I think America in general is offended by the size of Obama's package and his general obsession with it. He can't go a week without calling a press conference to talk about his package. America wants his focus to be on pleasing us and instead he just wants to be stroked so history will record how awesome his package is for all time.If America wanted his package then why is he sucking on representatives and paying them for the favor so they'll take it? I never saw a whore pay a John before. Something tells me his package is being over sold.
----The problem with a pure free market solution to problems in our era is that productivity keeps getting better and better. We can produce more s**t with less people every year. But we don't have less people, we have more people. Even if we have a static population, we're running into a problem...---Horribly misguided and inaccurate. We consume more and more every year, so producing more and more is not a problem. The value of the goods/services being consumed increases, as people are able to afford higher value products (more advanced medical drugs and procedures, more advanced electronics, better quality food, etc).---1. All of our needs and reasonable wants (enough food to live, adequate housing, etc. for EVERYONE) can be produced by a smaller and smaller fraction of the population, ---There is no such thing as "reasonable wants". What constitutes "adequate" housing, food and health care is HIGHLY subjective. Are you referring to a shed that puts a roof over someone's head, 3 potato dishes a day, and antibiotics for infections, or are you talking about an insulated home with central heating, three balanced meals with meat and fresh vegetables, and state of the art treatment for cancer? Depending on the society and era, what is an adequate standard of living will be different.As an example, someone who can only afford to live in a shoddy shack, eat three potato dishes a day, and get access to medical care no more advanced than antibiotics, is better off than probably the majority of people in the third world, yet would be considered to be in extreme poverty in any western country.What you're actually advocating is that no one be too far below the median standard of living. Your political position is focused on relative standard of living, not any absolute standard of living, but you haven't realized that.---2. If we just ramp up production of all sorts of things beyond our need, we end up wasting our resources. ---Who says that the economy needs to produce things that people don't need? What about medical products and services? What about computer hardware and software that let's people do more in less time? People don't need these things?---Not only is this morally wrong, it is also not sustainable in a true free market.---It's morally wrong to stop progress.--3. As we move to a welfare state (popular in Europe, for example) we run the risk of disincentivizing work. This is already a problem in the US - people make more money with welfare, food stamps, etc. than they would by working a bit harder and getting a better job. ---This is true, which is why there should be no welfare, and the economy should be allowed to grow and produce more and more of the goods/services that people want.
ozzimoMar 7, 2010
I see what you did there.
maddoktor2Mar 8, 2010
Dugg because it pisses off all the wingnuts.
kalvinbMar 8, 2010
I think America in general is offended by the size of Obama's package and his general obsession with it. He can't go a week without calling a press conference to talk about his package. America wants his focus to be on pleasing us and instead he just wants to be stroked so history will record how awesome his package is for all time.If America wanted his package then why is he sucking on representatives and paying them for the favor so they'll take it? I never saw a whore pay a John before. Something tells me his package is being over sold.
islander2137Mar 8, 2010
Shopped
Closed AccountMar 8, 2010
If it were younger and whiter, maybe.
thecoolestguyMar 8, 2010
----The problem with a pure free market solution to problems in our era is that productivity keeps getting better and better. We can produce more s**t with less people every year. But we don't have less people, we have more people. Even if we have a static population, we're running into a problem...---Horribly misguided and inaccurate. We consume more and more every year, so producing more and more is not a problem. The value of the goods/services being consumed increases, as people are able to afford higher value products (more advanced medical drugs and procedures, more advanced electronics, better quality food, etc).---1. All of our needs and reasonable wants (enough food to live, adequate housing, etc. for EVERYONE) can be produced by a smaller and smaller fraction of the population, ---There is no such thing as "reasonable wants". What constitutes "adequate" housing, food and health care is HIGHLY subjective. Are you referring to a shed that puts a roof over someone's head, 3 potato dishes a day, and antibiotics for infections, or are you talking about an insulated home with central heating, three balanced meals with meat and fresh vegetables, and state of the art treatment for cancer? Depending on the society and era, what is an adequate standard of living will be different.As an example, someone who can only afford to live in a shoddy shack, eat three potato dishes a day, and get access to medical care no more advanced than antibiotics, is better off than probably the majority of people in the third world, yet would be considered to be in extreme poverty in any western country.What you're actually advocating is that no one be too far below the median standard of living. Your political position is focused on relative standard of living, not any absolute standard of living, but you haven't realized that.---2. If we just ramp up production of all sorts of things beyond our need, we end up wasting our resources. ---Who says that the economy needs to produce things that people don't need? What about medical products and services? What about computer hardware and software that let's people do more in less time? People don't need these things?---Not only is this morally wrong, it is also not sustainable in a true free market.---It's morally wrong to stop progress.--3. As we move to a welfare state (popular in Europe, for example) we run the risk of disincentivizing work. This is already a problem in the US - people make more money with welfare, food stamps, etc. than they would by working a bit harder and getting a better job. ---This is true, which is why there should be no welfare, and the economy should be allowed to grow and produce more and more of the goods/services that people want.
atomheartmotherMar 8, 2010
If things are proportional, the word "pencil" comes to mind.
ericschc1Mar 24, 2010
Butthurt...much?