To: aculeus; newgeezer
In reality, both presidents represented a major break with the past by casting the federal government in the role of rescuer of the economy in its distress. To suggest that this is not a priority of the government is either stupidity or a lie. Ofcourse the Federal government should do what it can to help the economy.
15 posted on
10/09/2003 6:41:39 AM PDT by
biblewonk
(Spose to be a Chrisssssssstian)
To: biblewonk
Of course the Federal government should do what it can to help the economy.Citations from the Constitution, please, sir, (1) establishing this as a goal and (2) giving authority for what? specific actions.
16 posted on
10/09/2003 6:48:15 AM PDT by
Tax-chick
(Too cold to start a fire ... I'm burning diesel, burning dinosaur bones ...)
To: biblewonk
>> To suggest that this is not a priority of the government is either stupidity or a lie. Of course the Federal government should do what it can to help the economy. <<
Of course the Federal government should do what it can to help the economy, it should keep its hands off. The Federal government would be successful if it would follow the first dictate of medicine, "First do no harm".
23 posted on
10/09/2003 7:02:08 AM PDT by
CMAC51
To: biblewonk
You have to remember the "federal government" is not some monolithic god-like being applying some gestaltic genius to a problem. It is a few corruptable and limited men that consider the problem and makes the ultimate decision, usually
one man.
Remember also that an "economy" is a vast, interactive system of vaguely understood cross causes and effects similar to the codependent complexity of Earth's ecosystem.
Anybody that tampers with it by direct action is a spiritual brother to the moron who brought kudsu to the South.
![](http://home.hiwaay.net/~wterrell/william.gif)
54 posted on
10/09/2003 8:29:52 AM PDT by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: biblewonk
"Ofcourse the Federal government should do what it can to help the economy."
You're correct to the extent that the government can do nothing to help the economy, and that's exactly what it should do.
59 posted on
10/09/2003 9:27:37 AM PDT by
Sofa King
(-I am Sofa King- tired of liberal BS! http://www.angelfire.com/art2/sofaking/)
To: biblewonk; Tax-chick; madfly; editor-surveyor; harpseal; sauropod
biblewonk:
In reality, both presidents represented a major break with the past by casting the federal government in the role of rescuer of the economy in its distress.
To suggest that this is not a priority of the government is either stupidity or a lie. Ofcourse the Federal government should do what it can to help the economy.
------------------- In "FDR's Folly," author Jim Powell spells out just what the Roosevelt administration did and what consequences followed. It tried to raise farm prices by destroying vast amounts of produce -- at a time when hunger was a serious problem in the United States. It imposed minimum wage rates that priced unskilled labor out of jobs, at a time of massive unemployment.
Behind both policies was the belief that what was needed was more purchasing power and that this could be achieved by government policies to raise the prices received by farmers and workers. But prices do not automatically translate into greater purchasing power, unless people buy as much at higher prices as they would at lower prices -- which they seldom do.
==========================================
Guys, Besides, Government is "so good" at controlling the economy to "help" the people. < / SARCASM > Peace and love, George.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson