Is Barack Hussien Obama purposely trying to destroy the US economy?

Simple question...
I believe he is in order to bring forth a socialist state, like the Utopian ones all his radical professors, terrorist buddies, and left wing parents have preached and ingrained into him his entire life. A tiger can't change his stripes. While the media is too busy masterbating to his speaches and man-boob pics, will anyone have the testicular fortitude to shine the light on this complete act of treason of our Manchurian leader?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

While the media is too busy masterbating to his speaches and man-boob picks, will anyone have the testicular fortitude to shine the light on this complete act of treason of our Manchurian leader?

---

Surely you are up to the task Dave!

I believe, like Bush he is a principled man. It just so happens his principles are wrong. Unfortunately the sheeple have spoken.

A fellow preacher explains it much better than me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I believe, like Bush he is a principled man. It just so happens his principles are wrong. Unfortunately the sheeple have spoken.

A fellow preacher explains it much better than me.

---

This guy is my favorite preacher...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

This guy is my favorite preacher...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

---

Here's mine for now. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

This guy is my favorite preacher...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

---

Hmmm this is an interesting development. Obama and I like tits. Grounds for a relationship I say.

*sigh* :shame:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiBMltWg2RQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

*sigh* :shame:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiBMltWg2RQ

---

I've got the biggest balls of them all!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

While the media is too busy masterbating to his speaches and man-boob picks, will anyone have the testicular fortitude to shine the light on this complete act of treason of our Manchurian leader?

---

No. Enjoy your socialism.

I don't think he's trying to destroy anything but I still think the stimulus package is a bad idea, except the part with the high-speed trains of course, but they could do that without doing the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I don't think he's trying to destroy anything but I still think the stimulus package is a bad idea, except the part with the high-speed trains of course, but they could do that without doing the rest.

---

Is this the one thing stopping you from visiting me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I don't think he's trying to destroy anything but I still think the stimulus package is a bad idea, except the part with the high-speed trains of course, but they could do that without doing the rest.

---

High speed trains? Why? America is a big place and we use cars here. Its just not practical and considering how crappy Amtrak does, why continue a failed course. The "stimulus" is nothing more than a pay-off to his homies at Acorn and the Union bosses. It is also a garantee to hurt the economy to a point where the only thing to survive will be the government which again brings me to the fact that it is his purpose to destroy our way of life in order to bring his socialist agenda to the masses. Read his books, look up his record. Its all there, its just the media was too busy digging through Sarah Palins garbage can to report the truth about this fraud.

Quote:

---

Is Barack Hussien Obama purposely trying to destroy the US economy?

---

No.

As much as I like to indulge in conspiracy theories, I refuse to believe that we (yes, "we", regardless of whomever you personally voted for; we, the American electorate) could or would elect a guy who intended to permanently harm the country. We cannot be that stupid, as a people.

I admit: it's possible. But history stands against the proposition.

I, personally, would have made some different decisions than the ones POTUS has made this past month, but he has access to a helluva lotta more info than I have. I just hope he's as smart as he thinks he is.

If it turns out that he's not: he's no worse than W, yes? If it turns out he intends harm, pitchforks and torches shall appear. Me leading the California Brigade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

No.

As much as I like to indulge in conspiracy theories, I refuse to believe that we (yes, "we", regardless of whomever you personally voted for; we, the American electorate) could or would elect a guy who intended to permanently harm the country. We cannot be that stupid, as a people.

I admit: it's possible. But history stands against the proposition.

I, personally, would have made some different decisions than the ones POTUS has made this past month, but he has access to a helluva lotta more info than I have. I just hope he's as smart as he thinks he is.

If it turns out that he's not: he's no worse than W, yes? If it turns out he intends harm, pitchforks and torches shall appear. Me leading the California Brigade.

---

I don't know my friend, it would appear that there are more and more people dependent on the government and Mr Hussien Obama promised them the world wrapped up nicely in government wrapping paper. The Have Nots outnumber the Haves and the Do nothings are suffacating the Do's. The electorate has chaged and this country will be unrecognizable in 2 or 3 years. Pitch forks and torches will probably be the only things we'll have left once the 2nd ammendment is scrubbed. I truelly belive that he is going to do as much harm to the fundamentals of our country. As Rohm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crises go to waste". Well, they are truelly taking advantage of this one.

Obama is truelly a disciple of Saul Alinsky, and we are now seeing first hand his teachings...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I don't know my friend, it would appear that there are more and more people dependent on the government and Mr Hussien Obama promised them the world wrapped up nicely in government wrapping paper. The Have Nots outnumber the Haves and the Do nothings are suffacating the Do's. The electorate has chaged and this country will be unrecognizable in 2 or 3 years. Pitch forks and torches will probably be the only things we'll have left once the 2nd ammendment is scrubbed. I truelly belive that he is going to do as much harm to the fundamentals of our country. As Rohm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crises go to waste". Well, they are truelly taking advantage of this one.

Obama is truelly a disciple of Saul Alinsky, and we are now seeing first hand his teachings...

---

Yeah, and y'all tell us not to wax poetic.

For the love of God, give the man a little while. See what he actually DOES.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I don't know my friend, it would appear that there are more and more people dependent on the government and Mr Hussien Obama promised them the world wrapped up nicely in government wrapping paper. The Have Nots outnumber the Haves and the Do nothings are suffacating the Do's. The electorate has chaged and this country will be unrecognizable in 2 or 3 years. Pitch forks and torches will probably be the only things we'll have left once the 2nd ammendment is scrubbed. I truelly belive that he is going to do as much harm to the fundamentals of our country. As Rohm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crises go to waste". Well, they are truelly taking advantage of this one.

Obama is truelly a disciple of Saul Alinsky, and we are now seeing first hand his teachings...

---

I hear ya, Chief Master Sergeant, and I've taken all those factors (his associations, his education, his voting inclinations) into consideration. They don't look good, I grant. But I (so far) refuse to believe, or act on, the premise that we could have/did get it so wrong as to put into actual office someone with a secret, neferious agenda designed to bring the whole country down to the level of Somalia.

He's making decisions now that I don't fully understand, in terms of the amount of money he's talking about, and how he's gonna pay for it all. But George made similar decisions that didn't kill us al in our sleep.

I'm gonna wait a bit before polishing my musket. Maybe he's just ignorant. Or maybe he's brilliant. Or maybe he intends harm. We'll know by summertime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kukri

If it turns out that he's not: he's no worse than W, yes? If it turns out he intends harm, pitchforks and torches shall appear. Me leading the California Brigade.

---

Why reserve the pitchforks for intentional harm? We had 8 years* of it unintentionally (probably), why do we want 8 more?

*I'd say we've been mismanaged at least since FDR but that's another story for another thread

The CIA is in my soup.

https://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6202/tinfoilhat.jpg

:wink2: :wink2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Simple question...
I believe he is in order to bring forth a socialist state, like the Utopian ones all his radical professors, terrorist buddies, and left wing parents have preached and ingrained into him his entire life. A tiger can't change his stripes. While the media is too busy masterbating to his speaches and man-boob pics, will anyone have the testicular fortitude to shine the light on this complete act of treason of our Manchurian leader?

---

No.

Like Kukri, I don't think he wants to or is trying to destroy the economy.

His actions may cause serious harm, though. We'll see.

Still, for monumentally stupid bill signed of the last year, I think Bush has won.

CR

How can he destroy ruins? :laugh4:
Bush put US so low, so deep in debts that it is difficult to do worst...
The US nationalisation run under Bush probably made Lenine red of shame for not doing so much...:laugh4:
The so-call free market and its "regulation" just failled so miserably than something else have to be tried.
If you want blame somebody for the disaster, blame the last two administrations which happened to be Bush ones, and the free marketeers who just destroy and pillage your country...:oops:

Dave (and anyone else who feels similarly) do you have suggestions about how this economic crisis should be managed which don't involve a stimulus package?

I may not agree with the detail of your post, but I am deeply mistrustful of these worldwide spending sprees. However, I recognise that the global economy is predicated on the infinite growth of consumerism, which means (to this layman) finding ways to spend again without limit. Thus the stimuli.

To me, the principle of measured stewardship and careful, controlled (yes, conservative) incremental growth based in manufacturing, agriculture and societal cohesion was always the right path, and should be for the future. This however, means radical changes to the goals for our standard of living and, for example, the removal of corporate rights and regulation of size (so that there is never again a company "too big to fail" which status removes the benefit of market forces).

I haven't seen any coherent strategies from other parties (here at least - I am not so familiar with the intricacies of US politics) which do not rely on some sort of stimulus package, however dandied up with bows of the appropriate colour.

I'd be interested in any credible sources.

Simple inquiry, is it the fact money is being given out, or to whom the money is going to that concerns you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Dave (and anyone else who feels similarly) do you have suggestions about how this economic crisis should be managed which don't involve a stimulus package?

---

Cut taxes to stimulate investment - capital spending and corporate income taxes. This and other measures to increase incentives to invest. I am skeptical of the benefits of income tax cuts to middle and lower class brackets.

Ensure credit in the banks by giving out the money with explicit contracts and guarantees from the banks that they would open the lines of credit.

I am unconvinced huge amounts of money spent by the government outside of this will do much good. It didn't in the US in the 30s or in Japan in the 90s. Of course, the lesson the Keynesians take from this always seems to be that we didn't spend enough. Though of course Japan did get out of the doldrums, and we are spending relatively significantly less than they did in the 90s, so I am scornful of their opinions, as is my wont.

Quote:

---

This however, means radical changes to the goals for our standard of living and, for example, the removal of corporate rights and regulation of size (so that there is never again a company "too big to fail" which status removes the benefit of market forces).

---

I don't see why we need to rework our standard of living. As for 'too big to fail' - that's a myth. I believe the effects of trying to save dying companies are worse than simply letting them die. We should have let those lousy banks fail. Instead we spent hundreds of billions for nothing.

CR

Three years of no defence spending and your books will be balanced. :wink2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Is this the one thing stopping you from visiting me?

---

well, it might make visiting you a lot easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

High speed trains? Why? America is a big place and we use cars here. Its just not practical and considering how crappy Amtrak does, why continue a failed course.

---

Well, if Americans actually think scenes like this and this are preferable to relaxing in a train that takes you to where you want to go, then I don't really know what to say.
I know in certain areas that don't have a very dense population trains don't make sense but I doubt they want to connect swamp village one in Alabama with desert tent three in Texas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I don't know my friend, it would appear that there are more and more people dependent on the government and Mr Hussien Obama promised them the world wrapped up nicely in government wrapping paper.

---

Didn't he say at his inauguration speech, that it will take hard world from all Americans to get out of the crisis, that he cannot do it alone and that he just wants to guide people while they work harder?
I found that pretty funny considering what guys like you and maybe some of his voters expected so I remember it very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

For the love of God, give the man a little while. See what he actually DOES.

---

Yes, I actually supported bushe when he was first elected, he seemed to be a christian etc. but it didn't take me very long to realize that I was a bit naive and his words were more hot air, I was finally convinced when he admitted to lying about his casus belli for iraq that he was not nearly as good a man as I initially thought. Maybe Obama will follow a similar route, but I hope for the world and the USA that he won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

However, I recognise that the global economy is predicated on the infinite growth of consumerism, which means (to this layman) finding ways to spend again without limit. Thus the stimuli.

---

That is something that worked well but I think is ultimately flawed because unless we start colonising other planets we cannot grow infinitely and thus the system stops working at some point.
The trouble of course is finding a system where numbers don't have to grow all the time for it to work and that noone is willing to do so and most would probably call me a looney while counting their millions. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Cut taxes to stimulate investment - capital spending and corporate income taxes. This and other measures to increase incentives to invest. I am skeptical of the benefits of income tax cuts to middle and lower class brackets.

---

Intriguing, but surely the main aim of the vast majority of business in a global downturn (ie there's pretty much nowhere to sell to) is to cut costs? Giving them tax breaks would simply accelerate their disinvestment whilst maintaining payouts to shareholders. Apart from the fact that most corporations avoid a significant part of their existing tax burden. However, when the upturn comes (assuming that the depth of the recession is not exacerbated by the tax cuts) your plan would, I think result in marginally quicker re-investment because of larger capital bases. I would agree with you that income tax cuts would have no effect - quite sensibly, people will save against the storm - but I would argue that this applies to corporations too.

The other issue with tax cuts is that at a time when tax revenues are falling significantly anyway, you are going to substantially increase the deficit. I don't really understand how this is much different from increasing the deficit by borrowing - you're still in a whole world of debt. Unless of course, you substantially cut huge federal programmes like welfare and defence - which I would support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Ensure credit in the banks by giving out the money with explicit contracts and guarantees from the banks that they would open the lines of credit.

---

This has so far proven impossible, and banks are unreformed. Even in Europe where several banks have been effectively nationalised, politicians haven't found the testicular fortitude to actually set bank policy. (And one might argue, what do civil servants and politicians have to offer in running the financial sector efficiently? :shocked2:) How do you force the banks to deliver when no-one actually knows what the black hole of debt looks like - how do you gainsay a bank that says Fred the Baker's business is not credit-worthy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I am unconvinced huge amounts of money spent by the government outside of this will do much good. It didn't in the US in the 30s or in Japan in the 90s. Of course, the lesson the Keynesians take from this always seems to be that we didn't spend enough. Though of course Japan did get out of the doldrums, and we are spending relatively significantly less than they did in the 90s, so I am scornful of their opinions, as is my wont.

---

Unfortunately, we don't have a control experiment to check against. We tend to interpret the Great Depression through our own beliefs. I don't know of a major economy that has tried to step away entirely and let the whole thing go to the wall to see what happens, but maybe a keener student of economics can illuminate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I don't see why we need to rework our standard of living. As for 'too big to fail' - that's a myth. I believe the effects of trying to save dying companies are worse than simply letting them die. We should have let those lousy banks fail. Instead we spent hundreds of billions for nothing.

---

Subject to the caveat noted above, I don't disagree. But the effect of letting the banks go bust is not measurable given the nature of the over-reliance on financial services for the latest spurt of growth. I think you are optimistic to think that such a go-to-the-wall philosophy wouldn't hugely impact on standards of living. If I understand it, the significant moment propelling the sharp downturn was the hands-off decision on Lehman Brothers.

Personally, I would have liked to see governments let the whole thing wash down the drain. Actually see if the market would respond properly, by picking over the bones of the destruction and using the good bits to start again. Conserving money, facilitate savings, drive down the debt while people are expecting hard times and cuts, and yes, at the right time, use tax cuts to fertilise the new growth.

However, I also recognise that I am pretty well off, and wouldn't lose my job, my home, my hope, my family and my ability to eat as most other people would in such an experiment. Since these needs are high on most people's agendas, I can see why they prefer bail-outs to the probable revolutions that would scar the world. Indeed, were it to get as bad as it might, the peasantry might well be at the door with their pitchforks and torches to dispossess me in lieu, as happened several times before.

So I'm still not seeing a coherent plan that doesn't involve indentured servitude for our grand-children or the Great Unwashed fouling the Orangerie.

Thanks BG for saying what I could not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Cut taxes to stimulate investment - capital spending and corporate income taxes. This and other measures to increase incentives to invest. I am skeptical of the benefits of income tax cuts to middle and lower class brackets.

---

Was not about 300 billion of the stimulus some form of tax cut?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Ensure credit in the banks by giving out the money with explicit contracts and guarantees from the banks that they would open the lines of credit.

---

Isn't that a bit... socialist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I am unconvinced huge amounts of money spent by the government outside of this will do much good. It didn't in the US in the 30s or in Japan in the 90s. Of course, the lesson the Keynesians take from this always seems to be that we didn't spend enough. Though of course Japan did get out of the doldrums, and we are spending relatively significantly less than they did in the 90s, so I am scornful of their opinions, as is my wont.

---

Well, let's keep a few things in mind. First, some of FDR's first New Deal policies weren't actually Keynesian, but were undoubtedly a bad idea in retrospect- price locking, price floors, etc... Assuming, of course, that didn't somehow find itself into this bill. :shocked2: As for Japan's spending, I believe part of the problem was that the money often took ages to get through to the economy, such as roads that took 6 years to build and the like. As well, I seem to recall(though I could be wrong), that Japan actually started pulling itself out of its slump when it jacked the deficit up even higher than they already had. Now, is this causation, or just correlation? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I don't see why we need to rework our standard of living. As for 'too big to fail' - that's a myth. I believe the effects of trying to save dying companies are worse than simply letting them die. We should have let those lousy banks fail. Instead we spent hundreds of billions for nothing.

---

Amen.

However, I still approve of this particular stimulus bill, for a couple reasons. (with the giant caveat, if spending is done in a timely, efficient manner)

1) Infrastructure. I approve heartily of bettering the country's infrastructure, particularly energy grids and energy sources.
2) Tax cuts- even if temporary, the tax cuts are well needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

How can he destroy ruins? :laugh4:

The so-call free market and its "regulation" just failled so miserably than something else have to be tried.
If you want blame somebody for the disaster, blame the last two administrations which happened to be Bush ones, and the free marketeers who just destroy and pillage your country...:oops:

---

What ruins? Hyperbole much..............

The free-market didn't fail, a badly regulated free-market failed. America will fix the regulation (at least better than it was), and will continue to out-grow and outperform europe for the forseeable future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seireikhaan

However, I still approve of this particular stimulus bill, for a couple reasons. (with the giant caveat, if spending is done in a timely, efficient manner)

1) Infrastructure. I approve heartily of bettering the country's infrastructure, particularly energy grids and energy sources.
2) Tax cuts- even if temporary, the tax cuts are well needed.

---

We could certainly stand to upgrade our power grid- but what's in this bill to facilitate it? All I've heard about is money to extend the power grid to reach wind farms and other "green" sources. Electricity demands are going to continue to increase, and our decades old transmission lines can only handle so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, if Americans actually think scenes like this and this are preferable to relaxing in a train that takes you to where you want to go, then I don't really know what to say.
I know in certain areas that don't have a very dense population trains don't make sense but I doubt they want to connect swamp village one in Alabama with desert tent three in Texas.

---

You clearly don't understand the issue here: High speed trains are socialists. They are a way to enforce Barack Hussein Ben Obama's socialist (or rather, communist, that's where Dave made a mistake) agenda.
Furthermore, it is well known that train drivers are more often than not pinko leftist multicultural muslim terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

The free-market didn't fail, a badly regulated free-market failed. America will fix the regulation (at least better than it was), and will continue to out-grow and outperform europe for the forseeable future.

---

Wut? Do I need to link you some GDP, HDI or other Oecd figures? Europe is already outgrowing the US, despite the 12 new rather poor (that's an understatement) members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, if Americans actually think scenes like this and this are preferable to relaxing in a train that takes you to where you want to go, then I don't really know what to say.

---

SHARING personal space? Sounds like SOCIALISM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Intriguing, but surely the main aim of the vast majority of business in a global downturn (ie there's pretty much nowhere to sell to) is to cut costs? Giving them tax breaks would simply accelerate their disinvestment whilst maintaining payouts to shareholders. Apart from the fact that most corporations avoid a significant part of their existing tax burden. However, when the upturn comes (assuming that the depth of the recession is not exacerbated by the tax cuts) your plan would, I think result in marginally quicker re-investment because of larger capital bases. I would agree with you that income tax cuts would have no effect - quite sensibly, people will save against the storm - but I would argue that this applies to corporations too.

---

Well, lots of corporations are in danger of losing lots of money. Corporate tax cuts let them keep more money, so the business is healthier. Capital gains tax cuts encourage stock market investment.

Quote:

---

The other issue with tax cuts is that at a time when tax revenues are falling significantly anyway, you are going to substantially increase the deficit. I don't really understand how this is much different from increasing the deficit by borrowing - you're still in a whole world of debt. Unless of course, you substantially cut huge federal programmes like welfare and defence - which I would support.

---

According to some theories, tax cuts and burrowing have the same effect in terms of deficits. The difference is how the money you spend/give back to people affects the economy. This new stimulus, IIRC, offers great new amounts of funds to welfare and makes it easier for people to get on welfare. :wall:

Quote:

---

This has so far proven impossible, and banks are unreformed. Even in Europe where several banks have been effectively nationalised, politicians haven't found the testicular fortitude to actually set bank policy. (And one might argue, what do civil servants and politicians have to offer in running the financial sector efficiently? :shocked2:) How do you force the banks to deliver when no-one actually knows what the black hole of debt looks like - how do you gainsay a bank that says Fred the Baker's business is not credit-worthy?

---

Well here in the US we didn't put such requirements on the first $350B we gave out. It doesn't have to be idiot politicians saying who the banks have to loan to (In the US they've already done some of that, passing laws requiring a certain amount be loaned out to the poor and other bad business decisions). We just need to specify that the banks have to use the money we give for loans.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, we don't have a control experiment to check against. We tend to interpret the Great Depression through our own beliefs. I don't know of a major economy that has tried to step away entirely and let the whole thing go to the wall to see what happens, but maybe a keener student of economics can illuminate.

---

I'm not a keen student of economics? I am aghast sir! Anyways, neither do I, really.

Quote:

---

Subject to the caveat noted above, I don't disagree. But the effect of letting the banks go bust is not measurable given the nature of the over-reliance on financial services for the latest spurt of growth. I think you are optimistic to think that such a go-to-the-wall philosophy wouldn't hugely impact on standards of living. If I understand it, the significant moment propelling the sharp downturn was the hands-off decision on Lehman Brothers.

---

I thought it was the effect of huge numbers of bad mortgages and people not being able to pay them. It has been speculated that Lehman Bros went down because they expected a rescue and so spurned several offers of private investment, after they saw the gov save other banks about a year ago.

I wouldn't expect all banks to fail, just the stupid ones. They'd be bought out by other businesses. We could help the smarter ones extend credit as needed. Instead we inserted the blunt instrument of federal policy into the equation and that hasn't helped.

Quote:

---

Personally, I would have liked to see governments let the whole thing wash down the drain. Actually see if the market would respond properly, by picking over the bones of the destruction and using the good bits to start again. Conserving money, facilitate savings, drive down the debt while people are expecting hard times and cuts, and yes, at the right time, use tax cuts to fertilise the new growth.

However, I also recognise that I am pretty well off, and wouldn't lose my job, my home, my hope, my family and my ability to eat as most other people would in such an experiment. Since these needs are high on most people's agendas, I can see why they prefer bail-outs to the probable revolutions that would scar the world. Indeed, were it to get as bad as it might, the peasantry might well be at the door with their pitchforks and torches to dispossess me in lieu, as happened several times before.

So I'm still not seeing a coherent plan that doesn't involve indentured servitude for our grand-children or the Great Unwashed fouling the Orangerie.

---

I'm an unemployed student who has to get a new career in several months and I wanted the same thing.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Was not about 300 billion of the stimulus some form of tax cut?

---

Income tax cuts to lower and middle class people (or just handing money out to the lower class who didn't pay taxes in the first place) - which aren't that effective, since people just save the money.

As for socialism, we wouldn't insist they accept the money. As for Japan and long times to get the money flowing - won't the same thing happen with all the infrastructure we're financing?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Dave (and anyone else who feels similarly) do you have suggestions about how this economic crisis should be managed which don't involve a stimulus package?
.

---

Yes, you allow failure. When the people bought more house than they should of, you let them become homeless. When the banks made loans that they should not have to people who have a history of bad credit and are nothing more than lofelong losers, you let them go bankrupt. Those who have lived outside of their means and played Russian Roullete with their retirement in the stock market, you let the bullet pass through their skull. Why should I have to pay for everyone else's f-up? Bush was an idiot with the first bail out and his ridiculous spending. Obama is putting the nail into the coffin of personal responsibilty. All we are doing is causing more pain. We should have, before all the stimulus BS, was allow failure and this issue would be over a lot sonner. We are continueing the problem and only making ourselves more and more dependent on government assistance. People can call me nuts or a tin foil hat wearer, I don't care. This is his plan and its going to work because there are enough people who will believe the media and have been educated (indoctornated) into the belief that the government knows whats best. Its a bloodless revolution an no one cares because they've drank the kool aide...

And yes, it may have started with Fanne Mae and Feddie Mac, but Bush fed this monster and Obama is feeding it steroids...

I'm with Dave on this one, Bush should have let it all go down the drain. Every now and then you have to clean house and thin the herd of the poorly run companies. Obama got voted in on "Change", but in reality people fear change, which is what would have happened as businesses collapse and realign to get through this crisis. It would have hurt, but in the long term it would have been more beneficial.

The bailouts and stimulus are just a raid on the Treasury, first for Bush's cronies, and now for Pelosi's/Obama's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Wut? Do I need to link you some GDP, HDI or other Oecd figures? Europe is already outgrowing the US, despite the 12 new rather poor (that's an understatement) members.

---

.............. which is where all that growth is coming from, and who are the worst hit by the current crisis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

High speed trains? Why? America is a big place and we use cars here. Its just not practical and considering how crappy Amtrak does, why continue a failed course. The "stimulus" is nothing more than a pay-off to his homies at Acorn and the Union bosses. It is also a garantee to hurt the economy to a point where the only thing to survive will be the government which again brings me to the fact that it is his purpose to destroy our way of life in order to bring his socialist agenda to the masses. Read his books, look up his record. Its all there, its just the media was too busy digging through Sarah Palins garbage can to report the truth about this fraud.

---

Hey, I want high speed trains here... and lots of them... including them magical ones that levitate over the track like some genie put the whammy on 'em. But... I don't want the gummint to build n' run 'em!

Seriously, why the hell can't we open competitive bidding and regional contracts like we did during the 19th century when we were first laying track all across the country?

Yes the U.S is such a commie state right now. Already Lenin statues are being erected allover the place, everyone calls eachother comrade and has started growing a beard (indeed even the women)!

Get serious people. Isn't 20 years post cold war enough to give up believing to McCarthy?

The U.S, like every other western country needs to adopt a mixed economy model (Indeed there is no pure capitalism nor any serious economy supports such a contraption) and introduce controls and welfare elements. Being reluctant to do this, the U.S was forced into the blitzkrieg economical readjustment that we are seeing today. Let mistakes past become lessons learnt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Seriously, why the hell can't we open competitive bidding and regional contracts like we did during the 19th century when we were first laying track all across the country?

---

No profit in such a thing.

Yes, you allow failure. When the people bought more house than they should of, you let them become homeless. When the banks made loans that they should not have to people who have a history of bad credit and are nothing more than lofelong losers, you let them go bankrupt. Those who have lived outside of their means and played Russian Roullete with their retirement in the stock market, you let the bullet pass through their skull. Why should I have to pay for everyone else's f-up? Bush was an idiot with the first bail out and his ridiculous spending. Obama is putting the nail into the coffin of personal responsibilty. All we are doing is causing more pain. We should have, before all the stimulus BS, was allow failure and this issue would be over a lot sonner.

Hell now this i can't get behind, i see no tin foil hats up to this point and i even think i agree, though im fully behind infrastructure building as part of the stimulus (high speed trains FTW!) i just don't really see why private corporations deserve this money, most western nations bend over backwards to have these companies in our countrys and then when things go badly were supposed to give them money...

Ask yourself.. how many corporations would bail out the goverment/country...

We are continueing the problem and only making ourselves more and more dependent on government assistance. People can call me nuts or a tin foil hat wearer, I don't care. This is his plan and its going to work because there are enough people who will believe the media and have been educated (indoctornated) into the belief that the government knows whats best. Its a bloodless revolution an no one cares because they've drank the kool aide...

I have to disagree here, i have heard the theory before (haven't got a clue where) that the republicans built up such a huge debt so that a future goverment would have no choice but to get rid of welfare programs in order to have a chance of paying such a debt...

Building up huge debts is definetly not going to advance the welfare state, the goverment will continue to build up huge defecits until spending has to be cut drastically, then which is the goverment going to cut... military or welfare, in a country like USA i would imagine it would much more likely be the latter....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

Yes the U.S is such a commie state right now. Already Lenin statues are being erected allover the place, everyone calls eachother comrade and has started growing a beard (indeed even the women)!

Get serious people. Isn't 20 years post cold war enough to give up believing to McCarthy?

The U.S, like every other western country needs to adopt a mixed economy model (Indeed there is no pure capitalism nor any serious economy supports such a contraption) and introduce controls and welfare elements. Being reluctant to do this, the U.S was forced into the blitzkrieg economical readjustment that we are seeing today. Let mistakes past become lessons learnt.

---

You're not terribly familiar with the economic realities in the US, are you?

We have welfare and lots of government regulations over the economy. Indeed, it was federal policies aimed at increasing home ownership and the reckless loans given by the semi-governmental financial institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that caused most of the underlying problems.

Being too laissez faire has nothing to do with this.

CR

Where is the poll?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I love smoking polls. :smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Unfortunately, we don't have a control experiment to check against. We tend to interpret the Great Depression through our own beliefs. I don't know of a major economy that has tried to step away entirely and let the whole thing go to the wall to see what happens, but maybe a keener student of economics can illuminate.

Subject to the caveat noted above, I don't disagree. But the effect of letting the banks go bust is not measurable given the nature of the over-reliance on financial services for the latest spurt of growth. I think you are optimistic to think that such a go-to-the-wall philosophy wouldn't hugely impact on standards of living. If I understand it, the significant moment propelling the sharp downturn was the hands-off decision on Lehman Brothers.

---

While I can't really illuminate what it means, banking and thus a better credit flow has been vital for the growth of the "modern" economy for about 800 years (I might be a bit off on dates, but the riches of the templars came through banking). Risking a cascade effect that takes out most of the banking system would then probably be extremely bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Well, lots of corporations are in danger of losing lots of money. Corporate tax cuts let them keep more money, so the business is healthier. Capital gains tax cuts encourage stock market investment.

---

That's a bigger cut of a smaller pie (companies get taxes on thier profit). :smug: I recall the opposite argument when tax cuts are mentioned. And stock market investments? They would then be built on nothing concrete, thus having market bubbles tendencies (that might survive if the stimulus is enough to make the consumption grow again though).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

According to some theories, tax cuts and burrowing have the same effect in terms of deficits. The difference is how the money you spend/give back to people affects the economy. This new stimulus, IIRC, offers great new amounts of funds to welfare and makes it easier for people to get on welfare. :wall:

---

As a temporary action it makes sence, people will feel slightly more secure and thus spending more. And the people that end up on welfare as the get fired atm can steel maintain some levels of spending.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

True getting them as permanent welfare recivers would be bad, but increased welfare during hard times are logical, it's in fact intended. Getting them off welfare when the times improves are intended as well though.

I never really gotten they idea that making unemployed dirt poor will somehow make them create work, I mean you only need to look at eastern Europe to see that the concept if flawed and that other factors are much more influencal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

You're not terribly familiar with the economic realities in the US, are you?

We have welfare and lots of government regulations over the economy. Indeed, it was federal policies aimed at increasing home ownership and the reckless loans given by the semi-governmental financial institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that caused most of the underlying problems.

Being too laissez faire has nothing to do with this.

CR

---

Actually it does. If you haven't missed it, the bubble of the US house market were the catalyst and not the cause of the current situation. It viewed the flaw of the whole system (eternal growth).

Dev Dave trust me you dont want to live in a country where your ideas are are put into action.

What we need to do is start a war between some sneetches, which can all profiteer from.



Especially amongst the ones with bellies with stars, and the ones with none upon thars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I believe he is in order to bring forth a socialist state, like the Utopian ones all his radical professors, terrorist buddies, and left wing parents have preached and ingrained into him his entire life.

---

Obama was the second shooter oin the grassy knoll and in 2001 he personally pulled down the Twin Towers, there's video footage of it on the Interweb! :buckteeth:

Man, oh man. If the amount of energy that Americans put into conspiracy theories could ever be harnassed for useful purposes, you guys could do without oil and nuclear power for the next hundred years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Man, oh man. If the amount of energy that Americans put into conspiracy theories could ever be harnassed for useful purposes, you guys could do without oil and nuclear power for the next hundred years.

---

Then teh Obamer would tax it to death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Man, oh man. If the amount of energy that Americans put into conspiracy theories could ever be harnassed for useful purposes, you guys could do without oil and nuclear power for the next hundred years.

---

I hear the oil companies have the secret to conspiracy theory driven energy locked away in their vaults. :shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

EVERYTHING sounds like SOCIALISM.

---

Fix'd. (Not a jibe at CrossLOPER)
Being a socialist, (Social Democrat actually, but it's a broad term), it irritates me how conservative Americans automatically label anything they dislike as socialism. At least do some research and realise that America has a long, long way to go before becoming a socialist state. Trust me; Barack Obama is not a socialist. If he was, you'd know, considering that I and most of Europe would be gushing about him wherever I went.
Obama has the potential though. If he really steps up the environmental work, then he could create a Solar-Powered Keynesian Economy, meaning no nasty supply side shocks as a result of oil.
It doesn't matter if your economic ideals mean that a few people can achieve wealth beyond their wildest dreams; whilst there are black males in inner city slums whose life expectance doesn't creep past 30, whilst families are driven to bankruptcy to pay medical costs, whilst New Orleans still lies empty and devastated, the wealth of a few become irrelevant compared to the poverty of the many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Fix'd. (Not a jibe at CrossLOPER)
Being a socialist, (Social Democrat actually, but it's a broad term), it irritates me how conservative Americans automatically label anything they dislike as socialism. At least do some research and realise that America has a long, long way to go before becoming a socialist state. Trust me; Barack Obama is not a socialist. If he was, you'd know, considering that I and most of Europe would be gushing about him wherever I went.
Obama has the potential though. If he really steps up the environmental work, then he could create a Solar-Powered Keynesian Economy, meaning no nasty supply side shocks as a result of oil.
It doesn't matter if your economic ideals mean that a few people can achieve wealth beyond their wildest dreams; whilst there are black males in inner city slums whose life expectance doesn't creep past 30, whilst families are driven to bankruptcy to pay medical costs, whilst New Orleans still lies empty and devastated, the wealth of a few become irrelevant compared to the poverty of the many.

---

:laugh4:

Europeans *do* love Barack Obama so he must be a socialist, right? The only reason New Orleans is empty and devastated is because today is Ash Wednesday.

:joker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Hell now this i can't get behind, i see no tin foil hats up to this point and i even think i agree, though im fully behind infrastructure building as part of the stimulus (high speed trains FTW!) i just don't really see why private corporations deserve this money, most western nations bend over backwards to have these companies in our countrys and then when things go badly were supposed to give them money...

Ask yourself.. how many corporations would bail out the goverment/country...

---

you understand the concept of the moral hazard.................?

Europeans *do* love Barack Obama so he must be a socialist, right?

People are just very happy for the change from the last guy, most wouldn't really want his policys in thier country...

you understand the concept of the moral hazard.................?

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Europeans *do* love Barack Obama so he must be a socialist, right?

---

After the last guy even Vlad the Impaler would make a welcome change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

After the last guy even Vlad the Impaler would make a welcome change.

---

I liked Vlad, he saved Europe regardless of his actions being a lttle rash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I liked Vlad, he saved Europe regardless of his actions being a lttle rash.

---

...by staking his claim to the Balkans....:smartass:

I must say that I have a bit more confidance in the stimulus plan after watching Obama give his speech last night. The investment in science, infrastructure, and education is long overdo anyways. It also seemed like he truly is thinking long term and already making plans about how to deal with the debt.

However, I did turn it off before he finished his whole speech. Pelosi jumping up and applauding like a neurotic hamster every 2 minutes became very annoying:whip:

This thread confirms my suspicions that Dev Dave is a master satirist. Well done sir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Dev Dave trust me you dont want to live in a country where your ideas are are put into action.

---

Don't worry, we'll burn this country to the ground before we lower government intervention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I liked Vlad, he saved Europe regardless of his actions being a lttle rash.

---

He was too pinko for my taste. I'm a right-wing social democrat, Qin Shi Huangdi platform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

I must say that I have a bit more confidance in the stimulus plan after watching Obama give his speech last night. The investment in science, infrastructure, and education is long overdo anyways. It also seemed like he truly is thinking long term and already making plans about how to deal with the debt.

---

That's all standard claptrap anyhow. Sure, he delivered it well- but it still seemed pretty empty. Take education- we've been pouring cash into it for decades. How is throwing more money at the problem going to fix anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

After the last guy even Vlad the Impaler would make a welcome change.

---

Thank you for your vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Thank you for your vote.

---

Nah, too lefty for me.

Obama is the antichrist. Or Hitler. Or both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Obama is the antichrist. Or Hitler. Or both.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Obama is the antichrist. Or Hitler. Or both.

---

There was actually a facebook group about him being the antichrist before he was even elected.I also read a somewhat detailed analysis about how Putin is the antichrist a few years ago. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

There was actually a facebook group about him being the antichrist before he was even elected.I also read a somewhat detailed analysis about how Putin is the antichrist a few years ago. :sweatdrop:

---

You forgot that Brown is the completion of the "unholy trinity". :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Obama is the antichrist. Or Hitler. Or both.

---

If Obama is the antichrist, then there really isn't anything we could have done to stop his election, is there? Other than prepping our souls for The END. Or does the first person who convincingly outted him get some brownie points in the afterlife?

I doubt Obama is Hitler. He would have learned not to fight a two front war.

Thats what always gets me about the anti-christ fanatics. If it's prophecy, it was gonna happen anyhow, so theres forgiveness if you fell for the bollocks, and you can't really do anything but try to educate people because fighting won't save you because, well, it's the anti-christ.

I would think these people would actually be happy the anti-christ were here because it meant they could go to heaven soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

I doubt Obama is Hitler. He would have learned not to fight a two front war.

---

Obama might be Putin though. You never see them speech at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

I doubt Obama is Hitler. He would have learned not to fight a two front war.

---

Sure about that? He doesn't seem to be too worried about bringing the two front war he inherited to a quick end.

Personally I love the fact that both these fellows wrote best selling books about themselves and what they would do if they ran things. :egypt: :dizzy2: :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Sure about that? He doesn't seem to be too worried about bringing the two front war he inherited to a quick end.

---

Word is, Rudolf Hess has flown to Iraq... :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Obama might be Putin though.

---

If so, he's Putin' on a good front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

If so, he's Putin' on a good front.

---

It beats being a pinch-hitler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

It beats being a pinch-hitler.

---

:laugh4: :thumbsup:

You're right. That would cause a Fuhrer.

What a duel...quite a bit of sword-play going on here.....



P.S. Happy Independence Day to our Dominican members.....wherever you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

What a duel...quite a bit of sword-play going on here.....



P.S. Happy Independence Day to our Dominican members.....wherever you are.

---

It that a post concerning Pirates?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

It that a post concerning Pirates?

---

No, I was just in pain over the punning.

It is, actually, The Dominican Republic's Independence Day. Of course, most of their top tier players are still opting out of the national team, regardless of the Holiday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

:laugh4: :thumbsup:

You're right. That would cause a Fuhrer.

---

*groan*

Is this ever Göring to stop?

Speer us!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

*groan*

Is this ever Göring to stop?

---

Say again? Your message was Gerboled in transmission.