[cdad]

Dad there are nanny states and there are controlled economies, what you are talking about is a controlled economy. Nanny state usually refers to a society that provides benefits to its citizens usually in exchange for higher levels of taxation. Sometimes this gets out of control as it has in Greece. The Universal Provider Syndrome is alive in many places and you can blame politicians for fastering it. control is in the hands of the citizens they have the ability to change things

This economy is being controlled by this government. What do you think the bailouts were part of? Look at how they threw out property rights laws and laws governing rights to security when they took over for GM and gave things directly to their voter base the unions.

It's the left that throws out destructive words and runs from the truth. When you speak the truth then they are in denial. They want to burden the economy with trillions more of debt to satisfy their want of more and more power. The truth keeps biting them in the butt.

[Wondergirl]

This economy is being controlled by this government.

I've gotten the impression the economy is being controlled by the wealthy. The banks were given money to help people with their mortgages, but the banks just hung on to that money and didn't help anyone--and got wealthier in the process. The wealthy want more money so they can finally "create jobs." The wealthy are encouraging the Republicans in Congress to stand fast and prevent the President from having any success and thus discourage the voters, so they can get their own wealthy man into office.

[cdad]

I've gotten the impression the economy is being controlled by the wealthy. The banks were given money to help people with their mortgages, but the banks just hung on to that money and didn't help anyone--and got wealthier in the process. The wealthy want more money so they can finally "create jobs." The wealthy are encouraging the Republicans in Congress to stand fast and prevent the President from having any success and thus discourage the voters, so they can get their own wealthy man into office.

If that's what you think actually happened in the banking system then your misinformed. The banks were given money in a form of a bailout. But restrictions by the government prevented the banks from releasing the money. The only one being helped are those within the government fanny mae and freddie mac. FHA has also been affected but not until recently and its going back to things as usual (signature loans that don't require a appraisal) and there are higher fees associated with that causing a nearly zero net gain. How did that help?

It only helped a select few and not the ones that were truly in trouble and it allowed the ones in trouble to continue doing so.

Don't blame the banks for doing what the government is telling them to do.

[paraclete]

This economy is being controlled by this government. What do you think the bailouts were part of? Look at how they threw out property rights laws and laws governing rights to security when they took over for GM and gave things directly to their voter base the unions.

Its the left that throws out destructive words and runs from the truth. When you speak the truth then they are in denial. They want to burden the economy with trillions more of debt to satisfy their want of more and more power. The truth keeps biting them in the butt.

Wonderful control, it took a long time to show any effect. Control implies you can actually influence events. How can you say a government is in control when it can't even approve its own budgets?

[talaniman]

QUOTE by califdadof3,
This is scary. It smacks the face of freedom. Do you actually want to live in a world where everything is outlawed unless it meets government approval?

I made no mention of outlawing anything, so please explain where what I wrote has anything to do with outlawing anything.

We had a nanny state come to power before and when it reared its ugly head it was cut off. Do we really need that again?

If you mean Hitler, and Germany, then you don't mean nanny state but one fool who was a successful in having powerful people around him to prop him, and his ideas up. His form of extractionian was aimed at domination, and control, and came from desperation and poverty.

Obama has done more to attempt to shred the constitution then any other in history. In the name of protectionist nanny state.

You will have to prove that with facts, because all I see are expanding services and benefits to ones that are deemed 2nd class citizens, and improving technology to make things work more efficiency.

Do you really think the Washington elites know what's best for you or would you rather decide for yourself?

Stop thinking they are elites, and see them as servant of the people and make them work for us, and not the highest bidder. OMG, think of the jobs if they made corporations actually invest in jobs and not senators! I mean who gave them the title of job creators when actually they have moved millions of jobs to other countries to exploit cheap labor and lax laws.

Just how do you expect to pay for all the fairness you want to institute into law? Oh yeah that's right someone has to earn it by working for it. What a concept.

Now we get to the right wing theory that it ain't no money for FAIRNESS?! Well there seems to be enough loot around for UN fairness! Let take that and spend it better. Lets see, schools and roads, and less prisons. Do the math. I say there is plenty of cash

The cradle to grave mentality has reached the end of the road and now stands on the edge looking over into the obis. Somehow someway we all need to start thinking again rather then just moving forward and calling names along the way then acting like nothing is wrong.

Well said from a group that wants to OUTLAW abortion, and build more prisons is against bridges and roads, AND schools, wants corporations to enslave us AND keep us poor, and a weak enough government to make it happen while being strong enough to monitor every pregnancy in the country.

I'll put cradle to grave anytime against just the cradle. That's straight from the slave owners playbook, make more slaves for FREE! What kind of mentality is that?

We can agree on the name calling though, but I insist, YOUR side goes first!

You might want to read up a bit on your Utopian nanny state before you actually put it into place.

Western Civilization and Culture: The Hitler Myth, Socialists And Social Democrats

Interesting right wing BS! Sounds good, but I already know that the right wings version of history is flawed to justify their fears and insecurities, and the actions they take against those other people.

[cdad]

Interesting right wing BS! Sounds good, but I already know that the right wings version of history is flawed to justify their fears and insecurities, and the actions they take against those other people.

I guess there is nothing more to be said when you can ignore the truth. It's a typical position. Accuse then run and hide when it comes back to bite you.

How about some truth from your side? Maybe dare I ask a bit of reality?

Here are just some of the things you can look into as far as the constitution and what has been done so far.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/judge-strikes-down-ndaa-rules-obama-must-obey-constitution/

http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/2012/01/obamas-coup-to-overthrow-the-constitution/


Twist away.

[excon]

Obama and his Leftist supporters see their window of opportunity to finally dispense with our constitutional republic and permanently install a ruling class that will “fundamentally transform” the country we love into their Socialist Utopia. They can almost see the finish line.

Hello dad:

Talk about twisted. Any screed that begins with that pile of crap, is twisted. I read NO further. Why should I? Do I think I'll find some truth over there?? Uhhh, NO, I don't.

Excon

[talaniman]

I guess there is nothing more to be said when you can ignore the truth. Its a typical position. Accuse then run and hide when it comes back to bite you.

How about some truth from your side? Maybe dare I ask a bit of reality?

Here are just some of the things you can look into as far as the constitution and what has been done so far.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/judge-strikes-down-ndaa-rules-obama-must-obey-constitution/

http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/2012/01/obamas-coup-to-overthrow-the-constitution/


Twist away.

Well so much for not calling names.

[talaniman]

Lets try this again without the inflammatory rhetoric.


The National Memo Obama Versus Romney Offers Clash Of Capitalisms

Romney came up as a private-equity investor. Like his party, he believes in his heart that the way forward for the U.S. is to slash taxes for the wealthy even further so that they have more venture capital to invest in businesses.

Obama came up as a community organizer. Like his party, he believes in his heart that a great nation must invest in human capital through education, health care and infrastructure.

The distinctions get more interesting when it comes to their strategies for creating jobs. Republicans are right that the U.S. needs to lower the corporate income tax rate, which in 2012 was the highest in the developed world. But cutting individual rates in 2001 did nothing for job creation; and by keeping taxes low on dividends, the Bush tax cuts inadvertently helped bring about a crisis of capital investment in U.S. manufacturing, the kind of investment that Republicans claim to champion.

Investment by U.S. companies in new plant and equipment for manufacturing was the lowest in the 2000s of any decade since records were first kept in the 1940s. The net stock of fixed assets in manufacturing grew by only 1.8 percent in the 2000s, versus 25.7 percent in the 1990s.

The venture-capital answer is to just cut taxes further and hope that the market will self-correct and this trend will reverse itself. The human-capital answer is to use the tax code to incentivize investment not just in plant and equipment, but in research and development and workforce training (where companies in the U.S. are investing about half as much as a share of gross domestic product as they did a decade ago).

I hope I don't have to quote the whole article but its an interesting read with verifiable facts if you check them.

It's the human capitalists who have the better argument, one based on investing in basic research, education and health care, the kind of things that spur long-term growth and competitiveness.

Last week brought a classic example of the differing approaches. The tussle over doubling interest rates for student loans (scheduled for July 1) was a controversy ginned up for the Obama campaign, but it was also an acid test. Democrats wanted to pay for the lower rate with a modest business tax; Republicans responded with plans to scuttle the preventive health-care part of Obamacare, despite much evidence of its efficacy for both people and budgets

My case for people over profits.

[excon]

I hope I don't have to quote the whole article but its an interesting read with verifiable facts if you check them.

Hello tal:

I'm a "job creator". Yes, I'm only a small job creator, but the principles of capitalism work with the little guys too... As a "job creator", I've said here many many times, that my TAX rate isn't what makes me decide to hire or not. In fact, if I just hired based on my tax rate, I'd go broke...

Let's say that my tax rate went down. What am I going to do with extra help? Truly... What possible reason would I have for hiring people just because my tax rate went down?? If you say that I'd invest in a new factory, I'd say that if I NEED a new factory, but I'm going to WAIT till my taxes go down, I'll go BROKE. That's because if my customers need stuff, but I'm WAITING for congress to act, they'll find it from somebody else.

REAL businessmen, like ME, hire people when the market FORCES them too. That means MORE people are buying what I'm selling. They're only doing that because THEY have more money to spend.

Therefore, my conclusion is, the economy will grow from the BOTTOM up, not from the TOP down. Again, I thought right wingers UNDERSTOOD capitalism. No, huh?

excon

[tomder55]

Ex , You think the economy should grow from the bottom up and yet have no problem with command and control economy ,directed by the central government, picking winners and losers ,and which markets should succeed ,and which should fail. That's as crony as you get in my book.

[talaniman]

What the freak does the average guy care about who controls the freakin' economy? Be it government, or corporations, its real people who are affected adversely by decisions of either side.

The difference is that I can vote for government, but not a corporation, to follow MY interests. And lets face it, I will vote for changing things that keep me from getting screwed when the corporations who don't care about me and mine, decide to have a freakin down cycle. Trust me, been through more than a few. So don't tell me its nothing personal, just business.

I can give you a perfect example. Lets take Bain, and companies like them, and while I don't mind a greedy b@stard making money on flipping companies, BIG money, do they have to take my pension, insurance and everything I worked hard for? How is that okay with you righties?

How is it okay when corporations, your so called job creators have taken the money they made here and took the loot out of the country leaving a big hole in the economy. How is that okay with you righties? I mean how can you justify giving them even more loot, at the expense of taxpayers?

You guys need a few math courses if you cannot add the economic consequences of tax cuts by a GWB, a few wars and some policies that never appeared on the books for years until he left and the new guy made them public. Okay you got mad at what he did, but your sure haven't helped the new guy clean up the mess, or set the course right.

In truth, you do everything you can to keep the old ideas of extraction in place and set things up to extract more. Okay, if nobody goes to jail, can we at least get our money back? Naw, you righties think the time is just perfect to finally do what the depression couldn't (another failed corporate attempt at robbery by the original right wing greedy b@stards), and that's weaken government enough so voters have no say in what kind of country we have.

So we have tried the trickle down crap many times. Its screws things up every time we try it, so lets do something different for a change so the capitalistic business cycle doesn't have to hurt just us ordinary folks so bad.

I would settle for a golden parachute, to tide me over until somebody figures this out. Is that asking too much?

[tomder55]

So we have tried the trickle down crap many times. Its screws things up every time we try it,

Under the JFK /Johnson tax cuts revenue increased by 25% but spending grew by an equal rate

Under Reagan revenues increased by 15 % but the ONeill Congress increased spending by 25 %

Under the Clinton /Gingrich tax cuts of 1997 ,revenues grew by 35% and together they slowed the rate of growth to 9% resulting in that balanced budget y'all brag about. It wasn't tax increases but a combination of tax cuts and reigning in spending that got it done .

Here are the words by JFK that the party that claims him as a hero seems to forget :

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget — just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.



In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus

[talaniman]

Under the Clinton /Gingrich tax cuts of 1997 ,revenues grew by 35% and together they slowed the rate of growth to 9% resulting in that balanced budget y'all brag about. It wasn't tax increases but a combination of tax cuts and reigning in spending that got it done .

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.

He didn't cut taxes, he raised them, exactly what we should be doing now to pay for wars and tax cuts that have created this deficit. My man Bill didn't have two wars to fund, so he also had the luxury of closing bases.

Half of the present deficit is from the previous occupant of the white house that was kept off the books, and despite what everyone has alleged about federal spending, Obama has not spent more than hedid the first year he took office, which is extrodinary since there has been no budget.

Federal spending under Obama - Bing News

Under Obama, growth in federal spending slowest in 60 years – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

Obama: 'Since I've Been President, Federal Spending Has Risen at Lowest Pace in Nearly 60 Years? | CNSNews.com

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...ent-obama-debt

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2012/05...a-than-reagan/

I know you righties don't want to hear those facts from credible sources, because that would mean you fell for the lies. There are 186 different sources to this story, so be careful what you believe.

I showed you mine, now show me that drunk soldier!

[tomder55]

Please ! You're citing an Annenburg project source as "credible " just because it names itself 'FactCheck' ?
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was everything you claim you want... bipartisanship ;and because Clintoon realized that his 1st term was a disaster ,he triangulated ,signed the tax cuts ;controlled spending ("end welfare as we know it" ). By golly ,some fiscal responsibility and the 1990s are the 'good ole days ' suddenly.. except the left can't accept what brought on the balanced budget .

[talaniman]

Don't change the subject, we are talking about NOW!! Clinton didn't have any wars to hide, so lets not compare one to the other. Or the policies of a healthy economy when taxes could be reduced. We don't have a healthy peace time economy to work with, and even you have to admit that King Reagan raised taxes when he had to without hesitation. Clinton could afford tax cuts because he also reduced spending.

This seems to suggest that the government be flexible and act quickly enough to changing conditions and events rather than stick to a idealogical policy for way to long and be inflexible to changes globally at domestically. But none of this changes the facts of today, since your goal is to privatize everything and make sure we are slaves of the "free market" that you think will bring the conservative utopia, and make us dependent on the corporate nanny state you envision.

But that's what conservatives have become rigid in thoughts and actions and scared of changes that benefit any one but them. To this day you will never admit to the Clinton tax raises were a response to Reagan's last recession.

[paraclete]

Old arguments, we live in different days Clinton and Reagan didn't have a GFC to contend with, they had some flexibilty in what they could do. No one has any flexibility today.

Tom wants a free market utopia where profits skyrocket but it just doesn't happen, we are in the situation we are now because one free market chased the almighty buck and beggared the rest of us

[tomder55]

King Reagan raised taxes when he had to without hesitation

Another left distortion. There was a deal made that included tax increases in exchange for spending reductions. Reagan kept his end of the bargain. The Democrat Congress did not . Reagan later wrote in his diary ;"The Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts."
Same thing happened to GHW Bush .

Clinton could afford tax cuts because he also reduced spending.

yup ,that is the formula

[tomder55]

Tom wants a free market utopia where profits skyrocket but it just doesn't happen,

Wrong ; 1 . I don't want any utopia 2. the market fluctuations are a natural part of the cycle and would self correct without massive government intervention .

[talaniman]

Wrong ; 1 . I don't want any utopia 2. the market fluctuations are a natural part of the cycle and would self correct without massive government intervention .

Oh, I get it, the recession was going to correct itself without government, so tarp (tax cuts plus, state aid, and state road construction), was unnecessary, and the banks didn't need a bailout?

And all those out of work people effected by market fluctuations that are just part of the natural business cycle, can expect their jobs back any day now? Last I checked the business cycle came roaring back, better than ever, but what happened to the jobs?