Have you see the commercial — I think it’s for wireless services (I’d give you a link if I could remember the product) — that has a family sitting on their patio, and the teenage boy is saying (this is an approximation), “And Dad — cut it out with the Twitter updates…”?
The middle-aged Dad, completely unmindful, is gleefully muttering aloud as he types with his thumbs on his phone, “… am sitting on the patio…”
For some reason, my wife finds this ad hysterically funny. I guess each and every person has his or her own distinctive sense of humor…
It’s Verizon Wireless — I saw it again. And it IS funny…
In the spirit of the commercial… Am at the beach today…. First time off since I was laid off. The weather’s nice.
Did you hear the one about the Republican who still thinks Obama’s economic policies are a failure? It’s a real knee slapper. It goes like this: Senator Joe Wrongfellow (R) from the great state of Insanity says the Obama stimulus package, especially the money spent on the cash for clunkers program, will do nothing to improve the economy. Wrongfellow rants and raves about socialism, inflation and all the other bogeymen that serve merely to scare hapless Joe Sixpack into believing his party is better for the American worker than the Socio-Democratic party. Never mind that he and and his cohorts controlled the Whitehouse for 8 years while the economy produced zero jobs.
It’s the funniest joke ever to watch ole Wrongfellow make excuses for the rapidly improving economy. He will spin the latest improvements in the DOW, NASDAQ and S & P 500 as merely a short term aberration. He will pooh-pooh the drop in the unemployment rate as a statistical fluke. He attempts to explain away improving car sales with a nod to socialist fears. And of course the bottoming out of the housing market is nothing more than a mirage. Indeed our friends from the GOP will never acknowledge any progress in the economy.
It’s a given that nothing Obama or the Democrats do will ever be right to Wrongfellow. His continued negativity is a given. And it is hilarious.
Obama and the Democrats only seem to be failures if you think they are trying to improve the economy, the medical insurance system, and the mortgage crisis – all problems they created.
But if you consider the likelihood that the are intentionally trying to destroy the economy in order to frighten more Americans into accepting their unConstitutional power grab, then they are succeeding.
bud, you forget about how using diplomacy to save two US citizens from North Korea was really a failure.
Even Fix News had an article detailing how the recession was ending and that government spending played a role.
What has been funny is seeing Jindal signing the big stimulus checks over to constituents as he took credit. Even funnier will be watching the GOP representatives running for reelection on a platform of how they were against the plan that saved the economy.
I’m still praying for a Palin run in 2012…and so is every comedian.
Cash for Clunkers a success? Wow.. the government giving away free money to people and they’re lining up to take it.
Still waiting for Bud or Randy to explain the economics of how giving away free money to people to buy something stimulates the economy. And an explanation of how many cars will be sold after the free money incentive goes away.
Bud – when are you going to go tell your pizza business owner that the best way to stimulate the economy would be to cut the prices of pizzas and ask the community to make up the difference with a loan using future revenues? You’d be laughed out of his office.
This is a payoff to the auto dealers. There is no stimulus involved. People who were going to buy cars get to buy them cheaper using other people’s money.
That’s it.
No stimulus? The cars are flying off the lots. Dealers are actually worried about running out of stock. This is evident to almost everyone that the program has been a massive catalyst and is not merely rewarding those who were going to buy a car anyway (and you have NO EVIDENCE to support your claim).
The factories will have to produce more. That means more parts and supplies. That means more people are working and have money to spend. Money is circulating.
A major problem has been a credit freeze. Product has been stuck on the shelves. People layoff workers. Workers don’t make money and spend less. Inventory builds etc.
The US economy is built on consumer spending. The stimulus kick starts this.
The alternatives to stimulus are tried and untrue. Hoover made the Great Depression worse with the libertarian/conservative cut spending and taxes. W gave massive tax cuts in 01, 03 and a huge tax rebate in 08. That didn’t do the trick.
Closing your eyes and clicking your ruby shoes together is not going to make the recovery go away. It has already started. 😉
Randy,
I’ll take each of your incorrect statements one by one:
1. “This is evident to almost everyone that the program has been a massive catalyst”
A) Explain what the “catalyst” is. Aside from government money going into the pockets of dealers and car buyers getting a good deal on a car, where is the catalyst? After all these people have bought cars at $4500 off, which pool of buyers is going to step in and buy them for $4500 more? It’s an artificial price reduction funded by future tax dollars. That’s not a catalyst – it’s welfare for the auto dealers. A catalyst would have to create an environment where growth continues once the money ends. Explain how that happens.
2. “and is not merely rewarding those who were going to buy a car anyway (and you have NO EVIDENCE to support your claim).”
According to facts I have seen, the number of cars purchased with the first $1 billion was estimated to be 50,000 more than typical sales (200,000). So 200,000 people got a good deal and $1 billion was spent to encourage 50,000 people to buy a car – or $20,000 per car.
3. “the factories will have to produce more. That means more parts and supplies. That means more people are working and have money to spend. Money is circulating.”
The factories will only produce more of the cars that are qualified for cash for clunkers and only while the free money is available. And what do you think will happen to the production of non-qualified cars and their parts? Is that going to go up or
down? Simple answer. Net gain in jobs = zero. If you were right about this big boom caused by cash for clunkers, we should see an immediate drop in the unemployment rate — and don’t say it’s a lagging indicator because according to you the factories should be firing up right now.
4. “A major problem has been a credit freeze. ” Yes, a freeze caused by bad lending practices encouraged by government programs to force lenders to lend money to people who had no business borrowing it. This has been replaced by giving away government tax dollars instead, cutting out the middle man. When the money stops, the bubble bursts.
5. “The US economy is built on consumer spending. The stimulus kick starts this. ” Please explain what economic indicator will show this effect.
6. “Closing your eyes and clicking your ruby shoes together is not going to make the recovery go away. It has already started. ”
What has started? How about we check out car sales the month after the free money runs out (if ever now)? Do you truly claim that they will remain at the same levels when the incentives go away? If so, then you better call your Auntie Em.
And one more question, Randy – where is the $3 billion for Cash For Clunkers coming from? Will you at least admit that it is deficit spending that will have to be paid back in the form of higher taxes and/or higher inflation in the future?
Randy,
Another unintended consequence of Cash For Clunkers is that it has basically decimated donations to charities that take old used cars and resell them to fund social projects.
Here’s an example:
“For years, people within the northern California community have been dropping off their old cars at the Mission Solano in exchange for tax benefits. There, the cars are sold to provide much needed funding for the Mission’s work with the homeless.
Now, Marlette reported Wednesday, the cash offered by the government threatens to dry up donations of cars to the Mission.
“It is too early to know how much we will be hurt by the Cash for Clunkers program, but we know we can’t compete with the government’s checkbook,” he said. “Our donations were already down due to the economy as people are driving their old cars longer or brokering a sale themselves. The Cash for Clunkers program could shut us down.”
—
So auto dealers get $4500 and poor people go hungry which will mean more government assistance will be required.
When you mess with the free market, you get all sorts of unintended “benefits”.
You think the economy is a function where X + Y = Prosperity.
The reality is the economy is trillions of transactions with thousands of variables. Messing with one small set of variables will have an effect on other transactions. It’s a zero sum game.
A true stimulus would create technologies that are in demand worldwide so that we can generate global net imports into the U.S.
Think Japan of a few decades ago. Think Silicon Valley.
Thinking Detroit will kill the economy.
Another unintended consequence of Cash For Clunkers is that it has basically decimated donations to charities that take old used cars and resell them to fund social projects.
-Doug
Charitable contributions are down because people don’t have any money. Even the example Doug sites acknowleges as much. So with the stimulus provided by the program charities should benefit. Only vehicles that don’t qualify for the program will be lost to the car charities. Smaller cars will be unaffected. At the end of the day charities will reap an enourmous benefit because of cash for clunkers. The treasury will benefit because of the multiplier effect whereby folks spend money for cars thus stimulating the dealers, transporters of vehicles, manufacturers, parts suppliers and all the rest who now earn more money and hence pay more taxes. Everyone wins: the environment, consumers, the treasury and charities. That’s what I call a win-win-win-win.
Bud,
Did you ignore the statement from the charity organizer completely? He said “The Cash for Clunkers program could shut us down.”
What multiplier effect are you talking about? There is no additional cash in the system. What’s being multiplied?
Did the Bush rebate checks from last year do anything in terms of “multiplier effect”? They did nothing. And that was direct cash payments to 130 million families.
Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about. If giving people free government money to buy stuff works for the auto industry, why don’t we do it for everything else? Cash for Corn Chips? Cash for Clothes? Cash for Chicken Nuggets?
All I ask is that you tell me who is going to be buying the cars at the higher price when the $4500 goes away? And if $4500 is good, why not $14,500?
All you are seeing is an artificial blip based on government price controls. It’s unsustainable.
The only way this Cash For Clunkers scheme will work is if the unions cut their wages enough to make the cost of cars competitive. What we are seeing is that the public thinks cars cost about $4500 more than they are willing to pay. That $4500 is going to have to come from somewhere once the welfare ends.
“50,000 more than typical sales” – Doug
IOW, a 25% increase. That’s not a big deal, eh? Given that we just suffered the WORST recession since the 30s, an INCREASE is even more profound.
“net gain in employment = 0” ?!?! That makes no sense, Doug. Greater production at the VERY LEAST saves jobs that could have been lost. If it was your job that was cut, you wouldn’t be so cavalier about job losses.
“freeze and bubble” !??!?! You use the faulty notion that assumes that the economy would freeze up again. The freeze was caused by very unique circumstances unseen since the 30s. The economy won’t automatically freeze again. A jump start and propping up the economy are not the same thing.
It’s typical to focus on possible side effects while ignoring the fact that our economy almost collapsed. It’s like blaming a doctor for the long term pain you incurred from the emergency surgery he performed to save your life.
Doug, you can contrive all the arguments you want. Your round peg philosophy is not fitting the square hole of reality.
Here’s some more facts and expert opinions for you to ignore.. with a recent example of what happens when the discount ends… keep whistling past the graveyard, fellas..:
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, is among those predicting the “cash-for-clunkers” program will help boost consumer spending in the second half of this year. But he predicts spending will flatten out as the benefit fades.
As a result, Zandi nudged his projection for economic growth in the second half of this year slightly higher, and lowered his estimate for growth in the first half of next year.
Some analysts worry that people who used clunker cash to buy a new car or truck may cut back on other things, like clothes and home furnishings. And history suggests auto promotions gin up sales only temporarily.
In 2005, for example, General Motors offered a promotion giving shoppers the same discount employees got. That powered sales to record highs. By October, sales were flagging again.
“Once these clunker rebates expire, it is over,” said economist Richard Yamarone of Argus Research. “Consumers are not going to keep buying cars. It is a temporary one-time gimmick, not a long-lasting tonic for the recovery.”
—
Do you have any evidence of this welfare program having lasting economic impact?
post a link and I’ll vette it like I did your teen DUI claim.
Doug, your boy the “thrifty” governor has been use the state jet to get haircuts and attend his son’s football games: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32349329/ns/politics-more_politics/
vet (as opposed to the car, a vette)
Randy,
Whatever Sanford does now doesn’t concern me in the least. He should have resigned. I have noticed though the the state has somehow managed to avoid all the terrorist attacks and grave danger that you were worried about during his absence. So we got that going for us..
I don’t need to post links. Just type “cash for clunkers analysis” into Google and pick as many different viewpoints as you need to look at. Tell me if you can find a single one that says this program will have longterm beneficial economic impact — aside from the ones on WhiteHouse.gov and the DNC…
Doug, you were solidly behind Sanford and his hiatus until you heard he was off having an affair. So his fiscal efforts (and lack there of) along with his irresponsibility are perfectly ok because there was no terrorist attack. That’s certainly a low standard for the use of your tax payer dollars. It is certainly a contradiction in my book.
Support him all you want, it adds to my amusement.
Randy,
I support the ideas that Sanford presented. I still do. I don’t support Sanford. Unlike you, I am able to separate ideas from the politician. Sanford let me down more than any politician I can remember. That doesn’t mean I give up on my principles just because he gave up on his.
We’ll judge your partisanship if the economy tanks later in the winter. Then you’ll have to decide whether Obama’s “spend our way to prosperity” plan worked. To judge Cash For Clunkers after two weeks is pretty shortsighted.
And it’s funny how you ignore any evidence that contradicts your opinion on cash for clunkers. Do you not see the parallel to the employee discount program run in 2005? Do you reject the claims by leading economists that this program is just stealing future economic growth for a short term fix?
Doug, every single argument you make has at least some merit IF and only IF we were operating in an environment with full or near full employment. Take for instance this: “Some analysts worry that people who used clunker cash to buy a new car or truck may cut back on other things, like clothes and home furnishings”. People not only have not been spending money on cars, they aren’t spending it on home furnishings either. It simply makes no sense to suggest that people who spend on the cars will not spend on other stuff. The weren’t doing it before so what makes you believe they will suddenly start had the program not been implemented?
The multiplier effect is pretty basic econ 101 stuff. If person A buys a car worth 20K but does so ONLY because of cash for clunkers that 20K is now in the hands of other folks who in turn spend it on, among other things, home furnishings. Those people then spend it on restaraunt meals, TVs, toys and a host of other things. Collectively the initial $4500 antied up by the government is leveraged into many thousands of dollars as it ripples through the economy. Eventually charities benefit as well.
The only problem with the Bush May, 2008 stimulus was timing. Most of that money was saved by consumers or debt was paid down. At the end of the day it probably did soften the recession somewhat but it was way too small to prevent the economic implosion that resulted 6 months later. Bush was probably right to try with that tax cut but at the end of the day the multipier was pretty small and the impact insufficient to prevent a major recession.
Cash for clunkers by comparison, is aimed strictly and increasing spending. The initial $4500 is targeted toward one thing, spending for cars. There is no savings to dilute the impact. Plus, the program comes at a time when consumer confidence is up a bit. This was the small nudge needed to bring about a positive impact. Once the ball gets rolling other folks will get on the bandwagon and the result will be additional consumer spending, improved consumer confidence and still more spending. The teeny-tiny $3 billion dollars is likely to ripple through the economy many dozens of times, becoming a sort of economic sunami. The initial outlay will be recouped many times over.
Keep in mind this is not even what the program was about in the first place. It was designed to get gas guzzlers off the road and help with the energy situaion. Frankly the evidence for the success of this program is entirely positive. At the end of the day there is very little on the negative end of things. Thankfully we have good people in charge for a change who understand the effect of Keynsian economic stimulus. And all for pennies a day.
Doug, you decry the waste of government but turn a blind eye to Sanford’s misuse of taxes and his irresponsibility in office. That’s a contradiction.
As far as me ignoring evidence, you offered nothing but your own personal analysis. Sorry, that’s not evidence, that’s opinion.
The recession is waning. Unemployment dropped declined this past month to under 10%. The GDP contracted less than expected – a big positive surprise. The DOW is back over 9000. You continue to ignore this. Economists are predicting the recession will end within the next few months. I’ll be more than happy to address this with you this winter.
Randy
Your debating technique is unique .
When you can’t win an argument on facts, then you change topics. Somehow you turned my doubts about the cash for clunkers program into some kind of hypocrisy related to mark sanford wasting $120 0. If the story is true then sanford was wrong and has another reason to resign. How many different ways do I have to say it? Mark sanford is wrong. .but that doesn’t change my view of government waste. Its just that I think 3 billion means more than 1200. You’re too worried about staying true to Obama to be objective.
And what I posted wasn’t my analysis, it was from leading economists. You know like the ones you claim say the recession is ending.
Experts in the automobile business say automobile sales are up only 1.6% during the “Cash for Clunkers” tax subsidy.
They are saying that most of the sales are just those who were going to buy a car anyway moving up the purchase date and unloading a junk car on the taxpayers.
Let’s see if sales fall in September and October.
The only real statistics that count will be at the end of the year, to see the real YEARLY change in automobile sales.
The news about the unemployment rate falling from 3/10 of one percent is also bogus.
New unemployment claims fell by more than 300,000 in one week, but 721,000 had their unemployment benefits run out, or fell off the rolls because they stopped looking for work.
Doug, you cited “economists” but can’t/won’t post a link. I cited a news report about the recession ending and chose one from Fix News so it wouldn’t be interpreted as a bias source for Obama.
I’ve also cited specific statistics to support my claims. I didn’t invent these statistics to “stay true to Obama” I simply read them for what they are, evidence that the recession is ending.
Feel free to cite some stats and offer a link. I hardly find that a “unique approach” to a debate.
Here you go Randy. These come from the first page of a Google search on “cash for clunkers analysis”. None of these sources could be considered Republican friendly.
New York Times:
Key quote:
“The short-term effect will be obvious, but the program’s longer-term value — either as a method of stimulating the economy or saving energy — is less clear. Economists say that most buyers simply moved up the timing of their purchase, and that the projected gasoline savings are exaggerated because many of the trade-ins were seldom used.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/business/08clunker.html?hpw
CNN Money:
Key quote:
“While the Cash for Clunkers program is being hailed as a success, having apparently burned much or all its of its billion dollar budget in a matter of days, some analysts doubt the program will amount to much in the long run.
Even with more funding, the resulting boost in auto sales will amount to little more than a temporary reprieve, said Gary Dilts, an auto analyst with J.D. Power and Assoc.
“$2 billion will buy you another piece of a month,” he said, “it would buoy August into a reasonable month.”
It would also be wrong to assume that the program deals would continue at this frenzied pace, said Jeremy Anwyl, chief executive of the auto Web site Edmunds.com. ”
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/31/autos/cash_for_clunkers/index.htm
Slate.Com:
Key Quote: “Was spending $1 billion a particularly cost-effective way to achieve those CO2 reductions? Probably not. Assuming the above calculations are correct and that each consumer keeps his or her car for 10 years, then the total savings should be a little less than 5.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. That means each ton of carbon dioxide would be worth about $175.53 to the U.S. government. As the Washington Policy Center pointed out on its blog in June, a ton of CO2 currently goes for about $17.50 on the European Climate Exchange. ”
I’ll wait for your links to analysis that shows how the Cash For Clunkers program will have an economic impact once the $3 billion runs out.
Here’s the Slate.Com link…
Also was wondering why liberals think giving tax dollars for a small set of people to buy a car at a discount is somehow a more efficient way to stimulate the economy than just simply cutting taxes and letting the people spend it on whatever they want?
http://www.slate.com/id/2224306/
If the Democrat’s so-called “economic plan” is working after spending less than 10% of the $1,180 billion in pork projects, why don’t they just repeal the rest of the programs?
ANSWER: This is all about transfering wealth, from millions of honest, working taxpayers and small businesses, to the racial identity groups, unions, and big business who paid enough lobbying money to the Democrats.
From that same NYT article: “’The cash for clunkers program helps the economy a lot and improves oil security a little,’ said Jason S. Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center”
From that same CNN article: “Libby did think the program had genuinely tapped into pent up demand, however.
‘It’s going to draw in people that the forecasters didn’t think would be players,’ he said.
Mike Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation, the country’s largest auto dealership chain, agreed that the program was bringing in customers that wouldn’t have bought otherwise.”
From Yahoo Finance: “‘Cash for clunkers,’ soon to be a $3 billion program after an expected extension from Congress, comes at a critical time for the economy. Recent data suggest the country is finally emerging from the worst recession since World War II.
And clunker cash delivers more than just an isolated jolt to the auto industry. More business for auto dealers, manufacturers and parts suppliers could mean fewer layoffs or even some hiring, meaning more people are spending money throughout the economy.”
This is one piece of the puzzle. CfC is not meant to drive the recovery by itself and is helping out at a “crucial time.”
I notice that you continue to ignore the FACT that the recovery has begun.
You are easily convinced when its tour guy in the white house .
Did you see that pelosi and the white house want to spend 550 million on private planes for congress? That’s a little bit more than sanford wasted huh? Why can’t Pelosi fly coach?
Because, Doug, there’s not enough room in coach to fit her ego.
Randy doesn’t seem to grasp the concept that a tiny jump in sales due to government handouts of tax credits and cash does not mean that anything until the data for the entire year is in, to see if sales continue to increase, or if the incentives simply made people buy now the vehicles they were going to buy in a few months anyway.
Anyone who believes this cash giveaway is working has no grounds for opposing tax cuts across the board on everything else.
Look at the sales jump due to the sales tax holiday. How much were purchase which would never have been made with the sales tax in place, and how much was just timing purchases to avoid the tax?
If you want to know my take on the flights, you can either ask or you can ASSume.
So wasteful spending of taxes is relative? So Sanford can waste money as long as he’s not the worst? He can be irresponsible and skip out on the state as long as he’s not the worst offender?
The tour guide retort is lame.
Again, you ignore the prevailing evidence that the recovery has started.
Randy,
A blip is not a trend. Can you at least wait until December to decide if Obama is all powerful?
Yes, there is some degree of relativity in terms of government waste. Sanford’s $1200 haircut flight should result in him resigning. Pelosi’s $550 million dollar air fleet should result in impeachment. They’re both wrong but one IS far, far worse than the other. Do you agree that Sanford and Pelosi should be held to the same standard with the same consequences? I do.
As for “tour guide” – that just proves you don’t read what I write. I wrote “tour guy” which was a typo for “your guy”. I know how to spell “guide”.
Doug, you typed incorrectly but then criticize me for misreading what you wrote? Okaaayyyy…
The “blip” is interpreted quite differently by the economists than by Doug Ross.
Regarding the planes, there is certainly something questionable about CONGRESS (hardly Pelosi herself) ordering the private jets during this economic situation. I’m happy to discuss this as an issue in of itself. BTW, the practice of the speaker flying like this was established with Hastert as a post 9-11 precaution.
To compare the use of these jets with Sanfraud, who was flying to get a haircut or to watch a football game, is disingenuous regardless of cost. Again, you sided against him only after you learned of the affair.
We haven’t even touched on his use of private email to circumvent transparency which he also claimed to champion – add that to the growing list of examples of hypocrisy on his part.
Randy, take it from this economist, and thousands of others – the economic recovery has not begun.
The total number of unemployed is increasing every week.
Business investment is not being made. Tens of billions of construction projects were put on hold with the nomination and the election of Barack Obama, and they are still on hold.
Banks are still not lending money to business, because lending to business is almost always for expansion or for financing of a contracted project.
If Congress persists in its illegal efforts to force small business to provide medical insurance to employees or face an 8% surtax on payrolls, this current recession will look good compared to the next wave of layoffs.
$550 million air fleets, ridiculous taxpayer-funded airplane trips, blah, blah, blah…
Bitch about their misdeeds but keep voting for the morons that control this country as if you expect something different — y’all are a trip.
Birch,
Don’t blame me. I voted for Ron Paul.
The only way to get the crooks out of office is:
a) Term limits
b) Shrink government so there is less to steal
If government were the small size described in the Constitution, there would be no wealth transfer programs, no industry subsidies, no bailouts, no government loans to buy houses and start flaky businesses…. and few reasons for anyone to lobby and bribe politicians for favorable treatment or “protection money”.
The GOP base is realizing that they have to get rid of the incumbents like Lindsay Graham and Bob Inglis who keep selling them out, and selling out America, in compromises with the radicals who control the Democratic Party.
Ron Paul is the guy who was against legislation to make discrimination in restaurants illegal. Good thing the GOVERNMENT and elected officials stepped in!
Ron Paul was not even in office when the federal government passed so-called “civil rights” laws which defined private businesses as “public” establishments.
So what’s your point, Randy?
Restaurants can still discriminate against customers based on dress and manners, or means of payment.
The government has taken away most rights to decide if they will permit smoking, where, when, and how much.
I TOLD YOU SO: No recovery
New jobless claims rise unexpectedly to 558,000
AP – The number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly last week, while the tally of continuing claims fell.
The only way to get the crooks out of office is:
a) Term limits
I’m with you there, Doug. Along with a balanced budget amendment, this is the action I want to see most happen in Washington. Unfortunately, that would require our elected congressman to pass a bill directly to their detriment. Even though it would clearly benefit this country, there is absolutely not a chance in hell it would ever happen. Of course, we’ll never see any kind of balanced budget legislation either. Those two things would require real change — something that every president in our lifetimes has promised and failed to deliver upon.
But of course, we do need real change in Washington. You know, I could probably be like Brad and be a lessor-of-the-two-evils-voter; I could vote whichever R or D seems more palatable at the time if I didn’t believe we were on an unsustainable path to the destruction of this country. It’s nice that people like Brad want to slow down our country’s ruin. But eventually we’re going to need to turn this car around instead of occasionally tapping the breaks or we’re still going to go off the cliff.
I guess I shouldn’t be too hard on the Brads of America. After all, they’ll probably be gone and avoid the worst. It’s their children and grandchildren who will get it. Younger people like me do not have that same luxury of picking the lessor of the two evils. Nor do we have the luxury of letting these same politicians stay in Washington for decades playing their little game at our expense. And we most certainly cannot have these clowns, in order to get re-elected, continuously giving their constituents whatever they want while passing the cost to future generations.
For those who vote for these same ol politicians, I have the utmost contempt.
Birch, I find your position overly simplistic.
First, name a large system or organization that works without major flaws. Your boy Jefferson, as great as he was, dirtied his hands. His effort to forcibly remove native Indians from their lands is perhaps his greatest black mark.
Second, there are politicians who make an effort to do a lot of good. Obama has certainly attempted to reach out to republicans and to do good. For example, he specifically asked the autism community how he could help with the result being a bill to end insurance discrimination against kids with autism (currently, insurance does not cover treatment). In SC, Lourie has done a great deal of good. For example, he pushed a domestic violence bill which is especially important in SC given that is at the top of states in D.V. cases.
Government can do a lot of good as well as bad. It’s not black and white.
You’re right Randy, it’s not that simplistic. I didn’t mean to make the point that government is bad. I did not mean to make the point that they do no good. I don’t believe those two things are true either.
Social security has done good too. But it is not sustainable — not without major reforms anyway. Likewise our government does lots of good. You mention Obama’s autism efforts. Great. You just proved governments can do could things. I never disagreed. I never said they were evil. I’m not anti-government. I’m against corruption and consolidation of power.
Your comment on Jefferson, though out of place because I never said he was “my boy”, does not hinder my thinking. If he, being “great” as you say, was able to do things like that, how much moreso are today’s leaders who certainly are not “great”.
History is not on your side. Has there been a government on this earth that did not seek to centralize its power and become more corrupt? Has there been one that has stood the test of time? Maybe there has been, but it’s a rare thing. Ours is a young country. What makes you think it will survive when its leaders bow to special interests? What makes you think think it can survive leaders who rarely do something if it will hurt their relection chances? What makes you think it can survive our public debt problem?
I fear you totally missed my point. Government is not evil. Our leaders our not evil. What they are is human. And humans in power are very susceptible to corruption.
I intentionally did not copy and paste Doug’s “shrink government” comment to avoid the big government/small government argument that goes around and around in circles.
My support of balanced budgets and term limits does not amount to being against government.
If the Constitution were obeyed, we wouldn’t be debating larger government. Congress has no authority to create a socialistic health care system, nor to tell employers that they must provide a certain benefit, especially when it costs more than the net profits of the business.
Those who created the Constitution never envisioned such a corrupt government, fueled by rampant borrowing, taxing future generations without representation.
One solution is to remedy that with a Constitutional amendment outlawing borrowing for any purpose but a declared war, and the holders of that debt can only be individual citizens, not banks, pension funds, or foreigners.
Abolish the income tax, and fund government out of import duties and excise taxes of no more than 10% of the retail price of the goods.