First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Answer to American Economic Crisis
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/1/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

Government spending does create jobs: Spending on education = more money to hire teachers= more jobs

Spending money on construction projects= more money for construction contractors= more money to hire construction workers= more jobs

Spending money on farming subsidies= more crops produced= more people needed to transport them= more jobs

Spending money on public hospitals= more money to hire doctors and nurses= more jobs

So unless you think education, construction, farming crops, and health care are all unneeded things, responsible government spending does the exact same thing as people spending money on small businesses.


It creates more government jobs tho, and last I heard, teachers were getting laid off left and right. We need more teachers, lots more, so we can cut down class sizes and give our kids a better education.

And more small businesses mean more wealth in the pockets of those business owners. The more small business owners = more wealth in general.


If you're a human being with a shred of empathy and common sense within you, then you can realize that we are in two pointless wars and have bases scattered all over the world for no reason other to protect corporate interests overseas and to make money for military contractors, so $663 billion is way too much. On the other hand, if you're a war-mongering conservative who only cares about making money for those corporations that benefit from the wars, then there is no such thing as too much.


That doesn't quite answer my question. And why would I want to make money for other businesses(corporations) and people, I'm interested in making money for me, how does making money for corporations benefit me ?


It's funny how you're willing to ask that question about military spending, but you're 100% sure that government spending on everything else is way too much and unnecessary.


I never said that. But there's has to be a limit somewhere.


All of them? Should we get rid of child labor laws? Minimum wage? Safety regulations? Every business needs some sort of regulation, especially those 3 I listed, but I've yet to hear from anyone exactly which regulations they feel are unnecessary. Everyone just argues from the flawed black-and-white idealogical perspective that "regulations are bad, period." Generalized statements like that don't bring about any solutions.


Not all of them, but leik the green ones that kill contractors, my neighbor could tell you more about it then I can, I dunno the names of it, but he tells me all the time how new regulations are killing him and costing him a lot of money.


This war is definitely avoidable, at the very least it needs to be scaled down. If you truly are against big government and high taxes, then you would be against the war we are in right now, because it is a prime example of irresponsible government spending and government interference in people's lives. You should care because no war= lower taxes, which is what you want, right?


War is human, it is as human as asking why. 1 or 2 wars may be avoidable, but not all wars.


Not if there is legislation put into place that prevents them from becoming "too big to fail." Any fiscally responsible person would realize that it is not wise for an economy to be dependent on one industry, let alone a few companies, but currently the biggest 4 banks make 56% of our national revenue (heard it in a news report a few days ago, but I can't access the archives, so I don't blame you if you don't take my word for it). Since they control half of our economy, they basically control the country, which is why they need to be split up.


Well capitalism is based on the wonderful ideal that if you make smart decisions you can become filthy rich, and if you make stupid ones you can lose everything. The banks shouldn't be allowed to have gotten that big in the first place tho.

If you make stupid decisions you should suffer the consequences of it.



One solution is campaign finance reform. The reason why so many politicians are giving in to corporate interests is because they fund the majority of their campaign expenses (70% last I heard, can't find a source). Earlier this year the Supreme Court repealed the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, which was a law that limited how much corporations and unions could donate to political campaigns. Now there is no restriction on how much they can donate, so current candidates for the 2010 elections and incumbents are doing everything they can to protect corporate interests to make sure they get a lot of money.


Yeah, that's fine, but not socialist finance reform. I don't want small business owners taxed to death simply because they have more money than other people. That's unjust. Small business owners should get tax breaks, because they contribute to the economy. Its all about the little guy.


Another thing is we need to regulate the practice of lobbying, which is another way politicians make money off of corporate interest. Obama has passed some executive orders that restrict their influence, but it either hasn't been long enough to see the effects or it doesn't have any significant effect at all.


Meh, I could take it or leave it


Another solution is something you will probably oppose, which is regulation of banks. We should follow Canada's model: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nerr88t41PA&playnext_from=TL&videos=rNvqhXTjIzY

If you refuse to watch the video, it basically explains how Canada wasn't affected too badly by the recession, and how they are recovering and prospering largely due to the strict regulation of their banks.


Thats kewl and all, as long as the government can't get their hands on my money I don't care.


I've said multiple times before that reducing corporate influence over politics is the solution. So you either didn't really read my posts or you were too busy complaining that taxes are too high to pay attention.


I read them, but there are people out there who say "Burn them to the ground" and what not. and that's just unrealistic.


No one is against business or corporations, we are against corporate influence over politics. No one is saying we should tear down all corporations and stop them from producing goods and services, we are saying that they should not be allowed to have influence in policy making, at least not as much as they do now. I've said this multiple times as well.


That's not true, lots of people are.


I am doing something by educating myself about what is going on in this country. Awareness is the first step to finding a solution, since you can't solve the problems if you don't know what they are.


Well that's just obvious.


Yet you seem to bash Democrats and Obama while promoting conservative Republican ideals, without acknowledging that those ideals are a huge contributing factor to the mess we are currently in. There are way more than 3 sides and 3 parties btw.


I bash people when they deserve to be bashed, ie when they do something stupid, like obama is with his and bushes failed economic policies.

I believe that a government should for the most part leave its people alone, and let them run their lives in peace, and let business owners alone and not regulate them to death. and that taxes should be low enough that people can make good profits. Thats the basis of my beliefs.

But I also believe in things liek gay rights and whatnot.

My beliefs are very simple - People should be left alone to run their lives in peace.

And those 3 parties are the only parties I give a damn about.


No it's not new, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce it as much as possible.


Good luck with that.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/1/10 , edited 7/1/10

digs wrote:

Is the OP being serious? So we should destroy and plunder Europe because of our fiscal irresponsibility? Just vote for conservative Republicans in 2010 and 2012 who will advocate and push for fiscal responsibility. We need people who's core goal is to shrink government and spending and now grow it. Also, Europe isn't in a good financial state either (maybe even worse than us).


I am dead serious--how did France get out of its debt during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century? Napoleon and his policy of looting across Europe. Now, if the French were able to do it back then, and, us Americans being much more martial in our natural deposition, it should fall to reason that we should be able to do this much more effectively. Also, they may be in a shoddy state, but they do have lots of money. Now, if we just raid each and every house in Europe, we would probably not only have enough to pay back all our debts (lest the ones not belonging to smothering ruins), but we should also have enough to plate the White House with GOLD.


Also, I do recall 'Republican Fiscal Responsibility' leading us to this predicament in the first place, any more of Republican Fiscal Responsibility will probably lead us to be bondsmen to China.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 7/1/10 , edited 7/1/10
Just be careful that Europe doesn't give you a stark reminder why it's called the White House and not 'the presidential palace'
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 7/1/10
Placing the blame game it not hard both parties are full of it and when it comes down to it the house and senate send spending bill ‘to the president he says yea or nay or can be over ridden if the house and senate have the votes. Personnel I do not like to see one party politics backroom deals with lobbyist get cut and not any way to call foul. President Obama, and his Chicago style politics is a joke. Just wish he grew a backbone. I did not care much for Bush but behaving as leader hands down his far better.
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 7/1/10

orangeflute wrote:


digs wrote:

Is the OP being serious? So we should destroy and plunder Europe because of our fiscal irresponsibility? Just vote for conservative Republicans in 2010 and 2012 who will advocate and push for fiscal responsibility. We need people who's core goal is to shrink government and spending and now grow it. Also, Europe isn't in a good financial state either (maybe even worse than us).


I am dead serious--how did France get out of its debt during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century? Napoleon and his policy of looting across Europe. Now, if the French were able to do it back then, and, us Americans being much more martial in our natural deposition, it should fall to reason that we should be able to do this much more effectively. Also, they may be in a shoddy state, but they do have lots of money. Now, if we just raid each and every house in Europe, we would probably not only have enough to pay back all our debts (lest the ones not belonging to smothering ruins), but we should also have enough to plate the White House with GOLD.


Also, I do recall 'Republican Fiscal Responsibility' leading us to this predicament in the first place, any more of Republican Fiscal Responsibility will probably lead us to be bondsmen to China.


You really are serious, arent you? When I first read this I thought it was a joke. Not to insult you, but have you learned anything about european history at school (besides ww2?). And how did france get out of debt? REVOLUTION - wealth of RICH MINORITY (nobility) was made REPUBLIC (state) property. How about applying that little lesson to your country?

And about europe - at the moment, you wouldnt be any wealthier. Few industries would be destroyed in war. Only UK has real "wealth" - stuff it plundered during colonial period. And you must only ask them to give it to you - they just bend over to any US demands anyways.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/2/10

Allhailodin wrote:

It creates more government jobs tho, and last I heard, teachers were getting laid off left and right. We need more teachers, lots more, so we can cut down class sizes and give our kids a better education.


In order to do that, we'd have to raise taxes, since that's how public schools get their money.


And more small businesses mean more wealth in the pockets of those business owners. The more small business owners = more wealth in general.


What about all of the people who aren't small business owners or employees of small businesses? How do their profits benefit everyone else? There's not even a guarantee that their workers will make more, they could and most likely would just keep all their profits to themselves.


That doesn't quite answer my question. And why would I want to make money for other businesses(corporations) and people, I'm interested in making money for me, how does making money for corporations benefit me ?


It doesn't benefit you at all, which is why the $663 billion going to military contractors is too much. All of that is tax payer money, your money, and it's all being given to the military so they can send our fellow citizens to die for no real reason other than to make money for themselves.


War is human, it is as human as asking why. 1 or 2 wars may be avoidable, but not all wars.


I'm not talking about war in general, I'm talking about the ones we are waging in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are completely unnecessary and doing nothing more than putting your money into the pockets of military contractors and corporations that benefit from having U.S military presence in various parts of the world. So if you care about your money then you should care about stopping or scaling down these wars.


The banks shouldn't be allowed to have gotten that big in the first place tho.


They got that big because they kept saying that deregulation is necessary, just as you are doing now.


Yeah, that's fine, but not socialist finance reform. I don't want small business owners taxed to death simply because they have more money than other people. That's unjust. Small business owners should get tax breaks, because they contribute to the economy. Its all about the little guy.


We are not and never were anywhere near having "socialist" finance reform, whatever that means. Any time you hear someone or something called "socialist" these days, it is just conservative propaganda to distract you from the fact that we are already a fiscally conservative nation, but they want it to be more conservative because that means more money for them. This especially applies Obama, he gives into corporate interests just as any Republican would, yet they still slap the "socialist" label on him because he doesn't give in as much as they want him to. The only socialist aspects of our country are the ones that have already existed for a long time now, things like public education and social security, and we aren't in danger of becoming any more socialist any time soon.


That's not true, lots of people are.


I've never heard of anyone who is against business itself: the production, exchange, and consumption of goods and services. There probably are a few, but they are extremists, so I doubt there are many of them.


and let business owners alone and not regulate them to death.


Again, that's how the banks and corporations got so big and powerful. They shouldn't be regulated to death, but they clearly aren't regulated enough right now, so deregulating them would just make the situation worse.


and that taxes should be low enough that people can make good profits.


The problem there is that many people have a different idea of what "good" profits are. There are people who make millions or billions of dollars in profits and still feel like taxes are too high and that they don't have enough money. Not that the government should tell us how much is good enough, but consumerism is such a huge part of American culture that many people will never feel like they have enough money, because we've been conditioned to always want more.

10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/2/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

In order to do that, we'd have to raise taxes, since that's how public schools get their money.


Could also reduce spending in other areas.


What about all of the people who aren't small business owners or employees of small businesses? How do their profits benefit everyone else? There's not even a guarantee that their workers will make more, they could and most likely would just keep all their profits to themselves.


Well first off, most small business owners that I know of pay their employees more than min wage.

Second the businesses profits don't have to benefit anyone. Its the owners money to do what he wants with. He can donate it or hoard it, its his money. He can't tell you want to do with your money, and you can't tell him what to do with his money.


It doesn't benefit you at all, which is why the $663 billion going to military contractors is too much. All of that is tax payer money, your money, and it's all being given to the military so they can send our fellow citizens to die for no real reason other than to make money for themselves.


It doesn't all go to military contractors, its not 663 billion of profits for military contractors, a lot of it gets spent on stuff leik missiles, and tanks and attack helicopters any stuff, only a small % of that 663 billion is profit for the contractors. The rest of it goes to stuff like development of new weapons and tanks and guns and missiles and stuff. Some of it is profit yes, otherwise why the hell would the contractor do it, but not all of it.


I'm not talking about war in general, I'm talking about the ones we are waging in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are completely unnecessary and doing nothing more than putting your money into the pockets of military contractors and corporations that benefit from having U.S military presence in various parts of the world. So if you care about your money then you should care about stopping or scaling down these wars.


The same could be said about any war.


They got that big because they kept saying that deregulation is necessary, just as you are doing now.


Deregulation of smaller businesses lol, I keep saying this, but it keeps getting ignored.

Isn't the government supposed to break them up or something ? I thought that they were ?


We are not and never were anywhere near having "socialist" finance reform, whatever that means. Any time you hear someone or something called "socialist" these days, it is just conservative propaganda to distract you from the fact that we are already a fiscally conservative nation, but they want it to be more conservative because that means more money for them. This especially applies Obama, he gives into corporate interests just as any Republican would, yet they still slap the "socialist" label on him because he doesn't give in as much as they want him to. The only socialist aspects of our country are the ones that have already existed for a long time now, things like public education and social security, and we aren't in danger of becoming any more socialist any time soon.p


Some democrats have been pushing for their 'social justice' bs for a long time. I don't want nothing leik that getting sneaked into the bill(leik how private sector student loans banishment was sneaked into the health care bill).


I've never heard of anyone who is against business itself: the production, exchange, and consumption of goods and services. There probably are a few, but they are extremists, so I doubt there are many of them.


I know quite a few of them, and I can name them, tho their names probably won't mean anything to you.


Again, that's how the banks and corporations got so big and powerful. They shouldn't be regulated to death, but they clearly aren't regulated enough right now, so deregulating them would just make the situation worse.


Small business owners are being put out of business because of new regulations and restrictions, they are clearly over regulated, if regulations are putting you out of business / costing you a fortune, there are too many.


The problem there is that many people have a different idea of what "good" profits are. There are people who make millions or billions of dollars in profits and still feel like taxes are too high and that they don't have enough money. Not that the government should tell us how much is good enough, but consumerism is such a huge part of American culture that many people will never feel like they have enough money, because we've been conditioned to always want more.


My idea of good profits are 75%, the other 25 can go to taxes.

And there's nothing wrong with wanting to make money. No matter where you go, people all want to make money. Its the same everywhere, its pretty human.
Posted 7/2/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:



The problem there is that many people have a different idea of what "good" profits are. There are people who make millions or billions of dollars in profits and still feel like taxes are too high and that they don't have enough money. Not that the government should tell us how much is good enough, but consumerism is such a huge part of American culture that many people will never feel like they have enough money, because we've been conditioned to always want more.
Here's the memo, and you're welcome.
Posted 7/2/10

Allhailodin wrote:



My idea of good profits are 75%, the other 25 can go to taxes.

And there's nothing wrong with wanting to make money. No matter where you go, people all want to make money. Its the same everywhere, its pretty human.
Don't put words in my mouth with your careless overgeneralizing on what's actually a system that promotes addiction , not the nature of humanity. When you have no idea just exactly what I want to make for what purpose as a human being.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/2/10

blancer wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


digs wrote:

Is the OP being serious? So we should destroy and plunder Europe because of our fiscal irresponsibility? Just vote for conservative Republicans in 2010 and 2012 who will advocate and push for fiscal responsibility. We need people who's core goal is to shrink government and spending and now grow it. Also, Europe isn't in a good financial state either (maybe even worse than us).


I am dead serious--how did France get out of its debt during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century? Napoleon and his policy of looting across Europe. Now, if the French were able to do it back then, and, us Americans being much more martial in our natural deposition, it should fall to reason that we should be able to do this much more effectively. Also, they may be in a shoddy state, but they do have lots of money. Now, if we just raid each and every house in Europe, we would probably not only have enough to pay back all our debts (lest the ones not belonging to smothering ruins), but we should also have enough to plate the White House with GOLD.


Also, I do recall 'Republican Fiscal Responsibility' leading us to this predicament in the first place, any more of Republican Fiscal Responsibility will probably lead us to be bondsmen to China.


You really are serious, arent you? When I first read this I thought it was a joke. Not to insult you, but have you learned anything about european history at school (besides ww2?). And how did france get out of debt? REVOLUTION - wealth of RICH MINORITY (nobility) was made REPUBLIC (state) property. How about applying that little lesson to your country?

And about europe - at the moment, you wouldnt be any wealthier. Few industries would be destroyed in war. Only UK has real "wealth" - stuff it plundered during colonial period. And you must only ask them to give it to you - they just bend over to any US demands anyways.


Even after the Revolution, the French were still drowning in debt, even if those were the left over of the Sun King. France owed money as a state, not individually, and no amount of Republicanism and Revolution can changed that. Hell, if anything, their crazy schemes (Cult of Reason, Republican Calender, Guillotine, &c.) brought them even further into debt. Then Napoleon came and conquered/looted most of Europe.

Thus, if we applied that lesson, and went around looting Museums and Mansions, we would all be as rich as Croesus.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/2/10 , edited 7/2/10

DomFortress wrote:

Don't put words in my mouth with your careless overgeneralizing on what's actually a system that promotes addiction , not the nature of humanity. When you have no idea just exactly what I want to make for what purpose as a human being.


Well of course if someone can just lay back and do nothing and live the easy life their going to, almost anyone would. That's just obvious. But there's nothing wrong with a little basic luxury in your life like a tv and the internet, sure you don't need them, but you don't need electricity, running water, or clothes survive either. Why don't we all just go back to living in caves and off the land and hunting our own food.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/2/10

orangeflute wrote:

Even after the Revolution, the French were still drowning in debt, even if those were the left over of the Sun King. France owed money as a state, not individually, and no amount of Republicanism and Revolution can changed that. Hell, if anything, their crazy schemes (Cult of Reason, Republican Calender, Guillotine, &c.) brought them even further into debt. Then Napoleon came and conquered/looted most of Europe.

Thus, if we applied that lesson, and went around looting Museums and Mansions, we would all be as rich as Croesus.


Or a second idea, we could stop electing stupid irresponsible people into office and elect smart responsible people instead ?
Posted 7/2/10

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Don't put words in my mouth with your careless overgeneralizing on what's actually a system that promotes addiction , not the nature of humanity. When you have no idea just exactly what I want to make for what purpose as a human being.


Well of course if someone can just lay back and do nothing and live the easy life their going to, almost anyone would. That's just obvious. But there's nothing wrong with a little basic luxury in your life like a tv and the internet, sure you don't need them, but you don't need electricity, running water, or clothes survive either.
Stupid, when you completely missed the point that it's the very thought that you're gonna get rewarded for your behavior, which will trigger the cycle of any addiction. Thereby you have no idea just how damaging an incentive can be on human social behavior, be it a reward or a fine. When humans are naturally social, you OTOH had lost your sense of reality of just what it means for humans to be social.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/2/10

DomFortress wrote:

Stupid, when you completely missed the point that it's the very thought that you're gonna get rewarded for your behavior, which will trigger the cycle of any addiction. Thereby you have no idea just how damaging an incentive can be on human social behavior, be it a reward or a fine. When humans are naturally social, you OTOH had lost your sense of reality of just what it means for humans to be social.


So your saying its wrong for people to have luxuries like tv and the internet ? Or your saying incentives like monie ?
Posted 7/2/10 , edited 7/2/10

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Stupid, when you completely missed the point that it's the very thought that you're gonna get rewarded for your behavior, which will trigger the cycle of any addiction. Thereby you have no idea just how damaging an incentive can be on human social behavior, be it a reward or a fine. When humans are naturally social, you OTOH had lost your sense of reality of just what it means for humans to be social.


So your saying its wrong for people to have luxuries like tv and the internet ? Or your saying incentives like monie ?
What do you think? When I've already provided you my evidences in the form of hyper-links. While it's not my responsibility to do your thinking for you, otherwise you should just listen and do what you were told from authority, that includes the corporate executives as well as the government. Because you don't even know just what exactly is your own personal responsibility, under your social contract towards the human society. While you're just all too eager to surrender your own power to think, reason, organize, and rationalize for yourself.

Furthermore, what I've demonstrated here is perhaps the very problem that's been plaguing the American economics; its bureaucratic institution based on both Republican and corporation policies, had become both too big and costly for it to failed. When it did exactly just that, because of how powerful it became without any form of social contract towards the good of humanity.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.