Politicians Cause Economic Downsizing

[Chizzang]

native was mildly insane...
His threads often completely backfired badly and he would get very angry

This thread for example...
Where He's trying to show that Federal Spending kills jobs (which is very likely true)
Yet the largest federal expenditure is our military - and native himself is on a military pension - it only takes a 2 minute conversation waltzing down that path...



He was the conservative gift that kept on giving...

Native was, "Insane"

I'm, "Loony"

According to Hippie...

What was that theory about alternate views?

You are loony you old fart...

[kalm]

native was mildly insane...
His threads often completely backfired badly and he would get very angry

This thread for example...
Where He's trying to show that Federal Spending kills jobs (which is very likely true)
Yet the largest federal expenditure is our military - and native himself is on a military pension - it only takes a 2 minute conversation waltzing down that path...



He was the conservative gift that kept on giving...

Native was, "Insane"

I'm, "Loony"

According to Hippie...

What was that theory about alternate views?

I think Native possessed those qualities of introspection and considering opposing views that rational people consider positive and conks consider being a pussy.

[travelinman67]

Native was, "Insane"

I'm, "Loony"

According to Hippie...

What was that theory about alternate views?

I think Native possessed those qualities of introspection and considering opposing views that rational people consider positive and conks consider being a pussy.

In other words, a moderate.

Insane motherf*****.

[kalm]

I think Native possessed those qualities of introspection and considering opposing views that rational people consider positive and conks consider being a pussy.

In other words, a moderate.

Insane motherf*****.

Moderates can be insane and they can certainly be aloof.

[houndawg]

Not a condemnation of Obama at all. The were siphoning money off long before Obama.


And government spending CAN produce lasting jobs, if done correctly.
Infrastructure, transportation, recreation spending can and has produced lasting private sector jobs.

Silly assertion.
That's like claiming Communism hasn't worked because the right people haven't tried it, yet.

In Utopia, the government can create as many jobs as it wants to, but doing so is not sustainable in the real world. Those workers have to be paid somehow.

It's elementary economics.

NASA.

[houndawg]

Podesta/Obama plan to expand ocean preserve to have devastating impact on U.S.commercial fisheries...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/10 ... ansion-to/

No biggee, the planet is about fished out commercially for the good fish. Now were down to eating throwback fish.

[travelinman67]

Podesta/Obama plan to expand ocean preserve to have devastating impact on U.S.commercial fisheries...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/10 ... ansion-to/

No biggee, the planet is about fished out commercially for the good fish. Now were down to eating throwback fish.

Out of sight; out of mind.

The life of Densedawg.

[GannonFan]

This thread is kinda indicative of the problems we have today - the answer isn't clear cut as "yes" to government spending or "no" to government spending. Obviously, we need some level of government spending to effectively 1)govern 2)protect the country and 3)provide the means for things that private industry wouldn't pay for. And then, at some point, government spending does start to crowd out private investment, often with negative consequences. The answer, like with most things, lies somewhere in the middle, and never at the extremes where most partisans now reside.

[CAA Flagship]

This thread is kinda indicative of the problems we have today - the answer isn't clear cut as "yes" to government spending or "no" to government spending. Obviously, we need some level of government spending to effectively 1)govern 2)protect the country and 3)provide the means for things that private industry wouldn't pay for. And then, at some point, government spending does start to crowd out private investment, often with negative consequences. The answer, like with most things, lies somewhere in the middle, and never at the extremes where most partisans now reside.

Read it as "over-spending" instead of "spending". Sure, the govt must spend money on certain things. But over-spending is a huge problem. Look at the issue with minimum wage. There are so many people receiving entitlements that private industry must outspend the government for employees. That will not fuel job growth.

[UNI88]

This thread is kinda indicative of the problems we have today - the answer isn't clear cut as "yes" to government spending or "no" to government spending. Obviously, we need some level of government spending to effectively 1)govern 2)protect the country and 3)provide the means for things that private industry wouldn't pay for. And then, at some point, government spending does start to crowd out private investment, often with negative consequences. The answer, like with most things, lies somewhere in the middle, and never at the extremes where most partisans now reside.

Read it as "over-spending" instead of "spending". Sure, the govt must spend money on certain things. But over-spending is a huge problem. Look at the issue with minimum wage. There are so many people receiving entitlements that private industry must outspend the government for employees. That will not fuel job growth.

I don't think most rational people would argue with this. The big question is how do you define over-spending? Dawg mentioned NASA. A good argument can be made that NASA's research led to many innovations which in the long run boosted the private sector. Was the cost of the research worth the economic benefit? I think government has a role to play in defense, infrastructure, education, etc. We don't a government that is so byzantine that we need thousands of bureaucrats to run it though.

[dbackjon]

Podesta/Obama plan to expand ocean preserve to have devastating impact on U.S.commercial fisheries...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/10 ... ansion-to/

Reality check:

Overfishing is devasting the ocean's fishes. At the rate we are going, we won't have any fish in the sea to catch. This reserve is an important and long-overdue step in keeping fisheries healthy for those that follow.

[CAA Flagship]

Read it as "over-spending" instead of "spending". Sure, the govt must spend money on certain things. But over-spending is a huge problem. Look at the issue with minimum wage. There are so many people receiving entitlements that private industry must outspend the government for employees. That will not fuel job growth.

I don't think most rational people would argue with this. The big question is how do you define over-spending? Dawg mentioned NASA. A good argument can be made that NASA's research led to many innovations which in the long run boosted the private sector. Was the cost of the research worth the economic benefit? I think government has a role to play in defense, infrastructure, education, etc. We don't a government that is so byzantine that we need thousands of bureaucrats to run it though.

Correct. There is no definition for "over spending". But introducing a poorly written healthcare plan in the middle of the worst recession in 80 years would fall into this category. Those dipshits should have waited for the economy to improve instead of forcing it through without reasonable time for review.

Sometimes you just have to make cuts. No different than a family would do if income was suddenly reduced. You can't keep eating steaks on a pasta budget.

[travelinman67]

Podesta/Obama plan to expand ocean preserve to have devastating impact on U.S.commercial fisheries...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/10 ... ansion-to/

Reality check:

Overfishing is devasting the ocean's fishes. At the rate we are going, we won't have any fish in the sea to catch. This reserve is an important and long-overdue step in keeping fisheries healthy for those that follow.

Hyperbole.

Source to support your "overfishing" assertion?

Studies?

Something other than another pompous Center For Biological Diversity fabrication?

[kalm]

I don't think most rational people would argue with this. The big question is how do you define over-spending? Dawg mentioned NASA. A good argument can be made that NASA's research led to many innovations which in the long run boosted the private sector. Was the cost of the research worth the economic benefit? I think government has a role to play in defense, infrastructure, education, etc. We don't a government that is so byzantine that we need thousands of bureaucrats to run it though.

Correct. There is no definition for "over spending". But introducing a poorly written healthcare plan in the middle of the worst recession in 80 years would fall into this category. Those dipshits should have waited for the economy to improve instead of forcing it through without reasonable time for review.

Sometimes you just have to make cuts. No different than a family would do if income was suddenly reduced. You can't keep eating steaks on a pasta budget.

The problem is, there's too many children who demand steak to make that happen.

[kalm]

This thread is kinda indicative of the problems we have today - the answer isn't clear cut as "yes" to government spending or "no" to government spending. Obviously, we need some level of government spending to effectively 1)govern 2)protect the country and 3)provide the means for things that private industry wouldn't pay for. And then, at some point, government spending does start to crowd out private investment, often with negative consequences. The answer, like with most things, lies somewhere in the middle, and never at the extremes where most partisans now reside.

I would submit that government spending on private businesses also hurts. As many have pointed out here before, there is much private investment in government spending, inflating the costs of goods and services.