OK guys, listen up! It's getting WORSE!

[Pyrotex]

Moderation note: the first posts of this thread were originally in the thread 13837. It was moved because it’s not about teaching evolution, but about economics and US politics.

 

Okay guys, listen up!

It's getting WORSE!

We very nearly had an economic meltdown over the last ten days or so.

Financial Armageddon of the likes we have not seen since The Great Depression.

 

Eight years of self-serving deregulation by the NeoCons, as well as a total failure of what it takes to maintain a healthy economy, has led to THIS. There are NO more Great Investment Banks in the USA any more! In the blink of an eye, institutions that promised to be the solid rock foundation of our country's prosperity for all time -- have collapsed or restructured. The last two survivors have been reformulated as "ordinary banks" so that they now come under the government's strict banking regulations.

 

The Conservatives did this to us (especially the NeoCons) -- those that believe in "Raw Unfettered Capitalism" with the same fervor as religious zealots. They deregulated Savings & Loans. Nearly destroyed the S&Ls. They deregulated the airlines. What was dozens of prospering airlines is now a few faltering survivors barely able to keep out of bankruptcy. They deregulating Investment Banks. Nearly destroyed our entire economy. Tens of millions will lose their homes.

 

Do you see the problem? Conservatives have bestowed upon the "Market" the same attributes that Christians have given to the "Holy Ghost". It's "holy". It's "mystical" and beyond understanding of its "mysterious ways". It blesses with one hand and destroys with the other. All bow down and worship its sacred presence.

 

REAL Conservatives (and I am one) believe that the 2nd most important duty of the American Government is to defend and protect the Economy. With the historical and factual understanding that raw, unregulated Capitalism is unstable and tends to become chaotic. Without sufficient constraints, it will self-destruct. And we DO understand the Market and its Forces. Keynesian Economics.

 

REAL Conservatives know you should not meddle with the economy or experiment with it unnecessarily. It should be as free as we can make it -- that's the "defend" part. But we must provide the minimum necessary management to keep it from collapsing -- that's the "protect" part.

 

The Republican Party does NOT understand this. They worship Capitalism. They do nothing to protect it.

 

For all its (purported) faults, the only political party that has any chance of protecting our economy is the Democrats. And even then, we'll need a little luck.

[Nitack]

Okay guys, listen up!

For all its (purported) faults, the only political party that has any chance of protecting our economy is the Democrats. And even then, we'll need a little luck.

 

Taxes are inherently harmful to an economy because they take out more capital then they actually do good. The Democratic candidate has a plan of adding more taxes and increasing spending. As we saw in the Great Depression, that will actually lengthen and make our downfall even more painful.

 

Our economy was actually dealt harm when the government, under democratic rule, mandated that lenders make home loans available to "under served" populations. The problem is that those populations could not actually qualify for a home loan under conventional standards because most of the people frankly could not afford to own a home. However the mandate was laid out by the government and the banks found creative ways to make it happen.

 

The Democrats will not save us Pyro. They will tax and spend, erecting Roosevelt-esk programs and keep us further into the darkness. It is not capitalism that brought us to the brink, it is the populist and socialist principles that drove us over the cliff. We bleed trillions of dollars out of our economy in order to finance medicaid, medicare and social security. I agree, that regulation has a place, but only when protected from the socialist aims of segments of the population.

 

Unfortunately no one wants to man up and say "we can't take care of everyone, people have to take care of themselves."

[Nitack]

For the record, I am Libertarian. I hate the religious zealots on the right and despise the bleed the life out of people democrats.

 

Government exists to preserve my individual liberties and to protect my freedom. Government should not exist in order to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have nots. A guy who drops out of high school should not expect that he should be able to own a home just by virtue of being born. You should have to work hard to get a better life, it is not something anyone is entitled do. The USA used to stand for that. You were entitled to the opportunity, not the outcome.

[Pyrotex]

Taxes are inherently harmful to an economy because they take out more capital then they actually do good...

Inherently harmful?? Do you go to the Church of the Sacred Capitalist? Taxes are an absolute necessity for maintaining a government. Any government. Are you saying it's not worth our taxes to have a standing army?

The Democratic candidate has a plan of adding more taxes and increasing spending. As we saw in the Great Depression, that will actually lengthen and make our downfall even more painful.

The GD was caused by the lack of any regulation on banks and the economy. The government at the time was as "conservative" as you can get, free-market believers every one. When the fall happened, President Taft and his administration were totally clueless, doing nothing to help.

Our economy was actually dealt harm when the government, under democratic rule, mandated that lenders make home loans available to "under served" populations...

You may have a point here. Or half a point. If this turns out to be a "home giveaway program", then it will run our deficit down tens of billions of dollars. But is that as bad as the trillions the Reps have thrown away on a pointless war? Or the trillions lost because Phil Gramm deregulated the Investment Banks so they could gamble on bad mortgages, on margin no less, without any oversight.

...The Democrats will ...tax and spend, erecting Roosevelt-esk programs and keep us further into the darkness...

And just HOW is this so much worse than the borrow and spend policies of the Reps? Bush's two terms saw the BIGGEST Pork Barrel spending in history and he NEVER once tried to stop it. He gave us the biggest national debt in history. Roosevelt is rightfully respected for putting America back to work.

...it is the populist and socialist principles that drove us over the cliff...

Aren't those the words from the Church of the Sacred Capitalist hymn, "Onward Spendthrift Capitalists"? I like the tune, but words don't make sense.

We bleed trillions of dollars out of our economy in order to finance medicaid, medicare and social security...

Nope. Not true. We bleed just over 100 billion a year. About 8% as much as the Iraq War. Only about twice as much as Bush Pork Barrel. And millions of lives are saved by this.

Unfortunately no one wants to man up and say "we can't take care of everyone, people have to take care of themselves."

Because if they did, intelligent folks would laugh at them.

 

There are things in this world that individuals cannot do for themselves. Many people are poor because they chose that path. But what about the hard-working middle class that can just barely make it even with two paychecks? I'm a hard-working and well paid computer engineer, and my wife works, too. I can barely manage to stash away $400 a month with my 401K (which wouldn't exist if not for so-called Liberals). It won't be enough to take care of us in retirement.

 

So, I should just turn over and die, just so YOU can get a @$*&^$!# :( $1,000 tax rebate from SugarDaddy Bush?

 

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: I think not.

[Nitack]

Sir, would you like to recant the grossly inaccurate figure on spending for socialist programs? :(

 

Image:U.S. Federal Spending - FY 2007.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Medicaid + Medicare = $561 BILLION per year

Social security = $581 BILLION per year

 

That is only what is paid out. The government actually BLEEDS more than that out of the economy every year, and then writes an IOU to finance other socialist programs.

 

Image:U.S. Federal Receipts - FY 2007.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Social Security receipts this year = $869.6 BILLION

 

Your statement

Nope. Not true. We bleed just over 100 billion a year. About 8% as much as the Iraq War. Only about twice as much as Bush Pork Barrel. And millions of lives are saved by this.

Is only off by a factor of ten.

[Eclogite]

You are quite comfortable with Pyrotex's other points, then?

Very sensible.

[Nitack]

You are quite comfortable with Pyrotex's other points, then?

Very sensible.

 

Nope, but the rest of his points are pure opinion, the one I addressed was very easy since it only required pulling up a readily available fact.

[Buffy]

Taxes are inherently harmful to an economy because they take out more capital then they actually do good.

So you'd be quite happy not spending any money on any infrastructure? Cool! Dirt roads! Let's bring back Feudalism!

Unfortunately no one wants to man up and say "we can't take care of everyone, people have to take care of themselves."

Then you're not a libertarian, you're an anarchist!

 

He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god, :)

Buffy

[lawcat]

First you deregulate so that your banker buddies can reap billions of off public in interest and make profits. Then when your buddies fail, you again burden the public to give your buddy bankers the money to save them. Now that they are half saved, they can continue to fill their greedy bellies with more interest from the public in addition to collecting taxes to pay their debt. Until the next time they fail again.

 

Great Policy!!!

[Nitack]

So you'd be quite happy not spending any money on any infrastructure? Cool! Dirt roads! Let's bring back Feudalism!

 

Not quite, I do understand the need for taxation in order to establish and maintain infrastructure. However I don't feel it is right to forcibly take the earnings of individuals in order to finance the retirements/healthcare of the elderly and poor.

 

Then you're not a libertarian, you're an anarchist!

 

He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god, ;)

Buffy

 

I am most certainly Libertarian. there is a need and a place for government. However that place is not to dictate morality to me (as the religious right would have) and not to redistribute what I have earned to those who have not earned it (as the democrats would). A fellow Libertarian once put it this way, "I don't care what you do in your bedroom, just keep your hands off my money".

[Zythryn]

Fundamentally I disagree with you. Forget all the details, your concern is the government's role in our society. (Please correct me if I am wrong)

I believe the government interferes too much in business (and business interferes too much with government).

I also agree that the government is too big.

However, I feel the government should aid the general well being of society. This includes social security and medicare.

I don't feel those two plans are being run well. More means testing is needed, in my opinion.

I believe the government should also help with (at a local level) easily accessible education for all. Fire and Police protection. Road and building infrastructure safety. Pork-barrel spending ought to be categorized as Treason.

And we ought to be talking to the world, rather than trying to mug it.

[questor]

This subject shows me a couple of things:

1. the Dems are ready to excuse their side of any blame for any mistake in the current debacle, it's all George Bush.

2. Bush continues to be the bogeyman even though he is only one cog in the wheel of government.

3. Earmarks are bad if done by a Repub, good if done by a Dem.

Bush has been a poor president, but we also have a poor congress.

 

What we really have here is a dysfunctional government run by rabid partisans on both sides. In the last couple of years, the partisanship has blinded both parties to their sworn duties to their constituents. Instead of considering laws and proposals to make the society better, it is now just a struggle to get the most for yourself and your own special interest groups. The government itself has become a giant welfare pit where useless beaurocracies proliferate and underachievers or incompetents cannot be fired. No other business in the world would be successful with this business plan and we're only functional because we can continue to dip into the public's pocket.

The Dems answer, as always, is to ralse taxes. If it doesn't work, throw more money at it. E.G. Our education system

I do not know what the Repubs would do, I just know Bush is not a conservative.

We need a new look at government and at the best way to build a healthy society, where everyone pulls his own weight. The current electeds on both sides will not do this, they are too busy fighting and preening.

[pgrmdave]

This subject shows me a couple of things:

1. the Dems are ready to excuse their side of any blame for any mistake in the current debacle, it's all George Bush.

2. Bush continues to be the bogeyman even though he is only one cog in the wheel of government.

3. Earmarks are bad if done by a Repub, good if done by a Dem.

Bush has been a poor president, but we also have a poor congress.

 

Can you back up any of those statements with things you've seen in this topic? I haven't seen any posts that really back these up, and they simply seem like ad hominem attacks.

 

My response to those, however, is that no - Bush is likely not to blame for the economy. He doesn't know how to run an economy at all, it's not his strength. The people around him, however, tend to be for more deregulation. As regulation likely would have helped stop or slow this problem, deregulation likely made it worse. Since he was in power, he gets the blame.

 

Bush may only be one cog, but the President is an important one. Reagan gets praised for being the President during a good economy, so Bush gets blasted for being the President during a bad economy. It doesn't help that his policies have led us to the largest national debt ever, after inheriting the best surplus ever from Clinton.

 

Earmarks can be good, or they can be bad, it depends on how they are used. In general, fewer earmarks are needed. Earmarks are good when they serve the public's interest best by providing a truly public good. Good earmark: building needed roads/bridges/infrastructure at a reasonable cost. Bad earmark: building a bridge at a cost of 500 million that only serves a few hundred, and would only be needed for part of the year.

[questor]

Please read my words and don't twist them. I referred to the Subject under discussion, I made no references to anyone's posts.

[pgrmdave]

If I interpreted your words incorrectly, please forgive me. I assumed that by "this subject" you were referring to this thread in which we were talking about this subject. I would still like to see some examples, however, if you can produce them. While I may not disagree with you in principle, I think that any time people (democrats or republicans, liberals or conservatives) are painted with a broad brush, the onus is upon the person making the statement to back it up with some sort of facts or statistics.

[Pyrotex]

First you deregulate so that your banker buddies can reap billions of off public in interest and make profits. Then when your buddies fail, you again burden the public to give your buddy bankers the money to save them. Now that they are half saved, they can continue to fill their greedy bellies with more interest from the public in addition to collecting taxes to pay their debt. Until the next time they fail again. Great Policy!!!

You have to distinguish the players from the instruments.

 

If you find out that the clarinet section in the orchestra is embezzling from the orchestra fund, do you ban clarinets from the orchestra?

 

If you find out that construction workers are bilking the government out of billions while building bridges and roads, do you burn the bridges and allow the roads to crumble?

 

The money-moving institutions at the heart of our economy, the ones that provide loans and establish interest rates, are a vital Financial Infrastructure. They are just as much "infrastructure" and just as "vital" as bridges and roads. Are you going to burn them down in order to punish the ones who were "bilking"?

 

I think we should salvage our infrastructure FIRST, (if we can), and THEN we should turn our focus on how we can tear some new rectal orifices in the backsides of those irresponsible, greedy, delusional, incompetent dimwits who did this to us. :confused:

[Moontanman]

You have to distinguish the players from the instruments.

 

If you find out that the clarinet section in the orchestra is embezzling from the orchestra fund, do you ban the clarinets?

 

If you find out that construction workers are bilking the government out of billions while building bridges and roads, do you burn the bridges and allow the roads to crumble?

 

The money-moving institutions at the heart of our economy, the ones that provide loans and establish interest rates, are a vital Financial Infrastructure. They are just as much "infrasture" and just as "vital" as bridges and roads. Are you going to burn them down in order to punish the ones who were "bilking"?

 

I think we should salvage our infrastructure FIRST, (if we can), and THEN we should turn our focus on how we can tear some new rectal orifices in the backsides of those irresponsible, greedy, delusional, incompetent dimwits who did this to us. :eek:

 

You got my vote pyro, why don't you run for office! No wait your ideas make too much sense, that can't be allowed in politics.