Will the new administration save US?

[belial2k]

^ that is the kind of over the top, idiotic thing I'm talking about from the right. And these are the same people who cheered on Bush and Cheney while they ripped the constitution to shreds.

 

[baddad]

^ that is the kind of over the top, idiotic thing I'm talking about from the right. And these are the same people who cheered on Bush and Cheney while they ripped the constitution to shreds.

You just did the very thing you say the right of doing.

 

[deerhound]

Obama's goin to give me a house, wash my dishes, an put gas in my car! He's gonna buy me a 5870 too!

 

[belial2k]

The facts show that the Bush administration clearly broke several laws, suspended parts of the constitution, bill of rights, and Geneva Convention. Now, as a conservative you can try to argue those things were needed to keep us safe...that was the administrations claims. Of course, I don't agree. But you really can't argue the fact that the Bush administration considered all those things as something they could ignore or "rip up" when they wanted.
Please show me how Obama is a Fascist or Communist, or other than health care how any of his programs even expand the social programs we already had. And before you start on the bailouts...don't forget that was Bush's idea, was began by his administration and 90% was carried out by Bush appointees.

 

[Onus]

Mu_Engineer has it down pretty well.
It will likely get worse before it gets better. I would recommend becoming as self-reliant as possible. The less you have to spend, the less opportunity the parasites have to impose a tax on it.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Damn, you ripped me apart pretty good, you have some good points, Bush and cheney were not a dictatorship(impossible in a republic), but they did play fast and loose with the constitution,

People have been playing fast and loose with the Constitution ever since FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 after the existing nine justices kept shooting down his legislation as being unconstitutional.

and i blame that more on Cheney

Cheney kept very quiet during the Bush Administration and I think his very low profile plus Bush's speaking gaffes made some people think that Cheney was really the power behind the office because they thought Bush was too stupid to do things himself. Personally, I doubt that Cheney did much as Bush was quite opinionated and his actions fell in line with his words. That really doesn't mesh with the "Cheney working in the background to control Bush" theories.

i think Bush is at heart a decent individual who got into a bad situation, and didnt make it better, much like Obama has walked into a bad situation.

I think the two are in considerably different situations. Bush got absolutely blindsided by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which ended up being the major focus of his presidency. Obama knew full well he was heading into a soft economy and "didn't want to let the crisis go to waste," so he could try to ram through a Democrat wish list of social legislation.

The racism thing, i haven't seen Caucasians fired up and so overtly racist since OJ killed his wife.

Heh, I think you meant to say "you haven't seen the race card so overtly played since OJ killed his wife." The whole "anybody that opposes Obama is racist" idea is complete bunk. Have you actually seen people protesting Congress and the administration? I have, and I haven't seen any reference to Obama's race. You see a ton of "Don't Tread On Me" flags and a lot of signs saying things like "I'll keep my money, you can keep the change." Sure, there may be a couple of white people who are racist somewhere, but it absolutely pales in comparison to the number of people who make racist comments against whites and the number of people who drop the race card. It's actually a pretty ingenious tactic as in today's PC society as it automatically discredits any of their opponents and conveniently shuts down any debate over the actual policy.

 

[pepperman]

Because the only way the government gets money is by taking out of the hands of people via taxes, by borrowing it, or by simply printing more money. None of those are good:

1. Taxes dampen economic growth because almost all of the people that actually create jobs are people who own and run businesses. If you look at the "stimulus" packages, they essentially take money from people in taxes, take out some of it in overhead and administration, and then give it back to the businesses in the form of bailouts or government contracts. Assuming that the government contracts are directed to activities that actually result in increased economic output (such as building roads- not by giving to artists to make statues of fornicating dogs to put on an overpass), the administrative overhead that the government takes to manage the money represents lost economic output. A government paper pusher doesn't really add much to the economic output of the country since they aren't producing any sort of salable good or service.

2. Borrowing money to stimulate the economy isn't always a good idea as borrowed money accumulates interest that has to be paid back. The only way you end up ahead is if you get a rate of return on the borrowed money that exceeds the interest rate. I would say that is not the case since the government said they spent $533,000 per job created. Basically put, those employees would have to be making somewhere into the six figure range more per year for their entire career than they otherwise would have to pay back in taxes the $533,000 plus interest that the government invested in their job.

3. Printing money isn't a great idea, either. That leads to inflation that makes your citizens' savings and the debt that debtors hold less valuable than it was before. The already-ailing banks aren't going to do very well when the return on their good loans suddenly drops through the floor too.

Unchecked economic growth leads to uncontrolled inflation. What should be happening is the government taxing during periods of growth, and putting money into the system during periods of decline (basic economics, though no one seems to follow it). I never said that all the stimulus money was being well spent (it isn’t). I agree entirely that taxpayer money shouldn’t be used to make sculptures of fornicating dogs (which probably shouldn’t be placed in public locations), but not all the money is being spent that way. As for the government overhead, that is a problem with our system, not the stimulus package. We allow congress members to vote themselves raises, and increased benefits; in addition to that, they receive money from innumerable corporations, who hope the congress members will think of them when passing new laws that could potentially cost them (the corporations) more. You can’t attack the stimulus without attacking our system.
If you actually read on in your article “Stimulus Math: $533,000 Per Job Saved or Created?”, you will find that there are qualifiers to the amount. In short, it is estimated that as the contracts go on, the cost will go down to approximately $92,136 to create a job, where it would cost $145,351 in tax cuts to produce the same results.
I agree that printing money is not the answer; though it might allow us to pay back our national debt, it would ultimately leave us in a deeper recession than we already are.

Not quite. Look here:
- 2-year NASDAQ graph
- 2-year DJIA graph

Both of them look awfully similar- the big drop was in October of 2008, which is right after Obama got the DNC nomination.

Stocks have no real bearing on GDP (if anything, GDP determines the stocks, which is why we see them start to fail a couple months after the economic slump); the numbers don’t even mean anything (they only mean something if you cash them in). GDP is determined by goods and services produced. I shouldn’t need to tell you where to find that…

Adjusted dollars are a poor figure to use since our adjusted GDP is also far larger than it used to be. You should look at the deficit as a percentage of the total GDP to get a more accurate picture of what administration spent the most of the nation's economic output. Not surprisingly, the administration that had the highest spending-to-GDP ratio was FDR's. The time that Obama has been in office is a noticeable spike at the edge of that graph, while Bush's spending-to-GDP ratio isn't much different than anybody else's since about 1980. Yes, Bush spent way too much, but I never said he didn't.

By the way, I wasn’t talking about spending; spending is fine if you pay it back. I was talking about increasing the national debt. From a little research, I actually found that FDR increased the government debt by approximately 23% of the GDP where Bush increased it by 21% of the GDP; I made an error in my previous statement; I should have said that he has raised the national debt by more than all but two administration (Reagan gets third, he increased it by 19%). You may be wondering where Truman is, since he increased the debt beyond 100% of GDP; he paid it back before he left office.
From more research regarding your article about FDR, 73% of historians disagree with the contents, as well as 51% of economists, and only 23% of economists agree without any provisions. If we analyze the unemployment rates around that time, we see a slow but steady decrease from the time the New Deal was enacted, to a sharp decrease (almost to 0) around 1939. Upon further research of the article and how the UCLA researchers deduced their findings, I found that they are centering their opinions upon this 1939 decrease because several of the New Deal policies ended at that time. If we take a closer look at this however, we see that the reason for the decrease in unemployment was due to the massive increase of manufacturing jobs (military, of course) due to the impending war. In short, the research they did proves nothing. We will never know whether or not the New Deal extended the Great Depression or not, but we do know that if nothing was done, either a revolution would have occurred, or we would still be there.

...which is why we need to keep spending down to keep the money in the hands of the people that do make the jobs rather than losing a chunk of it to government overhead. Nobody's going to want to invest a bunch of money in anything except very low-risk, high-revenue/margin stuff if they fear that they will get the snot taxed out of them and have to deal with a ton of new bureaucratic red tape that may very well bankrupt them.

For this, I refer back to my previous statement, from your article; it costs approximately $92,136 to create a job, where it takes $145,351 in tax cuts to create a job. This tells us that tax cuts aren’t as effective at creating jobs.
Though I don’t agree with the harshness of that proposal, something does need to be done, however. I don’t think it’s necessary to get into a global warming discussion, but putting crap into our atmosphere is bad, regardless of whether or not it causes climate change.

Despite what college recruiters and the media would have you think, you never were guaranteed a job just because you have a degree. Part of this is that some people pursue largely unmarketable degrees, such as gender studies and 16th century Italian literature. Part of it is that many jobs don't actually need a college degree to perform. The only reason that some employers make it a "requirement" is that they want people who are slightly older and hopefully more mature than your average 18-year-old kid fresh out of high school and going out into the wide world for the first time. Also, there are a lot of jobs that you go through non-college training to do, such as any of the trades. Those jobs are typically looked down upon, which is why some people wouldn't seek them out.

Indeed, however degrees have become so commonplace that even if you have the skills, but you don’t a college degree, you probably won’t get hired. I know several people personally who have lost their jobs after 20+ years, but when they got their job, they didn’t have a degree because they didn’t need it. Today, they’re having a hard time finding a new job.

Unless you are a high-level corporate officer in that defunct company, why would it look bad? It says nothing about you if the company you work for goes under and you lost your job. You did nothing wrong, so why should it reflect badly on you?

It would be a mar on your resume, regardless of whose fault it was. You’d probably get questioned about it, and it might make the difference between getting the job or not.

Yes, and unfortunately the decision with the highest chance of a good outcome was to go and stick the debt on the government. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were backed by the government, so it was in the best interest of those groups to take on very high-risk but high-interest loans. If the loan is good, you make a ton in interest payments. If they default, you spin the loss off on the government. Either way you end up smelling like a rose. That's what happened and is why I said we rewarded foolish behavior.

As I said before, I believe that receiving the stimulus money should have required restructuring of some kind. I agree though, we did reward foolish behavior, but doing nothing would have been worse.

And notice that Obama didn't repeal it?

And actually Moore did make a film on economics.

Obama, as president, can’t repeal the Patriot Act. It has to be brought before the Supreme Court. The presidency is not a position of omnipotence; as president one is limited by the other two branches (Congress and the Supreme Court). He can’t say “I don’t like that law so I’m going to get rid of it.” In reality, he doesn’t have much power at all; all he can do is approve or disapprove what Congress approves.
Ah, thank you for the information about the film, perhaps I will have something to watch this weekend. It’s probably still in theatres though, isn’t it? I guess I can wait a couple months.

 

[pepperman]

No you have that wrong, you just described fascism, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control. What Obama is practicing is a combination of communism, socialism and fascism. I think you had better start reading other authors of history and lessoning to other professors of economic history so that you really know what the truth is.

I said “very simply put” and looking at my definition with that sense in mind, it is. If you read some “other authors of history and lessoning to other professors of economic history” (not sure what “lessoning” means) you will find that Fascism is actually based off of socialism in the economical sense, but the social sense is much different; not only does the government control businesses; it also controls speech and censorship, and in fact every other aspect of life.
By the way, according to every major “history author” truth is only a matter of perspective.

 

[pepperman]

Mu_Engineer has it down pretty well.
It will likely get worse before it gets better. I would recommend becoming as self-reliant as possible. The less you have to spend, the less opportunity the parasites have to impose a tax on it.

And the less you spend, the more the economy slumps. Unfortunately, our economy is built around consumption; it is fueled by us spending our money. If we stop buying stuff, the companies won’t need to make as much stuff, people will get laid off, those people won’t buy anything, thus more people get laid off, and ultimately we end up in the dark ages again (the dark ages was in no way causes by this, but a similar scenario would erupt were this to happen). I agree that it shouldn’t be like this, but unfortunately Eisenhower’s economical advisors made it that way. 

 

[pepperman]

People have been playing fast and loose with the Constitution ever since FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 after the existing nine justices kept shooting down his legislation as being unconstitutional.

and i blame that more on Cheney

Cheney kept very quiet during the Bush Administration and I think his very low profile plus Bush's speaking gaffes made some people think that Cheney was really the power behind the office because they thought Bush was too stupid to do things himself. Personally, I doubt that Cheney did much as Bush was quite opinionated and his actions fell in line with his words. That really doesn't mesh with the "Cheney working in the background to control Bush" theories.

i think Bush is at heart a decent individual who got into a bad situation, and didnt make it better, much like Obama has walked into a bad situation.

I think the two are in considerably different situations. Bush got absolutely blindsided by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which ended up being the major focus of his presidency. Obama knew full well he was heading into a soft economy and "didn't want to let the crisis go to waste," so he could try to ram through a Democrat wish list of social legislation.

The racism thing, i haven't seen Caucasians fired up and so overtly racist since OJ killed his wife.

Heh, I think you meant to say "you haven't seen the race card so overtly played since OJ killed his wife." The whole "anybody that opposes Obama is racist" idea is complete bunk. Have you actually seen people protesting Congress and the administration? I have, and I haven't seen any reference to Obama's race. You see a ton of "Don't Tread On Me" flags and a lot of signs saying things like "I'll keep my money, you can keep the change." Sure, there may be a couple of white people who are racist somewhere, but it absolutely pales in comparison to the number of people who make racist comments against whites and the number of people who drop the race card. It's actually a pretty ingenious tactic as in today's PC society as it automatically discredits any of their opponents and conveniently shuts down any debate over the actual policy.

And now, one of the greatest stories never told;

Once upon a time, G. W. Bush was bankrupting small oil companies (while acting as the CEO) left and right, while Richard “Dick” Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, a “defense” contractor (they basically build military weapons and machines). Cheney had also been acting concurrently as a House Rep.

After several primaries, the GOP selected Bush and Cheney to run together for the 2000 election. They “won” the presidency (technically Gore won, as he had the popular vote, but that’s another story).

Things seem to be going ok for the first few months, but then, on 9/11 of 2001, we were attacked by who was later to be determined as the Al Qaeda. Four planes were hijacked; two of them flew into the Twin Towers, one crashed in Pennsylvania, and one allegedly crashed into the Pentagon (here’s an interesting notion that says the plane may not have actually gone into the Pentagon http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm).

We supposedly had no idea that it was coming, but for some reason all of the high ranking officials from the Pentagon, as well as the higher up business men, did not go to work that day. This could be coincidence, but it seems very fishy.

Regardless of that, the Government quickly determines the culprits (the previously mentioned Al Qaeda). We launch a paultry force of less than 10,000 soldiers into Afghanistan (the most likely whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden).

A few years later, Operation Iraqi Freedom is launched, in the form of a full scale assault of Iraq. The cause of this is said to be that Iraq is in possession of WMD’s, which we in fact knew it wasn’t. Not surprisingly, the “defense” company that won the contract was none other than Halliburton (Cheney’s old company which he still owned an enormous amount of stock in). This campaign continues, and in the process, the value of Halliburton stock rises.

The Bush administration launched this attack against Iraq under the guise that we were fighting terror. It turns out that when interviewed, most Iraqis preferred living under Sadam than us.

Bush and (mostly) Cheney walk away after years of filling their pockets with our money, and now the mess is still left, and the story still untold.

Kudos to them (especially Cheney) for being war profiteers.

 

[chunkymonster]

Pepperman needs to read his history book.

After several primaries, the GOP selected Bush and Cheney to run together for the 2000 election. They “won” the presidency (technically Gore won, as he had the popular vote, but that’s another story).

The Electoral College is and has been the deciding factor when determining the Presidential winner. The Electoral College is provisioned in the Constitution and is a characteristic of American Federalism. You must remember that America is, first and foremost, a Republic with a democratic process and not a pure Democracy. Electing a President by purely popular vote would be borderline chaos, especially with the margins that Gore "won" by. And, not for nothing, but I am personally happy that Bush was President during 9/11 (same with Mayor Guiliani) because I can only imagine how that limp-wristed-wishy-washy-wussy-boy Gore would have reacted. Quote Al Gore ala South Park, "Ok you terrorists, stop it now, I'm serial!"

Things seem to be going ok for the first few months, but then, on 9/11 of 2001, we were attacked by who was later to be determined as the Al Qaeda. Four planes were hijacked; two of them flew into the Twin Towers, one crashed in Pennsylvania, and one allegedly crashed into the Pentagon (here’s an interesting notion that says the plane may not have actually gone into the Pentagon http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm).

We supposedly had no idea that it was coming, but for some reason all of the high ranking officials from the Pentagon, as well as the higher up business men, did not go to work that day. This could be coincidence, but it seems very fishy.

The fodder of rumor, hearsay, and conspiracy theories.

What Americans should be more outraged about is the fact that our own media outlets and government will never air the UN-EDITED video from 9/11. We will NEVER again see either of the planes hit face on into the WTC, we will only see the reverse angle. We will NEVER again see the footage of people jumping out of the windows, we will NEVER again see the ground cameras and the hand held shots from pedestrains, we will NEVER again see the footage taken from inside the WTC during the evacuation. Why would American's want to see that footage, because it is OUR footage, not the media companies, not the government's! The fact that we will never see the raw footage is censorship!

A few years later, Operation Iraqi Freedom is launched, in the form of a full scale assault of Iraq. The cause of this is said to be that Iraq is in possession of WMD’s, which we in fact knew it wasn’t. Not surprisingly, the “defense” company that won the contract was none other than Halliburton (Cheney’s old company which he still owned an enormous amount of stock in). This campaign continues, and in the process, the value of Halliburton stock rises.

Iraq did in fact have WMD's. Repeated use and subsequent development of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam's WMD's were bought and paid for by monies Saddam borrowed from the United States. Saddam had been in America's pocket and indebted to the U.S. since the early 1980's when America supported his "unification of the Arab States". And, in the following decades, Saddam abandoned his "unification plans" and, effectively, became an Oriental Despot.

The Bush administration launched this attack against Iraq under the guise that we were fighting terror. It turns out that when interviewed, most Iraqis preferred living under Sadam than us.

The one thing Saddam did that the West did not fully realize was keep the warring tribes and various factions within Iraq under his thumb. Once Saddam and his totalitarian rule was gone, the various factions and tribes continued to do what they did for the past thousands of years. To say that Iraq's were better off under Saddam is nothing more than choosing the lesser of two evils. It is also easy to point the finger at America but the fact also remains that the Iraqi people themselves failed more than once to meet UN deadlines to establish their own government. While America does have some blame, America is not alone in that the UN and Iraqi people themselves are also to blame.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad that the Bush family is out of the political spotlight. But posts like these that always point the finger solely at the American political system are rhetoric filled babble and are counterproductive to moving past the problem and taking the necessary steps towards correcting the situation. Hey! Guess what? Bush effed up! Wow! Ok, great, now what? Time to move on. You know what else, Clinton effed up too! And so did Reagan, and so did Carter, and so did just about every President in one form or another all the way back to the American Industrial Revolution.

I am also glad that the Clinton and Kennedy families are also out of America's political landscape. The only way that America will be able to move forward is after the baby-boomer generation has become too old to exercise their influence on the American political machine. It is now up to the next generation (Gen X? Gen Y? Obama is of neither Gen) to step up to the plate and attempt to correct the sins of the Father.

Regardless of what Obama does and regardless of what the next generation of political leaders do, our children and grandchildren will be just as pissed off and angry at the mistakes we made in our righteous indignation to make America a better place.

 

[pepperman]

Pepperman needs to read his history book.

The Electoral College is and has been the deciding factor when determining the Presidential winner. The Electoral College is provisioned in the Constitution and is a characteristic of American Federalism. You must remember that America is, first and foremost, a Republic with a democratic process and not a pure Democracy. Electing a President by purely popular vote would be borderline chaos, especially with the margins that Gore "won" by. And, not for nothing, but I am personally happy that Bush was President during 9/11 (same with Mayor Guiliani) because I can only imagine how that limp-wristed-wishy-washy-wussy-boy Gore would have reacted. Quote Al Gore ala South Park, "Ok you terrorists, stop it now, I'm serial!"

But Gore won the electoral vote to, Bush's dad's Supreme Court Justices overruled the recount. And since when has a South Park portrayal of anyone been accurate?
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

Iraq did in fact have WMD's. Repeated use and subsequent development of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam's WMD's were bought and paid for by monies Saddam borrowed from the United States. Saddam had been in America's pocket and indebted to the U.S. since the early 1980's when America supported his "unification of the Arab States". And, in the following decades, Saddam abandoned his "unification plans" and, effectively, became an Oriental Despot.

Last I checked, NO WMD's WERE FOUND IN IRAQ. We knew they didn't have them, CIA analysts had determined that long ago. True Saddam had used them in the past, but he wasn't producing them, nor did he have stockpiles of them. Here's an article regarding the closing of the investigation http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/. Here's an article which regards the CIA's and Bush's know-abouts of the fact that Iraq didn't have any WMDs http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/index.html.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad that the Bush family is out of the political spotlight. But posts like these that always point the finger solely at the American political system are rhetoric filled babble and are counterproductive to moving past the problem and taking the necessary steps towards correcting the situation. Hey! Guess what? Bush effed up! Wow! Ok, great, now what? Time to move on. You know what else, Clinton effed up too! And so did Reagan, and so did Carter, and so did just about every President in one form or another all the way back to the American Industrial Revolution.

Speaking of history, weren't you ever taught to learn from your mistakes?

 

[chunkymonster]

But Gore won the electoral vote to, Bush's dad's Supreme Court Justices overruled the recount. And since when has a South Park portrayal of anyone been accurate?
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

Technically, the State of FLorida certified Bush as the winner of the electoral votes. It was only after the fact that Democrats contested the vote count. Citing democrats.com to support your position is not a good choice, can't get much more bias and partisan than that. We can go back and forth about what happened but it doesn't change anything; all the debating of what was and what should have been is pointless. As far as the South Park reference, you don't seem to have a grasp of sarcasm or buffoonery.

The election debacle in Florida got all the attention but it was nothing more than a spotlight on the problems with election methods and voting technology. There were the same issues in Ohio and a few other States during the 2000 election. Not all those States voting issues favored Republicans, but the Democrats don't publicize those instances. In the end, Al Gore did the noble thing by supporting the Supreme Court's decision and withdrawing. Although, the sad truth is that the Democrats never should have taken the issue to the Supreme Court to begin with.

Last I checked, NO WMD's WERE FOUND IN IRAQ. We knew they didn't have them, CIA analysts had determined that long ago. True Saddam had used them in the past, but he wasn't producing them, nor did he have stockpiles of them. Here's an article regarding the closing of the investigation http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/. Here's an article which regards the CIA's and Bush's know-abouts of the fact that Iraq didn't have any WMDs We]http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/index.html.

We all know that WMD's were not found. We all know that Bush fooled Congress and the American people into invading Iraq. But that does not change the fact, that as you even admit, that Saddam had them and did in fact use them. The invasion of Iraq was based on that Saddam had become a threat to the U.S. and, as a matter of America's own dealings with him during the Iran-Iraq war, did in fact have WMD's. Is it any real surprise that America did not actually find them after entering Iraq? Honestly, you would have to be naive to believe that Saddam would actually leave those facilities in production. And, you would have to be completely foolish the believe that Obama is actually going to pull American troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or any where in the Middle East for that matter. Again, we can go back and forth about what happened but it doesn't change anything; all the debating of what was and what should have been is pointless.

Speaking of history, weren't you ever taught to learn from your mistakes?

Not exactly sure the context or how this statement is meant to be taken. Are you implying that I have a learning disability? Are you implying that Presidents don't learn from their mistakes? I don't know...

As I stated in my previous post...

Regardless of what Obama does and regardless of what the next generation of political leaders do, our children and grandchildren will be just as pissed off and angry at the mistakes we made in our righteous indignation to make America a better place.

In other words, it's easy top point the fingers at the past and blame whoever was in charge a the time for the issues we must deal with today.

Some people chose to play the blame game and point fingers at who and what was, but some people chose to deal with the issues at hand and make the best decisions possible with all the information available in an effort to make America and the world a better place moving forward.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

IIRC, Hussein also claimed he had WMDs prior to the 2nd war, since (1) he wanted to keep Iran and other regional powers at bay, and (2) he would have lost face if he admitted he chickened out and destroyed them at the insistence of the US.

I don't think anybody will miss Saddam or his 2 sons (who apparently stole, raped and killed at will). Whether the war was worth it or not, is a bit too late to decide anyway. And really it was the post-war reconstruction effort where the previous administration went seriously wrong and didn't pay attention to those who knew better.

 

[siriusdog_33]

Update to my previous post, the national debt is, as of this moment, not 9.6 trillion but in fact closer to 11.9 trillion.

Hey I'm not sticking up for Bush here but it took him 8 years to raise the debt 4 trillion. Obama has been in office since January and so far he has rung up 1.5 trillion, so if we give him 71/2 more years where will he be? Look you can't bitch about Bush spending when your guys on track to quad the debt.

I don't know about you (I didn't take economy classes I was to busy working in the real world on my own business) but if I'm bitching to my wife about spending. I don't go and give her the credit card and ask can you spend us out of this debt? If it doesn't work in your house it won't in Washington either. Thats common sense not some economics class.

 

[pepperman]

Hey I'm not sticking up for Bush here but it took him 8 years to raise the debt 4 trillion. Obama has been in office since January and so far he has rung up 1.5 trillion, so if we give him 71/2 more years where will he be? Look you can't bitch about Bush spending when your guys on track to quad the debt.

I don't know about you (I didn't take economy classes I was to busy working in the real world on my own business) but if I'm bitching to my wife about spending. I don't go and give her the credit card and ask can you spend us out of this debt? If it doesn't work in your house it won't in Washington either. Thats common sense not some economics class.

There's macroeconomics (the nation) and there's microeconomics (a household, a business, etc.). Macro works a lot differently than micro, as on might guess, and in a macro setting, spending improves the economy. As I have said before, what should happen is the government should spend during a recession, and tax during a growth period. This method keeps both unemployment and inflation stable. It also allows the government to pay back it's debt. Unfortunately, however, in the past couple decades (not just Bush, but Clinton did this to), lawmakers have decided issuing tax cuts, and tax rebates are better, and thus the national debt racks up.

As for quading our debt, that is unlikely to happen; the bailout bill was meant to be a one time deal, and, despite its setbacks, overall it appears to be working. However, time will tell when it comes to how effective it ultimately was.

btw, AP Econ in High School. I am enjoying the real world just as much as you now.

 

[siriusdog_33]

There's macroeconomics (the nation) and there's microeconomics (a household, a business, etc.). Macro works a lot differently than micro, as on might guess, and in a macro setting, spending improves the economy. As I have said before, what should happen is the government should spend during a recession, and tax during a growth period. This method keeps both unemployment and inflation stable. It also allows the government to pay back it's debt. Unfortunately, however, in the past couple decades (not just Bush, but Clinton did this to), lawmakers have decided issuing tax cuts, and tax rebates are better, and thus the national debt racks up.

As for quading our debt, that is unlikely to happen; the bailout bill was meant to be a one time deal, and, despite its setbacks, overall it appears to be working. However, time will tell when it comes to how effective it ultimately was.

btw, AP Econ in High School. I am enjoying the real world just as much as you now.

sorry your quite wrong. The stimulus package he put in is at 12% of the total so his debt not even done yet. Plus again only 10 months in to his presidency. What happens with health care at 1.5 trillion. Working? the bailouts or the stimulus unemployment is close to 10% and real unemployment is closer to 16%

Your suggestion on what to do would do little to no good. Tax during growth would stop the growth you need to take government out of the economy you will still have ups and downs but the ups will be long and the downs shorter. Its called KISS

 

[pepperman]

sorry your quite wrong. The stimulus package he put in is at 12% of the total so his debt not even done yet. Plus again only 10 months in to his presidency. What happens with health care at 1.5 trillion. Working? the bailouts or the stimulus unemployment is close to 10% and real unemployment is closer to 16%

Your suggestion on what to do would do little to no good. Tax during growth would stop the growth you need to take government out of the economy you will still have ups and downs but the ups will be long and the downs shorter. Its called KISS

Your ignorance certainly lives up to your lack of taking an economics class. First of all, "my suggestion" isn't my suggestion, it's the suggestion of thousands of economists over the past more than half century. The purpose of it is to minimize the ups and downs. It won't prolong anything. If done correctly, it would cause a positive steady growth of the economy.

As of yesterday, the national debt has increased by 1.3 trillion (not 1.5-http://www.theobamadebt.com/) since Obama took office. I'm curious as to where you found your source that states how much Obama spent on specific things, however.

As for the bailouts working, yes, they are. Imagine what would have happened without them; many would have lost faith in the banks (no doubt many already have) causing them to fail. This would result in unemployment at rates much higher than our current numbers.

I'm confused about your reference to KISS (I assume the Kiel Summer School program). Did you take classes there?

 

[chunkymonster]

I was wondering about you pepperman. The tone, context, and basis for your arguments through these posts had me wondering if you were a natural born American. And based on your reference to the Kiel Summer School Program, I highly doubt that you are a natural born American. If in fact you are not an American, then all your rhetoric and debate throughout this entire thread is meaningless and without merit.

Out of all the things that I took away from my travels throughout Europe is that, generally speaking, Europeans are experts on American politics and are more than willing to share their opinions and debate about what is wrong with this country. But as I gently reminded many people who shared their opinion of America with me, we all wake up in the morning and put our pants on one leg at a time and just because some of us prefer coffee and some of us prefer tea is no reason to be rude and belittle another man's country.

Oh, and by the way...

I'm confused about your reference to KISS (I assume the Kiel Summer School program). Did you take classes there?

...KISS = Keep It Stupid and Simple.

 

[siriusdog_33]

Your ignorance certainly lives up to your lack of taking an economics class. First of all, "my suggestion" isn't my suggestion, it's the suggestion of thousands of economists over the past more than half century. The purpose of it is to minimize the ups and downs. It won't prolong anything. If done correctly, it would cause a positive steady growth of the economy.

As of yesterday, the national debt has increased by 1.3 trillion (not 1.5-http://www.theobamadebt.com/) since Obama took office. I'm curious as to where you found your source that states how much Obama spent on specific things, however.

As for the bailouts working, yes, they are. Imagine what would have happened without them; many would have lost faith in the banks (no doubt many already have) causing them to fail. This would result in unemployment at rates much higher than our current numbers.

I'm confused about your reference to KISS (I assume the Kiel Summer School program). Did you take classes there?

KISS = Keep it simple stupid. Look you can talk theory all you want and make comments" if done correctly" But I have a business with 120 employees I practice real world economics all day long. Spending more when you are in debt never works. It's really quite simple if you make 100.00 you shouldn't spend 200.00

When governments take action in the economy it cause instability in the markets. We have a free market here that is based on the weak dying and the strong surviving. When you bailout the weak your are messing with the whole system the weak don't die and it can hurt the strong by not creating a fair and level playing field.

My whole point is Government should not get invovled in the free market. Look at some of our government agencies, The post office the dmv the schools, then look at the S&l crisis, 9/11 the dot com bubble the housing collapse and now the credit crisis all had Government involvement, government involvement does not work nor do I trust them to solve the problems that they created.

 

[pepperman]

I was wondering about you pepperman. The tone, context, and basis for your arguments through these posts had me wondering if you were a natural born American. And based on your reference to the Kiel Summer School Program, I highly doubt that you are a natural born American. If in fact you are not an American, then all your rhetoric and debate throughout this entire thread is meaningless and without merit.

Out of all the things that I took away from my travels throughout Europe is that, generally speaking, Europeans are experts on American politics and are more than willing to share their opinions and debate about what is wrong with this country. But as I gently reminded many people who shared their opinion of America with me, we all wake up in the morning and put our pants on one leg at a time and just because some of us prefer coffee and some of us prefer tea is no reason to be rude and belittle another man's country.

Oh, and by the way......KISS = Keep It Stupid and Simple.

Are you saying I'm not from the U.S.? I can assure you I am, in fact I was born in Fort Atkinson, WI, though I don't live there now. Also, I have never been to Europe, I have only vacationed to Canada with my family as a child. The AP (Advanced Placement) Board only exists in the United States, and only for High Schools. When siriusdog_33 mentioned KISS, it implied to me that he was defending his point of view with something, and I took that as be an education of economics of sorts.

It is interesting that you believe I am not U.S. born, but I assure you that in fact I am. Are you not used to dealing with educated fellow Americans?

 

[pepperman]

KISS = Keep it simple stupid. Look you can talk theory all you want and make comments" if done correctly" But I have a business with 120 employees I practice real world economics all day long. Spending more when you are in debt never works. It's really quite simple if you make 100.00 you shouldn't spend 200.00

When governments take action in the economy it cause instability in the markets. We have a free market here that is based on the weak dying and the strong surviving. When you bailout the weak your are messing with the whole system the weak don't die and it can hurt the strong by not creating a fair and level playing field.

My whole point is Government should not get invovled in the free market. Look at some of our government agencies, The post office the dmv the schools, then look at the S&l crisis, 9/11 the dot com bubble the housing collapse and now the credit crisis all had Government involvement, government involvement does not work nor do I trust them to solve the problems that they created.

As I said before, macroeconomics and microeconomics are very different, and you can't apply micro procedures in a macro setting or vice versa. Would you like a lesson on this? I might be able to dig up some lessons from the internet.

When governments take action in the economy it cause instability in the markets.

That's what Calvin Coolage thought, and that thinking led to the Stock Market Crash, quickly followed by the Great Depression. Its not a matter of bailing out the weak in this case, its a matter of keeping jobs, which we desperately need.

A true free market system doesn't work; it leads to one or a few businesses owning all of the others (a monopoly or oligarchy). Once done, these businesses will charge to make maximum profit, and pay workers on that same basis (maximum profit for company heads). We saw this on a small scale with Rockefeller's Standard Oil in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

An interesting aspect of a freetrade caused monopoly is that it would end up behaving like a socialist government, as it would control all businesses. The "taxes", however, would be much greater as the business would likely be a profit-oriented organization.

Are you saying you would prefer a purely free-trade system, with no public schools to educate your children, no post office for cheap mail, no DMV to determine who can and who can't drive (<this is a very scary thought)? Our roads would degrade until they're nothing, there would be no one to protect us from wrongdoers, our society would turn into anarchy.

 

[siriusdog_33]

No I'm not saying they are not needed I am pointing out their inefficacy ever been to the DMV? Also I never said their would never be a crash in a free market I believe government involvement led to the depression in the form of redistribution of wealth which prolong the depression. We have monopoly laws to protect us from monopolies. Again simple. As for public schools if you think they are working than you are a greater fool than I thought. I have kids in school and it's scary. Post office cheap mail......it's so cheap because some of your tax dollars go to the post office.

As for your comment on educating me, no thanks I work in the real world where just over 120 employees rely on me. Again theory and what really works are two very different things.

I don't know why I am arguing with you it's obvious you are a far superior intellect than I.

 

[pepperman]

No I'm not saying they are not needed I am pointing out their inefficacy ever been to the DMV? Also I never said their would never be a crash in a free market I believe government involvement led to the depression in the form of redistribution of wealth which prolong the depression. We have monopoly laws to protect us from monopolies. Again simple. As for public schools if you think they are working than you are a greater fool than I thought. I have kids in school and it's scary. Post office cheap mail......it's so cheap because some of your tax dollars go to the post office.

As for your comment on educating me, no thanks I work in the real world where just over 120 employees rely on me. Again theory and what really works are two very different things.

I don't know why I am arguing with you it's obvious you are a far superior intellect than I.

But you said the government shouldn't interfere with the market (the stock market was caused by this, as proven by many historical articles). That includes regulations on monopolies, and all the other laws. A true free-market system has none of those regulations or laws concerning businesses.

The redistribution of wealth during the Great Depression didn't prolong it, it got us out of it. When we started building up for the war, many factory jobs were created, which redistributed a lot of the wealth.

I never said our public schools are perfect (they are in fact far from it), however the other option of no public schools, is very dismal. Crime would rise sharply, as children of lower income families would have to steal to survive. Also, the overall intelligence level of our country would be greatly diminished.

The post office mails things so cheap mostly because it mails a lot of things, which cuts the costs (though it is true, some of it is because of taxes).

 

[rodney_ws]

The moment politicians decided it was a good idea to pay a single mother for having a child she could not financially support we started going downhill. Until that policy is changed, our global standing will continue to decline. 1/10th of all Americans depend on our government for assistance in buying groceries... we can't even feed ourselves anymore! THE END IS NEAR!