How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies? - Page 6

Surely you're not asking me to argue about something I had nothing to do with, didn't vote on in a state I don't even live in?!?!

Do you want lower taxes for lower-middle class people who pay no income tax at all? A flat tax would make their tax burden higher.

Surely I am. It points to the "pick and choose" hypocrisy of "Christians". Do you support the religious position on Prop 8 or not?

Not necessarily.

Why? I have nothing to do with it.



Does it now?



Frankly, I don't know much about Prop 8. I haven't really paid attention to it. Enlighten me. What is the basic issue here. And please try to express the issue as objectively and free from your normal editorializing as possible.

OK, so I'm working from this as a source. Based on this, your question ("Do you support the religious position on Prop 8 or not?") is probably too simplistic so I will try to provide a more nuanced answer to it:

1. Personally, I believe that "marriage" is an institution created by God that exists only between a man and a woman.
2. I don't believe that man made laws, statements or constitutional amendments can change #1.
3. I also agree with the proponents of Proposition 8 that:


However...I would not have voted in favor of Proposition 8 had I lived in California (yuck) or if such an issue came up for vote in my own state. In fact we did have something similar (though probably different in some key ways) come up a few years back in my state and I did vote against it.

Personally, I believe marriage is not the business of the state and that the solution to this problem is to get government out of it altogether. People wishing to have this kind of relationship could form what is probably best described as a "civil union" (basically a legal contractual arrangement that outlines their relationship and the potential dissolution of it in legal terms) and then, if they wish to have this union sanctioned or blessed by a religious body as a "marriage" they can do this as a separate thing. Churches who don't sanction same-gender unions shouldn't be compelled to bless or preside over sanctioning of them if they don't want to.

I know where you're coming from. You've bought into theories that letting the rich accumulate wealth and have complete control of how much they choose to share with others will improve the lives of all people.

I strongly disagree with that theory.

Well, the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City had nothing to do with it either. But that didn't stop them.

Take it up with them.

Again with the caricatures of the positions people who disagree with you hold?

I'm telling you, if you would drop your incorrect assumption that a) the rich control everyone and everything (other than the government...but that's a problem of government control and power not the rich per se) and b) that wealth is a zero-sum game, your view of reality would be greatly improved!

MJ, don't you find it so strange that so much of leftist argumentative style consists of creating strawmen by caricaturing a position and then ridiculing it?

I call it Daily Show logic. Jon Stewart once asked Crossfire to stop because their actions were hurting legitimate political discourse. Stewart should take his own advice at this point.

Somehow I doubt there's ANYbody that believes that statement to be true in all cases. There are some (I'd say most) wealthy people that do more than there share... but most prefer to do it through non-governmental outlets, where they get much more bang for their buck!

I would go so far as to say, however, that FORCING some people to "share" more than they think they should, with people who may not really deserve it only serves to reinforce "class warfare". It does nothing but reinforce their view that ALL the "poor" are like the ones who use foodstamps to buy CocaCola, Oreos and a bag of pork-rinds, then throw down $120 in cash to buy a carton of cigs and a case of beer.

I didn't see any liberals playing up that stereotype. I saw you do it there, though. Talk about creating strawmen.

MJ, Jazzy, King, do you think letting the rich accumulate wealth and have complete control of how much they choose to share with others will improve the lives of all people?

As to whether wealth is a "zero sum game", the problem lies with the complete inability of the free market to control inflation. Factor in inflation, and yes, the rich getting richer pretty much requires someone to get poorer in relative terms.

Yes, people who stereotype the poor in this way are complete morons and hate America. This is true. It is also true that I've seen such sentiment many times on these boards.

Resorting to this kind of lie isn't going to make your case any stronger. Everyone with a Bible or access to Google can find specific condemnations to homosexual behaviour in both the Old and New Testaments. Of course there are a few who twist the scriptures (and themselves) into pretzels trying to negate those verses, but they aren't taken seriously by any mainstream branch of the faith.

Personally, I have more respect for people who say they don't believe the Bible and walk away than those who are so weak that they must try to distort what the text plainly says just to justify their own sins and personal beliefs.


The Bible tells the people of God to help the poor. It doesn't tell them to rob anyone else to do it, and it certainly stands against making people completely dependent on an all-encompassing amoral government that only takes advantage of their situation.

For example, The City of Toronto will spend over 160 million dollars on homelessness this year. It has spent that much in previous years, and it will continue to spend that much annually for the foreseeable future (well, unless Rob Ford is elected.)

For that kind of money, you could buy every homeless person in Toronto a condo and a car. And you could buy them another one of each next year. Homelessness continues to be a chronic problem in Toronto in large part because the government has constructed a very well-paying industry around it.

To ask the government to wage a war on poverty is to ask the corporate and union sector to plunder the Treasury. In the end, the problem will be worse than when you started. Somehow liberals get this when it applies to the military, but not when someone dazzles them with the idea of ending one social ill or the other.

And by the way, if you want to cite the Bible on tax policy, let's do so. The Bible orders a flat tax in the Old Testament, presumably to ensure that the nation moved on together and did not get bogged down in class warfare. (Exodus 30:15)

I don't expect you to agree though, since removing class warfare from the left's arsenal would be like cutting off their right hand.

Why are "they" the ones making pretzels and you're not the ones making pretzels? The way I see it, it is the latter.

I hope you get my point.

No one is making pretzels about the Bible telling us to help the poor. This is exactly what I mean by the clarity of the message in the text. Jesus' stance on homosexuality is in no way shape or form as clear by any means, and to say it is, now that would be a blatant lie.

Yeah, the Left is supporting class warfare. Meanwhile, the policies of the Right are leading to an immorally expanding wealth gap. I guess one way to end class warfare would be to declare a winner.

I don't. But I also know how they do such things. You don't seem to however.

Now you have exposed yourself as really not knowing what you're talking about. Inflation is a product of the government controlled/protected central banking system...not the free market. If you have a problem with inflation (and you should...and so do I) you're looking in the wrong place. Look at the Fed, not the free market.

Yes they are. Your inability or unwillingness to see this is amazing.



The left's fetish with the "wealth gap"... ...this betrays the true motives of the left...they aren't concerned with equal opportunity or equality under the law...they are concerned only with equal outcomes. They'd rather we were all equally poor rather than unequally rich.

So, people start earning more money, I raise the price of my product because the market can now afford it more easily, and that's the fault of the government... riiiight.

And you've presented such compelling arguments!

No, actually, I'd rather more people were middle class and less were poor. But go ahead and present your caricature of what I think.

You flat out did exactly that. You said I know where you are coming from (INTENT) and then restated his argument instead of quoting it. He was discussing a flat tax and you moved the argument via intent to what you thought his belief happened to be.

You've bought into theories that letting the rich accumulate wealth and have complete control of how much they choose to share with others will improve the lives of all people.

It's right there. It is simple to show what you did.


Inflation is a function of currency. The wealthy do not control currency though they can become wealthy by realizing governments control currency and betting against various governments which FYI is how key Democratic contributor George Soros made so much money.

The Federal Government creates inflation, not business. Inflation erodes value and damages the means of exchange. No capitalist would ever endorse that.


The left isn't just supporting class warfare. They are supporting gender and race warfare as well. They've held certain gerrymandered districts or even controlled entire states for multiple generations. Can you point to any examples of things getting better where their policies are in effect? Just like now nationally, things always get worse.

He's allowed to use the same generalities you are using. You said the right so of course the correct response is to address what the left does.

You didn't do that. You said "I know where you're coming from" (INTENT) and then clearly stated what you thought he REALLY said instead of addressing his actual words.

Meanwhile...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/ma...ln-t.html?_r=1

This came up about a month ago as well.

There is nowhere in the United States where policies of the Left are being implemented without some sort of watering down by the right.

To find the example you're looking for, you have to look at... here it comes... Europe.

(waits for the response, "but... but... but... Europe isn't all that great! Look at [one of the least Socialist of all European States--but you'll deny that] Greece! And you'll point to some report from a Libertarian think tank that says that Scandinavian States are heading toward collapse...)

Yes, I've heard it all before, and it's just as much of a lie now as it was then.

The best standard of living in the world is constantly found in the most socialist European States.

And yes, I think general standard of living for the average Joe (or Josef) is more important than "wealth".

Not surprised at all that you failed to see the intentional irony in my post.

You should stop right now. You don't know how inflation works. You're making a fool of yourself on this subject.

I know the government can adjust interest rates, but now it's my turn to tell you that you are over-simplifying things. If it were all controllable by the government, we'd never ever have a problem. There are definitely market forces at play, and don't be so daft to deny that basic truth.

You are either being deliberately obtuse on this subject or you have an extremely limited and superficial understanding of it.

Why don't read up on the Fed, monetary policy, inflation, the money supply, interest rates, etc. and then come back to the adult's table when you're done.

The long and the short of it is that inflation is an increase in the supply of money and credit. This increase is created and controlled by the Fed a quasi private/government cartel of banks who have a monopoly control of the monetary and credit system. The general increases in prices is a symptom, a reflection, a manifestation of inflation.



What scares me is that you (and probably others too) actually believe that, all evidence to the contrary.

Wiki:

"The question of whether the short-term effects last long enough to be important is the central topic of debate between monetarist and Keynesian economists."

And there you have it. You think Keynsian economics are bullshit, and I think they are sound theory.

I think by now, we should basically agree to disagree. We will never agree here.

However, looking at the current economic crisis, and looking at the success of the Keynesian model in the post-war period, I think more and more people are going to look again.

You can think it all you want. That doesn't make it so. And your thinking is further evidences your ignorance on the subject of economics in general and the theories of it in particular.



Uh huh.

Actually, it's your complete dismissal of all Keynesian theories, without even the acknowledgment that they are debatable that exposes your ignorance of economics. It's quite likely you were either home-schooled by someone who only exposed you to Mises and Friedman, and "taught" you that other theories were bullshit, or you had a college professor who did the same.

The thing with theories is that they are only theories until they are successfully put into use. Keynesian economic theory was widely successful in the United States this century. Supply-side theories have never been successful and monetarist theories were successfully applied by Greenspan for a while... until their real effect was exposed.

You're treading on pretty thin ice here.



Wrong. It was Keynesian economic policies that made the Great Depression great.

Listen, this thread has basically gone like this...

MJ: We need to stop stealing from the rich through taxes.
TT: Until the rich stop stealing from the Poor, we need to adjust for the differences in economic power.
MJ: You're stupid.

MJ: We need to put money in the hands of people who can hire.
TT: We need to put money in the hands of the consumer.
MJ: You're stupid.

I'm sick of it.

I suggest you real a little outside of your narrow view for a while.

While I have no doubt you have perceived things this way. I suspect this is largely because you seem to be unwilling to deal with the actual words your opponent uses in lieu of what you think he or she means to be saying. That said, you are welcome to point to where I have called you stupid even once. If I have I will retract it. But I won't be holding my breath while you find these instances.



When will you?

LOL LMFAO!

It was free market economics that caused the Great Depression in the first place. Only government spending on employment and social programs, combined with a new consumer confidence sparked by the end of the war were able to end it.

Notice anything? It was empowerment of the consumer which was followed by consumer spending that built the boom of the late forties and fifties. There were no tax cuts for the rich. There were no big business bailouts. Yet the economy recovered.

You are wrong sir. Very wrong.

Here's a primer for you: Great Myths of the Great Depression

Actually I've pointed out that France generates 70% of their power from nuclear. I've pointed out that when they implement wind power the NIMBYs seem to quickly lose their fights and things get built. I've noted that several Scandinavian countries have no problem pumping every ounce of oil they can out of the ground and selling it to finance programs that benefit the general populace, and finally I've noted that they have fair trade policies as opposed to merely free trade policies.

Those are the pluses to Europe and we ought to follow their examples there.

There are huge negatives though. The PIIGS of Europe are a lot more than just Greece. It stands for Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain. They all are on unsustainable paths. Much like how many Boomers in the U.S. have created a two tier system whereby they will attempt to get their pensions, sell their houses and 401k's to their broke kids or recent immigrants, and have all these folks pay 75% taxes to fund their promised obligations, Europe has done this as well but the problems are even more stark. Their re-population rate is much lower, averaging about 1.6 kids per couple. Their immigrants being mostly Islamic are harder to assimilate than our growing legions of Hispanic friends and lastly the tiers there are even more strident. I'd say as a last measure since race is understood as color in the U.S. but understood as nationality in Europe that must of the E.U. still easily gets away with actions that would be plainly called racist in the United States and there an eyebrow isn't even raised. The cars just burn each night and no one cares.

Simply ask yourself if we really could do what Europe does and also ask yourself if I've supported it or not.

Fair/Managed trade- I've absolutely supported this.

Ending Pax America- I've absolutely supported this and have several posts before Obama was even elected showing how he would be no different than Bush here because trade and empire are both tied together. I've been 100% right on the actions Obama would take.

Ending radical environmental views that say humans must leave land "pristine" aka untouched by humans rather than the view of conservation and management of resources. I absolutely support this and it is clear the left in the United States doesn't. They don't want nuclear power. They don't want wind or solar in their backyard. They don't even want cell towers. They want a carbon tax that will make energy too expensive to use and thus hope that everyone will stop using it. Their philosophy is "if you don't build it, they won't come." This means no real new infrastructure which is why most of the stimulus went to constituencies rather than shovel projects.

I'm not as opposed to Europe as you might think but we also have to view them as a whole. Europe has not embraced stimulus. They have embraced austerity. Denmark has been cutting back unemployment, not extending it yet again like the United States. France has raised their retirement age. Obama's requests for them to take on more debt and engage in more government spending were completely shut down. Most recent government elections have tilted more to the right as people realize the math doesn't add up.

I want you to understand that Republicans as a whole are not against common measures. In fact when I visit most "red" states, the public infrastructure there is much nicer than in the "blue" states from my various anecdotal visits. The problem is when people use intentions, then steal and redistribute the money rather than put it to its proper use. You mentioned in the iPhone forum you might be visiting SoCal soon. I think you would be shocked at the state of the infrastructure here compared to our neighbors and we are the supposedly caring and good intentioned ones with higher gas taxes, auto registrations, etc. Meanwhile in Nevada, Arizona and Utah, you can actually drive the freeways and cities without your wheels being ripped off. I'm not saying it is perfect. Nothing ever is, but I'm saying it is better than California.