It is currently Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:37 am



Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Obama: AMERICA'S NEXT PRESIDENT! 

WHO DO YOU WANT TO WIN THE ELECTION?!?
Kang 19%  19%  [ 6 ]
Kodos 13%  13%  [ 4 ]
Bob Barr 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Chuck Baldwin 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Cynthia McKinney 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Ralph Nader 9%  9%  [ 3 ]
Other 53%  53%  [ 17 ]
Total votes : 32

 Obama: AMERICA'S NEXT PRESIDENT! 
Author Message
Pokemon Ranger
Pokemon Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:58 pm
Posts: 606
Location: California
Will be Is our next president.

yay


Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:15 pm
Profile
Pokemon Ranger
Pokemon Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:56 pm
Posts: 658
Location: Georgia, US
I think that's obvious.

_________________
Image
afk


Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:20 pm
Profile WWW
Lite Four
Lite Four
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 6:21 pm
Posts: 3471
Watching 11 year olds vote on who they think should rule the country should be interesting.

And no, being 13 does not making you quite older. :O

_________________
Image


Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:25 pm
Profile WWW
Ace Trainer
Ace Trainer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:09 am
Posts: 408
Location: In his imagination, imaginating things.
haha...
then again some of us are quite a bit older than 11...

Th issue that really annoys me is the issue of taxes.
Creating and raising taxes are the one and only answer to fixing our economy and putting our country in a good position in the world.

Sure, it might be a burden, but it's better than not acting at all.

Yknow the new bailout bill? the gov is GIVING AWAY MONEY, and then LOWERING TAXES.
This bill was a GAMBLE, hoping that the crisis will die down before the U.S goes bankrupt...

sad, sad, sad.

_________________
{absol} {gardevoir} {salamence} {crobat} {skitty} {glaceon}
yay skitty!
olim est virgo Troiana
quae incensus cogitat grama esse bonus.
incendit per noctam,
et sic excitavit;
invenit veru magnum ano.


Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:13 pm
Profile
Pokemon Trainer
Pokemon Trainer

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:31 am
Posts: 35
Ron Paul.

but he isn't running anymore, so Chuck Baldwin.

even though i'm not a fan of all his positions, we're screwed regardless.

_________________


Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:21 am
Profile
Pokemon Trainer
Pokemon Trainer

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:31 am
Posts: 35
lordtomato wrote:


Th issue that really annoys me is the issue of taxes.
Creating and raising taxes are the one and only answer to fixing our economy and putting our country in a good position in the world.

.


i beg to differ.

cutting spending is the main way the government can raise money, higher taxes are not going to fix anything.

_________________


Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:23 am
Profile
Pokemon Trainer
Pokemon Trainer

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:31 am
Posts: 35
here's something a member of another forum posted about his take on Obama's wealth distribution ideas.

Quote:

Theresa and I are in that 5% that's going to get punished.

When I get punished, the jobs I create go away. I'm not going to go live in a cardboard box for anyone's benefit. There's a good chance the server this site (and several other sites) is hosted on goes away too. The people I pay to maintain the hardware, swap the tapes? They are out of a job. The people at the ISP's who provide the bandwidth, yep, they are gone too. The cascade effect of lost jobs when you take someone like me and tax them into oblivion is going to be impressive. I'm already starting to plan out a new budget for surviving under Obama's tax plan if he wins. My lifestyle will suffer adjustments, but I'll tell you kids, a lot of people are going to loose jobs, and it won't be me. Both at the office and at home. At the office I've got two positions that I'd like to create and staff next year. With Obama in office, they will not happen, and as a matter of course, I'll likely cut another position as well. That's 3 high paying IT jobs off the table right there.

At home, domestic help is the 1st thing to go (e.g. - no cleaning crew, no landscapers), next comes the luxury stuff (satellite TV, Giant internet pipes), we reduce that stuff, no new cars (sorry auto worker, no job for you) - pay someone to wash and wax our cars? (sorry carwash guy, you're unemployed) - no eating out (sorry waiter/waitress/cook, no job, no tip for you) no new clothes (sorry girl at the register at Kohl's, you've been laid off) - no unnecessary travel (sorry hotel worker) - no flying (sorry airline worker) the list goes on and on and on.

You're supporting economic cannibalism. You want to have me and eat me too. It's not going to happen. You're going to wind up penniless, jobless and homeless long before I will.

At this point, I'm almost hoping for it. Maybe if people get to see what the end result of their moronic existence is, they'll wake up.

So just keep falling for the rhetoric, keep letting yourself believe something you know deep down inside isn't true. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself. So about a year from now, when you Obama supporters are jobless, hungry and facing a homeless existence, remember this discussion. Remember how you cursed the rich evil bastard who provided your salary, signed your paycheck, kept you working and paid your tips. Remember it well, because that rich evil bastard is going away and you won't have to be "exploited" by him anymore.

The things I pay people to do I can do for myself. Yes it eats away at my time, yes it reduces my quality of life. But I'll be damned if I'll live the life of a pauper to keep those people employed. I can live without them. Can they live without me?

Your basic Obama supporter's premise is that someone like me lives at the expense of someone like him.

I create my own work, how bout you? Where does your paycheck come from? Some "rich bastard" sign it? The product & services your job provides, who consumes them? Where does the money those consumers pay come from? Those rich bastards that you so vehemently denounce is the likely answer.

I hope you can survive without someone giving you a job. Because with Obama's income redistribution tax strategies, I've got no motivation to provide one for you.

Atlas will shrug, we'll see who needs who...

_________________


Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:53 am
Profile
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:32 am
Posts: 1913
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Praemorior wrote:
lordtomato wrote:


Th issue that really annoys me is the issue of taxes.
Creating and raising taxes are the one and only answer to fixing our economy and putting our country in a good position in the world.

.


i beg to differ.

cutting spending is the main way the government can raise money, higher taxes are not going to fix anything.


According to Rasmussen, 59% would like to go for a complete senate recall...

Quote:
Rasmussen ran a poll in which he asked people how they would vote if they could keep Congress or replace everyone. An amazing 59% would throw them all out and start all over. Only 17% wanted to keep the current Congress. Undoubtedly this low approval of Congress is closely related to popular anger at Congress giving $700 billion of the taxpayers money to Wall St. firms that made horrible business decisions and now got Uncle Sam to pick up the tab.


I wonder why? Maybe because 90% of the citizens said no bailout was needed. While you may argue "Its for the good of the country", this is interfering with a free market. You socialize bailouts, you'll eventually sociaize the profits.

McCain, if he had sense, should have stuck with an old campaign idea - oppose the bailout. Save $700 Billion in taxpayer money. Ride it out.



Onto the presidential debate, I think Biden should go jump in a river and die. My family did without so that we could make mortgage payments, no principal adjusted. Biden not only wants the interest rate to reset lower, he wants to adjust the principal. Those that lost their homes already can go screw themselves, but those that hung in there should be rewarded for their suffering so long. My feeling - hang in there for the 30 years, and then you'll be rewarded.

Obama wants to tax and socialize everything.
Obama has screwed the educational system of Chicago.
Obama wants to leave out the fact that Clinton, not Bush, caused the current crisis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw6klp482SM
Obama wants to ignore the fact that banks were forced to hand out risky mortgages (savings banks, like WaMu - not commercial banks like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, etc.
McCain warned that it would be a problem, and warned of fannie/freddie. Bush proposed regulations as well, but the liberal butt-heads like Hillary Clinton, Schumer, Obama, Kerry, Dodd.



I will never vote Democrat again. Right now, I'd choose Huckabee over Obama.


Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:20 pm
Profile
Ace Trainer
Ace Trainer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:09 am
Posts: 408
Location: In his imagination, imaginating things.
Can't cut spending if you don't have anything to spend.
higher taxes are the way to go, as annoying and painful as they are.

@Praemorior's thing That was an interesting self-centered thing there.
"At home, domestic help is the 1st thing to go (e.g. - no cleaning crew, no landscapers), next comes the luxury stuff (satellite TV, Giant internet pipes), we reduce that stuff, no new cars (sorry auto worker, no job for you) - pay someone to wash and wax our cars? (sorry carwash guy, you're unemployed) - no eating out (sorry waiter/waitress/cook, no job, no tip for you) no new clothes (sorry girl at the register at Kohl's, you've been laid off) - no unnecessary travel (sorry hotel worker) - no flying (sorry airline worker) the list goes on and on and on."

HAHaha...
That's funny. cause if the government doesn't get money, the same thing is going to/ ALREADY IS happening.
I wonder what other options we have...
we could cut education spending... and lower our school system even further..
we could cut military spending... and leave our troops helpless against better equipped foes

We could RAISE TAXES, and all tighten our belts without "domestic service"
oh no, how are we going to live without cleaning crews?

The world will not end if domestic workers are fired.
all of the items listed after luxury stuff (all the way to unecessary travel)
ARE luxuries.

Why listen to someone so well off and selfcentered that their LUXURIES are considered below?


Also, the most important thing: There will always be a demand for labor no matter how menial.
If you can't find a job, entrepenuer.

Seriously. The world won't end if taxes are raised on the upper class. The world will end if we don't.

@ PL
Heh. I believe the bailout was necessary, just not the happy little TAX CUT that came with it.

_________________
{absol} {gardevoir} {salamence} {crobat} {skitty} {glaceon}
yay skitty!
olim est virgo Troiana
quae incensus cogitat grama esse bonus.
incendit per noctam,
et sic excitavit;
invenit veru magnum ano.


Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:27 pm
Profile
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:32 am
Posts: 1913
Location: Brooklyn, NY
lordtomato wrote:
Can't cut spending if you don't have anything to spend.
higher taxes are the way to go, as annoying and painful as they are.

@Praemorior's thing That was an interesting self-centered thing there.
"At home, domestic help is the 1st thing to go (e.g. - no cleaning crew, no landscapers), next comes the luxury stuff (satellite TV, Giant internet pipes), we reduce that stuff, no new cars (sorry auto worker, no job for you) - pay someone to wash and wax our cars? (sorry carwash guy, you're unemployed) - no eating out (sorry waiter/waitress/cook, no job, no tip for you) no new clothes (sorry girl at the register at Kohl's, you've been laid off) - no unnecessary travel (sorry hotel worker) - no flying (sorry airline worker) the list goes on and on and on."

HAHaha...
That's funny. cause if the government doesn't get money, the same thing is going to/ ALREADY IS happening.
I wonder what other options we have...
we could cut education spending... and lower our school system even further..
we could cut military spending... and leave our troops helpless against better equipped foes

We could RAISE TAXES, and all tighten our belts without "domestic service"
oh no, how are we going to live without cleaning crews?

The world will not end if domestic workers are fired.
all of the items listed after luxury stuff (all the way to unecessary travel) ARE luxuries.

Why listen to someone so well off and selfcentered that their LUXURIES are considered below?

Also, the most important thing: There will always be a demand for labor no matter how menial.
If you can't find a job, entrepenuer.

Seriously. The world won't end if taxes are raised on the upper class. The world will end if we don't.

@ PL
Heh. I believe the bailout was necessary, just not the happy little TAX CUT that came with it.




What the person was saying is that if taxes are raised, those that used to have jobs will no longer have them.
By the way, the rich are not getting taxed - its the middle class. Lemme put it to you this way:

Upper class: Over $250,000 per year
Middle class: Between $30,000 and $250,000 per year
Lower class: Lowwer than $30,000 per year.

It is the middle class that pays most of the taxes - around 60% of the US tax revenue.
The lower class pay little to no income tax, and reap benefits beyond what you might expect - they are the ones that get food stamps, the ones who get medicaid, those who get welfare, those who get paid in April when filing returns.

The upper class, though they make over 250k, pay less money than the middle class.

The middle class finances their own retirement, and are hit the hardest when retiring, because their social security checks are barely enough to cover utilities.
The lower class don't have to pay for their retirement or worry about health care - they get medicaid and welfare.


With respect to healthcare, why do the poor favor socialized medicine? The poor believe that...
1.) Make the richer people suffer with bad healthcare
2.) They will have equal access to the good doctors that the middle class use with their health insurance THAT THEY RIGHTFULLY EARNED.
3.) The more people on socialized healthcare (which is what medicaid basically is), the more money that should be poured in. That increase in funds, though, won't be as much as the increase in people using it, so it'll be a smaller slice of pie per person, despite the fact that its a bigger pie.




Kapeish?



Edit: When reffering to mine, and saying you didn't like the tax break, you meant the pork so that the house would approve it, right?


Last edited by Peanut-Lover on Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:26 pm
Profile
Pokemon Ranger
Pokemon Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:58 pm
Posts: 606
Location: California
We wouldn't need to raise taxes if we weren't spending 10 billion a week on this ****ing war.


Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:31 pm
Profile
Pokemon Ranger
Pokemon Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:56 pm
Posts: 658
Location: Georgia, US
If only the bailout helped out main street and not wall street. :(

_________________
Image
afk


Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:05 pm
Profile WWW
Pokemon Trainer
Pokemon Trainer

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:31 am
Posts: 35
lordtomato wrote:
Can't cut spending if you don't have anything to spend.
higher taxes are the way to go, as annoying and painful as they are.

@Praemorior's thing That was an interesting self-centered thing there.
"At home, domestic help is the 1st thing to go (e.g. - no cleaning crew, no landscapers), next comes the luxury stuff (satellite TV, Giant internet pipes), we reduce that stuff, no new cars (sorry auto worker, no job for you) - pay someone to wash and wax our cars? (sorry carwash guy, you're unemployed) - no eating out (sorry waiter/waitress/cook, no job, no tip for you) no new clothes (sorry girl at the register at Kohl's, you've been laid off) - no unnecessary travel (sorry hotel worker) - no flying (sorry airline worker) the list goes on and on and on."

HAHaha...
That's funny. cause if the government doesn't get money, the same thing is going to/ ALREADY IS happening.
I wonder what other options we have...
we could cut education spending... and lower our school system even further..
we could cut military spending... and leave our troops helpless against better equipped foes

We could RAISE TAXES, and all tighten our belts without "domestic service"
oh no, how are we going to live without cleaning crews?

The world will not end if domestic workers are fired.
all of the items listed after luxury stuff (all the way to unecessary travel)
ARE luxuries.

Why listen to someone so well off and selfcentered that their LUXURIES are considered below?


Also, the most important thing: There will always be a demand for labor no matter how menial.
If you can't find a job, entrepenuer.

Seriously. The world won't end if taxes are raised on the upper class. The world will end if we don't.

@ PL
Heh. I believe the bailout was necessary, just not the happy little TAX CUT that came with it.


Image

_________________


Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:06 pm
Profile
Ace Trainer
Ace Trainer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:09 am
Posts: 408
Location: In his imagination, imaginating things.
well... obama did say he would give benefits to those a quarter million (250,000) or less.

And that he would tax the upper class.

"The upper class, though they make over 250k, pay less money than the middle class."
And this is a problem that should be fixed.


and wait, so what's wrong with socialized healthcare? It works for Europe.
cause number 1 is false, (the poor aren't going around with pitchforks and torches hating those with more money... really..) number 2 is true, but what's the problem with that? We're a country, we're supposed to support each other. number 3, HIGHER TAXES, which, now that people aren't paying for individual healthcare and insurance, can AFFORD.


Yea. It's pork, but it's pork that could've fed the family and not the dog, eh?

_________________
{absol} {gardevoir} {salamence} {crobat} {skitty} {glaceon}
yay skitty!
olim est virgo Troiana
quae incensus cogitat grama esse bonus.
incendit per noctam,
et sic excitavit;
invenit veru magnum ano.


Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:02 am
Profile
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:32 am
Posts: 1913
Location: Brooklyn, NY
I ask you this - do you want to wait a year to see your doctor?
Do you want to wait 3 days in an ER after you get into a car accident that was not in your control?
Do you want to give birth on the floor, waiting for a bed?


More importantly, why should I help everyone else out?


I have a 3.8 - not great, but I screwed up in a Summer theatre course.
An acquaintance of mine has a 2.0 - he got two Ds in different summer courses.

If I had the option to help his GPA:
If I was a democrat/socialist, I would say "Take the average of our grades - that way, I'll help him".
I'm a Republican, so I said "Thats my grade - I earned it, I worked hard, I bought the books, I studied. That is MY grade."


Same thing with healthcare - my family worked hard to earn good medical benefits. My father pays 1800 a month for my sister, himself, and me. It'll fall to only 1000 because we're going off the plan (college plans are waaaaaaaay cheaper), but he's still paying, and I'm paying for my benefits. Should someone else get the same benefits while paying less?

If we have socialized medicine, I'll pay higher taxes, but I'll get the same benefits as the hobo whois a drug addicted asshat that never worked a day in his life. My wife will suffer in the same room as 15 other women who are souped up on heroine, just because they feel entitled.

See where I have probelms???




Edit: A much better quote, courtesy of Facebook...
Quote:
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals was very much in favor of higher taxes to Support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, ‘How is your friend Audrey doing?’ Again caught off guard she replied, ‘Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She’s so popular on campus that college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.

Her wise father asked his daughter, ‘Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.’ The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, ‘That’s crazy, anyway how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!’ The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, ‘Welcome to the Republican party.’



~McCain/Palin 2008


Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:39 pm
Profile
Pokemon Trainer
Pokemon Trainer

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:31 am
Posts: 35
heh.

we're "screwed" either way.

the country will be equally ravaged by both McCain or Obama.

there's no hope for the next 4 years.

the sooner you realize that, the better.

_________________


Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:36 pm
Profile
Art Commentator
Art Commentator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:39 am
Posts: 2467
Location: London, UK
P-L's wonderfully ignorant description of socialised healthcare fails to take into account a few things.

Firstly, there are a good deal of people who work their arses off but who still don't earn enough to afford medical care. Your answer seems to be "sod them, they didn't work hard enough". Now, I'd assume that you've probably lived a good, middle-class life. Think to yourself - what if something screws up and you become bankrupt? You can't afford medical care any more. In that situation, would you still advocate what you do now? You must apply one rule for all, remember.

Since you seem so adamant on using stock horror-story archetypes, I think I'll play your own game. My grandfather was a worker in a chemical factory. He got up at dawn each morning and worked through almost all the daylight hours. He didn't have the higher education that could've landed him a better-paid job because he came from a working-class background. Yet, he still worked to support his wife and two kids. I doubt that he could've paid for medical care in the US. Despite his contribution to society, you claim that he doesn't deserve healthcare because he "didn't work hard enough for it".

Also, you have so little faith in socialised medicine. Tell me, have you ever ventured beyond the borders of your country and visited a hospital in Canada, the UK, Europe? I'd guess from your description that you don't know a thing about what you're talking about.


Edit: On a tangent, could someone please explain why America is so virulently opposed to even the merest suggestion of socialism? I know of few Europeans or Canadians who would be so zealous regarding the issue.

_________________
Image


Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:10 am
Profile WWW
Ace Trainer
Ace Trainer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:09 am
Posts: 408
Location: In his imagination, imaginating things.
Americans are opposed to socialism cause it reminds them of USSR and the cold war.

Also, P-L, socialized medicine does not mean more or less doctors.

If you were a democrat/socialist, you would help him to boost his grade by tutoring him for free while others didn't discriminate against him for having a 2.0.

Also the drug addicted asshat would probly be too drug addicted to 1, pay taxes and recieve such healthcare, 2, go and actually get medical help.

why does socialism=squander and poor conditions in your mind?


Like i said, socialized healthcare is more like giving away help, not giving away the end product.
And i agree with praemorior. obama/mccain both = bad news for the US
I just support obama more because i dislike Palin.

_________________
{absol} {gardevoir} {salamence} {crobat} {skitty} {glaceon}
yay skitty!
olim est virgo Troiana
quae incensus cogitat grama esse bonus.
incendit per noctam,
et sic excitavit;
invenit veru magnum ano.


Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:43 am
Profile
Pokemon Ranger
Pokemon Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:03 am
Posts: 604
Location: Running In The 90s
...Chuck Baldwin? CHUCK BALDWIN?

WHY CAN'T CHUCK NORRIS BE PRESIDENT?


Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:48 am
Profile
Art Commentator
Art Commentator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:39 am
Posts: 2467
Location: London, UK
Quote:
Americans are opposed to socialism cause it reminds them of USSR and the cold war.

btw america

we were also at risk in the cold war. in fact, you guys actually helped make it worse for us by putting your goddamn missiles on our land.

and yet, we can accurately distinguish between communism and socialism! :D



Also, regarding GPAs: the analogy is flawed. A low GPA is not life-or-death. A low GPA does not mean that you'll be paralysed for life, or will die at 50. Medical care IS life-or-death, in some cases.

_________________
Image


Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:55 am
Profile WWW
Pokemon Ranger
Pokemon Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:17 am
Posts: 511
Location: Why do you care where I live?
I saw a political cartoon recently, but I can't seem to find it, so I'll expain it.

Basically, it shows a building labeled "Wall Street" burning down. The fires are spreading to another house, labeled "Main Street". A man, labeled "congress", is standing outside the building, stopping a fire truck labeled "Bailout" from rescuing the house.

We can't just let Wall Street fail, then sink into depression. We will go into a recession, but that's inevitable. Without the bailout, we would sink into a depression.

_________________
Image


Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:50 pm
Profile
Pokemon Trainer
Pokemon Trainer

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:31 am
Posts: 35
Thunder_dude7 wrote:
I saw a political cartoon recently, but I can't seem to find it, so I'll expain it.

Basically, it shows a building labeled "Wall Street" burning down. The fires are spreading to another house, labeled "Main Street". A man, labeled "congress", is standing outside the building, stopping a fire truck labeled "Bailout" from rescuing the house.

We can't just let Wall Street fail, then sink into depression. We will go into a recession, but that's inevitable. Without the bailout, we would sink into a depression.


the DOW has dropped 1500+ points in less than a week.

my mutual funds are down almost 50%.

man, sure glad they passed that bailout package. :?

_________________


Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:52 pm
Profile
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:32 am
Posts: 1913
Location: Brooklyn, NY
The dow has disappointed me - if it wants to show real free-fall skydiving, it'll fall faster.
I'm hoping it falls past 5,000 - it'll be just like housing - A BUYERS MARKET :D

I'll buy up big companies for pennies on the dollar.

Government intervention caused this "problem" to occur.
Government intervention caused a panic (basically, when they threw the lifesaver, people realised they were in deep water).
Government intervention will throw us into a world-wide depression.

That is why the US has always had a laissez-faire economic policy.




GQ - We put our missiles in Poland. We gave you nuclear weapons. We did not force you to have them.
Not for anything, but back in the Cold War, Turkey was happy to have our missiles. They were happy with the security. Poland, after we installed the missiles, was redy to jump into Bush's arms, like a child who has just received a gift, and said "Thank you, Daddy".

The only idiots to complain about the US intervention are liberals in Britain and France. Even Germany loves us.

goldenquagsire wrote:
On a tangent, could someone please explain why America is so virulently opposed to even the merest suggestion of socialism? I know of few Europeans or Canadians who would be so zealous regarding the issue.


It started back in the early days of the US - we had our hearts set on gaining some land in Europe. Britain was threatening France with more war, and the treasury was emptying fast. What do you do to raise money, aside from borrow and tax? You sell. And in 1803, we bought Louisiana. This gave us a sense of identity - we were not Europe, we knew that. We were THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA.

Laissez-faire has always been with the United States, and it worked well until a piece of government intervention screwed it up, and damned it forever. It came back until the democrats gained executive power in 76 and 92. Carter and Clinton caused the housing bubble, and its subsequent burst. Bush is blamed for it, because it happened on his watch.

Let me explain it this way - burglars walk in at 2:50 in the afternoon. The security changes shifts, and the burglars go up to the teller at 3:00 - on the new guard's watch. The burglars go out with money at 3:01, and the guard is fired, despite not having the ability to do anything.

Clinton is the old guard, Bush is the new one - get it?


Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:18 pm
Profile
Ace Trainer
Ace Trainer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:09 am
Posts: 408
Location: In his imagination, imaginating things.
Poor metaphor, P-L
The second guard is not entirely responsible, but he could have done some things to prevent the burglar getting away.

regarding your first metaphor...
United States' economic sentiment caused this problem to occur. (We saved up too much money and got a cruddy ship, and now it's sunk)
The housing market fell, which was really just a matter of time. (A shark ate someone while we were floundering.)
The government panicked, exascerbating the problem. (Everyone starting panicking, attracting more sharks.)
Government intervention will throw us into a world-wide depression. (Unless we can find the *holy-sardines-in-a-can, batman!* shark repellent :D)


Also, I don't think anybody has seriously blamed Bush for this.
If they have, they're idiots.


Also, you say "it worked well until a piece of government intervention screwed it up, and damned it forever. It came back until the democrats gained executive power in 76 and 92."
slightly confusing, neh?
does the "damned it forever" refer to the great depression or now?

Housing bubble?!?!!?
people keep throwing out that term "housing bubble"
Housing is not the entire problem!
The PROBLEM is that everyone, including the government has been buying things on CREDIT.
The housing market was just the first domino to fall.

Tis in reality a credit bubble.

The reason for this depression is pretty much exactly the same as the Great Depression.
There is a difference between these, however. In today's world, when the U.S. falls, EVERYONE else falls too.

By the way, Clinton got us out of debt, actually helping the situation somewhat.

Also, you can blame Bush for signing the bailout bill.

The credit system is cyclical.
The depression will pass.
But it'll get worse first.

By the way, history lesson:
First Great Depression was caused when the US decided to loan tons of cash to European countries to pay off other European countries which in turn would be able to pay off the US.
So now the US has a Whole Ton of money that it doesn't really have yet.
So everyone is spending and living large and buying expensive houses and autos with their imaginary cash (THE CREDIT BUBBLE!!!), when suddenly BAM!
a certain European Country decides to say "oops i'm sorry, i'm going to go have an internal affair and can't pay you back at the moment..."
And then the american citizens are all like "oh noes... I can't afford my house or posh auto anymores..."
and then the houses and autos are repossesed, jobs lost, weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc.
And Great Depression happens.
Followed by Depression in other countries. (But those aren't great cause they weren't in the US :D)

_________________
{absol} {gardevoir} {salamence} {crobat} {skitty} {glaceon}
yay skitty!
olim est virgo Troiana
quae incensus cogitat grama esse bonus.
incendit per noctam,
et sic excitavit;
invenit veru magnum ano.


Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:19 pm
Profile
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:32 am
Posts: 1913
Location: Brooklyn, NY
I never liked bush, I liked CONSERVATIVES.

Bush = NeoCON = new conservative = asshat.


lassez faire worked until the national bank (I am a paleo-conservative - very much opposed to the federal reserve). The national bank screws everyone up by dicking with interest rates at the wrong time.

Say hi to crash of 1928
Say hi to stagflation
Say hi to inflation
Say hi to credit crap - back in the 1950s, you had a few bills every month, and they were predictable - mortgage, possibly a car, the charge card if you bought expensive furniture (ie, a living room, and it was if you had a good repor with the store), the utilities, and the groceries. Maybe some college debt. Since then, we have had compulsive (buying all of the time) and impulsive (see it and say "gotta have it") buying kudos to the introduction of the credit card - pay normal things over time, like your groceries, jewelry.


Clinton bought put up a wall of stone against the water, and the water finally went over that wall. The wall crumbled, and the valley flooded.



By the way, Iceland is about to declare bankruptcy - its national debt is SIX Times their GDP.


Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:32 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 83 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.