The Worst President

[Aradhus]

So you think the stimulus was completely worthless, really?

[Phatscotty]

So you think the stimulus was completely worthless, really?

No. I have always held the opinion that it created at least one job. of course, many more than one. Not enough to impact the unemployment rate though. not even 1%. at it's cost, I think it turns out something like 325,000 per job created.

A loss in my book.

Of course, there are jobs that are productive, and jobs that are not productive. Jobs which generate honest profits, feed into the tax based system. Jobs that are created from tax dollars actually takes money out of the pie, not to mention grabbing from one pocket to stuff in the other.

[Iliad]

I think the premise was is doing nothing always better than doing the wrong thing. Most economists agree that the stimulus saved and created jobs.

and horrendous amounts of debt, with interest.

hardly worth it. None of those jobs produce profits, or generates growth either. A sucker's deal.

So you're saying the correct procedure is to let the unemployment go as high as it will without any action? How do the jobs not help growth and economic recovery in your own opinion? Also how does this differ from extending the bush tax cuts on the wealthiest, when that has proven not to generate growth and only add horrendous amonts of debt?

That is some of the weakest excuses for logic I have ever seen. Have you even thought that through? Do you honestly think that if the stimulus wasn't passed the unemployment would have been exactly the same, if not lower, because the original predictions were slightly too optimistic?

So I assume you think counting saved jobs is also a weak excuse for logic? (Since it's impossible to count saved jobs.)

It isn't hard though for economists to predict and to estimate the impacts of a certain program. Your analogy is qutie pitful and just tries to dodge the questions.

[patches70]

Economists don't always agree on things. In fact, they rarely do.

In regards to the stimulus there are some who think if you are paying people to dig holes for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week and then just have them fill in the holes, that this will stimulate the economy. Even though those people produce nothing or contribute a single thing. They will take the pay they earn and buy stuff, thus stimulating the economy.

However, this line of thought has unintended consequences that are not being taken into account. For one, the stimulus money you are paying these people is borrowed. Borrowed from The Fed primarily, which The Fed is creating that money out of thin air. The non-productive worker takes that newly created money he was paid and buys stuff, infusing this new money into the system. The Market determines prices of things based on how much money is in the system. This is extra money into a market with the same amount of goods, since this non-productive worker produced nothing and did not add to the amount of goods that can be purchased. The Market thinks- "Oh, new money, time to adjust prices".

If you add money into a system where the amount of goods stays static, the prices of those goods increase. Thus, the stimulation is actually destroying the value of the currency and harming the economy even more.

If you want to stimulate the economy you need more people actually producing things of some value. Increase the amount of goods without increasing the amount of money, prices for goods drop. More goods are purchased and thus you get a stimulated economy.

When stimulation figures are being put out, like such and such job was saved, that job saved was for government money put toward something stupid. Like studying cow farts or some other inane thing. The person whose job was saved was some dude with a rod up a cow's butt, he is producing nothing, stimulating nothing and destroying the currency.

Any money spent that is not for productive purposes, be it busy work or administration or even war, is not a good thing for economy. Granted, there are administration costs and such things that need to be paid, but we have to keep that type of costs to a minimum. War is to be avoided as well, as war is extremely damaging to a nation's economy.

You can't borrow your way into prosperity. You get prosperous by being productive and frugal, wise with your spending.

If it is just a matter of Government tossing money into the system would actually stimulate the economy, the Government could have just sent everyone a check instead of handing the money to banks to distribute at interest to people. The banks took a beating with all the mal-investments and are not so quick to just toss money around with little hope of a decent or safe return on their money. The banks today are not lending money hand over fist, instead they are buying government bonds which in this economy they are guaranteed at least a 2% return. That return is modest certainly, but considering that if they lent it to some hopeful business man who will likely end up going broke in a year, the safe money is to feed the Government stimulus.


There is just different lines of thinking, economic wise, when it comes to things like stimulus that most non economist do not consider or understand. I would remind people that a majority of politicians are "non economists". The politicians love to spend money but never really understand where all that money comes from or what the consequences of spending all that money.

I am also willing to bet there will be someone coming in after this and saying- "Well, War is good for economy! WWII got us out of our depression before." The fact of the matter is that War is horrible for economies as well. The Keynesian's think the digging holes and war and all sorts of spending=Good for economy. I do not agree though. If you think smashing up your house and everything in it, so that you can go out and buy all new stuff, is good business and good economics, then you would be a Keynesian and an idiot. Our Government's stimulus package is akin to this.

To get the economy back on track we have to allow The Market to adjust. The stimulus is designed to defer that adjustment. The sooner The Market adjusts the sooner we can get back to work. The adjustment itself will be not only incredibly painful, it will also be short. In fact, if the Government had let those "Too Big to Fail" bastards just die like The Market dictated, it certainly would have caused a world wide depression but we would have already gotten through it by now and the path before us would be much, much brighter. Prices would have dropped, prices that have been artificially raised due to Government subsidies and interference, and would be at more stable levels. A ton of businesses would have failed and tons of people would have gotten laid off, but then people would rebound, entrepreneurs would be out in full force and would quickly fill in the void.
Some of those big corporations would have broken up, would have died, to be replaced with smaller but better business working with costs of raw materials lowered to more business friendly levels.

If allowed to adjust, The Market certainly would have changed the face of The World, but it would not have been a bad thing in the end, just different. The Stimulus is just another way of attempting to keep the Status Quo alive and kicking. One way or another the status quo is ending. All that needs to be decided is do we want it long and drawn out and more painful with each passing day, or do we want to take our medicine, gag with the bad taste, but feel much better very quickly?
It seems that our government has decided to go with the former choice. It only means we will suffer for longer and the suffering will build in intensity until it finally breaks and we go through the latter choice anyway.

Either way, we individuals can take steps to protect ourselves, economically at least, so as to not have to suffer as much as those who have put their faith in the elected leaders.

[Phatscotty]

I think the premise was is doing nothing always better than doing the wrong thing. Most economists agree that the stimulus saved and created jobs.

and horrendous amounts of debt, with interest.

hardly worth it. None of those jobs produce profits, or generates growth either. A sucker's deal.

So you're saying the correct procedure is to let the unemployment go as high as it will without any action? How do the jobs not help growth and economic recovery in your own opinion? Also how does this differ from extending the bush tax cuts on the wealthiest, when that has proven not to generate growth and only add horrendous amonts of debt?

yes. It's called "The Free Market" I mean, we could at least try Free Market Principles.

I have already pointed out the difference between a profitable, productive job, and a job, say....holding a shovel...

[Phatscotty]

I think the premise was is doing nothing always better than doing the wrong thing. Most economists agree that the stimulus saved and created jobs.

and horrendous amounts of debt, with interest.

hardly worth it. None of those jobs produce profits, or generates growth either. A sucker's deal.

So you're saying the correct procedure is to let the unemployment go as high as it will without any action? How do the jobs not help growth and economic recovery in your own opinion? Also how does this differ from extending the bush tax cuts on the wealthiest, when that has proven not to generate growth and only add horrendous amonts of debt?

That is some of the weakest excuses for logic I have ever seen. Have you even thought that through? Do you honestly think that if the stimulus wasn't passed the unemployment would have been exactly the same, if not lower, because the original predictions were slightly too optimistic?

So I assume you think counting saved jobs is also a weak excuse for logic? (Since it's impossible to count saved jobs.)

It isn't hard though for economists to predict and to estimate the impacts of a certain program. Your analogy is qutie pitful and just tries to dodge the questions.

I think it's important to know if someone lets their economics guide their politics, or if their politics guide their economics.

Ah, we have sort of a problem here, yeah. You apparently referred to the tax cuts as "the Bush tax cuts"....yeah. mmm yeah ya see it's just that now the Bush tax cuts are the Obama tax cuts. Did you see the memo about this?

Yeah, if you could just make sure you refer to the Bush tax cuts as the Obama tax cuts (for the rich!) from now on, that would be great.

Thanks!

[neanderpaul14]

Without racist-Wilson's groundwork, we wouldn't have been stuck with the policies of those latter presidents.


For those of you who don't know, one of the reasons Wilson was a racist is because he was the one who segregated the military and other government offices.

Ummmm........Wasn't Wilson also the one who screened Birth of a Nation in the White House and said something like " It's like writing history with lightning"........I am positive I got that quote wrong but he thought it was accurate history.


Oh and by the way I can't in good conscious vote in this poll, because you forgot the worst President in U.S. history: George W. "Lying ass, war monger" Bush

[Phatscotty]

Without racist-Wilson's groundwork, we wouldn't have been stuck with the policies of those latter presidents.


For those of you who don't know, one of the reasons Wilson was a racist is because he was the one who segregated the military and other government offices.

Ummmm........Wasn't Wilson also the one who screened Birth of a Nation in the White House and said something like " It's like writing history with lightning"........I am positive I got that quote wrong but he thought it was accurate history.


Oh and by the way I can't in good conscious vote in this poll, because you forgot the worst President in U.S. history George W. "Lying ass, war monger" Bush

I think he was meh, so I wouldn't include him in my worsts poll. Although he did abuse the "blanket power" he did nothing so horrible as create and institution that takes 25% of my check check, or a different institution that get 6%, and another that gets 4%, and she did not shit can an economy the way Carter did (no stagflation! thanks to "it could have been worse" Obama, yeah, I got that!) and he did not try to create another health insurance big gov't take another 8% out of my paycheck. He might have misspoke and said some dumb things and made some bad decisions, but none of them effect my life more than the decisions that wilson, FDR, and potentially Obama (repeal?!). Carter was just so bad you almost can't have a worst poll without him, although I don't think he did as much damage as the other 3.

[GreecePwns]

Only one President in the history of this nation has so openly pretended to represent liberal values. Only one President has been so quick to show his lack of spine when it comes to leading with a supermajority of the Senate. Only one President's spineless positions have been disguised as liberal, so as to further marginalize the actual cause of the left.

So I voted for President Obama as the worst.

Only one President has so deluded and made hypocrites of the right in such a way that they will deny his shortcomings and put their values as his, even if he failed on delivering in those aspects.

So I vote for President Reagan as the best.

[Phatscotty]

So you think the stimulus was completely worthless, really?

80% waste. No wealth was generated. mostly just keeping things greased. problem is, now we are stuck with annual bills for trillion dollar grease. There is nothing coming out of the machine, but we are keeping it running.

Slaves are made in such ways. Slaves to debt on grease.

"Son, you are just gonna have to work a little harder and a little longer, and do with a lot less. Love ya though! TTFN!!"

[Aradhus]

So you are opposed to government cutting SS in any way, extending the age, etc?

[Phatscotty]

So you are opposed to government cutting SS in any way, extending the age, etc?

you would be incorrect, 100%. How many times have I said "across the board"???? oh, just another fact you ignore? shocker

Can't wait to see how you are going to twist my opinion through your peanut head and come out with fig newtons.

[GreecePwns]

The last time we tried the free market we ended up with the worst unemployment numbers ever.

And with that, my 2nd worst (in a tie) are Dubya and Herbert Hoover.

[Aradhus]

So you are opposed to government cutting SS in any way, extending the age, etc?

you would be incorrect, 100%. How many times have I said "across the board"???? oh, just another fact you ignore? shocker

Can't wait to see how you are going to twist my opinion through your peanut head and come out with fig newtons.

Could you just one time, stop projecting your shitty rhetorical tactics, and dishonest attempts at strawmaning every conversation we have.

I was trying to instigate a place where we could come to an agreement based on your debt, and slaves comment. A place where you understand and sympathise with the position I have on social security.

Could you at least fucking try?

About your cutting spending across the board talking point. Does cutting 50% on spending on social progrms and and 1% on defense spending consitute "across the board"? with you?

[Phatscotty]

The last time we tried the free market we ended up with the worst unemployment numbers ever.

wait, what???

[Phatscotty]

So you are opposed to government cutting SS in any way, extending the age, etc?

you would be incorrect, 100%. How many times have I said "across the board"???? oh, just another fact you ignore? shocker

Can't wait to see how you are going to twist my opinion through your peanut head and come out with fig newtons.

Could you just one time, stop projecting your shitty rhetorical tactics, and dishonest attempts at strawmaning every conversation we have.

I was trying to instigate a place where we could come to an agreement based on your debt, and slaves comment.

'
wrong fucking thread?

[Aradhus]

Thanks for the response, mate.

[HapSmo19]

Aradhus,

Check out this link: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

It's a great blog/forum where you can discuss things that actually pertain to YOU!

[Aradhus]

Ok,Hap, I'll check it out.

I have a link for you too:

Why American politics is so important

[Phatscotty]

Thanks for the response, mate.

You come across too negative. It sets up a horrible conversation. The way I see it, you like the conflict and the negativity. I just don't always have time to be the focus of your venting. I understand that you venting on me probably makes you feel better because you disagree with my politics. I have thought about just foe'n you many times, but that is reserved for the worst of the worst.

You go off topic too much, and jump right to the opposite side and then get all pissed about the other side, and we are already way off topic there. Not to mention, everytime you try to define me, I disagree. So we aren't really communicating. I will just say as much as you think you know me, you really don't. Another reason for miscommunication.

[Aradhus]

Asking you to define your position on "across the board", and requesting that we try to come to some form of understanding of each others positions, was me being too negative?


Would kissing your ass be positive enough for you to engage in a discussion without all the bullshit?

[Phatscotty]

The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, frequently called the court-packing plan,[1] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that had been previously ruled unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_ ... ll_of_1937

[Phatscotty]

Asking you to define your position on "across the board"

What about "across the board" needs defining?

[safariguy5]

The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, frequently called the court-packing plan,[1] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that had been previously ruled unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_ ... ll_of_1937

Yes, but the court did moderate its stance after that episode hence the expression "A stitch in time saves nine". It was an unnecessarily harsh political move, but the system of checks and balances worked properly and he was stopped.

[patsfan12]

barrack hussein obama wins this award