Obamacare: Now Appearing On Your Restaurant Bill

[LEAPup]

No, what's totally absurd is that gov't can borrow money, then spend it and call it gdp. What a load of nonsensical liberal crap.

It's actually not liberal in the original definition of liberalism. Today's "liberal" is FAR from a liberal. They're fascists who have totally embraced communism, and tyranny. It's FULLY ok with them for their out of control government to "borrow" (steal!) money from those who have earned it, only to squander it away on lunacy that they should be hanged for.

Take a look. This will blow your mind as it does mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

First few sentences from Wikipedia:
"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."

Now, we have turds here at et such as trolling fc calling Rand Paul a "nutjob," as Rand Paul stood at CPAC and said, "I don't necessarily stand for Republicans or Democrats. I stand for LIBERTY LOVERS!" Now take a look at just the first few sentences of the definition of liberalism, and it's quite obvious today's "liberal" is ANYTHING but that! They should go ahead and scrap that word, and put an a swastika, as that's what they ACTUALLY are...

 

[piezoe]

No, what's totally absurd is that gov't can borrow money, then spend it and call it gdp. What a load of nonsensical liberal crap.

Perhaps you have a point regarding GDP and how it is computed. There is no modern, industrially advanced country, however, where the government can't borrow without collateral. It is an absolutely essential function of government. What do you think would have happened after the recent financial crisis had the U.S. government been forbidden to borrow?

 

[fhl]

Perhaps you have a point regarding GDP and how it is computed. There is no modern, industrially advanced country, however, where the government can't borrow without collateral. It is an absolutely essential function of government. What do you think would have happened after the recent financial crisis had the U.S. government been forbidden to borrow?

That's easy. What would have happened is what a very large group of economists, including nobel guys, recommended be done. Which is let the defaults happen, clean out the rotten investments, and then begin growing and creating real jobs again. Like they did before the fed reserve and john maynard keynes.

But no, instead we're going to go the route of japan and lose literally decades to nothingness growth, create very few jobs, amass mountains of debt, and then see what happens when it all falls apart.

That's my answer and i'm sticking to it.

 

[Lucrum]

Perhaps you have a point regarding GDP and how it is computed. There is no modern, industrially advanced country, however, where the government can't borrow without collateral....

What's our collateral for QE? Which Ben himself admitted is the equivalent of printing money, in terms of results/outcome.

 

[LEAPup]

Sorry. Meant to start a new thread.

 

[piezoe]

What's our collateral for QE? Which Ben himself admitted is the equivalent of printing money, in terms of results/outcome.

Sorry. It was poorly phrased. I should have put it in positive form: "All... governments can borrow without collateral.

 

[Lucrum]

If you like your jail cell plan, you can keep it? In a front page story for Monday's New York Times, writer Erica Goode revealed that prisons all across the country are enrolling inmates to ObamaCare. Despite the fact that many media outlets consider the Times to be the "paper of record," NBC and ABC ignored the news that taxpayer-funded money would be going to the health care of convicted criminals.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2vc8xOQHp

As if inmates weren't costing tax payers enough already?

 

[piezoe]

That's easy. What would have happened is what a very large group of economists, including nobel guys, recommended be done. Which is let the defaults happen, clean out the rotten investments, and then begin growing and creating real jobs again. Like they did before the fed reserve and john maynard keynes.

But no, instead we're going to go the route of japan and lose literally decades to nothingness growth, create very few jobs, amass mountains of debt, and then see what happens when it all falls apart.

That's my answer and i'm sticking to it.

We tried it. The result was not good. This time we tried something else. It worked much better. There is no indication, so far, that we are following in Japan's footsteps. As a matter of fact, they have recently decided to follow in ours.

 

[Tsing Tao]

We tried it. The result was not good. This time we tried something else. It worked much better. There is no indication, so far, that we are following in Japan's footsteps. As a matter of fact, they have recently decided to follow in ours.

This is a sarcastic post, right? It has to be.

 

[fhl]

We tried it. The result was not good. This time we tried something else. It worked much better. There is no indication, so far, that we are following in Japan's footsteps. As a matter of fact, they have recently decided to follow in ours.

Are you sure we didn't actually try that more than once? In previous credit panics, before 1929, we didn't have FDR putting the clamps on private business and micromanaging the economy right down to flipping a coin in the oval office to decide the daily price setting of gold.

There has to be two parts to the solution.
One, let the bad investment default.
Two, let business get about rebuilding.

During the great depression, they did allow defaults. They did not allow private business to rebuild. FDR thought he knew better.