If you have not heard him speak, you should.

[Danno 1,228]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Part 2

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



Part 3

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Edited February 20, 2010 by Danno

[scandal 951]

I've been reading Will's syndicated column since I was a teenager - the early 1980s.

I also like watching him on as a regular panelist on ABC's This Week.

I don't agree with many of his views. E.g. in the first YouTube clip here he summarily dismisses the New Deal as "failed", and claims the only dispute is over why it failed, not that it failed. I disagree entirely, of course. He also characterizes liberalism as a philosophy that stresses equality of outcome, not opportunity. There is some truth to that. But it's nowhere near as stark as he would make it seem.

In any event, George Will is exactly what to my mind cable news channels in this country are not. A Beltway insider journalist who actually thinks and probes the issues, speaks articulately, debates meaningfully with his philosophical opponents. By the way, I also admire David Brooks a great deal. He's a more pragmatic and moderate conservative than Will is. Both of them are intellectual giants in a sea of mediocrity.

I posted his column yesterday, on the subject of Sarah Palin. Have a look.

[~happyndinlove~ 540]

I've been reading Will's syndicated column since I was a teenager - the early 1980s.

I also like watching him on as a regular panelist on ABC's This Week.

I don't agree with many of his views. E.g. in the first YouTube clip here he summarily dismisses the New Deal as "failed", and claims the only dispute is over why it failed, not that it failed. I disagree entirely, of course. He also characterizes liberalism as a philosophy that stresses equality of outcome, not opportunity. There is some truth to that. But it's nowhere near as stark as he would make it seem.

In any event, George Will is exactly what to my mind cable news channels in this country are not. A Beltway insider journalist who actually thinks and probes the issues, speaks articulately, debates meaningfully with his philosophical opponents. By the way, I also admire David Brooks a great deal. He's a more pragmatic and moderate conservative than Will is. Both of them are intellectual giants in a sea of mediocrity.

I posted his column yesterday, on the subject of Sarah Palin. Have a look.

Keynesian economics will work as long as there is a predominant focus on aiding and growing the private sector. Not the tax hikes that will soon be imposed to cover the looney tune spending and the growth of more govt. That's the point he is making.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Keynesian economics will work as long as there is a predominant focus on aiding and growing the private sector. Not the tax hikes that will soon be imposed to cover the looney tune spending and the growth of more govt. That's the point he is making.

What about infrastructural spending? Roads, bridges, schools, energy?

[Ali G. 37]

What about infrastructural spending? Roads, bridges, schools, energy?

If people properly understood the role of a government they would understand the necessity of these things. What I find funny is that folks here who eat, breathe, and sleep the private sector, refuse to have the government operate accordingly, using this same model. Like I said to ALC, like it or not, repubs don't comprehend that being stuck in traffic because his party refuses to raise taxes to pay for infrastructure projects, results in billions of actual $$$ being lost in productivity. Melbourne a city of 3.8 million lost $3 billion in productivity last year due to traffic, therefore, one can only imagine what the US would lose, considering traffic is much worse here..

A government should be a business. Like any business, it needs to generate revenue (taxes) and use it to invest in itself to grow their business. What is their business? The country, its state, its city and its community. Much like any business, the government should constantly reduce costs (wastage), while delivering the best value to their customers (we the people). In order to grow their business, they invest in schools, roads, infrastructure, and their people; which in return generates more revenue.

Like any business, this revenue is then reinvested back into the business, in order to grow, and the process continues. This is something both Australia and Canada understand first hand, hence both their huge internationally recognized success. The opposite approach of course, is Matt's zero government approach, which has lead to the third world.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Booyah

[FortLaudy 10]

If people properly understood the role of a government they would understand the necessity of these things. What I find funny is that folks here who eat, breathe, and sleep the private sector, refuse to have the government operate accordingly, using this same model. Like I said to ALC, like it or not, repubs don't comprehend that being stuck in traffic because his party refuses to raise taxes to pay for infrastructure projects, results in billions of actual $$$ being lost in productivity. Melbourne a city of 3.8 million lost $3 billion in productivity last year due to traffic, therefore, one can only imagine what the US would lose, considering traffic is much worse here..

A government should be a business. Like any business, it needs to generate revenue (taxes) and use it to invest in itself to grow their business. What is their business? The country, its state, its city and its community. Much like any business, the government should constantly reduce costs (wastage), while delivering the best value to their customers (we the people). In order to grow their business, they invest in schools, roads, infrastructure, and their people; which in return generates more revenue.

Like any business, this revenue is then reinvested back into the business, in order to grow, and the process continues. This is something both Australia and Canada understand first hand, hence both their huge internationally recognized success. The opposite approach of course, is Matt's zero government approach, which has lead to the third world.

[~happyndinlove~ 540]

What about infrastructural spending? Roads, bridges, schools, energy?

All part of the Kenesian Theory applied in the new deal.

Scandal suggests that GW disposed of the new deal without explanation. Listen to the rest of the speech for explanation.

The message delivered by GW; It is not the new deal that bailed out the economy but private sector growth and reduction of state.

GW explained his perspective on the debate.

Edited February 20, 2010 by ~happyndinlove~

[~happyndinlove~ 540]

Where's my spell check when I need it?

Keynesian Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

[Ali G. 37]

How and why did the new deal fail? All of the stats seem to illustrate otherwise..

Unemployment rate

GDP

Total employment in the United States

Edited February 20, 2010 by Booyah

[Danno 1,228]

A government should be a business. Like any business, it needs to generate revenue (taxes) and use it to invest in itself to grow their business. What is their business? The country, its state, its city and its community. Much like any business, the government should constantly reduce costs (wastage), while delivering the best value to their customers (we the people). In order to grow their business, they invest in schools, roads, infrastructure, and their people; which in return generates more revenue.

Like any business, this revenue is then reinvested back into the business.

THe Gov't is not anything like a business... on so many levels.

-Gov't is a monopoly

-Gov't has the power to punish.

-Gov't is not bound by ANY of the rules of the market as businesses are.

the list goes on and on.

[Danno 1,228]

How and why did the new deal fail? All of the stats seem to illustrate otherwise..

Unemployment rate

GDP

Total employment in the United States

Take note of the time line, as soon as We started supplying Europe for the war and then inducting most men into either the military or work to support it THAT is when the people went back to work.

Maybe you are right.. we need another world war so we can see a drop in the unemployment rate.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Danno

[Ali G. 37]

THe Gov't is not anything like a business... on so many levels.

-Gov't is a monopoly

-Gov't has the power to punish.

-Gov't is not bound by ANY of the rules of the market as businesses are.

the list goes on and on.

I didn't say a government is a business, I said a government should be run as efficiently as a business. Why is it the average Republican fails to grasp this notion?

The rest of your points are silly because Repubs like yourself endorse and encourage monopolies and that a business be bound by no rules. Furthermore, you have no qualms with private corporations answering to none but themselves and their shareholders. Damn straight the list goes on, hence why trying to debate you guys on such points is pointless, as you will not answer any direct questions regarding the logic or lack of.

Take note of the time line, as soon as We started supplying Europe for the war and then inducting most men into either the military or work to support it THAT is when the people went back to work.

Maybe you are right.. we need another world war so we can see a drop in the unemployment rate.

Um WW II started in 1939.. The new deal was between 33 to 37

[~happyndinlove~ 540]

Take note of the time line, as soon as We started supplying Europe for the war and then inducting most men into either the military or work to support it THAT is when the people went back to work.

Maybe you are right.. we need another world war so we can see a drop in the unemployment rate.

Bingo!

Most economists argue that it was WW2 that made Keynes' ideas official. The theory is only effective and lasting if coupled with private sector growth.

[Ali G. 37]

Bingo!

Most economists argue that it was WW2 that made Keynes' ideas official. The theory is only effective and lasting if coupled with private sector growth.

You seem to be confusing Keynesian economics for socialism. Keynesian economics does work and is why countries like Australia and Canada are absolutely kicking azz, even in the worst GLOBAL recession since the depression. Rush and co conveniently like to look at Europe for examples but fail to mention either of these nations. Not to mention China, who are communist yet have amassed $2.4 trillion USD in liquid cash.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Booyah

[Ali G. 37]

You know what cracks me up the most, what I find most bizarre, is that Repubs like you guys live in states that are honestly ravaged by poverty. Compared to where I lived, are dirt poor in compassion. Now, you seem like honest hard working guys, so why would you ever believe the BS of the mega rich, and actually sit back endorsing the very same people who they or their granddads were responsible for selling out industries in your state for a profit, for their own gain. While they profited, people from NC and OK became dirt poor.

Funny how patriotism goes out the window when it comes to money, yet you guys don't even see this. Instead you actually cheer these guys on, furthermore, actually believe all democrats have some sort of grand scheme to turn America into a communist nation. It's akin to cheering on the guy burning down your house, because he needs more room to build his 10,000 sq ft home. A home he can only afford because he made million paying people like yourself minimum wage or close to it. While you worked 45 hours a week, he lived it up on his yacht, yet you actually believe he 'worked hard' for his profit.

Truly amazing and I am a conservative..

Edited February 20, 2010 by Booyah