Another example of BIG Government geting involved in areas they don't belong

[bigdog13]

Why are all these government agencies involved in the cleanup and aid of those affected by Hurricane Irene. My house and livelihood was not affected by the Hurricane, why are my tax dollars getting spent? Its just another example of the leftist federal government spending spending spending. It should be laissez faire, and its unforunate that the folks on the east coast who got affected just have bad luck. I know you libertarians and tea-partiers agree with me.

[Godzuki]

f'kin socialist Obama :mad:

[vitamink420]

Yeah and why do my tax dollars pay for public school I graduated from there eight years ago damn commies

[RoseCity07]

Your are the government. So if you don't like it, vote for someone else. You'd get 0 votes if a corporation ran the country.

[Take Your Lumps]

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issed by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

[Is He Ill]

What a self centered a-hole.

[Sarcastic]

How dare the government try to help people. The audacity. I know if we vote in a Republican next year, the people will never get help.

[bagelred]

Why are all these government agencies involved in the cleanup and aid of those affected by Hurricane Irene. My house and livelihood was not affected by the Hurricane, why are my tax dollars getting spent? Its just another example of the leftist federal government spending spending spending. .

Really? Why don't you do a little research and see how much Reagan, Bush Sr., and GWB added to the debt? And how much democratic presidents reduce debts/deficits?

Here, I did if for you. Feel stupid?

http://jimcgreevy.com/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/US-National-Debt-GDP.gif



But don't let facts get in the way of your rant. Keep ranting.

[rivers to gates]

The Republicans controlled congress during Clinton's run. But I think the original poster was was doing a heavy handed and weak satire.

[Sarcastic]

The Republicans controlled congress during Clinton's run. But I think the original poster was was doing a heavy handed and weak satire.

The Republicans also controlled Congress during Bush 43's run, so since they are the constant they are obviously not the difference.

[rivers to gates]

The Republicans also controlled Congress during Bush 43's run, so since they are the constant they are obviously not the difference.

And what is being accomplished under bed wetter Obama's run? We're still bombing the shit out of people. Just like before he got into the white house.

Here is something for you to chew on.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeef1s7/richardpersingcom22/id15.html

[Sarcastic]

And what is being accomplished under bed wetter Obama's run? We're still bombing the shit out of people. Just like before he got into the white house.

Here is something for you to chew on.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeef1s7/richardpersingcom22/id15.html

As soon as he came into office the economy was on the brink of total depression. Most of the spending was done to keep us from going over the edge. You think he is planning on passing a trillion dollar stimulus every year or something? Also he finally put the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on the books, something that Bush failed to do every year. You think that is cheap?

[Godzuki]

And what is being accomplished under bed wetter Obama's run? We're still bombing the shit out of people. Just like before he got into the white house.

Here is something for you to chew on.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeef1s7/richardpersingcom22/id15.html


u realize the deficit didn't mean shit until it became a ridiculous sum, right? that Libya is nothing close to Iraq/Afghanistan? that the Bush Admin. didn't do shit about corporations bamboozling investors despite people in the financial world warning Bush's appointee's(paulson) who could've acted on the banking crisis much sooner? but they were too busy pushing Republican Capitalist policy that big corporations do better with less regulations and oversight....

the best thing Obama did was save the automotive/financial sectors of our country, despite every right wing retard, and the masses wanting it all to fail. Altho it is frustrating bailing out crooked CEO's abusing the system which was the basis of "let them fail" mentality which i understand, its not practical more than emotional, which most of the right wing retards fukk us over with. 9/11 revenge into Iraq/Afghanistan was based on that, and y'all are some of the most vindictive motherfukking emotional retards where u can't see straight. Luckily Obama was in office, with a more sensible, practical mentality than some emotional right wing fgt setting our country back 50 years. u think the deficit ceiling is bad? lol u idiots have no clue IF our automotive/financial sectors collapsed like they would have :facepalm

y'all are always so general, brainwashed by BS right wing propaganda, and just naysay shit without being realistic. Seriously i mean how stupid is it for you idiots to even complain about our credit downgrade based on the deficit when that downgrade had a lot to do with the right wing/tea party voting against raising the debt ceiling? they were bragging about it during the Republican debates just to appease that retard tea party base :facepalm and then to complain about jobs/unemployment when u all wanted it all to fail is just :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

i swear a lot of u are complete f'in retards. drives me f'in nuts when there is so much half truth spinning and all the sheep that have short term memories or don't even follow news get brainwashed :mad:

[rivers to gates]

u realize the deficit didn't mean shit until it became a ridiculous sum, right? that Libya is nothing close to Iraq/Afghanistan? that the Bush Admin. didn't do shit about corporations bamboozling investors despite people in the financial world warning Bush's appointee's(paulson) who could've acted on the banking crisis much sooner? but they were too busy pushing Republican Capitalist policy that big corporations do better with less regulations and oversight....

The left is anti-war unless a Democrat is in office. Now that were in Libya it's "Oh, it's still not as bad as that Iraq thing". It's laughable that you assume that anyone who doesn't agree with Obama's job is somehow a Bush supporter. It was pathetic to watch Obama standing around wetting his pants while congress couldn't come to an agreement on the debt ceiling. Where is the leadership?


the best thing Obama did was save the automotive/financial sectors of our country, despite every right wing retard, and the masses wanting it all to fail. Altho it is frustrating bailing out crooked CEO's abusing the system which was the basis of "let them fail" mentality which i understand, its not practical more than emotional, which most of the right wing retards fukk us over with. 9/11 revenge into Iraq/Afghanistan was based on that, and y'all are some of the most vindictive motherfukking emotional retards where u can't see straight. Luckily Obama was in office, with a more sensible, practical mentality than some emotional right wing fgt setting our country back 50 years. u think the deficit ceiling is bad? lol u idiots have no clue IF our automotive/financial sectors collapsed like they would have :facepalm

When you learn to how to put sentences together in a coherent manner you might then having some room to call other people idiots.

[Godzuki]

The left is anti-war unless a Democrat is in office. Now that were in Libya it's "Oh, it's still not as bad as that Iraq thing". It's laughable that you assume that anyone who doesn't agree with Obama's job is somehow a Bush supporter. It was pathetic to watch Obama standing around wetting his pants while congress couldn't come to an agreement on the debt ceiling. Where is the leadership?



When you learn to how to put sentences together in a coherent manner you might then having some room to call other people idiots.


this leadership criticism is pretty laughable to me. its more criticizing just to criticize from people who are only trying to criticize but have no f'in ideas what he should really do to lead. be specific, what should Obama do to lead? what can he do against elements that control the Republican party that are against everything he tries to do? If anything Obama's biggest screw up is trying to work with the Republicans and play the middle where they just take advantage of him, and the left gets pissed at him. its like starting a race from 2 extremes to ideally reach the middle, but Obama started further towards the middle where the other extreme is trying to take more and more and gets their way on their end because he didn't start from the far left. even then the Tea Party elements of the right wing wanted everything with no concessions, and they've been extremist in that respect, which is why its been so difficult for Obama to get things done.


lol@ u being a grammar fgt. don't tell me that wasn't legible fukkface. if u don't/can't reply then say so, but dodging it playing internet teacher card is just lame :facepalm

Its just retarded to me you're acting like Libya is the same as Iraq/Afghanistan, let alone the Presidential actions are the same for the reasons why. Democrats aren't nearly as pro War in/out of office as the right wing patriotism guilt tripping idiots are. i don't care if you're independent or right wing, to me you're not that far apart since a lot of u fgts jumped independent after Bush embarrassed u all, and now pretend u were Independents all along. i swear3/4's of Independents were Bush supporters....at least u all had enough sense to separate yourselves from the christian right of the Republican party.

[rivers to gates]

this leadership criticism is pretty laughable to me. its more criticizing just to criticize from people who are only trying to criticize but have no f'in ideas what he should really do to lead. be specific, what should Obama do to lead? what can he do against elements that control the Republican party that are against everything he tries to do? If anything Obama's biggest screw up is trying to work with the Republicans and play the middle where they just take advantage of him, and the left gets pissed at him. its like starting a race from 2 extremes to ideally reach the middle, but Obama started further towards the middle where the other extreme is trying to take more and more and gets their way on their end because he didn't start from the far left. even then the Tea Party elements of the right wing wanted everything with no concessions, and they've been extremist in that respect, which is why its been so difficult for Obama to get things done.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/08/barack-obama-maxine-waters-black-caucus-criticism-/1

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-afghanistan-plan-criticized-dems

[quote]Obama:

[Godzuki]

this is what scares me about Ron Paul, amongst other things but similar:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/27/ron-paul-we-dont-need-fema/?hpt=hp_bn4

we're not Japan, we're not going to all help each other rebuild for the sake of the community. nobody is going to purchase hundreds of thousands of bottles of water and then deal with the logistics to distribute them, let alone food. nobody is going to provide trailers for temporary shelter for those devastated. for him to say we don't need FEMA or really a disaster relief organization is absurd :wtf:

i mean he makes sense in a lot of respects but he goes nuts or way overboard along those same lines where he's a bit loony. he's by far the lesser of evils on the Republican side, hell i don't even classify him as Republican really, but its hard to get behind him in these respects.

[rivers to gates]

People should also mention that some of the biggest haters of desegregation were Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_Sr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estes_Kefauver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace (Yes, Alabama Gov was a Democrat)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Connor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

Oh, here is a good article!

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

[Godzuki]

[QUOTE=rivers to gates]http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/08/barack-obama-maxine-waters-black-caucus-criticism-/1

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-afghanistan-plan-criticized-dems



http://usactionnews.com/2011/01/obama-says-debt-increase-a-sign-of-leadership-failure/

So, Obama basically admits that he is a failure.

His own party is turning against him because he is a failure. Clinton helped make things work with a republican controlled Congress.





Were still blowing people up. Twist it anyway you want, but that is a simple fact.

[b]Obama: U.S. Involvement in Libya Action Would Last

[Godzuki]

People should also mention that some of the biggest haters of desegregation were Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_Sr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estes_Kefauver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace (Yes, Alabama Gov was a Democrat)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Connor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

Oh, here is a good article!

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html


parties were VERY different back then, especially compared to the last decade. its funny to me when ignorant right wingers try to make the democrats out to be racists or bigots when they're the ones FOR stuff like gay rights, gender equality, etc. while the Republicans are the ones with that old bigot mentality. don't even think of it as politics, think of it as groups within America that take sides, and to think the racists are anywhere near voting left or make up any of today's left ideologies whatsoever is laughable. if anything there is a ton of bigotry in the Republican party today, more specifically the tea party, but thats why they long for those old America days...i also swear they have this mentality that all of our social programs are aimed at helping lazy blacks, lazy immigrants, etc. out, at least in how they jump around actually citing those groups, but its what they mean by and large in who social programs are for in their minds.

[rivers to gates]

parties were VERY different back then, especially compared to the last decade. its funny to me when ignorant right wingers try to make the democrats out to be racists or bigots when they're the ones FOR stuff like gay rights, gender equality, etc. while the Republicans are the ones with that old bigot mentality. don't even think of it as politics, think of it as groups within America that take sides, and to think the racists are anywhere near voting left or make up any of today's left ideologies whatsoever is laughable. if anything there is a ton of bigotry in the Republican party today, more specifically the tea party, but thats why they long for those old America days...i also swear they have this mentality that all of our social programs are aimed at helping lazy blacks, lazy immigrants, etc. out, at least in how they jump around actually citing those groups, but its what they mean by and large in who social programs are for in their minds.

You think people stop being a racist all of a sudden? lol

It's Democrat party that's always accusing everyone of racism when it's in their history. They're the ones with the biggest history of it. You think it just up and changed right out of the blue?

http://hiphoprepublican.com/2006/08/top-racist-democrat-quotes_30.html



"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."
-Senator Joe Biden


Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."

-Senator Hillary Clinton


"You'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."
-- Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)


Blacks and Hispanics are "too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write." -- Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax


(On Clarence Thomas) "A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." -- Spike Lee


"He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."

-- California State Senator Diane Watson's on Ward Connerly's interracial marriage

Here is another good site:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/01/democrats-racist-roots-exposed-harry-reid-of-nevada-said-of-obama-light-skinned-with-no-negro-talk-t.html


Sharpton backs Reid

Another unsolicited statement, as Reid's camp works frantically to put out the fire:

I have learned of certain unfortunate comments made by Senator Reid regarding President Barack Obama and have spoken with Senator Reid about those comments. While there is no question that Senator Reid did not select the best word choice in this instance, these comments should not distract America from its continued focus on securing healthcare or creating jobs for its people. Nor should they detract from the unquestionable leadership role Senator Reid has played on these issues or in the area of civil rights. Senator Reid's door has always been open on hearing from the civil rights community on these issues and I look forward to continue to work with Senator Reid wherever possible to improve the lives of Americans everywhere.

Listen to what Jesse Jackson has to say about Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3EFymZjSLY

[rivers to gates]

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-01-31/politics/biden.obama_1_braun-and-al-sharpton-african-american-presidential-candidates-delaware-democrat?_s=PM:POLITICS


Joe Biden- "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

[rivers to gates]

I just don't get how u can criticize Obama's spending based on keeping us out of a recession/depression.

Looks like a double dip recession to me.



This idea Keynesian economics doesn't work(right wingers used to argue this) is so laughable its stupid since it did and the alternative the right pushed was to do nothing and let our economy sort itself out thru capitalism(which is the reason for the major corporate corruption that added to our issues) :facepalm The ramifications if our banking finance and automotive industries went bankrupt would have been devastating and they're tied into so many other sectors of our economy its absurd there are people who still don't understand how crucial that was. There was never a perfect solution and us spending our way out is/was still the best action to take, that i hardly blame Obama for it. it was a necessity, not something the Democrats callously did when they didn't have to, more that they inherited us on the brink of collapse and did what they had to, and now are getting blamed for it by the ignorant right that just nay say and never own up.[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yipV_pK6HXw

Stop believing that Democrats are somehow good. They're not. They're politicians. I'm not a republican. But the belief that youth has in Democrats makes me laugh.


Every country borrows money. Its really not a huge deal, only now because we've let it spiral out of control, and even now its nothing compared to what could've been had we not spent to prevent the collapse of our industries. What i'll give u tho is i do think his green initiatives and trying to create green jobs stimulus was a failure. Jobs just aren't that ez to create, but that is why the importance of us bailing out the corporations that employ hundreds of thousands was so crucial to our jobs/unemployment rates, and so hypocritical for right wingers to criticize the bailouts then the unemployment rate/jobs at the Obama Admin.

Obama said in 2006 that raising the debt ceiling was a sign of failure. Well, that makes him a failure also.


Libya is NOT Afghanistan/Iraq, by all means drop the $$$ figures we've spent on each, or the basis of why we went in for each war. like i said a lot of u just generalize everything and jumble it up trying to hate on the black man but not being realistic :facepalm

Democrats try to pretend that they're anti-war when they're not. That's the point. If you want to know who hates the black man, it's the people that love seeing black people cry victim all the time. Those people are the Democrats. The welfare mentality.


I do side with you/Republicans on timing of enforcing regulations or just going overboard in that regard based on far left environmentalist concerns. I mean there are cases where its definitely needed, but in other situations it goes overboard or is detrimental to our economy/companies.

Most Americans do support raising taxes from what i see. Its funny to me how the Right rails against the deficit, spending, etc. but refuses to raise taxes to help address what they bitch about. the tea party right and Republicans in general are against it in large part because they're tied to some lobbyist where they promised they wouldn't raise taxes and signed something from that lobbyist to reinforce they wont. They're really stuck on the rich not paying more taxes which is pretty incredible IMO how they can get so many poor or middle class behind them. I can't believe Warren Buffet gets so many right wing/Libertarian attacks against him for saying the very rich should pay more where they act like he didn't pay his own taxes, and then exaggerate how awful and unfair it would be for rich people and the 'American way' and our economy if the very rich were taxed more, when Buffet has gone on record to giving his whole fortune to charity and stated they should when he's more of an authority than any of them in their investment fields :facepalm

Once more... I'm not a republican. The point is to show you that Obama is a failure just like most of the other recent presidents. I didn't defend Bush when he was getting bashed during his term because he deserved it. But Obama is a failure as well.

[Godzuki]

You think people stop being a racist all of a sudden? lol

It's Democrat party that's always accusing everyone of racism when it's in their history. They're the ones with the biggest history of it. You think it just up and changed right out of the blue?

http://hiphoprepublican.com/2006/08/top-racist-democrat-quotes_30.html













Here is another good site:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/01/democrats-racist-roots-exposed-harry-reid-of-nevada-said-of-obama-light-skinned-with-no-negro-talk-t.html



Listen to what Jesse Jackson has to say about Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3EFymZjSLY


i could care less about the history of the party so much, more than the current reality. its funny how Republicans here are always trying to turn it around, since i remember this coming up a long time ago on OTC with some retard posters trying to act like the left has racists or is racist citing rare/twisted examples like u are, when there just isn't that bigot mentality of all things on the left side. to think skin heads or racists are voting pro minority, pro gay, anti gun laws, etc. is retarded. the right wing mentality has everything a racist could ask for and more....

like i said think of what both parties advocate and fight against, then get back to me :rolleyes:

[Godzuki]

Looks like a double dip recession to me.



This idea Keynesian economics doesn't work(right wingers used to argue this) is so laughable its stupid since it did and the alternative the right pushed was to do nothing and let our economy sort itself out thru capitalism(which is the reason for the major corporate corruption that added to our issues) :facepalm The ramifications if our banking finance and automotive industries went bankrupt would have been devastating and they're tied into so many other sectors of our economy its absurd there are people who still don't understand how crucial that was. There was never a perfect solution and us spending our way out is/was still the best action to take, that i hardly blame Obama for it. it was a necessity, not something the Democrats callously did when they didn't have to, more that they inherited us on the brink of collapse and did what they had to, and now are getting blamed for it by the ignorant right that just nay say and never own up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yipV_pK6HXw

Stop believing that Democrats are somehow good. They're not. They're politicians. I'm not a republican. But the belief that youth has in Democrats makes me laugh.



Obama said in 2006 that raising the debt ceiling was a sign of failure. Well, that makes him a failure also.



Democrats try to pretend that they're anti-war when they're not. That's the point. If you want to know who hates the black man, it's the people that love seeing black people cry victim all the time. Those people are the Democrats. The welfare mentality.



Once more... I'm not a republican. The point is to show you that Obama is a failure just like most of the other recent presidents. I didn't defend Bush when he was getting bashed during his term because he deserved it. But Obama is a failure as well.[/QUOTE]


i swear you're just trolling or so simple minded u don't get anything past the generalizations :facepalm

Did u watch the Republican debates? thats all i really want to know. Democrats aren't perfect but they're not f'in nuts either like 3/4's of current Republican candidates. its ez for u to talk in the middle, but i'd love to see who u advocate, and i'm sure u weren't always a independent, but i already explained what i think of most of u that jumped ship and ended up Independent :rolleyes:

i think its a lot of u old, white people that is the current problem with America. u still have racist mentalities deep down inside, and u spite our social programs because in the view of many of u racists our social programs help minorities with your tax dollars. am i right?

lol @ democrats being pro war, but thats why you're a f'in retard. Democrats are some of the softest, pansiest, sympathetic people out there but thats why the left are full of environmentalists, pro choice, pro gay rights, PETA type of people....sure dumbass they all love war :facepalm not like they're the party that loves guns, guilt trips patriotism, talks about "God country", and are the extremelly vindictive type thinking its as simple as us blowing everyone up.

Obama is your scapegoat. he's a perfect scapegoat for a lot of u because he is black, a minority, which a lot of u characterize as lazy and getting handouts from your hard earned white people money. Thats why people like u jumped on him for his birth certificate(notice no other Prez has gone thru anything remotely resembling these type of attacks) and him being muslim. Its sad you perpetuate the right wing propaganda, and can't get further than gross generalizations to differentiate between actions.

you're not anything because your party is irrelevant. have fun wasting your vote, thats if u even vote....

[rivers to gates]

i could care less about the history of the party so much, more than the current reality. its funny how Republicans here are always trying to turn it around, since i remember this coming up a long time ago on OTC with some retard posters trying to act like the left has racists or is racist citing rare/twisted examples like u are, when there just isn't that bigot mentality of all things on the left side. to think skin heads or racists are voting pro minority, pro gay, anti gun laws, etc. is retarded. the right wing mentality has everything a racist could ask for and more....

like i said think of what both parties advocate and fight against, then get back to me :rolleyes:

History tends to repeat it's self. Those quotes are from some recent people. Sorry to break it to you.

Here are some good articles you might want to read:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/08/lets-kill-racism-forever-put-naacp-out-business

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/08/racist-democrats-always-get-free-passes

[rivers to gates]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yipV_pK6HXw

Stop believing that Democrats are somehow good. They're not. They're politicians. I'm not a republican. But the belief that youth has in Democrats makes me laugh.



Obama said in 2006 that raising the debt ceiling was a sign of failure. Well, that makes him a failure also.



Democrats try to pretend that they're anti-war when they're not. That's the point. If you want to know who hates the black man, it's the people that love seeing black people cry victim all the time. Those people are the Democrats. The welfare mentality.



Once more... I'm not a republican. The point is to show you that Obama is a failure just like most of the other recent presidents. I didn't defend Bush when he was getting bashed during his term because he deserved it. But Obama is a failure as well.


i swear you're just trolling or so simple minded u don't get anything past the generalizations :facepalm

Did u watch the Republican debates? thats all i really want to know. Democrats aren't perfect but they're not f'in nuts either like 3/4's of current Republican candidates. its ez for u to talk in the middle, but i'd love to see who u advocate, and i'm sure u weren't always a independent, but i already explained what i think of most of u that jumped ship and ended up Independent :rolleyes:

i think its a lot of u old, white people that is the current problem with America. u still have racist mentalities deep down inside, and u spite our social programs because in the view of many of u racists our social programs help minorities with your tax dollars. am i right?

lol @ democrats being pro war, but thats why you're a f'in retard. Democrats are some of the softest, pansiest, sympathetic people out there but thats why the left are full of environmentalists, pro choice, pro gay rights, PETA type of people....sure dumbass they all love war :facepalm not like they're the party that loves guns, guilt trips patriotism, talks about "God country", and are the extremelly vindictive type thinking its as simple as us blowing everyone up.

Obama is your scapegoat. he's a perfect scapegoat for a lot of u because he is black, a minority, which a lot of u characterize as lazy and getting handouts from your hard earned white people money. Thats why people like u jumped on him for his birth certificate(notice no other Prez has gone thru anything remotely resembling these type of attacks) and him being muslim. Its sad you perpetuate the right wing propaganda, and can't get further than gross generalizations to differentiate between actions.

you're not anything because your party is irrelevant. have fun wasting your vote, thats if u even vote....[/QUOTE]

Keep bowing down to your Democrat heroes. They need your vote.

[Godzuki]

History tends to repeat it's self. Those quotes are from some recent people. Sorry to break it to you.

Here are some good articles you might want to read:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/08/lets-kill-racism-forever-put-naacp-out-business

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/08/racist-democrats-always-get-free-passes


lol stop liinking me shit especially shit u twist or cite as rare examples

either way you're a dumbass if u think the left is a racist party at all. it doesn't even make sense with the examples i cited. are u starface? i'm trying to think who here links tons of stupid shit, 3/4's of which is just spam and not really making a point, knowing nobody is goiing to go and read all that garbage.

most of your rebuttles aren't even on point or relevant today, like u don't follow anything current, just cite history, gee i wonder which right wing retard here u are....

[rivers to gates]

lol stop liinking me shit especially shit u twist or cite as rare examples

either way you're a dumbass if u think the left is a racist party at all. it doesn't even make sense with the examples i cited. are u starface? i'm trying to think who here links tons of stupid shit, 3/4's of which is just spam and not really making a point, knowing nobody is goiing to go and read all that garbage.

most of your rebuttles aren't even on point or relevant today, like u don't follow anything current, just cite history, gee i wonder which right wing retard here u are....

The US Economy is Doomed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mtv25Juxlc&feature=related

This a great listen.

[JMT]

Listen to what Jesse Jackson has to say about Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3EFymZjSLY


There is no bigger racist than Jesse Jackson, though I'm not sure his rampant narcissism doesn't manage to outweigh his racism.

[boozehound]

I never get why people criticize presidents/politicians when they take vacations or time off unless it's excessive. Unless you never take time off or enjoy an afternoon on the links you're a hypocrite.
no doubt. Besides, anyone criticizing obama for it is just looking to hate. Compare his vacation total with his predecessor.

[BEAST Griffin]

People that live there choose to live there. Why should my money be forcelly taken away from me to aid them?

:confusedshrug:

[SourGrapes]

People that live there choose to live there. Why should my money be forcelly taken away from me to aid them?

:confusedshrug:

Perplexed

And to answer your question... Government aide is given to people because it is acknowledged that everywhere there are pitfalls, everywhere there are benefits, and part of being a community or a country is sharing in the responsibility of the good times and the bad times. You benefit from those people and that region, and this is one way of paying your fair share

[falc39]

this is what scares me about Ron Paul, amongst other things but similar:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/27/ron-paul-we-dont-need-fema/?hpt=hp_bn4

we're not Japan, we're not going to all help each other rebuild for the sake of the community. nobody is going to purchase hundreds of thousands of bottles of water and then deal with the logistics to distribute them, let alone food. nobody is going to provide trailers for temporary shelter for those devastated. for him to say we don't need FEMA or really a disaster relief organization is absurd :wtf:

i mean he makes sense in a lot of respects but he goes nuts or way overboard along those same lines where he's a bit loony. he's by far the lesser of evils on the Republican side, hell i don't even classify him as Republican really, but its hard to get behind him in these respects.

Well yeah, that's what happens when you give up responsibilities and your way of life to the federal government. People lose all sense of responsibility or self-reliance. Is there such a thing as communities anymore in America? Families? No. You ever wonder why? Believe it or not, people dealt with problems and were more responsible when there wasn't a government around trying to coddle us from cradle to grave. Do you think natural disasters were not around decades and decades ago? Years of government intervention, welfare, subsidies, etc have people so dependent on the government that at the first sign of trouble they run and cry for help. When this happens long enough, people eventually don't even remember how it feels like to be self-reliant and to work within communities. They can't imagine a world without a strong federal government because it never existed in their lifetime. That is why you hear arguments like, OMG if the federal government didn't intervene, "something" would've collapsed. The idea of an absent strong federal government not there to tell them what to do doesn't exist in their mind, and to think outside of it is beyond their reality. It's pussification. It's soft. It's Un-American. It's kind of like being content that you are not free because you don't even know what freedom feels like. Guys like Emerson and Throeau must be :facepalm :facepalm 'ing in their graves by now.

And Keynesian economics is a failure. Just ask India and the numerous other countries who have to first-hand deal with our inflation (link (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-29/-bernanke-put-has-new-delhi-under-pressure-the-ticker.html)). But most people here in America would never care, because the propaganda is so strong that they can't see that the USA is holding the world hostage with its monetary policy and how that is a bad thing. All they see is, "people are being forced to buy our treasuries! the dollar is strong! USA #1!!!", not knowing a thing about how it is utterly destroying the global economy.

[joe]

Perplexed

And to answer your question... Government aide is given to people because it is acknowledged that everywhere there are pitfalls, everywhere there are benefits, and part of being a community or a country is sharing in the responsibility of the good times and the bad times. You benefit from those people and that region, and this is one way of paying your fair share

Who says that's part of being a country? You? Who says what is a "fair" share?

Here's my question. If you like giving your income away to the government for relief, that's fine. But why do you feel everyone has to do it? Why can't it work like this: those that want to receive government assistance in a time of need, can pay the tax. Those who don't want any such assistance, won't.

Would you be okay with that? Or is it not as fun when you can't force everyone else to go along with your idea of what being good citizen is?

[SourGrapes]

Who says that's part of being a country? You? Who says what is a "fair" share?

Here's my question. If you like giving your income away to the government for relief, that's fine. But why do you feel everyone has to do it? Why can't it work like this: those that want to receive government assistance in a time of need, can pay the tax. Those who don't want any such assistance, won't.

Would you be okay with that? Or is it not as fun when you can't force everyone else to go along with your idea of what being good citizen is?

It's not about what's fun for me, and I resent you trying (and failing) to belittle me.

And to your question: a majority of the people of the united states feel that's what it means to be a country. Until a majority feels otherwise, federal aide in this way will continue.

Your plan is not pragmatic in this way. It neglects the fact that we are all interdependent onneach other. If some people paid taxes for aide and some didn't, it would be nearly impossible to organize those people to receive or not receive aide. Whole communities would be fractured into one house receiving it and one house not. So then we could make it a states rights issue. But again, economically, those in California have a vested interest in those in new jersey doing the things and producing the things new jersey does and produces.

Ours isn't a perfect system, but it strikes a very pragmatic balance

I hope this makes sense

[Godzuki]

Well yeah, that's what happens when you give up responsibilities and your way of life to the federal government. People lose all sense of responsibility or self-reliance. Is there such a thing as communities anymore in America? Families? No. You ever wonder why? Believe it or not, people dealt with problems and were more responsible when there wasn't a government around trying to coddle us from cradle to grave. Do you think natural disasters were not around decades and decades ago? Years of government intervention, welfare, subsidies, etc have people so dependent on the government that at the first sign of trouble they run and cry for help. When this happens long enough, people eventually don't even remember how it feels like to be self-reliant and to work within communities. They can't imagine a world without a strong federal government because it never existed in their lifetime. That is why you hear arguments like, OMG if the federal government didn't intervene, "something" would've collapsed. The idea of an absent strong federal government not there to tell them what to do doesn't exist in their mind, and to think outside of it is beyond their reality. It's pussification. It's soft. It's Un-American. It's kind of like being content that you are not free because you don't even know what freedom feels like. Guys like Emerson and Throeau must be :facepalm :facepalm 'ing in their graves by now.

And Keynesian economics is a failure. Just ask India and the numerous other countries who have to first-hand deal with our inflation (link (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-29/-bernanke-put-has-new-delhi-under-pressure-the-ticker.html)). But most people here in America would never care, because the propaganda is so strong that they can't see that the USA is holding the world hostage with its monetary policy and how that is a bad thing. All they see is, "people are being forced to buy our treasuries! the dollar is strong! USA #1!!!", not knowing a thing about how it is utterly destroying the global economy.


because you're not dealing with the reality of today. the country today is not one big community and never will be. if anything we've all been conditioned to try to get ours in a capitalistic society where some live very privileged lives and others struggle. You want to go back however many years like that is some realistic idea where we're all helping each other rebuild, sharing food and water, sharing houses, etc. and it might exist in pockets but not where it can realistically carry a whole disaster area. Are u being serious about community disaster relief expectations and not a government agency being remotely practical in today's world? so us common people are going to rebuild cities? everyones house? roads? I don't even get how you're against social programs and pro capitalism but expect community or even altruistic tendencies from people. they're opposite mentalities...i don't care about the IF people were this, or that, i'm talking about the reality of what people are and practical policies that make sense today.

Keynesian economics did work. the government interceded and saved some of our largest companies from collapse and tens of thousands of jobs. How can u deny that? what is the alternative to that, and the outcome? don't forget we were facing a housing bubble popping where people owed more on their house than what it was worth, defaulting on thsoe loans, financial institutions being unable to collect and turn projected profits on the loans they gave out and losing money while holding devalued assets, and a broader financial scandal which was tied to the masses of defaults, along with 2 wars, and social program costs raping us. this was all hitting us when Obama took over, where Bush was a deer in headlights, lame duck at the end of his Presidency. how much better would our country be without our automotive and financial sectors? :blah

[Aidan]

Where do right wing lunatics get the notion that the earlier part of the 20th century were America's glory days? The whole country was not one big community, despite this fantasy being encouraged by the Tea Party and such. Society was extremely divisive and exploitation was extremely high. Yeah, today's society is by no means perfect, and America's got considerable problems. It is idiotic to suggest that these divisions were caused by big government. Despite it's faults, government has been the one constant proponent of change in society. Where would we be without the Civil Right's Act etc? We should have to bear the brunt of the hurricane as a nation, it is shared responsibilities and caring for one another that makes us a country in the first place. The OP is beyond self-centered.

[falc39]

because you're not dealing with the reality of today. the country today is not one big community and never will be. if anything we've all been conditioned to try to get ours in a capitalistic society where some live very privileged lives and others struggle. You want to go back however many years like that is some realistic idea where we're all helping each other rebuild, sharing food and water, sharing houses, etc. and it might exist in pockets but not where it can realistically carry a whole disaster area. Are u being serious about community disaster relief expectations and not a government agency being remotely practical in today's world? so us common people are going to rebuild cities? everyones house? roads? I don't even get how you're against social programs and pro capitalism but expect community or even altruistic tendencies from people. they're opposite mentalities...i don't care about the IF people were this, or that, i'm talking about the reality of what people are and practical policies that make sense today.

My criticism is of the federal government. You assumed that I am against all government, like everyone assumes Ron Paul's positions are like. Ron Paul is an anarchist!! (they say). But he is in favor of smaller government. Smaller government bodies where us people actually have more influence and more involvement in. That's why he is big on states' rights. How in the world does an agency in D.C. know what's best for the state of Oregon and such? There are state governments, counties, and cities. These are more community-oriented governments where our communities are directly involved with. So I think you are really misunderstanding my position and took it to the extreme.


Keynesian economics did work. the government interceded and saved some of our largest companies from collapse and tens of thousands of jobs. How can u deny that? what is the alternative to that, and the outcome? don't forget we were facing a housing bubble popping where people owed more on their house than what it was worth, defaulting on thsoe loans, financial institutions being unable to collect and turn projected profits on the loans they gave out and losing money while holding devalued assets, and a broader financial scandal which was tied to the masses of defaults, along with 2 wars, and social program costs raping us. this was all hitting us when Obama took over, where Bush was a deer in headlights, lame duck at the end of his Presidency. how much better would our country be without our automotive and financial sectors? :blah

Yeah, and you are forgetting the fact that without Keynesian economics, the bubble would have never been there in the first place! Without the federal reserve manipulating interest rates and government involvement in the housing market this wouldn't of happened. The free-market is the toughest regulation that is out there. Loaning involves a lot of risk to the creditor. If they loan to the wrong people, they will lose. By government intervening and taking away this inherent risk, it makes it possible to abuse the system, especially if you know the safety net is there. The federal reserve for all practical purposes is the symbol of Keynesian economics and is complicit in all of this bubble mess. The free market is never biased. It is swift and does its job efficiently. The federal reserve and the administration is always biased. They are biased towards their banking buddies and unions and you guys seem to just love that!

Bankruptcy and industries failing are very common and happen all the time. Usually when it happens it doesn't just go poof and disappears. For instance, entrepreneurs move in, a lot of activity can occur, and it may actually come out stronger in another form. A lot of possibilities exist and it's the market's way of innovating and renewing. You make it sound like 50 nukes would of went off simultaneously all over the world if we didn't bail out Obama's financial buddies. But that is the mindset of our generation and the generations past. We need the government to hold our hand and do everything for us. We need them to bail us out, plan our retirement, tell us which insurance to buy, etc... Ever see that movie Idiocracy?

[vinsane01]

Well yeah, that's what happens when you give up responsibilities and your way of life to the federal government. People lose all sense of responsibility or self-reliance. Is there such a thing as communities anymore in America? Families? No. You ever wonder why? Believe it or not, people dealt with problems and were more responsible when there wasn't a government around trying to coddle us from cradle to grave. Do you think natural disasters were not around decades and decades ago? Years of government intervention, welfare, subsidies, etc have people so dependent on the government that at the first sign of trouble they run and cry for help. When this happens long enough, people eventually don't even remember how it feels like to be self-reliant and to work within communities. They can't imagine a world without a strong federal government because it never existed in their lifetime. That is why you hear arguments like, OMG if the federal government didn't intervene, "something" would've collapsed. The idea of an absent strong federal government not there to tell them what to do doesn't exist in their mind, and to think outside of it is beyond their reality. It's pussification. It's soft. It's Un-American. It's kind of like being content that you are not free because you don't even know what freedom feels like. Guys like Emerson and Throeau must be :facepalm :facepalm 'ing in their graves by now.

And Keynesian economics is a failure. Just ask India and the numerous other countries who have to first-hand deal with our inflation (link (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-29/-bernanke-put-has-new-delhi-under-pressure-the-ticker.html)). But most people here in America would never care, because the propaganda is so strong that they can't see that the USA is holding the world hostage with its monetary policy and how that is a bad thing. All they see is, "people are being forced to buy our treasuries! the dollar is strong! USA #1!!!", not knowing a thing about how it is utterly destroying the global economy.

Good rant.

The US citizens should stop relying on their government too much. The result of this collective thinking is back firing and is making citizens who are too individualistic and reliant on the government. Its time for individuals in communities to help each other for a change. There is nothing evil or morally wrong about a government that encourages responsibility upon individuals and groups in a community.

[Balla_Status]

Ron Paul's right...we dont need FEMA. We have wal-mart and Home Depot who have committees specifically set up for disasters like these. What else do you need besides those two companies?

[SourGrapes]

Ron Paul's right...we dont need FEMA. We have wal-mart and Home Depot who have committees specifically set up for disasters like these. What else do you need besides those two companies?

What I like about FEMA is that as a Governmental agency it answers to an electable body, rather than a board of investors who potentially have very limited interests

[joe]

What do you pro-FEMA people think would happen if FEMA didn't exist? Say FEMA hadn't existed for 100 years before hurricane Katrina; i.e., there was zero government disaster relief. How do you think things would have been different both leading up to, and during Hurricane Katrina?

[SourGrapes]

What do you pro-FEMA people think would happen if FEMA didn't exist? Say FEMA hasn't existed for 100 years before hurricane Katrina; i.e., there was zero government disaster relief. How do you think things would have been different both leading up to, and during Hurricane Katrina?

Hard if not impossible to say. Prediction: many people, who our country and the businesses that operate here depend upon for labor, would not have enough time or money to support the rebuilding process. And even if they could somehow manage it, it would be one more ***** in an already vulnerable armor of a necessary segment of the population.

It's a lot like asking what would happen if you were to kick someone while they're already down. We need them to fill those jobs that don't pay very much. And we also need them to be functional

[Godzuki]

My criticism is of the federal government. You assumed that I am against all government, like everyone assumes Ron Paul's positions are like. Ron Paul is an anarchist!! (they say). But he is in favor of smaller government. Smaller government bodies where us people actually have more influence and more involvement in. That's why he is big on states' rights. How in the world does an agency in D.C. know what's best for the state of Oregon and such? There are state governments, counties, and cities. These are more community-oriented governments where our communities are directly involved with. So I think you are really misunderstanding my position and took it to the extreme.



Yeah, and you are forgetting the fact that without Keynesian economics, the bubble would have never been there in the first place! Without the federal reserve manipulating interest rates and government involvement in the housing market this wouldn't of happened. The free-market is the toughest regulation that is out there. Loaning involves a lot of risk to the creditor. If they loan to the wrong people, they will lose. By government intervening and taking away this inherent risk, it makes it possible to abuse the system, especially if you know the safety net is there. The federal reserve for all practical purposes is the symbol of Keynesian economics and is complicit in all of this bubble mess. The free market is never biased. It is swift and does its job efficiently. The federal reserve and the administration is always biased. They are biased towards their banking buddies and unions and you guys seem to just love that!

Bankruptcy and industries failing are very common and happen all the time. Usually when it happens it doesn't just go poof and disappears. For instance, entrepreneurs move in, a lot of activity can occur, and it may actually come out stronger in another form. A lot of possibilities exist and it's the market's way of innovating and renewing. You make it sound like 50 nukes would of went off simultaneously all over the world if we didn't bail out Obama's financial buddies. But that is the mindset of our generation and the generations past. We need the government to hold our hand and do everything for us. We need them to bail us out, plan our retirement, tell us which insurance to buy, etc... Ever see that movie Idiocracy?

you're being real general. so who is going to swoop in to buy GM, Ford, and Chrysler? foreign car manufacturers? how about our largest banks? who is going to buy the largest insurer? no it doesn't happen all of the time, try once in a blue moon where its a perfect storm of our largest corporations failing at the same time. when else did anything like that ever happen? :confusedshrug:

the free market was completely abused by CEO's and financial bigwigs raping average people for personal gains. they had no idea they would be bailed out, but they were just following what Wall Street is all about - greed. Its probably still going on.... To act like our free economy works without regulation or government interference is completely retarded :facepalm I seriously don't get why a lot of you swear so much by Capitalism ideals when its so obvious it has major flaws that needs oversight.

i mean yeah it is a problem with our economy today with corporations that are too big to fail, but the likelihood of so much about to fail at once happening again is very unlikely. either way it worked, since most of those companies are still functioning today, employing tens of thousands, and many of them are turning profits and paying us back.

[Godzuki]

Good rant.

The US citizens should stop relying on their government too much. The result of this collective thinking is back firing and is making citizens who are too individualistic and reliant on the government. Its time for individuals in communities to help each other for a change. There is nothing evil or morally wrong about a government that encourages responsibility upon individuals and groups in a community.

nothing wrong with it other than living in la la land and dreaming it would work. but in reality i bet you wouldn't step out of bed, much less work 10 hour days not getting paid helping your neighbors rebuild for the sake of community. most of u talking wouldn't but thats why its so impractical its naive, and stupid if u all seriously believe in electing someone that will attempt that.

[Godzuki]

Ron Paul's right...we dont need FEMA. We have wal-mart and Home Depot who have committees specifically set up for disasters like these. What else do you need besides those two companies?


so walmart and home depot are going to rebuild roads, infrastructure, and deliver bottled water and food, as well as provide shelter for those devastated in a catastrophe? i mean the best they'll do is maybe donate water or give out free water from their location, but to think they're going to do disaster relief is absurd. my bad if you're being sarcastic, can't tell.

[Godzuki]

What do you pro-FEMA people think would happen if FEMA didn't exist? Say FEMA hadn't existed for 100 years before hurricane Katrina; i.e., there was zero government disaster relief. How do you think things would have been different both leading up to, and during Hurricane Katrina?


we'd have a bunch of dirt roads, ghetto shacks, and any place hit by a disaster would look like District 9 ghetto where the aliens and african warlords lived. or we'd create somethign like Fema with skilled professionals able to build safe, contemporary housing structure, roads, and disaster relief in food, water, and shelter.

to think you, me, a community are going to rebuild everyones house 1 by 1, roads, buildings, etc. is beyond retarded :facepalm

i mean this might've worked 200 years ago when there were smaller communities, and shotty infrastructure where it was just about having a roof and walls to block the elements but today? just no way, it takes professionals, special materials, logistics, etc, etc. to build todays infrastructure, a small community couldn't do it unless they all put in money to help each other. i mean people helping each other is way more of a socialist mentality than what a lot of u talking right now push here.

[JellyBean]

:facepalm Some of these threads are getting annoying and stupid...and this is one of those threads.

[falc39]

you're being real general. so who is going to swoop in to buy GM, Ford, and Chrysler? foreign car manufacturers? how about our largest banks? who is going to buy the largest insurer? no it doesn't happen all of the time, try once in a blue moon where its a perfect storm of our largest corporations failing at the same time. when else did anything like that ever happen? :confusedshrug:

the free market was completely abused by CEO's and financial bigwigs raping average people for personal gains. they had no idea they would be bailed out, but they were just following what Wall Street is all about - greed. Its probably still going on.... To act like our free economy works without regulation or government interference is completely retarded :facepalm I seriously don't get why a lot of you swear so much by Capitalism ideals when its so obvious it has major flaws that needs oversight.

i mean yeah it is a problem with our economy today with corporations that are too big to fail, but the likelihood of so much about to fail at once happening again is very unlikely. either way it worked, since most of those companies are still functioning today, employing tens of thousands, and many of them are turning profits and paying us back.

Read up about capitalism. We haven't had free-market capitalism in a very long time. Keynesian economics comes in and messes up the whole system, yet free-markets are to blame? :oldlol: You also seem to think that free-market capitalism is a bunch of greedy people who just run around without any laws. Laws definitely still exist in the free-market too. I don't think you understand what the free-market is or how it has its own way of regulating. The free-market wouldn't have allowed all of this to come about in the first place. It was only achievable through government help and bias.

Greed is what it is, no matter how hard you try, you can't force people not to be greedy. The best thing you can do is have a non-biased government that lets the market punish people who take too much risk and try to abuse it. Once there is bias and the government is allowed to pick winners and losers, which have been happening for a long time, then it is in no way a free-market. It's funny, you keep talking about greed, evil CEOs, and monster corporations yet you keep defending policies that directly benefit them and they abuse like crazy (like the bailouts). How does it feel like to be a walking contradiction?

[Godzuki]

Read up about capitalism. We haven't had free-market capitalism in a very long time. Keynesian economics comes in and messes up the whole system, yet free-markets are to blame? :oldlol: You also seem to think that free-market capitalism is a bunch of greedy people who just run around without any laws. Laws definitely still exist in the free-market too. I don't think you understand what the free-market is or how it has its own way of regulating. The free-market wouldn't have allowed all of this to come about in the first place. It was only achievable through government help and bias.

Greed is what it is, no matter how hard you try, you can't force people not to be greedy. The best thing you can do is have a non-biased government that lets the market punish people who take too much risk and try to abuse it. Once there is bias and the government is allowed to pick winners and losers, which have been happening for a long time, then it is in no way a free-market. It's funny, you keep talking about greed, evil CEOs, and monster corporations yet you keep defending policies that directly benefit them and they abuse like crazy (like the bailouts). How does it feel like to be a walking contradiction?


how many times do i have to tell u the bailouts were a necessary evil? you're the one that keeps blaming the government when the government only interceded when the free market was having issues. i don't know why u act like the government came in first and caused it all. read up on Keynesian economics...

u need to stop exaggerating. its like when u all would cry we're so socialist for the tiniest bit of socialist policy when we're by far a free market, capitalist society.

either way this is retarded to me. a lot of you shouldn't be voting, and its amazing to me how you all really believe a lot of the stuff you're saying here, but i swear some of u aren't that far away from being as nutty as the Tea Party.

[Sarcastic]

Read up about capitalism. We haven't had free-market capitalism in a very long time. Keynesian economics comes in and messes up the whole system, yet free-markets are to blame? :oldlol: You also seem to think that free-market capitalism is a bunch of greedy people who just run around without any laws. Laws definitely still exist in the free-market too. I don't think you understand what the free-market is or how it has its own way of regulating. The free-market wouldn't have allowed all of this to come about in the first place. It was only achievable through government help and bias.

Greed is what it is, no matter how hard you try, you can't force people not to be greedy. The best thing you can do is have a non-biased government that lets the market punish people who take too much risk and try to abuse it. Once there is bias and the government is allowed to pick winners and losers, which have been happening for a long time, then it is in no way a free-market. It's funny, you keep talking about greed, evil CEOs, and monster corporations yet you keep defending policies that directly benefit them and they abuse like crazy (like the bailouts). How does it feel like to be a walking contradiction?

Free markets only work if all the people have access to 100% of the information so that the correct choices can always be made. Sounds great in theory but in a global world that we are part of, 100% access is impossible.

[bigdog13]

But be honest with us and yourself Joe, how many government programs do you directly or indirectly benefit from.

I did create this thread for you Joe. I knew I could get you to crawl out from under wherever you hang out.

One thing I love about some Americans, they are soooo free market and no government intervention, but they love the trade protections/tariffs that are put in place to stop the inflow of softwood lumber or agriculture.

[rivers to gates]

Read up about capitalism. We haven't had free-market capitalism in a very long time. Keynesian economics comes in and messes up the whole system, yet free-markets are to blame? :oldlol: You also seem to think that free-market capitalism is a bunch of greedy people who just run around without any laws. Laws definitely still exist in the free-market too. I don't think you understand what the free-market is or how it has its own way of regulating. The free-market wouldn't have allowed all of this to come about in the first place. It was only achievable through government help and bias.

Greed is what it is, no matter how hard you try, you can't force people not to be greedy. The best thing you can do is have a non-biased government that lets the market punish people who take too much risk and try to abuse it. Once there is bias and the government is allowed to pick winners and losers, which have been happening for a long time, then it is in no way a free-market. It's funny, you keep talking about greed, evil CEOs, and monster corporations yet you keep defending policies that directly benefit them and they abuse like crazy (like the bailouts). How does it feel like to be a walking contradiction?

When the poor are tearing each other apart and the middle class is abolished we will see how much of a necessary evil these blood suckers are. These flash mobs show that it's already happening with the lower class. This country is going to be tearing it's self apart in the not to distant future.

[Sarcastic]

People that live there choose to live there. Why should my money be forcelly taken away from me to aid them?

:confusedshrug:

So the next time California has an earthquake we shouldn't send any federal help and just say "fck em, they chose to live there"?

I didn't know the IRS took your money at gun point forcefully from you.

[joe]

But be honest with us and yourself Joe, how many government programs do you directly or indirectly benefit from.

I did create this thread for you Joe. I knew I could get you to crawl out from under wherever you hang out.

One thing I love about some Americans, they are soooo free market and no government intervention, but they love the trade protections/tariffs that are put in place to stop the inflow of softwood lumber or agriculture.

To be honest, I don't think I benefit from any.

Hmm, I'm currently paying off a government student loan, so I guess you could say they "helped me" pay for college. But college tuition would be 1/5th the price if government wasn't involved in the banking and college loan industry to begin with. So I'm not sure I'm benefiting from that.

They do take money out of my paycheck every week for programs I'll never benefit from. Does that count?

Your last argument is a strawman. First of all, I wouldn't say Americans are "so free market and no government intervention" anymore. Some of us are, some of us have lost our faith in that mentality.

I personally don't know anything about trade protections and tariffs, so I have no opinion either way.

...And thanks for creating this thread for me. I have no idea who you are, but good to see you noticed me.

[Sarcastic]

To be honest, I don't think I benefit from any.

Hmm, I'm currently paying off a government student loan, so I guess you could say they "helped me" pay for college. But college tuition would be 1/5th the price if government wasn't involved in the banking and college loan industry to begin with. So I'm not sure I'm benefiting from that.

They do take money out of my paycheck every week for programs I'll never benefit from. Does that count?

Your last argument is a strawman. First of all, I wouldn't say Americans are "so free market and no government intervention" anymore. Some of us are, some of us have lost our faith in that mentality.

I personally don't know anything about trade protections and tariffs, so I have no opinion either way.

...And thanks for creating this thread for me. I have no idea who you are, but good to see you noticed me.

Do you benefit from any of these



This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issed by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

[joe]

Do you benefit from any of these

How am I benefiting from these things, when I'm being forced to pay for them, and I think we'd be better off without 98% of them?

I use government products and government regulated products all day, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean they still wouldn't be there or be better without the governments help.

For instance, building codes. The story you posted says "to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection." Let me ask you something.. in a free market, what would a home builder have to gain from building a house that was a risk to catch fire? What would an electric company have to gain from not properly, and safely, installing your wires?

What you don't seem to grasp, and as falc was saying earlier, is that the free market HAS regulations. And their regulations are even stricter than the governments. Because in a free market, if you do a bad job there's no bailout. If you do a bad job, you just go out of business. Bankrupt. So companies have a huge incentive to do right by their customers.

Ya know, I think you should read about the benefits of a free market, with an open mind. I know that I personally was in support of big government until I did the same. I supported Obama, even. But I took the time to read criticisms of my opinion, and then criticisms of THOSE opinions, and so on and so on. Just step outside of your own opinion for a few hours.

[bigdog13]

To be honest, I don't think I benefit from any.

Hmm, I'm currently paying off a government student loan, so I guess you could say they "helped me" pay for college. But college tuition would be 1/5th the price if government wasn't involved in the banking and college loan industry to begin with. So I'm not sure I'm benefiting from that.

They do take money out of my paycheck every week for programs I'll never benefit from. Does that count?

Your last argument is a strawman. First of all, I wouldn't say Americans are "so free market and no government intervention" anymore. Some of us are, some of us have lost our faith in that mentality.

I personally don't know anything about trade protections and tariffs, so I have no opinion either way.

...And thanks for creating this thread for me. I have no idea who you are, but good to see you noticed me.

You went to a private university?

[Sarcastic]

How am I benefiting from these things, when I'm being forced to pay for them, and I think we'd be better off without 98% of them?

I use government products and government regulated products all day, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean they still wouldn't be there or be better without the governments help.

For instance, building codes. The story you posted says "to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection." Let me ask you something.. in a free market, what would a home builder have to gain from building a house that was a risk to catch fire? What would an electric company have to gain from not properly, and safely, installing your wires?

What you don't seem to grasp, and as falc was saying earlier, is that the free market HAS regulations. And their regulations are even stricter than the governments. Because in a free market, if you do a bad job there's no bailout. If you do a bad job, you just go out of business. Bankrupt. So companies have a huge incentive to do right by their customers.

Ya know, I think you should read about the benefits of a free market, with an open mind. I know that I personally was in support of big government until I did the same. I supported Obama, even. But I took the time to read criticisms of my opinion, and then criticisms of THOSE opinions, and so on and so on. Just step outside of your own opinion for a few hours.

As I stated earlier, the only way the free market can work properly is if everyone has at least access to 100% of the information. In your building example: perhaps the construction company decides to use cheaper parts that will only last 10 years in order to save money. There is no way the consumer can know this without full disclosure and 10 years is too long for the market to correct the builder who is getting away with making larger sums of profit at the expense of his customers. Eventually 10 years later or more people might be able to figure out that cheap parts went into their houses which caused them to collapse but that is way too long for the correction to be made.

This would be where the government would come in and force the builder to use parts that meet certain safety standards.

[Sarcastic]

Believe me, I love the free market. I love that when I go buy clothes I have a million different types of styles to choose from. I love that when I go to a restaurant the menu has a million different dishes to choose from. However there is too much information out there for me to know everything about the market so I won't always be able to make the correct choices. I want to be able to buy clothes that aren't made with a toxic paint that I don't know about. I want to be able to eat food that I know is free of poison or won't give me cancer 10 years down the line. This is why rules and regulations are needed for the market since it is impossible to know everything.

Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776. The world was a much different place then. The markets he wrote about were small and local. I don't think he ever envisioned a global market like what we have today.

[joe]

As I stated earlier, the only way the free market can work properly is if everyone has at least access to 100% of the information. In your building example: perhaps the construction company decides to use cheaper parts that will only last 10 years in order to save money. There is no way the consumer can know this without full disclosure and 10 years is too long for the market to correct the builder who is getting away with making larger sums of profit at the expense of his customers. Eventually 10 years later or more people might be able to figure out that cheap parts went into their houses which caused them to collapse but that is way too long for the correction to be made.

This would be where the government would come in and force the builder to use parts that meet certain safety standards.

But even in your example, the information still does come out. Why is 10 years too long for a correction to be made? If a bunch of that companies buildings started falling apart, they'd dramatically lose business. Meanwhile, their rival - who did the right thing, and used good parts, - gets even more business because his houses are well-built. 50 years pass, and that good company is still making houses because its built a brand name.

And I don't think you need government to regulate these things, but they can still enforce smart laws to protect people.

For instance, say in this world without government fire codes and such, people want a way to hold the home-makers responsible. The buyers can request a document that lists all the parts used in the house. Electric wires, pipes, etc.

Now say the house ends up burning down in 16 months. They check the rubble and OH LOOK.. the home builder lied about the parts he used. He was using cheap crap for wires. Now, this person can sue the home building company.

[boozehound]

But even in your example, the information still does come out. Why is 10 years too long for a correction to be made? If a bunch of that companies buildings started falling apart, they'd dramatically lose business. Meanwhile, their rival - who did the right thing, and used good parts, - gets even more business because his houses are well-built. 50 years pass, and that good company is still making houses because its built a brand name.

And I don't think you need government to regulate these things, but they can still enforce smart laws to protect people.

For instance, say in this world without government fire codes and such, people want a way to hold the home-makers responsible. The buyers can request a document that lists all the parts used in the house. Electric wires, pipes, etc.

Now say the house ends up burning down in 16 months. They check the rubble and OH LOOK.. the home builder lied about the parts he used. He was using cheap crap for wires. Now, this person can sue the home building company.
SMFH. where is he going to sue them? who enforces civil judgments? SMFH this kid has no clue.


joe is clueless as usual. Who paid for the infrastructure he is using to connect to the internet with? Or the electrical grid hes powering his life with? Or the ****ing roads he drives on? The list goes on and on.

[Sarcastic]

But even in your example, the information still does come out. Why is 10 years too long for a correction to be made? If a bunch of that companies buildings started falling apart, they'd dramatically lose business. Meanwhile, their rival - who did the right thing, and used good parts, - gets even more business because his houses are well-built. 50 years pass, and that good company is still making houses because its built a brand name.

And I don't think you need government to regulate these things, but they can still enforce smart laws to protect people.

For instance, say in this world without government fire codes and such, people want a way to hold the home-makers responsible. The buyers can request a document that lists all the parts used in the house. Electric wires, pipes, etc.

Now say the house ends up burning down in 16 months. They check the rubble and OH LOOK.. the home builder lied about the parts he used. He was using cheap crap for wires. Now, this person can sue the home building company.

10 years is too long because lots of people could get hurt. What if this company that uses cheaper parts is able to take over the entire market for houses because of their low price and drives out all the competition? Now the good companies that use good parts will leave the market.

Again, the free market only works when choices are made with 100% of the information. If people chose to buy houses with cheaper parts and were content with that, then the market is working properly. However if they don't know about the faulty parts, then the market can't correct the bad behavior from the company.

[joe]

SMFH. where is he going to sue them? who enforces civil judgments? SMFH this kid has no clue.


joe is clueless as usual. Who paid for the infrastructure he is using to connect to the internet with? Or the electrical grid hes powering his life with? Or the ****ing roads he drives on? The list goes on and on.

Umm, I'm not an anarchist. I think there should be civil and federal courts. And I think government does a fine job with the roads, and btw- the constitution gives them the right to build roads.

I'm clueless as usual but you've completely missed my argument. Not 4 posts ago I said Yes, I do use products the government pays for. And I also said I think 98% of those products would still exist and would be even better if the government wasn't involved. (Leave 2% for the few things the government does do well, like roads, contract enforcement, etc).

I was actually having a nice back and forth with Sarcastic for once but Boozehound has to come and ruin it, what a shame :(

[Godzuki]

i don't really know, but aren't student loans discounted or at least given to students without credit ratings and assets to back it up more easily due to the government? It just seems odd how the government isn't helping you get those loans in any way, or the government making out on them like you're acting.

i don't know tho since i never had to get a student loan. i do know loans in general require credit ratings and assets, something most high schoolers probably don't have.

[Sarcastic]

Umm, I'm not an anarchist. I think there should be civil and federal courts. And I think government does a fine job with the roads, and btw- the constitution gives them the right to build roads.

I'm clueless as usual but you've completely missed my argument. Not 4 posts ago I said Yes, I do use products the government pays for. And I also said I think 98% of those products would still exist and would be even better if the government wasn't involved. (Leave 2% for the few things the government does do well, like roads, contract enforcement, etc).

I was actually having a nice back and forth with Sarcastic for once but Boozehound has to come and ruin it, what a shame :(

The government does more than 2% right. In the area of research and development, the government accounts for almost all basic research money spent while at the same giving out grants for applied research. Private companies will almost never get involved in basic research on their own because there is no money to be made from it, however it is 100% necessary for the advancement of science.

[joe]

i don't really know, but aren't student loans discounted or at least given to students without credit ratings and assets to back it up more easily due to the government? It just seems odd how the government isn't helping you get those loans in any way, or making out on them like you're acting.

i don't know tho since i never had to get a student loan.

government directly gives student loans. I think they also pay certain banks back if a student never pays up, but don't quote me on that.

Here's how it happens, and it's really simple and logical.

In a world without government loans (which anyone can get due to no credit ratings/assets, as you said), there'd only be two ways for kids to afford college.

1) Take out a bank loan
2) Pay out of their own pocket

When you look at option number one, there's a few problems. Banks aren't just going to give money to some kid. Most college students are broke, have no jobs, no assets, nothing. So getting a loan isn't an option for most of them.

So you have to look at the second option.. paying from your own pocket. Again, most college students are broke. So if they're going to attend college, it better not be too expensive. In response to this, the colleges have to drop tuition prices to match demand. If 90% of their potential students can only afford college at $3,000 a year, that'd just have to be the price. It'd be the only way for colleges to turn a profit.

Here's how governments screw up the market. So say college tuition is about $3,000 a year. Then the government decides to start giving out college loans. The government doesn't have to worry about risk, so they have no lending standards. Basically, if you're accepted into college, you can get their money. So now, every single person going to college is getting $3,000 from the government.

In response to this, the colleges do the very logical thing of raising tuition. If you were able to charge $3,000 when the students were broke, why not charge $5,000 now that they have a fat loan?

This cycle continues over the years. The government starts giving students more money to match rising college prices, and the colleges raise tuition in response. That's how you end up with $25,000 a year tuition prices, when just 50 years ago it was about $3,000.

[bigdog13]

So you get a judgment against the company who did the shawdy work, they have likely gone bankruct, or gone underground or whatever. The people who are going to put in bad wiring are also the people not likely to stick around until they place falls apart and the suits start coming in.

I sue and get judgments against people and companies everyday but in most cases they are worth less than the paper they are written on. What do we do in those cases?

[RidonKs]

That's not a terrible breakdown joe, and it comes off quite logical. But it misses the very same aspects that most strictly free market explanations tend to; the social good. You're expecting to achieve an important societal quality (in this case, post secondary education, which in turn inspires critical thinking and other stuff) by allowing rational greed to run its course and eventually get there. It doesn't.



So if they're going to attend college, it better not be too expensive. In response to this, the colleges have to drop tuition prices to match demand. If 90% of their potential students can only afford college at $3,000 a year, that'd just have to be the price. It'd be the only way for colleges to turn a profit.
Colleges would not 'drop tuition prices to match demand'. That's a grossly oversimplified economic hypothesis that you're trying to apply to every industry across the board, according to 'laws' of how people are supposed to act and react in economies. The laws of the free market, the invisible hand if you want to call it that, isn't anywhere near that simple. It doesn't apply everywhere all at once no matter the circumstances. It sometimes applies in certain areas heavily dependent on the circumstances.

In the case of post-secondary education, I would guess that prices wouldn't drop, supply would. Among other effects of course..

Consider the reality of this particular commodity prior to federal government involvement... college and university were reserved for the wealthiest amongst society. Working class families had no chance in hell of sending their kids for more education because they couldn't afford it.

Removing government subsidization wouldn't just lower prices. That's silly. It would put every state run/aided university completely out of business (that's most of them), it would completely erode both the supply and the demand, and consequently turn post-secondary education once more into a luxury reserved only for the kids lucky enough to be born into comfortable financial circumstances. Given the unbelievable socio-economic stratification that's growing exponentially in your country, the number of kids privileged enough to continue studying professional fields or liberal arts or scientific endeavour would be drastically reduced. And only educating the rich kids, to put it bluntly, would only exacerbate the problem of vast economic inequalities further.

All of that is invariably a bad thing. Less education, or more accurately less opportunity for advanced education, is a BAD THING. Increased access to education is a social good and should be pursued for the collective good of the society. More kids having the opportunity to fulfil their potential has net benefits that are through the roof, in economic terms, in social terms, in REAL LIFE TERMS.

So the bottom line is that both sides of the economic divide is supported heavily by the government, because there is a societal advantage in doing so. Post-secondary education isn't the most profitable business for an entrepreneur to launch... you need an educated workforce (obviously), you need a viable setting for learning, you need a giant administration to ensure that adequate resources for students, etc, etc. some of that stuff can make money, say the cafeteria or private industry set-ups on a campus, but for the most part, it's damn near impossible to run a successful university that can simultaneously provide a reasonable education while charging a low cost. It just doesn't work like that, in this particular industry. Too much overhead, and the product you're selling is too valuable to risk offering something shoddy. It's also an industry that's largely reliant on reputation, so poorly equipped institutions would be kicked to the curb... and any un-subsidized university that tried to offer low-cost advanced schooling for 'the rest' (ie. folks who can't afford ivy league) just wouldn't be able to offer comparable programs. For all the reasons listed above.

So to achieve the societal good that I explained above, you need a neutral institution without a profit-incentive ensuring that societal goods that don't necessarily translate directly into for-profit initiatives and entrepreneurship are still provided. for the good of society.


that's a long rant but I hope you understand the points I'm putting forward. Selling school isn't like selling nachos and pretending the economic players involved in the market would react the same way for either commodity is disingenuous oversimplification. It's more complicated than that for the reasons above.

That isn't to say there's nothing wrong with the American (and to a certain extent, though not nearly as bad, the Canadian) post-secondary education system. There's a whole lot wrong. I read recently that the total outstanding student loan debt exceeds the combination of all homeowners credit card debt. over a trillion. you could diagnose the problem in a number of different ways... one of them is that they're being run for profit as opposed to for benefit, which is why they were made available to the general public (through government run student loan programs) in the first place! university's are far too competitive based on reputations that are completely irrelevant to the real service they actually provide. earning a degree from princeton is much more valuable than earning one from Penn State, for no other real reason than the fact that, OMG ITS PRINCETON, and it gets consistently ranked in the top tier by publications that are in cahoots with the universities themselves! of course there differences in the level of education provided between the ivy leagues and the state schools, but that gap is certainly not accurately reflected in the price differential or the reputation differential. universities use inflated tuition costs to pay profs more, encourage ever more alumni donation, and build up campus infrastructure to attract an evermore luxurious client

[boozehound]

I was actually having a nice back and forth with Sarcastic for once but Boozehound has to come and ruin it, what a shame :(
you are welcome. I think you need to get a more realistic view of how many ways govt spending impacts your daily life in a positive manner. Now, is it bloated and wasteful in some aspects? Sure, just take a look at our military budget or some aspects of medicaid/medicare (which would be obsolete and rolled into a much more efficient system if we got with the ages and had a universal healthcare plan, like every other western country). But your hardcore private sector does it better stance is not an informed stance, and that is clear from your posts.

[SourGrapes]

you are welcome. I think you need to get a more realistic view of how many ways govt spending impacts your daily life in a positive manner. Now, is it bloated and wasteful in some aspects? Sure, just take a look at our military budget or some aspects of medicaid/medicare (which would be obsolete and rolled into a much more efficient system if we got with the ages and had a universal healthcare plan, like every other western country). But your hardcore private sector does it better stance is not an informed stance, and that is clear from your posts.
:applause:

And cheers to ridonks for providing the kind of thoughtful analysis it's easy to respect

[falc39]

how many times do i have to tell u the bailouts were a necessary evil? you're the one that keeps blaming the government when the government only interceded when the free market was having issues. i don't know why u act like the government came in first and caused it all. read up on Keynesian economics...

Necessary evil? Can't fool me with that term. Evil is still evil even if it's "necessary". It's like telling me you are anti-war and that we need to invade Iran and China. Justify it all you want but I will call a spade a spade.

I also do know about Keynesian economics, enough to know that we don't even do a good job of following what Keynes originally said... it's been that distorted now. But again, looking at this post and the posts that follows, you are showing that you don't understand what a free-market economy is. You still think it's anarchy. It's really pointless for me to try to explain it anymore.



Free markets only work if all the people have access to 100% of the information so that the correct choices can always be made. Sounds great in theory but in a global world that we are part of, 100% access is impossible.

No, people don't need 100% of the information. There is never 100% information, only in some utopian dreamworld. When there is less than 100% information there is RISK. That is why people need to take CALCULATED RISKS. That is how the free market regulates. People who do stupid stuff and takes too many risks will eventually lose out. Government can try to intervene and reveal more information but more often than not they also DISTORT the market. They actually make it harder for people to see the real market. In addition, they provide safety nets that attempt to TAKE AWAY ALL THE RISKS, giving a perfect incentive for people to take risks that they would not normally do. Why do you think all these bubbles form and all the malinvestment? Because the government trying to make it more safe (with good intentions) fcks it up even more. risk vs reward, the key to understanding free market's regulation. Remove the ability to fail (risk) and you wont have a free market

[Sarcastic]

Necessary evil? Can't fool me with that term. Evil is still evil even if it's "necessary". It's like telling me you are anti-war and that we need to invade Iran and China. Justify it all you want but I will call a spade a spade.

I also do know about Keynesian economics, enough to know that we don't even do a good job of following what Keynes originally said... it's been that distorted now. But again, looking at this post and the posts that follows, you are showing that you don't understand what a free-market economy is. You still think it's anarchy. It's really pointless for me to try to explain it anymore.



No, people don't need 100% of the information. There is never 100% information, only in some utopian dreamworld. When there is less than 100% information there is RISK. That is why people need to take CALCULATED RISKS. That is how the free market regulates. People who do stupid stuff and takes too many risks will eventually lose out. Government can try to intervene and reveal more information but more often than not they also DISTORT the market. They actually make it harder for people to see the real market. In addition, they provide safety nets that attempt to TAKE AWAY ALL THE RISKS, giving a perfect incentive for people to take risks that they would not normally do. Why do you think all these bubbles form and all the malinvestment? Because the government trying to make it more safe (with good intentions) fcks it up even more. risk vs reward, the key to understanding free market's regulation. Remove the ability to fail (risk) and you wont have a free market

Like I said 100% information is impossible which is why a totally free market can only work in a utopian dreamworld.

You can still take risk with total information. People who choose to buy cigarettes know they may get cancer from smoking and are taking a risk.

The risk you seem to be talking about is the risk of entering or leaving a market as a seller which is different from consumers having full access to information. The only way the free hand can correct bad behavior from a company is when the consumers have full information and stop buying products from that company. If the consumers never have the information then the company will continue its bad behavior since its sales will not drop.

If I go into a store to buy orange juice, there should not be a risk to me that one brand uses poison and another doesn't. I should not have to play Russian roulette with my life in order to drink orange juice.

[Sarcastic]

Also you are completely wrong about how bubbles form. They form from over speculation and not from too much government intervention. If government caused bubbles we would have seen them form between the 1940s - 1970s when government intervened the most in the economy. When government started deregulating everything is when we saw them all form starting in the 1980s. S&L, tech, housing. All because of deregulation.

[falc39]

Like I said 100% information is impossible which is why a totally free market can only work in a utopian dreamworld.

You can still take risk with total information. People who choose to buy cigarettes know they may get cancer from smoking and are taking a risk.

The risk you seem to be talking about is the risk of entering or leaving a market as a seller which is different from consumers having full access to information. The only way the free hand can correct bad behavior from a company is when the consumers have full information and stop buying products from that company. If the consumers never have the information then the company will continue its bad behavior since its sales will not drop.

If I go into a store to buy orange juice, there should not be a risk to me that one brand uses poison and another doesn't. I should not have to play Russian roulette with my life in order to drink orange juice.

For some reason I suspect you also might think a free market is like some sort of anarchy, which is not. I will assume you don't think that but I am getting that vibe from your post.. But to your example, that is why companies have reputations and people given the freedom to decide on their own will more often than not make the right choice. Given the advances in communication, a company that tried to poison you would not last long at all. It would go down in a heartbeat. Do you go on the internet? read the newspaper? talk to people? Do you not keep in the back of your mind a list of the brands you like? I do. Unless you do none of these things and live like a hermit then I guess you will be clueless to the point that you will feel like you are gambling your life away if you buy some orange juice. I mean c'mon, are people that helpless and paranoid now? There are still courts and laws in a free-market, it's not like some last man standing free-for-all corporations vs people deathmatch. Companies who try to kill people, ending up killing people, or commit fraud, etc. will be punished.


Also you are completely wrong about how bubbles form. They form from over speculation and not from too much government intervention. If government caused bubbles we would have seen them form between the 1940s - 1970s when government intervened the most in the economy. When government started deregulating everything is when we saw them all form starting in the 1980s. S&L, tech, housing. All because of deregulation.

How am I wrong? I actually learned about this from people who actually predicted these bubbles YEARS IN ADVANCE. Surely they don't know a thing if they were able to predict it, so let's keep listening to the economists who couldn't see it coming even if it were staring them right in the face.

The housing bubble would have never happened (especially in that magnitude) if the market was not so distorted. You don't lend to risky people the way people did unless you know there is a safety net. The free market alone would've never pumped so much cheap credit in the system and it would've never let people make risky loans without suffering the consequences. It needs help from the fed and the government to do so. Do you really think that the housing bubble would've gotten as big as it did if you took away all the artificially low interest rates from the federal reserve or all the government programs there to make home buying more "affordable"?

[Sarcastic]

How hard is it to predict a bubble when most of the wealth in this country has been built on them? We have a boom/bust economy, so predicting a bust is like predicting the sun will go down.

If you ever took an economics course instead of learning your shit off youtube, you would learn there are actually many reasons as to why a bubble can happen, one of which does happen to be government failure, but for the most part government usually intervenes in markets to correct failures, not cause them.

[falc39]

How hard is it to predict a bubble when most of the wealth in this country has been built on them? We have a boom/bust economy, so predicting a bust is like predicting the sun will go down.

Ok, now you are just rewriting history. Yeah, the housing bubble was so easy to predict! I can't even say that because I didn't predict it nor would I ever want to try and take credit for doing so. There were very few who were able to predict it (like what industry it was in and the relative magnitude of the collapse), and those who were warned about it thought it was just mumbo-jumbo. I mean, c'mon, at least a little credit to the people where it is due? Can you honestly say you saw it coming way in advance?



If you ever took an economics course instead of learning your shit off youtube, you would learn there are actually many reasons as to why a bubble can happen, one of which does happen to be government failure, but for the most part government usually intervenes in markets to correct failures, not cause them.

Now, I actually did take quite a few economics courses out of interest (while majoring in civil engineering), almost enough to convince me to pursue a minor but I needed to graduate and enter the workforce. I actually saved all my economic textbooks too. Speculators can cause bubbles but much smaller and they are usually very short-lived. The bigger ones need government help. It's not economically possible for speculators to cause bubbles the magnitude of that like the housing market by themselves. Just not possible, especially if the free market is there to punish them for taking too much risks.

[Sarcastic]

Ok, now you are just rewriting history. Yeah, the housing bubble was so easy to predict! I can't even say that because I didn't predict it nor would I ever want to try and take credit for doing so. There were very few who were able to predict it (like what industry it was in and the relative magnitude of the collapse), and those who were warned about it thought it was just mumbo-jumbo. I mean, c'mon, at least a little credit to the people where it is due? Can you honestly say you saw it coming way in advance?




Now, I actually did take quite a few economics courses out of interest (while majoring in civil engineering), almost enough to convince me to pursue a minor but I needed to graduate and enter the workforce. I actually saved all my economic textbooks too. Speculators can cause bubbles but much smaller and they are usually very short-lived. The bigger ones need government help. It's not economically possible for speculators to cause bubbles the magnitude of that like the housing market by themselves. Just not possible, especially if the free market is there to punish them for taking too much risks.

It was called the Housing Boom, which means there would eventually be a Bust to go along with it. Contrary to what you believe, it wasn't because government forced lending to poor people. It happened because we completely deregulated the market when we repealed Glass-Steagall and allowed our commercial banks and investment banks to merge and put all our money at risk. Once the subprime mortgages were lent out, the investment banks came up with the great idea to package them all together into collaterized debt obligations, thinking that spreading the risk would mean they would never default. They then sold those CDOs into all facets of the market to the point where an insurance company(AIG) was holding onto billions of dollars of subprime debt. The only reason AIG had that debt was because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

[joe]

How hard is it to predict a bubble when most of the wealth in this country has been built on them? We have a boom/bust economy, so predicting a bust is like predicting the sun will go down.

If you ever took an economics course instead of learning your shit off youtube, you would learn there are actually many reasons as to why a bubble can happen, one of which does happen to be government failure, but for the most part government usually intervenes in markets to correct failures, not cause them.

Please. Find me someone who predicted the housing crash at least 2 years in advance, who doesn't blame it on government intervention in the economy, especially related to the Fed.

[Sarcastic]

Please. Find me someone who predicted the housing crash at least 2 years in advance, who doesn't blame it on government intervention in the economy, especially related to the Fed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/17/the-most-misunderstood-man-in-america.html

[falc39]

It was called the Housing Boom, which means there would eventually be a Bust to go along with it. Contrary to what you believe, it wasn't because government forced lending to poor people. It happened because we completely deregulated the market when we repealed Glass-Steagall and allowed our commercial banks and investment banks to merge and put all our money at risk. Once the subprime mortgages were lent out, the investment banks came up with the great idea to package them all together into collaterized debt obligations, thinking that spreading the risk would mean they would never default. They then sold those CDOs into all facets of the market to the point where an insurance company(AIG) was holding onto billions of dollars of subprime debt. The only reason AIG had that debt was because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

But what caused the housing boom in the first place? You really think the government and the fed intervention had nothing to do with it? I'm looking at the housing bubble as a whole, the bigger picture. I already know about subprime mortgages and what these companies did with them. You left out a lot in your history, stuff like the fed reserve, fannie and freddie, etc.

[joe]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/17/the-most-misunderstood-man-in-america.html

Can you give me a link to him predicting the housing bubble/crash? I'm reading up about the guy but I'm not finding it.

[RedBlackAttack]

Please. Find me someone who predicted the housing crash at least 2 years in advance, who doesn't blame it on government intervention in the economy, especially related to the Fed.
Krugman warned about it all the way back in 2005...


Running Out of Bubbles
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 27, 2005

Remember the stock market bubble? With everything that's happened since 2000, it feels like ancient history. But a few pessimists, notably Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, argue that we have not yet paid the price for our past excesses.

I've never fully accepted that view. But looking at the housing market, I'm starting to reconsider.

In July 2001, Paul McCulley, an economist at Pimco, the giant bond fund, predicted that the Federal Reserve would simply replace one bubble with another. "There is room," he wrote, "for the Fed to create a bubble in housing prices, if necessary, to sustain American hedonism. And I think the Fed has the will to do so, even though political correctness would demand that Mr. Greenspan deny any such thing."

As Mr. McCulley predicted, interest rate cuts led to soaring home prices, which led in turn not just to a construction boom but to high consumer spending, because homeowners used mortgage refinancing to go deeper into debt. All of this created jobs to make up for those lost when the stock bubble burst.

Now the question is what can replace the housing bubble.

Nobody thought the economy could rely forever on home buying and refinancing. But the hope was that by the time the housing boom petered out, it would no longer be needed.

But although the housing boom has lasted longer than anyone could have imagined, the economy would still be in big trouble if it came to an end. That is, if the hectic pace of home construction were to cool, and consumers were to stop borrowing against their houses, the economy would slow down sharply. If housing prices actually started falling, we'd be looking at a very nasty scene, in which both construction and consumer spending would plunge, pushing the economy right back into recession.

That's why it's so ominous to see signs that America's housing market, like the stock market at the end of the last decade, is approaching the final, feverish stages of a speculative bubble.

Some analysts still insist that housing prices aren't out of line. But someone will always come up with reasons why seemingly absurd asset prices make sense. Remember "Dow 36,000"? Robert Shiller, who argued against such rationalizations and correctly called the stock bubble in his book "Irrational Exuberance," has added an ominous analysis of the housing market to the new edition, and says the housing bubble "may be the biggest bubble in U.S. history"

In parts of the country there's a speculative fever among people who shouldn't be speculators that seems all too familiar from past bubbles - the shoeshine boys with stock tips in the 1920's, the beer-and-pizza joints showing CNBC, not ESPN, on their TV sets in the 1990's.

Even Alan Greenspan now admits that we have "characteristics of bubbles" in the housing market, but only "in certain areas." And it's true that the craziest scenes are concentrated in a few regions, like coastal Florida and California.

But these aren't tiny regions; they're big and wealthy, so that the national housing market as a whole looks pretty bubbly. Many home purchases are speculative; the National Association of Realtors estimates that 23 percent of the homes sold last year were bought for investment, not to live in. According to Business Week, 31 percent of new mortgages are interest only, a sign that people are stretching to their financial limits.

The important point to remember is that the bursting of the stock market bubble hurt lots of people - not just those who bought stocks near their peak. By the summer of 2003, private-sector employment was three million below its 2001 peak. And the job losses would have been much worse if the stock bubble hadn't been quickly replaced with a housing bubble.

So what happens if the housing bubble bursts? It will be the same thing all over again, unless the Fed can find something to take its place. And it's hard to imagine what that might be. After all, the Fed's ability to manage the economy mainly comes from its ability to create booms and busts in the housing market. If housing enters a post-bubble slump, what's left?

Mr. Roach believes that the Fed's apparent success after 2001 was an illusion, that it simply piled up trouble for the future. I hope he's wrong. But the Fed does seem to be running out of bubbles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html

It was no great secret to clued in economists.

[falc39]

Krugman warned about it all the way back in 2005...



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html

It was no great secret to clued in economists.

Interesting, never read that article from Krugman. But that definitely isn't him "predicting" it. It is more like him saying "look at all these guys saying there might be a housing bubble. I used to disagree with them but now I am not sure. I hope it wont happen"... hardly predicting

[RedBlackAttack]

Interesting, never read that article from Krugman. But that definitely isn't him "predicting" it. It is more like him saying "look at all these guys saying there might be a housing bubble. I used to disagree with them but now I am not sure. I hope it wont happen"... hardly predicting
However you want to spin it, man... It is him openly discussing a recession as a result of the housing bubble bursting and it was written in 2005.

[joe]

Krugman warned about it all the way back in 2005...



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html

It was no great secret to clued in economists.

He predicted that the Fed was causing the bubble though. My point is.. the people who predicted it, blame it on government intervention. The ones who say it was because of deregulation all seemed to come along later.

I might be wrong about that, but just from what I've noticed.. it seems most who predicted it blame it on the Fed. And Fannie and Freddie.

But now here we are 3 years later, and it seems deregulation is what is blamed.. even though (seemingly) a large majority of those who predicted it said it was government interference that was the problem.

[falc39]

He predicted that the Fed was causing the bubble though. My point is.. the people who predicted it, blame it on government intervention. The ones who say it was because of deregulation all seemed to come along later.


oh yeah didnt catch that. he even says "After all, the Fed's ability to manage the economy mainly comes from its ability to create booms and busts in the housing market."!!!

Krugman is really crazy though. so in 2005, he is already thinking about creating another bubble to replace the possible housing bubble!!! wtf. i mean, he wants to do something like that again? just wow. just hide the problem somewhere else :oldlol: i hope he is nowhere near being the fed chairman in the future during my lifetime

[RedBlackAttack]

oh yeah didnt catch that. he even says "After all, the Fed's ability to manage the economy mainly comes from its ability to create booms and busts in the housing market."!!!

Krugman is really crazy though. so in 2005, he is already thinking about creating another bubble to replace the possible housing bubble!!! wtf. i mean, he wants to do something like that again? just wow. just hide the problem somewhere else :oldlol: i hope he is nowhere near being the fed chairman in the future during my lifetime
It was clearly written tongue-in-cheek. He isn't saying that the bubbles are good or that more bubbles are what we need. He is saying that our economy is boom or bust... Bubble or recession.

Recognizing the situation and predicting its next 'bubble' isn't the same thing as saying that this is the way that things should be.

Anyone who doesn't recognize our boom-bust/bubble economy (going all the way back to the gold standard) is just not living in reality.

There will be another bubble... And it will burst. And, then there will be another... And that will burst.

Saying that the Fed is 'running out of bubbles' is a not-so-veiled attack on their way of thinking.

Btw, the idea that deregulation didn't play a role in our economic collapse and the housing bubble is just flat-out crazy. We lived through 28 consecutive years of administrations that were pro-deregulation... From Reagan to Bush I to Clinton to Bush II.

The result was Wall Street and banks running wild and running an insane casino with bad housing loans. Looking at specific individuals, the fact that Bernie Madoff could get away with what he did for so long is a complete indictment on deregulation.

Hell, Harry Markopolos had the whole thing figured out and he actually took it to the SEC (many times). But, the SEC had been so completely stripped of any power and it was actually being run by Wall Street...

There is plenty of blame to go around, but deregulation absolutely helped lead to this being as bad as it was... The neutering of any and all oversight was felt and is still being felt (because not much has changed).

[SourGrapes]

It was clearly written tongue-in-cheek. He isn't saying that the bubbles are good or that more bubbles are what we need. He is saying that our economy is boom or bust... Bubble or recession.

Recognizing the situation and predicting its next 'bubble' isn't the same thing as saying that this is the way that things should be.

Anyone who doesn't recognize our boom-bust/bubble economy (going all the way back to the gold standard) is just not living in reality.

There will be another bubble... And it will burst. And, then there will be another... And that will burst.

Saying that the Fed is 'running out of bubbles' is a not-so-veiled attack on their way of thinking.

Btw, the idea that deregulation didn't play a role in our economic collapse and the housing bubble is just flat-out crazy. We lived through 28 consecutive years of administrations that were pro-deregulation... From Reagan to Bush I to Clinton to Bush II.

The result was Wall Street and banks running wild and running an insane casino with bad housing loans. Looking at specific individuals, the fact that Bernie Madoff could get away with what he did for so long is a complete indictment on deregulation.

Hell, Harry Markopolos had the whole thing figured out and he actually took it to the SEC (many times). But, the SEC had been so completely stripped of any power and it was actually being run by Wall Street...

There is plenty of blame to go around, but deregulation absolutely helped lead to this being as bad as it was... The neutering of any and all oversight was felt and is still being felt (because not much has changed).

thank god for posters like you. sometimes i feel like it's a twilight zone episode, and i think something is so straight forward and intuitive, and everyone else thinks i'm the idiot. even if people are so skewed and dogmatic as to dismiss your post, you've reminded me that sane people do exist

:cheers:

[Sarcastic]

But what caused the housing boom in the first place? You really think the government and the fed intervention had nothing to do with it? I'm looking at the housing bubble as a whole, the bigger picture. I already know about subprime mortgages and what these companies did with them. You left out a lot in your history, stuff like the fed reserve, fannie and freddie, etc.



He predicted that the Fed was causing the bubble though. My point is.. the people who predicted it, blame it on government intervention. The ones who say it was because of deregulation all seemed to come along later.

I might be wrong about that, but just from what I've noticed.. it seems most who predicted it blame it on the Fed. And Fannie and Freddie.

But now here we are 3 years later, and it seems deregulation is what is blamed.. even though (seemingly) a large majority of those who predicted it said it was government interference that was the problem.

The problem is your are equating the Federal Reserve and the federal government as if they are one and the same. The Federal Reserve is the central banking system, and it runs the monetary policy of the US, but it is not a government entity that is totally under the control of the government.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored entities, but they are companies that actually issue stock. They are not government agencies like the department of Justice, or the Treasury. Implying that they are a wing of the government is false.

[Lebowsky]

I think it's important to clarify bubbles are not formed because of government intervention, they are formed because of private agents overvaluing (or undervaluing) an asset (be it real estate, stocks, cereals, whatever) and, as a consequence, consumers and companies basing their economic decisions on unrealistic expectations. Bubbles and hyperinflation are the two opposite faces of the same phenomenon. Goverment intervention can, however, boost or deter bubbles.

[Sarcastic]

Another thing on the Fed; Alan Greenspan who was chairman of the Fed, is one of the most ardent supporters of laissez faire economics. He is a disciple of Ayn Rand. His policies during his time at the Fed were about as pro business/capitalism as they could possibly be. If you are blaming everything on the Fed, look no further than the direction from their leader.

[Godzuki]

i swear the core issue with a lot of u on the right or independent is that u believe in these impractical ideals to a fault. like no FEMA for disasters and pushing community rebuilding is absurd...like no government big business regulating/oversight when its very crooked at the top, and they have major advantages in manipulating the market or insider info, and its always exploited(government does not cause this :facepalm ). like no sex before marriage pushing abstinence...like no abortions for anyone even rape cases...like giving handguns to every college student to protect from that .0005% chance of a school shooter.....i mean i can go on and on with how unrealistic a lot of u are but i swear its a party/person mentality where they wish for some idealism thats unrealistic, just like the Tea Party now always talking about old America and trying to take us backwards acting like everything was so perfect back then. i just can't tell if its where half the country thinks a comp;letely different way in how their brain works, or if u all do see the unrealistic reality of your ideas but push it anyways :blah:

[falc39]

The problem is your are equating the Federal Reserve and the federal government as if they are one and the same. The Federal Reserve is the central banking system, and it runs the monetary policy of the US, but it is not a government entity that is totally under the control of the government.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored entities, but they are companies that actually issue stock. They are not government agencies like the department of Justice, or the Treasury. Implying that they are a wing of the government is false.

No, I think I've separated "the fed" and "government" in most of my posts. But, if you go way back in this thread, the whole point I'm trying to make is that these entities are not part of the free market. The government is biased towards them. The fed reserve would be nothing like it is today if it was just a regular bank without the special powers it was granted from the government. And right, Fannie and Freddie are government sponsored, hence the bias. These are government biased entities grossly distorting the market.


Anyone who doesn't recognize our boom-bust/bubble economy (going all the way back to the gold standard) is just not living in reality.

It may be obvious to you and some of us, but you would be surprised with how many people who think that the free market and capitalism is the reason for all of these bubbles

[joe]

i swear the core issue with a lot of u on the right or independent is that u believe in these impractical ideals to a fault. like no FEMA for disasters and pushing community rebuilding is absurd...like no government big business regulating/oversight when its very crooked at the top, and they have major advantages in manipulating the market or insider info, and its always exploited(government does not cause this :facepalm ). like no sex before marriage pushing abstinence...like no abortions for anyone even rape cases...like giving handguns to every college student to protect from that .0005% chance of a school shooter.....i mean i can go on and on with how unrealistic a lot of u are but i swear its a party/person mentality where they wish for some idealism thats unrealistic, just like the Tea Party now always talking about old America and trying to take us backwards acting like everything was so perfect back then. i just can't tell if its where half the country thinks a comp;letely different way in how their brain works, or if u all do see the unrealistic reality of your ideas but push it anyways :blah:

If it all seems unrealistic to you, maybe it's because you're not fighting for a big enough goal. Your political "fight" may be to get the guy you want elected in 2012. Or to have some specific legislation passed. To get some work done within the current system.

But the people you're talking about are fighting for a revolution of thought. It's not about next election, or winning the Congress, or the Senate. It's about a change in the entire philosophy and direction of the country.

So when they feel so much is on the line, can you really expect them to not have big ideals? And by the way, a lot of these ideals were called unrealistic oh, I don't know, about 250 years ago when they were first being brought up here..


Just trying to give you an idea of where a lot of us are coming from.

[Godzuki]

If it all seems unrealistic to you, maybe it's because you're not fighting for a big enough goal. Your political "fight" may be to get the guy you want elected in 2012. Or to have some specific legislation passed. To get some work done within the current system.

But the people you're talking about are fighting for a revolution of thought. It's not about next election, or winning the Congress, or the Senate. It's about a change in the entire philosophy and direction of the country.

So when they feel so much is on the line, can you really expect them to not have big ideals? And by the way, a lot of these ideals were called unrealistic oh, I don't know, about 250 years ago when they were first being brought up here..


Just trying to give you an idea of where a lot of us are coming from.


yeah i look at u guys as idealists, and thats a big problem because you're not being realistic or practical to the current reality. the policies you're trying to push or candidates u want to elect that share your views and want to change the country as such is what scares me more than anything. in theory some of the things u guys want is noble or fine, but its just scary when you're actually voting to elect someone that seriously believes in instituting those policies.

its not 250 years ago, its now, and a lot of your ideals just aren't realistic to rreality today. much of it would completely ruin us, it'd be a disaster at the very least, possibly worse than what Bush did, and i guess it'll take that to happen before many of u realize how unrealistic u are :confusedshrug:

[Godzuki]

i guess i was wrong about Obama's green stimulus

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/31/washingtons-green-jobs-killing-act/?hpt=hp_t2

altho who knows what will happen after Congressional cuts.

[joe]

yeah i look at u guys as idealists, and thats a big problem because you're not being realistic or practical to the current reality. the policies you're trying to push or candidates u want to elect that share your views and want to change the country as such is what scares me more than anything. in theory some of the things u guys want is noble or fine, but its just scary when you're actually voting to elect someone that seriously believes in instituting those policies.

its not 250 years ago, its now, and a lot of your ideals just aren't realistic to rreality today. much of it would completely ruin us, it'd be a disaster at the very least, possibly worse than what Bush did, and i guess it'll take that to happen before many of u realize how unrealistic u are :confusedshrug:

Why do you think freedom will ruin us?

I'm guessing you're sort of left-leaning, forgive me if I'm wrong. But what I find funny about Dem's, is they're all in favor of (most) personal liberties. They want abortions to be free choice. They want gays to be allowed to get married (which I agree with). But when it comes to the economy, they want everything to be regulated. They see economic freedom as some sort of apocalypse waiting to happen.

I just think most anti-free marketers have a gross misunderstanding of the free market, to be honest. Not only do most of you think that what we currently have in the US is a free market (which it's not), you think that the free market which brought us so much prosperity would never work today. Which really doesn't make any sense.

[Sarcastic]

Why do you think freedom will ruin us?

I'm guessing you're sort of left-leaning, forgive me if I'm wrong. But what I find funny about Dem's, is they're all in favor of (most) personal liberties. They want abortions to be free choice. They want gays to be allowed to get married (which I agree with). But when it comes to the economy, they want everything to be regulated. They see economic freedom as some sort of apocalypse waiting to happen.

I just think most anti-free marketers have a gross misunderstanding of the free market, to be honest. Not only do most of you think that what we currently have in the US is a free market (which it's not), you think that the free market which brought us so much prosperity would never work today. Which really doesn't make any sense.

I don't want everything to be regulated. I just want enough regulations to curb abuse.

For example, Glass-Steagall. Why should commercial banks which hold most of our money be able to act like investment banks and put high risk assets on their books? If those risky assets fall in value, then our savings could easily be wiped out, which what almost happened during this crisis. If we hadn't bailed out the banks, we could have seen all our commercial banks come crashing down.

[SourGrapes]

Why do you think freedom will ruin us?

I'm guessing you're sort of left-leaning, forgive me if I'm wrong. But what I find funny about Dem's, is they're all in favor of (most) personal liberties. They want abortions to be free choice. They want gays to be allowed to get married (which I agree with). But when it comes to the economy, they want everything to be regulated. They see economic freedom as some sort of apocalypse waiting to happen.

I just think most anti-free marketers have a gross misunderstanding of the free market, to be honest. Not only do most of you think that what we currently have in the US is a free market (which it's not), you think that the free market which brought us so much prosperity would never work today. Which really doesn't make any sense.

In my world view refulations help maintain an environment in which people are free to work and build businesses as the market allows. Having one megacompany dominate an entire industry is not my idea of freedom (a very vague word that can be used as you like it).

Nor is my idea of freedom a company operating to the detriment of the people who live in a particular country. As I see it, regulations do a good job of ensuring my freedom, if they're smart

[IGOTGAME]

Why do you think freedom will ruin us?

I'm guessing you're sort of left-leaning, forgive me if I'm wrong. But what I find funny about Dem's, is they're all in favor of (most) personal liberties. They want abortions to be free choice. They want gays to be allowed to get married (which I agree with). But when it comes to the economy, they want everything to be regulated. They see economic freedom as some sort of apocalypse waiting to happen.

I just think most anti-free marketers have a gross misunderstanding of the free market, to be honest. Not only do most of you think that what we currently have in the US is a free market (which it's not), you think that the free market which brought us so much prosperity would never work today. Which really doesn't make any sense.

people are dumb.

if you are talking about laissez faire econonmics then it doesn't fit my value system. Capitalism when left unchecked leads to a result that I don't find very satisfying.

Free markets aren't the answer either.

Honestly it sounds like you just got out of freshmen level econ classes...

[SourGrapes]

people are dumb.

if you are talking about laissez faire econonmics then it doesn't fit my value system. Capitalism when left unchecked leads to a result that I don't find very satisfying.

Free markets aren't the answer either.

Honestly it sounds like you just got out of freshmen level econ classes...

disagree. people are smart. but marginal decisions to maximize profit sometimes encourage risks and outcomes that aren't stable or profitable long term. i think that's what you're getting at.

and capitalism unchecked doesn't exist. eventually, dogmatic capitalism leads to one or two companies per industry setting prices with no real market accountability

fiscal conservatives love to tout the free market... but without regulations the free market is self-defeating

[Dolphin]

I have always wondered this about Americans, but never asked. Maybe some people here can explain it to me. I mean I know American history better than most Americans, but it still makes me wonder at times.

Why do so many Americans distrust the gov't, which is run by elected officials and people working under said elected officials and yet have so much faith in individuals who run and work for private institutions who really don't have any accountability towards Americans other than what the law mandates?

I know due to history, many Americans have this extreme libertarian ideology when it comes to the economy (not getting into social concerns because conservatives tend to be very apt at forcing others to do and think what they want them to), but if you sit down and think hard, what makes the private sector more trust worthy to you?

I mean there is more evidence of private institutional abuse than there is gov't abuse on itself, industries, Americans, etc......so why do so many Americans still choose to trust their economy, finances, etc. with the private sector than the public sector?

Stubbornness? Intelligence or lack thereof? Now, I'm not saying the idea of having your fates held in the hands of the private sector is wrong...as an idea....but history would show they shouldn't be trusted with much of anything. I do also realize that many people do clearly benefit more from deregulation to the extreme than the other way around....I dare say the percentage that clearly benefits isn't too big relative the pop. of America and they happen to be living quite comfortably.

Anyone care to help me?

[joe]

disagree. people are smart. but marginal decisions to maximize profit sometimes encourage risks and outcomes that aren't stable or profitable long term. i think that's what you're getting at.

and capitalism unchecked doesn't exist. eventually, dogmatic capitalism leads to one or two companies per industry setting prices with no real market accountability

fiscal conservatives love to tout the free market... but without regulations the free market is self-defeating

If those one or two companies set prices too high, what would stop a new company from getting into the industry and charging better prices?

[RidonKs]

Anyone care to help me?
here's how the argument goes in one direction; ceo's and corporate boards don't need to be accountable to the people, because they're accountable to their bottom line, which is entirely reliant on the consuming people. so in order to be successful, the private sector must first please the people. and as rational consumers, the people aren't easy to satisfy and have expectations, and a business that fails to meet those expectations, in terms of cost, availability, health standards, all that crap, will inevitably fail because they won't have the support of the only market that matters... the consumers aka the people. other competitors will step in and offer what the people want and bad businesses will lose all their money and have to self-correct to compete.

here's how the argument goes in the other direction; government leaders are directly elected to represent the people, but once they're elected, they have terms during which they aren't held particularly accountable by the people, who have no interest in anything besides vh1 and wrestling. furthermore, a government is inherently self-aggrandizing because it considers itself the answer to every problem, thus it becomes bloated and therefore invisible to the people, who can't keep up with such excessive expansion. more importantly it's fiscally irresponsible because its bottom line is not fiscal but social, which means that the government is a really sh*tty 'national accountant' and skyrocketing debt will kill us all BECAUSE CHINAS GONNA BOMB US AND TKRJRBSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!1

[purplch0de]

I have always wondered this about Americans, but never asked. Maybe some people here can explain it to me. I mean I know American history better than most Americans, but it still makes me wonder at times.

Why do so many Americans distrust the gov't, which is run by elected officials and people working under said elected officials and yet have so much faith in individuals who run and work for private institutions who really don't have any accountability towards Americans other than what the law mandates?

I know due to history, many Americans have this extreme libertarian ideology when it comes to the economy (not getting into social concerns because conservatives tend to be very apt at forcing others to do and think what they want them to), but if you sit down and think hard, what makes the private sector more trust worthy to you?

I mean there is more evidence of private institutional abuse than there is gov't abuse on itself, industries, Americans, etc......so why do so many Americans still choose to trust their economy, finances, etc. with the private sector than the public sector?

Stubbornness? Intelligence or lack thereof? Now, I'm not saying the idea of having your fates held in the hands of the private sector is wrong...as an idea....but history would show they shouldn't be trusted with much of anything. I do also realize that many people do clearly benefit more from deregulation to the extreme than the other way around....I dare say the percentage that clearly benefits isn't too big relative the pop. of America and they happen to be living quite comfortably.

Anyone care to help me?


When you say Americans do you mean northern Americans? And then do you actually mean canadians or mexicans?

[falc39]

i guess i was wrong about Obama's green stimulus

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/31/washingtons-green-jobs-killing-act/?hpt=hp_t2

altho who knows what will happen after Congressional cuts.

Did you see this news? I live in the bay area and it's pretty big news here:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/solar-energy-company-touted-by-obama-goes-bankrupt/

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-shutdown-20110901,0,5045155.story

[falc39]

I have always wondered this about Americans, but never asked. Maybe some people here can explain it to me. I mean I know American history better than most Americans, but it still makes me wonder at times.

Why do so many Americans distrust the gov't, which is run by elected officials and people working under said elected officials and yet have so much faith in individuals who run and work for private institutions who really don't have any accountability towards Americans other than what the law mandates?

I know due to history, many Americans have this extreme libertarian ideology when it comes to the economy (not getting into social concerns because conservatives tend to be very apt at forcing others to do and think what they want them to), but if you sit down and think hard, what makes the private sector more trust worthy to you?

I mean there is more evidence of private institutional abuse than there is gov't abuse on itself, industries, Americans, etc......so why do so many Americans still choose to trust their economy, finances, etc. with the private sector than the public sector?

Stubbornness? Intelligence or lack thereof? Now, I'm not saying the idea of having your fates held in the hands of the private sector is wrong...as an idea....but history would show they shouldn't be trusted with much of anything. I do also realize that many people do clearly benefit more from deregulation to the extreme than the other way around....I dare say the percentage that clearly benefits isn't too big relative the pop. of America and they happen to be living quite comfortably.

Anyone care to help me?

How much have you read in regarding the founding fathers and their philosophies? A majority of them studied history and had the wisdom and foresight to understand that government, when left unchecked, is worse than any "business" could be. Look at it this way. Gather up all the dictators and rulers and government entities in history on one side and the sum of all businesses and their actions on the other. Which has shone to do more harm overall? I agree businesses want to exploit for profit, but it is nothing compared to a government out of control. Why do you think there were so many checks on government when it was created here (including the constitution)? Millions can die if a government has too much power in the wrong hands. I will take a crazy CEO over some crazy dictator any day of the week. Businesses can screw up, which is why we have laws, government, and market forces to deal with them, but once government gets screwed up (corrupt), then we are shit out of luck. That is why government needs to be held up to a much much higher standard.

[Dolphin]

How much have you read in regarding the founding fathers and their philosophies? A majority of them studied history and had the wisdom and foresight to understand that government, when left unchecked, is worse than any "business" could be. Look at it this way. Gather up all the dictators and rulers and government entities in history on one side and the sum of all businesses and their actions on the other. Which has shone to do more harm overall? I agree businesses want to exploit for profit, but it is nothing compared to a government out of control. Why do you think there were so many checks on government when it was created here (including the constitution)? Millions can die if a government has too much power in the wrong hands. I will take a crazy CEO over some crazy dictator any day of the week. Businesses can screw up, which is why we have laws, government, and market forces to deal with them, but once government gets screwed up (corrupt), then we are shit out of luck. That is why government needs to be held up to a much much higher standard.

I agree that historically, the gov't was created with all of its checks and balances due to this ideology, which was embedded in the American psyche due to prior European history as well as it's early history as a nation itself. That's what I meant when I said I understood the history of the ideology.

What I'm wondering is should this be embedded into the American psyche today? Will America see a tyrant if the gov't is given more control over businesses (let's be serious when we're talking about control, we're not talking about Soviet Russia). Yes corruption is a worry, but corruption goes unnoticed and/or unchecked at an alarming right today in the private sector. I just am not convinced it would be any worse.

Canada, yes a smaller country, but that doesn't really matter imo. It is run just as, if not more effectively and it has much more gov't regulation. Sure, you can argue this reduces opportunity and innovation.....but Canada's standard of living is actually higher. And let's be honest, those who benefit from the freer American market percentage wise is pathetically lower than it should be for there to be a honest argument that it serves its people more than the sort of regulation many other countries have.

I just find it interesting. That many Americans are so adamant against further regulation (too much already for a lot of people) and yet there's an example to the north that is a success story with all of its added regulations and all.

What you lose in competition you gain in stability. How many people this decade in America wish they had that sort of stability? lol

I think the contrast is cool if you look at how Americans have more trust in the private sector while many Canadians have a innate distrust for private institutions and you can look at their subsequent histories to see how it arose.........just don't get how Americans can convince themselves that gov't = bad this day and age.......do people really believe Obama would turn into Stalin if given more power?

Note: Didn't use socialist countries in northern Europe as an example because 50% taxes and such are beyond asinine.

On another note, I love how people hate on the gov't, but they sure run to them quickly when in need.....they have faith in them when desperate, but not when times are good. Well maybe not faith, but they're sure singing a different tune. Corporations are gov'ts biggest fans in time of need too....but they don't want them getting in their way otherwise...gov't can't be too bad if you're always running to them in times of need.

[falc39]

I agree that historically, the gov't was created with all of its checks and balances due to this ideology, which was embedded in the American psyche due to prior European history as well as it's early history as a nation itself. That's what I meant when I said I understood the history of the ideology.

What I'm wondering is should this be embedded into the American psyche today? Will America see a tyrant if the gov't is given more control over businesses (let's be serious when we're talking about control, we're not talking about Soviet Russia). Yes corruption is a worry, but corruption goes unnoticed and/or unchecked at an alarming right today in the private sector. I just am not convinced it would be any worse.

...

I just find it interesting. That many Americans are so adamant against further regulation (too much already for a lot of people) and yet there's an example to the north that is a success story with all of its added regulations and all.

What you lose in competition you gain in stability. How many people this decade in America wish they had that sort of stability? lol

I think the contrast is cool if you look at how Americans have more trust in the private sector while many Canadians have a innate distrust for private institutions and you can look at their subsequent histories to see how it arose.........just don't get how Americans can convince themselves that gov't = bad this day and age.......do people really believe Obama would turn into Stalin if given more power?

Well we did have Bush already... did you see how easily and quickly he took away some of our fundamental rights? If you look at how a lot of strong nations and empires have fallen from grace, it can happen very quickly. America is still a young nation. Looking at just Obama is a little short-sighted, what about the future? Why even lay the groundwork for that chance to happen? When you expand government powers, it is very hard to get it back. We are still trying to get rid of some of Bush's draconian policies to no avail (Obama sure isn't doing anything). You have to assume that successor presidents will inherit this power too. I mean, how many governments in the past have said "you know what, you gave me too much power, I want you to start limiting me now"... if that becomes the norm pigs will start flying hehe. The next presidents will have the same powers Obama will have (and possibly more). So it is not Obama specifically, but more of the philosophy of why even lay the groundwork for it to even be possible in the future? Why take that chance? Given how quickly things changed this past decade.. are you that confident for the future? 10 years from now? 30? Things can be so much changed by then, it would be foolish to assume everyone is benevolent in my opinion. A government with the power to give you everything has that same power to take it all away too.

Washington had a great quote which said something about government being force. It's true if you think about it. Government is force. A business can never use force like the way the government can, which is why I myself will never fear a business the same way a government can be feared. Businesses still have to follow economic laws and laws of the government (assuming it hasn't been corrupted). Governments can just brute-force.

As for businesses, just look at our history. It's tradition. We are a business nation, it's pretty much in our blood lol. If you want to know why so many people don't like regulations, ask our businesses... I'm sure they can give a much more better rant than I could ever do (of course ask the ones that aren't getting preferential treatment from the government). So in a sense governments can be bad if they are hurting our businesses, the lifeblood of our economy. It's an ongoing debate but both sides have strong arguments.

[rivers to gates]

Did you see this news? I live in the bay area and it's pretty big news here:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/solar-energy-company-touted-by-obama-goes-bankrupt/

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-shutdown-20110901,0,5045155.story

[QUOTE]In 2009, the Obama administration fast-tracked Solyndra

[Godzuki]

Did you see this news? I live in the bay area and it's pretty big news here:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/solar-energy-company-touted-by-obama-goes-bankrupt/

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-shutdown-20110901,0,5045155.story


well thats what i initially thought since i never saw a green boom from that stimulus, but i live on the east coast. but look at this from your link:

A new report shows that the U.S. is central to the global solar supply chain. In 2010, U.S. solar firms achieved a positive trade flow of $1.9 billion globally, according to GTM Research and SEIA U.S. Solar Energy Trade Assessment 2011. Photovoltaic (PV) components accounted for more than 99% of the year’s exports, with solar heating and cooling (SHC) claiming the remainder of the positive balance.

For the U.S. PV manufacturing industry, 2010 was a record year. Exports totaled more than $5.6 billion, with PV polysilicon feedstock and capital equipment leading all components at $2.5 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively. The leading destinations for U.S.-sourced PV components were China and Germany. Meanwhile, U.S. imports of PV products totaled $3.7 billion, the majority of which ($2.4 billion) came from procurement of modules assembled overseas. China and Mexico were the top two sources of PV goods headed to the U.S. in 2010.

so while that company went bankrupt it seems the green stimulus all in all did work, and we've become a global supplier. by all means tho if u find anything that opposes that, other than that one company failing, let me know.

[Godzuki]

Tax dollars being wasted again. Unbelievable.


no, this is wasted expenditure

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/31/wartime.contracting/index.html?hpt=us_c2

[Godzuki]

man government employee's are so f'in spoiled it kills me. they get more days off of work than lil kids in school. these a-holes have a 4 day holiday weekend, since friday counts as a vacation day part of mondays labor day weekend :wtf:

its ridiculous how much they're coddled :facepalm

[rivers to gates]

no, this is wasted expenditure

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/31/wartime.contracting/index.html?hpt=us_c2

As long your backing guys that are still blowing people it's basically you talking out of both sides of your month. Just like these actors and celebs that want to tell everyone else how to live. The Obama's and celebs tell everyone else that they have to sacrifice for the good of America when they take nice vacations and contribute as much to "pollution" as anyone else. The Democratic party is full of lying phonies that are what they preach against. Hypocrites, liars and racists.

All we heard when Bush was presidents was that the troops need to come home. The wars need to end. But now that a lefty is in there the Democrats are reduced to saying "They're not as bad as those other guys". I'm sorry that doesn't cut it. Truthfully, a high number of black people are anti gay and anti abortion.

And you want to know something... Support for Obama among the black voters is declining.

http://source1news.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/african-american-support-waning-for-obama-poll/

WAKE UP.

[Godzuki]

As long your backing guys that are still blowing people it's basically you talking out of both sides of your month. Just like these actors and celebs that want to tell everyone else how to live. The Obama's and celebs tell everyone else that they have to sacrifice for the good of America when they take nice vacations and contribute as much to "pollution" as anyone else. The Democratic party is full of lying phonies that are what they preach against. Hypocrites, liars and racists.

All we heard when Bush was presidents was that the troops need to come home. The wars need to end. But now that a lefty is in there the Democrats are reduced to saying "They're not as bad as those other guys". I'm sorry that doesn't cut it. Truthfully, a high number of black people are anti gay and anti abortion.

And you want to know something... Support for Obama among the black voters is declining.

http://source1news.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/african-american-support-waning-for-obama-poll/

WAKE UP.


you're a idiot. that applies to all candidates. its about voting for the lesser of evils, and for anyone to think a candidate is going to get everything he wants done without compromise or road blocks is only something a complete retard that doesn't follow politics thinks. u think left and right is so bad, an independent will probably have a tougher time than both getting **** blocked at every turn.

its laughable to me how much shit a lot of you indpendents or ron paul fanatics talk, when he couldn't get 3/4's of the stuff he wants to do done. but its a hell of a lot easier being a critic from the outside in and nay say everything, then being the one criticized and having to get votes.

and instead of talking all general, tell me who you're voting for so i can naysay from your same high horse. i mean i know Obama isn't perfect, no candidate is, but he's by FAR the lesser of evils between all of them.

[rivers to gates]

you're a idiot. that applies to all candidates. its about voting for the lesser of evils, and for anyone to think a candidate is going to get everything he wants done without compromise or road blocks is only something a complete retard that doesn't follow politics thinks. u think left and right is so bad, an independent will probably have a tougher time than both getting **** blocked at every turn.

its laughable to me how much shit a lot of you indpendents or ron paul fanatics talk, when he couldn't get 3/4's of the stuff he wants to do done. but its a hell of a lot easier being a critic from the outside in and nay say everything, then being the one criticized and having to get votes.

and instead of talking all general, tell me who you're voting for so i can naysay from your same high horse. i mean i know Obama isn't perfect, no candidate is, but he's by FAR the lesser of evils between all of them.

No, you're the idiot. You've proven time and time again that you're just a sheep to the Democratic party. I show you proof about their racism and you basically ignore it. Yeah, the republican party has some fruitcakes right now and most of them are pathetic and I wouldn't vote for any of them. But hey, the Democrat party HIDES behind political correctness. They hide because they're cowards just like most Democrats are cowards. Political correctness is their tool just like religions is the republicans tool.

We know the republicans now are fruitcakes and they have no problems showing it. But The Democratic party lies and they lied when they promised "change".

[Godzuki]

No, you're the idiot. You've proven time and time again that you're just a sheep to the Democratic party. I show you proof about their racism and you basically ignore it. Yeah, the republican party has some fruitcakes right now and most of them are pathetic and I wouldn't vote for any of them. But hey, the Democrat party HIDES behind political correctness. They hide because they're cowards just like most Democrats are cowards. Political correctness is their tool just like religions is the republicans tool.

We know the republicans now are fruitcakes and they have no problems showing it. But The Democratic party lies and they lied when they promised "change".


lmao u show exceptions to try and prove a norm. thats all u did with those retard points u made. its so retarded to me how people like u do, because its obvious u don't follow politics and then talk out of your ass how everyone is so bad. to say the Democratic party is racist in general or even imply that is just so stupid its beyond retarded considering how many minorities are in that party. to always yap both parties are the same is even more retarded, considering how the Republican base is, especially the tea party side. its just pure ignorance to make the implications u do.

Democrats aren't nearly as bad as u want to paint them, nor is Ron Paul or any Independent nearly as sane or perfect for this country as u want to talk from your high horse acting like left and right are the only problems :rolleyes:

[rivers to gates]

lmao u show exceptions to try and prove a norm. thats all u did with those retard points u made. its so retarded to me how people like u do, because its obvious u don't follow politics and then talk out of your ass how everyone is so bad. to say the Democratic party is racist in general or even imply that is just so stupid its beyond retarded considering how many minorities are in that party. to always yap both parties are the same is even more retarded, considering how the Republican base is, especially the tea party side. its just pure ignorance to make the implications u do.

Democrats aren't nearly as bad as u want to paint them, nor is Ron Paul or any Independent nearly as sane or perfect for this country as u want to talk from your high horse acting like left and right are the only problems :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYxG0F3xubo&feature=related

Watch this clip. It scares the shit out of the CNN/Democrat party news channel that any black people would vote against someone that is black. They want to keep black people on that plantation!

[Balla_Status]

West Virginia Democrats saying they wouldn't vote for Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4MDQ0cDI)

Racists exist in each party moron.

[Godzuki]

how the fukk can a party that is made up predominantly of minorities, that push pro minority stances on issues, and politically correct to a fault be a racist party. y'all are some of the dumbest mf'ers saying that shit :facepalm

picking and choosing isolated examples and reach attempts at racism to label a whole party that is pro minority as racist is some of the dumbest political shit i've ever read. its like acting like skinheads and nazi's are left. sure they love those gay rights, love those blacks and mexicans, and hate guns right? i swear some of y'all don't think with reason, and i swear its some of the same people on OTC over and over again saying some of the most ridiculous shit....but thats wherre it really puzzles me about 1/2 the country just thinking differently like retards in their brains.

[rivers to gates]

[QUOTE=Godzuki]how the fukk can a party that is made up predominantly of minorities, that push pro minority stances on issues, and politically correct to a fault be a racist party. y'all are some of the dumbest mf'ers saying that shit :facepalm /QUOTE]

That's how they get votes from bed wetters and liberals like you.

[rivers to gates]

US 'to sue a dozen banks over housing bubble mortgages'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14758677

Thanks for bailing these people out Obama.:applause:

Good job!

[Sarcastic]

US 'to sue a dozen banks over housing bubble mortgages'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14758677

Thanks for bailing these people out Obama.:applause:

Good job!

The bailout was from Bush.

[Godzuki]

[QUOTE=Godzuki]how the fukk can a party that is made up predominantly of minorities, that push pro minority stances on issues, and politically correct to a fault be a racist party. y'all are some of the dumbest mf'ers saying that shit :facepalm /QUOTE]

That's how they get votes from bed wetters and liberals like you.


why can't i be a bed wetter too? :confusedshrug:

its retards like u that don't understand profiles of party members in the left, middle, and right, and yeah its generally consistent across the board for each group, before some dumbass comes in here acting like they're all so different and how there are all of these racists in the Democratic party :rolleyes:

its unbelievable how retarded some of you are that pretend to talk politics, or really anything in regards to our country. its sad some of u all get votes...

[rivers to gates]

[QUOTE=rivers to gates]


why can't i be a bed wetter too? :confusedshrug:

its retards like u that don't understand profiles of party members in the left, middle, and right, and yeah its generally consistent across the board for each group, before some dumbass comes in here acting like they're all so different and how there are all of these racists in the Democratic party :rolleyes:

its unbelievable how retarded some of you are that pretend to talk politics, or really anything in regards to our country. its sad some of u all get votes...

It's sad that you voted for a weasel like Obama. The welfare mentality has robbed left wingers of their manhood.

[rivers to gates]

The bailout was from Bush.

Obama was a backer of TARP also.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2090-Refresher-Course-TARP

[Stephen_H]

how the fukk can a party that is made up predominantly of minorities, that push pro minority stances on issues, and politically correct to a fault be a racist party. y'all are some of the dumbest mf'ers saying that shit :facepalm

picking and choosing isolated examples and reach attempts at racism to label a whole party that is pro minority as racist is some of the dumbest political shit i've ever read. its like acting like skinheads and nazi's are left. sure they love those gay rights, love those blacks and mexicans, and hate guns right? i swear some of y'all don't think with reason, and i swear its some of the same people on OTC over and over again saying some of the most ridiculous shit....but thats wherre it really puzzles me about 1/2 the country just thinking differently like retards in their brains.

"You people" only see one kind of racism. It was racist when my brother got pistol whipped by two black men. They targeted him because he's white.

BTW of course the National Socialist party was Leftist. Leftism, like all things in existence, changes over time. What was a radical belief in 1937 Germany may not be considered radical in 2011 America. For instance gay rights weren't on anyone's political agenda back then.

If you care to engage in truthful debate I'd love to ask, what do Whites gain by adhering to the rainbow coalition?

[Dolphin]

"You people" only see one kind of racism. It was racist when my brother got pistol whipped by two black men. They targeted him because he's white.

BTW of course the National Socialist party was Leftist. Leftism, like all things in existence, changes over time. What was a radical belief in 1937 Germany may not be considered radical in 2011 America. For instance gay rights weren't on anyone's political agenda back then.

If you care to engage in truthful debate I'd love to ask, what do Whites gain by adhering to the rainbow coalition?

What do you mean the National Socialist Party was leftist? They had many, many, many conservative ideologies. Fascism in general is a right wing form of governance. Sure, you can point to certain left leaning policies.....but to say they were leftist is asinine. Have you studied their social, political and economic policies at all? lol

[Sarcastic]

Obama was a backer of TARP also.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2090-Refresher-Course-TARP

Are you gonna thank every other member of Congress that voted for it as well?

[Sarcastic]

"You people" only see one kind of racism. It was racist when my brother got pistol whipped by two black men. They targeted him because he's white.

BTW of course the National Socialist party was Leftist. Leftism, like all things in existence, changes over time. What was a radical belief in 1937 Germany may not be considered radical in 2011 America. For instance gay rights weren't on anyone's political agenda back then.

If you care to engage in truthful debate I'd love to ask, what do Whites gain by adhering to the rainbow coalition?

Are you trying to imply that nazi Germany was socialist? I hope you realize that Germany fought AGAINST the USSR in WWII.

[Dolphin]

Are you trying to imply that nazi Germany was socialist? I hope you realize that Germany fought AGAINST the USSR in WWII.

Saying the Nazi Party is leftist might be one of, if not the dumbest post I've ever read here. Not including purposely dumb posts. lol

[Stephen_H]

Are you trying to imply that nazi Germany was socialist? I hope you realize that Germany fought AGAINST the USSR in WWII.

National SOCIALISM could be nothing but a Leftist ideology.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html

[Dolphin]

National SOCIALISM could be nothing but a Leftist ideology.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html

OMG

This is the education Americans get these days........tears running down my cheek.

[Godzuki]

"You people" only see one kind of racism. It was racist when my brother got pistol whipped by two black men. They targeted him because he's white.

BTW of course the National Socialist party was Leftist. Leftism, like all things in existence, changes over time. What was a radical belief in 1937 Germany may not be considered radical in 2011 America. For instance gay rights weren't on anyone's political agenda back then.

If you care to engage in truthful debate I'd love to ask, what do Whites gain by adhering to the rainbow coalition?

i already said that like 4-5 posts ago to this River dude. he was trying to bring up the Democrats in the 60's or someting and i told him its completely different than the political parties in the last 10+ years~

like i told him u can't use exceptions to prove a norm. to think today's democratic party is racist is beyond retarded when u look at what they push, their beliefs, and the amount of minorities including many whites within the party VS the Republicans who are predominantly white with much less ethnic diversity.

sure black racism against whites exists, and i've always been pretty sympathetic to that here iin discussions or troll threads since its generally a one sided racism guilt trip, but to put most Democrats in that boat is ridiculous, since the Democratic party is as politically correct as people come. like the Rev Al Sharptons or Jesse Jacksons are over the top pro black but to pretend they speak for most Democrats or even close is stupid. most Democrats know they're pretty retarded, and how ignorant they can be....

while Republicans in general aren't nearly as politically correct in their makeup, and push most of the things racists in America would be for...no matter what any of u say u can't argue the bottom line being the issues the right pushes are predominantly issues racists would vote for, while the left ideals are almost anti-racist by and large. that is why its so stupid to act like Democrats are so racist. people saying that do not know the current reality of the parties too well :rolleyes: but i swear there are a lot of history buffs yappin that don't follow current politics here....

[Sarcastic]

National SOCIALISM could be nothing but a Leftist ideology.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html

Not all of us are this dumb. Some of us have a real education.

My condolences to whoever has to interact with him in real life.

[RidonKs]

It's sad that you voted for a weasel like Obama. The welfare mentality has robbed left wingers of their manhood.
i was about to attack this post, but i guess it's nothing to saying that the Nazis were left wing and socialist. ugh.

"b'duhhh, it's da national SOCIALIST party, how was it NOT leftwing, b'duhhhh"

oh yeaaah, that's right. and Obama was really a 'change we can believe in', right? it's f*cking marketing you dolts, label yourself as a hero to avoid being called a villain. the box; get your head out of it.

[Godzuki]

i was about to attack this post, but i guess it's nothing to saying that the Nazis were left wing and socialist. ugh.

"b'duhhh, it's da national SOCIALIST party, how was it NOT leftwing, b'duhhhh"

oh yeaaah, that's right. and Obama was really a 'change we can believe in', right? it's f*cking marketing you dolts, label yourself as a hero to avoid being called a villain. the box; get your head out of it.


if u actually followed poliltics rather than history to sum it all up, let alone history elsewhere in other countries to sum up todays U.S. politics, u'd know how different the parties are, and how much adversity Obama has faced instituting his policies. not to mention the 'change' platform he ran on was on the heels of the Bush Administration's blunders, its just too bad he's been forced to spend our way out of a possible depression, and continuing recession. altho i'll admit he's been far from perfect or given what he promised, but what politicians give everything they run on? and its not like its been based on a lack of effort...

its stupid how a lot of u pretend to criticize when those criticisms are universal, and there aren't candidates in the middle even, that doesn't fall under those same criticisms.

[Dolphin]

if u actually followed poliltics rather than history to sum it all up, let alone history elsewhere in other countries to sum up todays U.S. politics, u'd know how different the parties are, and how much adversity Obama has faced instituting his policies. not to mention the 'change' platform he ran on was on the heels of the Bush Administration's blunders, its just too bad he's been forced to spend our way out of a possible depression, and continuing recession. altho i'll admit he's been far from perfect or given what he promised, but what politicians give everything they run on? and its not like its been based on a lack of effort...

its stupid how a lot of u pretend to criticize when those criticisms are universal, and there aren't candidates in the middle even, that doesn't fall under those same criticisms.

That's why Ridonks said it was a marketing campaign. Obama is smart enough. and so are his people, to realize how tough it was gonna be to implement much of his policies. They knew that, but still marketed him as change. It was a marketing campaign to get him elected....more than a promise to the people of America.

Unless Obama and his people really are that stupid.

[Stephen_H]

To anger a conservative, tell a lie.

To anger a liberal, tell the truth.

[Godzuki]

That's why Ridonks said it was a marketing campaign. Obama is smart enough. and so are his people, to realize how tough it was gonna be to implement much of his policies. They knew that, but still marketed him as change. It was a marketing campaign to get him elected....more than a promise to the people of America.

Unless Obama and his people really are that stupid.

well i don't think marketing is the best word since it implies he was beiing disingenuous on purpose but much, if not all of it is what the candidate wants to do, at least in Obama's case i believe much of what Obama said he was sincere about and believed in when he was running for office. In fact all candidates are like that when they're running i believe most are sincere in what they're trying to push. You just don't know how the country's issues are going to change when you actually take office, or how difficult it will be to push your policies thru to get those votes, running is based on what you want to do, not exactly what you can realistically do. Nobody running for President really knows what is going to come at them when they're in that seat. its easy to say in hindsight how it was marketing more than him being sincere and genuinely trying because a lot of people only see if what they say gets done, not the hurdles they're facing or scenario changes, or even things we're not knowledgable about like why Obama didn't order an immediate pullout from Iraq/Afghanistan.

at least thats how i see it. i think too many people want to conveniently sum it all up blasting everyone when they have no solutions, and their own candidates would be just as bad, if not worse off in trying to get what they want and run on done.

and tbh my biggest support of Obama is based on his bailouts vs the criticisms he gets where people want to talk out of 2 sides of their mouths between 'let everything fail', then complain about the unemployment rate or lack of jobs creation....or the sky high deficit and U.S. credit downrating when we needed to spend and put money into stimulating the economy, especially when his critics are talking about not raising the debt ceiling then blaming him for the credit downrating which S&P, including teh Chinese company specifically cited U.S. political parties inability to work together to pay our debts. they're talking out of 2 sides where its impossible to be right. and these are the biggest criticisms i see aimed at Obama time and again.

[Godzuki]

To anger a conservative, tell a lie.

To anger a liberal, tell the truth.


what truths are u telling? be more specific. really tired of these inapplicable history lessons or parallels because a lot of u don't follow today's politics in America....

[Dolphin]

To anger a conservative, tell a lie.

To anger a liberal, tell the truth.

Not to generalize conservatives, but you think gays are going to hell?

Not to generalize conservatives, but you think the world was created a few thousand years ago? lol

Not to generalize conservatives, but you think Obama is a Muslim and was born outside of America?

Not to generalize conservatives, but you think Christine O'Donnell was a good nominee?

TRUTHS.

[joe]

Not to generalize conservatives, but you think gays are going to hell?

Not to generalize conservatives, but you think the world was created a few thousand years ago? lol

Not to generalize conservatives, but you think Obama is a Muslim and was born outside of America?

Not to generalize conservatives, but you think Christine O'Donnell was a good nominee?

TRUTHS.

To be fair, that's mostly from the religious right. I consider myself conservative and I don't believe any of that stuff.

[Dolphin]

To be fair, that's mostly from the religious right. I consider myself conservative and I don't believe any of that stuff.

Ya, originally didn't add the "not to generalize" part, but I knew I was gonna come off as ignorant as that dude claiming the Nazi's were leftist......ok, I wouldn't come off THAT ignorant, but....

I know there are many conservatives who don't align themselves with many popular social conservative ideologies (and I know the creationism theory isn't a staple of the conservative ideology in general) and there are those who only align themselves with some. Also know a lot of conservatives who laugh at Tea Party'ers and such who nominate fools such as Christine O'Donnell.

Just pointing out how stupid it is to imply conservatives are the truth bearers of the US. Many of the things we call truths are simply opinions. And there are many examples where conservatives are flat out WRONG (and vice versa).

[RidonKs]

well i don't think marketing is the best word since it implies he was beiing disingenuous on purpose but much, if not all of it is what the candidate wants to do, at least in Obama's case i believe much of what Obama said he was sincere about and believed in when he was running for office

its easy to say in hindsight how it was marketing more than him being sincere and genuinely trying because a lot of people only see if what they say gets done, not the hurdles they're facing or scenario changes
maybe he did believe in his slogans, though personally i highly doubt it. i'm not criticizing Obama for the discrepancy between his pre-election promises and his post-election actions, which would slight any politician since the way they win campaigns is by promising as much as they (reasonably) can, and then usually failing to follow through.

it isn't a hindsight critique, it was made during the campaign. as it rightfully should have. you think Obama himself came up with 'YES WE CAN' and 'a change we can believe in' and all that crap? god no. that's political strategy and it was dreamed up in the backrooms and it worked wondrously. it was a very successful campaign strategy that played its cards at the perfect moment when Americans were most pissed about the shenanigans in Washington. like i said, it was marketing, and damn good marketing at that. anybody sensible enough to think critically would know that the sort of dramatic change being promised wasn't going to happen -- the executive office in the United States doesn't have that kind of authority.

[Godzuki]

maybe he did believe in his slogans, though personally i highly doubt it. i'm not criticizing Obama for the discrepancy between his pre-election promises and his post-election actions, which would slight any politician since the way they win campaigns is by promising as much as they (reasonably) can, and then usually failing to follow through.

it isn't a hindsight critique, it was made during the campaign. as it rightfully should have. you think Obama himself came up with 'YES WE CAN' and 'a change we can believe in' and all that crap? god no. that's political strategy and it was dreamed up in the backrooms and it worked wondrously. it was a very successful campaign strategy that played its cards at the perfect moment when Americans were most pissed about the shenanigans in Washington. like i said, it was marketing, and damn good marketing at that. anybody sensible enough to think critically would know that the sort of dramatic change being promised wasn't going to happen -- the executive office in the United States doesn't have that kind of authority.


well you're right if we're talking strictly about the slogans, but i do believe Obama was sincere about change from the Bush Administration's policies. those simple catch phrases/slogans are really what the masses remember and hang on to for some dumb reason so yeah it is marketing and generally what Presidents run on that isn't necessarily genuine. I mean Rove was very successful with the 'flip-flopper' catch phrases against Kerry, even tho its ignorant to stay a course no matter what imo, especially if circumstances change like Kerry later criticizing the war in Vietnam after seeing all of its horrors. but he's a flip flopper according to the masses of voters that got brainwashed with that, and got killed with the voters/critics.

I just really despise how people put Bush's issues on Obama since Obama inherited so much(especially compared to how Bush started his Presidency) and there was only so much he could do to keep the country afloat, where the naysayers solution was to put our country into a depression, wrecking our economy with sky high unemployment. To me its the same shit over and over again with the naysayers talking from 2 sides especially when Obama was right and they were wrong. even still idiots criticize at the slightest sign of a stimulus or company bailout failing, acting like it was all for naught when they are clueless how bad things would be if we let everything fail at the same time, or didn't put money into stimulating sectors of the economy(downside being our deficit ballooning, but again they're criticizing from both sides of their mouth).

[Stephen_H]

Not to generalize conservatives, but you think gays are going to hell?

Not to generalize conservatives, but you think the world was created a few thousand years ago? lol

Not to generalize conservatives, but you think Obama is a Muslim and was born outside of America?

Not to generalize conservatives, but you think Christine O'Donnell was a good nominee?

TRUTHS.

I don't believe in a physical Hell.

I believe Stephen Hawking is closer to the truth of how the Universe was formed than any religious figure.

I don't think Obama is Muslim, rather an anti-American (in the traditional sense) Marxist.

Christine O'Donnell is a joke. I'm a Libertarian, not a Christian-Conservative or Social-Conservative although there is much common ground.

[joe]

well you're right if we're talking strictly about the slogans, but i do believe Obama was sincere about change from the Bush Administration's policies. those simple catch phrases/slogans are really what the masses remember and hang on to for some dumb reason so yeah it is marketing and generally what Presidents run on that isn't necessarily genuine. I mean Rove was very successful with the 'flip-flopper' catch phrases against Kerry, even tho its ignorant to stay a course no matter what imo, especially if circumstances change like Kerry later criticizing the war in Vietnam after seeing all of its horrors. but he's a flip flopper according to the masses of voters that got brainwashed with that, and got killed with the voters/critics.

I just really despise how people put Bush's issues on Obama since Obama inherited so much(especially compared to how Bush started his Presidency) and there was only so much he could do to keep the country afloat, where the naysayers solution was to put our country into a depression, wrecking our economy with sky high unemployment. To me its the same shit over and over again with the naysayers talking from 2 sides especially when Obama was right and they were wrong. even still idiots criticize at the slightest sign of a stimulus or company bailout failing, acting like it was all for naught when they are clueless how bad things would be if we let everything fail at the same time, or didn't put money into stimulating sectors of the economy(downside being our deficit ballooning, but again they're criticizing from both sides of their mouth).

Not stimulating or bailing out companies wouldn't have wrecked our economy, it would have allowed it to rebuild itself. What we did instead was put a couple books under the wobbly chair leg. For now it seems to be holding up, but eventually we'll lose our balance again.

Not bailing out and stimulating would've sent unemployment sky high. But that's what was necessary to purge our economy of all these bankrupt and unsuccessful businesses.

There's a reason those companies were going under; they didn't do a good job. So now we just propped up crappy companies instead of letting newer, better ones sprout in their place.

Our economy keeps getting worse and worse.. all signs point to hell.. but you stimulaters just keep touting the merits of your ideas. What will it take for you to admit they're wrong?

[JtotheIzzo]

Why are all these government agencies involved in the cleanup and aid of those affected by Hurricane Irene. My house and livelihood was not affected by the Hurricane, why are my tax dollars getting spent? Its just another example of the leftist federal government spending spending spending. It should be laissez faire, and its unforunate that the folks on the east coast who got affected just have bad luck. I know you libertarians and tea-partiers agree with me.


Maybe if you write a letter to your local representative you can get your $0.0015 refunded?

[Godzuki]

Not stimulating or bailing out companies wouldn't have wrecked our economy, it would have allowed it to rebuild itself. What we did instead was put a couple books under the wobbly chair leg. For now it seems to be holding up, but eventually we'll lose our balance again.

Not bailing out and stimulating would've sent unemployment sky high. But that's what was necessary to purge our economy of all these bankrupt and unsuccessful businesses.

There's a reason those companies were going under; they didn't do a good job. So now we just propped up crappy companies instead of letting newer, better ones sprout in their place.

Our economy keeps getting worse and worse.. all signs point to hell.. but you stimulaters just keep touting the merits of your ideas. What will it take for you to admit they're wrong?


it wasn't just their fault, it was a perfect storm of a lot of things hitting them/everyone at once. I agree with you in principle we shouldn't have bailed them out, but there is no way you can look back now and really think its better if the largest American companies failed. Our whole automotive sector would've been wiped, and between banking/insuring those industries masses of companies rely on the larger entities. What we would've had is a HUGE collapse that would've affected so much more than just them(auto industry, real estate industry, insurance industry, finance industry, etc), . You think all of these small companies would pop up, try more like a ton of fly by night companies and them not having the backing to do much and definitely not overnight either. You want to kick down the sand castle when its completely unnecessary. i'll take the deficit easily over that scenario....its just common sense if you can actually picture all of those industries failing and the affect on our way of life.

the sad thing is we'll never know, and people will keep yappin like it was so horrible and how awful Obama is for adding to the deficit. I still feel like we'll eventually pay it down where its a non factor. I don't even get why people are so worried now, if u ever should've been worried it was the last 2 weeks of Bush's presidency.