Artful Dodger:
Well Spun!
Unfortunately, Bush got us into this mess starting 2 wars while cutting taxes for the wealthy instead of paying for those wars. It was under Bush that jobs migrated out of the country and unemployment rose and continued to rise. Where were the fiscally responsible pundits then?

Dark Prince: Overheard at a meeting of Spendaholics Anonymous: "Hello, my name is Barack Obama, and George Bush is a spendaholic."

Iamon lyme:
The time for spending is now, but not on wars.
We need to bring our troops home and spend some of the money that would be going to the war on our country employing those released troops and other unemployed.

Dark Prince: spend money to employ people to do what? Maybe create new government jobs? We obviously don't have enough of those. If we did, then everyone could be employed.

We are already playing with the concept of diminishing returns, making it possible for there to be less and less money to go around. But we can't keep that up forever.

The only way socialism is able to do anything is to insert itself into a normally functioning society by convincing people that they need a small elite group of people (them) to micro manage their lives for them. When I say everyone suffers when productivity is controlled instead of encouraged, I am not exagerating. Castro would have died if he hadn't sent for a doctor outside of Cuba. His own doctor botched the opperation. Think about it.

Iamon lyme:
That concept is thrown around a lot and usually has nothing to do with the actual topic.
As far as doctors go, there are plenty of doctors working under capitalist economic rules that are guilty of botching the job whether it be diagnostic or surgical.

Socialism implies that the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government. Neither socialized medicine nor government sponsored public works projects are socialism. Government sponsored health insurance is not the same as socialized medicine. There will still be numerous functions provided by the health industry that will be elective and not covered by insurance.

Without government sponsored public works projects, we would not have our interstate highway system. That system is in disrepair. Fixing it will put many of us to work and provide a valuable resource in better working order for all of us to utilize including corporations that need to move products where they will be available for us to purchase and thereby further stimulate the economy.

Dark Prince: Why should the means of producing and distributing goods be owned collectively or by a centralized government? If you don't need a middle man telling you what to do and how to do it, because you are already doing it, then why give a third party a piece of your action? Protection money? To avoid future shakedowns? Do you like the idea of a nanny state controling every aspect of your life? I suppose it's okay for the "nannys"... not so good for everyone else. I could understand the appeal of socialism if I had an aversion to making decisions regarding business and personal matters.

My point about Castro was, I thought, self evident. If I was him I would make sure I had the best medical care possible, but apparently the finest Universities and Colleges in Cuba couldn't produce a doctor good enough to do the job.

Capitalism doesn't need to be socially engineered. It has always been the natural way of doing things. People began specializing in one particular area and then trading with people who specialized in other areas. Bartering was replaced with coin and paper transfers that made the system move more efficiently, and the rest is history. All socialism does is to fix what isn't broken and cause the development of better technology to come to a grinding halt. As bad as things are right now I'm still better off as a proor man in the U.S. than a king was in his cold dank castle a thousand years ago.

Iamon lyme:
I think you are the one to have brought up socialism.
My point was that it has little to do with what we are talking about. I am not a proponent of socialism and said nothing to indicate otherwise.
Capitalism without regulation leads to unfair exploitation of workers and consumers deceived with unsafe and substandard products and subjected to predatory practices suppressing legitimate competition.

Dark Prince: Maybe not socialism per se, but I believe we do disagree about the proper role of government. Keeping up roads and bridges is the governments responsibility, since everyone uses (directly and indirectly) roads and bridges. Health care is primarily a personal responsibilty. The argument that people who are not insured but are taken care of anyway has nothing to do with it. Hospitals have often absorbed the cost of saving someones life and not gotten payed for it. I don't want someone from a state agency standing over me to make sure I eat my lima beans, brush my teeth, and not smoke cigarettes. I like lima beans, wear dentures, and have no immediate plans to quit smoking, so I don't need a nanny.. unless she's pretty, then I'll think about it.

Capitalism is already subject to regulation, and for the reasons you just stated. Are you saying that regulation doesn't go far enough? More to the point, how much regulation would you feel is too much?

Iamon lyme:
Hah, more like record profits.

"...insert itself into a normally functioning society by convincing people that they need a small elite group of people (them) to micro manage their lives for them."

That sounds like the republican party passing laws to make abortions unavailable or difficult at best and squashing collective bargaining.

Who is controlling or attempting to control productivity in the US?
Or was that just hyperbole suggesting that the US will soon be like Cuba?

Iamon lyme: Exactly. Many on the left continue to blame Bush even thought it's Obama that has caused more debt that ALL THE OTHER US PRESIDENTS COMBINED!!!

But it's Bush's fault we're so far in debt. Even though Obama spent the money!

And not Obama wants to spend more money on failed Keynesian economics. There's no end to his stupid!

Artful Dodger:

> failed Keynesian economics.

What does that mean? I mean Keynesian economics? How did they come about? Why was it necessary to control interest rates and the monetary supply?

Übergeek 바둑이: More specifically, the idea that the government can stimulate the economy by spending money is a deeply flawed idea. The liberals here think it's a good idea, even though it's been a proven failure. Yet they want to continue to do now and into the future that which has not worked in the past.

The current president has increased the nation debt more than all previous presidents combined. And no one is scratching their heads on that fact. Were Bush to have done that, the libs would be all over it. And rightly so. But it's the golden boy and he can do no wrong.

Artful Dodger:

> More specifically, the idea that the government can stimulate the economy by spending money is a deeply flawed idea. The liberals here think it's a good idea, even though it's been a proven failure. Yet they want to continue to do now and into the future that which has not worked in the past.

The truth is that every American president since WW II has raised the debt ceiling and increased the deficit. The first truly massive increase came during the Regan administration and every president since then has just added more wood to the fire. The only president to not increase the deficit for 1 year was Bill Clinton who finished his last term with a surplus, and that was only 1 year of the 8 years he was in office.

I think that any president who comes to Washington is very quickly faced with the reality of ever increasing Department of Defense costs. It was the War on Terror that did it for George W. Bush. Barrack Obama promised to scale back by bringing the troops back from Iraq, but I think he was unrealistic. Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Lybia) left to their own devices is a recipe for disaster. So the American government is committed to those expenses for decades to come.

At the same time the American government insists on passing irresponsible tax breaks. Every president since WW II has raised taxes on the middle class while giving tax breaks to the super rich. The rich can argue all they want about "creating jobs by paying less taxes" but the reality is that unless taxes are raised, the USA is never going to get out of its debt. Raising taxes is the most unpopular medicine to the current disease.

Direct government investment and spending in infrastructure was effective in the past, but considering the current deficit any form of spending will be unpopular. The Bush administration survived the economic problems by spending a lot of money and employing a lot of people in war. However, that is not a sustainable approach because when the war ends then the companies (defense contractors) involved in the war make a lot less money.

I think that the only way Washington is going to get out of this mess is if both parties make a true effort to work together. Otherwise they will keep blocking each other and accomplishing nothing. After seeing some of Republican debate a couple of days ago I was left with the feeling that none of the candidates has a concrete solution. They all talked on generalities and concentrated more on putting a negative light on their opponents than on giving real answers to real problems.

I was most bothered by Michelle Bachman. She kept talking of the "economic miracle" of the Regan administration. It seems to me that people confuse the popularity of the man with the real track record of the economy in that period. If the candidates are selling Reganomics as a solution then they have to think twice. It was 30 years of Reaganomics that brought the USA (and the rest of the world) to the current mess.

I have said before the what the USa needs to do is get rid of all the current tax breaks, then give tax breaks only to companies that create jobs at home. For every new job created in the USA, a company would get a tax credit. If a company wants to manufacture overseas, then the price is no tax breaks for that company. It would go a long way to creating jobs and levelling the playing field for smaller companies that cannot compete with big companies manufacturing their products cheaply abroad. However, none of the candidates in both parties will talk about that because their big contributors are companies that benefit from the current system.

Übergeek 바둑이:" The truth is that every American president since WW II has raised the debt ceiling and increased the deficit."

So what? It's still irresponsible. When does it end?

"I think that any president who comes to Washington is very quickly faced with the reality of ever increasing Department of Defense costs."

It is NOT the most cosly thing for the government.

"but the reality is that unless taxes are raised, the USA is never going to get out of its debt. Raising taxes is the most unpopular medicine to the current disease."

Rubbish. Raising taxes just gives the government more money to SPEND MORE! They won't pay down the debt. They are irresponsible dolts.

"Direct government investment and spending in infrastructure was effective in the past, but considering the current deficit any form of spending will be unpopular."

It effective on a limited basis. And amy more spending will NOT revive our economy. The last spending spree did nothing,

"I think that the only way Washington is going to get out of this mess is if both parties make a true effort to work together."

IT will never happen. We need to get rid of all progressives. That's a good start.

Your statement about Reagan's effect on the US economy is nonsense.

The free market will revive the economy. Reagan understood this. That's why under Reagan we experienced an economic boon! Under Reagan, we experienced the largest peacetime economic boon and added over 35 million jobs to the US economy.

Joint Economic Committee, The Great Expansion: How It Was Achieved and How It Can Be Sustained, U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, 106th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 2000, pp. 4-6.