toldailytopic: Spend more or spend less? Which governmental fiscal strategy is more l

[Alate_One]

:darwinsm: A beautiful picture of what happened when "set-it-and-forget-it" government takes over.

That wasn't government Frank, that was private industry. There was no government oversight of toxic waste sites at the time.

The Valley of the Drums is a 23 acre (9.3 hectare) toxic waste site in northern Bullitt County, Kentucky, near Louisville, named after the waste-containing drums strewn across the area. It is known as one of the primary motivations for the passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund Act of 1980. While the widely publicized Love Canal disaster is often credited as reason the Superfund law was passed, Love Canal activist Lois Gibbs has said that Love Canal looked like a suburban community, while "Valley of the Drums became the visualization of the problem."[1] The site became a collection point for toxic wastes starting sometime in the 1960s. It caught the attention of state officials when some of the drums caught fire and burned for more than a week in 1966. However, at that time there were no laws to address the storage or containment of toxic wastes, and the site continued to be unregulated for another decade. In 1979 conditions at the site became so bad that the Environmental Protection Agency initiated an emergency clean-up of the worst of the leaking drums. Workers on the ground quickly realized that the scope of the problem was far beyond their abilities at the time, and after news of the problems there became public the site was used by members of Congress as one of the reasons the proposed Superfund law was needed. Cleanup began at the site in 1983 and officially ended in 1990, although problems continued to be reported for many years. An environmental audit of the site in 2003 found PCBs in the sediment surrounding the area, and further testing was ordered. In December, 2008, EPA inspectors found about four dozen rusted metal drums on land just outside the part of the dump that it capped and fenced in the 1980s, including a portion of Jefferson Memorial Forest. New cleanup work is being considered at the site as of December 15, 2008.

Explain why government regulation of toxic waste and pollution is unnecessary.

Please do!

So will you leave if Obama wins a second term?

Answer is contained in question.

No, it isn't. You're assuming the truth of your answer. I explained why spending will increase job growth. Explain why cutting spending will.

Companies are currently sitting on record amounts of cash. Do you think giving them MORE cash through tax cuts is going to magically make them invest?

 

[Frank Ernest]

That wasn't government Frank, that was private industry. There was no government oversight of toxic waste sites at the time.

I doubt that is actually true.

The Valley of the Drums is a 23 acre (9.3 hectare) toxic waste site in northern Bullitt County, Kentucky, near Louisville, named after the waste-containing drums strewn across the area. It is known as one of the primary motivations for the passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund Act of 1980. While the widely publicized Love Canal disaster is often credited as reason the Superfund law was passed, Love Canal activist Lois Gibbs has said that Love Canal looked like a suburban community, while "Valley of the Drums became the visualization of the problem."[1] The site became a collection point for toxic wastes starting sometime in the 1960s. It caught the attention of state officials when some of the drums caught fire and burned for more than a week in 1966. However, at that time there were no laws to address the storage or containment of toxic wastes, and the site continued to be unregulated for another decade. In 1979 conditions at the site became so bad that the Environmental Protection Agency initiated an emergency clean-up of the worst of the leaking drums. Workers on the ground quickly realized that the scope of the problem was far beyond their abilities at the time, and after news of the problems there became public the site was used by members of Congress as one of the reasons the proposed Superfund law was needed. Cleanup began at the site in 1983 and officially ended in 1990, although problems continued to be reported for many years. An environmental audit of the site in 2003 found PCBs in the sediment surrounding the area, and further testing was ordered. In December, 2008, EPA inspectors found about four dozen rusted metal drums on land just outside the part of the dump that it capped and fenced in the 1980s, including a portion of Jefferson Memorial Forest. New cleanup work is being considered at the site as of December 15, 2008.

Explain why government regulation of toxic waste and pollution is unnecessary.

Can be done on the local level with prohibition and criminal sanctions.

So will you leave if Obama wins a second term?

:darwinsm: Of course not. If Obama gets reelected, the process of social degeneration and decay will accelerate. You will contribute to that degeneration and decay (for the "common good").

No, it isn't. You're assuming the truth of your answer. I explained why spending will increase job growth. Explain why cutting spending will.

Be happy to, recognizing that your explanation does not conform to reality. There is no job growth in terms of the results on government spending. All spending does is increase the size and scope of repressive government. Getting rid of the flood of noxious regulation since early 2009 will give business a stable environment and then they will invest in growth. Not until.

Companies are currently sitting on record amounts of cash. Do you think giving them MORE cash through tax cuts is going to magically make them invest?

Already covered.

Nice cartoon. That dam the gentleman is facing was probably a government project.

 

[Alate_One]

I doubt that is actually true.

Show some evidence there was regulation beforehand. There was hardly such a thing as "toxic waste" before the industrial revolution. Why would there be laws against it?

Can be done on the local level with prohibition and criminal sanctions.

So when water and air pollution leaves local juridictions what's the next one supposed to do? How are local districts all supposed to afford the very expensive equipment (or testing costs when sent out) to monitor air and water pollution?

:darwinsm: Of course not. If Obama gets reelected, the process of social degeneration and decay will accelerate. You will contribute to that degeneration and decay (for the "common good").

How is Obama promoting "social degeneration and decay"?

Be happy to, recognizing that your explanation does not conform to reality. There is no job growth in terms of the results on government spending.

Except that's what happened to allow for recovery from the great depression. When they STOPPED spending too early, the economy started to contract again. AKA the Mistake of 1937. By listening to deficit hawks like yourself in a period of extreme economic downturn we are repeating the mistake.

All spending does is increase the size and scope of repressive government. Getting rid of the flood of noxious regulation since early 2009 will give business a stable environment and then they will invest in growth. Not until.

Except that's not what the economists say. Even the right leaning WSJ conducted an article saying as much (including a poll of economists).

The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists in a new Wall Street Journal survey. "There is no demand," said Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics. "Businesses aren't confident enough, and the longer this goes on the harder it is to convince them that they should be." In the survey, conducted July 8-13 and released Monday, 53 economists—not all of whom answer every question—were asked the main reason employers aren't hiring more readily. Of the 51 who responded to the question, 31 cited lack of demand (65%) and 14 (27%) cited uncertainty about government policy. The others said hiring overseas was more appealing. Some executives echoed the survey's central finding.

Source

The problem is the people that got elected this time around are ideologues like yourself, unwilling to face reality. You hate government and no matter what you want to see it pared down to virtually nothing. You don't actually care if jobs are created or not. But you'll delude yourself into believing this is the right thing to do.

Nice cartoon. That dam the gentleman is facing was probably a government project.

Nice try, that'd be the locked up corporate profits everyone is facing.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Show some evidence there was regulation beforehand. There was hardly such a thing as "toxic waste" before the industrial revolution.

There certainly was. Perhaps you never heard of the typhoid, and diphtheria problems of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Why would there be laws against it?

Eventually there would be.

So when water and air pollution leaves local juridictions what's the next one supposed to do? How are local districts all supposed to afford the very expensive equipment (or testing costs when sent out) to monitor air and water pollution?

First of all, one needs to determine what the problems and threats actually are. All too often, government declares a problem which requires its attention when there isn't one.

How is Obama promoting "social degeneration and decay"?

Lack of personal responsibility, lawless government and a denigration of our social institutions in favor of arbitrary bureaucracy. For starters.

Except that's what happened to allow for recovery from the great depression. When they STOPPED spending too early, the economy started to contract again. AKA the Mistake of 1937. By listening to deficit hawks like yourself in a period of extreme economic downturn we are repeating the mistake.

BS. Repeating the mistake would be doing what FDR did and what Obama is doing.

Except that's not what the economists say. Even the right leaning WSJ conducted an article saying as much (including a poll of economists).

Oh yeah. The ubiquitous economists who always seem to agree with what the government wants. :darwinsm:

The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists in a new Wall Street Journal survey.

:darwinsm: You can get all the people you want to agree to someting that is wrong. Guess what? It's still wrong no matter how many agree.

"There is no demand," said Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics. "Businesses aren't confident enough, and the longer this goes on the harder it is to convince them that they should be."

No demand? :rotfl: Well, now, if there's no demand, then increasing production makes no sense, does it?

In the survey, conducted July 8-13 and released Monday, 53 economists—not all of whom answer every question—were asked the main reason employers aren't hiring more readily. Of the 51 who responded to the question, 31 cited lack of demand (65%) and 14 (27%) cited uncertainty about government policy. The others said hiring overseas was more appealing.

Some executives echoed the survey's central finding.[/BOX]
Source

The problem is the people that got elected this time around are ideologues like yourself, unwilling to face reality.

No, that was 2008.

You hate government and no matter what you want to see it pared down to virtually nothing. You don't actually care if jobs are created or not. But you'll delude yourself into believing this is the right thing to do.

:darwinsm: The Psychic Friends Network telling me what I believe.

Nice try, that'd be the locked up corporate profits everyone is facing.

:darwinsm: And there's Obama and the Dimms waiting to tax it into oblivion just like FDR did.

 

[Alate_One]

There certainly was. Perhaps you never heard of the typhoid, and diphtheria problems of the 19th and 20th centuries.

That's not toxic waste. That's due to biological waste. Biological waste can be made non-infectious. Many kinds of industrial wastes cannot like say mercury, lead or arsenic. Even organics such as PCBs are persisting in the environment 4 decades after they were banned.

Eventually there would be.

Of course because people got sick. But you seem to pretend that such laws have already existed.

First of all, one needs to determine what the problems and threats actually are. All too often, government declares a problem which requires its attention when there isn't one.

So you think there's no such thing as toxins in the environment.

Lack of personal responsibility, lawless government and a denigration of our social institutions in favor of arbitrary bureaucracy. For starters.

So the poor are responsible for being poor, got it.

BS. Repeating the mistake would be doing what FDR did and what Obama is doing.

So you're going to keep asserting you're right and ignore facts. Typical.

Oh yeah. The ubiquitous economists who always seem to agree with what the government wants.

Have you even considered the idea that they're experts and could actually be right?

No demand? :rotfl: Well, now, if there's no demand, then increasing production makes no sense, does it?

Exactly. Corporations have no incentive to invest if there's no demand. It was rather funny seeing the leader of the teamster's call the corporations "unAmerican". Corporations aren't interested in being pro or anti American, they're only interested in making profit. That is the definition of a corporation. But government is the only institution that can actually generate demand through spending.

And there's Obama and the Dimms waiting to tax it into oblivion just like FDR did.

Increasing taxes to Clinton levels when tax rates are historically low is hardly taxing anything into oblivion.

 

[Pragmatic_Liberal]

This is a silly non-debate that only exists because of extreme right wing ideology. If you have any doubts as to the answer to this question, read your history - specifically that in the decades after the Great Depression. Those who don't, are doomed to repeat it, and that is precisely what is happening. You can expect stagnant growth until we see serious spending to stimulate demand. This lack of demand is due to all the gains in GDP in the last 40 years going to the nation's wealthiest 1%. We are able, thanks to all those decades of supply-side policy, to produce a crapton - there's just far too few people able to consume that production. We can't ship it overseas, either, since we can't compete with unregulated sweatshop labor rates, and the rest of the world is catching up to us in manufacturing technology. This lack of demand has myriad parallels to the 29 depression - it was also the last time the divide between wealthy and poor was so vast, thanks to policies favoring the wealthy. Spending cuts didn't get us out of that recession, and no sane economist will claim that they will. What did? Massive government spending on, among other things, World War II.

The fact that this is even a debate shows just how crazy right the republican party has been pulled by the Tea Party. Unfortunately, our country isn't going to get better until some of you come round to realizing this, whether you keep Obama, or elect Perry, Bachman, or some other Daffy Duck analogue. Unfortunately, the leaders of the Republican party know this, and going to block anything that might improve conditions until at least 2012. Like, for example, the payroll tax cut proposed by Obama. Who knew? A tax cut republicans don't like. Normally I wouldn't accuse them of such unpatriotic party-first maneuvernig, but they're already admitted that getting rid of Obama is priority 1.

PL

 

[Frank Ernest]

That's not toxic waste. That's due to biological waste. Biological waste can be made non-infectious. Many kinds of industrial wastes cannot like say mercury, lead or arsenic. Even organics such as PCBs are persisting in the environment 4 decades after they were banned.

Really? Looks like government is ineffective in dealing with the problem, doesn't it?

Of course because people got sick. But you seem to pretend that such laws have already existed.

There were on the local level.

So you think there's no such thing as toxins in the environment.

:darwinsm: Everybody is stupid but you, right?

So the poor are responsible for being poor, got it.

Who else would be responsible?

So you're going to keep asserting you're right and ignore facts. Typical.

:rotfl: Your "facts" are mostly assertions which ignore reality.

Have you even considered the idea that they're experts and could actually be right?

Yes. That's how I discovered that your so-called experts were actually wrong.

Exactly. Corporations have no incentive to invest if there's no demand. It was rather funny seeing the leader of the teamster's call the corporations "unAmerican". Corporations aren't interested in being pro or anti American, they're only interested in making profit. That is the definition of a corporation. But government is the only institution that can actually generate demand through spending.

Ok. Government has spent billions over the last several years and you have an expert saying there is no demand.

Increasing taxes to Clinton levels when tax rates are historically low is hardly taxing anything into oblivion.

You're pretty well invested in Dimm talking points about income tax rates. I would think the trillion-dollar plus tax increases that will result from implementation of Obamacare to come pretty close to oblivion.

 

[Frank Ernest]

This is a silly non-debate that only exists because of extreme right wing ideology. If you have any doubts as to the answer to this question, read your history - specifically that in the decades after the Great Depression. Those who don't, are doomed to repeat it, and that is precisely what is happening. You can expect stagnant growth until we see serious spending to stimulate demand. This lack of demand is due to all the gains in GDP in the last 40 years going to the nation's wealthiest 1%. We are able, thanks to all those decades of supply-side policy, to produce a crapton - there's just far too few people able to consume that production. We can't ship it overseas, either, since we can't compete with unregulated sweatshop labor rates, and the rest of the world is catching up to us in manufacturing technology. This lack of demand has myriad parallels to the 29 depression - it was also the last time the divide between wealthy and poor was so vast, thanks to policies favoring the wealthy. Spending cuts didn't get us out of that recession, and no sane economist will claim that they will. What did? Massive government spending on, among other things, World War II.

The fact that this is even a debate shows just how crazy right the republican party has been pulled by the Tea Party. Unfortunately, our country isn't going to get better until some of you come round to realizing this, whether you keep Obama, or elect Perry, Bachman, or some other Daffy Duck analogue. Unfortunately, the leaders of the Republican party know this, and going to block anything that might improve conditions until at least 2012. Like, for example, the payroll tax cut proposed by Obama. Who knew? A tax cut republicans don't like. Normally I wouldn't accuse them of such unpatriotic party-first maneuvernig, but they're already admitted that getting rid of Obama is priority 1.

PL

:darwinsm: Another iteration of the Dimm list of talking points.

 

[eameece]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for September 3rd, 2011 10:43 AM

toldailytopic: Spend more or spend less? Which governmental fiscal strategy is more likely to help the USA avoid a major recession?

No doubt, spend more. MUCH more.
:hammer:

Contrary to what a lot of folks here will say (and no doubt said above); austerity is no solution to a depression. It is a cause of further depression.

We need not only to spend more, on more stimulus, but TAX more. TAX AND SPEND needs a revival of its reputation. You can't jump start an economy by cutting spending.

The right wing republicans like Perry say that they can create jobs. I admit, Perry did some good work as a promoter, and Obama could do that. Otherwise, the Republican solution to more jobs is to do nothing, other than make the government do even less. There is no reason to elect someone to do nothing about our economy. We need a president who will do MORE, not LESS!!!

 

[eameece]

Repeal Dodd-Frank, Obamacare. Lower tax rates. Get rid of EPA, Department of Education, Department of Energy. Modify Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid programs with free-market incentives.

For starters.

Everything the opposite of what Frank said, and put down the accelerator!

 

[Frank Ernest]

Everything the opposite of what Frank said, and put down the accelerator!

:darwinsm: eememe advocates the "Thelma and Louise" solution.

 

[frostmanj]

Spend less. Government money (taxes) comes from those in society who are productive. You can't count government workers because that is a closed loop system where the government worker is paid more than he himself pays in taxes therefore (no disrespect to our police and teachers) not a builder of revenue. Government can borrow money of course, but that only tightens government budgets due to increasing levels of interest payments. No, the only way for government to help is to spend less and become less of a drain on the private economy.

 

[rexlunae]

Spend more right now, build up the infrastructure of the nation, and when the economy improves, cut spending and perhaps even pay down some of the debt.

 

[rexlunae]

Government money (taxes) comes from those in society who are productive.

Or at least the people who make money...which isn't quite the same thing.

You can't count government workers because that is a closed loop system where the government worker is paid more than he himself pays in taxes therefore (no disrespect to our police and teachers) not a builder of revenue.

There aren't really any closed loops in our economy. Government spending often leads to productivity, both through direct activity and through spending that creates private sector jobs. Think how much worse off we would be without, for instance, the National Weather Service to warn us that there were tornadoes and hurricanes heading our way. The amount of damage and loss of life could have been much greater this past year and every year prior.

Government can borrow money of course, but that only tightens government budgets due to increasing levels of interest payments.

Businesses and individuals do the same thing all the time. Is it always unwise? Or is it sometimes necessary to get from where you are to where you need to be?

No, the only way for government to help is to spend less and become less of a drain on the private economy.

You're operating under the faulty presumption that the private economy doesn't benefit from the government. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[eameece]

:darwinsm: eememe advocates the "Thelma and Louise" solution.

I think it was YOU GUYS I saw riding off that cliff!
:wave2:

 

[Frank Ernest]

I think it was YOU GUYS I saw riding off that cliff!
:wave2:

:darwinsm: OH WOW! :jawdrop: Yet another devastating retort! :dizzy:

(Cue video clip from "Billy Madison.")