[quote name='"Lay Low"']You stated GDP is the reason you think America's economy is the "most successful" and I rebutted that statement. Yet you call it a straw man. You know nothing of economics (or logic), and you just proved it.[/quote] Most successful as far as GDP, although I've conceded many times that it is only one method of measuring a country's economic performance. I know plenty of both and you've found more ignorance, not proof.
[quote name='"iCremateCanabis"'] Total U.S. Debt Is About to Surpass Total G.D.P. on Halloween - Business - The Atlantic Wire what now? [/quote] That's interesting. I'm not sure what to think about it. Maybe we should file bankruptcy?
that'd be a great idea, then we could end fiat money, get rid of central banking, get govt regulation out of the economy and our lives in every way
[quote name='"kstigs"'] I never said that you said that. Where are you getting this nonsense? I think I'm done here.[/quote] You implied it. You were refuting me with the fact that funds to education are considered a net loss. I never contradicted such facts, so why would you even bring it up? It's a straw man. It has nothing to do with what I actually said. You're just looking for someone accidentally saying something Keynesian so you can bash them. I've already explained to you that I'm on your side in such matters and don't support illogical Keynesian concepts.
No, I didn't... Look who is straw manning now. I'm sorry, I thought it had something to do with the topic being discussed. My mistake. You can go back to your circle jerk now. No, I'm looking to debate someone on the broken window fallacy. Straw man all you want.
Oh, you didn't? Yeah, you kinda did. You replied to my post. If you meant to not reply to my post and just the thread, you need to work on you computer skills and learn vBulletin a bit better before posting any more. Same difference, that's still what I meant. I'm not interested in debating the only political concept you seem to understand enough to debate, though.
This quote is an exerpt of socialism at it's worst: " the Congressional Budget Office in August estimated that in the fourth quarter of 2011, the stimulus signed by President Obama in 2009 would have the impact of reducing the national unemployment rate between 0.3 points to 1.1 points from what it otherwise would have been. The report also said that although CBO initially estimated that the stimulus would cost $787 billion, CBO had subsequently increased its estimated cost to $825 billion. According to the CBO report, 600,000 to 2 million people have jobs as of now that were "created or retained" because of the $825 billion stimulus. If the maximum number of 2 million is accepted, that works out to a cost of $412,500 per job. If the minimum number of 600,000 is accepted, that works out to a cost of $1,375,000 per job." Tell me how this is, in ANY way, good for the US..
[quote name='"MizzaFishKilla"']This quote is an exerpt of socialism at it's worst: " the Congressional Budget Office in August estimated that in the fourth quarter of 2011, the stimulus signed by President Obama in 2009 would have the impact of reducing the national unemployment rate between 0.3 points to 1.1 points from what it otherwise would have been. The report also said that although CBO initially estimated that the stimulus would cost $787 billion, CBO had subsequently increased its estimated cost to $825 billion. According to the CBO report, 600,000 to 2 million people have jobs as of now that were "created or retained" because of the $825 billion stimulus. If the maximum number of 2 million is accepted, that works out to a cost of $412,500 per job. If the minimum number of 600,000 is accepted, that works out to a cost of $1,375,000 per job." Tell me how this is, in ANY way, good for the US..[/quote] why is that socialism? that's just government control of things. and wasting money
It does take credibility from the post to be fair, if you can't be arsed putting effort into to your post why should we? But we all do it.
That would be socialism if the government used the $825 billion to buy stock in the corporations, which they didn't. Bailouts are very much a capitalist invention and have nothing to do with socialism, but rather the government gifting capital to large corporation to make sure industries don't fail. It's obviously not the best situation, but it did keep the companies from failing. They bailouts weren't really to save or create jobs. That's what they said so people would vote for them. They were so that these companies didn't go bankrupt and ruin all of the companies they do business with. (A large portion of the automotive industry would die if GM went out of business, for example.)
Under a true capitalist society the banks would have failed, no bailouts. Crony capitalism aka corporatism, what we live under, is socialism for the rich (private profits socialized losses) and rugged individualism for the rest of us.
The government didn't gain any control from the bailouts and your point that it was wasted is very arguable. AIG didn't fail did they? Mission accomplished. If you expected only $825 billion to magically fix the economy, give everyone a job, and put a rainbow in the sky, you were mistaken, as we have about $15 trillion in debt as a nation to outweigh anything we pour into Wall Street.
No, it's not socialism at all. You are right it isn't pure capitalism, but it's not even close to a socialist arrangement. Crony-capitalism is still very much capitalism... it isn't called crony-socialism for a reason. It's more like the opposite where private business owns the government.
[quote name='"KenjaminK"'] The government didn't gain any control from the bailouts and your point that it was wasted is very arguable. AIG didn't fail did they? Mission accomplished. If you expected only $825 billion to magically fix the economy, give everyone a job, and put a rainbow in the sky, you were mistaken, as we have about $15 trillion in debt as a nation to outweigh anything we pour into Wall Street.[/quote] wasting money successfully is still wasting I'm not talking about our debt? weird counter-argument. and yes the government took control of aig for a brief while
Notice I said socialism for the rich, it is very much a wealth transfer from you and I to the 1%. It's not in the same sense as we've come to understand such as Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Bailouts are a severe distortion of free market capitalism, in free markets there is no government interference to come in and save businesses from bankruptcy via bailout. Banks make bad choices, they go under, simple as that. Your assertion that private businesses own the government is not entirely true, it is only one private bank. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU"]The American Dream By The Provocateur Network - YouTube[/ame] The common misconception is that big business and big government are rivals, rather they are partners in crime as history shows us. Big Business and Big Government
The government did buy shares as part of the bailouts. Do you even know what they spent the money on, or are you just making guesses? They bought shares of AIG, Citigroup, and Bank of America, among others. The bailouts were to save the banks, nothing more. The bailouts were made by the Fed. Who do you think owns the Fed? The big banks do. I'm not talking about conspiracy theories here, the big banks are the literal, factual owners of the Federal Reserve. They bailed themselves out. The bailouts were an absolute, complete waste. They didn't fail, yet. The banks that were bailed out are just as insolvent today as they were back then. They have simply been granted a stay of execution of sorts. They are only surviving because of the near zero interest rates that they are able to borrow at from the Fed. They get free money basically, lend it back to the government by buying short term treasuries, and get paid the interest. So they are currently being kept alive by our tax money. The minute that interest rates on treasuries goes up, which it has to eventually, the banks will fail all over again because they are just as leveraged with bad debt as they were before the housing crash. The bailouts were 100% wasteful and gave the banks even more reason to operate in a risky and reckless manner, because if they gamble and win, they profit immensely, but if they gamble and lose, the losses are paid by the people of this country with our taxes (debasement of currency also being a tax). The losses are never incurred by the employees of the company, the ones responsible for such losses. The CEOs and higher ups get paid an enormous amount regardless of whether the companies make money or lose money. Mission accomplished indeed.