Re: Krugman: Bush policies are disaster

From: Bulba! (bulba_at_bulba.com)
Date: 12/01/04 

Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:40:50 +0100

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:32:17 GMT, "Count Cottontail"
<Count1MoreVoteForKerry@CottontailClub.net> wrote:

>> >> They had
>> >> to clench their teeth to support Bush. They suffer Bush only
>> >> bc he's a lesser evil economically speaking and because they
>> >> like his ideology on other issues.
>>
>> >I think that they are fools to do so.
>>
>> They're not. Kerry would be even worse. A flu is not as
>> bad as broken spine.
>
>If you don't think America's spine is broken, you are kidding yourself.

I think you're way too dramatic.

>Rightn ow, today, we are looking at no social security, no health care and
>no new jobs.

1. Social security has always had it coming. It's the demography that
rules this game, not Dem or Repub president.

Even the former proponent of s.s., like Paul Samuelson, recognize
it now. Well, it's better late than never.

2. No universal healthcare -> you should be happy it's not incoming.
You Americans are great at doing capitalism, but rather poor at
doing socialism.

3. No new jobs -> come on. Ever heard of economic cycle? Every
president likes to charge his opposition for causing econ crisis
and vice versa, but reality is it is largely independent of them.
They can only harm economy, not help it.

What goes down, will go up. There will be jobs, as US and
the world is slowly rolling out of recession. The worst
time was about 2001 I think.

>Within a few years ( perhaps a few months ), there will be no
>new debt for the federal government.

>> >Bush is the worst President this
>> >country has had since Rutherford B. Hayes, although I may be doing Hayes
>an
>> >injustice by comparing him to George Bush.
>>
>> If his trick with forcing the Dems to "starve the leviathan" in the
>> future won't work, he will indeed have left very bad legacy. However,
>> for now I see his chances of creating success for conservative
>> policies _in the long run_ as 60 to 40.

>There's no 'trick' to it, unless it's the same 'trick' that 20-something
>youngsters pull when they run up a $20,000 debt on their credit card and
>daddy has to bail them out. But there no daddy to bail out America.

>Maybe the 'trick' for America is to find a daddy to bail us out

I propose taxing Soros to pay for it - come on, squeeze that rich. ;-)

<snip>
>For many years, Republicans/Neo-cons/Right-wingers have jumped up and down
>frothing at the mouth about "tax and spend, tax and spend". And yet the
>same Republicans/Neo-cons/Right-wingers do not jump up and down frothing at
>the mouth about "run up an astronomical nation debt and spend, run up an
>astronomical nation debt and spend".

It is a problem.

>Now, I have to admit that "run up an astronomical nation debt and spend"
>doesn't have the same ring as "tax and spend", and yet there is not a
>glimmer of awareness that "run up an astronomical nation debt and spend" is
>identical to "tax and spend". The difference is that the tax payments are
>in the future rather than today. In other words, YOU WILL PAY FOR IT, but
>you won't pay for it now, you will pay later.

>What I have outlined above is not rocket science. It is Basic Home
>Economics 101. So how come you Republicans/Neo-cons/Right-wingers don't
>understand that ?

I think they do - it's just there's some damn thing in politics that
makes it happen so. Tullock has a very honest argument about it:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GovernmentSpending.html

>There a lot of talk about how stupid Republicans/Neo-cons/Right-wingers are,
>but they aren't *that* stupid ( I think ). You say that "they're just smart
>enough to keep the poker face and say nothing, and keeping suffering
>contained in the mind quietly" and things of that sort. Do you think that
>"keeping a poker face" helps 20-something youngsters when the credit card
>company comes to collect the $20,000 debt and daddy isn't there to bail them
>out ?

No, obviously not.

But the daddy is around - his name is "John D. Taxpayer". Hence
the debt problem I think.

>So something else is going on other than stupidity. It really is a mystery
>to me how Republicans/Neo-cons/Right-wingers can say the things they say,
>especially as you consider yourself to be "fiscal conservatives", whatever
>that may mean in this foul year of our lord 2004.

Erm, I'm not Republican. And not American.

>How do you do it ? How do you ignore Basic Home Economics 101 and build
>illusionary castles in the sky where "keeping a poker face" is so very very
>smart ?

I do concede there may be trouble ahead, but I think you overestimate
them.

>In fact, I imagine that the mental models of the world inside the heads
>Republicans/Neo-cons/Right-wingers closely resemble those of 20-something
>youngsters when the run up their credit cards. However, instead of the
>greed a 20-something youngster feels for $1200 sound systems and $200
>sneakers, it is something else that drives
>Republicans/Neo-cons/Right-wingers. But what is it ? Mindless hatred,
>racism, what ???

Politics, it's always that damn politics. It made one libertarian,
Anthony de Jasay, write a book titled "Against Politics".

>You certainly hate liberals and democrats, but is that reason enough to
>destroy our country ? I don't think so.

No. And when I heard about deficits and subsidies and protectionism
of Bush, my hair raised in terror, believe it or not.

>There is a tendency in the human mind which I call the 'retro-future',
>eloquently expressed in movies like "Mad Max" and the many 'last day of the
>world' type movies. The ancient Romans had a saying 'mundus senescit', or
>'the world grows old'. Is it the expectation of worse-to-come that is
>driving George Bush's Red America to fulfill the prophesy of doom that you
>seem to accept and, indeed, actively seek to bring about ?

>As I said, it's a mystery to me.

You're in good company, then (I mean primarily Gordon Tullock, not my
humble person).

>> Blow the hell out of those dim-witted thieves, Mr Bush!
>> Even if that means blowing some of us up, too!

>... even if it means blowing all of us up with a $8 trillion national debt ?
>So only those dim-witted Democrat thieves will have to pay off the $8
>trillion and presumedly not the smart honest Republican patriots who don't
>"believe" in fiscal irresponsibility ?

Politics sucks. Like hell.

>Well, if the world worked the way you think it does, that would certainly
>serve them right !

You misunderstood me: I don't like fiscal craziness and spending
socialism of Bush Jr at all. I'm a libertarian, for Chrissakes.

I merely recognize the grim reality I have under my eyes.

I also think Cato Instite has risked quite a lot of its hard-earned
credibility at Repubs when they published the following
text:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-01-03.html

Bush is probably giving Cato people migraines and nervous
breakdowns.

>> I have one humble request, though: that you make sure that
>> they ARE blown up - that we, your supporters, are not blown
>> up for nothing. That remains disturbing possibility.

>Many disturbing possibilities remain.

>This has been a fascinating journey into the mind of a
>Republican/Neo-con/Right-winger. You have articulated the
>Republican/Neo-con/Right-winger vision for America-In-Its-Grave better than
>the many dozens of other people. Have you ever considered going into
>politics ? Perhaps on an Anarcho-Apocalyptic or Radical Nihilist platform
>?

No, but I'm beginning to think about starting Anarcho-Fascist
Party. ;-) 

--
To everyone, according to his whims. From everyone,
according to his stupidity.

Relevant Pages

  • TURMEL: Brantford Chamber of Commerce Survey
    ... Bank of Canada which does not need to pay interest to any ... interest on the mortgage debt for his practice. ... municipalities collect tax up front, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: QUOTES OF THE WEEK
    ... It has always been demonstrated that if you increase the money supply the ... mind on how we are going to pay off this debt with interest piled on top. ... When I went for a home loan in the 70s, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Australia: Ombudsman questions pay for time asylum policy
    ... The latest report by the Ombudsman has found that in the last financial year, the cost of detaining asylum seekers was $28 million, but that the way the Department of Immigration handles the debt recovery is unsatisfactory. ... Refugee advocacy groups say the report adds weight to their call for the policy of forcing people to pay detention costs to be scrapped. ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Re: OT - Debt Problems Explained
    ... No doubt, people will be asked why they pay cash, or why they have ... pass this annual fee onto his customers, who will now be paying the govt for the privilege of having ... Debt REQUIRES absolute growth as a matter of its very NATURE. ... loans embedded IN China. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)