What happened to the other billion$

[Lenny]

Now THE ONE wants to follow good money with bad. The height of stupidity is to do the same failing thing over expecting a different result.

 

[hvp05]

“these provisions must be passed as quickly as possible.”

Everything is an emergency to him... except when it actually IS an emergency. Then he calls it tee time.

 

[aps45819]

President Obama is pressing Congress to approve emergency aid money to support economic recovery and help avoid widespread layoffs of public workers, the Washington Post reported Saturday.....
Obama, however, expressed that spending and national debt reduction could go hand-in-hand.
“These measures to jump-start private sector job creation, avoid massive layoffs at the local and state levels and help the unemployed are critical and timely ways to further that economic recovery,” the president wrote, adding that “robust economic growth is essential for achieving deficit reduction.

How does that man walk with those big balls. Stands up and says that saving GOVERNMENT jobs will jump start the private economy. Who the hell is going to pay for the government?

 

[Matthew]

How does that man walk with those big balls. Stands up and says that saving GOVERNMENT jobs will jump start the private economy. Who the hell is going to pay for the government?

The "Rich"people These are so defined by the Administration as :

1. Tea Baggers
2. Those who have the temerity to own their own property instead of giving it
to the "less fortunate" (AKA chronically known as too lazy to go out and
earn the same)
3. Registered republicans who "refuse to see the light"
4, Legal immigrants who follow the rules and have the "audacity" to believe
and live the American Idea.
5. The actually wealthy who worked to be that way, yet don't toe the ad-
ministration'x line, not Hollywood politically corrected, or sycophants of
Oprah, Sharpton, Jackson et al.

 

[vraiblonde]

Do Obama and this Congress just think that there's a bottomless piggyback at their disposal? I've said before that Democrats don't appear to understand where government money actually comes from, and they are set out to prove it.

 

[Vince]

Obama’s plea comes despite last year’s $787 billion economic stimulus package, which worked to stabilize the failing economy, but did little to help the country’s high unemployment rate. At 9.7 percent, unemployment is nearly the same as it was a year ago.

Many economists are optimistic that packages such as this one could lower unemployment, but member of neither party seem eager to allow further spending; Republican concerns over record deficits are making Democrats think twice about approving more of Obama’s costly initiatives, the Post reported.

Let's see, a $787 Billion stimulus package didn't lower unemployment, but another bailout of $50 billion will. Is there something I missed in math when I went to school? And like vrai said, they still don't understand where the billions actually come from. Duh. They think as long as they keep printing it, we have money.

 

[ImnoMensa]

Do Obama and this Congress just think that there's a bottomless piggyback at their disposal? I've said before that Democrats don't appear to understand where government money actually comes from, and they are set out to prove it.

They know where it comes from all right, that is why they raise taxes, but it's getting slowly to the bottom of the well.

The blood they are squeezing from this turnip is about to run out.

Now they are squeezing the seed. (your grandkids.)

 

[Sweet 16]

Do Obama and this Congress just think that there's a bottomless piggyback at their disposal? I've said before that Democrats don't appear to understand where government money actually comes from, and they are set out to prove it.

Yes, they do. Liberals in general have a child-like view of the world and don't want to face reality because it goes against their utopian ideal. They live in a fantasy land where money grows on trees and all they need to do is make a wish and sprinkle a little pixie dust to make more.

 

[Matthew]

Yes, they do. Liberals in general have a child-like view of the world and don't want to face reality because it goes against their utopian ideal. They live in a fantasy land where money grows on trees and all they need to do is make a wish and sprinkle a little pixie dust to make more.

The trouble with the liberal left mindset is that in their fantasy world all the ogres and monsters are white and their victims are a rainbow color of faces. Well whatever they are smoking .....
The reality they REFUSE to see is that concerned Americans come in every shade and hue, but the Dream that these concerned Americans share is the same: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. attained by themselves. From what I have seen, read and heard, liberals want to level the playing field all right, but not just to one but several levels.

 

[hvp05]

I considered making a new thread for this, but it can play as well here: Liberals fail Econ 101.

Many people seem to believe that political positions (left vs. right) are merely matters of opinion with neither being totally "right". That can be debatable over something ideological (e.g., abortion), but not when it comes to the more tangible things like money.

 

[Tilted]

I considered making a new thread for this, but it can play as well here: Liberals fail Econ 101.

Many people seem to believe that political positions (left vs. right) are merely matters of opinion with neither being totally "right". That can be debatable over something ideological (e.g., abortion), but not when it comes to the more tangible things like money.

The fundamental problem with liberal fiscal ideology is that it fails to contemplate the relativistic nature of the Universe.

Doing my best to avoid getting too deep into an exploration of this subject (after all, nobody wants to read a 2,000 page treatise from me on the shortcomings, and systemic lack of insight, of modern economic theory ), I'd just say that current thinking in most of the soft sciences (which, for the purposes of this point, I am considering economics to be one of) is at least a century or so behind that of the hardest sciences, in that it hasn't come to grips with - or even recognized to a sufficient degree - the underlying relative nature of all dynamics in the Universe. The soft sciences don't get that 'classical' models (i.e. ones that don't take into account the fundamental importance of frame-of-reference, akin to the Newtonian models within Physics) can't speak with accurate precision about what is really going on, and thus aren't always accurate predictors of what will result from a given set of circumstances. Such models break down when they come into contact with large scales and high velocities.

For the sake of a briefer discussion, I'll (over) simplify liberal and conservative fiscal ideology as socialism and capitalism (using such terms very simplistically, merely to represent poles on a linear scale). Socialism is not evil at heart, it's just naive and misguided. It seeks to mitigate (in the extreme, to eliminate) disparity in prosperity, thinking that it can do so without sacrificing overall prosperity (and actual individuality prosperity, as opposed to relative individual prosperity) in the process. It is mistaken, it can not. Its mistake derives from its failure to appreciate the relative nature of the Universe and all that happens within it.

On the other hand, what solid, enlightened conservative fiscal ideology there is, doesn't gloss over disparity in prosperity, nor does it have that disparity as an inherent goal. It simply recognizes that the goals - equality in prosperity, and increased actual individual and overall prosperity - are necessarily competing. There's no way around that reality. Such ideology would be happy to have complete equality in prosperity, if the pursuit or attainment of the same wouldn't reduce actual individual and overall prosperity. It needs to be specified that I am not just referring to reduced prosperity for those at the top of the prosperity spectrum, but also - and perhaps more importantly - for those at the bottom of the spectrum. The majority of those individuals benefit from disparity as well (in actual terms, though obviously not in relative terms).

Point being, the consideration of socialist policy versus capitalist policy (i.e. meddling with natural phenomena and trying to overpower them versus accepting and working within them) isn't the consideration of all at level 40 versus a range of 1 - 100, it is the consideration of all at level 2 versus a range of 1 - 100. it is a question of suffering equally or prospering unequally. Socialism chooses suffering equally, though it doesn't do so in full awareness of what the actual choices are. The failure of modern economics to appreciate the relativity that underlies all phenomena causes socialism to misconstrue the choices and, accordingly, to opt for that which isn't offered, which results in the effectuation of the clearly less desirable of the choices which actually are offered. Capitalism isn't cold-hearted and unconcerned, it's pragmatic and realistic - it seeks the best for everyone, even if the best isn't the same for everyone and thus, sometimes, appears very bad when viewed in relative terms. Socialism is the cold-hearted ideology, albeit it is through naivety rather than desire. It seeks equality for everyone, even if that equality isn't good for them when considered in actual terms.

You must have disparity to have recognition. You must have recognition to have aspiration. You must have aspiration to have prosperity.

 

[Tilted]

Do Obama and this Congress just think that there's a bottomless piggyback at their disposal? I've said before that Democrats don't appear to understand where government money actually comes from, and they are set out to prove it.

'This isn't the kind of money you can run out of.'

As far as money goes, there is a bottomless piggyback - we can't run out of it unless we want to. However, the value that underlies that money is limited - we can't just imagine that into existence. It is what it is - though not exactly fixed, it depends on real world happenings and activity.

So, when we treat our monetary piggyback as bottomless, we just devalue the money, in real world terms, that exists. We've got as much of it as we want to have, it'll just have to be worth less the more of it we get. In effect, we steal stored value from those who have any money. The effect is kinda hidden though, so don't tell anyone that has a Dollar in their pocket or bank account - they might get mad about it being stolen.

 

[SamSpade]

Do Obama and this Congress just think that there's a bottomless piggyback at their disposal? I've said before that Democrats don't appear to understand where government money actually comes from, and they are set out to prove it.

They do seem to think if you take a 100 dollar bill out of your back pocket and put it in your front pocket, you now have 100 "new" dollars to spend.