help make this happen!

I don't have anything against anyone debating anyone else. It's your method:

And, I don't love either one of these guys. I might listen to the debate, but wouldn't go out of my way or miss arranging my trash in alphabetical order for it.

.

 

I'm still here aren't I. I'm here debating. I simply said I didn't come here to do that. But I am.
I never said that local and state taxes didn't pay for any of those things. In fact a said they did. I simply stated that it should be left completely in the hands of our state and local governments. Yes, state gas taxes go to roads, but federal gas taxes go towards war. We pay more in federal taxes than anything else.
I'm simply stating that we shouldn't be paying those taxes. The federal ones.
Leave it completely up to the states and localities. All the taxes we would save not paying for the federal bureaucracy would be a lot more than what our states and local governments would have to raise they're taxes in order to make up for not receiving federal aid. In order to do that though we would have to do away with things like the federal board of education. They would have to give up power and control. The same with all their other schemes.
Do you have an issue with the state and local governments having complete control of their affairs?
Federal taxes should only go to protecting our liberty. Not social engineering, leave it to our communities so each can live as they see fit. Not to running a empire either(865 bases on foreign soil, over 1000if you count Iraq and Afghanistan), just stop doing that all together.
I disagree with the statement that the feds took control because the states weren't doing it. Many states already have health care plans. I know TN already provides health insurance for low income families and children. The only reason they don't have it for the elderly is because there is already medicare(which is underfunded and going bankrupt). If there wasn't medicare they would probably take care of that too.
The states already take care of most educational needs. Why do we pay all the FEDERAL taxes towards education? Is it because the states aren't doing it?
It was stated here both that the states already do all of this and also that the feds had to take control because the states weren't doing it. I'm not sure which it is.

Anyone want a debate? I'll debate the validity of the Austrian business cycle theory. We can compare it to the Kensian business cycle. I've been challenged and I accept. You will have to excuse if my post are delayed sometimes though. I'm a mariner and sometimes can't respond depending on my location and work.

 

maybe strong arm was a bad way to describe it. All they've done is set up a fund that anyone can make a pledge to that will go to charity if Krugman agrees to a debate. That way maybe he'll agree just to help the homeless. We want him to have a civil moderated debate on economic principals.
The difference in these principals is the difference between letting the big banks go under and giving them a bunch of taxpayer dollars.
He should agree to the debate anyway after all the attacks he's made on the people he refuses to debate with. He won't. So we're trying to persuade him.
I won't ask you to rearrange you schedule but I will ask that if it happens would you check it out on you tube when your done aphabitalizing your garbage?

 

I knew you couldn't resist.

The federal government exists today as it is, with all of the programs, departments and policies that you don't like, for many reasons. Changes in law and structure have been a result of the need for solutions to problems. The best examples are those social programs that emerged during the great depression. The feds had to respond because the states could not or would not address the problems of unemployment and abject poverty.

The people elected a president and Congress to "deal" with the problem. Corporations and businesses were failing and the states weren't any more successful. It was a Democratic President and Congress that led the nation out of the depression and went on to build the greatest economy in the world, social programs, taxes and all. The economy began it's decline in the 80s with Trickle Down Economics and deregulation along with the epidemic of credit cards and easy loans. The nation went on a spending spree while Corporate America learned to downsize and off-shore jobs and manufacturing.

As with the Great Depression, it was unregulated corporate arrogance and greed that caused our Great Recession. The crash is over and the economy is growing, but....jobs have been moved off shore and people have no savings to fall back on. Once again, Corporate America is doing nothing to help the situation and the states aren't either. This is where we are.

So, do you really think that your "Free Market System" is going to fix our economic woes?

Austrian, Keynesian or whatever, the only economist I like is Steven Levitt. You can't solve economic problems without looking at many other factors of society, including, and especially, human behavior.

no worries.

This doesn't sound quite so bad.

Actually, I'm stuck on dial up and can't do more than a couple of minutes of video because of the download time. I've heard all of the arguments anyway and the issue of bailouts is no longer an issue unless Republicans repeal the new regulations and let them run rampant again.

The major issue facing us right now is creating jobs, now.

How does your Free Market System do that?

.

 

As for funding government without property taxes, that is quite easy when the government is only doing what it is suppose to be doing. Look up freedom, and what do you find? It takes personal responsibility to free your mind. Once you've done that you know what you need, and it certainly isn't anything the government can give you.

Not sure what the marriage bits about? But to marry is religious custom, to live together a legal reality. The State shouldn't have anything to say about marriage, and very little about cohabitation. What the people do to themselves is their own responsibility. Only thing needed is a legal partnership, to split the physical property if it ever dissolves.

 

Jack, here's a news flash for you - you don't know what the hell you're talkin' 'bout! Do you know what the words "liberty" & "Free" mean?

I'm already free as can be, because I know what the truth is - we'll all be dead shortly. Therefore, I want to give"them" all the freedom they want. If they kill themselves in the process, it's no skin off my back.
If you try anything with me, you'd better be sure I want it, or I just may desire to defend myself & kill you.

It's as simple as that.

 

I also like subsidized school loans, state universities, heating oil for the poor in winter, WIC for children, unemployment insurance, food stamps, museums, public water and sewage facilities, and neighborhood clinics and centers. You live in a delusional world where the government does nothing good and you've lived your whole life with absolutely no help from society.

If anyone needed a good dose of sanity on the weekend it was you. Apparently you missed the line about the fact we don't live in end days.

 

The people elected this president and congress cause they were sick of being screwed by the last one. That's the same reason the dems will lose their majority in the house too.

Here we go!
You lost this one when you brought up the new deal.
The Federal Reserve was established in 1913, it was created by the government to prevent recessions. Shortly after being founded it artificially lowered interest rates which encouraged borrowing and created a bubble economy. This false prosperity bore on debt is what cause the quick expansion and boom period(the roaring 20's). After changing it's policy from expansion to contraction it caused the subsequent bust and the stock market crash of 1929. Hoover, misunderstanding the cause of the crash and resulting recession, Hoover raised taxes and increased government spending to "help" us out of the recession. Ignoring advice to lower taxes and cut spending he thought that it would be more effective and humane for the federal government to step in and override the slow and "cruel" free-market adjustment process. It did not work, although he defended the approach for the rest of his life. Because of this, and the widespread dislike of prohibition, a victory in 1932 was impossible.
FDR ran on a platform to end prohibition. Shortly after being elected, he did. This gained him the support to push through his policies.
One of the 1st new deal programs was the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933. The New Dealers believed that prosperity would quickly return if prices and wages rose. Under the NIRA prices were fixed and businesses were forced to raise wages. What happens when to raise wages and are prevented from charging any more for product? Business lost money, went out of business, and unemployment rose. To unprecedented levels. Also, they created the National Recovery Administration(NRA) to enforce the law. They fined business for charging the poor less that acceptable prices for products and shut down small businesses who couldn't afford to pay the mandatory wages(adding further to unemployment). No shit. Also they hired a small army of bureaucrats. This cost a ton which they paid for by raising taxes. The NRA and other new agencies took away money from private spending and investment so that thousands of new government employees could do "work" that impeded production and trade.
It was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court in 1935. FDR responded by beginning to pack the court with judges that would support his agenda.
Another gem of the new deal is the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Under the idea that higher food prices would speed recovery they destroyed crops. This was done while people were starving. It worked, in the sense that it raised food prices putting additional burden on struggling people.
I could go through most of the bills they passed.
That was how it really was with new deal policies.
You may be wondering. "If it was so bad, why did FDR get re-elected?" Simple, he brought the election with taxpayer dollars. In early 1936, the nation's economy was still so bad that it seemed that Roosevelt would lose his reelection bid. To change that, Roosevelt and two advisors conducted polls to find out where he stood in each state. Federal money was then targeted to states where the issue was in doubt, such as Pennsylvania. Hardly any federal money went to solid Democratic states (mostly in the South), even though the people there were generally much worse off, and little federal money went to states that looked solidly Republican. Money flooded into the competitive states with the message that it came from the benevolence of the Roosevelt administration. It worked brilliantly and thanks to targeted spending and special-interest-group promises, Roosevelt easily won the election. Money was taxed away from struggling Americans so that the president could spend lavishly on political pork to buy votes. No shit.
There are those who think that new deal policies ended the depression, but any mainstream historian will tell you that's not the case. They say it was WWII. This is where the "war prosperity" fallacy comes from. The evidence for this is the fall in unemployment once we entered the war.
It is incorrect though. During the war 22% of the work force went into the armed forces, many not to return. That's more of the workforce than was ever unemployed. Of the 16 million 10 million were conscripted. That's how FDR dealt with unemployment. He got rid of the unemployed. You look back now and see that it was good to stop Hitler but at the time the American public wanted nothing to do with "Europe's war". During the war quality of life for those still here actually decreased also. Even though those left had jobs now due to shipping so many people off. In fact from 1941-1943 private investment plunged by 55%.
True economic recovery(a REAL decrease in unemployment and increase in quality of life) didn't begin until 1945 when the economic sanctions come off rapidly and in 1946 private investment rose suddenly to a new high.
It was the end of controls and expectations of the war's ending that finally restored the stock market and prosperity(I don't consider high stock prices prosperity either) in 1945.
Once the New Deal and war ended prosperity returned almost over night.

What made the Great Depression great wasn't how bad it got. It was how long it lasted. In every other recession in U.S. history(those caused by government meddling and those not) the government reacted by cutting taxes and spending and they were over in a couple years. Except the Great Depression and the current recession.

Why did the Great Depression last so long with a New Dealer in charge? Because a New Dealer was in charge. Lol.

Government meddling caused it. Government meddling made it worse.
Our current recession has the same causes as the stock market crash of 1929. If we do the same things that FDR did then it will last as long or longer than that one did.

Your right about having to deal with and take human actions into account when dealing with social and economic issues. That's the basis of Austrian economics which is the major economic school behind libertarianism.
Hence Mises book title, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics.

 

Btw, I typed all of that on a phone. Impressive, isn't it?

 

As I've already posted, I certainly have a different view of this period of history.

I also noticed that you stopped at the end of WWII. Please continue and dispute the economic rise of America under a Democratic controlled Congress, and it's decline with corporate off-shoring and demise under Republican control and deregulation.

.

 

Ummm... Yes. Very impressive. :dizzy2:

 

1st off. I don't see any differance in policy between the democratic and republican party. They're both about expanding federal power, spending us into the poor house, and eroding our civil liberties.
Nixon started the welfare and food stamp program to stamp out poverty. It was supposed to END poverty. Yet the percentage of people drawing the benifits continues to increase. Clinton and the republican congress passed the fair housing act. That's what caused the housing bubble and lead us to the position we're in now by the way. It was clintons bill. The republicans went along.
Btw, Clinton having a budget surplus is a myth. They pilfered the s.s. fund which had grown under Bush Sr and called it "revenue". Bush sr rad massive deficits too. Obama has expanded the war into Pakastan. He also signed execution orders on american citizens living abroad. That has to be at least as bad as Bush's Patriot Act. Carter passed the origional fair housing act(Clinton's was just an expansion). Now that act was meant to help people buy homes but how many people have lost their homes now?
In 1971 Nixon severed the last ties that the dollar had to gold. This opened the door for him and those that followed him to print money to cover all of they're massive spending. It lead to the hyperinflation of the late 70's and resulting recession. After cutting spending and taxes the economy began to recover. In order to speed the recovery(which was under way due to the tax cuts and spending) and so they could again start spending money like it's going out of style again the fed reserve lowered interest rates. This lead to the dot com bubble and recession when it burst. Luckly the housing bubble was already in the works by then and they were able to postpone the correction, although it made the correction that needed to happen worse.
Tell me something. If they want the poor to be able to own houses then why do they try to reinflate the housing bubble and keep home prices high? Wouldn't it make sense to let the prices drop so people could afford them? But nope, they want to keep the bubble up. They will fail. But their attempts will cause the correction to last longer and be worse. And we'll be further in debt to boot.
Anything in particular you'd like to know about?

 

I stopped at 1945 because I was talking about the great depression.
As I said before, if the new deal policies were so good then why did the great depression last so long? FDR ended the "fat cats" doing what they wanted and businesses "taking advantage of" workers within a year of taking office. So why did it take so long to fix anything? I gave you historical facts. I don't see how you can see what happened any different without explaining why the great depression lasted as long as it did with the new dealers doing whatever they wanted to do. If eveything they did was great then why did it take so long before recovery started?

Yes, recessions happen. Some can happen without any help from the government. But none of them have been as bad or lasted anywhere near as long as the great depression did. And the during the great depression we had more government "help" than during any other recession. You would think with all that help and all of FDR's(who was pretty close to a tyrant, I'll tell ya about it if ya want) great plans it would have been over in no time. Would have never got as bad as it did. So what's up with that?

 

Actually the percent is increasing because of the recession. The percent of people in poverty has jumped around between 10-14% over the past 40 years but remained around the average baseline. The point of the programs isn't to eliminate poverty, it's to alleviate the conditions of having a poverty level income to begin with. You fail to understand the concept of the programs. Perhaps to truly lower poverty rates you'd endorse a subsidized program of job training along with education grants.

 

Ahhh, but they do it in distinctly different ways. The Republicans do it in a way that benefits the rich and big business while the Democrats do it in a way more pleasing to the poor.

Think that could have something to do with about 210,000,000 more people? Maybe jobs being sent to other countries? Corporate mergers and downsizing? Our reality of Trickle up Economics?

Sorry to disagree. This Act only encouraged lending to lower income families. It didn't make lenders write deceptive contracts, lie about the financial situations of the borrowers, or package the loans and sell them as investments.

don't you mean "executive order" there's a big difference.


I think you can see how differently I see the same historical events.

I don't care what theory you want utilize when crafting economic policy, big business will always be in the driver's seat and they will continue to keep wrecking the car. The best solution is to put in "speed bumps" to control their greed and minimize the damage.

.

 

That's only a supposition based on your assessment of limited factors using a theoretical cause and effect paradigm.

.

 

i have said this before and, i'm saying it again here.
the communists and the libertarians are both brain dead.
their economic theories JUST DON'T WORK!

i know i'm just pissing away my breath on this.

some people are just so goddamn thick headed dogmatic that, they just are never able to question their core ideals.

 

How come every solution has to involve spending a ton of money and the government doing something for us?
How about this.
1st: drug test welfare recipients. This would encourage them to get off drug(the one's that are, I know it's not all but. There is a larger percent of recipients that do drugs than people who don't receive benefits) which would help them change they're circumstances.
2nd: 5 year limit on welfare. You can't live on it forever and not work
3rd: dollar for dollar tax credit for money given to charity. For every dollar you give that's a dollar you don't pay taxes on.
4th: make mothers identify the father in order to receive benefits. Currently by not identifying the father he avoids paying any support. If he doesn't have to pay then the mother receives more benefits. This encourages one parent households.
5th: cap the benefits. You don't get more money for having more kids. This encourages people to have kids that are then born into poverty. How about 2? After 2 you get no additional benefit for more kids.
6th: phase out welfare completely and encourage charity with more credits like the one mentioned above. Americans are the most charitable people in the world. Before welfare and the War on Poverty churches and charities were the primary help for the poor. You said yourself that poverty hasn't changed so it obviously works. Also welfare is the largest government expense. It has now surpassed defence spending, during wartime. Wow. If all those tax dollars were saved and in the working mans pockets it would have a two fold effect. 1st, people would have more to give. 2nd, people would have more to spend which would create jobs and provide more opportunities.

Your right about the purpose of the current welfare system.
However, when the war on poverty was started the goal was to end poverty. That was the start of welfare. When it was revamped and changed they also changed the objective. That's because the original object could not be met.

And before anyone gives me any crap about how hard the poor have it let me tell everyone something about me. I'm the son of a heroin addict. Been on my own since I was 16. Have been homeless twice. Have never received any welfare of any kind. Came from that, worked my way up. And now today not only do I do well for myself but also bought a home for my sister and nephews.
I KNOW how hard it is. I also know that giving out handouts will never change anything. People have to be responsible for themselves. They can either choose it because they want something better. Or it can be forced on them because there are no other options.
My room mate right now is drawing unemployment. He's not looking for a job because he doesn't have too.

 

Wow. After writing a whole article practically. You just stated that my argument was invalid because I left stuff out. Yet you have provided no info. Tell us about history then if you know it so well. I could write a book. This is a forum though. I try to keep it short.

 

I have no idea what you mean by a "whole article", I was responding to your question in the quote box=>

"You would think with all that help and all of FDR's great plans it would have been over in no time. Would have never got as bad as it did. So what's up with that?"

I told you what I thought was up with that, and it was a bit more than just "left stuff out." I also said it is a guess based on theory. I answered your "article" in the previous post.

.