“Freddie Mac is asking for $10.6 billion in additional federal aid after posting a big loss in the first three months of the year.”
I’m sure they’ll get it to. “But they provide affordable housing!”
There’s nothing moral about helping people today by shackling future generations to our debt. Those of you who see the government as charity by force, a redistribution machine, are enslaving future generations to the task of paying for your “generous” spirit. It isn’t moral, and isn’t progressive. It’s just disgusting. Stop stealing from your grandchildren. Enough is enough. Wake up and reign in this government. Two entitlement programs alone, before Obama even took office, were set to run this country into financial ruin. Look up David Walker, former US comptroller, to learn more. Now add in all these new handouts, payouts, and bailouts. Congrats, you’ve screwed over the future for the sake of a redistributionist government. They will rightfully despise us.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
“Freddie Mac is asking for $10.6 billion in additional federal aid after posting a big loss in the first three months of the year.”
I’m sure they’ll get it to. “But they provide affordable housing!”
There’s nothing moral about helping people today by shackling future generations to our debt. Those of you who see the government as charity by force, a redistribution machine, are enslaving future generations to the task of paying for your “generous” spirit. It isn’t moral, and isn’t progressive. It’s just disgusting. Stop stealing from your grandchildren. Enough is enough. Wake up and reign in this government. Two entitlement programs alone, before Obama even took office, were set to run this country into financial ruin. Look up David Walker, former US comptroller, to learn more. Now add in all these new handouts, payouts, and bailouts. Congrats, you’ve screwed over the future for the sake of a redistributionist government. They will rightfully despise us.[/quote]
The history books will not look kindly on the baby boomers.
lets hope we can take America back to her roots and stop this socialism in it’s tracks. Socialism looks great on paper and in ideas, yet so does communism, marxism and the rest. The problem is they will NEVER reign in themselves. I know I’m preaching to the choir, those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat said history.
I really believe we have to respect ALL life, starting with the unborn. The problems that are supposed to exist if abortion is made illegal DO NOT exist in Chile. A country I spent the last 4 months in. I’m just sayin’ : )
[quote]John S. wrote:
The history books will not look kindly on the baby boomers.[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
“Freddie Mac is asking for $10.6 billion in additional federal aid after posting a big loss in the first three months of the year.”
I’m sure they’ll get it to. “But they provide affordable housing!”
There’s nothing moral about helping people today by shackling future generations to our debt. Those of you who see the government as charity by force, a redistribution machine, are enslaving future generations to the task of paying for your “generous” spirit. It isn’t moral, and isn’t progressive. It’s just disgusting. Stop stealing from your grandchildren. Enough is enough. Wake up and reign in this government. Two entitlement programs alone, before Obama even took office, were set to run this country into financial ruin. Look up David Walker, former US comptroller, to learn more. Now add in all these new handouts, payouts, and bailouts. Congrats, you’ve screwed over the future for the sake of a redistributionist government. They will rightfully despise us.[/quote]
what do you mean by redistributionist government? is redistribution your term for fiscal policy? as we’ve seen, paul derides the monetary stimulus being implemented currently as well. what should be done absent these two approaches?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
lets hope we can take America back to her roots and stop this socialism in it’s tracks. Socialism looks great on paper and in ideas, yet so does communism, marxism and the rest. The problem is they will NEVER reign in themselves. I know I’m preaching to the choir, those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat said history.
I really believe we have to respect ALL life, starting with the unborn. The problems that are supposed to exist if abortion is made illegal DO NOT exist in Chile. A country I spent the last 4 months in. I’m just sayin’ : )
[quote]John S. wrote:
The history books will not look kindly on the baby boomers.[/quote]
[/quote]
Hmmmm I think you need to look up the term ‘baby boomers’.
Absolutely right though, abotion is the number one problem facing this country. Forget the economy, crime, unemployment, fatties not being able to get into the military and lets sort out the abortion problem first. Stop those damned baby boomers in their tracks. Then we might get on par with Chile, there are absolutely no abortions there. Ever. Once this is done we can get onto the second problem of this great nation… the skulls and bones society.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
“Freddie Mac is asking for $10.6 billion in additional federal aid after posting a big loss in the first three months of the year.”
I’m sure they’ll get it to. “But they provide affordable housing!”
There’s nothing moral about helping people today by shackling future generations to our debt. Those of you who see the government as charity by force, a redistribution machine, are enslaving future generations to the task of paying for your “generous” spirit. It isn’t moral, and isn’t progressive. It’s just disgusting. Stop stealing from your grandchildren. Enough is enough. Wake up and reign in this government. Two entitlement programs alone, before Obama even took office, were set to run this country into financial ruin. Look up David Walker, former US comptroller, to learn more. Now add in all these new handouts, payouts, and bailouts. Congrats, you’ve screwed over the future for the sake of a redistributionist government. They will rightfully despise us.[/quote]
what do you mean by redistributionist government? is redistribution your term for fiscal policy? as we’ve seen, paul derides the monetary stimulus being implemented currently as well. what should be done absent these two approaches?[/quote]
No. My term for fiscal policy is, well, fiscal policy. Time for Freddie to sink or swim on his own.
The history books will not look kindly on the baby boomers.[/quote]
indeed. When we was making babies and replenishing the gene pool, all the social programs looked good.
Get people breeding again, stat. Just the hot ones though. Ugly should be an endangered species.
gcf, obviously you provide nothing to the conversation, you insult someone who provides a different view. And what did you provide? That is right, you did NOTHING. How very mature of you shakes head
Because you could not even provide the years of the ‘baby boomer’ I will support your aptitude and abilities of intelligence. The baby boomer is generally refereed to as those people born between '46 and '64. See that was hard, was it not? Dumb fuck, before you insult someone at least provide your own idea. That would be hard when you sit in the basement of mommy’s house beating off to the idea of your ability to think on your own. I am willing to bet you voted Bam into office, am I wrong? Still in awe . . . . : O
[quote]GCF wrote:
Hmmmm I think you need to look up the term ‘baby boomers’.
Absolutely right though, abotion is the number one problem facing this country. Forget the economy, crime, unemployment, fatties not being able to get into the military and lets sort out the abortion problem first. Stop those damned baby boomers in their tracks. Then we might get on par with Chile, there are absolutely no abortions there. Ever. Once this is done we can get onto the second problem of this great nation… the skulls and bones society. [/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
lets hope we can take America back to her roots and stop this socialism in it’s tracks. Socialism looks great on paper and in ideas, yet so does communism, marxism and the rest. The problem is they will NEVER reign in themselves. I know I’m preaching to the choir, those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat said history.
I really believe we have to respect ALL life, starting with the unborn. The problems that are supposed to exist if abortion is made illegal DO NOT exist in Chile. A country I spent the last 4 months in. I’m just sayin’ : )
[quote]John S. wrote:
The history books will not look kindly on the baby boomers.[/quote]
[/quote]
Hmmmm I think you need to look up the term ‘baby boomers’.
Absolutely right though, abotion is the number one problem facing this country. Forget the economy, crime, unemployment, fatties not being able to get into the military and lets sort out the abortion problem first. Stop those damned baby boomers in their tracks. Then we might get on par with Chile, there are absolutely no abortions there. Ever. Once this is done we can get onto the second problem of this great nation… the skulls and bones society. [/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
gcf, obviously you provide nothing to the conversation, you insult someone who provides a different view. And what did you provide? That is right, you did NOTHING. How very mature of you shakes head
Because you could not even provide the years of the ‘baby boomer’ I will support your aptitude and abilities of intelligence. The baby boomer is generally refereed to as those people born between '46 and '64. See that was hard, was it not? Dumb fuck, before you insult someone at least provide your own idea. That would be hard when you sit in the basement of mommy’s house beating off to the idea of your ability to think on your own. I am willing to bet you voted Bam into office, am I wrong? Still in awe . . . . : O
[quote]GCF wrote:
Hmmmm I think you need to look up the term ‘baby boomers’.
Absolutely right though, abotion is the number one problem facing this country. Forget the economy, crime, unemployment, fatties not being able to get into the military and lets sort out the abortion problem first. Stop those damned baby boomers in their tracks. Then we might get on par with Chile, there are absolutely no abortions there. Ever. Once this is done we can get onto the second problem of this great nation… the skulls and bones society. [/quote]
[/quote]
Wow aren’t you a sensitive wee thing? Last things first, yes I would love to take you up on your bet about me voting for Bam. You lose.
Why would I need to provide the years of the baby boomers? I know what the term baby boomers means. I wasn’t sure that you did though as you managed to turn a thread about corporate bailouts into some abortion debate involving Chile? Perhaps you could explain to me what your first post meant because I still don’t understand the relation. I suspect though that I am right and you misinterpreted the term, no shame in that. Surely a big world travelled man such as yourself can handle a bit of light-hearted ribbing for it (for that is what it was, I never once directed a personal attack at you like you have to me)?
Don’t take things so personally. You’ll have much more fun in the PWI forum. BTW I love how you wrote I can’t think on my own whilst in the same sentence you accuse me of “beating off in my mommy’s basement” the single most unoriginal, overused and boring interweb comeback. Nice.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
gcf, obviously you provide nothing to the conversation, you insult someone who provides a different view. And what did you provide? That is right, you did NOTHING. How very mature of you shakes head
Because you could not even provide the years of the ‘baby boomer’ I will support your aptitude and abilities of intelligence. The baby boomer is generally refereed to as those people born between '46 and '64. See that was hard, was it not? Dumb fuck, before you insult someone at least provide your own idea. That would be hard when you sit in the basement of mommy’s house beating off to the idea of your ability to think on your own. I am willing to bet you voted Bam into office, am I wrong? Still in awe . . . . : O
[quote]GCF wrote:
Hmmmm I think you need to look up the term ‘baby boomers’.
Absolutely right though, abotion is the number one problem facing this country. Forget the economy, crime, unemployment, fatties not being able to get into the military and lets sort out the abortion problem first. Stop those damned baby boomers in their tracks. Then we might get on par with Chile, there are absolutely no abortions there. Ever. Once this is done we can get onto the second problem of this great nation… the skulls and bones society. [/quote]
[/quote]
Wow aren’t you a sensitive wee thing? Last things first, yes I would love to take you up on your bet about me voting for Bam. You lose.
Why would I need to provide the years of the baby boomers? I know what the term baby boomers means. I wasn’t sure that you did though as you managed to turn a thread about corporate bailouts into some abortion debate involving Chile? Perhaps you could explain to me what your first post meant because I still don’t understand the relation. I suspect though that I am right and you misinterpreted the term, no shame in that. Surely a big world travelled man such as yourself can handle a bit of light-hearted ribbing for it (for that is what it was, I never once directed a personal attack at you like you have to me)?
Don’t take things so personally. You’ll have much more fun in the PWI forum. BTW I love how you wrote I can’t think on my own whilst in the same sentence you accuse me of “beating off in my mommy’s basement” the single most unoriginal, overused and boring interweb comeback. Nice. [/quote]
This ignores the fact that countries with a strong welfare state generally have more stable economies and higher standards of living.
But the main point it, government redistribution is not an option which you can just choose to forgo. It is a necessary correction in a country with an income gap as wide as ours. This is not a moral argument at all. When people can’t afford to buy what they produce, the economy crashes.
This is why we’ve seen such an expansion in the types of credit available. It is an attempt to stabilize the economy and to maintain accumulation when people don’t actually have the money to buy things (this, of course, can’t last forever, as we have seen). These types of programs are also important in diminishing unrest during tough times.
This ignores the fact that countries with a strong welfare state generally have more stable economies and higher standards of living.
[/quote]
This ignores the fact that only countries with stable economies and a high standard of living can afford a welfare state. Come on dude. Cause and effect.
What income gap? What would be an acceptable income gap? What about the hours worked gap? What about the risk gap? What about the stress gap? Think there’s any correlation between hours worked, stress, risk, and income? Why don’t you go ahead and equalize all of those factors and then we’ll take a look at the remaining income gap.
If the gov. quits throwing good money after bad, It will effectively be admitting that it was throwing good money after bad.
That can not ever happen. No good bureaucrat who knows what is good for him and his department will ever let that happen.
Furthermore, who in their right mind would actually try to turn a profit when they can get paid so much more for successfully failing?
Hell, If I were at Freddy Mac I would be looking for new and better ways to lose more money faster, thereby justifying even more income from the government, so as to ensure that the continuing failure is successful, which would then justify more “help”, and possibly a new watchdog group or appropriations office to ensure continued and responsible management of the operation.
This office would then realize that it’s existence is contingent upon the continuing success of the previous failure and will do everything in its powers (which should be broader than the responsibilities of its intended function), to guarantee that it works.
And Viola! Problem solved.
Why do people have such a hard time with this stuff?
If the gov. quits throwing good money after bad, It will effectively be admitting that it was throwing good money after bad.
That can not ever happen. No good bureaucrat who knows what is good for him and his department will ever let that happen.
Furthermore, who in their right mind would actually try to turn a profit when they can get paid so much more for successfully failing?
Hell, If I were at Freddy Mac I would be looking for new and better ways to lose more money faster, thereby justifying even more income from the government, so as to ensure that the continuing failure is successful, which would then justify more “help”, and possibly a new watchdog group or appropriations office to ensure continued and responsible management of the operation.
This office would then realize that it’s existence is contingent upon the continuing success of the previous failure and will do everything in its powers (which should be broader than the responsibilities of its intended function), to guarantee that it works.
And Viola! Problem solved.
Why do people have such a hard time with this stuff?
[/quote]
Because greedy capitalist pigs would exploit us and the selfless, benevolent angels from the gubbamint are our last line of defense.
Not at all. Many developmentalist nations built themselves up essentially from scratch, with a welfare state all the way.
Seriously, please don’t start this stuff. Income disparity in this nation is at its highest point since the 1920s. Don’t pretend not to know about it. Here’s just one good illustration:
Something that doesn’t threaten the stability of the economy. I’m not an economist, so I don’t pretend any facility with economic modeling.
These are purely moral considerations. I was making no such argument.
Of course there is, but again you miss the point. Unequal stress levels don’t provide an objective threat to the economy. Seriously, why do you think these programs always pop up everywhere, and we can’t get rid of them? If the unregulated free market did what its proponents claimed, you wouldn’t need them.
Not at all. Many developmentalist nations built themselves up essentially from scratch, with a welfare state all the way.
Seriously, please don’t start this stuff. Income disparity in this nation is at its highest point since the 1920s. Don’t pretend not to know about it. Here’s just one good illustration:
Something that doesn’t threaten the stability of the economy. I’m not an economist, so I don’t pretend any facility with economic modeling.
These are purely moral considerations. I was making no such argument.
Of course there is, but again you miss the point. Unequal stress levels don’t provide an objective threat to the economy.
[/quote]
Ah, so recompensation for risk, stress and responsibility are purely moral considerations.
What if I do not work if I am not compensated for my all of these because that would make my earnings to high, creating a “unhealthy gap”?
Then it quickly becomes a economic issue, because there will be no more “Google”, “Yahoo”, “Intel”, “Microsoft” or anything else that requires some sort of risk capital and know how.
Try to get it in your head that some people are better at using resources than others and either you compensate them for it or they do it somewhere else or not at all.
[quote]orion wrote:Ah, so recompensation for risk, stress and responsibility are purely moral considerations.
What if I do not work if I am not compensated for my all of these because that would make my earnings to high, creating a “unhealthy gap”?[/quote]
In that case it ceases to be purely moral because it begins to have an effect on the economy. However, I nowhere said that these things were purely moral, only that disproportions were (in your example, for instance, in which compensation is absent, it would be a problem, but would not be if it were merely below what it “ought” to be [obviously a moral consideration]).
True, but what of it? The only people whose compensation you rush to defend are the elites, never the workers. The people who actually carry out these plans are not compensated in proportion to their effort, or stress, or etc.
Yet they don’t sit down and stop working. Higher tax rates on the wealthy and on corporations have never slowed business down. In effect, all we do when we “compensate” these people who own society’s resources is to pay them tribute for the privilege of using those resources.
When will capitalists drop this silly idea that men who would step over their dead grandmother for higher profits will simply stick their money under their mattress if the capital gains rate goes up 2%?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Not at all. Many developmentalist nations built themselves up essentially from scratch, with a welfare state all the way.
[/quote]
interesting. Any examples that don’t include hitting the natural resourse lottery?
Ryan. You need to spend a bit more time thinking about what these statistics really mean. With out data on what % stay in the lower income or higher income for any length of time, they don’t mean what you think they mean.
A large delta between upper income and lower income tells me that there is opportunity for advancement and increased income. What sounds better to a recent college grad:
If you work hard young Ryan, some day you can make a bit more than your starting salary.
…or
If you work hard young Ryan, some day you can make 10 times your starting salary.
It’s all arbitrary. Decades of economic study and modeling will give you some magical income gap that is “fair”. This is why it is not something we should be basing economic policy or judging economic fairness by.
There is no greater threat to an economy than not being compensated for more hours worked, more stress, or more risk. Compensation must be greater to encourage some to take on the added burden. Some must take on the added burden for an economy to flourish.
Who says we need them? There was a time when economies were regulated less and we had fewer social programs. I don’t recall an epidemic of children starving in the streets.
If correlation is all you seek as proof, graph out the growth of regulation and the growth of social programs. What comes to mind?