PDA

View Full Version : Is this economic crash engineered?


Bob
02-03-2009, 06:35 PM
Not by everyone in power is looking to take advantage of crisis, but war game this out.

The debts are too big to pay off now, so how does our nation get out? It prints more money to eventually create inflation (a 70% increase in dollars since Oct.) What are the benefits to inflation? Of course, to pay back lenders with deflated dollars. But what else is at stake here?

What social change can be implemented in a crisis, we otherwise would be too independent and self-respecting to tolerate?

Businesses that are “too big to fail,” seem to be running to the government for protection, and melding into quasi government entities, that naturally means the government has more right to tell these folks how to run their business. Meanwhile the little business owners go under, in terms of wealth creation – that has been one of the best ways for folks to get rich in America (to start a small business or invest in one) and have huge growth – few get rich by working for others, you are dependent on incremental wage increases and it is (at least in part) a subservient relationship. So what will be left standing when this whole mess filters through? Big government owned business, and government jobs building infrastructure? In short a nation of serfs.

Next to destroy? Talk radio – government will not tolerate an alternative voice much longer – they wont take it on directly, but find a noble reason – like local newspapers going under, and demand more local broadcasters. What the left does not get is that most R’s in office hate talk radio too, they want power, not accountability. From healthcare, environmental causes, education – the more we fall into crisis and look to Big Brother to bail us and Big business out, the more enabled we collectively become. The more it can tell us how to warm our homes, what to eat, what schools to attend and what to study, and how many children to have --after all, why not? They are paying for it.

Tankgunner95
02-03-2009, 06:43 PM
WOW.. All good points!

Majik
02-03-2009, 06:46 PM
Now the Government wants as many American's dependent on them as they can get. Nationalized health care will destroy the America we all once loved.

ludo21
02-03-2009, 06:53 PM
sooo.... communism?

TonyR
02-03-2009, 07:01 PM
You cannot actually be serious.

Tankgunner95
02-03-2009, 07:02 PM
You cannot actually be serious.

Oh he is and dont call him Sherly!!!!

Spider
02-03-2009, 07:04 PM
Some one has been toking on the hippie Lettuce again

Killericon
02-03-2009, 07:14 PM
Hilarious!

Dukes
02-03-2009, 07:17 PM
That pretty much sums it up. I Believe it was Rahm Emanuel who said "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste"

Popps
02-03-2009, 07:21 PM
It wasn't engineered, but it's going to have a lot of undesirable after-effects.
Some of which, you touched upon.

enjolras
02-03-2009, 07:34 PM
Uhm... you really need to motivate why exactly small business owners are going to go under due to the nationalization of certain financial institutions? Of course that is a moot point as the banks are hardly nationalized at this point, and I see very little momentum towards that.

The airlines received massive bail-outs after 9/11, are they national entities now?

The whole thing is conspiracy drivel.

Spider
02-03-2009, 07:35 PM
Last time I got high , I thought it would be cool to be 70 years old and paying Child support to a Vegas stripper ...........the Economy was the furthest thing from my mind

bowtown
02-03-2009, 07:36 PM
That pretty much sums it up. I Believe it was Rahm Emanuel who said "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste"

Actually I think that sentiment was originally coined by Rove and company a little under 7 years and 5 months ago.

Inkana7
02-03-2009, 07:37 PM
You do raise an interesting point. Hyper-Inflation, while for the most part crippling, is the best way to pay back debts.

TheDave
02-03-2009, 07:59 PM
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u291/TyDyeArt/Aw-Jeez.jpg

Pseudofool
02-03-2009, 08:06 PM
What the conservative fools don't realize is that only way to establish new Enterprise or Business in America, we'd have to completely kill the standard of living to make our labor cheap enough. Despite what their ideology might suggest, there's no alternative. There's no business opportunities that are waiting to crop up if gov't would just get out of their way.

Moreover, it's just foolish to think American liberals and progressives would tolerate any reduction in civil liberties. If we wouldn't tolerate for 'our own safety' we won't tolerate it for the freakin economy.

baja
02-03-2009, 08:16 PM
Not by everyone in power is looking to take advantage of crisis, but war game this out.

The debts are too big to pay off now, so how does our nation get out? It prints more money to eventually create inflation (a 70% increase in dollars since Oct.) What are the benefits to inflation? Of course, to pay back lenders with deflated dollars. But what else is at stake here?

What social change can be implemented in a crisis, we otherwise would be too independent and self-respecting to tolerate?

Businesses that are “too big to fail,” seem to be running to the government for protection, and melding into quasi government entities, that naturally means the government has more right to tell these folks how to run their business. Meanwhile the little business owners go under, in terms of wealth creation – that has been one of the best ways for folks to get rich in America (to start a small business or invest in one) and have huge growth – few get rich by working for others, you are dependent on incremental wage increases and it is (at least in part) a subservient relationship. So what will be left standing when this whole mess filters through? Big government owned business, and government jobs building infrastructure? In short a nation of serfs.

Next to destroy? Talk radio – government will not tolerate an alternative voice much longer – they wont take it on directly, but find a noble reason – like local newspapers going under, and demand more local broadcasters. What the left does not get is that most R’s in office hate talk radio too, they want power, not accountability. From healthcare, environmental causes, education – the more we fall into crisis and look to Big Brother to bail us and Big business out, the more enabled we collectively become. The more it can tell us how to warm our homes, what to eat, what schools to attend and what to study, and how many children to have --after all, why not? They are paying for it.


You are almost there, after the dependency is in place One World Government will be the next step and we will go without a whimper. followed by a population reduction via mandatory vaccinations promised to 'save' us from plagues.

ZONA
02-03-2009, 08:44 PM
The economic crash engineered? If you believe that then here are some movies you might enjoy.............ROFL!


Conspiracy Theory
The Insider
JFK
Matrix
All The Presidents Men
The Manchurian Candidate
Roswell - The Cover Up

Malcontent
02-03-2009, 08:49 PM
What the conservative fools don't realize is that only way to establish new Enterprise or Business in America, we'd have to completely kill the standard of living to make our labor cheap enough. Despite what their ideology might suggest, there's no alternative. There's no business opportunities that are waiting to crop up if gov't would just get out of their way.

Moreover, it's just foolish to think American liberals and progressives would tolerate any reduction in civil liberties. If we wouldn't tolerate for 'our own safety' we won't tolerate it for the freakin economy.

Yeah, like add billions for STDs, and the National Park Service to the "ECONOMIC" rescue bill. The Demo's sure got things in the right perspective don't they?

broncosteven
02-03-2009, 09:37 PM
What the conservative fools don't realize is that only way to establish new Enterprise or Business in America, we'd have to completely kill the standard of living to make our labor cheap enough. Despite what their ideology might suggest, there's no alternative. There's no business opportunities that are waiting to crop up if gov't would just get out of their way.

Moreover, it's just foolish to think American liberals and progressives would tolerate any reduction in civil liberties. If we wouldn't tolerate for 'our own safety' we won't tolerate it for the freakin economy.

Or said Enterprise or Business can take less profits. Still make a living but not buy the 1st or 2nd tricked out G4 jet.

I think Capitalism is the way to go, but socialism has some good points.

Maybe not trying to grab so much dough for their owners/shareholders would help.

Greed is the root of our problems.

Bob
02-03-2009, 09:43 PM
Actually I think that sentiment was originally coined by Rove and company a little under 7 years and 5 months ago.

Regardless of party, both clubs seem to bennefit from a weakened middle class (at least in terms of being able to threaten their power-base.)

I know you are not doing this, but so often I see folks that want to attribute all blame to one party or another, and it seems a moot point for most on the Titanic. Regardless of club affiliation most are headed for a cold bath, while somehow those in power (both right and left) will only selectively be paying taxes, or loosing their luxurious life-style.

Taco John
02-03-2009, 09:47 PM
This post reminds me of much of what Friedrich Hayek said in his book The Road to Surfdom (http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Routledge-Classics-S/dp/0415253896/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233722510&sr=8-11), a book which is ominously precient for this modern time despite being written in the 1940's.

broncosteven
02-03-2009, 09:53 PM
This post reminds me of much of what Friedrich Hayek said in his book The Road to Surfdom (http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Routledge-Classics-S/dp/0415253896/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233722510&sr=8-11), a book which is ominously precient for this modern time despite being written in the 1940's.

I knew I shouldn't have posted in an Economic/socio-political thread.

I am way out of my league.

I would take socialism over communism but that is like saying I would rather have cancer than MS.

Bob
02-03-2009, 09:53 PM
You are almost there, after the dependency is in place One World Government will be the next step and we will go without a whimper. followed by a population reduction via mandatory vaccinations promised to 'save' us from plagues.

And that would be after a new currency, (my guess is the first new one will fail in time) but that aint nothing an implant in one's wrist wont solve... :wiggle:

I have heard talk about population control, I personally think that wont be needed -- big families (unless you are that chick who had another six recently) are problematic in a poor economy (when you are used to something better) and in "developed countries" -- at least statisticly speaking. Also, how can the government tax non-existent children to support an aging population? It seems to not be working in Europe (ie. reduced population vs. big obligations.) No one "forced" them to have less kids (population rate per couple in Europe is 1.38 -- they chose cultural suicide without government mandates.

BroncoFanatic
02-03-2009, 09:56 PM
George Orwell was a prophet.

mwill07
02-03-2009, 09:57 PM
Or said Enterprise or Business can take less profits. Still make a living but not buy the 1st or 2nd tricked out G4 jet.

I think Capitalism is the way to go, but socialism has some good points.

Maybe not trying to grab so much dough for their owners/shareholders would help.

Greed is the root of our problems.

but greed is inherent to all humans. You can't just legislate greed away.

Bob
02-03-2009, 09:58 PM
The economic crash engineered? If you believe that then here are some movies you might enjoy.............ROFL!


Conspiracy Theory
The Insider
JFK
Matrix
All The Presidents Men
The Manchurian Candidate
Roswell - The Cover Up

I did like Conspiracy Theory, didnt watch the rest...

Anyone see a movie called Brazil?

Pontius Pirate
02-03-2009, 09:59 PM
Hold on a second, I'm going to get my tinfoil hat

Bob
02-03-2009, 10:05 PM
Uhm... you really need to motivate why exactly small business owners are going to go under due to the nationalization of certain financial institutions? Of course that is a moot point as the banks are hardly nationalized at this point, and I see very little momentum towards that.

The airlines received massive bail-outs after 9/11, are they national entities now?

The whole thing is conspiracy drivel.

The trend though, has been for increased nationalization -- at a incredible pace actually -- the Big are being protected, the small are not. The big are getting cash, the small cannot obtain loans -- evevn though they (small business) represent a bigger percentage of the over-all economy.

Heaven knows I dont have a problem with a businesses being big, but see more problems in government propping up those, that are going to fail anyway, so why detroy the dollar and loose jobs? Isnt high unemployment a big enough curse? I always buy American cars, but why should teh government bail GM out, when their business model does not make it possible to succeed?

broncosteven
02-03-2009, 10:06 PM
but greed is inherent to all humans. You can't just legislate greed away.

I was thinking about it after seeing my 401k/403b statements.

If specialty company's (companies that make real highend products, big or small) were not allowed to make a tricked out G4 that costs 20mil or those huge ocean liners these CEO's own that cost over say 5 mil were not available they would not have any way to throw the money away.

I remember reading about how bad the monoplys were in the turn of last century but they are all the ones that gave us trusts like Carnegie Mellon and other trusts that actually do good things for the citizens of the US and abroad.

I know Gates has a trust but he went in with the financial dude. Then he built some huge mansion that has rooms he probably never uses.

More giving back and less throwing money away? I dunno

baja
02-03-2009, 10:10 PM
Read "The Secret History of the American Empire"

and



'Becoming"

Bob
02-03-2009, 10:19 PM
What the conservative fools don't realize is that only way to establish new Enterprise or Business in America, we'd have to completely kill the standard of living to make our labor cheap enough. Despite what their ideology might suggest, there's no alternative. There's no business opportunities that are waiting to crop up if gov't would just get out of their way.

Moreover, it's just foolish to think American liberals and progressives would tolerate any reduction in civil liberties. If we wouldn't tolerate for 'our own safety' we won't tolerate it for the freakin economy.

Some thoughts:
When one looks the most prosperous nations throughout the world (during the last 50 years) it seems that the extreme model of communism killed more millions through starvation, than capitalism. Millions in Russia, China, and North Koria. People keep trying it, like a death cult. Some Socialist nations have seemed to fair well, but most have worse debt levels then the US now, and we are ignorant of some of the unseen costs of those systems in terms of heathcare, and waiting for services we get right away here.

Some say we are in this problem because of lack of regulation, I think that is only part of the reason (and not the biggest part.) We are in this situation because loans were offered to those who could not afford homes -- and Government mandated that industry standards be lowered when legislators felt lending standards were too high, were too restrictive and hurt minorities and the poor. Oh, yes we are also in this situation because Bush started spending like crazy, and Congress went right allong, and now with every problem we have caused by over-spending -- we are going to fix it by over-spending?

ak1971
02-03-2009, 10:25 PM
Not by everyone in power is looking to take advantage of crisis, but war game this out.

The debts are too big to pay off now, so how does our nation get out? It prints more money to eventually create inflation (a 70% increase in dollars since Oct.) What are the benefits to inflation? Of course, to pay back lenders with deflated dollars. But what else is at stake here?

What social change can be implemented in a crisis, we otherwise would be too independent and self-respecting to tolerate?

Businesses that are “too big to fail,” seem to be running to the government for protection, and melding into quasi government entities, that naturally means the government has more right to tell these folks how to run their business. Meanwhile the little business owners go under, in terms of wealth creation – that has been one of the best ways for folks to get rich in America (to start a small business or invest in one) and have huge growth – few get rich by working for others, you are dependent on incremental wage increases and it is (at least in part) a subservient relationship. So what will be left standing when this whole mess filters through? Big government owned business, and government jobs building infrastructure? In short a nation of serfs.

Next to destroy? Talk radio – government will not tolerate an alternative voice much longer – they wont take it on directly, but find a noble reason – like local newspapers going under, and demand more local broadcasters. What the left does not get is that most R’s in office hate talk radio too, they want power, not accountability. From healthcare, environmental causes, education – the more we fall into crisis and look to Big Brother to bail us and Big business out, the more enabled we collectively become. The more it can tell us how to warm our homes, what to eat, what schools to attend and what to study, and how many children to have --after all, why not? They are paying for it.

What about mini nukes?

Taco John
02-03-2009, 10:27 PM
but greed is inherent to all humans. You can't just legislate greed away.


Greed is why socialism doesn't work. Socialism tries to systematically destroy greed. What it accomplishes instead is to create a breeding ground for it.

Bob
02-03-2009, 10:28 PM
Or said Enterprise or Business can take less profits. Still make a living but not buy the 1st or 2nd tricked out G4 jet.

I think Capitalism is the way to go, but socialism has some good points.

Maybe not trying to grab so much dough for their owners/shareholders would help.

Greed is the root of our problems.

Reminds me of "The love of money is the root of all evil." But notice that it is "the love of money" -- when that is the end, empty goal to the exclusion of other "greater good" concepts. wanting more money to meet the needs of one's own family, and sock some $ money away is not a "bad thing" -- its when desire for money trumps one's ethics to get at it. If one neglects his family, or cheats, steals to get money that is evil -- but if one works harder or smarter than the next gut to get a raise, or to be a successful business owner, that is capitalism that helps that guy out, his family and his community.

Taco John
02-03-2009, 10:31 PM
I knew I shouldn't have posted in an Economic/socio-political thread.

I am way out of my league.

I would take socialism over communism but that is like saying I would rather have cancer than MS.



Saying I would take socialism over communism is like saying I will take the cake batter instead of a baked cake.

Per wiki:

Karl Marx posited that socialism ... would represent the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

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


Socialism was never intended to be a long lasting governmental model. It's merely meant to be the crutch that society uses on it's way to communism.

Bob
02-03-2009, 10:34 PM
Greed is why socialism doesn't work. Socialism tries to systematically destroy greed. What it accomplishes instead is to create a breeding ground for it.

It does seem that way...those that produce more are penalized according to how much more they produce ..long term how could that not create less willingness to toil for those who are not willing (but are able?)

many who talk about it, and personal sacrifice, but sure work hard at avoiding paying their own taxes, or even keeping the heat down below 71 in winter ...!Booya!

Taco John
02-03-2009, 10:45 PM
What most Americans don't seem to appreciate is that we live in a socialist nation, and have for a very long time now. Income tax itself is a socialist construct, as is social security, federal departments of this that and the other, and on and on. (as a side note, if instead of bailing out banks, we got rid of Income tax, we'd fix the economy for years and years to come and the government would still bring in money to run the government at 1997 levels).

What's happening now though is the nationalization of industries - what they're calling "investment" into these industries. These "investments" amount to governmental control, as government will be able to say "if you don't meet these standards, then you don't get this money." That's essentially communism. It's communism with a free market facade, but the facade is as shallow as they come.

The transition Marx spoke of is happening right under our noses, largely with our permission. That's the fine print of this spending bill both parties are working on right now.

baja
02-03-2009, 10:48 PM
What most Americans don't seem to appreciate is that we live in a socialist nation, and have for a very long time now. Income tax itself is a socialist construct. (as a side note, if instead of bailing out banks, we got rid of Income tax, we'd fix the economy for years and years to come and the government would still bring in money to run the government at 1997 levels).

What's happening now though is the nationalization of industries - what they're calling "investment" into these industries. These "investments" amount to governmental control, as government will be able to say "if you don't meet these standards, then you don't get this money." That's essentially communism. It's communism with a free market facade, but the facade is as shallow as they come.

The transition Marx spoke of is happening right under our noses, largely with our permission. That's the fine print of this spending bill both parties are working on right now.

And any of you that think that is a good thing take a look at the model called Department of Home Land Security.

~Crash~
02-03-2009, 10:48 PM
that is why we allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll need to stop this BS in in tracks now !!!

~Crash~
02-03-2009, 10:52 PM
this bail out is crazy I and my wife paid 1/3 of our money we made in taxes and we made $40 that is BS !

Taco John
02-03-2009, 10:55 PM
And any of you that think that is a good thing take a look at the model called Department of Home Land Security.

Don't stop there. If I were to get rid of one department, I'd start with the Department of Education. I'd turn the responsiblity for education back to the states. When our states are competing against eachother, no one in the world can touch us. But when we homogenize our school system into one federalized bohemoth, things don't seem to work out so well.

Bronco Bob
02-03-2009, 10:58 PM
Yeah, like add billions for STDs, and the National Park Service to the "ECONOMIC" rescue bill. The Demo's sure got things in the right perspective don't they?

$400 million suddenly transmorphs into $billions? Never mind that it was dropped from the bill.
And never mind that healthy people make more productive workers
which means that not only do they pay more in taxes, which offsets
the $400 million, but they suck up less healthcare resources,
which means the government has to spend less money in the long run.

At some point people will need to realize that the Republicans would do this
type of thing no matter what. I am sure that the moment the bill was
written, there were GOP congressional aides combing through this bill for the most
egregious spending offenses. If they hadn't found the STD prevention or the
smoking cessation program, it would have been something else to get all riled
up about.

The point is this (and I hope that there is someone who figures this out),
the Republicans have been asked to provide substantive critiques of the bill
and they have provided nothing. All they have is stammering and
grandstanding. This is why we voted them out.

baja
02-03-2009, 10:59 PM
True TJ, that behemoth indoctrinates the corporate soldiers but if you want to cut the heart of the problem out kill the federal reserve.

Taco John
02-03-2009, 11:01 PM
that is why we allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll need to stop this BS in in tracks now !!!

People had the chance. The nation was polled during the bailout months in September and October on whether they supported the bailout or not. By and large, the American people were against the bailout.

How much turnover did we see in congress in November? Not too damn much.

Congress got the message loud and clear: do what you want. That's why instead of seeing a measure to cut government spending, cut income taxes, and keep the government from sucking the money out of our economy and keeping it in the hands to the people, we're seeing the most massive spending bill in the history of the world - a bill that will put muliple generations of Americans to come in debt slavery to the US government.

watermock
02-03-2009, 11:04 PM
By the time people realize what's really happening, it will allready be too late.

How deep do you dare to look into the rabbit hole?

You think we've crashed? It's being postponed. Obama will look like a miracle man...how long, only time will tell.

Bronco Bob
02-03-2009, 11:04 PM
Don't stop there. If I were to get rid of one department, I'd start with the Department of Education. I'd turn the responsiblity for education back to the states. When our states are competing against eachother, no one in the world can touch us. But when we homogenize our school system into one federalized bohemoth, things don't seem to work out so well.

Then you end up with states like Mississippi and Arizona. As bad off as
they are now, I hate to think what they would be like if the Federal
Government had no control or standards to guide them.

baja
02-03-2009, 11:06 PM
By the time people realize what's really happening, it will allready be too late.

How deep do you dare to look into the rabbit hole?

You think we've crashed? It's being postponed. Obama will look like a miracle man...how long, only time will tell.

Mock is right I have been saying we got a 6 month reprieve. Use the time wisely.

Taco John
02-03-2009, 11:06 PM
Then you end up with states like Mississippi and Arizona. As bad off as
they are now, I hate to think what they would be like if the Federal
Government had no control or standards to guide them.

So we should dumb down the rest of America to their levels. That's exactly what's happening with DoE.

Ladies and Gentlemen - I give you socialist equality.

Bronco Bob
02-03-2009, 11:08 PM
People had the chance. The nation was polled during the bailout months in September and October on whether they supported the bailout or not. By and large, the American people were against the bailout.

How much turnover did we see in congress in November? Not too damn much.

Congress got the message loud and clear: do what you want. That's why instead of seeing a measure to cut government spending, cut income taxes, and keep the government from sucking the money out of our economy and keeping it in the hands to the people, we're seeing the most massive spending bill in the history of the world - a bill that will put muliple generations of Americans to come in debt slavery to the US government.

Cutting taxes doesn't work. Never has. Never will. America tends to
have the highest prosperity, most jobs, best standard of living, when
taxes are the highest.

watermock
02-03-2009, 11:11 PM
Obama was placed in power as a populist just like Jimmy Carter, by the same man Brezinski and the trilateral commision, headed by the Rockefellers and others from the 1% elite cartel that owns 90% of the world.

They control who runs monetary, who the global "leaders" are, and our "free media".

Taco John
02-03-2009, 11:12 PM
Cutting taxes doesn't work. Never has. Never will. America tends to
have the highest prosperity, most jobs, best standard of living, when
taxes are the highest.

I'll let someone else get distracted with such stupidity.

Bronco Bob
02-03-2009, 11:13 PM
So we should dumb down the rest of America to their levels. That's exactly what's happening with DoE.

Ladies and Gentlemen - I give you socialist equality.

No, I give you typical Republican mismanagement.

Can you really expect a party to have good
government when their slogan is
"Government is the problem, not the solution."

Would you hire a plumber who said to you
"You know, I really hate plumbing, and am just doing this for the money"

Let's put some competent people in charge who want to make it
succeed and then we'll see how things go.

Bronco Bob
02-03-2009, 11:16 PM
I'll let someone else get distracted with such stupidity.

Cite one example where cutting taxes gave a long term boost to the
economy, job creation, overall prosperity. Yes, I know the GOP
mantra is cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. But has it ever worked?

Popps
02-03-2009, 11:18 PM
People had the chance. The nation was polled during the bailout months in September and October on whether they supported the bailout or not. By and large, the American people were against the bailout.

How much turnover did we see in congress in November? Not too damn much.

Congress got the message loud and clear: do what you want. That's why instead of seeing a measure to cut government spending, cut income taxes, and keep the government from sucking the money out of our economy and keeping it in the hands to the people, we're seeing the most massive spending bill in the history of the world - a bill that will put muliple generations of Americans to come in debt slavery to the US government.

Even more offensive is the actual bail-out itself.

As I've pointed out before, the TARP was a total ****ing joke, loaded up with pork. Here are a few examples...

Sec. 503: Exemption from excise tax for wooden arrows designed for use by children. This shameful pork comes from Oregon senators, and is worth $200,000 to Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon
Sec. 317: Seven-year cost recovery period for a car race track
Sec. 308: Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
Sec 502: Incentives for films to be shot in the United States, including those for adults
Sec. 211: Bicycle commuter benefits that allow employers to pay for employee bike repair
Sec. 325. Duty suspension on wool products and wool research fund and wool duty refunds
Sec. 201. Changes in bonus depreciation for biomass ethanol plant property


That bailout was sold to the American people as the only thing between us and financial armageddon, and it had ****ing bull**** stapled to it about bicycles and bow-and-arrows.

Now, the Democrats get their turn to **** us, and the hands are out, asking for more tax-payer money (to supposedly give back to us) and you've got these ****ers wanting to attach legislation to give out free rubbers and "fix our neighborhood" programs.

**** your neighborhood. Fix that **** on your own dime, not with money supposedly earmarked to save the U.S. economy.


Honestly, that's why it just kills me to see the party rhetoric around here.

I really can't put it into words how stupid you have to be to think these issues are partisan. You folks out there looking for the boogie-man had better grow some ****ing balls and start looking into these issues as an individual, not a pawn of some political party because your daddy told you that was how to think.

Seriously. The time for that **** is over.

SoCalBronco
02-03-2009, 11:19 PM
Buy my book.

manchambo
02-03-2009, 11:23 PM
Ultimately we all believe that the big business/goverment complex is run by power hungry greed mongers, no?

If that's the case, please explain for me why they would deliberately destroy trillions of dollars of wealth. More to the point, explain for me how the results of this grand scheme will result in more benefit than the trillions they apparently decided to throw away.

Popps
02-03-2009, 11:29 PM
Cite one example where cutting taxes gave a long term boost to the
economy, job creation, overall prosperity. Yes, I know the GOP
mantra is cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. But has it ever worked?

Well, considering it was a founding principle of this country, I'd say it's worked... and I'd say it's as crucial to our personal freedom as any other liberty.

If you want an example of what over-taxation and that mindset accomplishes, just look at my dear state. Bankrupt, in shambles, horrible public works and in absolute disarray. It's the model of tax-and-spend politics, and the results are horrific.

Again, I'm no Republican or Democrat. I don't need a little prism to view the world through. But, I LIVE in the very example of why you don't tax your way out of problems.

Popps
02-03-2009, 11:33 PM
Ultimately we all believe that the big business/goverment complex is run by power hungry greed mongers, no?

If that's the case, please explain for me why they would deliberately destroy trillions of dollars of wealth. More to the point, explain for me how the results of this grand scheme will result in more benefit than the trillions they apparently decided to throw away.

They didn't choose to destroy it.

Picture a group of 8 year olds left alone to babysit themselves for the day.
They'd be eating fruit-loops for dinner, playing floor-hockey in the kitchen and painting the cat blue.

Great fun until the adults get back.

That analogy pretty much sums up the past 4-6 years in this country. There's no boogie-man. There's no grand scheme. It's just human greed left unchecked. We simply eliminated our system of checks and balances.

So, everyone from consumers over-borrowing to lenders over-leveraging is at fault.

Well, mommy and daddy are home now... the place is trashed and we're all grounded, big-time.

Bronco Bob
02-03-2009, 11:33 PM
Well, considering it was a founding principle of this country, I'd say it's worked... and I'd say it's as crucial to our personal freedom as any other liberty.

If you want an example of what over-taxation and that mindset accomplishes, just look at my dear state. Bankrupt, in shambles, horrible public works and in absolute disarray. It's the model of tax-and-spend politics, and the results are horrific.

Again, I'm no Republican or Democrat. I don't need a little prism to view the world through. But, I LIVE in the very example of why you don't tax your way out of problems.

All I am asking is has anyone ever tax cut their way out of a problem?
It just seems to me every time there is a tax cut, it just ends up
making things worse. How does cutting taxes give you a better
police department, better schools, better fire protection, better
roads, new bridges?

Bronco Bob
02-03-2009, 11:34 PM
Buy my book.

Is it for sale on Amazon.com?

Popps
02-03-2009, 11:37 PM
No, I give you typical Republican mismanagement.


Honestly dude, that's some real trite ****.

If you think this is a "Republican" problem, you've just got no grasp of the subject matter.

Seriously. This stuff was cute back in the 90s. It's just useless now. It doesn't solve anything.... it's incorrect and just an exercise in futility.

I have much more respect for someone who just simply doesn't understand their world than someone who attempts to quantify every single event into their own party-bull****.

Give it a rest. Take that **** to the kiddie forum.

Popps
02-03-2009, 11:40 PM
All I am asking is has anyone ever tax cut their way out of a problem?
It just seems to me every time there is a tax cut, it just ends up
making things worse. How does cutting taxes give you a better
police department, better schools, better fire protection, better
roads, new bridges?

Do you understand where taxes come from?

They come from commerce.

Do you understand what creates commerce?

Money. The flow of money.

Higher taxes equals less spending, equals less venture-capital, equals less jobs.... equals... (wait for it) .....

LESS TAX REVENUE!

Popps
02-03-2009, 11:44 PM
The transition Marx spoke of is happening right under our noses, largely with our permission. That's the fine print of this spending bill both parties are working on right now.




Rarely have you and I agreed so completely and thoroughly.

Luckily, it's on a much more important issue than our disagreements.

Taco John
02-03-2009, 11:45 PM
All I am asking is has anyone ever tax cut their way out of a problem?
It just seems to me every time there is a tax cut, it just ends up
making things worse. How does cutting taxes give you a better
police department, better schools, better fire protection, better
roads, new bridges?


Tax cuts are meant to force government into doing only things that government should do, while leaving what's left to the private sector. It's amusing to me, because living in the Portland area, I hear this argument all the time. Whenever the government wants to raise taxes, they start threatening to cut all the stuff you mention - schools, fire protection, roads, bridges, jails, etc. What doesn't get cut are cultural commissions, art projects, race-specific programs, and any number of wasteful projects that government should have no part of.

Tax cuts absolutely work when government scales down the pork, and focuses on the core stuff that it's supposed to. And it's no wonder that they work: people have more of their own money to spend on the things that they choose to spend it on - revitalizing private industry, and keeping money in the hands of the people, rather than the eddys of government.

You act like advocating for tax cuts is like advocating for the decay of society. It's a logical fallacy: false choice.

Taco John
02-03-2009, 11:45 PM
Rarely have you and I agreed so completely and thoroughly.

Luckily, it's on a much more important issue than our disagreements.

Indeed.

Taco John
02-03-2009, 11:50 PM
Instead of a spending bill, I'd rather see the elimination of income tax as a solution to the economic problems of America. I dare someone to make the case that Americans having the rough equivalent of 8-10 extra paychecks in their pockets wouldn't be a shot in the arm to the economy.

Bronco Bob
02-03-2009, 11:54 PM
Do you understand where taxes come from?

My paycheck?


They come from commerce.

Do you understand what creates commerce?

People have jobs and thus money to spend.

Money. The flow of money.

From people with jobs that pay them money.


Higher taxes equals less spending,
equals less venture-capital, equals less jobs.... equals... (wait for it) .....

LESS TAX REVENUE!

But if you are making more money you have more to spend, and if
you are making enough money, then you can afford to pay the
higher taxes.

If the economy is in the crapper no one has money to spend.
So it doesn't matter how low your taxes are.
Some don't even have jobs and pay no taxes.

Still waiting for an example where cutting taxes benefited the economy
in the long run.

Bronco Bob
02-03-2009, 11:59 PM
Instead of a spending bill, I'd rather see the elimination of income tax as a solution to the economic problems of America. I dare someone to make the case that Americans having the rough equivalent of 8-10 extra paychecks in their pockets wouldn't be a shot in the arm to the economy.

People having well paying jobs, or even a job at all, would also be a shot
in the arm for the economy. We need to get people back to work and
get their income levels up. Then they don't have to worry about taxes,
because they have the money to pay them.

Taco John
02-04-2009, 12:01 AM
People having well paying jobs, or even a job at all, would also be a shot
in the arm for the economy. We need to get people back to work and
get their income levels up. Then they don't have to worry about taxes,
because they have the money to pay them.


It's like watching a dog chasing his tail having a discussion with you.

Where do jobs come from?

Pseudofool
02-04-2009, 12:02 AM
Some thoughts:
When one looks the most prosperous nations throughout the world (during the last 50 years) it seems that the extreme model of communism killed more millions through starvation, than capitalism. Millions in Russia, China, and North Koria. People keep trying it, like a death cult. Some Socialist nations have seemed to fair well, but most have worse debt levels then the US now, and we are ignorant of some of the unseen costs of those systems in terms of heathcare, and waiting for services we get right away here.That had more to do with Totalitarianism than it did Communism or socialism. Really the examples we'd want to look are in Scandinavia. But history doesn't matter here. There is no capital to have. We just don't have the cheap labor to create new sustainable jobs without at least some subsidizing from the gov't--that or we give up our standard of living which leads down another problematic consumer rabbit hole.

Let's face it; Americans don't want to do the crappy jobs, and when we do, we want to be paid handsomely. That's just not sustainable. And that attitude is pervasive no matter the job, we're all overpaid--living above our means--even if we're without debt.

I think capitalism has its place, but it can't be the only mechanism of an economy. Capitalism works great for non-essential goods. But when we start talking energy, housing, and transportation, we'll we arrive to this moment, and this specific problem. I just have a hard time seeing any industry that can replace the jobs that we are losing--and I'm not willing to simply cut taxes and hope that will be enough to invite investors (taxes aren't the problem, it's the cost of labor).

Taco John
02-04-2009, 12:03 AM
This is nuts right here - I'm not a Fox news fan, but this demonstration should open anybody's eyes:

<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf' id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='FOX News' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='275' width='305' flashvars='playerId=videolandingpage&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=undefined&referralObject=3479955' />

manchambo
02-04-2009, 12:05 AM
Instead of a spending bill, I'd rather see the elimination of income tax as a solution to the economic problems of America. I dare someone to make the case that Americans having the rough equivalent of 8-10 extra paychecks in their pockets wouldn't be a shot in the arm to the economy.


Um, how would we pay for the invasion of Iran?

Pseudofool
02-04-2009, 12:07 AM
The transition Marx spoke of is happening right under our noses, largely with our permission. Maybe. I think you are making thoughtful points, but I think you're misreading Marx and giving the guy too much credit. This isn't the proletariat rising up (Marx didn't anticipate how unions would appease workers)--this is a huge credit and labor crisis. Marx couldn't concieve of our banking system, much less how prominent consumerism is. But some of Marx early 20th-century scholars, like Adorno, were in a better position to anticipate what's happened.

That said, to conservatives chagrin, I wouldn't expect Marx's prediction that bureaucracy and the gov't would simply dissolve itself after the socialist revolution.

Taco John
02-04-2009, 12:08 AM
I think capitalism has its place, but it can't be the only mechanism of an economy. Capitalism works great for non-essential goods. But when we start talking energy, housing, and transportation, we'll we arrive to this moment, and this specific problem. I just have a hard time seeing any industry that can replace the jobs that we are losing--and I'm not willing to simply cut taxes and hope that will be enough to invite investors (taxes aren't the problem, it's the cost of labor).

The problem with this statment is that we haven't actually tried capitalism - at least not in modern times. This moment isn't arrived at because of capitalism. It's arrived at because we've been in a psuedo-socialist "mixed market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy)" economy for the last 100 years since the creation of the Federal Reserve. This moment has arrived because socialism alone can no longer get the job done and we either need to switch to capitalism or to communism.

We appear to be making the switch to the latter.

Pseudofool
02-04-2009, 12:09 AM
Tax cuts are meant to force government into doing only things that government should do, while leaving what's left to the private sector.That's so ideal it's naive. Is that what happened after Bush cut taxes after he entered office? On paper, or rationally, tax cuts make sense, but when you begin to game it out. You end up with a gov't with less ability to impact its citizens, and not enough incentive to make up for incredibly expensive American labor. So no stimulus there.

Taco John
02-04-2009, 12:11 AM
Um, how would we pay for the invasion of Iran?

Layaway. :thumbsup:

Taco John
02-04-2009, 12:13 AM
You end up with a gov't with less ability to impact its citizens...

Amen! Preach on!


...and not enough incentive to make up for incredibly expensive American labor. So no stimulus there.


Which is also a "too much government involvement" problem.

Pseudofool
02-04-2009, 12:17 AM
The problem with this statment is that we haven't actually tried capitalism - at least not in modern times. This moment isn't arrived at because of capitalism. It's arrived at because we've been in a psuedo-socialist "mixed market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy)" economy for the last 100 years since the creation of the Federal Reserve. This moment has arrived because socialism alone can no longer get the job done and we either need to switch to capitalism or to communism.

We appear to be making the switch to the latter.Capitalism of course, is an abstraction. And there's a lot of problems with that abstraction, especially when we enter the global market, where cheap labor runs thiner and thiner and trade routes run more expensive and more expensive. Specialization sounds great, but when you have a factory in Omaha making shoes and one in Bejing making laces, it ends up making the entire produce more expensive, even though it worked when the two cities were closer together.

I don't dismiss that we've never had a pure capitalist model, but I certainly will argue that such a model is an impractical fantasy. It's not that there's regulation in the way of producing new business, it's that labor is simply too expensive for entrepreneurs to want to engage big industrial projects with American labor.

Capitalism is not going to save us; it just can't. I just can't see it. Once the credit bubble bursts (I think it has), the consumer-market is over (this will take years), and that's trouble (horrible to think about) that no invisible hand can save us from.

Popps
02-04-2009, 12:21 AM
The problem with this statment is that we haven't actually tried capitalism - at least not in modern times. This moment isn't arrived at because of capitalism. It's arrived at because we've been in a psuedo-socialist "mixed market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy)" economy for the last 100 years since the creation of the Federal Reserve. This moment has arrived because socialism alone can no longer get the job done and we either need to switch to capitalism or to communism.

We appear to be making the switch to the latter.

Have you read the Ascent of Money recently.... by chance.

:)

Pseudofool
02-04-2009, 12:22 AM
Amen! Preach on!


Which is also a "too much government involvement" problem.But it's just not, TJ. Labor is expensive here because Americans were better capitalists first, and our standard of living is high. Has nothing to do with gov't. Jobs, especially blue-collar, will continue to leave our country at an alarming rate, no matter how low taxes go. The best bet is to let gov't help pay private workers. Yes, that means more regulation, but it also means having some sustainable jobs here in America.

I just don't see how the libertarian view point holds up in the current economic climate. I mean why the heck would anyone hire American workers to produce goods? And if we're not producing goods, what the heck kind of jobs can the majority of us have?

Taco John
02-04-2009, 12:32 AM
Capitalism of course, is an abstraction.
And there's a lot of problems with that abstraction, especially when we enter the global market, where cheap labor runs thiner and thiner and trade routes run more expensive and more expensive. Specialization sounds great, but when you have a factory in Omaha making shoes and one in Bejing making laces, it ends up making the entire produce more expensive, even though it worked when the two cities were closer together.

I don't dismiss that we've never had a pure capitalist model, but I certainly will argue that such a model is an impractical fantasy. It's not that there's regulation in the way of producing new business, it's that labor is simply too expensive for entrepreneurs to want to engage big industrial projects with American labor.

Capitalism is not going to save us; it just can't. I just can't see it. Once the credit bubble bursts (I think it has), the consumer-market is over (this will take years), and that's trouble (horrible to think about) that no invisible hand can save us from.


I don't even know what to say to such voodoo nonsense. You didn't make a single argument in your post. You just said a bunch of erroneous stuff.

Capitalism is a system in which land, labor, and capital are owned and operated by private individuals and the partnerships that these individuals form. That's not an "abstraction." That's just what it is.

Taco John
02-04-2009, 12:35 AM
Have you read the Ascent of Money recently.... by chance.

:)


No, but I'm always on the lookout for new reading on economics. Lately I've been reading lighter stuff - fiction, and some non-fiction. I'm actually in the middle of the Lord of the Rings right now.

I'll have to look it up.

driver
02-04-2009, 03:23 AM
Actually I think that sentiment was originally coined by Rove and company a little under 7 years and 5 months ago.

First used by a.Hitler and Josef Goebbels in 1928, Reused by FDR and Harry hopkins in 1931.

Rausch 2.0
02-04-2009, 03:47 AM
If you mean engineered the way "W" engineered things, yeah, I think it is.

I think stupid is full on a belly of thanksgiving turkey, laying back making half awake decisions for the nation...

TailgateNut
02-04-2009, 07:10 AM
. Nationalized health care will destroy the America we all once loved.


:rofl:


How about this: Health care costs are destroying the America we love.

baja
02-04-2009, 07:26 AM
Ultimately we all believe that the big business/goverment complex is run by power hungry greed mongers, no?

If that's the case, please explain for me why they would deliberately destroy trillions of dollars of wealth. More to the point, explain for me how the results of this grand scheme will result in more benefit than the trillions they apparently decided to throw away.

Good question, one I have asked myself for years. Here watch this.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

TailgateNut
02-04-2009, 07:27 AM
this bail out is crazy I and my wife paid 1/3 of our money we made in taxes and we made $40 that is BS !


You paid $13 taxes?

baja
02-04-2009, 07:29 AM
They didn't choose to destroy it.

Picture a group of 8 year olds left alone to babysit themselves for the day.
They'd be eating fruit-loops for dinner, playing floor-hockey in the kitchen and painting the cat blue.

Great fun until the adults get back.

That analogy pretty much sums up the past 4-6 years in this country. There's no boogie-man. There's no grand scheme. It's just human greed left unchecked. We simply eliminated our system of checks and balances.

So, everyone from consumers over-borrowing to lenders over-leveraging is at fault.

Well, mommy and daddy are home now... the place is trashed and we're all grounded, big-time.

I would love for that to be true but it is not.

zdoor
02-04-2009, 07:35 AM
Even more offensive is the actual bail-out itself.

As I've pointed out before, the TARP was a total ****ing joke, loaded up with pork. Here are a few examples...

Sec. 503: Exemption from excise tax for wooden arrows designed for use by children. This shameful pork comes from Oregon senators, and is worth $200,000 to Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon
Sec. 317: Seven-year cost recovery period for a car race track
Sec. 308: Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
Sec 502: Incentives for films to be shot in the United States, including those for adults
Sec. 211: Bicycle commuter benefits that allow employers to pay for employee bike repair
Sec. 325. Duty suspension on wool products and wool research fund and wool duty refunds
Sec. 201. Changes in bonus depreciation for biomass ethanol plant property


That bailout was sold to the American people as the only thing between us and financial armageddon, and it had ****ing bull**** stapled to it about bicycles and bow-and-arrows.

Now, the Democrats get their turn to **** us, and the hands are out, asking for more tax-payer money (to supposedly give back to us) and you've got these ****ers wanting to attach legislation to give out free rubbers and "fix our neighborhood" programs.

**** your neighborhood. Fix that **** on your own dime, not with money supposedly earmarked to save the U.S. economy.


Honestly, that's why it just kills me to see the party rhetoric around here.

I really can't put it into words how stupid you have to be to think these issues are partisan. You folks out there looking for the boogie-man had better grow some ****ing balls and start looking into these issues as an individual, not a pawn of some political party because your daddy told you that was how to think.

Seriously. The time for that **** is over.

Excellent Points...

Pseudofool
02-04-2009, 08:17 AM
I don't even know what to say to such voodoo nonsense. You didn't make a single argument in your post. You just said a bunch of erroneous stuff.

Capitalism is a system in which land, labor, and capital are owned and operated by private individuals and the partnerships that these individuals form. That's not an "abstraction." That's just what it is.So as long as everything is privately owned, the jobs will come, right?

What's an abstraction--of course--is the economic engine that is suppose to arise from that economic base of private ownership--i.e. the notion of the invisible hand.

You're oversimplifying capitalism; it's not simply privatization. The whole concept of what and what does not constitute "capital" is abstract.

I guess we can't debate the merits of an economic model if we're unwilling to agree on a definition.

Worse you've simply ducked the lynchpin questions:
Again, where are the sustainable jobs going to come from under a pure capitalist model? How do we as citizens lure such businesses? Do you believe lowering taxes will make up for expensive American labor?

alkemical
02-04-2009, 08:29 AM
George Orwell was a prophet.

In some ways, yes. But maybe he and Huxley knew the road map.

montrose
02-04-2009, 08:45 AM
Maybe it's the League of Shadows?

Hotrod
02-04-2009, 08:45 AM
The government eats babys

Rohirrim
02-04-2009, 09:37 AM
Damn! The brilliant Bob has seen through our Leftist plot to take over the world. Fie! Time to switch to Plan B.

Garcia Bronco
02-04-2009, 09:47 AM
Don't stop there. If I were to get rid of one department, I'd start with the Department of Education. I'd turn the responsiblity for education back to the states. When our states are competing against eachother, no one in the world can touch us. But when we homogenize our school system into one federalized bohemoth, things don't seem to work out so well.

Excellent post.

Garcia Bronco
02-04-2009, 09:49 AM
Even more offensive is the actual bail-out itself.

As I've pointed out before, the TARP was a total ****ing joke, loaded up with pork. Here are a few examples...

Sec. 503: Exemption from excise tax for wooden arrows designed for use by children. This shameful pork comes from Oregon senators, and is worth $200,000 to Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon
Sec. 317: Seven-year cost recovery period for a car race track
Sec. 308: Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
Sec 502: Incentives for films to be shot in the United States, including those for adults
Sec. 211: Bicycle commuter benefits that allow employers to pay for employee bike repair
Sec. 325. Duty suspension on wool products and wool research fund and wool duty refunds
Sec. 201. Changes in bonus depreciation for biomass ethanol plant property


That bailout was sold to the American people as the only thing between us and financial armageddon, and it had ****ing bull**** stapled to it about bicycles and bow-and-arrows.

Now, the Democrats get their turn to **** us, and the hands are out, asking for more tax-payer money (to supposedly give back to us) and you've got these ****ers wanting to attach legislation to give out free rubbers and "fix our neighborhood" programs.

**** your neighborhood. Fix that **** on your own dime, not with money supposedly earmarked to save the U.S. economy.


Honestly, that's why it just kills me to see the party rhetoric around here.

I really can't put it into words how stupid you have to be to think these issues are partisan. You folks out there looking for the boogie-man had better grow some ****ing balls and start looking into these issues as an individual, not a pawn of some political party because your daddy told you that was how to think.

Seriously. The time for that **** is over.

Excellent post

Popps
02-04-2009, 09:55 AM
I would love for that to be true but it is not.

It's absolutely true.

It's capitalism gone wild.

It can easily be traced to three or four major changes... very tangible, obvious changes.

No space aliens, no bigfoot, no X-files conspiracies... just good old greed and a lack of oversight.

BroncoFanatic
02-04-2009, 10:05 AM
Ultimately we all believe that the big business/goverment complex is run by power hungry greed mongers, no?

If that's the case, please explain for me why they would deliberately destroy trillions of dollars of wealth. More to the point, explain for me how the results of this grand scheme will result in more benefit than the trillions they apparently decided to throw away.

Do a google search for "Maurice Strong". I bet no more than 2 or 3 people on this board have heard of him.

Look at his quotes.
"We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."

"The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments."

The Earth Charter (http://www.onecountry.org/e114/EarthCharter_FinalDraft.htm) - Global control, make no mistake


Look at his political influence.
He ran the Earth Conference in Rio (1992)
He hosted the recent Economic summit in Davos Switzerland
He has been a senior advisor to Kofi Annan.
He partners with Mikhael Gorbachev.

A dossier (http://home.sprynet.com/~eastwood01/mstrong2.htm)

Add it up, an you will get your explanation of "why" they would deliberately destroy economies.

manchambo
02-04-2009, 10:26 AM
Do a google search for "Maurice Strong". I bet no more than 2 or 3 people on this board have heard of him.

Look at his quotes.
"We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."

"The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments."

The Earth Charter (http://www.onecountry.org/e114/EarthCharter_FinalDraft.htm) - Global control, make no mistake


Look at his political influence.
He ran the Earth Conference in Rio (1992)
He hosted the recent Economic summit in Davos Switzerland
He has been a senior advisor to Kofi Annan.
He partners with Mikhael Gorbachev.

A dossier (http://home.sprynet.com/~eastwood01/mstrong2.htm)

Add it up, an you will get your explanation of "why" they would deliberately destroy economies.

So your answer to my question is "I don't know but there's a dude who posts a lot on the internet who has an elaborate explanation."

BroncoFanatic
02-04-2009, 10:30 AM
So your answer to my question is "I don't know but there's a dude who posts a lot on the internet who has an elaborate explanation."

No Einstein, my answer is that there are powerful, influential people out there who would be quite happy if the economy collapsed. Oddly enough, these people who want this to happen are in a position to make it happen.

I gave you a name and some links. If you're too lazy to do your own research, go bury your head in the sand, not my problem.

Bob
02-04-2009, 12:48 PM
I'll let someone else get distracted with such stupidity.

I guess he has never heard of California, Michigan and New York -- perfect templates on how to destroy American prosperity...all have high (and growing taxes) all have high illegal populations, and unions that prevent businesses from creating jobs.

Bob
02-04-2009, 12:57 PM
That had more to do with Totalitarianism than it did Communism or socialism. Really the examples we'd want to look are in Scandinavia. But history doesn't matter here. There is no capital to have. We just don't have the cheap labor to create new sustainable jobs without at least some subsidizing from the gov't--that or we give up our standard of living which leads down another problematic consumer rabbit hole.

Let's face it; Americans don't want to do the crappy jobs, and when we do, we want to be paid handsomely. That's just not sustainable. And that attitude is pervasive no matter the job, we're all overpaid--living above our means--even if we're without debt.

I think capitalism has its place, but it can't be the only mechanism of an economy. Capitalism works great for non-essential goods. But when we start talking energy, housing, and transportation, we'll we arrive to this moment, and this specific problem. I just have a hard time seeing any industry that can replace the jobs that we are losing--and I'm not willing to simply cut taxes and hope that will be enough to invite investors (taxes aren't the problem, it's the cost of labor).

It is hard to compete with slave labor, and even harder when trading policies in some countries protect their economy by adding additional taxes on our stuff,while we dont use a mirior tax approach with other countries.

You are right at least in part with Totalitarianism, causing additional problems -- but again more taxes, and more bailouts create a greater enitlement for government to dictate the private sector -- and personal choices -- look at some of teh crap that was just cut out of the spending bill -- its at least in part with re-shaping society, and in several cases had nothing to do with real job creation.

Bob
02-04-2009, 01:01 PM
First used by a.Hitler and Josef Goebbels in 1928, Reused by FDR and Harry hopkins in 1931.

Hate to say it, but Mein Kampf, and Hitler's message reasonated in large measure because of the crisis brought on by the environment of hyper inflation in Germany in the 1920's and created an environment where Hitler could use hard times to promote social change.

TonyR
02-04-2009, 01:42 PM
Tax cuts absolutely work when government scales down the pork, and focuses on the core stuff that it's supposed to.

Well, the problem is that the government NEVER does this. Everyone in congress is beholden to special interests and nobody is going to bite the hand that feeds them.

Naivete reigns supreme, particularly among those who think they have all the answers but don't really even know what the questions are.

~Crash~
02-04-2009, 01:57 PM
Um, how would we pay for the invasion of Iran?

when you buy stuff . other than shelter and food .

TheDave
02-04-2009, 02:47 PM
It's absolutely true.

It's capitalism gone wild.

It can easily be traced to three or four major changes... very tangible, obvious changes.

No space aliens, no bigfoot, no X-files conspiracies... just good old greed and a lack of oversight.

Well thats no fun...

Dendave
02-04-2009, 03:21 PM
I love the fact that we are in "hard economic times" but congress just voted to push back the digital transition to June...do they not know how much money has already been spent on advertising this? Now all the broadcasters have to dish out more more for the next 4 months to air both signals...our governemtn is a joke

baja
02-04-2009, 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baja
I would love for that to be true but it is not.

Popps - It's absolutely true.

It's capitalism gone wild.

It can easily be traced to three or four major changes... very tangible, obvious changes.

No space aliens, no bigfoot, no X-files conspiracies... just good old greed and a lack of oversight.


This is the part that is not true, mommy and daddy are not home, further more mommy and daddy can't fix this in the same way Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again.

So, everyone from consumers over-borrowing to lenders over-leveraging is at fault.

Well, mommy and daddy are home now... the place is trashed and we're all grounded, big-time.

Popps
02-04-2009, 04:28 PM
This is the part that is not true, mommy and daddy are not home, further more mommy and daddy can't fix this in the same way Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again.

I didn't say it COULD be put back together, though I suspect it will be. Perhaps with some duct tape and not to our liking, but that's just my suspicion.

My comment was simply that it's always easier to look for the boogie-man than it is to try to unravel a complex situation.

Conspiracy theories are funny. They're almost always bull****, and they're almost always cloaked in the disguise of deep diligence.

98% of the time, they're just an easy out for those who can't accept that the world is a complex place.

Taco John
02-04-2009, 04:57 PM
Well, the problem is that the government NEVER does this. Everyone in congress is beholden to special interests and nobody is going to bite the hand that feeds them.

Naivete reigns supreme, particularly among those who think they have all the answers but don't really even know what the questions are.

Yeah, of course.

Since government doesn't spend our money properly, then the only thing we can do is give them more money - otherwise you're just being naive.

You are great at arguments! :thumbsup:

orinjkrush
02-04-2009, 05:26 PM
the real issue is "central planning". either by the guberment or by the daddy warbucks capitalists. both are conspiratorial.

Rohirrim
02-04-2009, 06:33 PM
Bob, what you are seeing right now is not a Leftist plot to take over America, it's the fruits of the neocon heaven you, and a whole bunch of rightards, voted for. You got exactly what you wanted: Deregulation, supply side economics, taxes for the rich slashed to nearly nothing, the cost of government shifted to the middle class, soaring CEO salaries, mega profits across the board quickly moved to offshore shelters, a global corporate free ride, a war. And you're still not happy? What more do you want?

TonyR
02-04-2009, 06:44 PM
Since government doesn't spend our money properly, then the only thing we can do is give them more money - otherwise you're just being naive.

You are great at arguments!

WTF? Where did I say we should give the govt more money?

You don't argue with people, you argue at them. You should really try to listen to what other people have to say every once in a while. Give it a try. You don't have all the answers and you're not always right. Nobody does and nobody is.

TonyR
02-04-2009, 06:48 PM
Bob, what you are seeing right now is not a Leftist plot to take over America, it's the fruits of the neocon heaven you, and a whole bunch of rightards, voted for...

Good post. While this current economic crisis is not a Republican problem but an American problem you do make some good points. Exacerbating the problem is the massive debt the Bush admin got us into along with this senseless war, and the massive incompetence and failure of the last 8 years resulting in the Dems sweeping to huge gains in Congress as well as the presidency. One party rule is not a good thing but Bush/Cheney got us here.

mhgaffney
02-04-2009, 07:17 PM
OK But hardly any of the talk radio shows represent an alternative. Most of the hosts are blathering idiots -- like Rush L.

If guys like Rush didn't exist -- the power elite would have to create them.

MHG

Taco John
02-04-2009, 07:49 PM
WTF? Where did I say we should give the govt more money?

You don't argue with people, you argue at them. You should really try to listen to what other people have to say every once in a while. Give it a try. You don't have all the answers and you're not always right. Nobody does and nobody is.



Uh, huh... What was that you said?


Naivete reigns supreme, particularly among those who think they have all the answers but don't really even know what the questions are.


Yeah, that was a great discussion point. I should be ashamed of myself for not rising to the level of your discourse.

What did you possibly have to say worth heeding?

Popps
02-04-2009, 08:51 PM
Bob, what you are seeing right now is not a Leftist plot to take over America, it's the fruits of the neocon heaven you, and a whole bunch of rightards, voted for. You got exactly what you wanted: Deregulation, supply side economics, taxes for the rich slashed to nearly nothing, the cost of government shifted to the middle class, soaring CEO salaries, mega profits across the board quickly moved to offshore shelters, a global corporate free ride, a war. And you're still not happy? What more do you want?

Ro,

You're older and wiser... and you know I'm centered in my views, but respectfully..

1. Which Rich had their taxes cut to "next to nothing." Show me those tax brackets. I don't consider myself rich, but I'm in a very painful tax bracket that's gotten worse as more money comes in. I work with people who lose about 40% of their income in job-related taxes, alone. Maybe you're talking about corporate taxes?

2. If this is a right-wing plot... why would the end result be bigger, more expansive and oppressive government, the loss of Republican power, weaker U.S. currency and massive corporate collapses?

If this was all the Republican's creation, why did it basically result with their demise and the creation of a near-socialist state?

Taco John
02-04-2009, 09:34 PM
Ro,

You're older and wiser... and you know I'm centered in my views, but respectfully..

1. Which Rich had their taxes cut to "next to nothing." Show me those tax brackets. I don't consider myself rich, but I'm in a very painful tax bracket that's gotten worse as more money comes in. I work with people who lose about 40% of their income in job-related taxes, alone. Maybe you're talking about corporate taxes?

2. If this is a right-wing plot... why would the end result be bigger, more expansive and oppressive government, the loss of Republican power, weaker U.S. currency and massive corporate collapses?

If this was all the Republican's creation, why did it basically result with their demise and the creation of a near-socialist state?


Intriguing questions. I'd like to put my name in for wanting to hear a response to them.

Elway777
02-04-2009, 11:04 PM
Yes this economic crises was engineered by greed and stupidity by the Brush administatration. Getting rid of all finanial reguations and the greed of those running the finanial institutions. is what has caused this crises. Brush received the biggest surpus in history and in 8 years turn the united states into a banrupt nation ..The first trillion that the Government have deal out to fix the credit criises is only a band aid that will not stop the bleeding. I read that all the bad assetts held by finanial institution might well be over 10 tillion dollars. The United States is in for a tough time and still congress cann't work to gether to work out a solution to the problem.

Bronco Bob
02-04-2009, 11:18 PM
I guess he has never heard of California, Michigan and New York -- perfect templates on how to destroy American prosperity...all have high (and growing taxes) all have high illegal populations, and unions that prevent businesses from creating jobs. How does this relate to raising taxes? Would lowering taxes eliminate illegals and unions?

I guess you never heard of a country called the United States as it existed from 1992 to 2000.
Taxes went up, so did the economy, the number of people employed,
the number of businesses created. The only thing that went down
was the federal deficit.

Again still waiting for an example of when cutting federal income taxes
had a beneficial effect on the economy over the long run. How well
did cutting taxes do for the economy over the last 8 years?

Bronco Bob
02-04-2009, 11:23 PM
Ro,

You're older and wiser... and you know I'm centered in my views, but respectfully..

1. Which Rich had their taxes cut to "next to nothing." Show me those tax brackets. I don't consider myself rich, but I'm in a very painful tax bracket that's gotten worse as more money comes in. I work with people who lose about 40% of their income in job-related taxes, alone. Maybe you're talking about corporate taxes?

Here is a novel idea. Why not try living within your means? I get taxed
at the same rate as you do, and yet I find I have enough money left
over after taxes to pay my mortgage, pay my utilities, buy food and
clothing. Even had enough money to buy a brand new pick-up truck
a couple years back.



2. If this is a right-wing plot... why would the end result be bigger, more expansive and oppressive government, the loss of Republican power, weaker U.S. currency and massive corporate collapses?

If this was all the Republican's creation, why did it basically result with their demise and the creation of a near-socialist state?

It wasn't the intended consequence of their policies, but it was what happened as a result of their policies.

Popps
02-04-2009, 11:38 PM
Yes this economic crises was engineered by greed and stupidity by the Brush administatration. Getting rid of all finanial reguations and the greed of those running the finanial institutions..

The "Brush" administration?

Sorry... "administatration?"

Finanial?

Typos are one thing, but good lord.


As for the crisis being engineered by the Brush administration, you need to do a little homework.

Start here:

NY Times, 1999

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''


Lax lending standards were born in the Clinton era.

They flourished further when a collective group of bankers (including Goldman Sachs and future Tres. Sec. Hank Pulson) petitioned the SEC to loosen leverage standards.

Two different issues.. two different parties, both highly culpable, and the American People were all too happy to lever up their HELOC's to the hilt and redo those bathrooms with all granite counter-tops.

As I said, this is so far from a partisan issue, it's just tiring to read the dribble anymore.

Again, you folks need to wake the **** up and quit looking for the boogie man. This is a highly complex problem and if we want to sort it out, we'll need to be able to think further than finger-pointing at the party your daddy told you was evil.

George Bush is gone, folks. He created problems... but not all of them... not by a long-shot. Beyond that, it just doesn't matter. Solutions are what matter, and you won't find those with this partisan nonsense.

Popps
02-04-2009, 11:43 PM
Here is a novel idea. Why not try living within your means?

Who said I didn't? I provide for my family just fine, and my wife doesn't work.
So, I have no idea where you're going with this.

I get taxed
at the same rate as you do.

Umm.... unless you're clairvoyant, I'm not sure how you figure. You understand the concept of tax brackets, right?

You know we don't employ a flat tax... right?

We should, but that's another issue.

Even had enough money to buy a brand new pick-up truck a couple years back.
.

Congrats. Just got my wife a new car. I'm happy with my old 2003.


It wasn't the intended consequence of their policies, but it was what happened as a result of their policies.

Oh, so people made mistakes?

Well, that's just a wee-bit different than a conspiracy now, isn't it.

As I've already illustrated, these mistakes began on Clinton's watch (who I liked as a president) and continued in different ways on Bush's watch.

So, call off the boogie-man search, boss. You won't find him.

Bronco Bob
02-04-2009, 11:43 PM
How was Clinton to know that an inept boob would follow him as
president and totally screw up the economy? The economy was
booming at the time, why not try to get people into their own
homes?

Popps
02-04-2009, 11:48 PM
How was Clinton to know that an inept boob would follow him as
president and totally screw up the economy?

Huh?

Ever heard of economic cycles? Bubbles?

Clinton/Greenspan CREATED these bubbles. They popped during the Bush era.

Bush only helped contribute to them by not stepping in and stopping the SEC from allowing banks to over-leverage. Some might argue that Chris Cox is the real culprit with regards to the furthering of the problems created during the Clinton era, but Bush was just as culpable as Clinton for not stepping in.

Honesty, do you understand what's happened here or do you just want to call Bush a poo-poo face? Isn't there some kind of kiddie forum for this ****?

I'm no fan of Bush, but your head is up your ass if you think this is a Republican or Democrat issue. That thinking is half the reason we're in this mess.

Bronco Bob
02-04-2009, 11:49 PM
Well, that's just a wee-bit different than a conspiracy now, isn't it.



Never did say it was a conspiracy. I was just responding to your post in which you said:

If this is a right-wing plot... why would the end result be bigger, more expansive and oppressive government, the loss of Republican power, weaker U.S. currency and massive corporate collapses?

If this was all the Republican's creation, why did it basically result with their demise and the creation of a near-socialist state?

Popps
02-04-2009, 11:51 PM
Here is a novel idea. Why not try living within your means?

.....

The economy wasbooming at the time, why not try to get people into their own
homes?


Sounds like you need to make up your mind there, sport.

Bronco Bob
02-04-2009, 11:56 PM
Huh?

Ever heard of economic cycles? Bubbles?

Clinton/Greenspan CREATED these bubbles. They popped during the Bush era.

Bush only helped contribute to them by not stepping in and stopping the SEC from allowing banks to over-leverage. Some might argue that Chris Cox is the real culprit with regards to the furthering of the problems created during the Clinton era, but Bush was just as culpable as Clinton for not stepping in.

Honesty, do you understand what's happened here or do you just want to call Bush a poo-poo face? Isn't there some kind of kiddie forum for this ****?

I'm no fan of Bush, but your head is up your ass if you think this is a Republican or Democrat issue. That thinking is half the reason we're in this mess.

So Clinton is supposed to base his economic policies on the idea the
next guy to come along is going to screw things up? And not just
accidentally screw things up. He is going to scrap everything I did
and implement policies that will insure things will go completely to hell.
So let's not lend money to people to buy houses because an idiot
is going to be elected after me and everyone is going to be thrown
out of work and won't be able to pay for those houses.

Bronco Bob
02-04-2009, 11:57 PM
Sounds like you need to make up your mind there, sport.

At the time, they were.

Popps
02-05-2009, 12:51 AM
So Clinton is supposed to base his economic policies on the idea the
next guy to come along is going to screw things up?

Sorry, man... I must not have made myself clear, or perhaps you choose not to read the NY times article I posted that clearly laid things out for you.

THIS SEEDS FOR THIS CRISIS WERE SEWN UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.

Clinton (who I am a fan of, despite some of his mistakes) and his administration pressured mortgage-backers to heavily relax standards, despite the warnings of economists that it would lead to exactly what it did.

So, maybe you're confusing the issue.

This crisis was born of mistakes made in the Clinton era. Wiping out lending standards and Greenspan running rates at next to nothing for far too long created a bubble.... and not unlike the internet bubble that was created during that same era... it burst.

Were Democrats solely responsible? Of course not. Only fools look to place blame solely on one party.

What happened under the Republican watch was simply furthering a problem that already existed. (Credit default swaps, etc.)

Again, it's a highly complex situation that most of us are still trying to wrap our arms around, but it sounds to me like you haven't even begun.

As I said, you need to first understand what has happened here, and it doesn't sound like you do.

This isn't goo-goo, ga-ga playground ****. It's a tangled web with plenty of blame to go around, and one that can only be untangled by people with enough clarity to understand that fact.

Popps
02-05-2009, 12:56 AM
Never did say it was a conspiracy. I was just responding to your post in which you said:

Again, people need to make up their minds.

If this was a right-wing plot, why would the plot end with...

1. Republicans losing power. (Favors left wing.)

2. Nationalization of financial institutions. (Favors left wing.)

3. Increased taxpayer liability. (Left wing philosophy)

4. Inevitably higher taxes. (Left wing philosophy.)

5. A greater degree of government control and oversight over enterprise. (Left wing philosophy.)


So, again... seems like an odd place for the "plot" to end up if it was a right-wing engineered plot. This country is on the brink of Socialism. I'm no Republican, but I'm fairly sure they aren't big fans of Socialism.

Taco John
02-05-2009, 01:36 AM
I'm the farthest thing there is from a Bush fan, but anyone who thinks that Bush came in after Clinton and screwed up the economy is simply out of their league in this discussion. It's like talking to someone who thinks that there are touchdowns in baseball.

That's not to say that Bush hasn't done his share of damage - without a doubt, he has. But his contribution to the current crisis is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. It's like someone setting their electric fan outside, and us blaming them for the tornado that rolled through town that afternoon.

As far as I'm concerned, Bush is probably the worst president in several generations - and the damage he's done to this country will be a woeful legacy that this country will bear for decades - but the source of the current economic crisis he is not. But woe - nor was he the solution. In fact, just the opposite - his move towards socialist solutions have paved the ground that Obama now walks on. A bailout bill like we've seen would have never been possible if it weren't a Republican president showing support for such a thing and casting his party in confusion - a confusion that still lingers among them.

Elway777
02-05-2009, 05:20 AM
Again, people need to make up their minds.

If this was a right-wing plot, why would the plot end with...

1. Republicans losing power. (Favors left wing.)

2. Nationalization of financial institutions. (Favors left wing.)

3. Increased taxpayer liability. (Left wing philosophy)

4. Inevitably higher taxes. (Left wing philosophy.)

5. A greater degree of government control and oversight over enterprise. (Left wing philosophy.)


So, again... seems like an odd place for the "plot" to end up if it was a right-wing engineered plot. This country is on the brink of Socialism. I'm no Republican, but I'm fairly sure they aren't big fans of Socialism. I think the only way out of the crises is for the Government to step in and take over the financial institution and reogorinize and clear out the bad assett . It could involve printing more money plus seizure of some assets of wealthy Americans. The Government would level a wealth tax. when finacial institutions are in good shape turn them over to the private Business sector with better regulation and resume Capitaliism. Unless American has sound finanial institutions then Capitalism cann't thrive.

Elway777
02-05-2009, 06:24 AM
Financial Sector Debt = $16.51 TRILLION
Non-Finance-Sector Business Debt = $10.91 TRILLION
Household Debt (all types) = $14.01 TRILLION
Government Debt (Fed/State/Local) = $ 7.52 TRILLION
TOTAL US DEBT = $48.95 TRILLION
[Source: Moody's economy.com]
This is a breakdown of Debt in the United states. Financial sector is over 16 trillion in Debt. I see alot of pain in American in the next decade.

Broncojef
02-05-2009, 06:37 AM
I think the only way out of the crises is for the Government to step in and take over the financial institution and reogorinize and clear out the bad assett . It could involve printing more money plus seizure of some assets of wealthy Americans. The Government would level a wealth tax. when finacial institutions are in good shape turn them over to the private Business sector with better regulation and resume Capitaliism. Unless American has sound finanial institutions then Capitalism cann't thrive.

Or the government could cut taxes drastically for corporations and the wealthy which create jobs and get rid of the capital gains tax, encouraging industry growth and reinvestment into our economy. Everyone wants to tax companies and the wealthy and get their pound of flesh then they whine when those same people close up shops, move to other countries and lay people off. Taxing those with money sounds great to the average Joe but its those same people who are entreprenuers and are creating jobs for other people. The government was the one to get us into this mess and any further intervention and control given to them will further aggravate the situation. I have zero faith Pelosi, Frank or any of those idiots will fix anything which may be broke, if anything they will prove how corrupt they are and send our country further into the tank. There is no simple fix, the government needs to tighten its belt and level with Americans how bad it really is, unfortunately I don't think they will and we are seeing the tip of a very bad iceberg.

Broncojef
02-05-2009, 06:39 AM
Financial Sector Debt = $16.51 TRILLION
Non-Finance-Sector Business Debt = $10.91 TRILLION
Household Debt (all types) = $14.01 TRILLION
Government Debt (Fed/State/Local) = $ 7.52 TRILLION
TOTAL US DEBT = $48.95 TRILLION
[Source: Moody's economy.com]
This is a breakdown of Debt in the United states. Financial sector is over 16 trillion in Debt. I see alot of pain in American in the next decade.

I just hope we deal with the pain now and not continue to push off our problems making them bigger. totally agree much pain ahead.

baja
02-05-2009, 08:04 AM
Financial Sector Debt = $16.51 TRILLION
Non-Finance-Sector Business Debt = $10.91 TRILLION
Household Debt (all types) = $14.01 TRILLION
Government Debt (Fed/State/Local) = $ 7.52 TRILLION
TOTAL US DEBT = $48.95 TRILLION
[Source: Moody's economy.com]
This is a breakdown of Debt in the United states. Financial sector is over 16 trillion in Debt. I see alot of pain in American in the next decade.

It won't last a decade. A new system will emerge much sooner than that. The real pain will last 3 to 5 years. JMO

bowtown
02-05-2009, 08:08 AM
I can't believe this thread is still on the front page.

baja
02-05-2009, 08:13 AM
I can't believe this thread is still on the front page.

I know what you mean with all the really important stuff going on like Jake Plummer smiling when he heard Shanny got fired. All this depression talk is so irrelevant and boring.

Meck77
02-05-2009, 08:15 AM
Every politician, every banker, every American is responsible for the state of the economy. The government printed the money, the banks handed it out like candy, and the people took it and spent it. Some paid it back or kept up with payments. Others did not.

bowtown
02-05-2009, 08:20 AM
I know what you mean with all the really important stuff going on like Jake Plummer smiling when he heard Shanny got fired. All this conspiracy talk is so mind-numbingly irrelevant and unproductive.

Fixed it for you.

Spider
02-05-2009, 08:27 AM
master plan gone bad .....

TonyR
02-05-2009, 08:46 AM
Every politician, every banker, every American is responsible for the state of the economy. The government printed the money, the banks handed it out like candy, and the people took it and spent it. Some paid it back or kept up with payments. Others did not.

Exactly right. Those who want to blame the government exclusively are very wrong. Americans have been living on credit and home equity for years now. The party had to come to an end eventually.

baja
02-05-2009, 08:57 AM
Exactly right. Those who want to blame the government exclusively are very wrong. Americans have been living on credit and home equity for years now. The party had to come to an end eventually.

Derivatives & hedge funds

TonyR
02-05-2009, 09:12 AM
Derivatives & hedge funds

Yes, those credit default swaps are a mess.

If you want to read a great article about Wall Street's role in this mess I highly recommend the link below. Long but well worth it.

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom#page1

Rohirrim
02-05-2009, 09:20 AM
Ro,

You're older and wiser... and you know I'm centered in my views, but respectfully..

1. Which Rich had their taxes cut to "next to nothing." Show me those tax brackets. I don't consider myself rich, but I'm in a very painful tax bracket that's gotten worse as more money comes in. I work with people who lose about 40% of their income in job-related taxes, alone. Maybe you're talking about corporate taxes?

2. If this is a right-wing plot... why would the end result be bigger, more expansive and oppressive government, the loss of Republican power, weaker U.S. currency and massive corporate collapses?

If this was all the Republican's creation, why did it basically result with their demise and the creation of a near-socialist state?

It started during Reagan. Supply side economics. Am I making this up? The tax rate on the very wealthy at that time was 70%. I was listening to NPR yesterday and they stated that the very rich now pay, on average 17%, and very few pay even that. The conservatives and then neocons got what they've been fighting for since they drove Jimmy Carter out of office: Less regulation and the tax burden for government shifted from the rich to the middle class. Supply side. If you're in the middle class, especially the upper middle class, I don't doubt you feel it's getting worse. It is. Where did the housing bubble and the recent collapse come from? The dismantling of regulations that have been in place since the 30s. In case nobody has notice, the income of the very rich in this country (since the 80s) has gone up exponentially. The very rich have been skimming the wealth off the top for almost thirty years, with the help of the Right. Now the bill has come due.

The right wing plot was the idea, originally hatched by Atwater, to turn the blue collar (especially in the South) into Repugs by manipulating the social dialogue. They (the blue collar workers) started voting against their own economic interests and started voting on a morality platform that the Right had no intention of ever implementing and has not implemented to this day. Rove learned at Atwater's knee. Clinton was merely a center-right hiatus. The march to the supply side continued throughout his reign.

As far as the collapse of the Repug plot goes, you're right. It is beginning to collapse. I suppose part of that is because the Right got so lost in their power and wealth under Bush that they completely lost their bearings and used 911 to expand govenment to a ridiculous degree. They went on a binge. Remember, Bush didn't veto a single spending bill until the Dems took power two years before he left office. The Repugs made their dream come true: Funnel all the wealth the country produces to the top and let it trickle down. What they didn't take into account was that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Their greed destroyed them. Now Obama and the Dems are left to pick up the pieces. Unfortunately, it looks like they aren't much better. The first thing they seem to want to do is spend the other way.

As far as the "near socialist state" goes, what are the choices? The only liquidity that exists in the world right now is fantasy liquidity: Money printed by government. Nobody else can do that. If the government does not flush the system with liquidity, the economy will collapse. World currency will collapse. Banking will collapse. Capital itself will collapse (can't have capitalism without capital). What else can be done? Two choices: Prop it up or let it fall.

Don't forget to thank the Repugs (and the Dems who went along for the ride).

My personal choice would be, burn the government to the ground and start over. Like Mark Twain said, they are the only permanent criminal class in America.

Rohirrim
02-05-2009, 09:25 AM
BTW, when you hear Barney Franks and Chris Dodd talking about how they know how to fix things up, just remember, they were right there with Gramm when the regulations were being dismantled and the Fannies were being cut loose.

TonyR
02-05-2009, 09:54 AM
Or the government could cut taxes drastically for corporations and the wealthy which create jobs...

I can't believe that some people still buy into this trickle down nonsense. Cut their taxes drastically? The wealthy hold a higher and higher percentage of the capital in this country and you want to give them an even bigger break? You want to squeeze the middle and upper middle classes even more? Just how far do you want to take this? The other extreme is just as bad, but this is just ridiculous thinking.

TonyR
02-05-2009, 09:56 AM
Great posts rohirrim. Can't wait to see the feeble attempts to spin what you've said.

BroncoFanatic
02-05-2009, 10:05 AM
BTW, when you hear Barney Franks and Chris Dodd talking about how they know how to fix things up, just remember, they were right there with Gramm when the regulations were being dismantled and the Fannies were being cut loose.

To add to this, during the time that the regulations were being dismantled, the top 3 recipients of contributions from Fannie/Freddie were:

1. Chris Dodd
2. Barak Obama
3. Barney Frank

The same people who argued against greater oversight over these two entities.

Rohirrim
02-05-2009, 10:52 AM
To add to this, during the time that the regulations were being dismantled, the top 3 recipients of contributions from Fannie/Freddie were:

1. Chris Dodd
2. Barak Obama
3. Barney Frank

The same people who argued against greater oversight over these two entities.

There were a series of fantasies that both sides indulged in. Gramm is the one who spearheaded the drive to repeal Glass-Steagle at the behest of his banking masters. He had a veto-proof majority. The Dems knew it. Clinton knew it. The Dems fantasy was that they could tack on some housing relief for the poor by including some deregulation for the Fannies and get some benefit out of the Repug bull-rush to deregulate. What happened once Glass-Steagle was broken was that Wall Street turned the U.S. housing market into a giant betting parlor. They stuffed their pockets and I'm sure both sides of the aisle in Washington stuffed their pockets. Isn't that what politicians do? Now, the American people get the bill.

Popps
02-05-2009, 11:07 AM
It started during Reagan. Supply side economics. Am I making this up? The tax rate on the very wealthy at that time was 70%. I was listening to NPR yesterday and they stated that the very rich now pay, on average 17%,

Again, I'm awaiting the tax bracket information that shows people making more money paying a lower percentage of taxes. Do you have that information?

I saw a lot of theory in your post, but I didn't see the statistical data that showed someone making 500K a year paying less than someone making 50k.


I was listening to NPR yesterday and they stated that the very rich now pay, on average 17%.

The tax rate on people making over 1M a year is over 35%, considerably higher than someone making an average income.





As far as the "near socialist state" goes, what are the choices? The only liquidity that exists in the world right now is fantasy liquidity: Money printed by government. Nobody else can do that. If the government does not flush the system with liquidity, the economy will collapse. World currency will collapse. Banking will collapse. Capital itself will collapse (can't have capitalism without capital). What else can be done? Two choices: Prop it up or let it fall.

Don't forget to thank the Repugs (and the Dems who went along for the ride).

So, your story was wrought with examples of failure on both sides, and I gave you probably the single biggest contributor to the subprime melt-down, Clinton's pressure on the mortgage industry to throw out any sort of lending standards so we could all own homes.

Again, sounds like there is plenty of culpability to go around.... and it sounds like the end result of the "plan" resulted in exactly what left wing philosophy calls for.

I Like Mark Twain said, they are the only permanent criminal class in America.

And as JFK said...

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

TonyR
02-05-2009, 11:28 AM
And as JFK said...


I wonder if he'd say the same thing with the country at war and with a deficit as massive as our's currently is. You have to put the comments in context.

Popps
02-05-2009, 11:57 AM
I wonder if he'd say the same thing with the country at war and with a deficit as massive as our's currently is. You have to put the comments in context.

I'd imagine he was a student of history, and fostered those views by looking at what happened during the Great Depression regarding taxes.

So, yes... in this context, I'm fairly sure he'd point to history to show us that we can't tax our way out of economic crisis.

There's some fairly conclusive data as to the effects of raising and lowering tax RATES with regards to the subsequent amount of tax REVENUE that comes in (or not) after doing so. I'd suggest people look into it.

Rohirrim
02-05-2009, 12:03 PM
Again, I'm awaiting the tax bracket information that shows people making more money paying a lower percentage of taxes. Do you have that information?

I saw a lot of theory in your post, but I didn't see the statistical data that showed someone making 500K a year paying less than someone making 50k.




The tax rate on people making over 1M a year is over 35%, considerably higher than someone making an average income.





So, your story was wrought with examples of failure on both sides, and I gave you probably the single biggest contributor to the subprime melt-down, Clinton's pressure on the mortgage industry to throw out any sort of lending standards so we could all own homes.

Again, sounds like there is plenty of culpability to go around.... and it sounds like the end result of the "plan" resulted in exactly what left wing philosophy calls for.



And as JFK said...

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

No, the single biggest contributor was the repeal of Glass-Steagle which allowed Wall Street to turn the housing market into a betting parlor. This is just another bs ploy by the Right to blame the poor for the crisis. Same cynical bs they always pull.

How could our national security needs be rising? Complete BS. Do you actually believe that we need more military forces to fight rugheads in caves than we needed to fight the Soviet Union? Does anybody buy that line of ****? The so called "War on Terrorism" is a manufactured piece of crap designed to feed the military industrial complex. It is us as modern Rome. The greatest successes against terrorists have been a product of police work, not a new fighter jet or bomber.

As far as tax rates go, look at the trends over thirty years. The rich have garnered the overwhelming benefits of every tax law that has been written during that period. Is your argument that in fact the Left has been in charge the last thirty years and supply side economics have not existed?

Popps
02-05-2009, 12:50 PM
No, the single biggest contributor was the repeal of Glass-Steagle which allowed Wall Street to turn the housing market into a betting parlor. This is just another bs ploy by the Right to blame the poor for the crisis. Same cynical bs they always pull.

I haven't heard anyone blame the poor for the crisis. No one.

Conversely, the mantra has been to blame the Wall St. fat cat... and to some extent, rightfully so.

The only thing I've heard anyone say with regards to "blaming" the poor is that people who shouldn't have bought houses... bought houses, and not all of them were poor, either.

I absolutely agree, the Clinton-era abolishment of lending requirements coupled with the SEC mistakes of the 2000s were the root of this problem we're attempting to dig out of, now.


As far as tax rates go, look at the trends over thirty years. The rich have garnered the overwhelming benefits of every tax law that has been written during that period. Is your argument that in fact the Left has been in charge the last thirty years and supply side economics have not existed?

For a third time, I simply ask you to provide proof that poor people are paying a higher percentage than rich people.

I'm not talking about fluctuation in rates on any one tax bracket, I'm talking about proof that rich people (say, in the 300k-500k per year bracket) pay LESS taxes than someone making 30k-50k.

Those garnering (and creating) more economic activity already bear a heavier tax burden, which in my opinion is absolutely un-American.

Add in capital gains, state and sales taxes... and you've got some of these earners giving away the MAJORITY of their income. Is that American?

I'm obviously nowhere near the top 1% of earners in this country or I wouldn't be hanging around with you slobs. :)

That said, as my income has risen bracket to bracket, my tax burden has become absolutely ridiculous. Hence, I have less to spend... invest and just generally less to contribute to the kind of commerce that creates jobs.

But, I'm still carrying a larger tax burden than someone making half my salary, fair or not.

So, I'm still waiting for the proof that higher earners pay less in taxes.

Popps
02-05-2009, 12:54 PM
Is your argument that in fact the Left has been in charge the last thirty years and supply side economics have not existed?

Not at all. My argument is that government is generally inefficient, not just Democrats or Repubs, and there's a wealth of proof to support that argument.

Again, Clinton/Greenspan were as culpable for what's happening now as any Republican leader of the last decade. (Though they're highly culpable, too.)

I'm just not simply going to omit one side of the argument so I can blame the other side.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-05-2009, 12:59 PM
The tax rate on people making over 1M a year is over 35%, considerably higher than someone making an average income.



That is incorrect.

Avg salaries have about a 39.5% tax percentage. Salaries over 1m are about 35%.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-05-2009, 01:01 PM
When Nixon closed the gold window in the 1973 he said, "We're all Keynesian's now." This was meant to allude to Keynes' known stance of being against a traditional gold standard. Basically, though, his sentiment on a gold standard has been chewed-up and spit out, spun around and misrepresented to try to find an historical economist who supports unbridled deficit spending, debt montization, and fiat money creation...or basically the modern financial system. Reality is that Keynes did not in any way support this type of monetary policy pointing out that it in actuality slowly confiscates the private wealth of a nation.

The powers that be love the "inflation pill" because its so much easier to swallow. Asset prices "rise"...not in value, just nominally. All the while debt gets paid back in cheaper dollars. So when you're the US government and you've got a 5 Trillion dollar debt, just the interest payments are ridiculous. Debasing the currency through inflation makes it easier to service that debt. So my thoughts are that our gov will try to do everything in its power to bring on inflation. Only problem is that inflation, like fear, is a contagious sickness that when left unchecked can get away from people so quickly that it can ultimately completely undermines an economy. Take Argentina 1998, and Germany 1915. Japan went into a deflationary spiral, much because the sentiment of its populace. They are "savers". Japan tried to disincentivize savings by taking real interest rates to below zero. It didn't work. Toward a different end, we're trying to lower rates to encourage spending...because that's what we do. Our economy is dependent on it. Bernanke has said time and time again that he will not allow deflation to take hold..hence the nickname "Helicopter Ben", since he will drop money from helicopters to stimulate growth. Bottom line, things are bad. Inflation is the course for America, although we'll probably have a short-lived deflationary cycle over the next 12-18 months.

The biggest problem for the United States is that we've long encouraged our citizenry to spend at all costs. So if we do come into inflation/hyper-inflation, we do not currently have the monetary policy "ammo" to curb it. All of the debt that has been used to promote growth over the past two decades will still exist. To do what is necessary, to aggressively raise rates, would cause the cost of those debts to explode, thereby increasing foreclosures, bank failures, etc. So I guess you let inflation run rampant, right? We are without a doubt stuck between a rock and a hard place. The government just needs to get the hell out of the way, before they end up making this problem far worse. I've heard a good analogy. The US economy is giant boulder on the side of the cliff. 6 months ago it was ready to fall off. We managed to keep it there, only in the process, we doubled its size yet again. When it does fall, it will fall with such a force recent generations never thought was possible.

Of course, then again, maybe everything will be just fine. :roll:

TheReverend
02-05-2009, 01:12 PM
penis

Popps
02-05-2009, 01:15 PM
That is incorrect.

Avg salaries have about a 39.5% tax percentage. Salaries over 1m are about 35%.

"Average salaries?"

Who said anything about that. Sounds awfully murky and confusing.

Let's stick with brackets. Very simple.

How much do you make... how much do you pay.

Here's some help....
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm


Still waiting for this proof that states higher earners pay a lower percentage of taxes. Our own government's website illustrates otherwise.

I'm not taking about "theories" here, or "averages"... I'm talking about brackets and percentages.

Popps
02-05-2009, 01:19 PM
The biggest problem for the United States is that we've long encouraged our citizenry to spend at all costs. So if we do come into inflation/hyper-inflation, we do not currently have the monetary policy "ammo" to curb it.

Agree, and that's hardly a partisan issue.

Everyone has had their mitts in the pie over the last 20 years and realistically, some simple oversight measures and proper lending standards could have probably allowed us to sustain growth without creating a bubble. But, here we are.

As I said... Capitalism Gone Wild.

If people want to go through the tired old exercise of attempting to assign blame to the political party their daddy told them was the boogie man... hey, it's a free country. But, that sort of prism-thinking only clouds the evaluative process, imo.

TonyR
02-05-2009, 01:19 PM
I'd imagine he was a student of history, and fostered those views by looking at what happened during the Great Depression regarding taxes.

So, yes... in this context, I'm fairly sure he'd point to history to show us that we can't tax our way out of economic crisis.


Never before have we had a deficit even remotely approaching what we have now so there really is no historical context. But I agree that we cannot tax our way out of this mess.

Archer81
02-05-2009, 01:23 PM
Never before have we had a deficit even remotely approaching what we have now so there really is no historical context. But I agree that we cannot tax our way out of this mess.


Yes we did. You know how hard it was for this country to even get credit in the 1770's through 1791? Nothing is without context, but spending a trillion dollars and then having the people find out only 12 cents of every dollar spent is going for "stimulus" it makes you question the validity of government's argument for quick action. We dont need a 1.5 billion dollar carbon capture contest, for example. That doesnt stimulate economic growth, either. This bill is a sack of fat dipped in sugar, rolled in more fat, deep fried, then coated in a nice maple glaze...


:Broncos:

Popps
02-05-2009, 01:25 PM
Never before have we had a deficit even remotely approaching what we have now so there really is no historical context. But I agree that we cannot tax our way out of this mess.

I think we're going to have to endure some pain. I think these stimulus bills are absolute nonsense unless they're DIRECTLY employing people TODAY, or DIRECTLY cutting people's tax burden in the short term.

Look through this new "stimulus" bill designed to help us avoid "catastrophe."

Billions of dollars are being set aside to fix park-lands, make government buildings more "green" and billions more earmarked for social programs and lobby-group nonsense.

Again, I'm all for fixing our parks and inner cities, but how about we go ahead and do that with specific legislation at a later time. How about a STIMULUS bill is actually what its name implies.

Honestly, this is the kind of stuff that goes right over the average American's head because he/she is too busy making Bush jokes or calling Obama an Arab.

It takes five minutes to write your reps and tell them to shove this stimulus bill up their asses. I suggest people do so.

TonyR
02-05-2009, 01:27 PM
Yes we did. You know how hard it was for this country to even get credit in the 1770's through 1791?
...

This bill is a sack of fat dipped in sugar, rolled in more fat, deep fried, then coated in a nice maple glaze...


I agree with you on the bill. I don't like it at all. But to try and compare the 1700's with today is absurd.

Archer81
02-05-2009, 01:30 PM
I think we're going to have to endure some pain. I think these stimulus bills are absolute nonsense unless they're DIRECTLY employing people TODAY, or DIRECTLY cutting people's tax burden in the short term.

Look through this new "stimulus" bill designed to help us avoid "catastrophe."

Billions of dollars are being set aside to fix park-lands, make government buildings more "green" and billions more earmarked for social programs and lobby-group nonsense.

Again, I'm all for fixing our parks and inner cities, but how about we go ahead and do that with specific legislation at a later time. How about a STIMULUS bill is actually what its name implies.

Honestly, this is the kind of stuff that goes right over the average American's head because he/she is too busy making Bush jokes or calling Obama an Arab.

It takes five minutes to write your reps and tell them to shove this stimulus bill up their asses. I suggest people do so.


I read somewhere that this bill only has 5% of its value going to "fix" infrastructure when Obama's main argument for passing it was a needed boost to fix our highways and roads and bridges...then what is the other 95% for? Why do we need 45 mil for ATV pathways? Why does the government have to spend 600 million on ecofriendly cars for federal employees? This bill needs to be capped in the back of the head and left in the desert in a shallow grave.

:Broncos:

Archer81
02-05-2009, 01:32 PM
I agree with you on the bill. I don't like it at all. But to try and compare the 1700's with today is absurd.


You are right. In the 1770s through early 1791, we didnt have the worlds strongest economic engine, largest military or 300 million residents...much harder then.


Like I said, everything has context, nothing is new under the sun, not even this economic "crisis".


:Broncos:

Popps
02-05-2009, 01:37 PM
I read somewhere that this bill only has 5% of its value going to "fix" infrastructure when Obama's main argument for passing it was a needed boost to fix our highways and roads and bridges...then what is the other 95% for? Why do we need 45 mil for ATV pathways? Why does the government have to spend 600 million on ecofriendly cars for federal employees? This bill needs to be capped in the back of the head and left in the desert in a shallow grave.

:Broncos:

Again... eco-friendly cars for the gov... a good thing!

However, irrelevant to our problems at this moment.

Old pork-politics. People are too busy name-calling to want to do anything about it.

Archer81
02-05-2009, 01:48 PM
Again... eco-friendly cars for the gov... a good thing!

However, irrelevant to our problems at this moment.

Old pork-politics. People are too busy name-calling to want to do anything about it.


I think democrats are trying to cram as much as they can into this bill because as they so nicely put it, "they won" and dont think Americans wont hold them to the same standards they held the republicans to.


:Broncos:

bowtown
02-05-2009, 02:14 PM
I think democrats are trying to cram as much as they can into this bill because as they so nicely put it, "they won" and dont think Americans wont hold them to the same standards they held the republicans to.


:Broncos:

So they think Americans WILL hold them to the same standards?

Rohirrim
02-05-2009, 02:23 PM
I haven't heard anyone blame the poor for the crisis. No one.

Conversely, the mantra has been to blame the Wall St. fat cat... and to some extent, rightfully so.

The only thing I've heard anyone say with regards to "blaming" the poor is that people who shouldn't have bought houses... bought houses, and not all of them were poor, either.

I absolutely agree, the Clinton-era abolishment of lending requirements coupled with the SEC mistakes of the 2000s were the root of this problem we're attempting to dig out of, now.



For a third time, I simply ask you to provide proof that poor people are paying a higher percentage than rich people.

I'm not talking about fluctuation in rates on any one tax bracket, I'm talking about proof that rich people (say, in the 300k-500k per year bracket) pay LESS taxes than someone making 30k-50k.

Those garnering (and creating) more economic activity already bear a heavier tax burden, which in my opinion is absolutely un-American.

Add in capital gains, state and sales taxes... and you've got some of these earners giving away the MAJORITY of their income. Is that American?

I'm obviously nowhere near the top 1% of earners in this country or I wouldn't be hanging around with you slobs. :)

That said, as my income has risen bracket to bracket, my tax burden has become absolutely ridiculous. Hence, I have less to spend... invest and just generally less to contribute to the kind of commerce that creates jobs.

But, I'm still carrying a larger tax burden than someone making half my salary, fair or not.

So, I'm still waiting for the proof that higher earners pay less in taxes.

I never said they pay less than the poor. I said the burden has been shifted. I don't care about percentages. I care about volume of dollars. The Right has shifted the burden of government from the shoulders of corporations and the wealthy and onto the the shoulders of the middle class. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html

If what you are relying on is the concept of a consumer economy, moving the tax burden over to the largest volume of spenders seems to me to be sawing off the branch upon which you are sitting.

And blaming those people who bought houses they couldn't afford for this economic collapse is blaming the poor. They had very little to do with it.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-05-2009, 02:23 PM
I think democrats are trying to cram as much as they can into this bill because as they so nicely put it, "they won" and dont think Americans wont hold them to the same standards they held the republicans to.


:Broncos:

As popps wrote above, it is laughable to blame one party or the other. WE ALL SPEND TOO MUCH. WE ALL DO IT. That has to stop.

We are going to endure some tough times.

I can at least see the argument for building ATV trails and the like. Putting people to work is an important component of getting the economy back on track. But we are going to have to make tough choices.

Archer81
02-05-2009, 02:31 PM
As popps wrote above, it is laughable to blame one party or the other. WE ALL SPEND TOO MUCH. WE ALL DO IT. That has to stop.
We are going to endure some tough times.

I can at least see the argument for building ATV trails and the like. Putting people to work is an important component of getting the economy back on track. But we are going to have to make tough choices.


Stating the truth is hardly playing the party blame game. Republicans spent too much the last 6 years, democrats are turning around and doing the SAME EXACT THING, it wasnt the democrats antiwar message that got them elected, it was irresponsible spending on cap hill by republicans that gave democrats the house and senate AND white house.

Shelling out 45 mil for ATV trails means the $ comes from taxpayers, government jobs do not create wealth because it is a net loss, that money comes from taxes, wealth creation comes from private enterprise, and always has. Raising taxes in a recession is possibly the dumbest thing that can be done right now, and this spending is going to lead to tax increases...

:Broncos:

Archer81
02-05-2009, 02:33 PM
So they think Americans WILL hold them to the same standards?


Mistyped. They think Americans wont hold them to the same standards, OR they think Americans are too dumb to go online and read these BS bills they are throwing at us.


:Broncos:

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-05-2009, 03:57 PM
Here's a good read for anyone who thinks that building ATV trails -- something that will actually get used by the people of this country AND create jobs -- is a waste of time and money.

LINK. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/save-the-pitiful-f-22_b_164148.html)

Archer81
02-05-2009, 04:16 PM
Here's a good read for anyone who thinks that building ATV trails -- something that will actually get used by the people of this country AND create jobs -- is a waste of time and money.

LINK. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/save-the-pitiful-f-22_b_164148.html)


It is a waste in a STIMULUS bill. Why cant it be discussed at a later date? Why now?


:Broncos:

Popps
02-05-2009, 04:30 PM
I never said they pay less than the poor. I said the burden has been shifted..

So, we measure in burden, not personal responsibility? At what point does that end?

Please explain the rationale of those making more being punished for doing so.

What about the notion of actually addressing that burden, instead of just letting it run rampant and expecting those who are constructive enough to earn a good wage to be saddled with it?

I don't care about percentages.

Most of us do, particularly those of us who have been punished for doing exactly what our system is set up for. (Moving up the pay-scale in a capitalist system.)


I care about volume of dollars.

So taking more money away from people will lead to the creation of more revenues?

I understand what you're saying... we had an abundance of cash coming into the government machine from a small percentage of earners, and that changed.

My point is simply that this over-taxation should have never existed in the first place. So, we fundamentally disagree, there.

I've never been able to understand the desire to have the government punish achievement and limit personal liberties. It always kills me to hear people get so upset about the Homeland Security Act, and yet those same people call for their neighbor to have the government take away half of their income because they make more than they do.

Seems like you either want the government all up in your ****, or you don't.

Personally, I don't.

Popps
02-05-2009, 04:31 PM
It is a waste in a STIMULUS bill. Why cant it be discussed at a later date? Why now?


:Broncos:

Exactly.

But, to get bills passed... you've got to weigh it down with enough bull**** to get our "representatives" to sign off on it, which really means to sign off on what the lobby-pressure wants.

It's a ****ing mess.

Bob
02-05-2009, 04:40 PM
Bob, what you are seeing right now is not a Leftist plot to take over America, it's the fruits of the neocon heaven you, and a whole bunch of rightards, voted for. You got exactly what you wanted: Deregulation, supply side economics, taxes for the rich slashed to nearly nothing, the cost of government shifted to the middle class, soaring CEO salaries, mega profits across the board quickly moved to offshore shelters, a global corporate free ride, a war. And you're still not happy? What more do you want?



I think you can do better. I do not think you are “retarded” for having your views, but I tend to think that assigning stupidity to broad swaths of those with opposing ideological perspectives is a cop-out, and at times is used to dismiss, rather than address. I am not so interested in blame (on most days) as I believe that there is plenty to go around, I'm not in the camp that believe that Bush and the self-described "right" should be absolved of any wrong doing, the R club have plenty to do with it. If blame would fill anyone's belly, we would never need to eat again.

But this is what I believe and some reasons why:

1. Capitalism creates the best chance for increased prosperity. The Constitution outlines from whom we receive our Divine rights – those rights do not flow from man, or government, so government cannot take those right away without violating higher laws, that it cannot alter. The trend is the more government expands, the more it tends to think it can tell us how to live. For the past 100 years of the “progressive” movement starting with Wilson we have been seeing an ever-increasing role of government, in most (not all) cases I think that exchange in power has created collective atrophy of “The People’s” independence.

2. We are on the Titanic, and folks, right and left are going to get soaked. Most in power and on this board want to argue about the position of the deck chairs, which is a reflection of how little they think the problem is, or how little they care.

3. We have two choices right now: 1. massive unemployment or 2. More massive unemployment (but six months later) AND a dollar that will lose most of its value within 2-3 years.

4. Those on the left and right seem to think that the poison is not over-spending, but loosing control over the direction of spending. Not many complained on the right when Bush over-spent (but some did) and I was one of them. If it was 1992 I think that blame game stuff would be ok, but the stakes are too high. Obama can’t fail -- if he does -- we all fail. I just think some of his policies will increase the likelihood we will slip into something worse than the Great Depression.

5. It is my opinion that Most (but not all) of the problems we are seeing in the economy are the result of mandating lower standards for lending. I think the real problem started here, but I would be intellectually dishonest to not admit that most Republican leaders have spent way too much as well. The bailout approach started with Bush. Bush bragged about his home-ownership society, I love it when folks get into a home, but it was unethical to put folks into homes, who could only keep them if values skyrocketed up forever. Obama and the gang are continuing with the over-spending to "stimulate." I don’t think spending to get out of debt makes sense, especially considering historical examples of what it did in Germany, Zimbabwe and other countries.

Bob
02-05-2009, 04:43 PM
Ro,

You're older and wiser... and you know I'm centered in my views, but respectfully..

1. Which Rich had their taxes cut to "next to nothing." Show me those tax brackets. I don't consider myself rich, but I'm in a very painful tax bracket that's gotten worse as more money comes in. I work with people who lose about 40% of their income in job-related taxes, alone. Maybe you're talking about corporate taxes?

2. If this is a right-wing plot... why would the end result be bigger, more expansive and oppressive government, the loss of Republican power, weaker U.S. currency and massive corporate collapses?

If this was all the Republican's creation, why did it basically result with their demise and the creation of a near-socialist state?

Bush in most respects created more Socialism, that's one reason he was so unpopular with real conservatives. I didnt hate everything he did, maybe 60%.

Bob
02-05-2009, 04:47 PM
How does this relate to raising taxes? Would lowering taxes eliminate illegals and unions?

I guess you never heard of a country called the United States as it existed from 1992 to 2000.
Taxes went up, so did the economy, the number of people employed,
the number of businesses created. The only thing that went down
was the federal deficit.

Again still waiting for an example of when cutting federal income taxes
had a beneficial effect on the economy over the long run. How well
did cutting taxes do for the economy over the last 8 years?

Just stating the obvious that the effects of liberal policies including Unions, open borders, and and high taxes are seen in these states. States with lower taxes are doing better, generally. If you can find a way to arugue with those facts, that you might be Karl Marx.

Bob
02-05-2009, 04:49 PM
The "Brush" administration?

Sorry... "administatration?"

Finanial?

Typos are one thing, but good lord.


As for the crisis being engineered by the Brush administration, you need to do a little homework.

Start here:

NY Times, 1999

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''


Lax lending standards were born in the Clinton era.

They flourished further when a collective group of bankers (including Goldman Sachs and future Tres. Sec. Hank Pulson) petitioned the SEC to loosen leverage standards.

Two different issues.. two different parties, both highly culpable, and the American People were all too happy to lever up their HELOC's to the hilt and redo those bathrooms with all granite counter-tops.

As I said, this is so far from a partisan issue, it's just tiring to read the dribble anymore.

Again, you folks need to wake the **** up and quit looking for the boogie man. This is a highly complex problem and if we want to sort it out, we'll need to be able to think further than finger-pointing at the party your daddy told you was evil.

George Bush is gone, folks. He created problems... but not all of them... not by a long-shot. Beyond that, it just doesn't matter. Solutions are what matter, and you won't find those with this partisan nonsense.

I'm sorry too many facts and too much political power to be lost here...

They think it is 1992, when its 1929. Small, Small, Small.

Rohirrim
02-05-2009, 04:53 PM
Obama is continuing with the policy of bailouts. That is not a Leftist position, folks. A Leftist position would be to let all the fat cats fail and then use government resources to prop up those at the bottom who are hurt by the failure of the greedmeisters at the top. Obama is bailing out the greedmeisters, and they're taking the money and running, just as everybody knew they would. While they're at it, they'll throw a couple of parties and hand out some bonuses. I also don't buy the argument that big government is a purely lefty phenomenon. Fascists like big government too; Big government melded with big business and given massive police powers. Lefties would build a big socialist world, not a world where every benefit is afforded the capitalists first.

I don't think our current fix is a conspiracy of the Right, or of the Left. I don't think it has any direction at all. I think it's a conspiracy of dunces. My philosophy is to let the natural forest fire burn out and create space for new life, not to prop up the weak. By propping up the weak, you're just asking for a much greater conflagration down the road.

Bob
02-05-2009, 04:56 PM
How was Clinton to know that an inept boob would follow him as
president and totally screw up the economy? The economy was
booming at the time, why not try to get people into their own
homes?

Here is where you are wrong -- of course we should try to get them into homes ... but it is in the how that has created much of this.

But teh poisonous seeds were planted, and took time for the cancer to grow. In hindsight "helping" by demanding banks lower standards was an unethical choice, it screwed those getting into homes, invited speculators into the game of flipping homes for profit, and was one big factor in crippling the entire economy...

Taco John
02-05-2009, 04:58 PM
Bob, what you are seeing right now is not a Leftist plot to take over America, it's the fruits of the neocon heaven you, and a whole bunch of rightards, voted for.




You understand, don't you, that Neocons are actually leftist former Marxists who didn't think that the Democrats were nearly militant enough for their liking?

Bob
02-05-2009, 05:00 PM
Huh?

Ever heard of economic cycles? Bubbles?

Clinton/Greenspan CREATED these bubbles. They popped during the Bush era.

Bush only helped contribute to them by not stepping in and stopping the SEC from allowing banks to over-leverage. Some might argue that Chris Cox is the real culprit with regards to the furthering of the problems created during the Clinton era, but Bush was just as culpable as Clinton for not stepping in.

Honesty, do you understand what's happened here or do you just want to call Bush a poo-poo face? Isn't there some kind of kiddie forum for this ****?

I'm no fan of Bush, but your head is up your ass if you think this is a Republican or Democrat issue. That thinking is half the reason we're in this mess.

Bush started down the track of averting the tech bubble by lowering interest rates, and when the housing bubble began to pop, and we starting seeing a credit crunch, he would not let the needed pain come, so he started bailing everyone out -- each time government intervention, created "unitended " problems.

Taco John
02-05-2009, 05:00 PM
A Leftist position would be to let all the fat cats fail and then use government resources to prop up those at the bottom who are hurt by the failure of the greedmeisters at the top.

Absolutely wrong. That might be what you'd *like* to see. But that confuses the issue of what is leftist and what you'd like to see.

Rohirrim
02-05-2009, 05:33 PM
So, we measure in burden, not personal responsibility? At what point does that end?

Please explain the rationale of those making more being punished for doing so.

What about the notion of actually addressing that burden, instead of just letting it run rampant and expecting those who are constructive enough to earn a good wage to be saddled with it?



Most of us do, particularly those of us who have been punished for doing exactly what our system is set up for. (Moving up the pay-scale in a capitalist system.)




So taking more money away from people will lead to the creation of more revenues?

I understand what you're saying... we had an abundance of cash coming into the government machine from a small percentage of earners, and that changed.

My point is simply that this over-taxation should have never existed in the first place. So, we fundamentally disagree, there.

I've never been able to understand the desire to have the government punish achievement and limit personal liberties. It always kills me to hear people get so upset about the Homeland Security Act, and yet those same people call for their neighbor to have the government take away half of their income because they make more than they do.

Seems like you either want the government all up in your ****, or you don't.

Personally, I don't.

This is my argument for progressive taxation: It is the least offensive way to create economic stability in a society without resorting to political extremes and class struggle. Basically, you put a cap on wealth and a cap on poverty. Progressive taxation creates stability.

Popps
02-05-2009, 05:34 PM
Bush started down the track of averting the tech bubble by lowering interest rates

Yea, only the tech bubble started in 1995, along with Greenspan's policy of low interest rates.

Again, if you want to be involved, here... you have to at least know what you're talking about. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but you're the only one here that simply can't get any facts correct.

I don't disagree with you, you're just simply incorrect. Factually incorrect.

he would not let the needed pain come, so he started bailing everyone out -- each time government intervention, created "unitended " problems.

First off, the bailouts are a very recent phenomenon. They had nothing to do with the root of the problems. I'm not personally a fan of the way the first bailout went down... and Obama's isn't sounding much better.

Bailouts didn't CAUSE these problems. A couple decades of unchecked capitalism did. No morning-after pill is going to make this go away.

As for Republicans not wanting to let anyone "take their pain," go ahead and check out what our Democrats are doing right now.... using words like "catastrophe" to incite panic in Americans so we fall for another ill-conceived bailout.

Once again, the simple lesson here is... if you think one party is causing this, you simply aren't paying attention.

Rohirrim
02-05-2009, 05:40 PM
You understand, don't you, that Neocons are actually leftist former Marxists who didn't think that the Democrats were nearly militant enough for their liking?

I knew ***uyama was.

Rohirrim
02-05-2009, 05:42 PM
Absolutely wrong. That might be what you'd *like* to see. But that confuses the issue of what is leftist and what you'd like to see.

No. I think that would be the Leftist position: Support labor and the salary worker first. Maybe you have a different definition of "left" that I'm not aware of?

Popps
02-05-2009, 05:44 PM
This is my argument for progressive taxation: It is the least offensive way to create economic stability in a society without resorting to political extremes and class struggle. Basically, you put a cap on wealth and a cap on poverty. Progressive taxation creates stability.

As much as I'd love a flat tax, I know it'll never happen.

So, the lesser evil would be a properly constructed progressive tax... but with significantly LESS pressure on the tax-payer and MORE pressure on government to clean up it's big, sloppy machine.

Businesses need incentives to grow and hire people. I just watched a colleague of mine close 3 of his 5 stores in his chain. He just had to put a bunch of people out of work, and he's now weighing whether or not to close the other two stores. Raising his operating expenses will just seal the deal.... and more people will be without jobs, and hence have no money to spend... and hence create less jobs.

It's a microcosm of what's going on out there.

You can't simply keep taking from people or eventually, there's nothing left. People hoard their money, businesses don't expand and people don't hire.

Then what are you going to tax... unemployment?

C'mon, man. Supply-side economics isn't without flaws, but no system is. If checks and balances would have been in place, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The economy would have grown at a slower, but sustainable pace and we wouldn't be having to socialize all of these aspects of our society. It's frightening.

These banks went ****ing wild and our government sat back and watched. (Dems AND Repubs.)

Now we're going to merge an inefficient government with a history of poor oversight with these banks that got us into this mess?

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson


There's only one thing that gives the American people power, and that's money. The more you take away, the more we become slaves of a sloppy, socialist government machine.

Ro, what's the one consistent theme of every third world country? Poor people controlled by vast, oppressive government power.

That's really the model you want to use?

Popps
02-05-2009, 05:51 PM
Pop Quiz:

1. If the government suddenly enacted an 80% tax on your income, would you:

A. Spend more money.
B. Hoard your money and spend less.

2. The government almost always delivers on its promises

A. True
B. False

2a. Using your true or false answer, complete the following sentence...

Trusting more of my income to the government and less to myself in return for promises made is a...

A. Good idea
B. Bad idea

3. The less money people have to spend, the better a capitalist system functions.

A. True
B. False

4. People in lower income brackets embark on more entrepreneurial activity than wealthier people.

A. True
B. False

Rohirrim
02-05-2009, 05:59 PM
As much as I'd love a flat tax, I know it'll never happen.

So, the lesser evil would be a properly constructed progressive tax... but with significantly LESS pressure on the tax-payer and MORE pressure on government to clean up it's big, sloppy machine.

Businesses need incentives to grow and hire people. I just watched a colleague of mine close 3 of his 5 stores in his chain. He just had to put a bunch of people out of work, and he's now weighing whether or not to close the other two stores. Raising his operating expenses will just seal the deal.... and more people will be without jobs, and hence have no money to spend... and hence create less jobs.

It's a microcosm of what's going on out there.

You can't simply keep taking from people or eventually, there's nothing left. People hoard their money, businesses don't expand and people don't hire.

Then what are you going to tax... unemployment?

C'mon, man. Supply-side economics isn't without flaws, but no system is. If checks and balances would have been in place, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The economy would have grown at a slower, but sustainable pace and we wouldn't be having to socialize all of these aspects of our society. It's frightening.

These banks went ****ing wild and our government sat back and watched. (Dems AND Repubs.)

Now we're going to merge an inefficient government with a history of poor oversight with these banks that got us into this mess?

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson


There's only one thing that gives the American people power, and that's money. The more you take away, the more we become slaves of a sloppy, socialist government machine.

Ro, what's the one consistent theme of every third world country? Poor people controlled by vast, oppressive government power.

That's really the model you want to use?

I agree with this post. We're ****ed. ;D

Jefferson makes a great point. Too bad he didn't tell us how to do that. Like Hamlet said, "The fault, dear Horatio lies not in our stars but in ourselves." We keep trying to build societies and governments that can protect us against greed, avarice, and all the other flaws of mankind while managing our affairs efficiently and to the benefit of us all. How long before we come up with the perfect blend? Unknown.

Popps
02-05-2009, 06:36 PM
I agree with this post. We're ****ed. ;D

Jefferson makes a great point. Too bad he didn't tell us how to do that. Like Hamlet said, "The fault, dear Horatio lies not in our stars but in ourselves." We keep trying to build societies and governments that can protect us against greed, avarice, and all the other flaws of mankind while managing our affairs efficiently and to the benefit of us all. How long before we come up with the perfect blend? Unknown.

There probably isn't one single construct that is without flaw. But, we've pretty much proven that we need them. It's human nature.

Checks and balances, man... checks and balances. They went out the ****ing window the past couple of decades.

Taco John
02-05-2009, 08:29 PM
I knew ***uyama was.


Marxism is the foundation of Neoconservativism. Just read about the "father of Neoconservativism," Irving Kristol, who admits to being every type of leftist that you can imagine.

Kristol suggests of himself (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Irving-Kristol), "Ever since I can remember, I've been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I'm going to end up a neo-that's all, neo dash nothing."

What most modern liberals don't seem to understand is that Woodrow Wilson liberalism infected the Republican party. They duped Republicans into a liberal foriegn policy agenda, masquerading it as conservativism. And the dopes bought it hook, line, and sinker because nobody knows what Republicanism even means anymore. Lincoln sent the entire concept of Republicanism out to pature, and Teddy Roosevelt crushed any life that was left in it with his progressivist "National Greatness Conservativism." Nobody has known what it means to be a Republican ever since - and so the movement gets drug around by its nose by whatever emotional clarion call gets trumpeted by whoever is looking to fill the power vaccuum this time around.

Recently, it was the Kristol band selling their brand of liberalism as "neo-conservativism." There was nothing conservative about it. It was just a marketing ploy that they used to sell their ideas - which amount to the liberal use of the military to force American dominance around the world. Basically the same liberal vision that Teddy (father of progressivism) Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson had for America that led to WWI and WWII.

At the end of the day, George Bush actually advanced liberal causes more than any Democrat president ever could have done in the light of day.

Taco John
02-05-2009, 08:40 PM
No. I think that would be the Leftist position: Support labor and the salary worker first. Maybe you have a different definition of "left" that I'm not aware of?

Government ownership of industry is a leftist idea. That's what this bailout is about. Rather than letting them fail the government involves the people's money. Now the government has a lever to control these industries because once government involves taxpayer dollars into the solution, they have an obligation for oversight (though the whole notion is unconstitutional). On the face, you can say "oh, it's just the rich helping the rich." But that's just the surface level. The truth is much deeper and more insidious. It's starts with government setting salary levels of executives - but it sure as hell doesn't end there.

The "right-leaning" idea would be to let them fail, and let the market revolutionize itself.

Willynowei
02-05-2009, 09:43 PM
This economic collapse is much too complex, and frankly incomprehensible at this moment to be blamed on any one party or any single sector, be it public or private.

So many issues have become obvious, many that are still under debate, including, but not limited to under-regulated derivative trading, lack of shareholder oversight, lack of government oversight, lack of corporate and government accountability, speculation - in both finance and housing - the economy's two largest industries. Lack of regulation on grading agencies, inefficient tax structures, pork filled spending bills, irresponsible lending, irresponsible borrowing, creative packaging of just about everything into a publically, or actively traded security.

For the classical economics supporters that want to let the banks fail - look at Iceland; complete economic collapse.

For Keynesian economics supporters - just about every major, prominent economist estimates U.S. production capacities to be in the range of 1 trillion dollars more than current levels. With a 1.5x GDP multiplier, the magical number is $650 Billion. Which means, from a purely theoretical model, the government should spend $650 billion to make up for the excessive consumer savings in this recessionary period.

However, since spending the last 3/4rters of a trillion dollars, $850 trillion if you count the merger clause; we've had zero positive response. The TARP, filled with a laundry list of demands from politicians of all places - each with their agenda has already been considered a failure because of the favoritism it exhibited in the selection of which banks to save and how to save them. And the worst part is, the negative side effects of excessive government spending are often delayed and can lead to extensive downward pressure on the dollar, causing hyper inflation in the successive recovery (if there is one).

Monetary economic theories have also failed since the reduction of the Fed rate to 0%. Anything further - such as bailing out home owners entirely or insuring our entire banking system could also lead to hyper inflation and an irrecoverable amount of debt.

What is important to understand is the interdependencies of global economies. As the U.S. economy shrunk at an annually adjusted rate of over 3% this quarter, our trade deficit shrunk by some 20%. Conversley, as we recover, much of our growth will be exported; and that is why excessive government spending is such a scary concept. For a microcosm of this, just look at the superbowl. It is supposed to create a economic boom wherever it goes, but the spending of the host city almost always guarantees the opposite - it shrinks the local economy by exporting its savings to the NFL, which then redistributes them in the form of players salaries and further investment in the other 49 states. Borrowing from the world to fuel the economies of the same countries that feed our consumerism does not sound like such an appealing option, even though it may be the only option.

All in all, the promise of the worlds most prominent governments to insure the troubled securities of their largest banks was the only thing that got LIBOR to stabilize.

So atleast one thing is for sure - the best thing government can do in times of uncertainty is to provide stability. Which ever direction our government goes, its transparency, more than its decisions may be the ultimate decider of our economy's fate.

Bob
02-05-2009, 10:41 PM
Yea, only the tech bubble started in 1995, along with Greenspan's policy of low interest rates.

Again, if you want to be involved, here... you have to at least know what you're talking about. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but you're the only one here that simply can't get any facts correct.


I don't disagree with you, you're just simply incorrect. Factually incorrect.



First off, the bailouts are a very recent phenomenon. They had nothing to do with the root of the problems. I'm not personally a fan of the way the first bailout went down... and Obama's isn't sounding much better.

Bailouts didn't CAUSE these problems. A couple decades of unchecked capitalism did. No morning-after pill is going to make this go away.

As for Republicans not wanting to let anyone "take their pain," go ahead and check out what our Democrats are doing right now.... using words like "catastrophe" to incite panic in Americans so we fall for another ill-conceived bailout.

Once again, the simple lesson here is... if you think one party is causing this, you simply aren't paying attention.

I should have been more clear...I was thinking about the tech bubble popping, not the buildup. The facts I represent can be backed up in several sources. Yes, the huge gains in the tech stocks was indeed the building of a bubble, and started long before Bush came on the scene -- I dont think that has been my main point. When the natural correction occured -- when things popped (2000, 2001 -- did we lower interest rates, I honestly thought we did. If I'm wrong on that -- fine, but at first they tried raising, and after the popp did we not lower interest rates, and after 911 keep them too low for too long? Here are several references, (I could quickly get) that back up exactly what I have been saying:

The bailiouts reflect the on-going feeling that government can tweak, and get us out of corrections -- I think they more often create worse problems.

"Several economists have argued that the stock market crash, especially in the dot-com and technology sectors, in 2000 and the subsequent 70% (or so) drop of the NASDAQ composite index resulted in many people taking their money out of the stock market and purchasing real estate, which many believed to be a more reliable investment.[23][46][47] Yale economist Robert Shiller argued further that "irrational exuberance" was displaced from the fallen stock market to housing: "Once stocks fell, real estate became the primary outlet for the speculative frenzy that the stock market had" unleashed."[48]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nasdaq2.png
Over 1999 and early 2000, the Federal Reserve had increased interest rates six times[citation needed], and the runaway economy was beginning to lose speed. The dot-com bubble burst, numerically, on March 10, 2000, when the technology heavy NASDAQ Composite index[7] peaked at 5,048.62 (intra-day peak 5,132.52), more than double its value just a year before. The NASDAQ fell slightly after that, but this was attributed to correction by most market analysts; the actual reversal and subsequent bear market may have been triggered by the adverse findings of fact in the United States v. Microsoft case which was being heard in federal court. The findings, which declared Microsoft a monopoly, were widely expected in the weeks before their release on April 3.
One possible cause for the collapse of the NASDAQ (and all dotcoms) was massive, multi-billion dollar sell orders for major bellwether high tech stocks (Cisco, IBM, Dell, etc.) that happened by chance to be processed simultaneously on the Monday morning following the March 10 weekend. This selling resulted in the NASDAQ opening roughly four percentage points lower on Monday March 13 from 5,038 to 4,879—the greatest percentage 'pre-market' selloff for the entire year.
The massive initial batch of sell orders processed on Monday, March 13 triggered a chain reaction of selling that fed on itself as investors, funds, and institutions liquidated positions. In just six days the NASDAQ had lost nearly nine percent, falling from roughly 5,050 on March 10 to 4,580 on March 15.
By 2001 the bubble was deflating at full speed. A majority of the dot-coms ceased trading after burning through their venture capital, many having never made a net profit. Investors often jokingly referred to these failed dot-coms as either "dot-bombs" or "dot-compost".
The dot-com bubble crash wiped out $5 trillion in market value of technology companies from March 2000 to October 2002.[12]

Spider
02-05-2009, 10:48 PM
First off, the bailouts are a very recent phenomenon. They had nothing to do with the root of the problems. I'm not personally a fan of the way the first bailout went down... and Obama's isn't sounding much better.


define recent ......

Popps
02-05-2009, 11:06 PM
define recent ......

I think in the context of the conversation, we're talking about TARP.... on forward.

Taco John
02-06-2009, 01:15 AM
For Keynesian economics supporters...


I don't believe there's actually such a thing. I think some people just accept the status quo because it's the status quo. Hard for me to believe that there's anyone out in message board suburbia who is a bonafide "Keynesian economic supporter."

Obushma
02-06-2009, 01:53 AM
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement on Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act
February 3, 2009
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/AbolishtheFed.shtml


Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the current economic crisis caused by the housing bubble, every economic downturn suffered by this country over the past century can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of special interests and their own appetite for big government.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true freemarket economy.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.


This would be the best thing for our country at this point. As long as the money is controled by the Fed, our economy is doomed.