Forum
44 days in...
|
Thraxle wrote
at 11:18 AM, Wednesday March 4, 2009 EST
...and there is no sign that Mr. Obama is any different from the past democrats that sat in the oval office. The only exception is that he has 100% compliance within his party and a majority in congress that will pass anything Mr. Obama supports.
How hypocritical is it that Mr. Obama continues to remind the general public of the deficit he inherited, but then spends so recklessly that the possibility of having a balanced budget anytime within his term is utterly impossible. How hypocritical is it that the libs called the recent spending bill that was passed a "stimulus package". How does $20 billion dollars towards food stamps stimulate the economy? What jobs will be created by increasing food stamp allowances? This is only one example of many within that spending bill, but I'll try to avoid making this post unneccisarily long. One of you left wingers need to help me understand what our President is attempting to do. The view from the cheap seats here in right field makes the picture look exactly like I thought it would look before the election took place; the liberal democrats want a socialist republic in place of our cherished capitalistic society. Let's continue to drain the rich to pay for the poor. Let's continue to increase taxes on large corporations that have been laying off employees at an enormous pace. Let's increase benefits to the unemployed instead of finding ways to provide jobs for them. I'm ranting a bit, but one thing is clear. Barack Obama scares the living shit out of me. JP, UGB, anybody, please help me feel better about the job he's doing. And someone explain to me how the fuck he has a 67% approval rating. They must have done the polling at a foreclosure seminar or a foodbank. |
|
saetep wrote
at 1:44 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST Government is what created the housing bubble, hand in hand with the banks that gave out subprime loans and the consumers that took them knowing they couldn't afford the house they were trying to buy. When people buy a house with no money down, bad credit, and no way of paying off the loan, what do they do when the house drops in value or the interest rate eats up all of their money? They walk away from the house.
|
|
StormLord wrote
at 5:26 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST "typical of the drivel the mainstream media throws to the masses"
What is wrong with the media? Economy.com releases a study and cnn reports on it. Here's that economy.com report, which presumebly (I havn't read it) backup what is claimed, unlike statements here where they state there economic opinion in 1 sentence. : http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/assissing-the-impact-of-the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf |
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 7:33 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST Storm, I think the problem with the media is the general bias that a particular outlet has towards a political party. CNN may report on a study conducted by Economy.com, meanwhile, Fox will report on some other study done elsewhere that comes to a different conclusion. CNN will report the study that puts the left in a good light while Fox will report the study that puts the right in a good light (or the left in a bad light). The media is manipulative and behind the scenes it's all driven by money and power bestowed by the political parties.
Good conversation everyone. I like the different views and opinions and I'm glad nobody has "hijacked" the thread so far. Hell, I even made les "lol". |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 8:25 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST Thraxle,
Unemployment benefits are a form of group insurance, not welfare (in that they are not means tested). The problem with unemployment benefits (and with group insurance in general) is moral hazard (people will take more risk if they are insured). But in the case of unemployment insurance, moral hazard of the insured is minimal because recipients of the benefits are not getting them because of thier own behavior; it is because of the decision of someone else to lay them off. But there may be second-degree moral hazard: an employer may be more willing to lay off workers if he knows that they can get unemployment benefits. Since the employer pays part of the insurance fund, the employer and the worker share part of the insurance cost, so fewer workers are hired in the first place. If there was no unemployment insurance, more workers would be hired and they would be less likely to be laid off. |
|
|
StormLord wrote
at 8:31 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST Disagree with the economics in the report not the so called media bias.
Food stamps will stimulate the economy more than any other measure. That is the 'professional' opinion of the economists according to the report. If that opinion is true it is a fact and belongs to no ideology other than the one of truth and cannot be left-wing/right-wing. Now whether it is fair to give out food stamps is a totally different question. |
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 10:21 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST "Ummm.... the new deal didn't do anything."
False. |
|
Vermont wrote
at 10:30 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST Scholars/historians/economists are definitely divided on the positive impact of the New Deal, but the majority do feel that it was not the primary catalyst for the resurgence of the economy, and actually helped to prolong the recession. When you also factor in the negative side effects it becomes more difficult (but not impossible) to credibly argue that it was a positive move in the long run.
Again, you can find dissenting viewpoints on this, but blindly stating it was the best (or worst) thing since sliced bread ignores a good deal of analysis. (Darn it JP/thraxle, you made me break my silence upon my return. So sad.) |
|
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 10:33 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST Obviously WWII was the major catalyst for turning the World's economy around, and also the primary reason for the US's subsequent economic dominance. But to say that the New Deal didn't do anything (beneficial, even) is categorically false.
Unless thousands of jobs (whether they be worthy investments or not) for the lower class and the unmeasurable psychological effect thereof is unimportant. |
|
Adonia wrote
at 10:39 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST Ok, Thraxle here is what you do.save your own ass. Put as much money as you possibly can into guns and gold. Guns will always be needed ALWAYS and you can always guarantee that no matter how bad the economy gets even if the U.S. dollar is worth nothing! You will still be able to trade. Now, I am mildly bias in this because my fiance is a gun salesman and I do get to hear a lot from him, but if you don't like the idea then find another resource something people will always need. America unfortunately seems to be on a road to no where and we would be in no better position with McCain or anyone else for that matter but the number one thing is protecting your family and your fellow Americans. Although, my definition of a fellow American may differ greatly from most on this forum or on this site. On the other hand, I am not the only one who is thinking this way. No one has any money right now and yet gun sales are way up (I don't remember the exact figures). Just be safe. Don't trust too many people. You never know what may happen next and if I go any further I might end up shot so I will end this now. That is in no way a joke. Call me paranoid, but we are in danger.
|
|
Shevar wrote
at 10:40 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST so all we need is WWIII.
|