New here. Are there any liberals who could explain their economic theory to me?

http://www.damsafetyaction.org/NC/index.php

I'm always amused by the silly ignorance of northerners towards The South.

 

Take that question up with The Obama.

 

I've never said that States should be employing everyone. My position is to keep government as lean as possible and restricted to its constitutional powers.

 

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I am asking if you have any evidence of the proposition that the Hoover Dam could or would been privately built.

But whether it could have been or not, the fact that it was built by the Govt doesn't negate the fact that it produced wealth for many, as opposed to mostly for a few.

That's a pretty cool Avatar, BTW. It makes you look real tough.

 

We have already been paying for a War on Poverty for over a generation, shouldn't we actually solve poverty instead of merely pay for a War on Poverty on a longitudinal basis and expect different results? It could be claimed that the sunk cost is a basis in equity toward solving poverty in our republic especially when corporate welfare even has paid multimillion dollar bonuses. In any case, actually solving poverty and correcting for that form of market failure or market inefficiency could be said to be a promotion and provision of the general welfare.

 

This answer was provided, as stated earlier, in post 489, repeated here just for you: "You don't know that the private sector had the means or not. Here in The South, we have literally thousands of privately owned dams, and dozens of very large ones owned by private companies built for the purpose of producing hydroelectric power."

Since you require clarification, my answer shows you many other examples of dams that were built by private enterprise.

In comparison to the publicly funded dams, private ones are always built at less expense. The proof for this is Friedman 's axiom of spending tat I have posted previously and you should be aware of regardless. The expense to the public is even less, as the private ownership and operation yields to even more savings as well as taxation to the government. Either type produces wealth for people who consume the power, but again, private business has proven itself over and over to be able to produce more at less cost to the consumer.

Thanks on the avatar. Yours is not as cool.

 

We won't eliminate poverty in the US until we eliminate the Party that exploits it to their gain.

 

Better taking them all into jails and prosecuting for genocide. They are certainly not interested in economics..... AIPAC is interested in using your lot as fodder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA&feature=related

Regards
Highlander

 

Well let's see-the GOP's beloved POTUS REAGAN raised TAXE'S a whopping what 9? times during his Presidency to revive the economy-so I guess it's ok & works as long as a GOP POTUS does it-But that being said; OBAMA has reduced taxe's 19 times in the last 31/2 years both for people & business'-Just imagine where we would be today if those Bush tax cuts didn't come to be-it was (as we all know NOW)-a bad idea-bad ideas need to be thrown out.
And without people paying taxes,well you know or I hope you know what we ALL have to do without!
And you stand at the GOP's talking points, ready to degrade a "Community Organizer". Do you even know the details of what a "Community Organizer" does? Hint; it has more to do with how the economy works within a community, than say, Romney, who's only concern is HIS bottom line.
And yes,OBAMA needs more time & then even the POTUS after OBAMA"S 2nd term will need more time--The GOP has SUNK us that DEEP...

 

Word. What we have today is a welfare system established during times of dire need, like during the Great Depression and after the World Wars, when there were millions in need of aid and there obviously would not have been enough private charity available to go around. Unfortunately, continuing these welfare programs non-stop for decades is not sustainable, as we're seeing. Private charity is adequate in normal, more prosperous times. We could easily have charitable unemployment help available today without our government's high taxes and bureaucracy detracting from the wealth of all citizens who might give. Thus, government welfare programs should be held strictly in reserve for times of dire emergency, such as the events I mentioned earlier, and should cease altogether afterwards when private charity would be able to cover general needs.

Maybe I should address and send this to El Presidente?

 

And as an added addendum to my post-Everyone else in this country gets "Applauded "for their service to their community-they get awards-have dinners thrown them & are very well respected in their community's---but for some reason (read between the lines there) GOP supporters degrade "ONLY" OBAMA for his service & use "Community Organizer" as him not being qualified to run our country or that by being part & giving back to his community is a bad thing. I am happy that the MAJORITY of voters in 2008 don't share your view of this "ONE" person-OBAMA 2012

 

I'm not a liberal. But I think their beliefs are that the big federal government knows best. And they certainly don't believe in "limited" government, which is the very principle that our country was founded on. They've been trying to change that....ever since we were formed.

 

Citations need on both Reagan's supposed raising taxes and The Obama's supposedly lowering them. But assuming for a moment that this is true, Liberals are always saying that raising taxes helps the economy, and apparently it worked for Reagan, so why hasn't The Obama raised them?

 

I've never seen anyone deride The Obama for being a community organizer, only that the experience doesn't qualify for him to be POTUS.

 

The public sector usually pays, prevailing wages instead multimillion dollar CEO bonuses.

 

So, why are you not complaining more about our wasteful War on Drugs instead of social spending for real persons?

 

Why not insist they bear true witness to our own laws since the other party isn't moral enough to bear true witness, to even their own doctrine?

 

Why not end the drug war, first?

 

Isn't our War on Drugs a conservative effort? Why not start limiting our government by ending that boondoggle and generational form of theft; alleged conservatives.

 

So? A good CEO makes what he's worth and has problem getting a project done at less cost than the government could do by itself. Even the government recognizes that, since they bid out projects to private firms.

 

My position on the so-called war on drugs has been stated previously. What part of it do you disagree with?

 

You are obviously confusing my position (conservative) with some political party that has positions of power and occasional bouts with conservatism.

 

Why do you believe, it may seem to some, that the wealthier our poliicians get the more mediocre our public plicies become, almost in correlation. Should we not expect a better job from wealthier citizens of our republic as a moral and ethic of that office of public trust, under the United States and our supreme law of the land.

 

War on drugs??? What bloody war?

The CIA assist the Northern alliance and Karszi's brother the drug baron in Afghanistan to produce 98% of the worlds supply of Heroin!

Oooh....the Taliban took heroin production down to 2% of the worlds supply!

Just how productive is the CIA.... looking after the gangsters drug supply to destroy american society!

Waken up and smell the AIPAC corruption!

Regards
Highlander

 

You seem to be alluding to something about politicians who get "kick backs" from their constituency. If that's what you're getting at I assure you that there are examples in both Parties and as a conservative I believe that they should be thrown out of office for such behavior.