“Occupy Wall Street”

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

Heh, heh! I'm sure you will find many Democrats willing to support your plan of more spending now.

 

 

Shucks --- we spent trillions on bail out and stimulus bills. That's not enough? We are in the midst of rapidly inflating commodity prices because of all the money we've added -- you want MORE?

 

In my view, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that 1) we need to cut spending to reduce inflation rates and prevent inflation from spiraling out of control 2) we need to reduce government spending because we are so loaded with debt and the world is so flooded with dollars that we have a real risk of financial crisis if the world no longer buys our debt.

 

Yes, unemployment is bad. Financial collapse due to runaway inflation and the collapse of the dollar would be a lot worse.

 

In my judgment, cutting spending is a much higher priority than more spending. The world knows we can spend, it has very limited confidence that we can cut spending.

 

Taking risks to cut spending, such as by delaying the debt increase bill, are chances worth taking in my opinion.

 

In short --- I think the Tea Party has reasonable ideas, and is taking political chances in order to turn them into public policy.

 

By contrast, you support the very conventional idea of more government spending. While you may carefully parse what you'd like to spend on, as a practical matter more spending is going to be more spending on everything. Business as usual.

 

For all you protest, you appear to be in the "D" category AS A PRACTICAL MATTER to me. Not that there's anything wrong with THAT!

 

 

Are you inclined to support Obama's re election, or perhaps Mitt Romney?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

[SeattlePioneer]

This really seems>

 

 

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016486612_westlakeprotest13m.html like spoiled, sniveling behavior:

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Heh, heh! I'm sure you will find many Democrats willing to support your plan of more spending now.

 

Yah, sure. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

But yeh do point out da fundamental problem. This isn't a football game. Despite what da politicians do, it's not about "keeping score" or "scoring points" against da Democrats. It's about being a patriot and doin' what's right for the country. If the other side has a point, that's a good thing, even if they don't have da right reason for it. It makes 'em more willing to work with yeh and accept cuts to the programs they defend, like SS and Medicare.

 

The TP'ers were so busy "scoring points" this summer that they missed a fantastic opportunity to advance 90% of their agenda and do right by the country. That's why they're unfit to govern.

 

As for da rest of it, you've been da victim of a political campaign that took a few true facts and then misled yeh with those sound bites.

 

It's true, long-term structural deficits pose an eventual risk of investors demanding higher yields on our bonds. But that's not true right now. Right now, the demand for our bonds is so high that our yields are at record lows. It's like saying "long term, mortgage interest rates are going to go way up" and therefore refusing to take out a fixed-rate 30 year mortgage right now at 1%. It's stupid as a business decision. In fact, da more yeh refinance now or borrow to invest now, the less risk you'll have long term.

 

You're right, that in an ordinary business cycle, more spending by private and public entities can reduce labor supply and lead to wage and price inflation. But does it seem to you like we're at risk of havin' a labor shortage at da moment? Where you're wrong is that this isn't an ordinary business cycle. Da fed has held zero percent interest rates and has pumped money into the economy by the lakeful, and inflation has gone... up a percent, and as you mention only through commodity speculation. Da banks, rather than loaning to businesses to grow jobs have been gambling in da commodities market. That's not real inflation, that's bubble-ville.

 

That's why government spending on infrastructure investment is vastly better than monetary policy action by da Federal Reserve. It actually employs private industry, puts people to work, encourages private investment. Fed monetary policy just dumps dollars into the big banks, where da risks are higher and the returns are lower. A sound conservative would rather see infrastructure investment in da private economy than da jiggering of monetary policy.

 

You're right, da stimulus bill was Democrat inspired, and it therefore was poorly targeted toward government stuff. It managed to keep da state and local governments from massive cuts and layoffs for two years, which helped, but not as much as it could have. But we got hit with a $2.8 trillion depression and we threw $800 billion at it. We still took a $1.5 trillion wallop (dependin' on how yeh count TARP). And as a result we're still in what is really a depression, Japanese-style. Yeh don't cut spending in a depression, it's self-destructive.

 

So yah, there's some truth to what yeh say. That's da way politicians lie to yeh. They tell yeh some truth, and then yeh buy all da rest of their nonsense because yeh don't do your homework.

 

For the near-term, there can be no "collapse" of the American dollar, because there is no alternative. Do yeh think people are goin' to go running to the Euro? To the rupee?

 

Some inflation is a good thing, because it reflects our real economic condition and would enhance American manufacturing competitiveness, working to reduce unemployment. There's a reason why China deliberately inflates its currency, eh? It builds manufacturing base through exports, putting people to work and keeping its economy growing. That's somethin' yeh oppose?

 

So stop tryin' to score points, and think about da country rather than the party. And more importantly, stop listening to politician and lobby sound bites like a lazy democrat. Be a real conservative and do your bloody homework.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Beavah]

Yeh know, the dumb Democrats make the same sort of argument you just made. If we tax luxury goods, it will only affect the rich and we'll get more revenues. It sounds reasonable, eh? Nobody has sympathy for da fellow who buys 12 private airplanes, and they cost a lot so revenues should be high. Makes a great sound bite, and there are Democrats who would say "In short, I think that's on the right track.".

 

Da truth is, though, that when yeh tax luxury goods yeh put ds regular people who build those goods out of work, and yeh actually can reduce tax revenues. Da real world doesn't work like the sound bite or "common sense" suggests.

 

You're doin' exactly the same thing. Research and infrastructure investment lead to economic growth, which in turn leads to more jobs and more tax revenue and therefore lower deficits. Think GPS or da federal highway system. Big government projects invested in infrastructure. They generated many, many times their original cost in economic growth and resultant tax revenue. Long term, they reduced the net debt.

 

So except when interest rates are high, yeh should invest in such things. When interest rates are effectively negative, yeh should go hog wild investing in such things because it's the best possible way to lower the long term structural deficit. If yeh really care about the debt, and the country, that's what yeh have to do. But it's da wrong choice if all yeh care about is scoring political points for your team.

 

Beavah

[Lisabob]

OK Beavah, I've about had it with the name calling.

 

If you aren't a Democrat, that's fine. I am, and I'm proud of that fact. Your labeling of Democrats as "dumb" and "lazy" is getting a bit old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Lisa, he's not doing this to beat YOU over the head, so don't take it so hard. Beavah's wielding that 2x4 because he's trying to wake up SeattlePioneer. But what he's really doing is not casting aspersions...he's casting pearls. And SeattlePioneer is making my case. The Tea Party will succeed in their unintentional 'plan' by obstructing - and NOTHING will get done. It simply IS what it IS.

[vol_scouter]

Packsaddle,

 

It can be said that nothing will get done because the democrats will not compromise with the republicans who had a substantial win in the last election. It is not the Tea Party's fault - it is both parties that are to blame. Considering the last election, the democrats should be making the most concessions.

[Beavah]

Considering the last election, the democrats should be making the most concessions.

 

Nah, that's not the way it works in da U.S., eh? We stagger elections for a reason. Da Republic was designed deliberately so that the most volatile body (the House) couldn't go off and do things willy-nilly based on a single election. The founders thought that kind of democracy was dangerous. Shame the Tea Partiers never got da memo about understanding and following the Constitution.

 

Besides, if we used "who won da most in the most recent election" as a metric, then the Republicans should have rolled over on every issue after 2006 and 2008.

 

Right now, the Democrats have won enough elections to control the Senate and the Executive, or 2/3 of the bodies required to pass legislation. So they're in the driver's seat, and they should be. Their agenda should be allowed to move forward, with appropriate checks and compromises with da majority party in the House.

 

Despite that, the President offered to cave in, with $4 trillion of cuts including cuts to entitlement programs in exchange for modest tax increases. It was a poor strategic move for Obama, but then he's been a lousy legislative strategist overall. Only da Tea Party Right could possibly have turned that down in favor of a smaller set of unspecified future cuts from a "commission" and da opportunity to cause a default and a credit downgrade. Madness.

 

Beavah

 

[nolesrule]

I agree with Beavah, and so do economists. That's "economists", not "communists".

 

Whatever happened to "You have to spend money to make money"?

[vol_scouter]

Nolerule,

 

That applies only to the private sector.

[nolesrule]

Certainly not. In what manner you spend the money is somewhat different, but the principle is the same. Cash flow and growth are the keys to a thriving economy.

 

People tend to ignore the cash flow issue and focus on the buzzwords with big red numbers like debts and deficits.

 

You know what hurts cash flow? CEOs taking 2-digit millions in bonuses and laying off thousands of workers at the same time so that they can earn the bonus by decreasing expenses rather than actually trying to increase revenues. 1000 people making $40,000/year will put more money back into the economy (and thus increase revenues from taxes for all levels of government) than one person who gets that $50-million bonus.

 

We've heard the trickle down idea before. I still don't buy it, because it overlooks the natural propensity toward greed and the hording of wealth.

 

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Beavah,

 

 

 

We go hog wild selling debt EVERY month just rolling over existing bonds that are maturing.

 

 

Our debt loads preclude us from yet more spending for economic pump priming, as far as I'm concerned.

 

And we've already done a trillion dollars in economic pump priming. You want what--- another billion? Two billion?

 

Enough is enough.

 

You are welcome to promote your program of greatly expanded spending. It has no appeal to me.

 

 

[BadenP]

Beav and SP

 

Look you guys have been quoting quite a bit of unsubstantiated and basically false information on your long, too long ongoing diatribe. This thread was talking about the protestors and you guys have turned it into the Beavah and Seattle Pionneer opininated syllabus of political and economic policy of the USA. Neither of you are in power to effect any change, the name calling is getting irritating, as Lisabob pointed out, and your total monopolization of two threads is getting a little tiring. Let it go already, please!!!!

[sherminator505]

"Beav & SP"! A spinoff from the "Ed & Merlyn" show?

[CalicoPenn]

"If you've watched my postings, I also haven't agreed with da arguments of Democrats, as Calico and NJ have yelled at me on many an occasion."

 

Beavah, I can see how you might get the impression that I'm a Democrat, though I've said often enough I'm not. That socially liberal thinking and all, as well as a willingness to see a social safety net funded, as well as continued funding for such things as NPR, PBS, National Parks, Forests and Wildlife Refuges, alternative energy, education, health, etc. etc. The only thing is that I'm one of them pesky independents - note the small I. If there were an Independent Party, I would not be a member. I've voted for Republicans and Democrats and Greens. I agree with the fiscal positions you've been posting - those have been good, old-fashioned Republican fiscal values for decades. I think we only disagree on scope a lot of times.

 

"Whatever happened to "You have to spend money to make money"?

That applies only to the private sector."

 

Hmmm - I guess all those studies showing that governments that spend wisely on tourism promotion receive more money back than is spent is just utter hogwash then. Good to know.