Thread: WI Recall of Gov. Walker Produces 1 MILLION Signatures

When a liberal says that they want to create jobs, they mean government jobs. The more government jobs, the more people beholden to the government (along with all the welfare recipients and voters who pay no taxes), therefore the more likely voters will support candidates who support these programs: Democrats.

That's really what it's all about. They are buying votes with public money.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Can I pay someone to take this goober off my hands?

Use a tissue next time you blow your nose.

Originally Posted by goober

There is a difference between a government and a household.
In a household, you make as much as you can, and your spending should be restricted by your income.
A government is supposed to spend as little as it can to do what needs to be done. And then set taxes high enough to cover it.
If you do that, you'll get a government that does look at spending with a hard eye, because it carries the political cost of higher taxes.

Reagan discovered that if you cut taxes, and increase spending, you run a huge deficit, but you get re-elected by a landslide.
That's what Cheney meant when he said "Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter".
In a household it's rare that you can decide to make more money, that would be the case if you were turning down work, where you could make more to balance your budget.
In a government, it's rare when you can spend less. You could reduce government salaries, cut programs, but then do you cut all government pay, because then you have people leaving the government, and despite all the rhetoric, most government jobs need to be done.
What a government can do is take in more money, by raising taxes, but that has a political cost, too.
What we had was a period when the GOP dominated government, in which they increased spending dramatically, decreased revenue dramatically, and reduced the actual work that the government does, by eliminating necessary regulations, which resulted in the collapse of the financial system.
Leaving us with a weakened economy, huge deficits, and just enough GOP control to stymie attempts to correct the situation.

Sorry Goober. They both have to exist in the same financial reality which clearly dictates that you can't, and shouldn't, be spending more than you are taking in.

Or do you deny that they exist in the same financial reality?

Originally Posted by goober

Spending increases GDP, which means more jobs, higher incomes.
Taxes on the wealthy reduce deficits, with no effect on spending or investment.
That's why increased taxes on the wealthy and increased spending can boost the economy and reduce the deficit.
It's why cutting spending and reducing taxes on the wealthy results in recession, unemployment and high deficits.

Borrowing money to spend and increase GDP is temporary and it also still puts you further into debt. You're equation does not add up.


You're saying you can borrow $500 billion dollars. Take that $500 bill and spend it which would (I agree to an extent) increase GDP. You're then saying that that increase will then increase government revenue, which it may. The problem is the government will only get back a small % of tat $500 bill where you seem to be implying that we'll not only get that $500 bill back but actually get like $600 bill or something ridiculous.

Goober math works out like this (5 - 5) + (5x.05) = 6.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

So this is interesting for a number of reasons:

1) goober is bold enough to state that you run a government differently than you live your personal life. I say "bold" but I actually mean the opposite because there's nothing "bold" about blatantly making a lame statement meant to wash away the fact that everything you believe is discordant with how you live your life. It's like if I said "people need to stop taking showers" even if I showered and when you questioned me, my "bold" reply was "that's right, that only applies to you, not me."

Actually that was one of those things I learned in economics class, you should try to understand economics, it would change your whole political philosophy.

2) As usual, goober takes the tactic of attempting to give himself some credibility by citing Reagan and trying to position Reagan as a liberal -- you can't make this up, it's too idiotic. Meanwhile, he ignores things like the fact that spending occurred by the Democrat Congress and that, if spending more means you get re-elected, then why don't liberals just win elections for the rest of all time by pronouncing they will promise to tax and spend? LOL, right? Oh, wait, more of "I live differently than what I just told you." What a shock.

Reagan was a conservative, his policies lead to huge deficits, he tripled the national debt, that's what conservatives do, it's not what they say, but it is what they do.
Read David Stockman's book "The Triumph of Politics", this is Reagan's budget director explaining how Reagan went so terribly wrong.
Basically Reagan was the tool of monied interests who used him to put their interests ahead of the the interests of the nation, Reagan was a sellout, not so much a sellout as a dupe, a guy who actually didn't have a clue what he was doing. A True Conservative.

3) The rest of his post is railing about how Republicans caused the collapse of the financial system, requiring a complete ignorance of the reality of the issue. As usual, goober sits around in some imaginary world and convinces himself he's some super smart guy who knows how it all works.

Actually, that is what happened, your ideas on this situation would make sense if what you believed was true, but what you believe isn't true...

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Except history shows that conservatives are right and liberals are wrong.........No matter how many so called smart people say other wise you cannot spend your way out of debt.

Debt is not the reason our economy contracted...NOW what Einstein?

Originally Posted by goober

There is a difference between a government and a household.
In a household, you make as much as you can, and your spending should be restricted by your income.
A government is supposed to spend as little as it can to do what needs to be done. And then set taxes high enough to cover it.
If you do that, you'll get a government that does look at spending with a hard eye, because it carries the political cost of higher taxes.

Why would there be a political cost if everything works out peachy-keen using that methodology? Additionally, you're right to a small degree, but as Damn Yankee said, it doesn't apply when your debt is too great and you've been doing that for decades already.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

When a liberal says that they want to create jobs, they mean government jobs. The more government jobs, the more people beholden to the government (along with all the welfare recipients and voters who pay no taxes), therefore the more likely voters will support candidates who support these programs: Democrats.

That's really what it's all about. They are buying votes with public money.

That's exactly what it means.

Originally Posted by goober

Actually that was one of those things I learned in economics class, you should try to understand economics, it would change your whole political philosophy.

Yes, yes, we all know you were brainwashed by your college education to know that 1+1=5.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

Debt is not the reason our economy contracted...NOW what Einstein?

Of course it is.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Borrowing money to spend and increase GDP is temporary and it also still puts you further into debt. You're equation does not add up.


You're saying you can borrow $500 billion dollars. Take that $500 bill and spend it which would (I agree to an extent) increase GDP. You're then saying that that increase will then increase government revenue, which it may. The problem is the government will only get back a small % of tat $500 bill where you seem to be implying that we'll not only get that $500 bill back but actually get like $600 bill or something ridiculous.

Goober math works out like this (5 - 5) + (5x.05) = 6.

When you get into economics there is a number called capacity, it's what the economy is capable of producing, if everyone had a job, and all the plants and equipment were being used.
It's where we would be if everything was going well.
Right now we are about a trillion shy of producing what we could produce, and we don't get that back, since this recession began we have produced three trillion less in goods and services, our net worth is three trillion less than it should be, because there is a shortage of demand.
Consumers can't provide that demand, their credit is tapped out, their incomes are down, States can't provide that demand, they are required to balance budgets, and their revenues are down so they are cutting back. The only player who can provide that demand is the Federal government.
And there's a multiplier effect on the spending, a dollar in transfer payments, unemployment checks, social security, welfare, etc. produces 7 dollars in GDP, the money gets spent almost immediately, the storekeeper where the money is spent, buys more inventory, the wholesaler orders from the factory and the money turns over and over, even military spending (the least productive) has a multiplier of around 3.

Full employment lowers welfare costs, unemployment costs and increases tax revenues, and you avoid the social costs of long term unemployment.
More importantly, since in the long run we're all dead, you make life better in the short run for the people, and that's where we live, in the short run.

Originally Posted by goober

When you get into economics there is a number called capacity, it's what the economy is capable of producing, if everyone had a job, and all the plants and equipment were being used.
It's where we would be if everything was going well.
Right now we are about a trillion shy of producing what we could produce, and we don't get that back, since this recession began we have produced three trillion less in goods and services, our net worth is three trillion less than it should be, because there is a shortage of demand.
Consumers can't provide that demand, their credit is tapped out, their incomes are down, States can't provide that demand, they are required to balance budgets, and their revenues are down so they are cutting back. The only player who can provide that demand is the Federal government.
And there's a multiplier effect on the spending, a dollar in transfer payments, unemployment checks, social security, welfare, etc. produces 7 dollars in GDP, the money gets spent almost immediately, the storekeeper where the money is spent, buys more inventory, the wholesaler orders from the factory and the money turns over and over, even military spending (the least productive) has a multiplier of around 3.

You're doing that false math again. The government can't spend $1 and get $7 out of it. The money that was given in benefits goes to the storekeeper doesn't get the full $1, (s)he only get a very small % of that. Which, in turn, some of which supports the manufacturer, and they only get %. All of this fails to mention that the government didn't get the $1 back but got maybe....5 cents back if they're lucky. So now the government is in more debt. This government debt continues to grow until it's unsustainable. At the point we are now, taxing 100% of all the rich people's money, that you hate so much, wouldn't even put a dent in our debt. The only way we can get out of it is to cut spending.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

Debt is not the reason our economy contracted...NOW what Einstein?

Yes it was.