They won control of the House, but not the Senate. There was a lot of rhetoric and hot air about they’ll do this or that to cut, cut, cut spending. It’s all about that new fangled concept called CHANGE. But what do you think they’ll really do or even be able to do? Given how many have ties to the businesses that got us into this mess, how much change is possible? Are we about to experience a new day in Washington, or just more of the same, different players?

Have we been fooled again?




  1. ArianeB says:

    #63 I may agree with the Republicans that a great depression is inevitable, but what I don’t agree with them is how to fix it.

    The GOP, and actually the Dems as well, are stuck in the “grow, grow, grow” mindset of the 20th century. The age of growth is over and the faster we realize that, the faster our society will return to some modicum of prosperity. The economy used to not be a zero sum game, now it is.

    The reason why the age of growth is over is because resource growth is over. Many important resources are substitutable, but two are not: Oil and Phosphorous. During the 20th century we saw unprecedented growth in both resources allowing for economic growth. Now the production of both have peaked. Oil is necessary for transportation, if its production declines, transportation will have to decline. Phosphorous is a key ingredient in fertilizer, and has made modern farming and the feeding of almost 7 billion people possible. If phosphorous production declines, so will food supplies.

    The only way out is to go to what is known as a “steady state economy”. Some of the ingredients to steady state include a socialized banking system with 100% reserve rates, no interest loans, (banks cant make money, hence the need for them to be socialized), a perennially balanced budget with all spending increases matched with tax increases, a minimum wage at a livable level, a maximum wage no higher than 100 times the minimum wage (so if the minimum wage is $20,000 a year, the maximum will be $2 million a year, with any more taxed at 100%), a currency based on resource availability, such as energy.

    I can’t imagine the Democrats going along with this system, let alone the Republicans. It is likely going to take a few decades of collapse, resource wars, poverty, and bloody revolutions before people finally figure it all out.

  2. bobbo, to the left and right of Obama says:

    I think #60–cfk asked the proper question. We all “know” what the Pukes will do. Rally to cut taxes, repeal health care, continue to gut regulatory agencies, and continue to occupy foreign lands/start wars. Nothing More, just like the last 20 years.

    The only variable is the Dumbocrap Party and Obama. Sadly, Obama seems to have learned NOTHING and now is in a position where he cannot “force” any legislation thru.

    The horse has done left the barn leaving Obama with his pants down.

    “If I were Obama” given the realities, I would encourage the Dems to work as they will, really just a Republican Light party, and plan to VETO every bill put forth that gets thru the Senate and PLAN an extensive VETO MESSAGE PROGRAM about why the legislation is wrong and what the needed alternative legislation would be in 2012.

    Its CRAP, but the only real approach to take.

  3. MikeN says:

    Bobbo, you should understand the actual theory before you say it is wrong. The argument against stimulus is that the poor will not spend the money that much, because the economy is so bad, it is more likely to be saved. Likely some of it will be spent, but the planned multiplier doesn’t appear because people plan beyond the next week.

    As for income tax cuts, it is not a matter of giving money to the rich. If that were the case, then there would be little economic growth. This is why tax rebates and the like are so ineffective. Something Paul ONeill should have known about since he was around for the first one. Instead, the theory is that having a lower income tax rate, gives people more of an incentive to invest money, hire, etc, and earn more income. Thus, generating more economic growth. More effective when you are talking about a cut in the rate from 90% to 70%, but there is nonetheless an effect.

  4. bobbo, to the left and right of Obama says:

    #67–“steady state economy”==interesting. Haven’t heard of it before. I wonder if that is because it is nonsense?

    In reality, as you deny, substituted resources have always been found. Exactly WHY will that not be the case again? It could only be faith and assumptions that Green Energy will not be our mode in the near future. That is my faith and assumption, same as yours except for history and belief in the power of science.

    I still like the concept of “steady state economics.” Imagine what would happen with that economic approach combined with an ever increasing pie driven by good science?

    Ohhhhhh, Happy Days would be here again!

  5. bobbo, to the left and right of Obama says:

    #69–Lying Mike==sure you are LYING to post that stimulus doesn’t work when money is given to the poor. “They don’t spend it?” What, the poor who need food, clothing, and shelter are known to open off shore tax avoidance trusts? Is that your understanding LYING Mike???? Stupid. Not to mention every study/report done says the highest multiplier effect on one dollar of stimulus is to give it to the poor who IMMEDIATELY spend it. No saving, no investment. IDIOT LIAR!!!

    STUPID Mike–our current economic woes are demand driven not supply side disinterest. Pull your head out of your ass and try to keep up. It is dishonest and transparent to rely on “made up theories” when facts are in your face.

    Jebus Christ, retards to the left of me, stupid self centered short sighted bastards to the right of me. Pukes all.

  6. The Monster's Lawyer says:

    I’ve noticed that most of the republican newbies are saying they plan to do nothing and obstruct any attempt by the left to do anything.
    That’s like hiring someone and them telling you on the first day that they plan on sitting on their ass for as long as it takes.

  7. satch says:

    The “throw the bums out” approach never works, and things won’t truly change in Washington until it becomes politically profitable to the assholes in the capitol to change things.

  8. ArianeB says:

    “In reality, as you deny, substituted resources have always been found. Exactly WHY will that not be the case again? It could only be faith and assumptions that Green Energy will not be our mode in the near future. That is my faith and assumption, same as yours except for history and belief in the power of science.”

    In the case for phosphorus there simply is no substitute. Phosphorous is a basic element, and cant be synthesized. It can however be recycled, which “Big Agro” has completely failed to do.

    The problem with oil is that we have become too dependent on it. Nothing else has the same potential energy that is also transportable. For electricity production and heating we have other options, for transportation we do not. Maybe liquid coal, or liquid natural gas, or ethanol, or biodiesel, all of which require energy to be produced (low EROEI), and cannot be scaled up to replace oil especially at the decline rates that are expected over the next few decades. The only reliable substitute is electricity, but it is going to take decades to build the infrastructure needed to replace all gas powered vehicles with electric vehicles, create electrified rail system for long distance transportation, etc., and we all know that the oil and coal industries are going to fight it all the way. We should have started 3 decades ago, but because we haven’t, we have at least 3 decades of shortages, rationing, or just doing without to look forward to, assuming we still have the resources to do it now.

  9. bobbo, to the left and right of Obama says:

    There are no substitutes for slave labor, wood, whale oil, incandescent lighting etc.

    FAILURE to know history. FAILURE to even understand what a “substitute” technology is. Yes, no ELEMENT can be increased in quantities present. But there are changes in extraction, but more importantly, there are substitutions in the answer to the question.

    Not that you “may not be right.” I assume there are limits that can be reached. I don’t believe that is the case with transportation/oil. Too many alternatives. Not as cheap now, easily much cheaper in the future. No one knows “for sure.” Idiot to take a firm position one way or the other.

    Phosphorus? No tv’s then? Or will we substitute LED?

    Silly Arianne, taking some strange twisted delight in forecasting doom and no alternative.

    Stoopid Human.

  10. ArianeB says:

    “Instead, the theory is that having a lower income tax rate, gives people more of an incentive to invest money, hire, etc, and earn more income.”

    This is what I call the “tinkle down” theory. The GOP likes the theory because it means the rich get richer and more powerful.

    In truth it is not a theory, but a conjecture, and a false one at that. Tinkle down only works if the demand side is greater than the supply side. The exact opposite is true today, the economy is way out of balance favoring the supply side and tinkle down policies will only make it worse.

    In a closed economy, huge tax increases on the wealthy with tax breaks for hiring and investment could restore the balance, but this is a global economy, and the wealthy can find ways around it. The only other way is give away billions to the poor and unemployed, who will turn around and immediately spend it.

  11. ArianeB says:

    Silly Arianne, taking some strange twisted delight in forecasting doom and no alternative.

    My point is two fold:

    1. There are alternatives, but I have near zero confidence in our ability to pursue those alternatives fast enough to avoid disaster.

    2. The problem is not a substitution one, it is a GROWTH one. Not algebra, but calculus. The oil situation is well known among the experts, but kept quiet to avoid panics: We have reached the limit in oil production. We cannot pull it from the ground any faster than we can right now. Without GROWTH in production of a basic fundamental resource, there can be no GROWTH in industries dependent on that resource. Oil is such a huge basic part of our economy, that its lack of growth spells the end of growth in our economy.

  12. bobbo, "My husband is in oil." "That must be very uncomfortable for him." says:

    Arianne==you do know that repeating yourself does not advance the argument?

    Is broadcast TV dead because of lack of phosphorus or have we SUBSTITUTED cable and LED? The answer is “the industry” (as may be variously defined: the pumping oil out of the ground industry, or the oil industry, or the transportation industry, or the energy industry==all with a lot of overlap but different issues and resolutions)gets SUBSTITUTED/superceded by another industry.

    Maybe you don’t know what the word/concept of substitution is?

    Substitution Defined: (from the noun) One that takes the place of another; a replacement

    No reason not to think that oil will be replaced by electrons. The future is electric.

    The future is so bright, I gotta wear shades.

  13. bobbo, but to be fair says:

    “1. There are alternatives, but I have near zero confidence in our ability to pursue those alternatives fast enough to avoid disaster.” /// Heh, heh. Ok, so there are alternatives. There are substitutions and your real concern is one of timing? Will there be greater unnecessary suffering if we don’t plan for the future as the Pukes and too Many Dumbo’s would have for our country? Yes. Will the future arrive nonetheless?? I think so.

    Why should “today” be any different than every other “change” in resource utilization?

  14. Thomas says:

    #55
    Again, you are illustrate that you do not understand economics. There are no free lunches. When the government borrows money to inject into the economy, it has to pay it back at some point. Reducing taxes and government spending are both aimed at the same goal: tax revenue through economic stimulus. The problem with “spending for the little guy” is that the little guys don’t pay any taxes. So, sure, it helps them a bit in the short run but it does nothing to increase tax revenue. However, in the long run, we all incur a significantly larger amount of debt which hurts more than helps. Tax breaks allows the market to decide where to put that money for economic stimulus rather than the government.

    You simply have a jealously thing for “the rich”. If you don’t think tax breaks help the economy fine but we definitely know that government spending will not help the economy. So if neither will actually provide stimulus. then let’s spend the money on reducing the debt and let the economy fix itself.

    Stimulus spending is targeted at the bottom of the pile giving the infusion of debt financed cash there a multiplier effect.

    What you are ignoring is that the multiplier is less than one. That means for every dollar of government spending, we get less than a dollar of stimulus.

    Frankly, you are child trying to scream up and down they have won when they have lost. Educate yourself first.

  15. Thomas says:

    #62
    what you wanted, but many economists are saying that it was the stimulus and the bailouts that saved the economy from total destruction

    TARP certainly. The other bailouts? Maybe. The stimulus? No way. All evidence points to a multiplier less than one which means for every dollar spent, we got less than a dollar of stimulus (and more debt). The stimulus simply made our long term situation worse at the expense of fixing a few potholes.

    #65
    However government spending is one of the few reliable engines of economic activity in a time of recession

    Ah, the ghost of Keynes. Sounds great doesn’t? Too bad it’s wrong. In the long run, racking up government debt hurts the country more than helps it.

    #69
    Well said.

    #76
    Frankly, if tax breaks do not provide stimulus and we know that government spending does not, then why don’t we simply keep the current tax breaks/increases and put that money towards debt reduction? All we are saying is that the Federal government simply does not have the power to stimulate the economy to any significant degree but there is no limit to their ability to make it worse. IMO, the best solution if we’re in a hole is to stop digging.

  16. bobbo, but to be fair says:

    Stimulus doesn’t work.

    Global Warming is a fallacy.

    Taxes always produce additional Federal Revenue. In fact, if the tax rate were zero, the government would have 3.7 times more revenue than now.

    There are too many gaps in Darwins Theory leaving us with Intelligent Design as a legitmate theory.

    The rich are favored by god.

    I’ve got mine, screw you.

  17. Thomas says:

    #82
    Lest we forget the liberal fallacies:

    Government spending always creates stimulus
    Global warming is an entirely settle discussion with clear policy mandates. We know better so who cares if everyone (except Al Gore) are poor and have live in squalor.
    Tax breaks are always for “the rich”. In fact, we’d all be better of if the tax rate were 100%.
    The poor are what generate tax revenue.
    The government is Robin Hood. You earned yours so we’re going to take it and give it everyone else.

  18. bobbo, but to be fair says:

    Thomas, and all other Pukes posting here: you really are an idiot:

    #82
    Lest we forget the liberal fallacies:

    Government spending always creates stimulus /// Without exception, that is true. The issue you are stumbling towards is whether or not having the pay the money back later provides a net gain or net loss to society.

    Global warming is an entirely settle discussion with clear policy mandates. /// Again, you confuse two seperate issue: the issue at hand with its consequences. Yes, AGW is the consensus of scientific thinking. But you don’t want taxes raised to react to AGW so you attack the theory rather than the policies. Idiot Republican.

    We know better so who cares if everyone (except Al Gore) are poor and have live in squalor. /// Irrelevant as the argument is pure rhetoric and is said against both sides/all sides. Stupid.

    Tax breaks are always for “the rich”. In fact, we’d all be better of if the tax rate were 100%. /// Nobody says that. Silly and really reveals the shallowness of your depth.

    The poor are what generate tax revenue. /// Again, nobody says that.

    The government is Robin Hood. You earned yours so we’re going to take it and give it everyone else. /// The government also creates the conditions by which there are rich and poor. Societies with a strong middle class are stable and more enjoyed by all. Societies with a wider and wider gap between rich and poor faulter and fail. Very few benefit from a failed society.

    You really don’t have anything at all do you Thomas. I could make better arguments than you, but why arm an idiot? I’ll let Rush do it.

  19. foobar says:

    Conservative fallacy. If we concentrate the wealth in the upper 1% then self interest will keep them from fucking everyone else over.

  20. Thomas says:

    #84
    Government spending always creates stimulus /// Without exception, that is true. The issue you are stumbling towards is whether or not having the pay the money back later provides a net gain or net loss to society.

    Right, because that worked out well for the Japanese I hear (debt = 200% of GDP). Only someone with their complete lack of knowledge about economics, would think that digging your hole faster will help you get out of it. It has never worked. All it does is put us deeper into debt.

    Keynes was wrong. Read that again until you get through your skull. You cannot spend your way out of a recession. You can only make it worse. However, you can reduce unemployment by drafting half the country’s workforce as FDR did.

    Nobody says that. Silly and really reveals the shallowness of your depth.

    Yet in #82 you claim that someone wants a 0% tax rate?! It’s as if both your statement and mine were hyperboles or something…

    The government is Robin Hood. You earned yours so we’re going to take it and give it everyone else. /// The government also creates the conditions by which there are rich and poor. Societies with a strong middle class are stable and more enjoyed by all.

    Should I use smaller words for you or is it just that you took your meds today? I’m simply providing the opposite extreme to your rant. If you actually have a point then present it, otherwise I suggest you learn about the topics on which you are discussing instead of acting like the mirror image of Alfred 1.

  21. Thomas says:

    #85
    Liberal fallacy: Using the kindness of the government to force everyone to have the same wealth is the best way to prosperity.

    Liberal fallacy #2: When you have almost as much debt as income in a given year, it is still a good idea to spend even more in order to correct the situation.

  22. bobbo, but to be fair says:

    Ha, ha. I think our positions are clear to see.

    Sad isn’t it that one of us is more correct than the other and no amount of introspection will prove to ourselves that we could be wrong?

    How do you know what you know and how do you change your mind?

    Yea, Verily.

  23. foobar says:

    I don’t trust government. I don’t trust religions. But it’s a conservative fallacy that combining the two into some evil god damned concoction is a good thing.

  24. Thomas says:

    #88,#89
    “We are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

    Does that sum up your opinions?

  25. Dallas says:

    #91 , #92. Agree. That is exactly what they’re doing. Next on the agenda is campaigning for 2012.

  26. bobbo, but to be fair says:

    #90–Doubtful about Thomas==No. Started off just fine, then veered off.

    No Thomas, you and the Republican philosophy is actually fairly presented at your #86. You aren’t actually capable of thinking and responding you can only kneejerk naysay with a little assist by misrepresenting the other sides position.

    Republican: short sighted stooges for the Rich
    Dems: spineless.

    I’m thinking spine is easier to grow than cultivating a different world view.

    Silly Hoomans.

  27. bobbo, but to be fair says:

    Thomas–you expertise, credibility, and view of the world is summed up by: “Keynes was wrong.”

    Anybody thinking that simplistically has nothing to offer a conversation except diversion, just as you do with your politics.

    Short sighted Republicans are much like the fervent drank the Koolaide Muslims: Its righteous to lie to the infidels.

    You are shortsighted in gauging your own interest much less the rest of society’s. I wish you could actually experience the world you wish on all of us, but then, we would all be experiencing it.

    Happily you and your ilk are outnumbered, but not so much that you don’t wreak havoc==especially when the Dumbo’s are as spineless as Obama shows.

    Politics: where stupidity and single mindedness holds on to power by appealing to dumb ass voters who can’t tell when they are being punked.

    Yea, Verily. The history books will note this with awe and confusion.

  28. Thomas says:

    #96
    If you think I speak simplistically, it is because you are simplistic. I cannot remove your ignorance with respect to economics in a simple blog post. In short, you haven’t the education to understand a more detail response. Instead, I would challenge you to learn why many economists have stated for decades why Keynes was wrong. A good place to look at the result of Keynes is Japan.

    Frankly, it is the liberals that are short sighted. We need only look at the trail of budgetary destruction such as California. Once CA had balanced budgets and was able to provide the basic services such as road repair for its constituents. Now it is billions in the hole and Californians drive over pot holes. Once the States were responsible for their own constituents. Years of politicians advocating strong central government have wreaked havoc on this nation.

    If you think that people that oppose government spending you are in for a surprise. A large number of people in this nation do not accept wasteful government spending as a solution to the recession. We’ve had two years of this type of spending and we have 10-20% unemployment to show for it. Further, what happens in 5-10 years when the interest on that money goes up? I guess the left think we can just ignore it.

    Strangely, many history books are quiet on finance. They do not mention for example that the US was on the brink of insolvency during World War II. They do not mention that the British collapsed financially and did not recover for decades (instead they assume it was entirely due to the bombing of London).You need to grow up and put away the kumbayah mentality. In the real world, there are no free lunches. If you borrow money, you have to pay it back. Keynes is nothing if not a testament to those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

    It’s not what you know that gets you in trouble; it’s what you know that ain’t so. Yea verily.

  29. bobbo, everyone should enjoy their own interests says:

    Keynes is recognized as one of the “great” economic theorists and as such is more misunderstood than most.

    Keynes would be the first to agree that if you borrow money you must pay it back.

    Silly to suggest simply that “he is wrong.”

    Such expectoration may be accepted in your close circle jerk but as stated: too simple minded for anything except diversion.

    Sure you can repeat, repeat and repeat but you have nothing to add to a discussion of any depth at all.

    Maybe you used to? Maybe you still could? But we take you as your present yourself: shortsighted I’ve got mine, screw you, lower taxes will fix anything, stooge Republican.

    OTOH, must feel good to be so certain?

  30. MikeN says:

    “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”

    “I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”

    FDR’s Treasury Secretary in 1939.


3

Bad Behavior has blocked 4891 access attempts in the last 7 days.