patrick.net

xrpb11a says

Bottom line, regardless of how many bridges/roads/phonelines/electrical grid/ etc etc etc....guess what?
The business does not exist if the original business owner decided not to start it.
Without the roads, everything is brought in on the beaten path the owner made.
Without the bridges, ferries are employed that were built by the business owner...
without the electric grid, windmills are installed ( home made, of course)
Phone lines?? use smoke signals...

Wtf ?

We all know what Obama was talking about. There was a time when Americans were willing to pay for their government.

Everyone has objections to some part of what government spends money on, and everyone also benefits A LOT from at least some of the things that government spends money on.

But we run huge deficits while federal taxes are close to the lowest they've been in the last 50 years. Some taxes need to go up,...period.

david1 says

When someone shows you that economic prosperity was higher in the 1950s, 60s & 70s by every measure, when taxes on everyone (but especially the rich) were higher, look it up for yourself and when the data is confirmed it don't formulate crazy explanations for how the data is manipulated or made up.

Well said, and the type of statement that won't even get an intelligible response from dim bulbs such as xrp.

Agreed.
So what the fuck does that have to do with what you quoted?

marcus says

xrpb11a says

Bottom line, regardless of how many bridges/roads/phonelines/electrical grid/ etc etc etc....guess what?
The business does not exist if the original business owner decided not to start it.
Without the roads, everything is brought in on the beaten path the owner made.
Without the bridges, ferries are employed that were built by the business owner...
without the electric grid, windmills are installed ( home made, of course)
Phone lines?? use smoke signals...

Wtf ?

We all know what Obama was talking about. There was a time when Americans were willing to pay for their government.

Everyone has objections to some part of what government spends money on, and everyone also benefits A LOT from at least some of the things that government spends money on.

But we run huge deficits while federal taxes are close to the lowest they've been in the last 50 years. Some taxes need to go up,...period

marcus says

We all know what Obama was talking about.

We do? Obama has been referred to a myriad of highly intelligent people.
From Greek philosophers to American founding fathers, to America's closest thing we've ever known as Royalty, that is John F. Kennedy.

How in the hell does a man that spends so much of his time explaining what he meant, get compared to brilliant critical thinkers, communicators and philosophers? Let's be clear here, we're not talking about Donny Dum Dum here. If his words can't stand on their own, then we don't need cut rate pundits telling me, "What he meant".

I mean which is it? You can't have it both ways. One minute he's this incredible wordsmith winning unjust awards and accolades then the next his context needs adjusting. Enough with it already, I think whether you agree or not, if he weren't such a grandstanding show-bag then we would be debating the Chicken or the Egg paradox as pertains to business and the roads.

There was a time when Americans were willing to pay for their government.

We still are, we just have a hard time swallowing...
"GSA's Lavish Federal Vegas Retreat "
"Solyndra"
"Light bulbs that are expensive and you can't see dick all"
"Soap products that the cost increases weekly that produces no suds, has less cleaning power than dirt"
"Temp Census workers counted as part of the unemployment gap. "

Sin taxes on every thing, that never gets accounted for their intended purpose.

i.e. Sugar taxes on soada ect... Alcohol... Tobacco...

Then these items are a hyperbole villainized as the number one ill-health contributors, in context to defrauding American's out of high premiums in lieu of an honest proper health care system. While never ever once accounting where the 300% price increases due to lofty taxes levied against those very same items since Obama took office, are going, or what they doing for that matter.

We don't need a first lady "SHAMING" Americans into shoping at Whole Foods and paying a hefty premium for Fresh fruits and produce that at this very damn moment the Liberal press are touting the virtues of gouging the American consumers preemptively over speculating the Corn crop dying and drying up in the drought. Which DAMN it while I'm here, if we've been subsidizing the Corn industry for Decades then where is the GODDAMN stock piles of the stuff? Come on, we've been paying this GOVERNMENT(that you love to tax us to death so much) to give the Corn industry crap loads of money to off set any losses they may incur. Which they've had a good two decade run, with out incident. Now the first HINT of adversity and every thing from Beef, Clothing, Gas, Groceries in general are slated to hyper inflate this summer, because a crop of corn is drying up in a mid western state?

Shirley You Jest!

marcus says

We all know what Obama was talking about. There was a time when Americans were willing to pay for their government.

Oh, republicans want government, don't let them fool you. They just don't think they should pay for it. I mean, they want a government that spends twice what the rest of the world combined does on defense. Defense that protects the assets of the Waltons and Kochs, whose combined assets are equal to the bottom 50% of Americans. They want a government that protect copyrights and intellectual property rights. They need a government that grants them free access to american consumer markets while they can exploit labor arbitrage in the third world. They need protection from the pitchforks and torches and they don't mind the goverment doing that. They don't mind when government regulations increase the barrier to entry into their markets. Most importantly they want a government dominated by two parties they can continue to buy.

Asked to pay for anything more than what they are getting out of their government and they will scream CLASS WARFARE.

Or rather they pay someone else to scream it...

As an example, they label the estate tax the "Death Tax." Never mind the exemption from paying estate taxes is $10 million for a married couple. This is a tax that in its current form only affects .5% of estates. But here it is again, a central platform in Mitt Romney's tax reform plan - elimination of the "death tax."

But guys like xrp will accuse me of giving up because I tell him he's not going to be worth 10 million. And I don't even consider 10 million rich - its just an example.

Two families have the same net worth as 155 million americans combined. I just don't understand how anyone cant see that this is why economic growth is stagnant - then I realize, these guys read a blog about Austrian economics and award themselves the PhD. Then they make supply-side arguments based in pseudoscience and untestable hypothesis. Thats how.

xrpb11a says

Agreed.

So you agree that taxes need to go up, and progressively, and yet you insist on arguing on and on and on over what Obama meant about businesses benefiting from government spending and investment?

mell says

There is nothing hard about economics - everybody who fails science grade math (such as electrical engineering or physics etc.) can fallback to becoming an "economist", which is just above realtor ;)

LOL at you comparing Krugman to an undergrad Engineering washout.

Again, its the Dream Team vs. the backups on the 6th grade girls squad..

Yes, undergraduate economics is not terribly rigorous and I would agree there is more difficulty in engineering, math, or applied science undergraduate programs.

Though the grasp of these undergraduate principles seems lost on a few in here...

If you think for one second that Krugman wouldn't run circles around you in your own field of expertise if he was given a month to study, you are mistaken.

But you are right, that Nobel pails in comparison to your "Sonoma County Chamber Entrepreneur of the Month, July 2005" award hanging on your wall.

if we've been subsidizing the Corn industry for Decades then where is the GODDAMN stock piles of the stuff? Come on, we've been paying this GOVERNMENT(that you love to tax us to death so much) to give the Corn industry crap loads of money to off set any losses they may incur. Which they've had a good two decade run, with out incident. Now the first HINT of adversity and every thing from Beef, Clothing, Gas, Groceries in general are slated to hyper inflate this summer, because a crop of corn is drying up in a mid western state?

In the 1950's and 60's the farm programs were directed toward maintaining a stable food supply with large quantities of grains held in storage. This program came out of the dust bowl days. There was an emphasis on conservation programs that took highly erodible land out of production and paid farmers to put in terraces and waterways. That began to change in the 1970's to an export driven world market view and "fence row to fence row planting." Commodity and land prices skyrocketed and then crashed (remember farm aid). The farm programs have changed but have never gone back to government controlled/subsidized stored surplus commodities. It is a quasi market driven system that worked relatively well until mother nature crapped in the soup. The idiotic ethanol subsidies have encouraged the consumption of 10s of billions of bushels of corn over the last 15 or so years. Have consumers benefited from from the government programs? maybe but big farmers and companies such as ADM have benefited far more.

Regarding food prices I would not expect hyper inflation. Raw commodities represent overall only about 15% of what the retail buyer pays. Most predictions are for a 2 to 3% overall increase though some items will be more affected. If the drought continues into next year it will be another story.

I agree that I have no problem with my taxes going back up to 39% as long as it is applied to the deficit, with matching government spending reductions.

I agree that if the left can take Romney's "I like being able to fire people" completely out of context, then the right should have equal time with OB's calculated 'gaffe', spoken to incite his base.....at the expense of small business owners.

marcus says

xrpb11a says

Agreed.

So you agree that taxes need to go up, and progressively, and yet you insist on arguing on and on and on over what Obama meant about businesses benefiting from government spending and investment?

I'll see your noble prize winner Krugman and up you a noble prize winner Freidman....
you need to get rid of that Krugmanian glaze in your eye, worship no one, and see things for what they are.

I'll give you credit though for making the finalist list for king of the one-liners...LOL...

but i'd take my 6th grade backup squad over your dream team straight up in a battle of integrity...

david1 says

mell says
..
There is nothing hard about economics - everybody who fails science grade math (such as electrical engineering or physics etc.) can fallback to becoming an "economist", which is just above realtor ;)

Again, its the Dream Team vs. the backups on the 6th grade girls squad..

But you are right, that Nobel pails in comparison to your "Sonoma County Chamber Entrepreneur of the Month, July 2005" award hanging on your wall.

Man was born to be free and independent. Liberals can't seem to get a grip on that simple concept and believe the world revolves around some collective, Marxist, socialist, communistic type arrangement where people give up their freedom and their god given rights for the "collective good".

Honest Abe says

Man was born to be free and independent. Liberals can't seem to get a grip on that simple concept and believe the world revolves around some collective, Marxist, socialist, communistic type arrangement where people give up their freedom and their god given rights for the "collective good".

There is nothing in nature to support this. Humans can't survive without collective effort, like the rest of the animals who work in concert.

Rugged individualism is a perversion, and collectivism is our nature.

Honest Abe says

Man was born to be free and independent.

Shoot, I was never no good for nothing 'cept luvin'.

thomaswong.1986 says

CL says

But when the system is rigged to cause downward pressure on the worker, that whole system of entrepreneurship gets stifled. You can't collect enough wages to start that business, you can't negotiate higher wages.

Wages can go down, because you are competing with indentured servants in China now. The monopoly analogy rings true.

We also compete with the Japanese, Brits, Germans and other nations... none are indentured servants.

And many of those are paid well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/

“the salient difference is that, in Germany, the automakers operate within an environment that precludes a race to the bottom; in the U.S., they operate within an environment that encourages such a race.”

xrpb11a says

I'll see your noble prize winner Krugman and up you a noble prize winner Freidman....
you need to get rid of that Krugmanian glaze in your eye, worship no one, and see things for what they are.

First, I don't idolize Krugman. He's just right.

And second, Milt Friedman was NOT an Austrian supply-side witch doctor. He was a monetarist.

If you want a Nobel Laureate example who authored your supply-side, anti-central planning voodoo look at Hayek.

The easiest way to distigiush between them is Monetarists believe that centrally controlling the money supply positively contributes to overall economic well being, where Austrians believe centrally planned increases in money supply are the only known causes of nightmares in children. Or something like that.

New Keynesians (like Krugman) are very similar to monetarists. Keynesians cite lack of demand for economic malaise, monetarists cite lack of money. New Keynesians have trouble explaning rapidly changing prices, monetarists struggle with liquidity traps.

Austrians can't verify anything empirically, so they struggle with reality.

david1 says

Austrians can't verify anything empirically, so they struggle with reality.

A good definition of Austrian Economics is "Economics for people who don't like math".

OK, Cl - you're a collectivist. "Humans CAN'T SURVIVE without collective effort" Can't survive? And "THE REST OF THE ANIMALS"? Clearly the liberalism is a mental disease.

Liberals indifference to the sovereignty of the individual is buried in the "collective good" mentality which allows liberal governments the ability to rationalize unconscionable manipulations of the people they pretend to "serve".

For all its avowed "good intentions" the lib's political agenda is essentially sociopathic. The liberals political agenda necessarily dehumanizes the individual on the way to dominating him (IRS, DHS, TSA, Para-Military POLICE, etc) under penalty of the "law", all the way up to the penalty of death. No thank you, dems are "the enemy within".

xrpb11a says

The small business owner is the backbone of the American economy. Ninety-nine percent of all employers are small business owners. They provide 75% of the new jobs created every year, and they are responsible for 96% of all exported goods. Small business owners work out of garages, small stores on Main Streets, and huge corporate campuses. "Princeton Review"

That's why there should be more tax incentives for small businesses that deal in American labour, with American materials. Instead, we give huge tax breaks, on the federal and state level, to giant corporations that give the majority of their jobs to people overseas, since they are most often political prisoners, children and the desperate. The only Americans that earn a living wage in these giant corporations are at the top. They often offer service jobs in America, but they make minimum wage, so the only people in this country the create jobs for are usually teens earning extra cash, because no one can live on minimum wage without government help in the USA anymore. Small businesses create real jobs for Americans, yet they are the ones who are penalized by our tax system, and penalized even more if the individual running the company makes under $200,000. The system is a mess, and we are a democracy, so it's our own fault. "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams

Honest Abe says

The liberals political agenda necessarily dehumanizes the individual on the way to dominating him (IRS, DHS, TSA, Para-Military POLICE, etc) under penalty of the "law", all the way up to the penalty of death

Actually, capitol punishment is much more strongly supported by conservatives than liberals.

david1 says

First, I don't idolize Krugman. He's just right.

And second, Milt Friedman was NOT an Austrian supply-side witch doctor. He was a monetarist.

If you want a Nobel Laureate example who authored your supply-side, anti-central planning voodoo look at Hayek.

The easiest way to distigiush between them is Monetarists believe that centrally controlling the money supply positively contributes to overall economic well being, where Austrians believe centrally planned increases in money supply are the only known causes of nightmares in children. Or something like that.

New Keynesians (like Krugman) are very similar to monetarists. Keynesians cite lack of demand for economic malaise, monetarists cite lack of money. New Keynesians have trouble explaning rapidly changing prices, monetarists struggle with liquidity traps.

Austrians can't verify anything empirically, so they struggle with reality.

Most countries who are financially conservative outperform their Keynesian counterparts by multitudes. Germany has been generally fiscally conservative post-WW2 with low inflation and thus have been running the show in Europe. Estonia and Latvia went cold turkey and are now in great shape. India has been importing gold with their trade surplus and is looking good - sure, they still have slums and sharp contrasts of wealth, but they are improving consistently while the US and the European Keynesian worshippers are on the way to become slums. Japan, UK, the PIIGS and the US got badly damaged by Keynesian bullshit (used by greedy politicians and elites, so please stop talking about idiots like Krugman.

mell says

Most countries who are financially conservative outperform their Keynesian counterparts by multitudes. Germany has been generally fiscally conservative

Wha???? Germany has a social market economy. This is Keynesianism on steroids. They maintain employment despite capacity under-utilization!

For Christ's sake, the German government has collective bargaining rights with private employers! All workers are members of one central union!

Estonia and Latvia? Estonia has 11+% unemployment. Latvia has 15% unemployment. Yeah those are shining cities on a hill...

HRH! Incognito!
Welcome back!!

hrhjuliet says

xrpb11a says

The small business owner is the backbone of the American economy. Ninety-nine percent of all employers are small business owners. They provide 75% of the new jobs created every year, and they are responsible for 96% of all exported goods. Small business owners work out of garages, small stores on Main Streets, and huge corporate campuses. "Princeton Review"

That's why there should be more tax incentives for small businesses that deal in American labour, with American materials.

And I might add Germany has Tax revenues as a % of GDP nearly 60% higher than the US, even by Heritage Foundation numbers.

Estonia is about 20% higher, and Latvia about 17% higher than the US in Tax Revenues as a % of GDP...

Now I'm curious, who on talk radio is talking about he free market havens of Estonia and Latvia, with their robust economic recoveries fueled by austerity?

Love to speak with a Latvian about how he feels about that internal devaluation his goverment is doing. Sounds like it sucks there actually.

The shining example of free market success was America. This golden success model slowly lost its luster under the relentless attacks of Unions, RINO's and liberal democrats. A never ending blizzard of laws written by non-business people imposed upon businesses large and small has slowly strangled the greatest wealth producing system the world has ever seen.

Free enterprise fosters creativity and inventiveness. It produces new industries, products, services and improves on existing ones. This system has created more wealth and opportunities than any other economic model.

The free market is the harmony of interests and rules of cooperation that underlie a civil society (which liberals detest). It fosters self-sufficiency (which liberals detest). It supports the individual and family (which liberals detest). It is intertwined with private property (which liberals detest).

Oops, the boss is coming, gotta get back to work!

To the OP ...

If you are purposefully going to misconstrue what someone says, or take things out of context, as a means to attack someone, you are just fomenting misunderstanding. This doesn't help the democratic process at all and only weakens us as a nation. Shameful.

I don't think much of anyone (Romney or others) who would stand behind this attack and believe it is credible or convincing. It's politics and politics only. Zero basis in reality.

Just because you shout loud and sound angry doesn't mean many of us are listening anymore. "Boy who cried wolf" time for the GOP/Romney. (rabble rabble rabble)

If anyone missed Stewart's bit on this ...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/07/jon-stewart-chips-away-you-didnt-build/55044/

Use your brain and think critically for a second.

Honest Abe says

Free enterprise fosters creativity and inventiveness.

There is free enterprise where ideas flourish and elevate the standard of living for all, and then there's the loophole-laden fraud-friendly people-as-selfish-machines game-theory-based monopolistic wet dream that neoliberals and their apple polishers like to clad in the valance of free enterprise or the Free Market.

So which one are you blowing smoke about?

Honest Abe says

Did the president of the United States REALLY say that?

Is ABe really so gullible and intellectually challenged that he believes the president said that ?

Answer: Sadly, yes. (we need a word much stronger than pathetic to describe Abe's critical thinking skills)

rewrew7 says

If anyone missed Stewart's bit on this ...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/07/jon-stewart-chips-away-you-didnt-build/55044/

Thanks.

david1 says

mell says

Most countries who are financially conservative outperform their Keynesian counterparts by multitudes. Germany has been generally fiscally conservative

Wha???? Germany has a social market economy. This is Keynesianism on steroids. They maintain employment despite capacity under-utilization!

For Christ's sake, the German government has collective bargaining rights with private employers! All workers are members of one central union!

Estonia and Latvia? Estonia has 11+% unemployment. Latvia has 15% unemployment. Yeah those are shining cities on a hill...

What does that have to do with Keynesian money policies? You can have aspects of a social market economy while still being fiscally conservative and balance your budget(s). Stop thinking in left-wing right-wing and libertarian vs liberal mindset, then you might actually see that monetary policy wise there is no difference between dems and reps. Also, if you keep citing high unemployment rates in the mentioned countries, they have been steadily improving (and cleared their bad debt), and if someone is counted as employed it actually means that they are above poverty level, unlike in the US where the numbers are fudged beyond sense (the real unemployment % as in the US is likely significantly higher than in Estonia or Latvia).

Honest Abe says

Oops, the boss is coming, gotta get back to work!

Walmart greeters have access to the internet ?

What goes around, comes around.

"Obama senior strategist/adviser David Axelrod chortled about Romney’s firing remark, saying in a Tweet: “Giving Mitt credit for rare moment of candor.”

Romney's firing remark was more comparable to Obama's "the private sector is doing fine" comment.

This bit though, becoming such a center piece of ROmney's campaign is shear stupidity on their part, for reasons that I won't even explain now.

Let's just wait and see how it works out.

I never do cease to be amazed though by the dishonesty (or off the charts gullibility/stupidity) of so many on this forum.

Honest Abe says

OK, Cl - you're a collectivist. "Humans CAN'T SURVIVE without collective effort" Can't survive?

Where in nature do you see individuals thriving on their own, by strictly their own efforts? More importantly, what in the human condition would prepare an individual for such isolation?

It doesn't exist. From birth until death, someone is helping you. In that first and last chapter, they are literally wiping your caboose and feeding you.

Let's see rugged individualism help you there.

I hate it when someone goes through line by line with critiques of posts, but you ask so many questions there isn't a better way to maintain clarity.

mell says

What does that have to do with Keynesian money policies?

Keynes said that private sector decisions can at times lead to market inefficiences, and he advocated for public policy to stabilize demand. I can think of few clearer examples of public intervention than government maintaining full employment in the face of capacity surplus. Germany does not control its money policy, it is a member nation of the ECB.

mell says

You can have aspects of a social market economy while still being fiscally conservative and balance your budget(s).

Now fiscal conservatism is only defined as balancing the budget? Fine...lets raise tax rates to 90% of GDP and double spending. We would have a budget surplus which you would define as "fiscal conservatism."

And finally...
mell says

unlike in the US where the numbers are fudged beyond sense (the real unemployment % as in the US is likely significantly higher than in Estonia or Latvia).

There it is. The place Austrians always go.."The observable empirical data contradicts my point because the numbers are manipulated. No I don't have any data of my own, what good would that do?"

Once again:
david1 says

Austrians can't verify anything empirically, so they struggle with reality.

Ruki says

david1 says

Austrians can't verify anything empirically, so they struggle with reality.

That's rich given how Keynesians never have and Keynes himself said it was all theory and wasn't interested in providing empirical data.

Give HRHMedia access to patrick.net...and he'll masturbate with it.

Phillips Curve?

Mr Gaster in that picture wouldn't sell too much lumber without that gov't road running by his business, LOL.

Republicans are really the densest people on the planet. That's the only explanation.

Mr Gaster really just wants his ass kissed is all. The other stuff is just a handy pretext.

zzyzzx says

Ah, but Ray didn't build that nice road next to his business that allows people to shop at his hardware store. Nor did Ray build:

- the sewer system that prevents his hardware store from flooding
- the fire department and hydrant system that keeps it from burning down
- the police department that protects Ray from burglary
- the electric system that powers Ray's stores
- the public land on which that electric system and other utilities run without which Ray could not run his business

And as Jon Stewart explained, much to the irritation of republicans, Obama meant "those" not "that".

I.e., Obama was not saying that people didn't build businesses. Obama was saying that business creators didn't build all the infrastructure that is necessary for those businesses to run. That public infrastructure, which makes possible those private businesses, were built with tax dollars and that is why taxes exist, so that the next generation can build their businesses and lives as well.

Jon Stewart then goes on to show how ridiculously identical Obama's and Romney's positions are on the whole private vs. public tax pseudo-debate is.

But hey, why argue against what Obama stands for, when you can argue against an out-of-context misinterpretation of what Obama stands for. You know, like when Romney said he like firing people.

After all, none of you actually believe that Obama is a communist, but you'll promote that idea because you think your neighbors are so fucking stupid they might believe it and then vote for Romney. And that's what this whole thread is really about.

If you're going to argue for one of the two dip-shits running for president, at least argue the real issues. I know it's hard because the two are virtually identical with the slight exception that Romney wants to fuck the middle class harder to increase the rich-poor gap even more. But most of their policies are quite frankly the same.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/07/31/colorado-business-owners-speak-out-on-obamas-business-comment/

Don't forget to eat at Chick-Fil-A soon...and SUPPORT FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA.

Blah blah blah...we all know what the fuck he was saying...but it doesn't matter. this is the season for taking everything out of context. OB kicked it off with the romney "I like to be able to ....blah blah blah"....
Most 'out of context' quotes takes the election....
Let the games begin.

Dan8267 says

I.e., Obama was not saying that people didn't build businesses. Obama was saying that business creators didn't build all the infrastructure that is necessary for

xrpb11a says

this is the season for taking everything out of context.

But do you really respect anyone on either side that stoops to those tactics?