Vote conservative? A liberals response

Both sides of the fence are fucked in the head. Here's an idea...vote for what is right and what helps the country...don't just blindly vote republican and democrat because your 'party' and peers told you to...do your own research and don't listen to what the man on TV says, he's just telling you what you want to hear.

 

"You may certainly disagree with Obama's Keynesian approach to resolving the problem, but if you examine what is happening in the economy today there is little doubt that it is working. Not as quickly as everyone would like it to work, certainly, but then it took a very long time to create this mess, so fixing it in a little more than a year is and always was highly unlikely."





Dickie, if you're going to tout these hate-filled morons as "spot on" you should at least join us in economic debate some times. I wish I could have seen the letter she sent before she edited a dozen times.


Her brother's response was good enough:

Kudos, Greg.

 

When a cursory scan of the letter in question fails to turn up and meaningful hatred, I am reminded why I don't take you seriously. I suppose you can make up reasons to be offended, though, so there's that.

 

No one did.

I was just stating that both parties are moronic and that you, myself and whoever else is much better off thinking for ourselves and doing what is right for our country as a whole, that's all.

 

Talk about cognitive dissonance.

How can any of Obama's economic policies be described as 'working'?



And that DOESNT include the HealthCare boondoggle. And we should note that about half of FY 08 was done on a month-by-month continuance basis, and then once Obama took over a massive budget increse was retroactively put in place for FY 08 essentially allowing FY 09 spending to be partially re-catagorized as FY 08 spending.

Obama in one year has managed to run up more debt than Bush did in his entire term of office.

And this doesn't take into account future liabilities created by guaranting the debt of all sorts of companies.

Let's consider U3




Of course, this totally ignores the fact that unemployment is only stabalizing because huge numbers of laborers have left the workforce.

Oh, and those 200k jobs added? Most were for the census.

'Real' Unemployment, u6, is in the 17-20% range.

We have trillion dollar bailouts as far as the eye can see, we continue to give a blank check to Freddie and Fannie, the government has expanded its workforce by hundreds of thousands of persons (not counting census) since Barry took over... and we are now underwriting a 1.25 trillion euro bailout of a few shitty little european countries.

Now he is propising a host of new tax increases, including the Cap and Tax legislation and possibly a VAT.

We have a treasury secretary that couldn't be bothered to pay his own taxes, and we are addressing the issue of the fact that no one wants to buy our debt by printing money, loaning it to banks at 0% interest, then requiring them to use that same money to buy our debt at 2-3% interest.

I mean seriously, I can understand that there are reasons for supporting Obama, but economics really, really, really isn't one of them.

FINALLY, let's not forget that Obama put the head of Freddie Mac in charge of the treasury bailout.

The only way a person can see anything Obama has done as successful in any fashion if through a tremendous level cognitive dissonance.

 

Look at my post closely:
if you're going to tout these hate-filled morons as "spot on" you should at least join us in economic debate some times.

I was talking to Dickie (not you) about his devotion to bloggers (plural) found on viciously biased sites, like DailyKos, that are idiots. Imagine if I tried to post with those commenters on there, they'd overwhelm me for sure. While that blogger was not particularly vicious in that letter, she probably posesses a certain amount of hatred to write so divisively and absolutely. or something.

 

I like how she comes to her right wing brother to find her son a job, and later in update #9 she says how he always pays for everything. I guess some stereotypes are true.

 

And the brother sounds kind of like a douchebag.

"Hey, do you think you could get your nephew a job?"
"NO FUCK OFF RABBLE RABBLE POLITICAL LECTURE FKAVFKAFKAFLAFLA"

 

That was an excellent letter, Dickie... without an ounce of hatred or vitriol. Thank you for posting it.

 

How was it an excellent letter if everything she says is wrong?

Don't you feel at least a little hesitant when talking about things you know nothing about, like the economy?

edit: there was definitely at least an ounce of hatred in there

 

I'm trying to figure out exactly where in this post I tried to "talk about economics"

I suppose I could post up some made up chart or graph so I could pretend I know what I'm talking about...

 

This was all anyone had to read to understand how far her head is up her ass. The federal reserve would like to disagree with her uninformed, clueless opinion that is the result of too much babbling and not enough thinking.

Then again, she is an English major, so maybe she should stick to writing fiction.

 

Here's where you tried talking about economics:

 

Some social welfare programs in existence are run inefficiently and offer gaping loopholes for abuse =/= social welfare programs are inherently bad for a society or its economy

 

no... that's the part where I complimented a well-written letter. I didn't even say that I agreed with all of it.

 

There are apx. 40 million people in America under the very-loosely defined poverty line.

Let's ignore the various aspects and degrees of that poverty, for now, and just consider raw numbers.

That 40 million includes persons in families. So if a family of 4 (husband, wife, 2 kids) is under the poverty line, all 4 persons are recorded as under the poverty line. That's a good enough metric. It may result in some over-counting, but with something like poverty it seems that a case can be made for over-counting to ensure there isn't under-counting.

Now, many of those 40 million persons are of 'questionable' immigration status. But let's just ignore that for now. What matters is the number of people, actually present in the boundries of America, who are under the poverty line.

The poverty line in America is around $10k income or less per person. Let's round that up, since we will get various geographic differences in cost of living, let's say 12k per person. Now technically it gets reduced as a family gets larger (so the line for a family of 4 is around 25kish), but let's skip that step.

So we're rounding up to 12k per person. And there are 40 million persons. And of course the number is so high (40 million) in part due to our current economic conditions.

That comes out to 480 billion dollars.

Between local, state, and federal programs we spend significnatly more than 480 billion dollars on welfare/anti-poverty programs every year (this excludes the cost of educating children, as it probably should).

If we look at this chart:
Welfare Spending Chart in United States 1995-2015 - Federal State Local

We can see that at the federal level alone for FY 2009 welfare is costing over 600 billion dollars.

It would be cheaper to simply send every person under the poverty line a check for the amount of money needed to put them totally outside of the poverty line each year than to continue running our current anti-poverty and welfare programs.

That means 12k for the people that are only slightly under the poverty line. 48k for a family of 4, even though the poverty line for them is 25k. 12k for each illegal immigrant. 12k for each over-stayed visa immigrant.

There are other economic aspects of this we could evaluate, but I think that making this one point alone shows the incredible ineffeciencies we are dealing with here.

I find it funny. The one problem that might actually be solved by simply 'throwing more money at it' is the one program we won't try just 'throwing more money at it.'

 

As a side note, I won't go through and show the math here, but IF we added in the incredible cost of educating children (the worst districts spend the most money in many cases) we would find that it would almost ALWAYS be cheaper to do the following:

1) Send 1 or both parents to college for 4 years to get an education degree
2) Proceed to pay the parent to home school the child full time

Now, not all parents are cut out for this... but... it's something to think about in terms of education, cost, expenses, etc.

Stop and think about that for a few minutes. Our current system is so ineffecient that it would actually be a financial cost saver to send parents to college for an education degree, then pay them to home school their children.