I appreciate your concern for the economy, but no matter how many graphs you show, or how many links you give to support your beliefs, I will not believe that the governments intervention into our lives is going to do anything to preserve our financial, or any of our freedom. If you condone the actions that our government is taking with our money, that's fine. I don't.

I don't agree with your assertions that government intervention got us out of the Great Depression, and don't agree that the governments intervention "created" the middle class. It may have created a greater class divide which inturn created class envy and class warfare. I tend to give the generations of people who have been the builders of this country the credit for persuing their unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You've articulated you positions well. It's just not going to change mine. There is plenty of information that contradicts your claims. There are more than two economists who's research shows different results than the ones that you are using, even if they don't use graphs. In my persuit of my unalienable rights, my time isn't that plentiful. The information is out there for all to see. I'm sorry that don't have the time to give the directions to it.

 

Glenn Beck is very entertaining. But he's a little more like WWF than UFC =)

 

Wittom,

I understand you don't agree with me. However, this is why I supported my argument with facts and trends. It shows that government involvement in our economy happened contemporaneously with economic growth and recovery, as well as the creation of the middle class.

Keep in mind it's your original post that contains a link that claims that govt. stimulus never reaped economic rewards. It was not my argument to make. I was simply responding to a misleading claim.

Here is another graph that shows when the middle class was created.



Note the middle class begins with government involvement in economic stimulus, and deteriorates during the Regan era, where govt, social programs began to get cut.

I also attribute our great infrastructure we have to generations of hard working Americans, but without the proper govt. framework, their efforts would mostly go to a few wealthy elite, as "efficient markets" would dictate.

There is a clear correlation with size of govt. and income inequality and quality of life. It's the countries with larger govt. that have a higher quality of life and less income inequality. The countries with small governments are not bastions of efficient capitalism--they are countries with vast poverty and a small wealthy elite.

I understand you'll likely ignore this data and continue believing what you've already made up your mind to believe. But there may be others who can be swayed by facts who may benefit from this data. Hence, I feel obligated to provide it.

It's really not my intention nor expectation to change your mind. It's more of an ingoing dialog for me. I read the data from your economists and explained why it's faulty. I have done enough reading on both sides of this argument to understand that revisionist economists skew data by using averages instead of trends, and omitting the employment gained with government public works programs in order to inflate the unemployment rate after the new deal.

Indeed, the data is out there =)

 

I'm glad that you are so confident in the sources that support your beliefs, and are certian that it's the opposing viewpoint that is "revisionist". Your "facts" don't hold any more water than my "facts". I would expect nothing less from someone who, like our current president and his administration, is so confident that mortgaging the future of the entire country, while at the same time creating a further devide between the people and thier government, making huge portions of the population dependant on the government, and disenfranchising the hard working, tax paying people who are the engine that drives this country.

I guess you won't be signing the petitions, because what I'm gathering from you is that you aren't concerned about our country. It's nice being free, isn't it?

 

I'll admit that I am aware of the 9/12 Project. It's about joining forces with anyone and everyone who believes in the core principals and values.

I listen to Beck, but I'm not a huge fan. I don't get Fox News, or any cable news channels fo that matter, so I haven't seen his TV show, but one time. I listen to his radio show if I happen to be driving when it's on. I've heard enough to know why his critics call him nutty, and enough to understand his passion and that he is grounded in his beliefs, things that somone who doesn't' listen wouldn't know.

The 9/12 Project, to me, isn't about Beck. It's about the people of this country. I did see Becks Fox News show once last month. I attended a local viewing party. Getting involved isn't something that I would normally do, but every day, I see what is happening to our country, and think that I have to at least TRY to do SOMETHING. So, I decided that I would attend this viewing party. It was out in hicks ville. I'd expected a hand full of people might attend. It was at a VFW, so I figured that there would be some people sitting at a bar watching the tv there.

When I pulled into the place, the parking lot was full. I fugured that there must have been something else going on that day. I'd come there straight from work, so I wasn't cleaned up or anything. I was feeling a little self concious. What if there were a lot of people?

I'd never been to this place before, so I didn't know where I was supposed to enter. I opened a door and there was a room full of people in front of me. There was like eighty to a hundred people there. I though that I must have been in the wrong place, but Glenn Beck was on the big screen revealing what he'd been keeping under wraps for so long. He was just encouraging the people, we the people, to do SOMETIHNG. To get involved.

After the tv show ended we all stayed in the room and discussed what we'd just watched. We talked about a lot of things. I heard some things that I disagreed with. What I heard more of though, was people who were concerned, like me, and like me, felt that they needed to do SOMETHING.

To me, the 9/12 Project is about all of those people who were there in that room when I opend the door to the VFW. It's about the fact that, although we are all very different individuals, we all want to see our county more like the image that it was founded on.

I've since met with some of these people, and we believe that if we work together, we might be able to have a voice loud enough to be heard by our non-representing representatives.

If you are like the people, that I'd met for the first time at that VFW, and want to be a part of the voice that speaks to our representatives, then yes, we are joining forces. I'll stand in solidarity with all who would like our country to be the great country that it was intended to be.

 

I'm not sure we disagree on facts, so much as we disagree on the interpretation thereof.

For example, I take it for granted that the article you directed me to was correct in saying that unemployment was, on average, 25% less than what they could have been, and that this was in part due to 'artificially' inflated incomes.

However, as I pointed out, the trend in unemployment at this time is downward, meaning unemployment steadily fell with the New Deal. The article doesn't cite this trend because it goes against their argument, and hence, it muddles it by using an average.

Also, in reading further into the article I see they cite a 17% unemployment rate, which means they are excluding those employed by public works programs. This is fine of course, but the problem is that about 60% of that "17%" were in fact earning an income, which kept buying power afloat.

Also, notice I am sticking to debating facts and interpretation thereof, whereas you are directing this at me personally:

and

First off you haven't successfully argued that Obama's stimulus package will create a divide, disenfranchise the hard working, and create a population dependent on the government.

On the other hand, I have given several facts to support my argument that government stimulus got us through the Great Depression and created a middle class. Rather than addressing my arguments, you simply imply that I'm wrong (or at least, cite the fact that there are those who disagree with me and my sources) and restate your unsupported claims.

In any case, what you gather is wrong. I do care about the country--this should be made obvious by the fact that I am arguing that govt. stimulus can work, and because of this, I am for it. The mere fact that you disagree with me (despite being unable to articulate why, nor address my arguments), does not suddenly make me apathetic to our country's plight.

What if I were to accuse you of not wanting a strong government role and tighter regulation out of apathy and even disdain for the poor? Perhaps you want America return to a society with a small wealthy elite and rampant poverty with little room for most people born in lower echelons of the socioeconomic ladder to move up?

 

You are right. I haven't successfully argued anything with you in this thread. Actually, it's because I didn't start this thread to argue with you. You can continue to try to do so if you'd like, it is after all a free country, for the time being. I have been making an attempt to keep the theme of the tread from being railroaded. Because of your insistance on creating an argument about one facet of a bigger picture, I haven't been successful in that either.

If you'd like to incite an argument about whether or not spending trillions of the tax payers dollars will help or hurt the foundation on which this country was built on, you might have more success starting your own thread to do so.

Like I said, you are free to discuss what ever you'd like in what ever thread you like to do it. I'm interested in talking about the people who believe that it's time to let our elected representatives know that we haven't actually forgotten that they work FOR us. Not the other way around. You have the government that represents you. You support the spending of trillions of our dollars to redistribute wealth and level the odds. You've elected the central planners. You've elected people who want to use the money earned by millions of hard working Americans, in ways that completely contradict common sense. You've got what you want. I'm just trying to do the same.

 

I sure hope so. Right now I've started doing this already. I am accepting Liberty Dollars for product, and have so far managed to barter some hair cuts for some AMSOIL for his Harley Davidson.

Next I'm thinking of trading some fertilizer for vegatbles (AGGRAND Organic Fertilizer)

I think the barter system will work out will for entrepreneurs.

www.libertydollar.org

 

Especially when he cried on TV. Come on what a wuss.

 

Well then, perhaps I've been too cryptic, and this has left the impresstion that I've railroaded the thread. So I'll be direct:

Your premise for this post is WRONG. If someone truly cares about this country and knows their facts, they will laugh at the petition after they realize it's an agenda-driven attempt by the far right.

The arguments concerning government stimulus in the link you provided are WRONG. The creators of the petition are using misinformation in attempt to side swipe the actions needed to help those suffering the most right now.

 

It's more than an impression. Anyone can see that you've diverted the topic, which you are certainly free to do.

What facts? What agenda? How is adhering to the Constitution a far right issue? Perhaps it's people like you who are driving an agenda?

My premise is wrong? What premise? The title of the thread is a question. Did you read the original post? Or did you just see the words "out of control spending" and think that you needed to defend the governments propensity to spend our tax dollars wastefully?

What link are you referring to? I posted links to two different petitions. I posted a link to a site that discusses the "Charters of Freedom". I posted a link to a study that concluded that the Great Depression would not have lasted as long as it did under FDR's policies. I posted a link to an article that discusses the constitutionality of some of FDR's policies. If information is open to interpretation, don't you think it's pretty bold to assert that one studies conclusions are wrong, but another is right? There are a lot of factors that are calculated to come to a conclusion. You're arguments here simplify the topic. The eara of the Great Depression wasn't one dimensional.

I've posted links to two different petitions. Are you saying that the creators of both are making an attempt to "side swipe" action needed NOW? What misinformation have they used to do so? You think that action is neede to help the people suffering the most righ now. Many of us believe that the proposed, and enacted government intervention, though it might help some in the short term, will do more to make us all suffer. We aren't free if the government uses our tax dollars to make everything equal. The truths are self-evident, all men are created equal, they have unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government isn't there to guarantee our happiness. It's up to us to pursue it.

 

They would only 'see' this if they ignored the content on the original links you provided, and would hence, not realize that I was explaining that the arguments on the petition is wrong. If the argument on the petition are wrong, then the basis for the petition is wrong. Hence, this is no diversion, it's a direct response.

Of course, you are free to dodge the issue and continually point to a false "bigger" picture if that's easier than discussing the arguments on the petition.


The "cut down government" agenda is being driven by people who want to see a smaller government and a return to the pre-Progressive Era where there existed a small wealthy elite and no middle class. This is not about "government for the people," unless you redefine "the people" as "the privileged."

Let's try this again. My original response addressed one of the links you posted. Speaking of which...

This one
WND-PETITION TO CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT
TO HALT OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING

Which makes the following factual error:

Whereas, history proves government spending has never succeeded in curing an economic downturn, but rather serves only to deepen and prolong it;

and also makes these misleading claims

Whereas, government takeovers of banks and financial institutions move America ever further from the free-enterprise principles that have brought the nation prosperity for 233 years;


and

Whereas, redistribution of wealth by government for the purpose of achieving "social justice" is immoral and a proven failure:

Per the graphs I showed. The New Deal, which was a slight turn away from "the free-enterprise principles that have brought the nation prosperity for 233 years" and were followed by 30 years of economic growth and the creation of an actual middle class demonstrably shows that these 2 statements are wrong.

[QUOTE]I posted a link to a study that concluded that the Great Depression would not have lasted as long as it did under FDR's policies. I posted a link to an article that discusses the constitutionality of some of FDR's policies.

And I took the time to address at least part of your article. I explained the difference in unemployment rates and shared what the study omitted. It didn't use a graph because it's users would then see the drop in unemployment. It uses the unemployment rate that excludes people in public works, knowing it would make the statistics less relevant if its readers knew that 60% of those still unemployed were in fact employed under the public works programs.

Why not ask yourself this question, or at the very least, ask the creators of this petition?

Furthermore, my answer is no. As I've stated before, creation scientists would argue that the fossil record is "open to interpretation." It doesn't make it true.

On the contrary, I have gone into a little bit of detail in explaining the difference in unemployment rates (as much as I have time to do).

Sorry but it's government that has passed such things as women's suffrage and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not the small wealthy elite that would otherwise run things. Part of the "smaller government" movement is backed by racist interests who would like to see government programs for minorities cut. It's no coincidence that organizations like the KKK were pro-Ron Paul.

 

I forgot to answer a question you asked earlier. Yes, it is nice to have freedom.

It’s nice to have freedom to an education despite not having a lot of money. It’s nice having financial assistance during tough times to carry us over until we find employment again. It’s nice to have the freedom of not being stuck to the bottom of the socio-economic ladder thanks for government-run programs that help people born into lower income families (for example, myself) to better themselves and acquire an education that would be virtually impossible in a market completely at the mercy of the private sector.

Yes, I like freedom. That’s why I am against the Wing Nut Daily petition.

 

Oy vey.

Honestly, the only thing that you've proven is that your a leftist with class envy. Why the class envy? You wanted a King Ranch and could only get an XLT?

For the record, I was born into a low income family, with several mouths to feed. You don't have to tell me stories about going without.


As long as there are tax payers there will be public education. If agencies are failing to properly educate children, how is spending more money going to help? If the number of tax payers shrinks, who is responsible for the children of the people who aren't paying taxes? If I am a lower income tax payer with no children, why do I have to pay enough taxes to cover the children of someone who isn't paying taxes?

There are always some people who are going through tough times. It's fair to require the rest of us to lift them up, regardless of how they got to where they are? Unemployment insurance is designed to cover people going through "hard times". Companies are required to carry unemployment insurance, and anyone who owns and/or runs a company knows that unemployment insurance cost a fair penny. Why should it be the burden of the tax payers to make sure that someone is comfortable while they seek employment? Maybe they are in that position of their own accord?

Anyone who has climed up the ladder from at or near the bottom knows that it's quite difficult. Why should the tax payers pull them up, by lowering the upper rungs? It has always been difficult to climb the ladder and it has always been more difficult for some than it is for others, for many different reasons.

It was the private sector that built this country, from the ground up. I don't understant how people like you can ignore that. The people who built this country didn't start at the top. People like generations of my family worked hard for nothing more than a good life. No rich people in this lineage.

I'm all for giving people a helping hand. You needed a helping hand and used it wisely? I have people in my family who have needed a helping hand and used it wisely. You know as well as I do there are way, way too many people out there taking advantage of the good will of the tax payers. If you don't see it, you're not looking. I see it every day in the city that I live in. We all can see it in the way that our government is throwing our money around. These "wing nut" petitions are only asking that the government look at people who are taking advantage; to give a helping hand to people who will use it wisely. It's insane to prop up people who have learned, if nothing else, how to play the system. They are stealing from the tax payers. They are stealing from the people who actually need our help. They are keeping the dollars from getting to the people who really need them.

You can keep your class envy. I've had to bust my *** for every rung up the ladder that I've climbed. I'm far from the top, but I'm making life good for myself. I don't buy the blaming people who have busted their asses and achived success, for the failures of people who haven't been able to pick themselves up.

No one owes you a damn thing. No one owes me a damn thing. No one is owed a damn thing. Class envy is divisive and can only result in the governmnent trying to make us all equal. It won't work because we aren't all equal. Some of us are willing to work harder for our own success. If you punish success, you bread failure. If we don't work twords our own success, we will be dependant for all of our needs. If we are dependant for all of our need, we aren't free.

Is it really freedom that you like? Or do you just like to punish success?

 

Ah yes, the "class envy" card. I take the time to explain that an actual middle class didn't exist until the government took a stronger role in the economy, and that leaving it all up to the the private sector simply makes it harder for people to "move up" and the class envy card gets thrown.

Of course, I suppose it's easier to resort to rhetoric when the data works against your position.

By adequately funding them so they can properly educate children--for example, higher income for starting teachers so that teaching becomes more attractive for high quality college graduates. Also, year round school so our children get at least as many days in the schools as their western counterparts (who have bigger governments as a percentage of GDP, AND their kids run circles around ours in science and math).

Your questions are so often loaded with false assumptions. Unemployment insurance doesn't always (in fact, I would say it rarely) amounts to a "comfortable" living. Yes, some of them are there on their own accord, and I am all for a stronger filtering out of those who are their to game the system.

However, on a broader scale we do not live in a vacuum. You and I enjoy countless amenities due to the hard work of people who are often hit the hardest during tough times. They generally make less than we do, and are worse off during economic times. Your rhetorical questions assume you are somehow separated from their circumstances--sorry, you're not. We live in an interdependent society whether you choose to accept it or not.

Correction, it was the private sector with tighter government involvement that built this country. You and I can both tell stories of having "come up," but we did so in the post New Deal era, where tighter government controls and taxes on the higher income brackets redistribute wealth and make it possible for us to move up, as it keeps the wealth from coagulating at the top.

It's not that people like me ignore anything. It's that people like you oversimplify our socioeconomic reality and ignore the fact that stronger regulation is what made it more possible for family lineages like ours to make a a good life for themselves.

Well I guess it's easier to repeat the same rhetoric over and over than to actually address what I wrote. The petition is WRONG on its economic arguments.

Perhaps you think fudging facts on government stimulus is trivial because "the ends justify the means" or something like that. People like you seem to play loose with facts and resort to rhetoric when your arguments are discredited.

Keep on with your indignant attitude towards those still having a tough time. I'll keep on telling the truth whether revisionists like it or not. The truth is, objective readers can smell a bad argument once someone runs out of facts and resorts to one-liners.

Is it really hard work that you like, or do you simply enjoy condascending to those who are experiencing tougher times than you? An ego thing perhaps, which makes you feel superior to others, giving you a false sense of heightened status?