Quote:I never said the Obama changes "gut" the Clinton cuts. They extend the time limit.
Unemployment benefits were also time limited. That time limit was extended because of the recession. The extension was ended in 2013. That's hardly the same as "unemployment benefits have also been cut." Pure spin.
Supply-side economics had nothing to do with the recession. The economy was in bad shape before Reagan started the supply-side reforms. Recessions happen no matter what. This one was because people kept borrowing against their home as the value increased, and then when housing prices plummeted as a result it created a recession. I don't blame Obama for the recession. It's not the fault of any government policy except maybe the one that required banks to give home loans to bad credit risks. Of course the banks weren't blameless either.
I do blame Obama for failing to end the recession. Eight years of Obama budgets and we still have historically low levels of workforce participation. You yourself admit that the job market still stinks. No other recovery after a recession has taken as long as this one; only the Great Depression lasted longer.
It's just not the government's fault that the government caused recession isn't over yet.
Quote:There is no doubt in my mind that he was "using the system" so to speak (I wonder which other Presidential candidate does something similar?). I don't know if he was married "on paper" to the woman, that's just what he always said. Now that I think about it though, he did always mention getting a pretty good size tax "refund". Usually he would blow a significant amount of it on a new computer or they would take a trip to Orlando and some of the theme parks.
Regardless, I do acknowledge that the cases that I've seen with my own two eyes are probably not "typical" of most that need assistance, but it sure does highlight the need to reign in the system. There is far too much abuse that costs me, someone that actually has to pay taxes.
There are also far too many that have come to depend on the temporary help that is government assistance as being a permanent situation for them. The problem is, they seem to think that government is their "ATM machine" and they don't realize that the very people that have to fill that machine are the very ones that could/would employ them.
Me and the wife where talking about this today actually. When does helping become enabling. We're both the oldest siblings, we struggled really bad early on having such a large family at such a young age. When we came up neither family could do much for us so we had to learn some hard lessons. Now her younger brothers are learning some of those lessons. The one has a young child him and the girlfriend where off again and on again for a while but she ended up pregnant again with his second child. Since then they've really turned the corner, I just attended his graduation from the police academy tonight, they've accepted councling and we've worked with them on building a budget and how to stick to it. Now along the way we've had to help them, I'm not a wealthy man but we've put some money and time into getting their cars running(blessings of being a mechanic) and we've stocked their frige a few times but because of the effort they put in we feel were helping not enabling.
The other brother was given a home by his fiance's wealthy family, both of their vehicles are paid for again a gift from her wealthy family and neither of them seems interested in finding a real full time job. She works as a hostess and he's changing jobs every couple of months. When the cry about being broke we don't help, we feel helping them is enabling their laziness.
That's the only way charity or help ever really works, if it's not become a tool of enabling. At the state level I just don't know how you could possibly determine if the welfare is help or enabling which is why welfare is such a mess.
Charity has the ultimate goal of helping people become whole.
Marxism has the goal of helping people become the same.
Hats off to you Eric. That kind of personal investment at the family level is something organic that cannot be duplicated by compulsory taxation and forcible redistribution.
It's nice to have slogans. It's not helpful in a debate, but it's good to have a mantra that helps you get by.
Marxism is, at the end of the day, the government controlling the means of production.
If you don't want to have an adult conversation, and you just want to regurgitate the propaganda you've swallowed, just say so.
I'm all for understanding the truth. I long gave up this my team v your team mentality. It's done me well.
So it's easy for me to see the benefits and draw backs of each side.
So it does intrigue me when I hear analysis that seems to be completely partisan and not based on all the facts.
For instance, blaming the recession of 2008-2009 on the government is just not the entire truth. It makes for a great talking point for your team, but it does nothing to get to the truth.
To ignore the banks and their huge roll in this is just proving you are not here to have a discussion on finding what the truth is, but only to fight for your team. And that's fine, but a bit boring.
Malabar- you misinterpreted my post. Supply side economics and free trade didn't cause this last recession, those two policies that have been maintained by every president and every congress since Reagan has caused the rise of folks that are using social programs.
Now, though these 2 policies may not have caused the great recession, it sure has made it impossible for workers to get back to where they were before the recession.
Quote:It's nice to have slogans. It's not helpful in a debate, but it's good to have a mantra that helps you get by.
Marxism is, at the end of the day, the government controlling the means of production.
If you don't want to have an adult conversation, and you just want to regurgitate the propaganda you've swallowed, just say so.
I'm all for understanding the truth. I long gave up this my team v your team mentality. It's done me well.
So it's easy for me to see the benefits and draw backs of each side.
So it does intrigue me when I hear analysis that seems to be completely partisan and not based on all the facts.
For instance, blaming the recession of 2008-2009 on the government is just not the entire truth. It makes for a great talking point for your team, but it does nothing to get to the truth.
To ignore the banks and their huge roll in this is just proving you are not here to have a discussion on finding what the truth is, but only to fight for your team. And that's fine, but a bit boring.
Government created the environment for the recession. Yes, bad actors contributed, but the ultimate authority and therefore ultimate responsibility lies with the government.
Quote:Government created the environment for the recession. Yes, bad actors contributed, but the ultimate authority and therefore ultimate responsibility lies with the government.
Does the US government behave and make policy in a vacuum?
Quote:Does the US government behave and make policy in a vacuum?
Of course not, but let's not act like they aren't the largest and most powerful player.
Quote:It's nice to have slogans. It's not helpful in a debate, but it's good to have a mantra that helps you get by.
Marxism is, at the end of the day, the government controlling the means of production.
If you don't want to have an adult conversation, and you just want to regurgitate the propaganda you've swallowed, just say so.
I'm all for understanding the truth. I long gave up this my team v your team mentality. It's done me well.
So it's easy for me to see the benefits and draw backs of each side.
So it does intrigue me when I hear analysis that seems to be completely partisan and not based on all the facts.
For instance, blaming the recession of 2008-2009 on the government is just not the entire truth. It makes for a great talking point for your team, but it does nothing to get to the truth.
To ignore the banks and their huge roll in this is just proving you are not here to have a discussion on finding what the truth is, but only to fight for your team. And that's fine, but a bit boring.
Marxism has been expressed in many different subclasses of economic classification in the last two centuries. These spread across q spectrum of state ownership/control of the means of production because as a practical sense full assimilation of western style economies is impractical.
The guiding principles of Marxism are two fold and remain constant across that spectrum.
1.) from each according to their ability to each according to their need. This is the model for wealth redistribution through centralized government control and compulsory taxation to achieve the Marxist view of an egalitarian view. This makes no distinction about the moral or ethical condition of those receiving benefits or the long term negative affects on production from taxation
This is an ideology you parrot faithfully without any willingness to examine the basic structure or consequences of SOCIAL PROGRAMS. You also decry anyone who criticizes the size and scope of the welfatr state as hating poor people.
2.) profit motive is synonymous with greed. You have continually demeaned and deligitimized the production of goods by private companies bemoaning that profit motive is an inherently corrupting force. What you and other Marxist ideologues conveniently leave out is the fundamental choice of the consumer and the sheer incompetence of the state.
As for the financial crisis, when more than half the paper in the country was bought by government sponsored entities and all the regulations were written by state agencies it is not PROPAGANDA to make a logical inference.
Quote:Of course not, but let's not act like they aren't the largest and most powerful player.
How can an institution be a player? A player is a person (note: corporations have been classified as a person).
Isn't the government a mechanism of rules and processes that is used by the people?
Quote:It's nice to have slogans. It's not helpful in a debate, but it's good to have a mantra that helps you get by.
Marxism is, at the end of the day, the government controlling the means of production.
If you don't want to have an adult conversation, and you just want to regurgitate the propaganda you've swallowed, just say so.
I'm all for understanding the truth. I long gave up this my team v your team mentality. It's done me well.
So it's easy for me to see the benefits and draw backs of each side.
So it does intrigue me when I hear analysis that seems to be completely partisan and not based on all the facts.
For instance, blaming the recession of 2008-2009 on the government is just not the entire truth. It makes for a great talking point for your team, but it does nothing to get to the truth.
To ignore the banks and their huge roll in this is just proving you are not here to have a discussion on finding what the truth is, but only to fight for your team. And that's fine, but a bit boring.
Regarding the part in bold. I can agree with you in that government isn't
solely responsible for the 2008-2009 recession, however they did play a role in it. One has to back up and look at what the cause of the recession was. Primarily it was government policy not only backing (Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac), but encouraging sub-prime mortgages. Also involved was The Fed (not a government agency by the way) reducing interest rates. This was done to reduce the damaged caused by the 2000-2001 dot-com bubble as well as a response to 9/11.
Suddenly you have "easy credit" available in order for people to not only make large purchases (cars, technology, etc.) but also homes and real estate. Lenders (not necessarily banks) took advantage of this because they could loan money to people with less-than-desirable credit, then turn around and "sell" the loan to an investment bank. So the lender can make a loan with little-to-no risk, and profit from it. Banks in turn would package these loans up and trade them on the stock market, kind of like bonds.
The problem was, home prices started to spike artificially since there was more demand as a direct result of government policy and lenders/banks basically passing the "hot potato" mortgages on to investors. The lenders were loaning to people that had no business buying a home, then getting rid of the loan. Buyers in turn were taking more risk thinking that they could purchase more home than they could afford and believing that it would rise in value and would build equity (think "home flippers"). They also were quick to take an ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) or an "interest only" loan for the first say 3-5 years of the mortgage. When some of these risky loans started to come into the point where the interest rate actually kicked in, they suddenly found that they couldn't afford the payment and you saw the foreclosure rate start to skyrocket. That in turn brought real estate values down. Suddenly investors and investment banks were stuck with bad loans and lost tons of money. The asset (home) was not worth what the debt was.
The bottom line is, that crisis started and ended because of government.
Quote:How can an institution be a player? A player is a person (note: corporations have been classified as a person).
Isn't the government a mechanism of rules and processes that is used by the people?
No, the government is a collective of bureaucrats with their own best interests as the priority.