The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

Depends...are you willing to never again complain about government spending until we're back close to full employment?

 

There was a fun meme running last week saying that the best thing that could happen for the global economy is an imaginary invasion threat by aliens. It would provoke governments into large spending programs on materials, bring a lot of people back into employement, and since aliens aren't a country...no one would actually have to die.

 

Cutting back on defense spending now = fewer jobs. Cutting back on spending on education or infrastructure by the same amount = fewer jobs than if those cuts were in defense.

 

If you tell us we need fewer jobs and the government has to be cut, then we may as well cut from defense, since that'll do less economic damage than if the cuts came from elsewhere.

 

[Balta1701]

Really, you want to tell me that spending money on a tank is better for the economy than spending money on 100 teachers? Or on a road? Rail line, whatever?

[southsider2k5]

Really, you want to tell me that spending money on a tank is better for the economy than spending money on 100 teachers? Or on a road? Rail line, whatever?

 

In terms of economic impact, it would vary greatly. The biggest differences being that some of the programs you are talking about actually have people paying taxes, and many don't. So if you are talking about a tank or welfare, yes the economic impact is going to be greater, especially for beloved government spending, because they will actually get some money back from that spending. The economic impact of infrastructure will also be less, because after the initial spending, the work is gone, which is why the labor union giveaway version of the stimulus is also so short sighted. You'll get timesavings impact potentially, most likely temporary as more traffic moves to fill the added capacity, but then again if no one is working because the job was temporary, where are they driving to exactly?

 

But then that is where you are missing the whole point of an actually successful stimulus program. It isn't supposed to be to create temporary work for the President's favor donors, it is supposed to be to spur the private sector into a recovery, so the government doesn't have to be the one supporting everyone.

[NorthSideSox72]

Really, you want to tell me that spending money on a tank is better for the economy than spending money on 100 teachers? Or on a road? Rail line, whatever?

I've pointed out before... We have spent about $1T on the Iraq war, but itself. $1T that also killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, with zero payoff. We could have spent that same $1T, over a 10 year span, and according to at least one study I've read, be very close to energy independent as a nation.

 

Someone want to try to tell me, with a straight face, that the Iraq War was a better use of a trillion dollars than making the US energy independent (and largely on sustainable energy sources)?

 

[Balta1701]

In terms of economic impact, it would vary greatly. The biggest differences being that some of the programs you are talking about actually have people paying taxes, and many don't. So if you are talking about a tank or welfare, yes the economic impact is going to be greater, especially for beloved government spending, because they will actually get some money back from that spending. The economic impact of infrastructure will also be less, because after the initial spending, the work is gone, which is why the labor union giveaway version of the stimulus is also so short sighted. You'll get timesavings impact potentially, most likely temporary as more traffic moves to fill the added capacity, but then again if no one is working because the job was temporary, where are they driving to exactly?

 

But then that is where you are missing the whole point of an actually successful stimulus program. It isn't supposed to be to create temporary work for the President's favor donors, it is supposed to be to spur the private sector into a recovery, so the government doesn't have to be the one supporting everyone.

The thing that really bugs me about this post is that if you subbed in "Tax cuts", I'd actually agree 100%, and you'd disagree 100%.

 

You're completely right on most of the logic here...that the best thing you can do for stimulus is taking people off the rolls of the unemployed and adding them to the employed...and that the government actually saves a ton of money on that deal right now since that's taking people off of unemployment and Medicaid and moving them into jobs.

 

That's exactly the argument I made for why tax cuts are ineffective as stimulus and tax increases are only a weak negative on the economy, while infrastructure investment is a strong positive and job cuts are a big negative.

 

The one different point I can make on "Welfare" as you call it (which is, at this point, a very small program), or if you want to lump in unemployment benefits as well go ahead...is that in those cases, the money gets spent almost every time because the people receiving it actually have very little other income. That increases the multiplier in those cases. But you're completely right...the best thing you can do is take people who are unemployed and actually employ them in good jobs.

 

Some of your post is incoherent though. The benefit of infrastructure is less than that of building a tank because once the infrastructure is built the benefit goes away? The exact same standard applies to hiring people to build tanks...unless you destroy the tank, once you build the tank, you no longer employ anyone to build it. Except if you built a road, or solar panels, whatever, you continue to get economic benefits from having that new road or power plant...whereas if you have a tank, it sits around unless something needs blown up. Also...the obligatory shot at unions doesn't work that well when you're defending spending that also goes to unionize defense contractors.

[kapkomet]

There are way more non-union shops then union shops that supply the defense industry. I'm not talking Boeing, LMA, Northrop Grumman, etc. There are literally millions of workers that support these lines in some shape or form that aren't union.

[Balta1701]

There are way more non-union shops then union shops that supply the defense industry. I'm not talking Boeing, LMA, Northrop Grumman, etc. There are literally millions of workers that support these lines in some shape or form that aren't union.

But only the union ones count. Otherwise you couldn't say that Obama is selling out to unions. Like in construction.

[kapkomet]

But only the union ones count. Otherwise you couldn't say that Obama is selling out to unions. Like in construction.

 

 

Well of course he is. In non-defense industries. He can't sell out to *gasp* jet makers. That's for the rich!

[Balta1701]

Well of course he is. In non-defense industries. He can't sell out to *gasp* jet makers. That's for the rich!

Which is why you plan to vote for Obama in 2012 since he's boosted defense spending right? Otherwise you don't mean your complaints and you just don't like him personally.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/201...apons02-ON.html

 

VIENNA - The U.N. nuclear agency said Wednesday it is "increasingly concerned" about a stream of intelligence information suggesting that Iran continues to work secretly on developing a nuclear payload for a missile and other components of a nuclear weapons program.

 

In its report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said "many member states" are providing evidence for that assessment, describing the information it is receiving as credible, "extensive and comprehensive."

 

The report was made available Friday to The Associated Press, shortly after being shared internally with the 35 IAEA member nations and the U.N. Security Council. It also said Tehran has fulfilled a promise made earlier this year and started installing equipment to enrich uranium at a new location - an underground bunker that is better protected from air attack than its present enrichment facilities.

 

Enrichment can produce both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material, and Tehran - which says it wants only to produce fuel with the technology - is under four sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze enrichment, which it says it needs for fuel only.

 

It also denies secretly experimenting with a nuclear weapons program and has blocked a four-year attempt by the IAEA to follow up on intelligence that it secretly designed blueprints linked to a nuclear payload on a missile, experimented with exploding a nuclear charged, and conducted work on other components of a weapons program.

 

In a 2007 estimate, the U.S. intelligence community said that while Iran had worked on a weapons program such activities appeared to have ceased in 2003. But diplomats say a later intelligence summary avoided such specifics, and recent IAEA reports on the topic have expressed growing unease that such activities may be continuing.

 

The phrase "increasingly concerned" has not appeared in previous reports discussing Iran's alleged nuclear weapons work and reflects the frustration felt by IAEA chief Yukiya Amano over the lack of progress in his investigations.

 

His report said the increased concern is due to the "possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities" linked to weapons work. In particular, said the report, the agency continues to receive new information about "activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

 

Acquired from "many" member states, the information possessed by the IAEA is "extensive and comprehensive ... (and) broadly consistent and credible," said the report.

 

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/201...l#ixzz1WobI28do

[kapkomet]

Which is why you plan to vote for Obama in 2012 since he's boosted defense spending right? Otherwise you don't mean your complaints and you just don't like him personally.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. Oh, you want to count the wars that Bush started. It's his fault.

[Balta1701]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Oh, you want to count the wars that Bush started. It's his fault.

Here is defense spending (although on a per capita basis) from Wikipedia. Notice the lack of a downward motion prior to the present day line.

 

The administration defense budget request this year was for $556 billion, not counting the wars. Last year's budget proposed $549 billion, but the Congress never passed a budget and just ran on continuing resolutions so I don't have a "Hard spending number" for this year. It's somewhere around $526 billion.

[StrangeSox]

What's that sharp drop-off, an assumption that they'll come up with a debt deal that cuts a significant portion of military spending? Or Iraq/Afghanistan phase-outs?

[Balta1701]

What's that sharp drop-off, an assumption that they'll come up with a debt deal that cuts a significant portion of military spending? Or Iraq/Afghanistan phase-outs?

That dropoff is the proposed end of the Iraq war. The war request for this year was actually the lowest in years ($117 billion for both and shrinking with time).

[mr_genius]

Obamanomics manages to create 0 jobs last month. A total failure.

[Balta1701]

Obamanomics manages to create 0 jobs last month. A total failure.

What are you complaining about? There were another 17,000 government jobs cut. That's great news!

[mr_genius]

What are you complaining about? There were another 17,000 government jobs cut. That's great news!

 

Your celebratory post about people losing their jobs is terrible

Edited September 3, 2011 by mr_genius

[Cknolls]

The silence from the port side with respect to the fast and furious boondoggle is deafening. The media is silent as are all the Obama apologists. f***ing hilarious. Get a federal killed and nothing happens. Oh wait that's right, you get a promotion to Washington so they shut you up. Unbelievable. I love hope and change. The only that thing that changed was the color of the President.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Cknolls

[EvilMonkey]

I wonder if this was financed with any of the aid they get from us and Europe? I bet it could easily house a few hundred 'refugees'.

 

[The Sir]

The silence from the port side with respect to the fast and furious boondoggle is deafening. The media is silent as are all the Obama apologists. f***ing hilarious. Get a federal killed and nothing happens. Oh wait that's right, you get a promotion to Washington so they shut you up. Unbelievable. I love hope and change. The only that thing that changed was the color of the President.

 

People need to start going to prison for this one.

[EvilMonkey]

People need to start going to prison for this one.

But when it is Democrats involved, it is always the intention that matters, the nuance, the background. They were trying to get rid of that pesky second amendment by ginning up stats to help their case, so if they broke a few laws, got a few people killed along the way, well, it was for the greater good. They meant well.

[The Sir]

But when it is Democrats involved, it is always the intention that matters, the nuance, the background. They were trying to get rid of that pesky second amendment by ginning up stats to help their case, so if they broke a few laws, got a few people killed along the way, well, it was for the greater good. They meant well.

 

Same goes for civility.

, but then professional crook, Maxine Waters, told the Tea Party to go to Hell, and professional dips***, Joe Biden, called the Tea Party terrorists and told union members that they are the only ones keeping the barbarians at the gates. And then there was Jimmy Hoffa ordering his goon subordinates to take those Tea Party "sons-of-b****es" out. Obama, of course, was proud of him.

 

"Civility" is just a bulls*** catchphrase that leftist morons use to censor the opposition. It doesn't apply to them nor was it ever intended to. The only people who need to behave in a civil manner are us evil, racist rightwingers.

 

Also, on a personal note, I love when idiots like Jimmy Hoffa talk about war, or some goof like Ted Rall goes and tells Dylan Ratigan that it's time for a violent revolution against the right in this country. These clowns are barking up the wrong f***ing tree.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

Just a thought: if 'progressives' had no qualms about selling guns against the law to Mexico that killed lots of people in order to try and bend public opinion to their side of gun control debates, would it be a stretch to think that some forward thinking progressive activist could be setting some fires in Texas to somehow try and make Rick Perry look bad? I would normally say that would require a big tin foil hat, but after the gunwalker scandal and other things, you just never know anymore.

[StrangeSox]

lol

[BigSqwert]

Just a thought: if 'progressives' had no qualms about selling guns against the law to Mexico that killed lots of people in order to try and bend public opinion to their side of gun control debates, would it be a stretch to think that some forward thinking progressive activist could be setting some fires in Texas to somehow try and make Rick Perry look bad? I would normally say that would require a big tin foil hat, but after the gunwalker scandal and other things, you just never know anymore.

Judging by the time you put into your avatar and sig, I'm sure yours is firmly in place.