Has Stimulus Failed?

Posted by Liberty_one January 13, 2010 at 9:24 a.m.

The newly elected president was left with an economic mess. The bad policies of the previous administration and unwisely taking the country to war had left the economy in trouble, with high unemployment and declining GNP. The new president decided to implement a drastic change in economic policy not long into his first year in office and was roundly criticized by his opponents. However, by August signs of recovery were already visible. August of 1921, that is. By the next year unemployment had been cut in half, and a year after that it was down to 2.4 percent after being 12 percent in 1921. The Harding administration had cut government spending in half, cut taxes and reduced the national deficit. Meanwhile the Federal Reserve kept interest rates high, thus keeping inflation down.

It's almost been a year since Obama's stimulus package was passed, and have we seen comparable results? Not even close. At what point in time are stimulus supporters going to admit this policy was a mistake? The thing is, there's a playbook out there that worked. Cut down the size of government, reduce the tax burden and quit crowding out private investment with government debt. The Obama administration has gone the exact opposite direction and we aren't seeing the results. The gains in the stock market and housing prices are being offset by the declining value of the dollar. Private investment and savings continue to decline while public debt soars to new and frightening highs.

The excuse for failure so far has been that Obama was handed such a mess that recovery is difficult. Certainly that is true, but at some point in time the policies we are following will have to be examined and declared successful or failures. I would like to know how long it will take. I am suggesting two years, since that is how long it took the Harding administration to arrive at complete recovery from the depression of 1920-21.

Delicious
Digg
Tumblr
Wordpress
Reddit
Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

Read about the Forgotten Depression of 1920-21 here:
http://mises.org/daily/3788
January 13, 2010 at 9:26 a.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

See how the Federal Reserve reacted differently during the Depression of 1920-21 and the during the Great Depression here:
http://mises.org/story/3327
January 13, 2010 at 9:28 a.m.
geekin_topekan (anonymous) says…

The potential of the stimulus is great and very workable. It is just that most AMericans refuse to participate in our country's recovery.
January 13, 2010 at 9:36 a.m.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…

I think it's too early to tell one way or the other. Personally, I have a hard time lookin' at whatever that legislation was as "stimulus". How do we actually intend to invigorate the economy with..well..nothing? The supposed trillions for this mandate are either being printed out of thin air, no collateral whatsoever, or they're being borrowed from the likes of China.

The Professor of Economics at Harvard recently completed a study. They reviewed 90 instances since 1970 where governments attempted to 'fix' their nations' economies by mandate; raising taxes, generating an influx of un-backed cash, etc., just like our current admin has done. Every single one of those instances failed miserably. Japan's been at this failed policy for more than 15 years, still in recession.
What worked? Cutting taxes, breaks to small biz, and lowering corporate tax burdens. Shame we can't seem to learn from history. Or is this akin to the arrogant coach who thinks he can turn the moody, talented, but underachieving quarterback into a superstar? "Everyone else has failed at this, but I'm arrogant enough to believe I'll do it better."
January 13, 2010 at 9:52 a.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

I wouldn't say it was nothing. We are taking on enormous amounts of public debt and quickly debasing the currency. One would hope that we'd get something in return for shooting ourselves in the foot like that, but you're probably right. Little will come of it.
January 13, 2010 at 10:01 a.m.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…

Even the AP has realized that Porkulus has been a bust. Why pour more billions down the same rat-hole?
January 13, 2010 at 10:27 a.m.
georgiahawk (anonymous) says…

Turned around; no. Turning around; looks to be, hope it is. I think it is a bit premature to be making final judgements however. Personally I have to bank on the economy turning around, I try to be as positive about it as I can. The fact is the only thing I can do is take care of my little area of the economy.
January 13, 2010 at 10:59 a.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

Well, looks to be and hope it is aren't good enough considering we have a blueprint for economic recovery that is proven. Reduce the size of government and let free enterprise work. If we followed Harding's example we could already be turned around. Unemployment could be falling and on it's way to "full employment" levels of 3-4%. Ultimately Obama's policies are going to have the same results as Hoover's big spending policies did: extending the depression further and making it worse than it need be.
January 13, 2010 at 11:48 a.m.
75x55 (anonymous) says…

"It is just that most AMericans refuse to participate in our country's recovery.”

LOL!
January 13, 2010 at 1:14 p.m.
BigPrune (anonymous) says…

FDR and the United States got out of the Great Depression when we went to war with Japan and Germany.
January 13, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.
madameX (anonymous) says…

A couple of honest questions about this blog:
1. What was the root cause of the '20-'21 depression? If it was roughly equvilant to our current recession I could see there being a roughly equvilant solution, if not then not so much.
2. Harding's policies may have turned that depression around in the short term (this is a topic about which I know nothing so for the sake of argument I'll go along with that), but do you think they might have contributed in the longer term to the great depression?

Personally, I think there's only so much the governement can do to either help or hinder the economy. I think it's too soon to tell if the stimulus has had an effect, but I think that would be the case no matter what Obama's policy had been.
January 13, 2010 at 1:33 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

"FDR and the United States got out of the Great Depression when we went to war with Japan and Germany."

Not really. It was mainly that all the other countries' industrial bases had been destroyed by the war while the US was completely untouched.
January 13, 2010 at 1:43 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

madame,
1. the causes of every recession/depression are going to be different in the details.
2. I don't think they contributed to the Great Depression because the Great Depression started out much more mildly, and only became "Great" as the situation spiraled out of control. The situation in 1920 was much worse than the situation in 1929. Unemployment didn't reach double digits until 1931, arguably due to the Hoover administration's big spending policies.
January 13, 2010 at 2:09 p.m.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…

Liberty,
very fine blog and asking good questions.

not so familiar with the depression you site as the "great depression" supposed to have started in 1929, it actually started in a somewhat similar way to ours now: the popping of a price/credit bubble. in the case of 1927, there was a farm price and farm credit crisis. just the iceberg broke water and crashed the Titanic in 1929.
and no, that's not related directly to the 20-21 depression I think.

***
Well Liberty to answer your question:
let'slook at the expectations of Mr. O's own people, according to those, the stim has indeed failed. our unemployment has remained far higher than the level they forcast, the "stimulus" didn't hold it.
now, the administration has gone to this sherade(sp?) of "saved or created" jobs. and lately has extended the definition for that.

In much of america the real unemployment rate, including people who've run out of unemployment or have given up looking for work is at or above 20%. that's a serious figure.

and, you should consider: as depicted by nfib, wsj, and others, employers are not hiring because of all the cr*p on or over the horizon: health care confiscatory mandates; cap and trade (secret tax); expansion of IRS powers to enforce healthcare insurance compulsion; and all the d----d tinkering such as "cash for clunkers." employers don't want to risk hiring in this environment. Mr. O's own policies are preventing the recovery. any fool knows you don't raise taxes in a depression/recession. so, why is he doing it?
thanks for the blog Lib.
January 13, 2010 at 6:07 p.m.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…

Stimulus = Fail
January 13, 2010 at 6:23 p.m.
camper (anonymous) says…

Liberty, good blog and well written. I'd have to go back and study up on the 1921 depression, but I did recently read a book about the Great Depression called: The Great Depression & the New Deal, A very Short Introduction. It was a good un-biased and short recap of the successes and failures of Roosevelts new deal. Regardless of one's economic theory (or belief system), I found the book interesting because the public debate about the New Deal was so similar to the current stimulus debate.

I cling to no economic theory as absolute, but I believe in a balance between the private and public sectors. In short I believe the government should do what it can to limit the severity and longevity of recessions (this is the Keynesian side of me). When things are going good, keep the free enterprise QB in the game.

As far as President Obama's stimulus (which is continuing Bush's 12th hour legislation), I agree in principal, but I'm not so sure the money is reaching down to the level it needs to go for the amount that it is costing. If it were going to the right places it should spur private sector growth. So far I have not seen this. If anything, the current stimulus might have prevented the economy from hitting rock bottom, and this could very well shorten the duration of the recession. Is this considered a success? I don't know, we still have a way to go to determine.
January 13, 2010 at 7:19 p.m.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…

No jobs = no recovery.

It is that simple.
January 13, 2010 at 7:29 p.m.
commuter (anonymous) says…

Because of the uncertainity of what is going on, I have reduced my expenses. Reducing expenses does not help turn around the economy.

Also, I will have less money this year because what I owe the IRS is more than I originally expected. As part of Obama's stimulus, the withholding rates were reduced. I normally try to only have to pay or get a refund of less than $500. I should have been more careful watching my withholdings but I missed it. Since I owe more then I will again be spending even less than before.
January 13, 2010 at 8:23 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

porch, hey, if you think the stimulus is going to work, fine. But tell me, when will see unemployment finally go down? At some point in time, if it doesn't work, you have to admit that it was a failure. I'm suggesting two years. Does Obama really need longer than that? Please put up at what point in time you will agree that the stimulus bill failed.
January 13, 2010 at 9:06 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

porch, I see. So double-digit unemployment is a good economy in your opinion. What planet are you from again?

Signed,
Liberty_One, fake law student.
January 13, 2010 at 10:26 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

porch, wow, so the stock market is up. I'm sure the millions of unemployed Americans are thrilled. Like I said, why don't you put a date on when recovery will finally happen? It took the Harding administration less than a year and that depression was much worse. What's taking so long? I get the distinct feeling that even if we still have double-digit unemployment a year from now you'll still think the stimulus was a good idea. I guess reality plays no part in your thought process. I have to learn from your example though. You stay "On Point" so well. I didn't know that standards of competency in the medical arts was "On Point" for a discussion about economic depressions and recoveries, but because you are always "On Point" it must be so. I mean, it would be hypocritical of you to not be "On Point," right?

Signed,
Liberty_One, constant blatent mistake maker.
January 13, 2010 at 11:28 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

porch, I'm a blatent mistake maker. Don't you know? I make at least one mistake in every post! Thank goodness I've got you around to check my spelling. Us lawyers need people like you to do that for us. While you're at it, please address some envelopes for me and get me some coffee.

"you weren't aware that we're on the way back."

I know! I'm so caught up in high unemployment numbers that I forgot that the rich are still getting richer, and big business is still getting government kickbacks, so that's something right?

I like how you are the only person on the entire forum who seems to think the economy is doing great, but I'm the fringe wacko.

Signed,
Liberty_One, terrible speller.
January 14, 2010 at 12:06 a.m.
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…

The stimulus bill added about ten or fifteen dollars to my paycheck last summer and I was able to get by when in
previous Bush years I struggled because of the lack of that
fifteen dolllars a check or sixty dollars a month that it added up to. I really love how these dimwit Obama haters
can ignore the eight years it took a clown to create this
debt with tax rebates for the rich, misguided wars,
and the crazy encouragement of a society to help the economy by racking up more debt. Bush told people to keep shopping after 9/11, really! What short memories!
Furthermore the 1921 recession being referenced was a consequence of having no real economic plan following World War One and being caught in a point where the war effort creating more product that this country could buy or consume. The Harding Coolidge Hoover trifecta of Laissez
Faire economic policies exacerbated the problem leading
to the Great Depression in 1929 and the pendulum swinging towards all of the regulations of FDR that were meant to fix all of the problems that the three 1920's Republicans left FDR as he entered office in 1932.
I paid attention to History Class in High School Class 20 years ago. My great-grandfather lost his farm in Wellsville
Kansas in 1921-22 due to that recession. he told me about this as I was a child in the 1970's. He grew crops for the World War One war effort.
January 14, 2010 at 12:12 a.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

tuschkahouma (Anonymous) says…

"The Harding Coolidge Hoover trifecta of Laissez
Faire economic policies exacerbated the problem"

I thought you said you paid attention in school. Hoover was anything but a supporter of free market policies. Don't be so ignorant as to think that having an "R" next to someone's name makes them a laissez faire capitalist.

"I really love how these dimwit Obama haters
can ignore the eight years it took a clown to create this"

Odd, if you actually read my blog you'd realize I was criticizing the Bush administration's economic policies. I really love how dimwit people make assumptions when the information they are lacking is right in front of their faces.
January 14, 2010 at 12:41 a.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

Oh but it is porch. Won't you please be nice to me? I'm just a son of privilege who doesn't know anything about this big ol' world. I thought everyone had to be nice to me, but you've set me straight. Thanks for yet another one of your "On Point" comments. I know you're not the dimwit here porch. You are the only person who got it right. Now that I see clearly, high unemployment means nothing! BTW, can you please check this post for any spelling or grammar errors? I'm a big picture thinker (means 'garfinkeler') and I need little people like you to do the mundane things for me. When I'm in town next time don't let me forget to drop off my shoes for a cleaning.

BTW, when exactly are we supposed to get unemployment back down to 5 or 6 percent? Not that I'm trying to, in a round-about sort of way, get you to actually answer the question I proposed to any stimulus-package supporters.

Signed,
Liberty_One, egomaniac with low self-esteem.
January 14, 2010 at 1:36 a.m.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…

"The gains in the stock market and housing prices are being offset by the declining value of the dollar. "

I'm curious what you are using as a reference for this. What timeframe are you using for the statement that the dollar is declining? If you mean declining since 2002, then you are correct. If you mean declining since 2008 then you're in error.

In the spring of 2008 the U.S. dollar stood at an all-time record low against the euro after plunging more than 40% in value. From it's March 2008 bottom the dollar came back to life soaring to multi-year highs.
http://www.elliottwave.com/images/fut...

http://quotes.ino.com/chart/history.g...

Using the chart below we can clearly see that the U.S. dollar has devalued from 2001/2002 - but that has nothing to do with the stimulus passed by the Obama administration. And it's nothing compared to the drop between 1985 and 1988.
http://www.sharelynx.com/chartstemp/f...

I think it's a little early to tell yet if the porkulus package is causing an increase or a decrease in the value of the dollar. We see initially huge gains but then another downward trend... though not as low as spring 2008. In my opinion we need a little bit more time to see if the stimulus has slowed, stopped, or altered the devaluation of the dollar that started back in 2002.
January 14, 2010 at 2:51 a.m.
TopJayhawk (anonymous) says…

Liberty. Save your breath. Porchie is an idiot.
Kool-Aid overdose. No reasoning with her. She will never get it.
Remember. FDR's own economic advisor said in his memoirs that after spending and taxing to get out of the depression that all it did was raise our debt, it did nothing to ease the depression.
My cousin is a PHD economist and he told me yrs ago that thet enonomy is too big for the government. It will do what it will do. It is best to keep your money in your pocket, and let it work itself out.
January 14, 2010 at 3:33 a.m.
TopJayhawk (anonymous) says…

Vertigo.
In all seriousness. How can the dollar not eventually fall if we are printing them out of thin air?
It has to eventually. That is basic econmics is it not?
I think the dollars' value, and the low interest rates have to reverse soon.
January 14, 2010 at 3:37 a.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

Vertigo, go to research.stlouisfed.org to see the rising supply of currency over the past 18 months. The US Dollar index measures the dollar against a basket of foreign currency, with the euro making up the largest share. But those other currencies are fiat currencies so the measure is meaningless concerning the value of the dollar relative to consumer goods. It's like saying Kansans aren't fatter because while they've gained 20 lbs on average Nebraskans have gained 25 lbs.

What's particularly frightening is to look at the changes in the monetary base: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/...
January 14, 2010 at 5:33 a.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

porch, I'm lying about being in school. I'm actually a homeless bum who frequents the public library. It just so happens that the computers are next to the Libertarian/wacko section of books. I think it's incredibly insensitive of you to joke about going to bed when you should know full well that I don't have a bed in which to go.

Signed,
Liberty_One, fake internet personality.
January 14, 2010 at 5:38 a.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

BTW, porch, before I head out to attend my fake family law class, I would like to know if it's frustrating that I'm marginalizing your preferred tactic of obfuscation via ad hominem attacks by preempting them?

Signed,
Liberty_One, garfinkeling expert.
January 14, 2010 at 7:35 a.m.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…

How could it not fail. Printing money out of thin air simply increases the money supply. Another word for that is inflation. This new bailout bubble will pop. Then we'll see where things are with the economy. It will be difficult to reinflate after this bubble bursts. It is time to end the Fed.
January 14, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

porch, you mean this definition?

inflation

in·fla·tion[ in fláysh'n ]NOUN
1. Economics--higher prices: an increase in the supply of currency or credit relative to the availability of goods and services, resulting in higher prices and a decrease in the purchasing power of money.

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search...

When's your dictionary coming out porch since you are the master of word meaning?

BTW porch, since I'll be graduating from my imaginary law school soon, I'll need a good speller like you to be my secretary. Of course you'll be paid in imaginary money, but you'll get tons of fringe benefits like an imaginary 401(k), imaginary health and dental coverage, and lots of real vacation time (with imaginary vacation pay). Will you take the position?

Signed,
Liberty_One, spelling bee loser.
January 14, 2010 at 10:34 a.m.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…

Bad news for Dear Leader:

“A year into his tenure, a majority of Americans would already vote against Pres. Obama if the '12 elections were held today, according to a new survey.
The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll shows 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else. Fully 37% say they would definitely cast a ballot against Obama. Meanwhile, just 39% would vote to re-elect the pres. to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so.
Obama's first year in office has been marked by an unemployment rate that surged to 10%, an increased commitment of troops to Afghanistan and a health care battle that has taken a serious political toll on the WH.
Obama's approval rating is down to 47%, the poll showed, a 14-point drop since the April survey. 45% disapprove, up 17 points from April. Only 41% say they trust Obama more than Congressional GOPers, while 33% pick the GOP over the WH. That 8-point gap is down from a 21-point edge Obama sported as recently as Sept.
Just 34% say the country is moving in the right direction, down 13 points since April, and 55% say it is off on the wrong track, up 13 points over the same period.”

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal....
January 14, 2010 at 10:51 a.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

read it again porch, there are two parts to that definition I just provided. One part describes a cause and the other an effect. As a metaphor, my definition of weight gain would be, "taking in more calories than you burn." Your definition would then be, "buying bigger pants."

Rising prices is generally a symptom of inflation and one way to measure it. Of course that measurement will be inaccurate if you don't account for things like increased production capacity, efficiency, quality of goods, supply and demand etc. That's why precious metals make for such good measuring tools to measure inflation against, because their quality is constant and the supply relatively stable.

Oops, that's too much 'splaining for porch's taste, so I must be garfinkeling. Just another one of my many "fox-pass" here at ljworld.com.

Signed,
Liberty_One, untalented wordsmith.
January 14, 2010 at 11:19 a.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

I'm sorry porch, I forgot that you are an economics expert as well. I'm just an expert at garfinkeling, which is what I'm doing by offering logical arguments supported by examples. I need to be more like you and just declare things like that "we were in a deflationary state." That's much better than actually proving it. Silly me, I support my statements with things like charts showing the increase in the supply of money and links to things like the economic data from the st. louis fed. It is really funny that I garfinkel like that isn't it? I'm not as good as you at this whole arguing thing (probably why I'm only in imaginary law school), but I'll try my best to emulate your technique:

I'm right and you're dumb!

Whew! How was that?

Signed,
Liberty_One, Ron "insert a complete falsehood here" Paul supporter
January 14, 2010 at 11:59 a.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

porch, I'm sorry, I forgot that I don't know what charts and data are according to the dictionary of porch_person. I always thought a chart was something like a diagram of detailed information like when I linked to the graph showing the change in the monetary base over time. Oops, my bad. And I also always thought that data was information in the form of facts and figures, like how I mention the unemployment rates for 1921, 22, and 23. My bad again! Since I don't know what charts and data according the porch_person dictionary (3d edition) I guess that would make my arguments all invalid (if they weren't just garfinkeling anyway). And here I thought you were just dodging the discussion so you wouldn't have to put a deadline on when the stimulus could be declared a success or failure! I should know better since you are always "On Point." Plus the stimulus already was a success since double-digit unemployment doesn't matter.

Signed,
Liberty_One, incompetent jester.
January 14, 2010 at 1:01 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

BTW porch, “Everyone should be able to print money”? How exactly does one "print" gold?

(laughter)
January 14, 2010 at 1:12 p.m.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…

Letting everyone print money would work in a free market. All paper money is really is a promise note. And each note is only as good as the one making the promise. So people would simply choose the form of money that was actually worth more than the paper it was printed on.

If the government didn't control the people of the USA with the threat of violence for not using the US government endorsed paper money I would guess the people would have long ago switched to a more sound form of money than the Federal Reserve Note. Do some research on fractional reserve banking and look at the history of corruption.

Sound money = Freedom.
January 14, 2010 at 1:26 p.m.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…

This is more than political ideas. We are talking about the differences in schools of economic thought. Those like Ron Paul from the Austrian school are just pointing out the problems with the policies that have come from the Keynesian school . Most politicians have no understanding of economics. The printing press when it is used to print money that is not backed by anything is the friend of big government and the enemy of freedom.
January 14, 2010 at 1:34 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

All true porch, except one thing: I'm a 3L enrolled in law school *in my imagination*!

So, when are you going to tell me the secret to printing gold? Now I've got a Dell Photo 926 printer, is it compatible? My girlfriend likes gold jewelry, but being a poor student in imaginary school I can't afford much, so I was thinking of printing some gold foil out and wrapping it around some cheap plastic stuff. What am I saying? Even though I'm unemployed like millions of other Americans, the economy is doing great because the stock market is up! My imaginary IRA is doing really well. Better yet, I'll just call up my rich daddy to send me out some money--preferably some of that "printed" gold. Thanks for the "On Point" list of all my blatEnt mistakes.

Signed,
Liberty_One, goldsmith.

P.S. you are too much fun today.
January 14, 2010 at 1:39 p.m.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

"Obama's approval rating is down to 47%, the poll showed, a 14-point drop since the April survey. 45% disapprove, up 17 points from April."

pooch_person (Erroneous) says…

"Obama's real numbers are at RealClearPolitics. Here's the latest numbers
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 1/3 - 1/13 47.7 45.1 +2.6"

Yeah, that 0.7% made a *BIG* difference, poochie.

pooch_person (Erroneous) says…

"That was funny!!"

As funny as pooch-head not knowing the difference between 'public option' and 'single-payer'?

As funny as pooch-head trying to pass off one of Liberty's posts as his own to claim he was on the right side of the argument?

As funny as pooch-head saying the *public* option wasn't dead because *private* companies would be providing it? (That one never gets old.)

As funny as pooch-head saying a court's decision is 'the law' while simultaneously dismissing another court's decision on another thread?

As funny as pooch-head claiming Rasmussen is biased - and citing CBS as a basis for comparison?

As funny as pooch-head saying Obama was rising in the polls?

Thanks, pooch - slow day at work, I can always use the few extra laughs. Thanks for demonstrating yet again how your ignorance extends to a limitless number of topics, and your equally limitless willingness to nonetheless make an absolute fool of yourself.
January 14, 2010 at 2 p.m.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…

Because regulation only helps the little guy. Wait a minute, thats not right.

People need the gub'ment to regulate every area of their lives. Darn, thats not right either.

The real problem is not getting government off the back of businesses it is getting government out of bed with businesses. Government regulation seems to help out certain businesses and hurt others. People don't like big government because it is corrupt.
January 14, 2010 at 2:02 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

Yep. That's all businesses want is deregulation. Then they can compete with each other on the free market. They'd much rather do that than get government subsidies or have the government regulate the competition out of business. Competing for your customers and risking going out of business every year is much more fun than having a de facto cartel enforced by the government and subsidized by the taxpayers. It's dumb folks like me that get sucked in by their propaganda. They've got me advocating for things like eliminating corporate charters and ending corporate welfare. Why next thing you know I'll say something crazy like that we should let Canadian drug companies sell their products in US markets. Everyone knows that's just corporate propaganda. Yep, they're all for "libertarianism." I'm sure corporate shareholders are all gung-ho to be held personally liable for the acts of the business like us silly libertarians propose.

Gosh porch, you hit the nail on the head yet again. But you did make one error, I didn't lose my job, I've never had one! I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth, and the thought of actually working for a living terrifies me.

Signed,
Liberty_One, corporate stooge.
January 14, 2010 at 2:09 p.m.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…

porchie, for the sake of your teeth, I hope the Dear Leader Kool-aid you're drinking is sugar-free.
January 14, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…

Government is corrupt. The free market is more trustworthy than government. In a free market greed is counterbalanced by risk. When government gets involved they take risk out of the equation and greed is allowed to run wild.
January 14, 2010 at 4:04 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

ahh porch, I know you're testing me asking a trick question about insurance's antitrust exemption. You're trying to trick me since we're talking about deregulation by holding out the insurance antitrust exemption as an example of deregulation. But I know better since under the McCarran-Ferguson Act (15 U.S.C. section 1011 et seq.) federal antitrust laws are not applicable to the business of insurance to the *extent* that the business is *regulated* by *state law.* Even then, no state regulation can render lawful any act or agreement to boycott, coerce or intimidate. You almost got me, implying that insurance wasn't regulated because it is exempt from federal antitrust laws. Of course that exemption only applies to business activities within the state in which it is licensed. Any insurance company doing business in a state in which it is not licensed will be subject to all the federal regulations. Of course, car insurance and most other kinds of insurance do business across state lines while health insurance is prohibited from doing so. Thus while the antitrust exemption applies to all types of insurance, in the area of health insurance it applies all the time, giving the ignorant the impression that it applies ONLY to health insurance. I'm sure you knew that and were only trying to trick me when you said that health insurance companies had an antitrust exemption, as if they were the only kind. You are on your game today porch!

Signed,
Liberty_One, who only got a 'B' in his Antitrust class at his imaginary law school.
January 14, 2010 at 4:16 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

porch,

You *were* aware that *all* insurance companies have an exemption from anti-trust legislation within their states, and not just health insurers, were you not?
January 14, 2010 at 5:03 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

LOL, porch is still taking me seriously! I wonder if he knows I've been making fun of him all day.

Signed,
Liberty_One, bad comedian.

P.S. porch, when you say things like "Can you tell the class what “a trust” is and how it relates to competition?" you really expose your ignorance. The word "antitrust" is a relic of the business/legal situation at the end of the 19th century in the United States where cartels and monopolies were commonly arranged as trusts. There's nothing anticompetitive about trusts in general. In the rest of the world similar laws are just called competition laws. When you start asking about trusts in relation to antitrust law you are basically saying all you know about antitrust law is the title. Those of us who go to imaginary law school talk about cartels (or oligopolies) and monopolies. When we talk about "trusts" this is what we are talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law
January 14, 2010 at 5:38 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Have you figured out that health insurance companies don't compete for clients?"

How do you explain this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8XtNo...
January 14, 2010 at 5:41 p.m.
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…

Big government playing god with our lives and worst our children and grandchild's lives. Government does stuff like this pork barrel mess to secure their hold on those who think they can't survive without big brother.
January 14, 2010 at 7:20 p.m.
merrill (anonymous) says…

Back in 1921 it was all about the USA. Today it is all about sending jobs abroad. How can an economy be stimulated with good paying jobs without the employers that once were in the USA?

Where are the new industries? The "shop till you drop" industry is an absolute failure.

IF the legislators designate spending to renewable far less toxic energy sources then millions of blue and white collar jobs will be created.

Cutting taxes will not stimulate the economy because so much of the USA economy has been shipped abroad. If cutting taxes were the key the USA would have jobs for the world....obviously cutting taxes is a shell game.

National Health Insurance/Single Payer would boost the opportunities for employment on a variety of levels because it significantly reduce costs substantially or eliminate the need for employers to pay.
January 14, 2010 at 7:26 p.m.
merrill (anonymous) says…

The republican party are masters at putting millions upon millions upon millions of people out of work. AND stealing taxpayers retirement plans along the way.

Repubs do with a remarkable degree of consistency is wreck the economy,initiate huge movements of shipping jobs abroad aka the Reagan-Bush Global Economy and try to wreck social security and medicare.

Is there a definite pattern? Absolutely! Some people should be headed to hard prison time!

1. The Reagan/ Bush Home Loan Scandal
http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com...

2. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv...

3. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money?
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10...

4. Why did GW Bush Lie About Social Security?( This would cost taxpayers $4 trillion and wreck the economy)
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv...

5. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv...

6. The "tea parties" BTW are part of the wreckanomics program funded by the Koch Brothers... well known oil billionaires. These thinkers back a tax payers bill of rights which is another scheme to reward the upper 1% which is designed to wreck local and state governments.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv...

All of the above displays reckless economic behavior that which drains the cookie jars.
Now the only way to get them revenues back is to take them back.

What do Reagan,Bush and Bush republicans plan for 2010. Start the typical repub character assassination campaign which in essence is a massive cover-up scheme for the financial disasters that illustrate how the repub are NOT financial giants of our time have screwed up USA economics for the past 30 years.

Think about it. In the past 30 years the repub party has been in involved two major home loan scandals that effectively took the USA economy down the tubes. One is too damn many but twice represents repub economic policy. Wreckanomics is a failed economic policy. In fact wreckanomics is beginning to smell like well planned crimes.
January 14, 2010 at 7:29 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

LOL, now it's a "business trust" eh? Did a little looking around on wikipedia did we? porch, again, you only prove your ignorance. Face it, you thought that a trust and a cartel were the same thing. Sorry, but the excuse that you really meant "business trust" as the term was used in the 19th century isn't going to fly. You're busted.

"So are you talking about a type of management contract or are you talking about a “business trust” when you make the statement “There's nothing anticompetitive about trusts in general.”, Liberty_One?"

I was talking about trusts, hence why I used the word.....trusts. Of course since you think trusts = cartels, well, I can see why you'd be confused.

BTW, my favorite part of your post was when you copy and pasted a list of anti-competitive practices in a desperate attempt to show that you have some knowledge about antitrust law.

Sorry porch, but your demand to know about trusts and competition basically outs you as ignorant. There's no way around it. You thought trust = cartel.
January 14, 2010 at 9:32 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

Oh, and no garfinkeling allowed porch. When you use the word "trusts" don't say you *really* meant something else.

Signed,
Liberty_One, garfinkeling watchdog
January 14, 2010 at 9:35 p.m.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…

Liberty,

Come on, man! By now you should know the "bangin' your head against the wall" exercise of feedin' the porch troll. You use reason, rationality, knowledge, .....and here turn the tables of lunacy w/ a sarcastic touch.......for a response worth bupkiss.
I've been helping some friends take care of their 7 and 10 year olds recently, along with a newborn. Child psychology is fascinating to me in practice and I've learned that logic is not within those age group's grasp. Sound familiar? Spare yourself.
January 14, 2010 at 10:16 p.m.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Never happened. You're referring to a time when you submitted a poll from Rasmussen which conflated the public option with a single payer system and tried to show that this biased poll indicated that the public didn't want the public option."

Do I have to post the links yet again, porchfinkel?

The Rasmussen poll in question wasn't 'conflating' anything. I even posted a link to the raw poll, which said nothing whatsoever about public option, only single-payer, which is what Liberty and I were talking about. You posted a CBS poll about public option and - repeatedly - claimed it 'disputed' Rasmussen's numbers. All the posts are still there, troll.

"Never happened."

Again, porchfinkeling. You re-posted one of Liberty's posts from the exchange about single-payer with his tagline stripped off. You tried to pass it off as your own, claiming it proved the exchange had been about what you were talking about, not what we were talking about. You twisted and spun when you got busted, saying it made no difference who made the post, then saying you just hadn't copied the entire post (it was every single word *except* the tagline). Again, the posts are still there.

Tell us all, troll, if you're always so 'right', why do you have to be such a liar?

"Since the company that is providing the public option is the same company that provides the US Government with health insurance and is directly under the control of the Office of Personnel Management, I'd say it's close enough to government to count."

You are the only person in this country who can't read a headline, troll. No matter how you try to twist it, the public option died. Get over it.

"Liberty_One said that Roe v Wade has “no constitutional standing”. Is that your opinion as well, notajayhawk?"

Then again, that wasn't the question, was it, troll? You said in one case the court's decision is the 'law of this land', and in the other that the court was wrong. You can't even keep your own arguments straight, let alone try to challenge anyone else's.

"Which one of these is not like the others, notajayhawk?"

The one with the LV next to it, child? You still can't figure out what that means, even though several of us have tried to explain it to you several times, can you?

And yes, moron, taking out any of the outlying numbers will change an average. Duh. How about we take out Fox's number, too, poochie, since you don't like biased polls? What would that do to Obama's average?

Strange, pooch, you didn't even try porchfinkeling about your claims that Obama's numbers were rising. Wonder why that is.

"Have you figured out that health insurance companies don't compete for clients? They have an oligopoly. It's part of the problem that the health reform package is designed to alleviate."

Really, pooch-head?

How?
January 15, 2010 at 2:13 a.m.