My God, you are an idiot.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Were you drunk when you wrote that sentence?

Would it have mattered?

Guess" not "guy." I'm otherwise proud of the post though.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Professionals like Lehman Bros?

Beware: Hank will be along shortly to opine that you attended a State School.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Beware: Hank will be along shortly to opine that you attended a State School.

Gosh, I tremble at the prospect of being proven a lesser person than the King of Detroit.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by ironweed

My fiscal reform plan proposes taxing billionaire democrats and republicans alike for the good of the nation, no matter whether their billions came direct from the government teat through wasteful stimulus giveaways, or through the miracle of free market financial wizardry such as selling distressed debt to the government and taking 0% loans from the Fed. Hence I am above this partisan squabble and have triangulated you all. Check. Mate.

Ty says there is no evidence of democrat fatcats getting billions from the federal teat, so I'd sure appreciate a cite.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/2...essly-slavery/

Speaking at an event sponsored by Iowans For Tax Relief, Bachmann hailed the "different cultures, different backgrounds, different traditions" of the early European settlers in America, adding that the "color of their skin" or "language" or "economic status" didn't preclude them from seeking happiness.

"Once you got here, we were all the same," she said. "Isn't that remarkable? It is absolutely remarkable."

Remarkable.

But, you know, I give her a lot of credit for finally coming out and saying unequivocally that Slavery Was Bad, because for a while there it seemed like maybe she thought it was sort of a good thing for black families.

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Ty says there is no evidence of democrat fatcats getting billions from the federal teat, so I'd sure appreciate a cite.

See, e.g., Hank says they do, and he spied on girls while he was cleaning Harvard toilets, so he knows a thing or two about teats.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Ty says there is no evidence of democrat fatcats getting billions from the federal teat, so I'd sure appreciate a cite.

Weed wants to harness Soros to balance the budget.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by ironweed

See, e.g., Hank says they do, and he spied on girls while he was cleaning Harvard toilets, so he knows a thing or two about teats.

You've stooped beneath Ty's level, citing to message boards. Can't you even come up with a blog cite? Or something from a published work of fiction?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by ironweed

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/2...essly-slavery/



Remarkable.

But, you know, I give her a lot of credit for finally coming out and saying unequivocally that Slavery Was Bad, because for a while there it seemed like maybe she thought it was sort of a good thing for black families.

John Q Adams was quite the prodigy--9 when the Declaration was signed and 20 when the Constitution was adopted, yet still a Founding Father!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

John Q Adams was quite the prodigy--9 when the Declaration was signed and 20 when the Constitution was adopted, yet still a Founding Father!

This was six months ago. Bachmann has to have done something stupid and/or offensive more recently.

Let's keep current, people. Thurgreed doesn't re-post boobies from last January, we should maintain similar standards here.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

This was six months ago. Bachmann has to have done something stupid and/or offensive more recently.

Let's keep current, people. Thurgreed doesn't re-post boobies from last January, we should maintain similar standards here.

Everyone's a critic. I needed context for the more recent, gay marriage fiasco thing that was the second part of the post.

BTW, I see no boobies - political or otherwise -- from you, pal. The internet demands content! Give us content!

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Whether or not the government deploys capital "efficiently," that capital stimulates the economy. If it takes three bureaucrats to process the paperwork for a construction loan, and those are three bureaucrats who otherwise wouldn't have jobs (if they would then that's not a cost), then you have three more people working, receiving a paycheck, and spending money on things. (Hank understands this, so he's trying to be difficult by imagining that government stimulus disappears into bank accounts of Democratics fatcats, never to be spent, except he then forgot that he understands this and started imagining that they spend it on Opus, which also would stimulate the economy.)

Yes, but at what cost? That is the question that the left never asks or answers.

Most Republicans are very happy not to stimulate the economy because they don't want to see Obama get a legislative victory, and they have a fundamental philosophical objection to anything the government does that doesn't involve putting people in prison or killing people in foreign countries. If people are unemployed, it's their fault for losing a job. But they know that this doesn't go over well, so they contrive economic theories to explain why those are the best outcomes.

This is hogwash at every level. Forget about patriotism and just doing the right thing. Most members (other than the ultra safe districts) of congress are more vulnerable the worse the economy is. We have seen massive shifts in congress over the last 6 years because of this.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Professionals like Lehman Bros?

They probably would have done a better job. And the Lehman BK was very stimulative to the economy (or so Ty would probably argue). Look how many jobs it created.

In all serious, I wasn't thinking just about investment professionals. I was thinking about people who deploy capital based on qualifications other than economic (cronyism, social engineering, etc.)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

20% of the "stimulus" is going into his savings.

I thought Club said something similar, but if he did I can't find it right now.

But you should both know that this is an inherently Keynesian critique. Fresh water types and Austrians would see this as a good thing, making more money available to borrow, driving down interest rates, and magically returning us to growth.

Rest assured that I will remember your statist tendencies and remind you of them when next you advocate cutting taxes as stimulative policy.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Yes, but at what cost? That is the question that the left never asks or answers.

You said it was $850 million (ignoring that 40% of that is tax cuts).

Are there other costs you have in mind? Or are you arguing that there private investment is being crowded out despite interest rates at zero and all indications being that the market clearing rate for loanable funds, if there is one, should be negative?