Obama spending plan killed in Senate

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Melissia**

For example, Hamilton was STRONGLY opposed to the Bill of Rights, while Jefferson was a strong supporter.

Their debate? Hamilton feared that the bill of rights would become an exclusive list of rights, while Jefferson argued it would be considered expansive, that is, the rights of the people extended far beyond the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

As an aside (he was an important period philosopher), it's kinda sad that people only remember Adam Smith for The Wealth of Nations. His first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments was essentially the basis for his theories as presented in The Wealth of Nations and afterwards, and indeed because of this one could actually make the argument that many corporations are acting immoral according to Adam Smith because corporations do not collectively feel sympathy even if their individual members do, yet theyr'e granted individual rights.

In fact, I'm fairly certain the founders would have been horrified by corporations today... they absolutely HATED the corporations of their time, to be sure. Heck, that very tea party that a certain modern movement is named after was a protest agaisnt corporations-- not against the British government. One of the first things they did after the founding of the federal government was to plant more and more restrictions on corporations, including, for example, making political contributions from a corporation a criminal offense.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

John Adams wrote:Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.

Even Lincoln joined in.

Abraham Lincoln wrote:The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.

[In a different letter]

As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.

They didn't prove groundless.

So honestly? If you think the opinions of the founding fathers matter much in how we should govern the US, you should probably be campaigning for a DRAMATIC restriction in the rights and powers of corporations.

**Phanatik**

Melissia wrote:1:Only actual people who have the same rights as corporations but less power can be trusted to be upstanding citizens.

This gave me a creepy feeling. It made me think of "nothing is better than a big juicy steak."

Melissia wrote:2: Bam, bullet to your head. I maximized my profits by eliminating my opposition, Mexican-style. This is good].

Sure, we see Big Oil and Big Pharma blowing away people in the streets every day. No one could ever say that you exaggerate.

Melissia wrote:3: Supply-side economics is a lie, and always has been. It doesn't work, it never has, it never will.

Wish-thinking of the Looney-Left. I'd suggest you go live in Cuba or N. Korea for a while. After a couple of weeks, you'll love capitalism.

Melissia wrote:4: Yeah, I think I'll ignore this little rant of yours claiming that Obama hates white people and Israel. Reading such inanities is intellectually painful.

You are the one that brought up race. I was referring to what is often taught in madrasahs. And, you apparently don't follow the news, or must simply watch the lamestream media which doesn't report all the news, or the facts, or the truth. Obama has done a lot of things that raise reasonable person's eyebrows since he got into office; starting with sending back Churchill's bust, all the way to ordering Israel to return to the borders from the 60's, which would be a nail in the coffin.

Have a nice day.

**Melissia**

Ah, there it is. I was wondering when you'd forfeit even the pretenses of intelligent debate and accuse me of being a communist (as well as calling me a "loony").

**Phanatik**

Melissia wrote:In fact, I'm fairly certain the founders would have been horrified by corporations today... they absolutely HATED the corporations of their time, to be sure. Heck, that very tea party that a certain modern movement is named after was a protest agaisnt corporations-- not against the British government.

Really, where do you get your information? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the Tea Act (the last straw), the 1765 Stamp Act, and the Coercive Acts.

If you truly hate corporations, I'd suggest you put your money where your mouth is, and don't work for any corporation, buy their goods, or use their services. That would pretty much leave you with living in new mexico, sitting on the ground indian-style, manifesting your dolphin aspect.

Have a nice day.

**Melissia**

Because the entire incident was essentially caused by the East India Trading Company and its political sway over British parliament, resulting in a string of laws that allowed it to undercut all competitors and sell its tea directly to the American colonies while continuing to have them be taxed (the Townshend tax, which paid for colonial officials so theyd' be loyal to the crown rather than the colonies).

**Phanatik**

Melissia wrote:Ah, there it is. I was wondering when you'd forfeit even the pretenses of intelligent debate and accuse me of being a communist (as well as calling me a "loony").

I never used the pronoun "you", so if you are feeling insulted then you must identify with them. That's something for you to work out.

Also, I suppose I'm engaging in unintelligent debate because I suggest that people that hate capitalism are socialists?

I'd suggest looking up the "it looks like a duck" inductive reasoning theory.

Regards,

**Melissia**

Phanatik wrote:I never used the pronoun "you"

I'm not stupid enough to believe you weren't referring to me.

Also, I firmly support capitalism. Capitalism and corporations are not intrinsically linked no matter what you might claim.

Though you cherry pick which parts of my posts you're responding to, you're still doing a poor job of debating them...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To make it even more amusing, I'm merely taking the same stance against corporations that the foundign fathers took. If my position is that of the "loony lefties" then our country was founded by "loony lefties", our constitution was written by "loony lefties", the course of our nation was directed in large part due to the actions of "loony lefties".

To prove this, I quote said fathers themselves:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

James Madison wrote:There is an evil which ought to be guarded against[ in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.

John Adams wrote:Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.

Their opposition to the power of corporations and banks would make them decried as crazy in today's world. But there it is.

**dogma**

Phanatik wrote:
I never used the pronoun "you", so if you are feeling insulted then you must identify with them.

Not only did you use the pronoun "you" (5 times in the relevant post), you also quoted her and used the pronoun "this".

Phanatik wrote:
Also, I suppose I'm engaging in unintelligent debate because I suggest that people that hate capitalism are socialists?

I'd suggest looking up the "it looks like a duck" inductive reasoning theory.

The duck test only applies in situations where the opposing argument is based on abstract grounds. For example, "He can't have killed that person, he's a Christian." might be countered by "That may be so, but his appearance and behavior are similar to that of a killer."

However, even in that situation, the following question is "What does a killer look like, and do besides kill?" Which, when applied to your line of argument, would be equivalent to "What is a person that hates capitalism?" You might contend that such a person is socialist (you would be wrong, but you might contend) but contending that such a person can only be socialist is flatly wrong given that hatred has no necessary bearing on the system of economics said person prefers.

Phanatik wrote:
Wish-thinking of the Looney-Left. I'd suggest you go live in Cuba or N. Korea for a while. After a couple of weeks, you'll love capitalism.

You're equivocating by equating capitalism with supply-side economics.

**sebster**

Melissia wrote:Supply-side economics doesn't work when there's no demand (like right now, with high unemployment and inflation exceeding the national average payroll increases), and Republican politicians either don't know jack about demand-side economics or just don't care. Assuming government-supported supply-side economics ever worked at all, which I've yet to be convinced of.

More to the point, supply side economics just plain do not work in any situation. They were a collection of whacky nonsense held by economic nobodies, supported by incredibly dubious research, that just happened to have the ear of a guy with no economic knowledge, who happened to be about to win the presidency. "Voodoo economics" is among the greatest catchphrases ever used to sum up everything that's stupid about someone else's beliefs, and in this case it was given by Reagan's primary opponent, George HW Bush.

They've since proceeded to not work for 30 years, and achieve little more than drive the US into an unsustainably low level of taxation.

That it has become a standard of Republican policy and continues to be well thought of speaks volumes about the collapse of rationalism within the American right wing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:1. Businesses exist to make a profit for their owners/shareowners. They don't exist to fund government social engineering, or provide a "living" wage or various benefits to it's employees.

Of course. But businesses exist within the greater system created by society through its government. To grant them free reign to act in society as they please, and then not bother to check if they're actually producing the economic outcomes we desire is madness.

3. Democrat Keynesian economics is a big pile of dog poop sitting in a lovely bouquet of flowers. (aka it's still poop)

This thing where you pretend Keynesian economics is somehow an idea that just happens to have been embraced by the Democrats, instead of being an absolute fundamental of macroeconomic management is a thing that needs to stop. It is ridiculous. Stop being ridiculous.

The american economy would be fine right now if it weren't for government tinkering. Just go back to the Community Reinvestment Act to discern the heart of our current problems.

The US suffered a debt crisis. This debt crisis was the result of excessive leveraging of private companies, driven at it's core by borrowing on a housing bubble, which in turn was driven by the private market innovation of bundling up mortgage securities for on-sale, to free up more capital for lending to more homebuyers.

The idea that a minority of homebuyers are somehow responsible for the debt crisis is pretty crazy - there had been foreclosures before and there'll be foreclosures again - what made this different was how little reserve equity the private sector held. The idea that government is responsible because they relaxed homeloan regulations to allow private companies to lend to those people, if those private companies wanted to, is straight from Republicanland.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:Notice that the golden age of america was before the progressives started tinkering, because of course they knew/know more than the founders.

The golden age of US power was after WWII, following the most overt use of government power in controlling economics in the nation's history.

Not that I or many other people would recommend such overt government influence, that was only justified by the needs of the war, but to pretend that government influence is a new thing that's coincided with a decline in US prosperity is complete and utter nonsense.

**Frazzled**

They're both children next to the greatness that is Jackson, the first true Amurican President. He probably really did walk around shouting "AMURIKA HURR!!!"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:
Melissia wrote:In fact, I'm fairly certain the founders would have been horrified by corporations today... they absolutely HATED the corporations of their time, to be sure. Heck, that very tea party that a certain modern movement is named after was a protest agaisnt corporations-- not against the British government.

Really, where do you get your information? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the Tea Act (the last straw), the 1765 Stamp Act, and the Coercive Acts.

If you truly hate corporations, I'd suggest you put your money where your mouth is, and don't work for any corporation, buy their goods, or use their services. That would pretty much leave you with living in new mexico, sitting on the ground indian-style, manifesting your dolphin aspect.

Have a nice day.

New Mexico. Thats harsh. With the exception of a few regions of paradise, Its like the donkey-cave of the universe.

**WarOne**

Frazzled wrote:They're both children next to the greatness that is Jackson, the first true Amurican President. He probably really did walk around shouting "AMURIKA HURR!!!

"I have only two regrets: I didn't shoot Henry Clay and I didn't hang John C. Calhoun."

-Andrew Jackson

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:New Mexico. Thats harsh. With the exception of a few regions of paradise, Its like the donkey-cave of the universe.

Right, I wouldn't want to move there. It's like Texas if all the awesome was removed.

Wait that might be Arizona.

Hm. Is there a difference?

**CptJake**

I lived in El Paso for a while, and worked in an area that covered TX and NM (Ft Bliss up through White Sands Missile Range). Trust me, in that area, TX = NM. One was not better thsn the other.

**Frazzled**

CptJake wrote:I lived in El Paso for a while, and worked in an area that covered TX and NM (Ft Bliss up through White Sands Missile Range). Trust me, in that area, TX = NM. One was not better thsn the other.

Thats because you were in the Permian Basin. Evidently you had many sins to atone for.

**DickBandit**

Frazzled wrote:Ask Obama that question about his bill, sending something designed to fail so he could then complain about it.

Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice, polling continues the American people's continuing desire to fire all of them.

Exactly. Why not just run our government like a smart business.

"Hey, So-n-so isn't doing his job"
"Fine, he's fired, get me another one."
"Hey, now this guy isn't doing his job."
"Fired, next one."
And so on. Just keep doing it til we find the right one.

**dogma**

DickBandit wrote:
Exactly. Why not just run our government like a smart business.

Because its not a business.

**Phanatik**

Our best bet would be to outsource government jobs overseas. I would suggest India. This would immediately remove politicians from directly profiting from laws they pass themselves. We'd save taxpayer money on both ends.

We should put military contractors in the U.S. in charge of arming the military, for a cost savings as well. No more bribes, and the companies would have to do it efficiently or it'd affect their stock values.

The Political Elite running the federal government is already mostly unresponsive to the wishes of the public, and people from India are more polite in any case.

Best,

**Melissia**

Phanatik wrote: This would immediately remove politicians from directly profiting from laws they pass themselves.

No it wouldn't.

**dogma**

Phanatik wrote:
We should put military contractors in the U.S. in charge of arming the military, for a cost savings as well. No more bribes, and the companies would have to do it efficiently or it'd affect their stock values.

I know this is supposed to be a joke, but if military contractors are arming the military, and producing the weapons used to arm it, who is making the decision to buy said weapons, and where is that money coming from?

As jokes go, this was poorly conceived.

Phanatik wrote:
The Political Elite running the federal government is already mostly unresponsive to the wishes of the public...

That's by design, you know.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:That's by design, you know.

Note: not by constitutional design.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
Note: not by constitutional design.

That's arguable, given that the direct election of Senators was not mandated until 1913, the 14th amendment did not pass until 1868 (specifically, Section 2 is what I'm referencing), and there is no federal law governing faithless electors.

Additionally, the electoral college itself renders the only national election one which is not based on the people alone.

Many of the Founders weren't exactly populists, either.

**sebster**

Phanatik wrote:Our best bet would be to outsource government jobs overseas. I would suggest India....

So is this going to be another thread where you come in and throw all kinds of ill-informed talking points, people explain to you why you're wrong, only for you to ignore that and carry on with some other kind of nonsense?

If so, is that how you intend to continue posting in the future?

If so, why are you bothering with coming onto discussion boards at all?

**Karon**

sebster wrote:
Phanatik wrote:Our best bet would be to outsource government jobs overseas. I would suggest India....

So is this going to be another thread where you come in and throw all kinds of ill-informed talking points, people explain to you why you're wrong, only for you to ignore that and carry on with some other kind of nonsense?

If so, is that how you intend to continue posting in the future?

If so, why are you bothering with coming onto discussion boards at all?

How dare you question him, you dirty socialist/communist/Marxist/fascist/liberal/democrat!

**Phanatik**

sebster wrote:
Phanatik wrote:Our best bet would be to outsource government jobs overseas. I would suggest India....

So is this going to be another thread where you come in and throw all kinds of ill-informed talking points, people explain to you why you're wrong, only for you to ignore that and carry on with some other kind of nonsense?

If so, is that how you intend to continue posting in the future?

If so, why are you bothering with coming onto discussion boards at all?

Who died and made you a mod?
Who died and made you the arbiter of what people can post?

Have a nice day!

**Frazzled**

Would that make Sebster ZombieMod?

**Samus_aran115**

Frazzled wrote:This is actually a good deal. Obama is now threatening to break the act into smaller bills. Thats excellent. There were several parts of it that weren't bad.

My thoughts too. I knew it was going to fail. Everyone did, I think

**sebster**

Phanatik wrote:Who died and made you a mod?
Who died and made you the arbiter of what people can post?

Have a nice day!

Given I didn't threaten any kind of sanction, or even suggest such a thing were needed, your claim that I was acting like a mod is ridiculous.

Instead, I noted a pattern - you post far right talking points, the board dismisses your far right talking points, you ignore this and repeat different talking points or after a while repeat the old ones again. Given this is a discussion board, it seems very strange you've shown so little interest in discussion.

I'm not saying you can't keep posting your non-thought, I'm just wondering why you're bothering.

**Phanatik**

sebster wrote:
Phanatik wrote:Who died and made you a mod?
Who died and made you the arbiter of what people can post?

Have a nice day!

Given I didn't threaten any kind of sanction, or even suggest such a thing were needed, your claim that I was acting like a mod is ridiculous.

Instead, I noted a pattern - you post far right talking points, the board dismisses your far right talking points, you ignore this and repeat different talking points or after a while repeat the old ones again. Given this is a discussion board, it seems very strange you've shown so little interest in discussion.

I'm not saying you can't keep posting your non-thought, I'm just wondering why you're bothering.

Fascinating.
So, when I post far right talking points and you post far left talking posts in response, of course YOU are correct and I should just change my opinion?
So, a "discussion" is where I change my opinion to agree with you?
So, if I continue to support my position, I'm no longer interested in discussion?

I didn't use the word sanction. I suggested that you seemed to be judging the content of my posts to be unworthy of being posted, as if you have some kind of control over the thread. Note that in this case, "unworthy" is defined as I don't agree with you, so you want to shut me down, by overusing the word "ridiculous." If I succumbed to such censorship, it would be ridiculous.

Regards,

**dogma**

Phanatik wrote:
So, a "discussion" is where I change my opinion to agree with you?
So, if I continue to support my position, I'm no longer interested in discussion?

No, a discussion involves engaging the points made against you, or your position. You don't do this, you engage in what is essentially a highly transparent, and heavy-handed attempt to produce strawmen that are vaguely related to the point made by the person you happen to be quoting at the time.

I could even appreciate this approach, as I use it myself in certain circumstances, but you do it with so little skill that I really just have to shake my head and wonder if the heavy-handedness is simple flamebait.

Phanatik wrote:
I suggested that you seemed to be judging the content of my posts to be unworthy of being posted, as if you have some kind of control over the thread.

You also claimed he was acting as a Mod by doing so, but that would entail a threat of sanction, which was not made. This is an example of the process I described above.

**Melissia**

The department of treasury enters the fray, with an article discussing what is causing the current slump, namely, accusations that regulations are causing poor performance.

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Is-Regulatory-Uncertainty-a-Major-Impediment-to-Job-Growth.aspx

Is Regulatory Uncertainty a Major Impediment to Job Growth?
By: Dr. Jan Eberly
10/24/2011

Last week at a Senate hearing Secretary Geithner said, “I'm very sympathetic to the argument you want to be careful to get the rules better and smarter, but I don’t think there's good evidence in support of the proposition that it's regulatory burden or uncertainty that's causing the economy to grow more slowly than any of us would like.”

Economists from across the political spectrum have also weighed into this debate and reached the same conclusion. Bruce Bartlett, a senior advisor in both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, said that “no hard evidence” has been offered for claims that regulation is the “principal factor holding back employment.” And in a recent Wall Street Journal survey of economists, 65 percent of respondents concluded that a lack of demand, not government policy, was the main impediment to increased hiring.

Nonetheless, two commonly repeated misconceptions are that uncertainty created by proposed regulations is holding back business investment and hiring and that the overall burden of existing regulations is so high that firms have reduced their hiring.

If regulatory uncertainty was a major impediment to hiring right now, we would expect to see indications of this in one or more of the following: business profits; trends in the workforce, capacity utilization, and business investment; differences between industries undergoing significant regulatory changes and those that are not; differences between the United States and other countries that are not undergoing the same changes; or surveys of business owners and economists. As discussed in a detailed review of the evidence below, none of these data support the claim that regulatory uncertainty is holding back hiring.

Business Profits

If regulation was a significant drag on business today, we would expect to see profits constrained after recent regulatory reforms were passed into law. However, corporate profits as a share of gross domestic income have about recovered their pre-recession peak, and earnings per share in industries most affected by recent regulatory changes, such as energy and health care, have among the highest earnings per share of those in the S&P 500. This growth is inconsistent with a corporate sector held back by regulation.

Trends in Workforce, Capacity Utilization, and Business Investment

If regulatory uncertainty was the primary problem facing businesses, firms would prefer to use their existing capacity and current workers as much as possible, while avoiding building additional capacity until they are more certain about the contours of future regulation.

Specifically, if demand was strong but businesses were concerned about future regulations, they would increase the hours of the workers they already employ rather than hiring additional workers. We have seen no evidence of this in the data: the average work week for private employees has been roughly flat for the past year. Similarly, if demand were strong, firms could easily expand using existing capacity without taking on the cost and risk of added capacity. However, the share of total potential industrial output in use remains 3 percent below its long-run average. Low capacity utilization is inconsistent with concerns about future regulatory risk, but aligns with weak demand holding back current production.

At the same time, business investment has led economic growth over the last few years. Since the end of the first quarter of 2009, real investment in equipment and software has grown by 26 percent – about five times as fast as the economy as a whole. However, businesses would not increase investment if they thought that future regulation posed a threat to their ability to operate profitably.

Financial Indicators

If regulatory uncertainty were having a significant impact on business performance, we would expect this to be reflected in capital markets. However, financial indicators do not provide any evidence in favor of this hypothesis.

As shown in the chart below, corporate bond yields are low across a range of industries, suggesting that firms in industries facing greater regulatory risk, such as insurance and energy, are not being priced out of the market.[1]

Bond Yields for Selected Industries

Spoiler:

Source: Barclays investment grade corporate subindices, measured as yield to worst at the end of the month.

One commonly cited measure of uncertainty is the Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index (known as the VIX), which measures the implied volatility of S&P 500 index options. For most of the past year or so, the VIX has stood only a bit higher than in the pre-crisis period, and while it rose significantly in early August, it has come down somewhat in recent weeks (see chart below). However, as can be seen, the sharp increase in the VIX in August and previous sharp increases in late 2008 correspond to virtually identical movements in the VDAX, a similar measure calculated for the German stock market. The correlation between these two indicators suggests that uncertainty in both countries primarily reflects global financial and economic conditions, rather than conditions specific to the United States, such as regulatory changes.

Stock Market Volatility in the United States and Germany

Spoiler:

Source: VIX: Wall Street Journal/Haver Analytics; VDAX; Handelsblatt/Haver Analytics

What Business Owners and Economists are Saying

In recent surveys, business owners and economists do not list regulation as the main problem facing their business, nor do they blame regulation for job cuts:
* In the September survey of small business owners by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, more than twice as many respondents cited poor sales (29.6 percent) as their largest problem than cite regulation (13.9 percent).
*In an August survey of economists by the National Association for Business Economics, 80 percent of respondents described the current regulatory environment as “good” for American businesses and the overall economy.
*As noted above, in a recent Wall Street Journal survey of economists, 65 percent of respondents concluded that a lack demand, not government policy, was the main impediment to increased hiring.
*According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than three-tenths of 1 percent of mass lay-offs in the second quarter of this year were due to government regulations or intervention. [2]

A Sensible Path Forward

As Secretary Geithner noted during his recent Senate hearing, we should always be looking for ways to improve our regulatory system. That is why the President has ordered a government-wide review of existing federal regulations to create a 21st century regulatory system that protects public health and safety while also promoting economic growth and saving Americans billions of dollars. That review is ongoing and has already made substantial progress toward these goals.

These reforms will enhance the functioning of the economy and complement the increase in aggregate demand required to spur hiring and bring down the unemployment rate. Policy makers in the United States must address these fundamental concerns by putting in place a set of powerful measures to provide near-term support to the economy while restoring fiscal sustainability over the medium-term.

Dr. Eberly is the Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy.
__________________________________
[1] Similarly, recent work by Jay Livingston has shown that the unemployment rates in sectors where regulation has been increasing are actually below the national average.
[2] An extended mass layoff event is defined as “the filing of 50 or more initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits from an employer during a 5-week period, with at least 50 workers separated for more than 30 days.”