Is anybody going to a Tax Day Tea Party?

"I have to say, I have met a good lot of people who actually lived through WWII and the great depression.  None of them think the New Deal was such a huge failure.  I can recall my grandmother saying that she would always vote Democrat "no matter what" because of the great things FDR did.Silly old people.  Don't they know how big of a FAILURE the New Deal was?  Gosh, to think that they believe their own lying eyes, instead of people that think Ayn Rand tripe is "literature"."

"Kr3lian said:

"I have to say, I have met a good lot of people who actually lived through WWII and the great depression.  None of them think the New Deal was such a huge failure.  I can recall my grandmother saying that she would always vote Democrat "no matter what" because of the great things FDR did.Silly old people.  Don't they know how big of a FAILURE the New Deal was?  Gosh, to think that they believe their own lying eyes, instead of people that think Ayn Rand tripe is "literature"."

Let's generalize, shall we? I've met tons of old people who think the New Deal awful, and also lived through it. My grandparents rather dislike FDR.

I'm also curious if you've ever read Ayn Rand. Whether or not you agree with her, she makes some valid points in her books, and her ideas are very thought provoking.

"

God Fox News is going too far with this 9/12 project...

"mikevanpwn said:

"Since when did I defend Bush?  The TARP plan was Bush's his doing, but the Stimulus was driven by Obama.  I thought the TARP was stupid, but I wasn't surprised that Bush supported it, he isn't the most fiscal conservative out there, look at his large spending he had throughout his term.  And yes the New Deal example, why do you hate it so much?  The New Deal attempted to prop up up the failing economy by heavily investing in the private sector and it fell apart like a house of cards in 1937. 

I posted this quote already but I'll post it again: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... After eight years of this Administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!" — Henry Morgenthau, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Treasury secretaryThis was spoken at a House Ways & Means committee meeting in 1939, a democrat and a New Dealer admits to the failiure of a large spending plan.  You cant even argue for this type of spending, all it has done is lead to debt and inflation down the road.  Printing money only dillutes the value of the dollar.  You say that we need money now?  So lets say you had 10 dollars, and the government has been minting money for the past year to double the amount of money we have in circulation.  In that years time your 10 dollars would have turned into 5 dollars, you'd need 20 dollars to pay for something that you could have bought for 10 dollars before they printed the new money.  This new money holds no value.  Dont you see the problem?"

1. You dont seem to have either what i'm saying or what actually happened quite straight. I never said that you defended bush. But why didnt you support tax day tea parties when he was in office? And the stimulus package was written by the Bush Administration as well. Thats why there was so much pork, because it had been written before Obama got into office, and Obama felt it was more important to get the money flowing than to worry about the pork.

So my first question is, why weren't tea parties organized against bush?

2. I hate the new deal example because i've argued it to death on these forums already, so i feel tempted to not even bother. However, if you want me to argue its merits, i'll do it (grudgingly)

3. Really, didnt the video that YOU supplied show that major inflation didn't happen until the Reagan era? So where's all the inflation from the New Deal?

4. Printing money is something Bush did. Obama is not simply printing money to pay the debt, and if you think im wrong show me your source. In fact, didnt we just hear that inflation has gone down a bit recently?

"

"mikevanpwn said:

"AgentJ said:

"mikevanpwn said:

"Since when did I defend Bush?  The TARP plan was Bush's his doing, but the Stimulus was driven by Obama.  I thought the TARP was stupid, but I wasn't surprised that Bush supported it, he isn't the most fiscal conservative out there, look at his large spending he had throughout his term.  And yes the New Deal example, why do you hate it so much?  The New Deal attempted to prop up up the failing economy by heavily investing in the private sector and it fell apart like a house of cards in 1937. 

I posted this quote already but I'll post it again: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... After eight years of this Administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!" — Henry Morgenthau, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Treasury secretaryThis was spoken at a House Ways & Means committee meeting in 1939, a democrat and a New Dealer admits to the failiure of a large spending plan.  You cant even argue for this type of spending, all it has done is lead to debt and inflation down the road.  Printing money only dillutes the value of the dollar.  You say that we need money now?  So lets say you had 10 dollars, and the government has been minting money for the past year to double the amount of money we have in circulation.  In that years time your 10 dollars would have turned into 5 dollars, you'd need 20 dollars to pay for something that you could have bought for 10 dollars before they printed the new money.  This new money holds no value.  Dont you see the problem?"

1. You dont seem to have either what i'm saying or what actually happened quite straight. I never said that you defended bush. But why didnt you support tax day tea parties when he was in office? And the stimulus package was written by the Bush Administration as well. Thats why there was so much pork, because it had been written before Obama got into office, and Obama felt it was more important to get the money flowing than to worry about the pork.

So my first question is, why weren't tea parties organized against bush?

2. I hate the new deal example because i've argued it to death on these forums already, so i feel tempted to not even bother. However, if you want me to argue its merits, i'll do it (grudgingly)

3. Really, didnt the video that YOU supplied show that major inflation didn't happen until the Reagan era? So where's all the inflation from the New Deal?

4. Printing money is something Bush did. Obama is not simply printing money to pay the debt, and if you think im wrong show me your source. In fact, didnt we just hear that inflation has gone down a bit recently?

"

1.  As I said I didn't support Bush at all for his spending, or the TARP plan.  There were no spending protests however, and opposition to the current protests like to point that out.  I think most people found Bush's spending as lousy during his term but it never reached limits that it has today.  The deficit has been a big concern for a while now and I've hoped for actions in reducing it, obviously it hasn't been reduced but more than doubled instead.  And the Bush Administration didn't write the current Stimulus, they had an initial plan that they were drafting that was rejected by Obama's transition team and replaced it in favor for longer and larger spending plan.2.  The New Deal argument explains a lot of whats going on today though, its relevant.3.  Yes, Inflation started going up after we were taken off the Gold Standard by a REPUBLICAN president in the 70s.  I understand that, and I'm not arguing about the politics here.  But if you finish watching that video where you see the line get steeper and steeper before going vertically upwards.  That line represents how far we've gone off our spending base.4.  Printing money is something that every president has done since the 1970s, with no gold standard there is nothing to keep bank notes in check!  And Obama isn't printing money to pay off debt, he's printing money to add to it!  The Stimulus plan has created money that is going to be invested into banks, and businesses.  Also for inflation, the market takes a few years to catch up from the current spending, that is why people are protesting spending right now, 'cause the future forcast doesn't look good."

1. If it was so simple to reduce the defecit, that solution would have already been used. Its not something that they can just turn a crank on and fix things. It takes shrewd strategy, and I'm hoping that the strategy Obama picked is the one that's going to work. But the Bush Administration was the writer of the "current stimulus". Obama simply used what was left to him. And the point I was making was that only republicans are upset about Obamas spending because it seems they only care when a Democrat is in charge. Thats what happens when you watch and listen to those popular right-wing hosts every day.

2. It is relavant, Im just tired of arguing it. The last time i did i found out by the end that i was arguing with an anarchist, and realized that none of what I said would make sense to him.

3. I am going to trust Obama to take care of the Dollar, and so far I think he's doing a good job of protecting its value, so Im not too worried.

4. You dont seem to understand the idea that America is getting this money from China in a loan. They dont have to print money because they are borrowing it. So the money going into banks and buisnesses isnt coming from the printing presses, but from the Chinese coffers. 

BTW Citigroup and GM released hopeful earnings reports today, so Obama must be doing something right.

"

Woah, politics....

needs moar girl advice

"mikevanpwn said:

"AgentJ said:

1. If it was so simple to reduce the defecit, that solution would have already been used. Its not something that they can just turn a crank on and fix things. It takes shrewd strategy, and I'm hoping that the strategy Obama picked is the one that's going to work. But the Bush Administration was the writer of the "current stimulus". Obama simply used what was left to him. And the point I was making was that only republicans are upset about Obamas spending because it seems they only care when a Democrat is in charge. Thats what happens when you watch and listen to those popular right-wing hosts every day.

2. It is relavant, Im just tired of arguing it. The last time i did i found out by the end that i was arguing with an anarchist, and realized that none of what I said would make sense to him.

3. I am going to trust Obama to take care of the Dollar, and so far I think he's doing a good job of protecting its value, so Im not too worried.

4. You dont seem to understand the idea that America is getting this money from China in a loan. They dont have to print money because they are borrowing it. So the money going into banks and buisnesses isnt coming from the printing presses, but from the Chinese coffers. 

BTW Citigroup and GM released hopeful earnings reports today, so Obama must be doing something right.

"

1.  You're right, it isn't easy to reduce a deficit.  But his continued spending isn't changing the tune that Bush had going.  And no, the Bush Administration had drafted a two year plan of roughly 500 billion (still a bad idea), Obama rejected that plan and created the larger one we see today.  Maybe the base of it stayed intact but the argument really isn't about which party created what now is it?  I've already stated that I disagreed with Bush's spending policy, but it isnt true that Obama just took the stimulus and simply rebranded it.2. Well I'm not an anarchist so whats the point of not arguing it?3. I'm going to trust no politician to take care of the dollar, they shouldn't have their hands this deep in the economy in the first place.4. You expect me to sound relieved that China is paying for this?  They buy bonds in part, but even they couldnt afford the price tag of the stimulus package.  China isn't going to want to hold our whole debt, the excess spending will be paid for by minting money."

1. I am well aware that you dont agree with Bush, but i want to make sure the facts are straight, as well as show how many prominent republicans are being complete hypocrites about the situation. I think you got it right about the base staying intact, but Obama never really put his fingers in that pie anyway, especially when it comes to the pork. Thats on the heads of the congressmen.

2. The point is that i've argued the point to death and I dont know yet whether you are a reasonable person or not. Its not an arguement I want to have again

3. Thats a pretty typical conservative idea, not that there is anything wrong with conservatism. I think thats a point where the two of us are going to have to agree to disagree.

4. Again, this isn't about appeasing you or angering you, but about getting the facts straight. We are essentially getting a payday loan from china in lieu of printing a bunch of money and falling into an inflation trap. I think you underestimate the power of China, as they most definately have the means to afford our stimulus package. 

5. You never did reply to the points that other poster made that i called you on. I cant believe i let you off the hook for all of that.

6. Question: Whats your plan to fix things then? I want numbers and specifics. 

"

"AgentJ said:

"mikevanpwn said:

"AgentJ said:

1. If it was so simple to reduce the defecit, that solution would have already been used. Its not something that they can just turn a crank on and fix things. It takes shrewd strategy, and I'm hoping that the strategy Obama picked is the one that's going to work. But the Bush Administration was the writer of the "current stimulus". Obama simply used what was left to him. And the point I was making was that only republicans are upset about Obamas spending because it seems they only care when a Democrat is in charge. Thats what happens when you watch and listen to those popular right-wing hosts every day.

2. It is relavant, Im just tired of arguing it. The last time i did i found out by the end that i was arguing with an anarchist, and realized that none of what I said would make sense to him.

3. I am going to trust Obama to take care of the Dollar, and so far I think he's doing a good job of protecting its value, so Im not too worried.

4. You dont seem to understand the idea that America is getting this money from China in a loan. They dont have to print money because they are borrowing it. So the money going into banks and buisnesses isnt coming from the printing presses, but from the Chinese coffers. 

BTW Citigroup and GM released hopeful earnings reports today, so Obama must be doing something right.

"

1.  You're right, it isn't easy to reduce a deficit.  But his continued spending isn't changing the tune that Bush had going.  And no, the Bush Administration had drafted a two year plan of roughly 500 billion (still a bad idea), Obama rejected that plan and created the larger one we see today.  Maybe the base of it stayed intact but the argument really isn't about which party created what now is it?  I've already stated that I disagreed with Bush's spending policy, but it isnt true that Obama just took the stimulus and simply rebranded it.2. Well I'm not an anarchist so whats the point of not arguing it?3. I'm going to trust no politician to take care of the dollar, they shouldn't have their hands this deep in the economy in the first place.4. You expect me to sound relieved that China is paying for this?  They buy bonds in part, but even they couldnt afford the price tag of the stimulus package.  China isn't going to want to hold our whole debt, the excess spending will be paid for by minting money."

1. I am well aware that you dont agree with Bush, but i want to make sure the facts are straight, as well as show how many prominent republicans are being complete hypocrites about the situation. I think you got it right about the base staying intact, but Obama never really put his fingers in that pie anyway, especially when it comes to the pork. Thats on the heads of the congressmen.

2. The point is that i've argued the point to death and I dont know yet whether you are a reasonable person or not. Its not an arguement I want to have again

3. Thats a pretty typical conservative idea, not that there is anything wrong with conservatism. I think thats a point where the two of us are going to have to agree to disagree.

4. Again, this isn't about appeasing you or angering you, but about getting the facts straight. We are essentially getting a payday loan from china in lieu of printing a bunch of money and falling into an inflation trap. I think you underestimate the power of China, as they most definately have the means to afford our stimulus package. 

5. You never did reply to the points that other poster made that i called you on. I cant believe i let you off the hook for all of that.

6. Question: Whats your plan to fix things then? I want numbers and specifics. 

"

Warren G. Harding presided over a steep depression that lasted only a year (1920-21), and was quoted with saying "There will be depression after inflation, just as surely as the tides ebb and flow."  The momentum of irrational business will take the market into a nose dive to where the rational side of business will ride that downward momentum into an upswing, and so it goes.

"

This is, for the most part, well thought out and I applaud you for that. This is far more detailed than any plan our republican congressmen have presented to us. 

The problem with letting the companies fail is that suddenly there are thousands of people without jobs. This country can't afford to support all of them with welfare checks. This is kind of the part where I found out the other guy was an anarchist, and he essentially said to screw those people and let them die. I doubt you would feel the same way, so I want to know how you would get those people new jobs.  (BTW wasn't hoover the one that simply let things be? And didnt unemployment rise into the 15 and 20 percents?)

The car companies(at least GM) are finally showing promise as of about yesterday, so it might be a bad idea to meddle with all of that now. Besides, i've seen a number of videos where republican talk-show hosts presented either a completely false number or one that was heavily construed, so i'd take those ideas about the Union contracts with a heavy grain of salt. 

You are probably right about GM had it filed a number of years ago, but unfortunately that isnt the scenario. Obama can't turn back the clock and tell Sloan to do what he should have done. He can only deal with whats going on right now. We have yet to see whether or not his strategy will eventually work, but the fact that GM is beating forecasts is a good sign. 

I will allow that the economy could possibly fix itself if we just left it alone, but I'd rather see my politicans trying to do something, and I dont want people to be left out in the cold because the government decided to "stay out of it".

"

lilburtonboy7489 said:

"mikevanpwn said:

Warren G. Harding presided over a steep depression that lasted only a year (1920-21), and was quoted with saying "There will be depression after inflation, just as surely as the tides ebb and flow."  The momentum of irrational business will take the market into a nose dive to where the rational side of business will ride that downward momentum into an upswing, and so it goes.

ZOMG, i made a post on that a few weeks ago and no one believed it or had heard of it. Nice to know someone else knows a little something about economic history. "

Yea, it gets no love from history books.

I find that odd, considering aggregate production decreased by 20% in a matter of months.

War is a drain on the economy. Saying war is good for the economy commits the broken window fallacy. The prosperity of the 20's came from an expansion of credit which lead to the massive boom and eventually the bust of 1929.

"mikevanpwn said:

"AgentJ said:

"

This is, for the most part, well thought out and I applaud you for that. This is far more detailed than any plan our republican congressmen have presented to us. 

The problem with letting the companies fail is that suddenly there are thousands of people without jobs. This country can't afford to support all of them with welfare checks. This is kind of the part where I found out the other guy was an anarchist, and he essentially said to screw those people and let them die. I doubt you would feel the same way, so I want to know how you would get those people new jobs.  (BTW wasn't hoover the one that simply let things be? And didnt unemployment rise into the 15 and 20 percents?)

The car companies(at least GM) are finally showing promise as of about yesterday, so it might be a bad idea to meddle with all of that now. Besides, i've seen a number of videos where republican talk-show hosts presented either a completely false number or one that was heavily construed, so i'd take those ideas about the Union contracts with a heavy grain of salt. 

You are probably right about GM had it filed a number of years ago, but unfortunately that isnt the scenario. Obama can't turn back the clock and tell Sloan to do what he should have done. He can only deal with whats going on right now. We have yet to see whether or not his strategy will eventually work, but the fact that GM is beating forecasts is a good sign. 

I will allow that the economy could possibly fix itself if we just left it alone, but I'd rather see my politicans trying to do something, and I dont want people to be left out in the cold because the government decided to "stay out of it".

"

Hoover was pro government intervention, and this was a major departure from his predecessors Harding and Coolidge.  He ordered state Governors to continue with public projects, despite the slackened cash flow.  And also requested that companies continue to pay their workesr the same wage and to not cut spending/jobs.  This ultimately strangled these businesses profits and eventually led them to close down.  Also, Hoover passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff which vitually choked international trade, it was a move designed to protect America's domestic industry but it didnt work out as it used to in the early 1800s; basically, tariffs were set so high that the US lost all their foreign trade and severly weakend their domestic production.GM may be showing progress, but really they'll always walk with a limp under the conditions they're operating under.  The government could continue to subsidize these companies, but it cant fix anything unless it takes direct control, which is tyrannical in its own right.  The unions are the problem with the American auto industry.  Now I'm not going to argue against the unions (as I said its another discussion) as it also is GMs own fault for accepting the union contract in the first place.  GM could correct that mistake by reorganizing the company, but if they continue to seek Government support then all its doing is prolonging the inevitable.The Government Welfare system is broken, even though the service provided is great; its so great that some people decide against finding a new job since the welfare checks pay for their needs.The welfare system needs to be privatized.  A great example of a private welfare organization is the Salvation Army.  The Salvation Army has been around since the mid 1800s and spends billions of dollars a year helping the homeless get food/shelter, and helps the unemployed find jobs.  They're run entirely off donations, and I prefer donation to a mandatory tax. They give roughly 84 cents of every dollar donated to programs to help the needy, compared to rougly 50 cents for every dollar recieved in the government welfare program.  And the Salvation Army is not alone, there are plenty of other religious and non-religious charities out there as well.  The advantage to these is that the services it provides are run as a business, and instead of giving a bum a check every month to live on they promote finding employment for these people, its a lot more efficient."

President Hoover insisted that the economy was sound and that prosperity would soon return. 

Hoover sought to cut government spending

Sounds to me like Hoover was pretty much keeping his ass out of things. Sounds to me like those public works projects were too little, too late, and of course cutting off foreign trade with the tariffs was a horrible idea. 

GM was doing so badly over the last few years that I highly doubt that getting rid of Union contracts would have done enough to keep the company afloat. those contracts were a drop in a bucket. 

And amazingly in the very same story, I found this, related to privatizing welfare. People aren't going to give enough to support the jobless, especially in tough times where the money is really needed. 

Private giving increased greatly, reaching a record high in 1932, but charitable organizations were overwhelmed by the enormous number of people in need.

"

Do you know what I don't get? All these libertarians who think government (People) will always be corrupt yet companies and industries (Also people) are never corrupt and will never do illegitimate actions that will profit them and screw people.

"mikevanpwn said:

Its not like the welfare system we currently have is fine and dandy, and also, let me add that I would only support private charity if the government let the economy go unregulated.  It goes back to Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand, if the government kept their hands out of the market then we wouldn't be having these large depressions, as an invisible hand would guide the market. And as I said, this worked in during the 1920's there was rise and fall in the economy through the whole 20s; nothing ever crashed until stock traders started getting out of hand and taking risks by buying and selling stock with money they did not have. 

And Hoover definitely didn't keep his hands hands to himself, MSN Encarta is pretty brief in the history, and is ineffective on explaining the situation.

Hoover wrote on the crisis after his presidency, "The primary question, at once arose as to whether the President and the federal government should undertake to mitigate and to remedy the evils. . . . [Yes], we had to pioneer a new field."  He believed that the economy had to be regulated, and as I stated he did so by pushing and expanding public projects (Including building the Hoover Dam), by signing into law the high tariffs that damaged the economy, and by campaigning for companies to keep their production, jobs and wages up as they had been before the recession.

If Hoover had kept out of the market's business the recession wouldn't have lasted that long.  However, government intervention made matters worse and basically locked the economy into a free fall that would take almost a decade to recover from.  So of course private charity was overwhelmed in this situation, but if had the government not been pushing the economies buttons then they wouldn't have had so many people out of work!

As I said, I'd only support private welfare if I could trust the economy, and I cant trust it with the government being so hands on with the market.  I left out this further suggestion for fear of making the last explanation of private welfare to wordy, but it fits in the conversation now.  But some states have looked into supplementing their  government welfare with private welfare.  I would much rather support private run welfare that is subsidized by the government than government welfare on its own.  We would still have to pay some welfare taxes if the charity was unable to meet the need in donations, but it would be decidedly less as the organization thats subsidized by the government would still be getting the majority of its funds from donations.  I mean basically thats what goes on today, we pay more taxes to pay for the government welfare, but yet thousands upon thousands of donations still stream into private charities.  Ideally welfare could be run on its own, but in extreme circumstances of economic catastrophe the government could pump funds into the private welfare groups.  Then again, we wouldn't have an economic catastrophe if the government didn't get involved in the first place.

Take a look at any recession in America's history a recession is always following a political action.  The government has this idea that they can regulate the economy but they have no business in doing so!  America became the leader of the Industrial Revoultion because they were free to do as they pleased, we didnt get into any real economic trouble until the government thought it was a good idea to start poking at the market in the 1930s.
"

I dont think I would trust many people in the industry as far as i can throw them, so to let the industry guide itself seems completely unreasonable to me. However, in a perfect world, without greed and corruption, perhaps that would be the way to go. Like you said, it was the stock traders that ruined everything in the 20s, and it was the banks and lenders that caused it now. I can't see how regulating these industries to the point they were between 1940 and 1990 would be a bad thing(clinton repealed many of the regulations put in place to prevent another depression and look what happened). 

While the tariffs were a horrible idea, where would America be without the Hoover Dam? That dam not only supplies a huge amount of electricity to southern california, arizona, and nevada, but supplies all of Nevadas water. Las Vegas probably wouldn't exist today. This country needs more public-works projects, especially now that all of the 1940s infrastructure is falling apart (see the st.paul bridge collapse).

The idea that the "meddling" of the presidents back then is just that: an idea. I know you dont like it when people bring up Jon Stewart, but he had a great interview with an author of a  book about the whole depression. Wish i could find it right now. 

So now i wonder, hypotheticly, what would happen in your world of no welfare taxes when a depression hits despite the lack of regulation? For example, the depression after 9/11 wasn't caused by greedy investors, but thousands of people, most notably in the airline buisness, were put out of work. The sudden influx would be too much for charities to handle. Do you just let them live on the street or die? How about the Katrina victims not covered by their insurance? I think supplementation might work, but theres no way that relying on private money would ever work. most food banks and charities were struggling even before this economic disaster

Wait, what political action, other than Clinton deregulating the industry, did this latest depression follow?

"

"Kr3lian said:

"I have to say, I have met a good lot of people who actually lived through WWII and the great depression.  None of them think the New Deal was such a huge failure.  I can recall my grandmother saying that she would always vote Democrat "no matter what" because of the great things FDR did.Silly old people.  Don't they know how big of a FAILURE the New Deal was?  Gosh, to think that they believe their own lying eyes, instead of people that think Ayn Rand tripe is "literature"."

Let's generalize, shall we? I've met tons of old people who think the New Deal awful, and also lived through it. My grandparents rather dislike FDR.

I'm also curious if you've ever read Ayn Rand. Whether or not you agree with her, she makes some valid points in her books, and her ideas are very thought provoking.

"

"Do you know what I don't get? All these libertarians who think government (People) will always be corrupt yet companies and industries (Also people) are never corrupt and will never do illegitimate actions that will profit them and screw people."

"No that's not it at all.  I don't think the government is corrupt, but it mishandles the economy.  The marketplace itself is made up of millions and millions of people and it operates as a republic, everyone is involved in the shaping of the economy.  Most businessmen are not corrupt, and the few that are cant do any real damage as long as there are millions of people who continually operate in the market.  The economy will work in the same way no matter if there is a government watching it or not, all the federal government does is sit on top of it all and tries to regulate it.  That's why people bring up corruption, because a little corruption in a population filled with people with good intentions is harmless, but if corruption is able to take its seat in the federal government, well then we have problems, as the few in the federal government regulates the whole market."

"Ugh, this is all getting way too long...

The thing is, I elected the people in the government. Who elected the stock holders? Who elected the CEOs? Im able to elect someone that i dont think will fuck me over at the first chance, but I cant choose who gets to run Bear Sterns. Also, most politicians(not the lobbists) are not biased by the best interest of their company. When they are, you get someone like cheney who sends no-bid contracts to halliburton.  So yes, i would trust the few politicians. 

And the economy wouldnt have fallen to shit had those investors not played with those loans, which, until Clinton changed things, was regulated. You say that Bush "encouraged" the loans, but you dont think they would have happened anyway? people will do anything to get ahead, especially buisnessmen. This sort of thing didnt happen between the great depression and now because there was regulation preventing it from happening. 

The public works have to happen sometime. Seems like people dont work on infrastructure until it's too late (see Minnesota bridge, New Orleans levies). Now is the time to put the unemployed to work on all of these necessairy projects, and maybe a few unnecessairy ones that make life easier. More workers means more taxes payed to the government, which means more buisnesses, which means more new jobs for those previously unemployed people. seems simple to me. I find it funny that you are reiterating another fox news talking point (those jobs aren't temporary)

As it is the Government mandates welfare checks, which is what the majority of the poor or homeless use to get by. People only pay welfare tax because it is mandatory. What happens when they dont have to pay it anymore? You think that the vast majority of people will still pay it? I doubt it. WIthout Welfare, the charities would never be able to help the number of people in need. It just wouldn't happen.

You should go back to the second paragraph of my reply if you want a reply to your part about the loans. The reasons the taxpayers are holding these companies up is so that the people working for them still have jobs. It'd be a nightmare if all of those people with ford, gm, and crystler, along with all their suppliers, suddenly didnt have jobs in this climate. There are no jobs as it is. It would be an unmitigated disaster. 

Again, this recession/depression happened because regulation was taken away. It was only a matter of time.

"

"mikevanpwn said:

"No that's not it at all.  I don't think the government is corrupt, but it mishandles the economy.  The marketplace itself is made up of millions and millions of people and it operates as a republic, everyone is involved in the shaping of the economy.  Most businessmen are not corrupt, and the few that are cant do any real damage as long as there are millions of people who continually operate in the market.  The economy will work in the same way no matter if there is a government watching it or not, all the federal government does is sit on top of it all and tries to regulate it.  That's why people bring up corruption, because a little corruption in a population filled with people with good intentions is harmless, but if corruption is able to take its seat in the federal government, well then we have problems, as the few in the federal government regulates the whole market."

That sure helped with Enron and Ethyl Corporation and all those banks. Oh wait, no, those happened BECAUSE of regulation.You know this position is invalid when Canada is one of the few countries in the western world that has come out much better than any other, even with serious regulation. Is there a libertarian reason for that, or is this going to be another ignored example?"

Snipzor said:

That sure helped with Enron and Ethyl Corporation and all those banks. Oh wait, no, those happened BECAUSE of regulation.You know this position is invalid when Canada is one of the few countries in the western world that has come out much better than any other, even with serious regulation. Is there a libertarian reason for that, or is this going to be another ignored example?"

Snipzor, to be honest, I cant debate Enron/Ethyl, I don't know enough of those topics to argue them, nor do I know the relationship the Canadian government has with its economy.  Although I would think that Canada's economy would be easier for the government to regulate due to the size of its GDP in comparisons to the US, and that it not being one of the top economical leaders of the world, but I dont know."

"I kind of expected you to throw in the towel after that post, but you are right. We aren't likely to agree on anything, and frankly im tired of having to comment on this topic every time you do, so nows as good a time as any to stop. BTW Canada is infact one of the economical leaders in the world..."

Well let me explain the Ethyl Corporation story. The Ethyl Corporation was discovered to have poisoned products which contributed to environmental issues as well as certain health standard violations. Now the FDA did not find this, but rather a Canadian source found it and the Canadian government published the findings as well as banning their products from the country. Funny thing is that it is apparently it is not illegal to do such a thing, and they [Ethyl Corporation] sued the government.And yes, this is just an informative post."

I'd be awesome to pass out psychedelic tea at one of these places.
Hell, it doesn't even have to be some hardcore peyote shit, maybe just some kratom and see if these people would look at the world a a little bit different without the Fox fear machine herding them in and putting them a frenzy.

i hated how republicans like Sean Hannity, fucking acted like it was their idea. This was a grassroots movement by Libertarians, and Ron Paul-esque republicans, not these neo-cons who basically jump the bandwagon on anything that goes against what the dems are doing. The neo-cons did the exact same thing for 8 years. 

I'm not going because It's full of racist fuck faces!!!! How about that!!!!

"I'm not going because It's full of racist fuck faces!!!! How about that!!!!"

"AgentJ said:

"I kind of expected you to throw in the towel after that post, but you are right. We aren't likely to agree on anything, and frankly im tired of having to comment on this topic every time you do, so nows as good a time as any to stop. BTW Canada is infact one of the economical leaders in the world..."

Oh please, trying to claim victory after we've ground this conversation down to next to nothing, and after dropping hints about its unwelcome longevity.   We both realize that we've already posted our answers to relative topics, and that all we'd be doing is repeating ourselves; I had expected a more virtuous reply.

Ok, i'm dragging this shit back up but for a good reason.  Some dipshit conservative radio talkshow host tried to make his bones by protesting Janeane Garofalo after she called teabaggers "racist rednecks."  Which isn't exactly right since it was mostly an astroturf job.

So anyway he tried to make his bones by calling for a massive protest of Garofalo where his listeners would show up and throw teabags at her during a comedy show.  The only problem is the only people who showed up was the dj and a camera man from fox news.  Yeah this is obviously a huge viable fucking grass roots movement!  This is Sam Seder ripping the poor lightweight to shreds later that week.

Glenn Beck is a fool, for most of that video he was just making jokes about Al Gore. Gotta love how this brain-washer did not even mention how it was between 2001-2008 when the TOTAL national debt DOUBLED...hmmm who was in office then (was that money even spent in this country?)? I truly feel sorry for people that only watch Fox News and are brainwashed by the Republican parties leaders that are Rush L., Glenn B, Sean H, and Bill O, the destruction that their party heavily caused in this country is horrible and they and their followers act like it never happened and somehow it's all Obama's fault now.

Don't tell that to Mikevanpwn.  It's a "bipartisan issue" and Obama's so-called record spending to try to stimulate a dead economy is reckless and foolish according to him.