we were supposedly loved (yet the World Trade Center, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, US Embassy in Kenya were bombed). Much of Europe is so far to the left that they make California look like a red state. I'm happy when they hate us.

[hoosier]

They were our allies and attacks against western interestsas retribution for working with us.. And if he's going to list that there were no successful attacks in the later years, he should remove the failed attacks from the earlier ones.

You are not this naive, are you? Any thoughts on the attempted attacks that were thwarted in France and Germany? Two countries that haven't exactly supported us. Go on believing that appeasing the terrorists works. Blame America left at its finest. When Reagan was in office, we were supposedly hated. When Clinton was in office, we were supposedly loved (yet the World Trade Center, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, US Embassy in Kenya were bombed). Much of Europe is so far to the left that they make California look like a red state. I'm happy when they hate us.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Much of Europe so far to the left? I guess that leaves out England, where the Conservative party is now fully back, and Spain, which recently had a right-center government, and France, which recently elected a conservative, and....

And yes, the terrorist attacks in Spain and England were directly tied to those countries' participation in Iraq, and were clearly intended to sway popular opinion (further) against the Spanish and English conservative governments' positions. Saying that isn't "blaming America," it's stating the obvious truth that everyone from Ted Kennedy to Donald Rumsfeld is capable of recognizing.

[MJZiggy]

They were our allies and attacks against western interestsas retribution for working with us.. And if he's going to list that there were no successful attacks in the later years, he should remove the failed attacks from the earlier ones.

You are not this naive, are you? Any thoughts on the attempted attacks that were thwarted in France and Germany? Two countries that haven't exactly supported us. Go on believing that appeasing the terrorists works. Blame America left at its finest. When Reagan was in office, we were supposedly hated. When Clinton was in office, we were supposedly loved (yet the World Trade Center, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, US Embassy in Kenya were bombed). Much of Europe is so far to the left that they make California look like a red state. I'm happy when they hate us.

Uhhh Harvey? I was talking about London and Spain...They go after Western countries. Democracies. Last I checked both France and Germany qualify and last I checked, a huge amount of our military works out of Germany--like the ones about to be deployed to places like Iraq and Afghanistan...

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead, I respect your thinking on this. However, I still say, this being America, we can "afford" to be compassionate in the sense that although to be brutally honest, some people "deserve" to go down the toilet, we CAN prevent it in this country without sacrifice by the rest of us, so why not do that?

While the sick class warfare pushed by the leftists is wrong, so, too, is the unreasoned and unnecessary social Darwinism that some on our side would like to see.

In hindsight, I have to agree with you on the nation-building thing. However, before we had the benefit of that hindsight, and before al Qaeda made the decision to prioritze screwing up Iraq, the limited force pushed by Rumsfeld was not going too badly.

Corporate LEVERAGE is actually DEBT--which by definition, does NOT have a return. The investment made with that debt is what is supposed to have a return in a profit-making business. Government is NOT a profit-making entity--by design. The equivalent is in government is economic growth--which clearly DOES result from spending--deficit or otherwise, or tax cutting.

You are wrong about money being unavailable to the "real world" when the government borrows. It is just the opposite. Our money supply is backed by government debt instruments. Every time the government borrows a dollar, the money supply expands by a dollar--which logic says is inflationary, EXCEPT for the fact that economic growth inevitably results at a greater rate than inflation--unless some idiot Democrat raises taxes.

Damn straight Bush intentionally let the dollar decrease in value> That's what I've been saying all along. China rigged the Yuan to be artificially low as an economic advantage for them for a long time. Bush basically played the same game back at them--thereby HELPING American producers selling in China--and everywhere else.

[HarveyWallbangers]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Much of Europe so far to the left? I guess that leaves out England, where the Conservative party is now fully back, and Spain, which recently had a right-center government, and France, which recently elected a conservative, and....

Too funny. You do realize that the Torries in the United Kingdom are far from what we would describe as conservative, right? There are factions that are truly conservative, but most would be classified as moderates or even left of center here. (By the way, it's the same way in France and Spain.) Also, the United Kingdom has a boatload of political parties. Most of them are liberal. Just because the Torries have a plurality doesn't mean "conservatives" are in the majority.

And yes, the terrorist attacks in Spain and England were directly tied to those countries' participation in Iraq, and were clearly intended to sway popular opinion (further) against the Spanish and English conservative governments' positions. Saying that isn't "blaming America," it's stating the obvious truth that everyone from Ted Kennedy to Donald Rumsfeld is capable of recognizing.

The implication being that those countries wouldn't be attacked if they:
didn't participate in Iraq.

(didn't support the U.S.)
(weren't democracies)
(didn't ban burqas in school)
(didn't allow women to vote)
(add any other hard-line Muslim edict you want)

[bobblehead]

Bobblehead, I respect your thinking on this. However, I still say, this being America, we can "afford" to be compassionate in the sense that although to be brutally honest, some people "deserve" to go down the toilet, we CAN prevent it in this country without sacrifice by the rest of us, so why not do that?

You missed my point, when we set up social programs the effect is often to hurt the very people intended to help. And also it takes tax dollars to provide said compassion which has a deflationary effect on the economy.

While the sick class warfare pushed by the leftists is wrong, so, too, is the unreasoned and unnecessary social Darwinism that some on our side would like to see.

Again, I'm not pushing social darwinism, I'm rejecting the premise that social programs help those in need, they actually hurt others by stagnating the economy and costing jobs.

In hindsight, I have to agree with you on the nation-building thing. However, before we had the benefit of that hindsight, and before al Qaeda made the decision to prioritze screwing up Iraq, the limited force pushed by Rumsfeld was not going too badly.

Corporate LEVERAGE is actually DEBT--which by definition, does NOT have a return. The investment made with that debt is what is supposed to have a return in a profit-making business. Government is NOT a profit-making entity--by design. The equivalent is in government is economic growth--which clearly DOES result from spending--deficit or otherwise, or tax cutting.

You are wrong about money being unavailable to the "real world" when the government borrows. It is just the opposite. Our money supply is backed by government debt instruments. Every time the government borrows a dollar, the money supply expands by a dollar--which logic says is inflationary, EXCEPT for the fact that economic growth inevitably results at a greater rate than inflation--unless some idiot Democrat raises taxes.

Damn straight Bush intentionally let the dollar decrease in value> That's what I've been saying all along. China rigged the Yuan to be artificially low as an economic advantage for them for a long time. Bush basically played the same game back at them--thereby HELPING American producers selling in China--and everywhere else.

I thought I was clear about the debt incurred by corporations was reinvested and thus created the return....but anyway, I agree. BUT, when govn't incurs debt, they do not reinvest it, they give it away (pretty much always). Only when they reinvest in infrastructure does it have an expanding effect on the economy. And again our gov't either creates the money, taxes us for it, or borrows it, every one of which has a negative connotation of some form. The only way to make things expand is leaving the money in the hands of the doers. Guys who actually create things to raise our standard of living. You know, the evil rich guy, the guy who creates things that make our lives easier, cuz in reality the only true wealth creation is something tangible that we can enjoy.

The reason the bush cuts were so good is that he cut capital gains too. This caused a bevy of developement around the country which created jobs which created many things for all of us to enjoy (you know, things created by people). Him spending money on medicare part D did nothing to increase the wealth of the country, it merely handed certain people money. I know you get, you are just clinging to wanting to be compassionate even though you are increasingly seeing my point that being compassionate doesn't work (or at the very least it works for a few, at the expense of us all including those few)

[bobblehead]

Actually in case any are missing the point on leverage here is an example/lesson:

You invest 25,000 in a stock, but you leverage it for 5,000 more.

total invested 30,000. You are paying 8% on the debt(leverage) of 5,000.

at the end of the year the stock went up 20% to 36,000. You sell it pay back the 5,400 (5,000 debt + 400 interest)

You are left with 30,600 which is a return of 22.4%...higher than the 20% the stock made cuz you leveraged it.

HOWEVER if the stock drops 20% you are losing even more. You will lose 24% cuz you leveraged it.

So, when the govn't borrows money to GIVE to someone and takes it out of the hands of someone who would create, they lose said creation return, PLUS pay interest. Handing it out has zero net effect on the GNP.

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead, you seem to be confusing buying stock on margin with corporate leverage. Both are debts. What you described, though, was what individuals do to buy more stock than the cash they put up.

Leverage is when a corporation goes into debt through loans, bonds, etc. to finance projects, inventory, etc.

Both need profit on the money invested to be successes.

Government money spent is the SAME whether it is for infrastructure or plain old payments to people--salaries, welfare, whatever. The way THAT money works is when it is spent by the recipient--contractor, employee, welfare case, etc. Then it becomes somebody else's income--and somebody else's and somebody else's and so on and so on--the Multiplier. All that income amounts to economic growth. It also gets taxed, increasing revenue to the government, even if the tax rate is lower. You don't expect government to have a return/profit in the business sense, but you do expect the spending/tax cutting to generate far more growth than actual government money paid out.

Thus, government spending, whatever it goes for, is NOT deflationary, does NOT take additional tax dollars--unless they are stupid enough to raise taxes to "pay" for the spending, and does NOT cost jobs. Rather, the money generates MORE jobs as it is spent, creating demand for more products, bringing more income, more jobs, etc.--again, the Multiplier.

It works every time.

As for NOT bootstrapping the undeserving poor simply out of "fairness" or whatever you would call it other than Social Darwinism, I would agree with you that there are cases where it seems to hurt in the sense that the recipients become dependent and slothful, but what are you going to do, make that assumption and let them live in squalor when they can't/won't/don't apply themselves and survive on their own? That is the "luxury" I'm talking about--being able to keep these people from going down the drain, even if they would be going down the drain because of their own laziness, etc. As I have demonstrated, the money being spent does NOT mean sacrifice for the rest of us, but greater income and economic growth all around--as long as no damn Democrat gets in and screws things up by raising taxes.

[bobblehead]

Again, you aren't seeing it right. Wether a corporation leverages a project to create a bigger gain or an individual leverages a stock buy, there is no difference, I simply used stock leverage because its easier to understand and explain. Corporations generally leverage a much higher percentage, but the point is the same.

What you are describing in gov't handouts is actually called the velocity of money, not the keynsian multiplier. And gov't spending is fine, but gov't handouts are no different than if the original owner of the money kept it. The big difference is when its taken from an individual who might invest/build with it cuz now you have stopped a real asset from being created (and maybe jobs too) which has repurcussions for years to come. A handout simply has a velocity factor which is minimal in a net gain sense, and negative in a long term real asset factor. Leaving it in the hands of the original owner would be a better net gain.....unless we are printing or borrowing said money in which case I stand by either debasing the dollar or removing money from the normal credit markets, either way, a net negative effect.

My point is the gov't doesn't create jobs, they don't create wealth (other than infrastructure), and they take money from the people who do with nearly every tax dollar (not to say no taxes are good, a state run police and military and judicial for instance must be funded to properly run a capitalistic society)

[Kiwon]

Let me guess: Hinderaker is also a Bible-thumping, moralizing right-wing Christian.

Hmm.....Is that a bad thing?



"And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called "The Audacity of Hope." And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him.."

Barack says that he is "Called To Bring Change...Called To Serve."

Called by whom or Whom?

Obama says that he is God's instrument and that it is God's will that he become POTUS.

Hoosier, you wouldn't vote for such a Bible-thumping, moralizing Christian nut as this, would you? You're much too intellectual and enlightened to do that.

[hoosier]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Much of Europe so far to the left? I guess that leaves out England, where the Conservative party is now fully back, and Spain, which recently had a right-center government, and France, which recently elected a conservative, and....

Too funny. You do realize that the Torries in the United Kingdom are far from what we would describe as conservative, right? There are factions that are truly conservative, but most would be classified as moderates or even left of center here. (By the way, it's the same way in France and Spain.) Also, the United Kingdom has a boatload of political parties. Most of them are liberal. Just because the Torries have a plurality doesn't mean "conservatives" are in the majority.....

Only if you define the center somewhere to the right of Pat Robertson. It's true that British politics hasn't become infested by Christian fundamentalists and as a result the debates over social issues are less polarized. But by any reasonable measure.the British Conservative party is a right-center party.

And yes, the terrorist attacks in Spain and England were directly tied to those countries' participation in Iraq, and were clearly intended to sway popular opinion (further) against the Spanish and English conservative governments' positions. Saying that isn't "blaming America," it's stating the obvious truth that everyone from Ted Kennedy to Donald Rumsfeld is capable of recognizing.

The implication being that those countries wouldn't be attacked if they:
didn't participate in Iraq.

(didn't support the U.S.)
(weren't democracies)
(didn't ban burqas in school)
(didn't allow women to vote)
(add any other hard-line Muslim edict you want)

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Ziggy's point was that the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London were motivated by the fact that the Spanish and British governments were participating in the "coalition," and that the attacks were intended to create an even strong popular opposition to the war in those countries. What exactly are you objecting to in that view? [/quote]