Budget talks: This is getting nasty

all those oil speculators everyone loves to hate are going to take a big bath.

 

It's a Bobby Knight quote, and while it is extreme, it is also apt.

Basically, America's middle class and poor should just throw their hands up in the air and give up any hopes of having their lives improved economically, right? Or if anything, they can cling to the hopes that some inventor will be willing to sacrifice an extra four percent of their million-dollar salary to innovate something and keep the jobs in America rather than ship them to China.

And if we're supposed to just surrender to the global economy, then why didn't I hear the GOP become willing to have government-sponsored health insurance. Last I checked, Europe was part of the worl, too.

 

Tea party takes credit for the downgrade.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/video-tea-partiers-cheer-downgrade-americas-credit-rating

 

Limit horizontal integration.

 

I'm afraid you might.

 

Boy, I hope they get taxed more for their ability to generate profits!

 

Why would a public job necessarily mean the subtraction of a private job?

To me, if a public works program puts into place in a given area 20 years worth of road improvement or road creation projects, that not only creates long-range public jobs (actually, it would be a public-private job since it would likely be a private contractor on a government bid) but it would also create long-range private jobs to take advantage of the improved infrastructure.

I've lived in states where the public-private partnership is strong and development is good. I've lived in states where public investment is lacking. That tends to stifle private investment in those areas.

 

No public job provides any benefits to anybody anywhere except the freeloaders mooching up the paycheck. It's money pissed completely out the window.

-- The Teabag Manifesto.

 

OK, this thread has gone off in the direction of the merits of regulation. I'll make one point, then try to get us back off this tangent.

Point one: This discussion seems to be operating under the premise that regulation is just a deterrent. False premise. Sure regulation is a deterrent to quick and easy business start-up but the discussion should start with a cost-benefit analysis of the effects of regulation, both generally and specifically. We are skipping that and going right to the false premise that either dealing with the process of regulation deters business creation or it doesn't. We don't go any further than that. And that's a whole other discussion and one that's probably not apropos here because ...

Point two: The question on the table was what will it take to turn the economy around? In that context, the answer of eliminating regulations was offered. Let's get the regulation discussion back in that context.

So, to keep the discussion on point, the question that needs to be answered is, regardless of the merits of regulation, given the current climate what will relaxing regulations (for lack of a better term) do to spur the economy?

Somebody pointed out that the problem we have right now is demand, not supply, which to me seems to be accurate (are there statistics available that quantify this?). If it isn't accurate, explain why it isn't. And if it is accurate, how would increasing supply revive demand?

 

It's actually from West Side Story.