The Texas Unmiracle

[Amppax]

tl;dr

[url="http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/"]http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/[/url]

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1314750332' post='2297744']
so at least i'm not stating the obvious, and the simplistic, things of that nature, as an argument in opposition. 'im against the government spending money, keynes involves the government spending money, therefore, i'm against it'. wow, what a profound conclusion. i'm trying at a minimum to say let's not just rush to that conclusion, or at least, if you dont accept that conclusion, at least for teh sake of argument... i'm trying to establish that there's things that the theory accomplishes, and efficiently too, or at least equally to the private sector. of course, if the government is justified in spending money, it's not as if it's the same as permitting muirder given murder can sometimes accomplish an end, the analogy doesn't work, unless you have the overly simplistic notion that hte governmetn can never do anything justifiably.
there's so much more involved with the theory of keynes econ. does it improve econonomic effieciency, at least sometimes? does it at least match what the private sector does? does it stimulate, cause economic micro to macro systems to be supported? (an obvious, 'yes' if you are willing to acknowledge how it sometimes 'works', and not insist how it doesnt due to your preexisting definitions and standards of being against anything the government spends money on) these are the key tenants that advocates proclaim, where most of the debate lies, the academic and intellectual stuff. not the simplistic garbage being spouted by those against it, here. of course, i was trying to have a debate with someone who would actually say the government serves no purpose except to hurt taxpayers, where except in fringe corners like this where it might be acceptable, would be the laughing stock of the day. perhaps that was my mistake.
and for the record, it obviously does make a difference who one votes for, even if the difference is small, and even if it's all so insitutionalized that it becomes twiddle dee and twiddle dum getting pulled by strings of the system, for the most part. the poster above could acknowledge the point, but instead insists on mental gymnastics, a bunch of pseudo intellectual speak (obviously not a dumb poster, granted) that sometimes makse a decent ultimate point, but that usually just ends in pscyho psueduo babble (eg, that stuff about the dollar, v. reaping benefits of the dollar... there's some truth to it, but it's so detached from a decent argument, especially per whethere there's any effect of voting, that it's just babble) when it deals with how there's no chance voting will change anything. it's easy to find tons of concrete examples, that a president did, that the other president wouldn't have did, or couldnt have accomplished. the poster would rather go to great lengths to defend a bogus theory than concede the points... a credibility issue, probably, ultimately. socretes obviously won that debate.
[/quote]

Not to flog the dead horse, but it took me reading this seven times to understand even half of what you just said. Would it be in any way possible for you to exert yourself and attempt a sentence with beginning capitalization and punctuation of some sort? I am really, really not trying to be rude. Your writing makes it impossible for me to understand your point, or, to find if you [i]have[/i] a point. Debate is supposed to be the attempt of two points to clearly delineate the merits of each in opposition to the other. Nothing you wrote even comes close to that. However, I am going to take some blind swings and see if I can address what appears to be your point.

First, thank you for saying I am not a dumb poster. Whew. I will sleep sooooooooo much better tonight.

Second, you clearly put zero effort into interpreting anything I have said previously in regard to what my actual position is. What you're doing is reading my posts through a "of, one of those dumb conservative hicks who hates liberal spending blah blah blah" fiter, when that is completely intellectually disingenuous. Do you have any idea WHY I have argued the points I have? Do you understand libertarian philosophy? Do you have any idea, at all, what the economic position of an anarcho-capitalist is? Reading what your attempts at posts seem to say tells me that the answer on both points is a resounding no.

[quote]of course, i was trying to have a debate with someone who would actually say the government serves no purpose except to hurt taxpayers, where except in fringe corners like this where it might be acceptable, would be the laughing stock of the day. perhaps that was my mistake.[/quote]

Well, if this is your attempt at debate, my apologies to you. You fail miserably. If, betwixt the two of us, my posts are "the laughing stock of the day" then I give you my solemn word never to post in the Debate Table again. Fact is, as I just stated, you have absolutely no knowledge what my position actually is. Do some reading. Begin with some Ludwig von Mises, perhaps a little Thomas Woods, some Murray Rothbard. Try [url="http://www.mises.org"]http://www.mises.org[/url] for starters. Try actually determining what my position looks like. Because you are incapable of arguing with me if you have no idea what I'm arguing. Which, by the way, you don't.


[quote]and for the record, it obviously does make a difference who one votes for, even if the difference is small, and even if it's all so insitutionalized that it becomes twiddle dee and twiddle dum getting pulled by strings of the system, for the most part. the poster above could acknowledge the point, but instead insists on mental gymnastics, a bunch of pseudo intellectual speak (obviously not a dumb poster, granted) that sometimes makse a decent ultimate point, but that usually just ends in pscyho psueduo babble (eg, that stuff about the dollar, v. reaping benefits of the dollar... there's some truth to it, but it's so detached from a decent argument, especially per whethere there's any effect of voting, that it's just babble) when it deals with how there's no chance voting will change anything. [/quote]

I'm sorry, but speaking in English, in complete sentences, with actual words, does not constitute "pseudo intellectual speak" or "psycho pseuduo [sic] babble" no matter how desperately you might want it to. It's called intelligent discourse.

Just for your general edification, I'm going to explain this slowly and in small words. I believe that the government as it exists is morally corrupt (i.e., it's bad) and that the statist concept of government (which means, a big government called the "federal" government which tells all the little states and people what to do) is inherently flawed (i.e., not good). What I believe is that government is a contractual agreement between groups of people who give their consent to be governed (people get together in groups and say, hey! Let's develop some system that does what we need it to do, but is limited by the fact that it can only do what we agree). The federal government we have does not govern by consent, it governs by force. It has long passed the point where "of the people, by the people and for the people" means anything other than something nice to put on a bumper sticker.

Your argument in favour of statist economics (I think, considering I'm still not really sure what you were talking about) is based entirely on the fact that you think the extent of proper government is what we have in place. That's simply fallacious thinking. Your argument is the equivalent of someone saying, that pie needs work on the recipe, while you shout that the only thing we can have is cake. The cake, in this case, is a lie. (Go ahead everyone, snicker.) The government we have is something that never should have existed. It overran it's intended limits and assumed a position of total authoritarian control over every aspect of our lives. So, if you'd like to argue that the tax money extorted from the citizenry by force (instead of being paid in orderly fashion for services which are desired by the people and at an agreed upon rate) is used legitimately to expand a government that only makes itself larger in order to consume MORE money and exert MORE control...well then, I'd say that, plainly, you're daft. You don't understand economics. You don't understand government. You lack a basic understanding of constitutional history. You have zero comprehension of schools of thought regarding governance and economics that don't come from MSNBC. And, you're a bad writer.

Contributing to the agrarian sector is a very valued part of a free society and essential for providing basic needs. In other words, go milk a cow, dairy. Leave the arguments to people who are serious.

[Winchester]

I...I think I love you.

[Jesus_lol]

[img]http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/jon-stewart-oh-snap.gif[/img]

[img]http://www.gifbin.com/bin/122010/1292411041_owl-moving-head.gif[/img]

Edited September 1, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Socrates]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1314678557' post='2297422']

Well, I think the fundamental area where we disagree is that while you believe that voting for one as opposed to another will limit damage, I don't think that there is enough difference in the two main parties for there to be any limitation of damage, no matter who is elected.[/quote]
The final result of the non-voting tactic will simply be to hand all power over to the most socialist politicians.
If you think things are already as bad as they can possibly get, you're mistaken.




[quote]Well, here's the thing. I don't blame every point of disagreement I have with republicans on right-wing radicalism. I am simply stating that there are some actions which did, in fact, arise from a fringe right perspective. The fact that something like the Patriot Act came from the far right doesn't preclude, however, someone from the opposition from keeping and expanding it, as we've seen with the Obama administration. Government is government, no matter if their hat is red or blue. When someone drops a hefty amount of power into their lap, regardless of origin, they are loath to part with it. Ideologies are fluid when power is at stake; even the most stringent of the fringes might bend from time to time in order to compensate when a giant gift-wrapped power play falls into their laps. Control is an ideology that knows no party.[/quote]
Generally agree with you there.

Where I disagree is that "far right extremism" (whatever that means, exactly) is to blame for most of the Republican Party's problems.
I certainly do not think that a leftward move towards the "center of the aisle" will improve matters. Centrist "moderate" Republicans who differ only marginally from Democrats are at the heart of the problem, not the solution.

"Moderate" politicians are certainly no more immune from contributing to government growth and the lure of power than those on the left or right.


[quote] And in specific reference to the Patriot Act, while G.W. Bush was the prime mover on that (and yes, you are correct in that his 'compassionate conservative' viewpoint did not generally reflect the accepted conservative viewpoint in some cases, nor was he a far-right radical in his general political stance), the impetus behind such a piece of legislation does, in fact, originate from the thinking of the far-right. While I am sure that Bush felt he was doing the right thing,[b] the fact is that that sort of government intervention "for your own good and protection" is a firmly right-fringe concept.[/b][/quote]
Oh, really.

Your're joking, right?

If anything, government intervention "for your own good and protection" is ahallmark of the Left, rather than the Right. Generally speaking, it's left-wingers that are most in favor of heavy government intervention in the economy for the sake of "protecting" it, or "protecting jobs," unconstitutional gun-control measures to protect citizens from themselves, health laws and regulations against substances or foods deemed unsafe, laws requiring that citizens buy health insurance, affirmative action measures to "protect" minorities (including sexual deviants), "hate crime" and "hate speech" legislation for the same purpose, etc., etc., etc.

I'm not saying that leftists exclusively support such government interventionist measures, nor am I denying that there are "right-wing" hypocrites that are guilty, but the claim that "government intervention 'for your own good and protection' is a firmly fringe-right concept" is nonsensical.

In fact, those that oppose such things are routinely labeled "fringe-right extremists" by "mainstream" politicians and media.

As for the Patriot Act, it's simply another example of war-time government expansion, which is not limited to any particular ideology, right or left. It's a historical fact that government power tends to expand most in times of war or economic crisis. Similar expansions and abuses of government power occurred for the sake of "our good and protection" during WWII under Roosevelt, who was no Right-winger - including the detainment of innocent citizens in harsh detainment camps.

And it's not as though conservatives were clamoring for the Patriot Act or similar measures prior to 9-11.





[quote]Now here I will agree, but with a caveat. I would argue that the corporate protectionist stance is entirely one ensconced on the right. The bailout system Obama has participated isn't, however, protecting business, no matter what they might say. What they are doing is a large-scale version of good old Chicago politics. They are paying off the local toughs and when the time comes, they'll call in a favour. "One they can't refuse," to continue the metaphor. The concept of government involvement/Keynesian theory is definitely one attributable largely to the left. So, while the action might seem to be similar on both sides, the motivation really isn't. One side favours unchecked growth of large corporate entities because those entities can obtain power through the dollar. The other side favours saving those entities because they can eventually hand over some of those dollars when the time for payback comes. Might seem to be semantic, but it's an essential difference in philosophy and what makes me insist that there is radicalism in equal streams from both directions. "Build a bigger business to make more money" on one hand, "protect a bigger business in order to eventually make more money vicariously" on the other.[/quote]
The actions and results are the same, and "moderate" politicians are certainly no less to blame than those on the Left and Right. It's all big government, which today is government as usual.


[quote]In terms of the military, of course history is going to point out disparity in terms of whose party was the primary mover on what military action. However, we all know that the focus of the two main parties has shifted significantly and the republican of 50 years ago is not the republican of today. I think that for framing contemporary arguments, those sorts of comparisons rarely lend themselves to equivalency. My point was that the contemporary republican platform was the one which supported the majority of the present military action and the related military spending. There has not been a democrat in the last 20 years, aside from Obama, whose actions can even remotely compare to the nearly unchecked military growth championed by present republicans. That's just a basic fact, not even name-calling. The numbers don't lie.[/quote]
Government growth certainly did not reverse with left-wing presidents (even if spent on things other than military). And as there has been only one Democrat president other than Obama in the last 20 years (Bill Clinton), your observation lacks enough scope to be meaningful.

Government spending and power increases in times of war, regardless of the ideology of the president.



[quote]Aha! Precisely my point. These are big-government measures precipitated by republicans, the party of small government. The fact is, the actions of the republican party generally do not reflect actual conservative principles. They may pay them substantial lip service, but they don't walk the walk, so to speak.[/quote]
Exactly, blame the politicians (especially the spineless "moderates"), not "right-wing extremism."

And you'll note, it's those people who actually do stand up for conservative principles that are denounced and ridiculed as "right-wing extremists." Quite frankly, we need more "right wing extremists" and fewer "moderate" RINOs.



[quote]On the point of government, you are correct. It is the nature of the beast. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Ultimately the squabbles betwixt right and left don't involve actual ideology so much as they do two groups of an oligarchy jockeying for position.


As to the labeling, it's sometimes necessary. I doubt anyone would hesitate to label the Third Reich, Pol Pot, the Hutu government of Rwanda in the 1990s, as some of the most radical extremist regimes in modern history, but by your reasoning such a label is unproductive and those are simply people whose views with which we disagree. Sometimes you need to call something what it is.[/quote]
Those regimes you mention accurately can be described as radical, coming to power through bloody revolution, while today's Republican pols (whatever else you might call them), cannot. Lacking spine or principle is a different matter from radicalism. All hyperbole to the contrary, neither Bush nor Obama is a Hitler or a Stalin. "Radical" has become another one of those labels that's become over-used to the point of being meaningless. Most liberals would label you and I as "right-wing radicals."

[Maggyie]

dairy is correct, though, that government spending does stimulate the economy. Unemployment payments stimulate the economy more than many forms of tax cutting because the unemployed spend their checks immediately, whereas tax cuts are often used to save or pay down debt, thereby not stimulating anything.

Supply-side economics is ideologically and intellectually satisfying but it won't work to get us out of our present situation because we have gotten into this rut due to a lack of demand in the housing market. It's not a supply problem, it's allllll demand.

Incidentally I am still waiting for all that economic growth from the tax cuts of the 80s and 2000s to trickle down to the great unwashed. I thought a rising tide lifts all boats.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1314936320' post='2299057']
dairy is correct, though, that government spending does stimulate the economy. Unemployment payments stimulate the economy more than many forms of tax cutting because the unemployed spend their checks immediately, whereas tax cuts are often used to save or pay down debt, thereby not stimulating anything.

Supply-side economics is ideologically and intellectually satisfying but it won't work to get us out of our present situation because we have gotten into this rut due to a lack of demand in the housing market. It's not a supply problem, it's allllll demand.

Incidentally I am still waiting for all that economic growth from the tax cuts of the 80s and 2000s to trickle down to the great unwashed. I thought a rising tide lifts all boats.
[/quote]
Money from the government has to come from the economy in the first place--either now or in the future. The 1920-1921 depression provides a lesson for government action: cut taxes and spending and do not attempt to manipulate the market. GDP and GNP are geared to make government spending appear to add to an economy.

The housing bubble was a result of poor lending practices and credit expansion. It created, in a way, an unsustainable demand. No broad bubble has ever been inflated without government intervention. Local malinvestment can certainly occur--businessmen make mistakes. Those banks involved in the housing bubble have had their poor behavior (encouraged by the government in the first place) now reinforced through bail outs, whereas permitting them to contract or completely liquidate would have permitted a proper reallocation of resources and the possibility of the creation of a proper capital structure.

Tax cuts from the 80's also included an increase in government spending--debt rose. There have also been increased business regulations, monetary expansion, credit manipulation of various sorts and government interference in the form of subsidies and tax breaks for corporations and individuals. It is not as though tax cuts existed in some vacuum.

As for demand, without a proper capital structure from investment (which includes savings) there is no way to meet demand, whether that demand is for immediate consumption or future consumption.

Marie-Therese hasn't been arguing supply side economics. I am not arguing supply side economics, either. We are both arguing against centrally planned economies. I'm still waiting for monetarism or Keynesianism to do anything but produce the business cycle.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1314936320' post='2299057']
dairy is correct, though, that government spending does stimulate the economy. Unemployment payments stimulate the economy more than many forms of tax cutting because the unemployed spend their checks immediately, whereas tax cuts are often used to save or pay down debt, thereby not stimulating anything.

Supply-side economics is ideologically and intellectually satisfying but it won't work to get us out of our present situation because we have gotten into this rut due to a lack of demand in the housing market. It's not a supply problem, it's allllll demand.

Incidentally I am still waiting for all that economic growth from the tax cuts of the 80s and 2000s to trickle down to the great unwashed. I thought a rising tide lifts all boats.
[/quote]

This is because you seem to have a concept of economics which is, frankly, erroneous.

Governments do not make money. They take money. There is the most important distinction. Please give me one example of a product that our government produces that they bring to market to sell, and thus make money. Precisely...there isn't one. Government's product is government. "Unemployment payments stimulate the economy"?? Are you joking?? What stimulates the economy is people who have jobs. Unemployment payments are money that the government decided it could spend better than you, so it took it straight from your paycheck without asking. That is not economic stimulus, no matter how you dress it up. That is what is commonly referred to as wealth redistribution. That dollar did not in any way stimulate the economy more in someone else's pocket in the form of a government check than it did in yours before they took it.

People have the mistaken view that spending = economic stimulus. No. Just because someone is spending money doesn't do any necessary benefit for the larger economy. That is a nice fallacy that the government sells because it benefits them. What stimulates the economy is people working, earning their own wages, and then choosing what to purchase with those wages. The market will then provide what the customers want. Manufacturers, farmers, etc. will see what is demanded in the market and will work to supply it. THAT is what a stable economy does. It does not wait to be manually manipulated by a central agency. That kind of artifice ends in economic destruction. And Winchester is right, this has zero to do with supply-side economics. What I just described is simple supply and demand, It has nothing at all to do with regulation (or deregulation). As a matter of fact, it eschews any and all government interference in the normal progress of the market. Being a proponent of the market does not mean you are a Reaganomics, trickle-down advocate like you seem to suggest. The two are wholly unrelated.


[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1314972303' post='2299186']
Money from the government has to come from the economy in the first place--either now or in the future. The 1920-1921 depression provides a lesson for government action: cut taxes and spending and do not attempt to manipulate the market. GDP and GNP are geared to make government spending appear to add to an economy.

The housing bubble was a result of poor lending practices and credit expansion. It created, in a way, an unsustainable demand. No broad bubble has ever been inflated without government intervention. Local malinvestment can certainly occur--businessmen make mistakes. Those banks involved in the housing bubble have had their poor behavior (encouraged by the government in the first place) now reinforced through bail outs, whereas permitting them to contract or completely liquidate would have permitted a proper reallocation of resources and the possibility of the creation of a proper capital structure.

Tax cuts from the 80's also included an increase in government spending--debt rose. There have also been increased business regulations, monetary expansion, credit manipulation of various sorts and government interference in the form of subsidies and tax breaks for corporations and individuals. It is not as though tax cuts existed in some vacuum.

As for demand, without a proper capital structure from investment (which includes savings) there is no way to meet demand, whether that demand is for immediate consumption or future consumption.

Marie-Therese hasn't been arguing supply side economics. I am not arguing supply side economics, either. We are both arguing against centrally planned economies. I'm still waiting for monetarism or Keynesianism to do anything but produce the business cycle.
[/quote]

This.

Socrates, I will respond to you when I get the time to sit down and address your points.

[Winchester]

I submit that there is no "the economy", but instead, a general perception of many different individual actions.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1314982174' post='2299235']
I submit that there is no "the economy", but instead, a general perception of many different individual actions.
[/quote]

And I submit that you win the internet today. Huzzah!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1314936320' post='2299057']
dairy is correct, though, that government spending does stimulate the economy. Unemployment payments stimulate the economy more than many forms of tax cutting because the unemployed spend their checks immediately, whereas tax cuts are often used to save or pay down debt, thereby not stimulating anything.[/quote]
So then, to really get the economy jumping, the government should just daily write out a big fat check for a million bucks to every citizen, employed or unemployed, rich or poor, to spend as they see fit. (Or, ok, maybe just the unemployed, since those evil working capitalist-type folks would just waste their money in investment, rather than just immediately spending it on themselves like responsible citizens.)


[quote]Supply-side economics is ideologically and intellectually satisfying but it won't work to get us out of our present situation because we have gotten into this rut due to a lack of demand in the housing market. It's not a supply problem, it's allllll demand.


Incidentally I am still waiting for all that economic growth from the tax cuts of the 80s and 2000s to trickle down to the great unwashed. I thought a rising tide lifts all boats.[/quote]
Still waiting for all that hope'n'change to work its magic.

I suppose its all because our stingy federal government [i]still[/i] isn't spending enough money (all those damned Republicans fault!).

Exactly how many more trillion dollars of national debt must we go into for Keynesian economics to save us all?


ps ~ I ditto everything Winnie and M-T said in response. For more details, I recommend reading [url="http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315094342&sr=1-1"][i]Meltdown: A Free Market Look at why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bail-outs Will Make Thinks Worse[/i], by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.[/url]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1314982174' post='2299235']
I submit that there is no "the economy", but instead, a general perception of many different individual actions.
[/quote]
True. In that way, it's much like "society" or "the culture."

[dominicansoul]

i find it hilarious that perry calls social security what it is and gets crucified for his words...

[Mr.Cat]

[center][img]http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/AnderN/2011/AnderN20110826_low.jpg[/img][/center]

The office of the Texas governor is arguably one of the weakest in the United States constitutionally. Because Texas has a weak plural executive, former governor George Bush and current governor Rick Perry trying to take responsibility for any Texan success is a bit outlandish. Texas is suffering from the recession like the rest of the United States, generally no better or worse. Texas is suffering from a massive budget deficit. Texas had one of it's worst heat waves in recorded history, possibly agitated by global warming and climate change. Texas is suffering from horrible droughts and wild fires...

To understand why our office of governor is so weak one must understand the governorship of Edmund J. Davis.

Trying to imagine Texas as some "[i]tea party movement[/i]", "[i]conservative[/i]", or "[i]republican[/i]" paradise is laughable at best and delusional at worst.[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313550082' post='2289613']We didn't lose a single battle on texas soil the fist time, and we were staggeringly outnumbered, I don't think so much anymore.[/quote] May I suggest reading into Texas history a bit more? To point you in the right direction, maybe reading into the Battle of the Alamo and the Battle of Coleto, which resulted in Mexican victory... and inspiring Texan resolve for independence. Moreover the Battle of Coleto, since it showed the ruthlessness and possible insanity of the Mexican dictator to Texans.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[dominicansoul]

meh, ALL politicians take credit for things they don't do... if it works to get elected, their gonna use it...