Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On this day, let us all be proud of America
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 241 of 280 (498844)
02-14-2009 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Modulous
02-13-2009 8:50 AM


Modulous writes:
And I feel that if the economy had been doing really well, we'd be hearing people telling us that they feel that "Bush's policies" have lead to prosperity and economic wonders.
That's just it. According to the benchmarks, the economy was doing really well for 7 years of his administration. He never got credit for it. Then the price of oil went up, and materials, everything came crashing down. Bush had nothing to do with it. Then people will bark about spending on the war. Like one trillion, but all that money went back into the market place, and salaries for Americans. In the stroke of the pen, twice now in 4 months, will spend twice that. We are spending money on ourselves, paid for, ourselves. It's so stupid. Let's go into debt to get out of debt. It's clearly not the answer.
And you also feel that the policies of Bush (or those in his administration) have had nothing to do with lowering regulation of certain businesses that hold the future of Americans in the balance of their success? Do you feel that anything Bush might have done might have had an impact on unstable oil prices?
I don't know who is exactly responsible for regulation, or the lack thereof. But I don't feel it should be our government's responsibility to rule over everything we do. We should be responsible enough to do it on our own. But there is too much greed in the world I guess. I think certain things should be safe guarded. Like our pensions and homes we live in, should have secure futures.
Then I watch the news. I watched the "London comment" on CBS where some bitch from London was complaining about Americans wanting to buy American. She mentioned protectionism. Bitch please, walk into Toys-R-Us and 99% of the product is from China. Give me a break, can't we at least make half the shit we sell, here?
Yea American news is propaganda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Modulous, posted 02-13-2009 8:50 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by kuresu, posted 02-14-2009 8:59 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 248 by fallacycop, posted 02-15-2009 2:00 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 249 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2009 10:29 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 242 of 280 (498845)
02-14-2009 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Chiroptera
02-13-2009 10:43 AM


Chiroptera writes:
Okay, you see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I have no idea what you actually saw and so it is difficult to even begin to know how to respond.
Well I mentioned the exact interview. That should be factual enough.
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
There is a small clip near the bottom of the page, but that doesn't show the two about to make out.
She does mention transformation as a goal for the bill, and that is exactly what republicans fear, that is is mostly just that, to transform America into the hidden agenda of people like Bam-o.
I can't see how he's going to give us all these tax break's he promised, yet spend spend spend. Then telling us how we should conduct and do things, as well as the gov orgs like the cspc, keeping us safe from ourselves, I don't feel free. In the swoop of a pen, the cspc killed the entire youth ATV market.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Chiroptera, posted 02-13-2009 10:43 AM Chiroptera has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 243 of 280 (498846)
02-14-2009 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by riVeRraT
02-14-2009 8:46 AM


That's just it. According to the benchmarks, the economy was doing really well for 7 years of his administration
Demonstrably false. All the economic growth we experienced was essentially false, based on the housing bubble. Incomes did not grow (we have been poorer than we were in 2000 for some time now). Job growth was anemic, when it did grow. Look through the data on nber.org. Bush's economy just blows, quite frankly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by riVeRraT, posted 02-14-2009 8:46 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2009 11:11 PM kuresu has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 280 (498880)
02-14-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by riVeRraT
02-11-2009 11:47 PM


Critiquing Obama's Policies
riVeRraT writes:
Dude, I am proud. I am proud that this country is capable of doing what it just did. I am glad that this is a milestone step in removing racism. I feel good now knowing that people like Al Sharpton stepped up to the plate and said, "now a black man has no excuse". I am happy for all black people, and hope that they take the spirit of what happened, and move forward, as well as white people, and all in between.
I am not happy that Obama is president, because of who he is, not what he is. I hope he does well for this country. One thing for sure is that the liberal kiss-ass media well never portray him as being wrong. Obama can do no wrong, mark my words. It's an Obamanation.
Hi RR. Nice to have you active again. I hope your health is better than when we last heard from you. I see you haven't guzzled down the Obamanade.
Careful, my friend. Here the Obamanistas consider anyone racist and bigoted who say anything derogatory about Obama's ambitions or actions.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by riVeRraT, posted 02-11-2009 11:47 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by kuresu, posted 02-14-2009 7:54 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 246 by Shield, posted 02-14-2009 8:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 245 of 280 (498883)
02-14-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Buzsaw
02-14-2009 6:11 PM


Re: Critiquing Obama's Policies
Careful, my friend. Here the Obamanistas consider anyone racist and bigoted who say anything derogatory about Obama's ambitions or actions.
What? Do you think before you type? You're not making any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Buzsaw, posted 02-14-2009 6:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Buzsaw, posted 02-14-2009 11:33 PM kuresu has not replied

Shield
Member (Idle past 2862 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 246 of 280 (498885)
02-14-2009 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Buzsaw
02-14-2009 6:11 PM


Re: Critiquing Obama's Policies
Hi Buz.
Buz writes:
Careful, my friend. Here the Obamanistas consider anyone racist and bigoted who say anything derogatory about Obama's ambitions or actions.
Would care documenting that with at few examples?
Edited by rbp, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Buzsaw, posted 02-14-2009 6:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 280 (498891)
02-14-2009 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by kuresu
02-14-2009 7:54 PM


Re: Critiquing Obama's Policies
kuresu writes:
What? Do you think before you type? You're not making any sense.
I'm referring to the Obamanistas. They know who they are and so do I. They're the ones who regard me as racist and bigot for citing Obama's ambitions and record as reasons for not celebrating his victory.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by kuresu, posted 02-14-2009 7:54 PM kuresu has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 248 of 280 (498894)
02-15-2009 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by riVeRraT
02-14-2009 8:46 AM


That's just it. According to the benchmarks, the economy was doing really well for 7 years of his administration.
You must have been living in a different planet.
Then people will bark about spending on the war. Like one trillion, but all that money went back into the market place, and salaries for Americans.
Not true either. Once a bomb explodes, all it lieves behind is a hole on the ground. That's money down the drain.
We are spending money on ourselves, paid for, ourselves. It's so stupid. Let's go into debt to get out of debt. It's clearly not the answer.
And yet, all the economists (across the political spectrum) agree that that is the right thing to do. So stupid they are...
I don't know who is exactly responsible for regulation, or the lack thereof. But I don't feel it should be our government's responsibility to rule over everything we do. We should be responsible enough to do it on our own. But there is too much greed in the world I guess. I think certain things should be safe guarded. Like our pensions and homes we live in, should have secure futures.
Exactly. I think you could think like a liberal if you tried.
Edited by fallacycop, : fix quote box

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by riVeRraT, posted 02-14-2009 8:46 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 249 of 280 (498925)
02-15-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by riVeRraT
02-14-2009 8:46 AM


And I feel that if the economy had been doing really well, we'd be hearing people telling us that they feel that "Bush's policies" have lead to prosperity and economic wonders.
That's just it. According to the benchmarks, the economy was doing really well for 7 years of his administration. He never got credit for it.
I guess this confirms my feeling. You give him credit when things are going well - but deny his responsibility if he has created a bursting bubble rather than a stable economy.
I don't know who is exactly responsible for regulation, or the lack thereof. But I don't feel it should be our government's responsibility to rule over everything we do.
The government is responsible for regulation. You either feel there should be regulation or you don't. Which is it? You had regulation of the banking industry. The previous administration reduced that regulation. This lead to short term prosperity, but introduced instability. It was a risky decision that could have made everyone rich, but was more likely to lead to bubbles that would burst.
Either you give credit for the successes and accept responsibility for failures of that policy to Bush et al, or you say that both prosperity and crash were unrelated to Bush et al. You don't get to eat and have your cake on this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by riVeRraT, posted 02-14-2009 8:46 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2009 7:06 AM Modulous has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 250 of 280 (499048)
02-16-2009 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Modulous
02-15-2009 10:29 AM


modulous writes:
I guess this confirms my feeling. You give him credit when things are going well - but deny his responsibility if he has created a bursting bubble rather than a stable economy.I guess this confirms my feeling. You give him credit when things are going well - but deny his responsibility if he has created a bursting bubble rather than a stable economy.
I am not giving him credit. That was my point.
Either you give credit for the successes and accept responsibility for failures of that policy to Bush et al, or you say that both prosperity and crash were unrelated to Bush et al. You don't get to eat and have your cake on this one.
I am in now way praising Bush. I think he is a blabbering idiot. I have heard that he is actually really smart, I have no way of confirming this. I do believe he made decision to the best of his ability, based on the intel he had, with America's best intentions in mind.
Republicans think that what happened with the banking is natural, and it will correct itself. I'm not so sure. Like I said, people are too greedy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2009 10:29 AM Modulous has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 251 of 280 (499157)
02-16-2009 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by kuresu
02-14-2009 8:59 AM


kuresu writes:
Bush's economy just blows, quite frankly.
So now when you say "Bush's policy" just what exactly is that, and can you prove that it was one man's decision, or multiple decisions that caused or recession? I need you to answer this question, as I still haven't heard one reasonable explanation of how one man could be responsible for so much. I haven't heard it from Obama, the liberal media or any other source. About the only thing I have heard is "the war". We just spent twice that in the past 6 months. Remember, the war coat us, but who did we spend it on? In principal, isn't similar to a stimulus package?
I am tired of the liberal media, Obama, and people like you just blurting out titles like "Bush's policies". The fate of a nation does not lie in the hands of one person, that's the way our government is set up. Or the fate of a world economy.
I see our current situation as being one that has been building since 1950 with "household credit." The amount of household credit has gone up steadily since 1950, and exponentially in the last few years. It's time to pay up what's owed. Spending more of our money, does not seem like a good answer to me, and many other people as well. It was foolish loans, and spending by the banks that caused them to crash, haven't we learned anything from them? How to we come up with 800billion when we have trillions in debt already?
Not only that, most of the world's economy is doing bad as well. And this is all because of Bush. I think you guys him more credit than what is due. I heard today from a Christian radio station, the leader of Crown ministries in the UK said that the UK is on the brink of financial collapse. and that the world as a whole is not doing well. The news also reports of stocks crashing around the world.
I believe it totally revolves around the huge credit, debt, cost of gas, cost of materials, and the greed of people who sell their houses (as well as the people buy them for ridiculous prices) that caused all this. This is a correction, and that's all it is, but it is a huge one, and many businesses are going to suffer.
But never fear, Obama Hood is here!
Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by kuresu, posted 02-14-2009 8:59 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by dronestar, posted 02-17-2009 1:45 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 253 by kuresu, posted 02-17-2009 2:30 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 254 by Rahvin, posted 02-17-2009 3:32 PM riVeRraT has replied

dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 252 of 280 (499224)
02-17-2009 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by riVeRraT
02-16-2009 11:11 PM


sigh . . .
riVeRraT,
1. Bush started the Iraq war based on lies.
2. The Iraq war will end up costing TRILLIONS of dollars.
Why doesn't the "liberal" media harp on these two facts?
Why do you think wasting a few trillion dollars has no effect on the US's economy?

Cogito, ergo Deus non est

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2009 11:11 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2009 6:49 PM dronestar has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 253 of 280 (499226)
02-17-2009 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by riVeRraT
02-16-2009 11:11 PM


So now when you say "Bush's policy" just what exactly is that, and can you prove that it was one man's decision, or multiple decisions that caused or recession? I need you to answer this question, as I still haven't heard one reasonable explanation of how one man could be responsible for so much
He was the man in charge. He was the "decider". As Truman said, "the buck stops here". Ultimately he will take the blame or credit for the events of his administration. This is true of every administration. Or are you suggesting that the captain of the football team isn't responsible for the failure of his team?
In principal, isn't {war funding/spending} similar to a stimulus package?
It can be, yes. WWII is the oft-cited example. But WWII is an unusual, extreme case. We did not slide back into a recession or depression afterwords because of the relative elimination of private debt (it shrank to roughly 50% of GDP, which meant once the rationing was lifted we could spend the money we had saved).
But war is not an effective stimulus overall. It is ultimately destroys what it creates. What good is that bomb after the war? What good is that school after the war? What good is a tank after the war? What good is the hospital after the war?
To ensure future growth, the stimulus has to invest. A large part of the current stimulus is a stop-gap measure designed to prevent or at least ameliorate a hell of a lot of suffering. And increasing money for food stamps provides more bang for the buck than spending that money on weapons acquisition. After that, the stimulus is an attempt at investing in our future, something we've put off for far too long.
How to we come up with 800billion when we have trillions in debt already?
For some silly reason, and you better hope this holds true, investors around the world like to buy US debt. It's the best rated debt in the world, which means we can borrow cheaply (which, of course, is precisely how we borrowed the money that doubled are national debt and why it hasn't destroyed us). So while the world is crashing, people want to find a safe place for their money . . .and US debt is just the mattress they're looking for.
This is a correction, and that's all it is, but it is a huge one, and many businesses are going to suffer.
As are tens of millions of people. If we do absolutely nothing, this correction will go on until we have a spontaneous recovery, which is dependent upon a backlog of desired capital stock is created. Krugman explains it very well (Slumps and spontaneous remission (wonkish) - The New York Times). Personally, I'd rather we not wait for such a recovery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2009 11:11 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 254 of 280 (499231)
02-17-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by riVeRraT
02-16-2009 11:11 PM


So now when you say "Bush's policy" just what exactly is that, and can you prove that it was one man's decision, or multiple decisions that caused or recession?
"Bush's policy" in this context typically refers to multiple policies of the Bush adminsitration, many of which were simply continuations of policies established by previous presidents, along woth others that were unique to Bush.
Honestly, Bush has received a great deal of teh credit for the economic disaster simply because it happened on his watch. He's not solely responsible, but he did little or nothing to prevent it, and his policies (whether of his invention or simply continued from other administratios) actively made the problem worse. As another President once said, "the buck stops here."
I need you to answer this question, as I still haven't heard one reasonable explanation of how one man could be responsible for so much. I haven't heard it from Obama, the liberal media or any other source. About the only thing I have heard is "the war". We just spent twice that in the past 6 months. Remember, the war coat us, but who did we spend it on? In principal, isn't similar to a stimulus package?
The money spent on the also had the effect of draining the public coffers and turining the federal surplus that Bush started with into the largest deficit the nation has ever seen. This is obviously not entirely Bush's fault, as it required Congress as well, but Bush and his administraton were the ones pushing for the war in the first place.
This massive federal debt was spent on an unnecessary war, when it would have been more useful now as part of genuine economic stimulus plans. Bush's administration promoted tax cuts during a time of war, an completely unprecidented and wholly stupid position.
While a significant portion of the war money was spent on American companies for the manufacture of weapons and the reconstruction of Iraq, those expenditures do not happen in a vaccuum. When building a weapon, for example, there is profit involved, but the manufacturer must also use a significant portion of the purhase price for materials, labor, and research - not all of which is spent in the US. If 80% of the materials used in teh construction of a $5 million military plane are imported, claiming that the $5 million used in the plane's construction remained in the American economy is inaccurate at best and dishonest at worst. Clearly I pulled the specific numbers from nowhere, but the point remains.
Further, we got nothing for our money, as opposed to infrastructure spending which would have spent money in return for goods and services of lasting value. It's far less effective economically to spend $1 on a bomb to blow up a bridge in Iraq than to spend that $1 on maintaining a bridge in the US so that it doesn't collapse and cause further economic harm.
I am tired of the liberal media, Obama, and people like you just blurting out titles like "Bush's policies". The fate of a nation does not lie in the hands of one person, that's the way our government is set up. Or the fate of a world economy.
The media is not liberal. It's just not as far right on average as Fox News. America doesn't have much of a liberal presence compared to other nations; our Democrats, including Obama, are far more comparable to the conservative parties of nations like Canada.
But I understand why you'd take exception to blaming everything on Bush - he wasn't solely responsible for the economic meltdown. Unfortunately, the media is forced to condense all of their news (often including extremely complex stories like the causes behind the economic crisis) into not only an allotted timeframe, but also into something the average person can understand without advanced degrees in the subject matter. Politicians have the same problems, but more so, becasue the responses we hear from them are typically small soundbytes, not full reports.
As I said, Bush gets a lot of blame because it happened on his watch, and he did little or nothing to prevent it while several of his policies had an exacerbating effect. While the actual causes go far beyond Bush, he's become something of a poster child for the crisis because of the actions he took (and those he did not take) that contrbuted.
I see our current situation as being one that has been building since 1950 with "household credit." The amount of household credit has gone up steadily since 1950, and exponentially in the last few years. It's time to pay up what's owed.
This is very true. Household debt has increased significantly, and while not all debt is "bad," in more recent years it's spiraled out of control.
Taking a loan for a house (when one has the ability to pay off the loan) is not "bad debt." In most cases it can be an investment where eventually the payoff will be larger than the interest you pay on the mortgage (the exception obviously being overpriced housing markets).
Taking a loan you have no ability to pay off while planning to take out a new loan against an assumed but not guaranteed higher home value in the future is "bad debt." This is one of the root causes of the crisis. In many cases mortgage companies broke laws to give out loans to people who had no ability to repay them. But many of the loans shouldn't have been legal at all - "interest only" loans, for example.
A lack of regulation and oversight of the mortgage industry allowed people to accumulate huge amounts of debt they would never be able to repay. Bush's adminsitration bears some of the responsibility for allowing these to continue - many people knew that this was a problem, and as President it was Bush's responsibility to make regulation and oversight a priority. He is, after all, the head of teh Executive branch, the branch of our government responsible for the enforcement of our laws. His Justice Department should have aggressively attacked fraudulent lenders who fudged applications for unqualified borrowers. He should have petitioned Congress for better regulation of the industry in his State of teh Union address instead of ranting about a ridiculous "axis of evil."
This was just the first point at which intervention was possible. There were many others. Even teh FBI noted that trends in teh mortgage industry were becoming dangerous:
quote:
"We knew that the mortgage-brokerage industry was corrupt," the first of the retired FBI officials told the Seattle P-I. "Where we would have gotten a sense of what was really going on was the point where the mortgage was sold knowing that it was a piece of dung and it would be turned into a security. But the agents with the expertise had been diverted to counterterrorism."
From here.
The disproportionate fear of terrorism after Sept. 11 caused Bush's adminsitration to ignore a serious threat to the US - one that actually threatens the existence of the nation as opposed to a collection of mass-murderers who have no ability to actually topple our way of life.
Spending more of our money, does not seem like a good answer to me, and many other people as well. It was foolish loans, and spending by the banks that caused them to crash, haven't we learned anything from them? How to we come up with 800billion when we have trillions in debt already?
Not all of the responses to the crisis have been very effective so far, and in many cases we won't know if they were effective for months or longer. But in very general terms, government spending is a valid way to combat an economic crisis.
Take the example of the Great Depression. The current crisis doesn't follow quite the same pattern, but some lessons are stillv alid. Letting all of the banks close certainly didn't work well, for example. Trade protectionism made the depression worse and last longer. Government inaction simply allowed people to starve.
We finally found our feet again when the US government started spending and developing new programs to actually combat the problems. FDR's first order of business was to get the banks open again - and regulate them so that only solvent banks could re-open. Massive amounts of money were spent on public works projects, much like the recently-passed stimulus package intends to do, to give jobs to the unemployed in exchange for lasting infrastructure improvements. The New Deal also gave us Socuial Security and other programs to help people who were suffering at the moment. This is parallelled by increasing available money for unemployment benefits, food stamp programs, and others that will help the poor actualy survive the hard times.
Numerous studies have shown that federal stimulus spending is an investment. For every $1 we spend on infrastructure and other programs, we get around $1.50 of economic stimulus. Tax cuts, by comparison, give around $.75 for every $1 of reduced tax.
Spending more of "our money" is actually a good thing if done appropriately, and can return on the investment by restabilizing the economy so that long-term growth can resume.
Not only that, most of the world's economy is doing bad as well. And this is all because of Bush. I think you guys him more credit than what is due. I heard today from a Christian radio station, the leader of Crown ministries in the UK said that the UK is on the brink of financial collapse. and that the world as a whole is not doing well. The news also reports of stocks crashing around the world.
Many of the world's economic problems have actually been caused by the near-collapse of the American economy. We're the largest economic force int he world. California alone is 8th. A great deal of the global economy is tied up in American investments and exports to the US. What happens when the world's larges consumer nation can't afford to consume any longer?
What we're seeing now is a massive domino effect, and at various points in the chain where it could be stopped, policies are put in place to make it worse. If Bush can be credited with a great deal of the American collapse, he can be credited with the global ramifications as well.
I believe it totally revolves around the huge credit, debt, cost of gas, cost of materials, and the greed of people who sell their houses (as well as the people buy them for ridiculous prices) that caused all this. This is a correction, and that's all it is, but it is a huge one, and many businesses are going to suffer.
The problem is that businesses are not all that suffers. In clinical terms, an economic correction of this magnitude is not necessarily "bad" becasue it can put the economy back into equilibrium and allow the development of new laws and regulations to prevent the illusory economic growth that required the correction in the first place, allowing more stable growth in the future.
Unfortunately, that's the "social Darwinism" perspective, and there's more to it than businesses and money. Human suffering is what actually needs to be reduced, because economic upheavals like this cause suffering on a massive scale. The fall itself may be "good" for the economy in the long term, but we need to pad the fall so that we can retain as much stability as possible. Otherwise, people die. What happens to an unemployed person who runs out of benefits but still cannot find work because half of the businesses in their city are gone?
The best and only real game plan is to create jobs and help those who need it most to survive through the hard times so that we can recover and begin the process of making sure that this doesn't happen again.
But never fear, Obama Hood is here!
Ah, a tiny reference to wealth redistribution in the form of mockery.
But guess what? Rich people aren't suffering. They aren't in jeopardy of starvation. Who suffers, not just a loss of money, but actually suffers during an economic collapse?
Average people. The middle class and the poor. The people whose blood, sweat, and tears allows the wealthy to continue to live in excess and priviledge. People who cannot afford their own healthcare, who literally cannot survive being laid off without public assistance, people who have to choose between gas money and food instead of choosing to rent out their private jet.
Personal profit is not as important as reducing human suffering. CEOs do not deserve multimillion-dollar golden parachutes paid for by public bailout funds. The nation functions as a cohesive society, and we all sign the social contract by participating in and reaping the benefits of that society. No wealth is made in a vacuum. This isn't a matter of "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor." This is a matter of paying for those very benefits of society that the wealthy have used to prosper, by giving other members of society those same benefits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2009 11:11 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by riVeRraT, posted 02-18-2009 10:47 AM Rahvin has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 255 of 280 (499241)
02-17-2009 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by dronestar
02-17-2009 1:45 PM


Re: sigh . . .
dronestar writes:
riVeRraT,
1. Bush started the Iraq war based on lies.
2. The Iraq war will end up costing TRILLIONS of dollars.
Why doesn't the "liberal" media harp on these two facts?
Why do you think wasting a few trillion dollars has no effect on the US's economy?
Um the war did not cost trillions. Not even one trillion. The last 2 bills sign in office, from Bush, and now Obama, are both each more than the entire Iraq war.
The money spent on the war went where? Back into our economy, just like a stimulus package. War is good business, it is a known fact.
The only thing we can't put a price tag on is the lives of those lost.
Bush did not start the war based on lies, there was mis-information about WMD, which was proven that Suddam was going to start manufacturing again, after the embargo was lifted.
Yes, wasting money, has an affect on our economy, our taxes.
It's dumb logic to me. It's like if you were down to your last 5 bucks, and someone walked up to and said, spend $10, so you can get out of debt.
Our country is in debt, we are in debt, and we just keep spending. We are not socialists, so the government is not going to make us any money.
The only branch of the government that makes money, is the one that sells military surplus. They sell weapons to our enemies, so we can stay in business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by dronestar, posted 02-17-2009 1:45 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2009 7:23 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 260 by dronestar, posted 02-18-2009 10:05 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024