Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Huffington Post Debates, 10/10/2012


I never said that I "want to be Estonia."

I presented one point of, very recent, evidence that showed a country that was in debt and had a large amount of unemployed but it reduced government spending and the unemployment rate fell and their national debt fell.

That is one point of evidence for: reducing the size of a government resulting in improved numbers in its economy.

More government spending = more debt and higher unemployment

less government spending = less debt and lower unemployment

See Estonia for an example of these two facts.


Your point is not made:
Unemployment in Estonia is 11 Percent.
Estonia Government is smaller, so is their land mass, and population. BUT, they actually have a larger government if you count Federal Level as they have a National Education System and a National Health Care System. SO you did not make your point at all. They increased spending, and had an unbalanced budget and still have 11 percent unemployment. BUT they said it would be worse if they had not over spent in the time of crisis. Their advantage is they started with a surplus... You know like we were headed for before Bush raided the treasury with his tax cuts and unfunded wars and drug programs.

They don't have Military Spending... Let's follow them on that OK? 


I never said Estonia's unemployment rate was "low." I said that it was "less" than it was when they had more government spending.

You've totally missed my point. Here it is again:

MORE federal spending = MORE debt and MORE unemployment

LESS federal spending = LESS debt and LESS unemployment

Comparing Estonia and America is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. But it is an example of a general trend, more spending = bad, less spending = better.

Who says that I'm in favor of more military spending? How about an example of me debating a conservative on foreign government interference?

Less government at home and less government overseas is what I would like to see.



The quote you gave came from the speech in 1937... not 1941 as an afterthought. You are not putting things in sequence or even addressing the fact that even he wanted spending cuts and Tax Increases on the Rich.

I have no way of knowing who you respect. So how about some Christian Teachings on Economics. Sure you could argue these lessons are for individuals, but they also apply to institutions individuals organize themselves into, such as government.

Is. 58:66ff. Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

Jer. 22:3. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, "Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise."

Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. 


Part of the quote that I presented:

"after eight years of this Administration"

The administration was of FDR, which started in 1933. How can "after eight years of this Administration" mean 1937?

I'm afraid that your statement is incorrect. And my point still stands:

When he started as Treasury Secretary he favored more government spending, see your quotes for proof.

"After 8 years" he saw that the government spending did not work, see the quote I presented for proof.

When I presented that quote I found that it was from a hand picked cabinet member of one of your side's favorite presidents, FDR. I am using a quote from a guy on your side to prove that your side is wrong.

If you want to try a similar thing to my side, then try using quotes from at least republicans, if you cannot find a quote from a libertarian.

A guy handpicked by FDR says that your side is incorrect, at least on this issue.

I notice that in Luke 3:11 it says: "share" not "have the government steal it and then give it to someone else"

The positions of the right are not inconsistent with the verses you've presented. One difference between our sides is that the left wants the government to forcefully take from some and, maybe, give it to others. The right wants to do that voluntarily.



What does my knowledge of Latin American history have to do with anything? (I'd be happy to compare it to yours, however.)

The fact is that Chavez has been in power for 14 years and Venezuela is still extremely poor.

Venezuela first declared itself a country 201 years ago. How long after its colonialism are you going to use that as an excuse for the bad results that come from socialism?


If you have to ask if history is important, you'll never know because you DON'T WANT TO KNOW. 


I asked "What does MY knowledge of history have to do with anything?"

Did you notice the "MY" in there?

Why is it you assume that I "DON'T WANT TO KNOW" about history?

Would you believe me if I told you that I read more than anyone I know (1 exception)? And that my end table currently has several books of history on it?

Shogun: the Life of Tokugawa Iyeasu

Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty

The Myth of the Robber Barrons

What If? Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been

No comments:

Post a Comment