(no subject)

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Comments

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Uninformed rubbish.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Excuse me: Uninformed rubbish that ignores the reason FOR the spending
or consequences if it wasn't spent.


but when did fact matter to conservatives...?

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

Because spending money you don't have is the only way to get out of debt.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

So you've never used a credit card or taken out a loan huh?

Spending money is not the problem - it's HOW you spend it and whether it will pay dividends back.

For example - if I take out a loan to go back to school and improve my skills to get a better job,
then that temporary debt acutally WILL help me get out of debt because LONG-TERM it enhances my ability
to generate income.

Lots of people take out loans to buy a house (which is a lot of debt) BUT in a "normal" market they tend to prosper because the equity allows them to gain financial leverage that eventually helps them produce more than they could have without it.


Most of the conservative morons who make the "debt" argument REALLY don't have a leg to stand on after years of deficit spending under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. To *now* argue that there "is a problem" when a Democrat proposes to spend (and GET THIS -- actually "pay for those programs", unlike the GOP) is just inconsistent on many levels.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

Besides the glaring obvious logical mistakes, you confuse conservatives with republicans, and that liberals are as much to blame for the spending.

Oh yeah, how is Obama planning on paying for theses programs? I mean besides taxing our great grandkids?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

obvious logical mistakes
REALLY? That's actually HOW investment works -- you take out money and put it into something that will MAKE you money later. Whether it's investment in self (training) or invetment in product/property the concept is the same.


you confuse conservatives with republicans
For purposes of THIS discussion they're one and the same, since they BOTH are making the same fallacious arguments.


and that liberals are as much to blame for the spending.
but see, liberals actually implement means to PAY for the programs -- see Clinton for example.


how is Obama planning on paying for theses programs? I mean besides taxing our great grandkids?

Well let's see -
The TARP program, some of the banks have been repaying their loans PLUS interest. Goldman Sachs for example just repaid $10 billion dollars PLUS several hundred million in dividends and interest on top of that...

The stimulus package is not just creating "yard work" -- it's building things that over the long-term will generate money for the state and country...

Building bridges increase productivity and economic activity
Building museums and colliseums generate revenue and taxes for the area
Increasing education gives a superior work force that is more productive

etc...

it seems the limitation is not Obama's plan, but a general lack of basic economics on the part of many of the Republicans/Conservatives who make arguments against his plan without thinking about HOW the economy would work.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

as a student of philosphy who spend a year learning logic, and a further 2 applying to everything from knolage to reality to langue, i can tell you, his aguement has no clearing logical mistakes. its an apiorir aguement witch describes what happens in the world in an efficent manner. he makes no informal or formal falaicys.

i dont offten get to be the person who offical knows what his talking about, but this one of those times. learn formal logic, then try agine.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

thank you.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

lol, no problem. realy, i just like an oppotunity to swing my degree about it. it comes up so realy you have to grab it when it dose XD

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

The video called it "tax and spend", which is different from Reagan and Bush's "tax-cut and spend".

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

1) What 'chessdev' said in his followup comment above. Circumstances matter.

2) Tax and spend is such a joke of a phrase now. Hey newsflash buddy... conservatives f'ing LOVE to spend and spend (Reagan and Bush were hardly federal penny-pinchers) and brush off deficits... but that also hate taxes, which when combined with said spending creates BANKRUPTCY. Yes, Democrats are spending money but at least they're honest in finding ways to pay for it.

You guys post these same fucking rants over and over as if President Obama inherited a peaceful country and surplus from George W. Bush and fucked everything in the six meager months he's been in office. And as if the next future GOP president (whenever that is) will actually scale back government spending one iota.

Both parties love government spending, etc. Where the difference is is two-fold. One is that Democrats do want to, yes, actually pay for it, and taxes has to be a part of that (and keep in mind Obama's proposed increases would still put the tax rate lower than Reagan had it, not to mention 50 percentage points lower than under Eisenhower), while Republicans just create debt, foreign and domestic, to pay for it. The other difference is in what they actually spend the money on. As we saw with Bush, conservatives spend money (debt-funded) on upper-class tax cuts and military projects and war and in subsidies and payoffs to big industries, etc. Democrats prefer instead to spend money on socially progressive programs like health-care or a stimulus or alternative energy and that sort of thing.

It may sometimes seem like a pick your poison choice, but I'll take the latter any day.

PS- I did a rant about 'big government' rhetoric on my blog last year. That is here (http://politics4geekz.blogspot.com/2008/04/big-government.html).

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Pretty good impression of Ford, at least.