The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (PUBLIC) The Pub Holrom's Video Message to Former KGB Shadowbane

Something you seem to be forgetting Jet, is that noone has been up in arms demanding the "old" programs be eliminated. The current anger and resentment is not directed at the old programs, though some of us might argue that some of them were flawed in principle or execution.

But even if that argument is made for principles' sake, being told we will goto jail if we do not purchase a consumer product that the Democratic Party says we should have is in a completely different league.

I also support this view. After 8 years of Bush insanity, people were ready for something different. The prospect of 4 more years of Bush was to much for too many people to swallow.

Hope quickly turned to despair though. Check Obamas campaign platform on Civil Liberties, then take a look at his policies. He is as bad as Bush, and has proven himself to be exactly like Bush. Happy to say whatever is necessary to get elected, then focuses solely on his own power and the interests of his friends once in office.

Believe it or not, we are splitting hairs down to the point where we start to agree. I still believe your ideas on and accusations of socialism are unfounded in some cases, but we are getting to common ground.
I keep pointing out programs that could be considered "socialist" that work, and are semi common across the world. The "old" programs. Like with many things, Obamacare, the TARP/Stimulus, Automotive bailout, did not or will not solve all our problems, and most importantly failed to address the core of the problems that you are speaking of. This to me is a failure. The nutless tactics of my party make me sick, and I am disappointed in my party that these problems were not solved when they had the chance to. With the recent supreme court decision on corporate funding of political campaigns, I think we are fucked anyways you look at it. The corruption is rampant and will be difficult to address or stop.
Let me address your responses.

[quote=Derid] Uh, no. So you are saying Obamacare had no effect on total percent of GDP healthcare eats up? We are definately reading different reports then.

GDP Healthcare percentage was going up either way. This is not contested! The CBO report has real numbers as to savings. I want to see some real numbers on it's unpublished estimated cost that you continue to use.

Quantify this. Also, this is extremely disingenious - when people refer to the New Deal, most people think in terms of the Social(ist) safety nets and such. Were a few reasonable infrastructure projects included? Quite possibly so. However you were appearing to make the claim that this ended the Great Depression. Recent stimulus in current era also created jobs..... at an estimated cost of 400k per job created.

People are largely divided about "The New Deal" I think we can bot agree. For me it was the starting point of our recovery, and WW2 was the end point. I never meant to imply that it ended the great depression, but that many of the programs it created were in place until WW2 and in my opinion benefited our country and the economy.
I have to spend lots of time in Vegas for work. Vegas and surrounding cities and towns depend on the Hoover Dam for their power and water. This was a result of "The New Deal". Again, I am not claiming that it solved everything, but it certainly made the creation of the largest concentration of gambling and hooking in the United States.

Are you seriously trying to draw a similarity between Obamacare, the New Deal, and WW2? Yes, War is indeed a govt program - however it is not easy to forget that, rather, I would say it is impossible. So whats your argument here?

The point I am making is this. The Government can do large projects well to a point. The claim that it cant, or that anytime it does we are going to start marching the goose step is simply ridiculous. It is this extreme view that I continue to use the examples of Social Security and Medicare to debunk. That is the point I am trying to make. It is never perfect though. Even though we won WW2, we also create the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. These solutions remind me of new drugs advertised on TV. It may fix your ailment, but you might grow a third arm, or keel over as a side effect.

How is leaving more money in the economy, a plan to destroy it? Just FYI the theory that a planned economy was more efficient or effective than a free market was utterly destroyed in the 20th century.

And also, you apparently did not read the same things I did.

Tax cuts do nothing to stimulate the economy compared to continuing unemployment benefits. To stimulate the economy you need people to SPEND money. What money is more likely to be spent? Savings on your taxes, or a struggling family relying 100% on unemployment. I promise you that ALL of the unemployment money will be spent. It just makes sense and helps millions of people in need.

I did, you refuse to acknowledge the existince of anything that does not agree with your preconception.

Got tired of your non sequitur copy/paste responses.

I will only play along with a Socratic defense for so long.


I disagree here. I continue to combat the extremist views, and force you and others to produce numbers and documentation like anyone should in a good debate.

Economic collapse according to Bernake - the Goldman Sachs guy. Even if he was being above board, the fact that high powered Wall Street types are genuinely convinced that the world revolves around them and their clique of banking elite is also a truth. Just because they perceive a total meltdown due to their demise, does not mean the world would have ended for the rest of us.

I dont like the people involved, and it makes me sick that they got to decide who made it and who didnt, and strong armed banks like BofA to purchase Merril Lynch, but something had to be done or we would certainly be in the great depression. A majority of economic experts agree with me.

Just like your Obamacare Frontline link, that was not a "study" so much as it was a reconstruction of the series of events from the perspective of those involved. Neither Frontlone episode serves as, or appears to be intended to fill the role of policy analyst. Yes, BErnake told Congressional leadership that the world would end if they didnt do something. This is his view, not an objective fact. The downsides to bailouts was the fact that they perpetuate the illusion that govt is morally entitled to intervene in private enterprise because of the opinion of a small group of policy analysts. This intervention was politically driven, and the govt was deciding "who lived, and who died" so to speak. This sets a bad predicament of predicating success in business upon political approval as opposed to market performance.

I addressed some of this above. I don't like how it got completed, but the end result will in my opinion, and that of the CBO (in my view) be positive. You have to look at all aspects of the problems to see this, and Obamacare addresses some of the problems, and not how I would have liked, but in an overall positive manner. If you take the questions that Michael Moore raised in Sicko, these need to be addressed weather you agree with him or not. The problems are still valid.

No crow need be et, as above the issue is precident. Well, not the sole issue.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that both unions and govt over-regulation are both largely responsible for US automaker difficulties in the first place. Having the govt create huge problems for business, then help prop up those businesses without acknowledging the overall policy failures is not a good thing.

I 100% agree with you here. The greedy unions almost ended the American auto industry but refusing to remain competitive in the global market place. Airlines, and many other businesses had and continue to have the same problems. Everyone wants the government to cut back, everyone wants to compete, but noone wants to pay for it.

In the current national climate, we are forced to compromise to enact change. Like I was saying before, we all have to give up something to get out of this. I am not even confident that we are smart enough, and not just plain to greedy to be able to solve our problems. We are currently on the road to ruin with a 14 trillion dollar budget deficit that is continuing to grow.

I think you could start with a total revamp of the tax system. There are slot of viable ideas out there that could help the overall system greatly. I hope we are intelligent enough to do what is needed.

Well played. I cant stand her but I laughed real hard.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11544/Presentation5-26-10.pdf

Check page 5, and 11 to the end, specifically. But this is updated, and provides data on scenarios where Obamacare never passed.

Check the conclusion, especially. Straight from the CBO, their conclusion is under Obamacare Federal Health spending growth is unsustainable in the long term.

Will address other points later, replies to replies quickly get unwieldly to reply to quickly.

I agree that there needs to be significant cost cutting across the board. I am hoping we continue to explore this and make the changes necessary to make our entire government and the services it provides sustainable.

I don't know why but this whole back and forth has me reminded of the Princess Bride scene with the poisoned wine.

Never mess with a Sicilian when death is on the line.

"Tax cuts do nothing to stimulate the economy compared to continuing unemployment benefits. To stimulate the economy you need people to SPEND money. What money is more likely to be spent? Savings on your taxes, or a struggling family relying 100% on unemployment. I promise you that ALL of the unemployment money will be spent. It just makes sense and helps millions of people in need. " JET

What the fuck is wrong with you???????????

Quote some more liberal talking points.

Did you know if you put gasoline on a fire it will put it out. Its true, I am a Democrat and that proves it.

Did you know that if you stop giving people free money they will go get a job.
I would bet Jets left nut that If they did stop the unemployment that people have been getting for 90+ WEEKS the unemployment rate will drop.


BTW the Republicans say they will pass it if obama will use the 120 billion tarp money they still have lying around.

Unemployment is shit, and not enough to live on for a family. I think people would get a job if they could. I know LOTS of people trying and cant.

Trust me, they are not lazy. This is WAY cheaper than forcing people to get on public assistance.

Well, since the vast majority of folks in this country have no savings and live hand to mouth, I'd say that both monies are going to be spent, and probably before they've even been earned.

I want to scream every time I hear some news caster play a clip of Pelosi saying this. It is ludicrous. The idea that you can take $1 out of the economy via taxes (take it out mind you, not create a new one to add in) then give that $1 to some one who didn't earn it, and their spending of said dollar creates $2 (actually the claim is $1.66 but that's too many numbers for us dummies so I really appreciate Nancy rounding that off for us) of economic growth is mind boggling.

But, for argument's sake, let's throw logic out the window and use some of the administrations own people to refute this claim. Let's assume that for every $1 of unemployment the economy grows by $2. Christina Romer and her husband, also a Berkley economist, wrote a research paper entitled, "The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes" just six months before her appointment to chair Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. In this paper they conclude, at odds with most traditional Keynesian (he's the nut ball who pioneered the idea that government spending is always good for the economy and that debt, while bad for the individual, is great for a government) analysis, that the tax multiplier was 3 — in other words, that every dollar spent on tax cuts (this phrase kills me) would boost GDP by $3. This would mean that the tax multiplier is roughly three times larger than Obama's advisors assumed it was during their policy simulations, and 1.5 times higher than all of the sound bites we've heard lately.

Which is better? You decide.

Oh, and actually that $1.66 is supposed to be representative of the economic growth associated with government spending not unemployment benefits, although I can see how one could fail to make the distinction between the government taking money from group A and giving it to group B and the government taking money from group A and giving it to group C. Oh, I guess I too can see why they don't bother making the distinction.

Dollars spent on tax cuts This is the terminology that is used by the government when describing tax cuts. Don't words have meaning anymore? How can you spend a dollar that you haven't confiscated yet? Tax cuts are not government spending. Its just a decrease in the amount they take from you each year. Now, some might read this post and assume that I am completely against all taxes. I assure you that I'm not so ignorant as to assume that the government doesn't need funds to function. However, I do think that over 50,000 pages of tax code is ridiculous. Hell, even the former chair of the House Ways and Means committee (the one that writes the tax code) apparently couldn't understand it, thus yesterday's censure of Charlie Wrangle. Oh, and if you want to experience real hopenchange, I suggest forgetting to claim income from your vacation home in the islands (don't have a vacation home? Neither did he before he was a Senator. That must be a great job) for 17 years. Let's see if they only censure you, or if, like Wesley Snipes, you get to face hard time.

I maintain that any money spent by a private citizen is a much better investment in our economy than a politician confiscating it and then doling it out for political favor with various constituencies to win an election. In the absolute best case scenario, taking $1 from Bill and giving it to Tom generates the EXACT same amount of economic stimulus. Unfortunately this isn't the case because at the very least they have to deduct the salary of the bureaucrat whose responsibility it is to dole out the confiscated riches. The truth is that this is all a big shell game and an attempt to get more of the "I don't know, from his stash" people out to vote in two more years, all while pompously declaring "if it hadn't been for us, the world would have ended."