Snarkybird,

You say you’ve studied economics….then you should know that Keneysian theory is mostly without merit, and supply-side economics makes much more sense.

People believe that depressions are bad—and they certainly are no picnic—but they are a necessary component of a healthy economy, and really cannot be avoided, only delayed. Depressions (and recessions) weed out inefficient companies and allow the efficient ones to expand. This in turn lowers prices and increases the value of those companies. Once the economy turns back around, which is inevitable, investors will then have more money to invest, companies grow, people buy, and so forth, until eventually there is another recession/cleansing cycle.

At best, government spending will delay the inevitable, or if we are already in a depression, it will just stretch it out further buy prolonging the lives of companies that should have been weeded out long ago (GM, anyone?). In fact, it’s sort of like trying to cure a cancer patient by giving him ice cream—it might make him feel better for a while, but it does nothing to help the underlying problem.

I know you and many others will think this is preposterous—How can we just LET a depression happen!? Think about the children!!! Well, that is because of conditioning by politicians. A politician wants to feel needed, and wants to take credit for solving everyone’s problems, so over time you have been conditioned to believe that every one of your problems HAS to be solved by government. Well, it DOESN’T…..In fact 95% of the time all government intervention does is make things worse.

Take the stimulus bill. The clowns in charge knew this would do nothing. Again, common sense—most of the spending in it won’t take place for years to come, but they just HAD to rush it through immediately. Why? Because Obama and his team know what I just explained to you, and knew that recovery was just around the corner. By getting the bill through asap, they knew that they could then sit back and claim that they “saved the day” with it, even though in reality all it did was saddle us with more debt. The economic ignorant majority would then think the bill is what caused the turnaround.

If all of this seems like new information to you, then I strongly recommend you brush up some more on economics…which in reality is nothing more than common sense explained in a confusing manner.

Oh and by the way, Bush’s stimulus check and TARP program were terrible, too. And his whole, “I’m abandoning free-market principles to save the free market” thinking was horribly wrong. But the people always clamor for government action to solve all their problems, so he did stuff anyway.

Steve,
I don't normally support abortion...but in your case I would have made an exception. I can only hope you don't breed. Please stay in Austin and away from the voting booth you ignorant JACKASS!

I have.

you were saying...?

You said ""and cutting govt spending now would be catastrophic."

How so? "

demand.

govt spending is replacing demand not in the markets now.

true, they could stop. and we'd get through it.

the point is to get through it without another depression.

but, I suppose you could root for a depression - certainly your right.

http://www.newmajority.com/americas-private-sector-era-is-over

Since when has a tax added value to anything?

Yes, the place is crawling with Looney Tunes. But please don't assume everyone here agrees with them!

well isn't it bush's fault?????

hell the cold weather is his fault.....owlgore said so.....and he invented the internet.......

ok toilet paper may cause global warming......sooooo wipe you butt on a spotted owl or a politician.......that's all they're good for.......right???

At least he got the prerequisite name calling in there. No argument would be complete with out at least one reference to your tool being hurled.

I keep wondering when we are going to blame Bush for WWII, bell-bottom pants, and of course the Atari 2600. I wonder what else we can blame Bush for?

finger pointing never fixed anything.

but neither did blind allegiance. especially to ideas that have failed.

the debt that was incurred over the last 8 years only guaranteed higher taxes for future generations.

and cutting govt spending now would be catastrophic.

Bruuuuuuuuce!
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/24/fiscal-spending-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

When conservatives can get as serious about reality as Bruce, they will have a winning party again.

You're right Neal. Steve is a classic t-sip. Makes you wonder why people pay to have their children "educated" at that God foresaken school in that God foresaken town. Gig'em Neal.

Keith,

You get all your news from the media don't you.

In 2001, the senate was set to be split 50-50 and the Republicans would have control by virtue of the Vice-President's vote. However, Jumpin Jim Jeffers decided that he couldn't stand being part of the majority and jumped ship, leaving the Democrats with control of the senate until the 2003 term at which time the Republicans gained a bare majority on paper. In practice the Democrats could count on the votes of Arlen Spector, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on just about anything they wanted, giving them effective control of the legislative process (i.e. most any amendment they put forward in markup got included). Thus the Democrats effectively controlled the senate for the entire Bush administration. Of course, the democrats and the media won't point that out.

Sorry to disabuse you of your cherished beliefs, but that is the way it was.

You have never read the Fair Tax book, have you?
Why is it fair to tax income? And at different rates?
Also. the rate is 23% INCLUSIVE. I did the math and if it were an EXCLUSIVE tax, the rate would be 28.6%
Just so you know, the Fair Tax changes EVERYTHING except the price the consumer pays. How is that unfair?

What a dolt.

Justin

A Goper is a liberal epithet conveying a meaning of extreme derision. Synonyms for it in the liberal lexicon are neanderthal, cro-magnum, stupid, greedy, ignorant.

To the rest of the world it refers to those of the Democrat-lite party also known as Republicans.

But we can rebuild him.
We have the technology.
We have the capability to build the world's first educated liberal.

Read this Steve: http://chrisofrights.blogspot.com/2009/09/vat-tax-i-hope-america-isnt-that-stupid.html

The VAT Tax sucks on top of all we pay now.
The Irag war...Dems had control past several years and could have stopped funding it whenever...
Again for KBR Black water and others...congress controls how we spend money...not the president...dems were in charge during most bush 2's years
Steve obviously does not understand how our government works.
Blame Bush all you want...and if u dont like boortz...dont listen...many others people to listen to...

Hey Steve, you stupid sonofabitch . . . why don't you just buy yourself a collar with a chain on it and just drive down to the closest government building you can find and tell them that THEY OWN YOU. No tax is too high or too often for ridiculous people like you. Just write Obama a check for your entire net worth and get it over with.

The problem with that idea is that you probably OWN NOTHING. You're just waiting for the government to provide your every requirement. Sadly, you are too stupid to know that you're being sold a bill of goods by the World's Biggest Empty Suit.

Now we get to see the UNFAIR TAX go down in flames!!

NEAL... ITS A 33 PERCENT TAX. QUIT LYING TO US.

All you are trying to do is pay less taxes and make the working class pay more with your UNFair Tax.

Neal posted my letter on his website! This is so cool! Of course he can't address the brilliance of it, nor will he dare challenge my point of view. He'll just make fun of it and pretend that he beat me with his intellectual. I think writing the name of Bush in all caps was what really scared him off!

Doesn't Neal bash Bush with phrases like, "A spending bill never crossed Bush's desk that he did not sign."

I remember Neal saying that. And Neal's right. Bush was a huge spender. So is Obama. I'm just not sure why folks are redirecting to Obama when the subject is BUSH'S spending problem.

In Bush's defense, it's expensive to fight a war and as that ramps down, god willing, watch Obama take credit for "cutting costs" much like Clinton enjoyed as the Cold War died under Reagan and military spending dropped significantly.

Bush left a deficit of 400 billion. He also left 350 billion in TARP funds that Obama has spent. So most of the deficit left by Bush was spent by Obama. Since then Obama has spent about two trillion dollars. That more than the Iraq war. It is more than any president has ever spent and the first year isn't over yet. Just imagine how much this guy can spend given four years. He is well on track to spend more money than all the previous presidents combined. And this yahoo clearly cannot tell the difference between million and trillion

same style

You've got to love empty-minded individuals such as the one that wrote this email. The VAT, which is an ADDITIONAL tax, is to cover the trillions that Obama & the sitting congress have managed to lay out spending for. Never mind that this spending, laid out in less than ONE year is already greater than the debt built up not just by Bush, but by every president in the history of the nation combined! It shouldn't be surprising that they need a massive tax increase, especially since they have so much MORE spending they would like to add on top of it. I've served my country proudly as a soldier, as have many in my family, rich or poor, and met the love of my life overseas. Ironically, she's my escape plan if everything goes south. Thankfully, it seems people are starting to WAKE UP!