So in other words they are pissed off because the budget is only somewhat to the right of center?

/socialist

In before some dumbass says Obama is a conserv...damnit!

Well if they don't like his budget, they're welcome to submit an alterna....oh yeah.

Heee hee....

what_now: Well if they don't like his budget, they're welcome to submit an alterna....oh yeah.

Heee hee....

Hee hee indeed!

I hear they have an awesome gag set up for April Fool's...

You have to admit, the alternative that the GOP submitted had a lot less movement... in pretty much any direction.

I'd like any conservative to tell me what the actual proportion of is government spending to GDP in this country, and where that ranks in the world.

You don't think that America electing a black man to the Presidency might mean that the nation was moving a bit away from the extreme Right that we've seen for the last 8 years?

It is perhaps a shift to the Left, but that's towards center again, as opposed to Crazy Town where we've been. Rather than taking a look at the President's office, it might be better to look at the make up of Congress and the House to realize where the nation is right now.

The hard Right has a few supporters, but a lot of folks got swept out of office. Because the electorate is sick of the crap that the hard Right has pulled.

Rather than take that lesson to heart, we have folks who think that they lost because they weren't hard "enough." Which is sort of like watching fifty or sixty of your buddies run smack into a wall and knock themselves out, and then reason that the only reason you didn't clear it was because you just weren't running fast enough...

Just wanted to post this idea:

One of the most powerful lessons of history was certainly played out in the 43 year period between the end of Word War II and 1988. By the end of that time, it was completely obvious that people living under communism were not doing as well as most people living under some form of capitalism (at least in Europe). This became well known to the folks living in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and contributed greatly to the downfall of communism, among other factors.

For the last 21 years, we have been following a similar social experiment between different styles of capitalism: more regulated and less regulated. Several western countries including Ireland and Iceland, as well as some of the Baltic countries, got rid of many regulations, particularly regulations regarding finance. For a while, their economies were shining stars, but now they are a mess. The US and Britain, the least regulated large economies, are now suffering greatly as well from the financial bubble. While Old Europe (to steal a phrase from Don Rumsfeld) is not nearly as affected by the recent debacle.

hubiestubert: You don't think that America electing a black man to the Presidency might mean that the nation was moving a bit away from the extreme Right that we've seen for the last 8 years?

It is perhaps a shift to the Left, but that's towards center again, as opposed to Crazy Town where we've been. Rather than taking a look at the President's office, it might be better to look at the make up of Congress and the House to realize where the nation is right now.

The hard Right has a few supporters, but a lot of folks got swept out of office. Because the electorate is sick of the crap that the hard Right has pulled.

Rather than take that lesson to heart, we have folks who think that they lost because they weren't hard "enough." Which is sort of like watching fifty or sixty of your buddies run smack into a wall and knock themselves out, and then reason that the only reason you didn't clear it was because you just weren't running fast enough...

/genuflects

what_now: Well if they don't like his budget, they're welcome to submit an alterna....oh yeah.

Heee hee....

it damn well better have charts!

DamnYankees: Just wanted to post this idea:

One of the most powerful lessons of history was certainly played out in the 43 year period between the end of Word War II and 1988. By the end of that time, it was completely obvious that people living under communism were not doing as well as most people living under some form of capitalism (at least in Europe). This became well known to the folks living in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and contributed greatly to the downfall of communism, among other factors.

For the last 21 years, we have been following a similar social experiment between different styles of capitalism: more regulated and less regulated. Several western countries including Ireland and Iceland, as well as some of the Baltic countries, got rid of many regulations, particularly regulations regarding finance. For a while, their economies were shining stars, but now they are a mess. The US and Britain, the least regulated large economies, are now suffering greatly as well from the financial bubble. While Old Europe (to steal a phrase from Don Rumsfeld) is not nearly as affected by the recent debacle.

canada is the only major country to completely avoid bank failures. perhaps we should look at their regulatory system, it seems to have passed clinical trials.

burndtdan: what_now: Well if they don't like his budget, they're welcome to submit an alterna....oh yeah.

Heee hee....

it damn well better have charts!

I was told there would be punch & pie.

These farkers wouldn't know the left if it shat on their faces.

Pfft. It's a very small, cautious shift to the left at this point.

hubiestubert: You don't think that America electing a black man to the Presidency might mean that the nation was moving a bit away from the extreme Right that we've seen for the last 8 years?

Two words, dumbass: Alan Keyes

if the American public by and large cared about what Republicans had to say, one vote wouldn't separate them in the Senate from complete irrelevancy. That is why I'm not going to bother clicking the link or debating any right wingers here.

DamnYankees: The US and Britain, the least regulated large economies, are now suffering greatly as well from the financial bubble. While Old Europe (to steal a phrase from Don Rumsfeld) is not nearly as affected by the recent debacle.

How is giving a few banks monopolistic control over the monetary system "least"?

DamnYankees: Just wanted to post this idea:

One of the most powerful lessons of history was certainly played out in the 43 year period between the end of Word War II and 1988. By the end of that time, it was completely obvious that people living under communism were not doing as well as most people living under some form of capitalism (at least in Europe). This became well known to the folks living in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and contributed greatly to the downfall of communism, among other factors.

For the last 21 years, we have been following a similar social experiment between different styles of capitalism: more regulated and less regulated. Several western countries including Ireland and Iceland, as well as some of the Baltic countries, got rid of many regulations, particularly regulations regarding finance. For a while, their economies were shining stars, but now they are a mess. The US and Britain, the least regulated large economies, are now suffering greatly as well from the financial bubble. While Old Europe (to steal a phrase from Don Rumsfeld) is not nearly as affected by the recent debacle.

That and the idea of 'socialism' is softening. The Republicans have kept up the illusion that anything regarding getting anything from the government is 'socialism.' Free health care, better living standards, and various other helpful programs designed to help people who don't have seven figures in the bank was seen as an extension of both the American Pioneer Spirit and the Puritan Work Ethic. Refusing an easier life became American's true new religion. And when we did it, it became a version of Christianity that we used to feel smug about.

Now, our little smugness has become lethal. Faced with a widening gap between the rich and the poor (divided by such loose terms as a 'middle' and a 'lower' class), an examination of that Pioneer Spirit and Work Ethic has started. And surprise, surprise, it turns out it was all bullshiat. It was a cheap, greasy handjob to our nation's collective spirit instead of the rich, fulfilling sex we could have had if we had gotten our shiat together and figured out that the rich like playing us for the saps we are. And it doesn't help that now the rich are getting bailed out to the tunes of millions while the rest of us can barely go to the doctor without declaring bankruptcy. And the givers of that spiritual handjob?

I'll give you a hint. It starts with Nixon and leads all the way up to Bush Jr. and Sarah Palin. They still think the delusionary tactics of Bootstraps and America as a land of opportunity still work. And some people who vote Republican still want to believe that. But they're kidding themselves, and fortunately for the rest of us who live in reality, it's hard to squeal for Jesus and brag about their bootstraps when they're getting foreclosed on and can't make ends meet at all. This is why the Republicans are failing, this is why they brought on 'socialism,' and this is why they're going to fail for the next few generations. The lie is spent, and that's all they ever were.

Guntram Shatterhand: The Republicans have kept up the illusion that anything regarding getting anything from the government is 'socialism.' Free health care, better living standards, and various other helpful programs designed to help people who don't have seven figures in the bank was seen as an extension of both the American Pioneer Spirit and the Puritan Work Ethic.



There is no such thing as free. You fail.

...and the Puritans were outsourced.

Hank Rearden: There is no such thing as free. You fail.

Ooh, great insight. Thanks for that.

If I walk down the street and someone says, "Hey, here's a promotional sample of Crest!" and hands me a tube of crest toothpaste, did I get it for free?

"We believe that you run a sound and affordable government not by running up the national debt to historic levels and unsustainable levels while over-taxing working Americans and spending as if there is no tomorrow, but rather by working on limiting the growth of government in a manner that is affordable not only today but for the next generation through limiting spending and addressing core issues like the cost of entitlements," Gregg said.

Is this the same Gregg who "helped funnel $66 million in earmarks to his home state to help create a business park at the decommissioned Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth, N.H."? Of course that isn't as problematic in and of itself "except for the fact that some of the senator's personal investments are wrapped up in the project." (Associated Press)

Why do I get the impression that "too far to the left" is GOP-speak for "we aren't going to get our entitlements anymore"?

/Obama has an interesting way of showing budget discipline.

The GOP...America's insufferable 4-year-old child

Obdicut: Hank Rearden: There is no such thing as free. You fail.

Ooh, great insight. Thanks for that.

If I walk down the street and someone says, "Hey, here's a promotional sample of Crest!" and hands me a tube of crest toothpaste, did I get it for free?

Someone paid for it. Fail x2.

Ain't exactly health care, either.

Hank Rearden: Someone paid for it. Fail x2.

Okay, since you're going to be obtuse:

I walk down the street and little girl runs up to me and hands me a dandelion that she plucked that was growing between the sidewalk slabs.

Was that free?

Ain't exactly health care, either.

Irrelevant to your claim.

Just because some people in London figured out how to steal money from America doesn't nullify Free Market Capitalism, Submittard. What's appalling is little mutant communists like you are trying use it to gain power.

/go back to Europe

bwesb: Is this the same Gregg who "helped funnel $66 million in earmarks to his home state to help create a business park at the decommissioned Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth, N.H."? Of course that isn't as problematic in and of itself "except for the fact that some of the senator's personal investments are wrapped up in the project." (Associated Press)

He seems to have made some money from that project. It's remarkable that these people, members of both parties, can actually go on camera and talk about debt reduction with a straight face.

soy_bomb: /Obama has an interesting way of showing budget discipline.

You forgot the 2007 projected 10 year budget that Bush proposed? Obama's 10 year budget is less than half a trillion higher than his--and Bush's projected 10 year budget didn't include having to swamp out the banking industry or fix much of anything...

Just saying. It's an interesting thing to pretend wasn't there.

Why is it that some don't understand that the 2009 fiscal year started in Oct '08 with a budget submitted by Bush in 2008?

Bush's 2009 budget included almost $500 BILLION is deficit spending BEFORE he TARP bill totaling $700 billion was passed.

Hmmmm.

Obdicut: Hank Rearden: Someone paid for it. Fail x2.

Okay, since you're going to be obtuse:

I walk down the street and little girl runs up to me and hands me a dandelion that she plucked that was growing between the sidewalk slabs.

Was that free?


No, the girl used her labor to pick it. Time and energy. That is the cost.

Nothing is free, sir.

soy_bomb: /Obama has an interesting way of showing budget discipline.

lol aren't the bush deficits using that method (i forget someone should remember this) they used to make them appear smaller than they actually are, and obama's aren't

ah, the price of being honest i guess.

Hank Rearden: No, the girl used her labor to pick it. Time and energy. That is the cost.

Nothing is free, sir.

You're simply begging the question. It makes you look like you lack all common sense whatsoever.

Not to mention that you're skipping out entirely on the concept of economics being agent-dependent-- that is, something that is a cost to me might be an asset to someone else; economics is transformative in beautiful ways that you'll never get to think about, because you're stuck in an incredibly simplistic ideology.

So have fun with that.

GOP whines that Obama budget moves country too far to "the left", forgets that's exactly what happens when the right screwed things up so royally

When your point of view is so skewed to the right that common sense, as well as the advice of economists the world over, comes off as "moving the country too far to the left" you may want to avoid discussing politics, the economy, or anything more complicated than what you want from McDonald's wind up with your own show on Fox News.

Hank Rearden: No, the girl used her labor to pick it. Time and energy. That is the cost.
Nothing is free, sir.

Sounds about right. The girl spent her time picking the weed instead of doing something else. Like picking daisies.

zephyy: soy_bomb: /Obama has an interesting way of showing budget discipline.

lol aren't the bush deficits using that method (i forget someone should remember this) they used to make them appear smaller than they actually are, and obama's aren't

ah, the price of being honest i guess.

Soy and bunch arent exactly known for their honesty....

DePaul: Sounds about right. The girl spent her time picking the weed instead of doing something else. Like picking daisies.

Logically, though, she always has to be doing something, and spending her time in some way, so all his argument does is say that existence = cost, which is, well, conceptually useless.

Humans are also not the only source of energy in the world. If you create a solar battery, and then put it out in the sun to charge, it'll charge 'for free'. There's no work involved after the initial creation.

The 'nothing is free' viewpoint is about as useful as the 'you can't prove anything other than your own existence, not really' viewpoint.

Wake me up when the Democrats are the right-wing party and the Greens are the left-wing party. That'll be the day when the US political spectrum has moved to the center, never mind left.

A Dark Evil Omen: Wake me up when the Democrats are the right-wing party and the Greens are the left-wing party. That'll be the day when the US political spectrum has moved to the center, never mind left.

Well...

I'd argue that the 'left'/'right' thing is what's at fault here. It's useless.

There are ways that the US is the most 'left' country among the modern democracies-- free speech, for example. Our libel/slander laws make it nearly impossible to sue anyone for libel or slander, let alone arrest them for it.

'right' and 'left' aren't really very important metrics, I don't think, and always will lead to oversimplification.

Obdicut: Logically, though, she always has to be doing something, and spending her time in some way, so all his argument does is say that existence = cost, which is, well, conceptually useless.

Humans are also not the only source of energy in the world. If you create a solar battery, and then put it out in the sun to charge, it'll charge 'for free'. There's no work involved after the initial creation.

It just seems to me that he was describing, perhaps in a roundabout way, opportunity cost. In some sense, every choice we make involves some sort of cost, in time, labor, or money. Even the solar battery you mentioned has a cost. It's true that it runs itself once it's made but making involved a cost. Part of that cost was not making something else.

/I keep saying cost

hubiestubert: Obama's 10 year budget is less than half a trillion higher than his

Half a trillion here, half a trillion there: pretty soon you're talking about real money.

/Seriously though -- Obama's just trying to fix the hole 8 years of Bush dug for us

A Dark Evil Omen: That'll be the day when the US political spectrum has moved to the center, never mind left.

Careful now, that's commie talk!

Obdicut: A Dark Evil Omen: Wake me up when the Democrats are the right-wing party and the Greens are the left-wing party. That'll be the day when the US political spectrum has moved to the center, never mind left.

Well...

I'd argue that the 'left'/'right' thing is what's at fault here. It's useless.

There are ways that the US is the most 'left' country among the modern democracies-- free speech, for example. Our libel/slander laws make it nearly impossible to sue anyone for libel or slander, let alone arrest them for it.

'right' and 'left' aren't really very important metrics, I don't think, and always will lead to oversimplification.

Well, yes, but saying that is, in and of itself, not useful since there is a mainstream in modern politics that most people and most political parties do fall along, defined largely by economic theory and how it affects one's worldview.

You can look at political theory along multiple axes, but in general most political parties have positions that fall somewhere along the line from anti-authoritarian socialist ("left") to authoritarian capitalist ("right").

soy_bomb: /Obama has an interesting way of showing budget discipline.

Add in the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan to Bush's budgets and get back to me. Bush never put those in, Obama is.

DePaul: It just seems to me that he was describing, perhaps in a roundabout way, opportunity cost. In some sense, every choice we make involves some sort of cost, in time, labor, or money. Even the solar battery you mentioned has a cost. It's true that it runs itself once it's made but making involved a cost. Part of that cost was not making something else.

But that's not true. Some choices we make save time, labor, or money. If I labor to breathe because of athsma, and I can use an inhaler to cease that, I've just made a choice from which I'm the net beneficiary. And if you want to use the ridiculous energy-based economic system he was talking about, you'd then have to figure out the energy expenditure in making the inhaler, and if my increase in energy/work was above that, there would be a net gain.

It's just a contorted way of looking at anything.

Opportunity cost exists, but it's comparative, not declarative.

To segway back into the thread--

Take the cost of treating someone prophylactically or preventatively vs. the cost of treating someone in crisis. If you treat someone preventatively-- often just, like, one-week preventatively-- you can cut the cost of treatment by order of magnitude.

I want us to do that in the US because I'm a financial conservative, and I'd rather pay the lower price. So, I want good, working universal health insurance.

Is that right or left of me? Neither. It's just pragmatic.

Hank Rearden: Guntram Shatterhand: The Republicans have kept up the illusion that anything regarding getting anything from the government is 'socialism.' Free health care, better living standards, and various other helpful programs designed to help people who don't have seven figures in the bank was seen as an extension of both the American Pioneer Spirit and the Puritan Work Ethic.



There is no such thing as free. You fail.
Sure there is. How else could the economy grow?

So basically, the GOP's complaint is that the party that won the election is implementing policies that it prefers? Funny how that works...

czetie: hubiestubert: Obama's 10 year budget is less than half a trillion higher than his

Half a trillion here, half a trillion there: pretty soon you're talking about real money.

/Seriously though -- Obama's just trying to fix the hole 8 years of Bush dug for us

When you consider the 4 trillion that Bush* left us with during his 8 years, kinda...

*and the leaving off of war costs from his budget projections...

A Dark Evil Omen: Well, yes, but saying that is, in and of itself, not useful since there is a mainstream in modern politics that most people and most political parties do fall along, defined largely by economic theory and how it affects one's worldview.

If you constrain to economics, yes, but even then I feel it causes more confusion than it gives clarity.

You can look at political theory along multiple axes, but in general most political parties have positions that fall somewhere along the line from anti-authoritarian socialist ("left") to authoritarian capitalist ("right").

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Many times socialist positions are tied with strong, very strong central authority. You can have perfect economic socialism while having a strongly pro-authoritarian bent.

The number of axes is large. There's macroeconomics, politics of property, privacy, equality, foreign policy, free speech, etc. etc.

Many of these cannot even be put on a two-pole axis.