Thankyou McCain

[Razel]

http://www.videosift.com/video/Thank-John-McCain

[Madrandomize]

Thank you too.These pre-fried potatoes are delicious.

[Lioness]

http://www.videosift.com/video/Thank-John-McCain

Yeah, McCain sucks.

But so does Obama.

The only argument NOW is who sucks more. I'ma go with McCain, because his favorite song is Dancing Queen by ABBA.

[Mulambo]

Yeah, McCain sucks.

But so does Obama.

The only argument NOW is who sucks more. I'ma go with McCain, because his favorite song is Dancing Queen by ABBA.

if that is what you think, vote third party. DO IT!

[Dazarthas]

I'ma go with McCain, because his favorite song is Dancing Queen by ABBA.

Either you're only kidding here, or you're willing to go with what is essentially a 3rd term of Bush policies because the old bastard likes ABBA.

[Mulambo]

Either you're only kidding here, or you're willing to go with what is essentially a 3rd term of Bush policies because the old bastard likes ABBA.

imma give her the benefit of doubt and say I think she was saying he sucks more.

[Mr.LichTwitch]

Does Barack Obama approve that message?

[Dazarthas]

imma give her the benefit of doubt and say I think she was saying he sucks more.

Boy, I love when I misread things. Maybe I should go to sleep so I can comprehend what the fuck I'm looking at.

[Bissen]

Yeah, McCain sucks.

But so does Obama.

The only argument NOW is who sucks more. I'ma go with McCain, because his favorite song is Dancing Queen by ABBA.


I thought it was Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2kyXN4ZVQg&feature=related

[Vanno]

I thought it was Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2kyXN4ZVQg&feature=related

Indeed, McCain was actually one of the Beach Boys, but he was nixed due, in part, to his violent tendencies.

[Dazarthas]

I thought it was Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2kyXN4ZVQg&feature=related

They keep playing Barbara Ann in my graphic arts class... ha.

[Razel]

Indeed, McCain was actually one of the Beach Boys, but he was nixed due, in part, to his violent tendencies.

:lmao:

[Wickfield]

Does Barack Obama approve that message?

I'm sure he would, but at the end it says that it was created privately by a citizen.

[shadeslayer]

But are we voting for McCain or for Palin?

A lot of people seem to think that McCain will drop dead within 24 hours of becoming president so Palin seems to be the actual candidate.

Either way shes a total milf.

[Thrill_KIll]

Yea..that's so dead on accurate, and doesn't take anything out of context to further an agenda.

People that would believe that are as stupid as the right wingers trying to say an Obama slip up while talking proves he is a closet muslim.

[alfaroverall]

Yet another BS "Bush is at fault for every problem we're having now" argument. Bush can be thought of as mostly at fault for Iraq, and the comparatively small economic impact that that has had. (For those who disagree, note that this economic downturn didn't start in, for example, 2006, even though the war had been going on for years at that time as well).

Other than that, there is rather little that you can actually blame Bush for. This economic strain is not the result of his actions, and it's really not the result of Congress' actions either (although their exorbitant overspending is part of it). I'd say what's at the heart of it all is a fundamentally dysfunctional economy that produces no goods. We've been told for 50+ years that this economy couldn't function, by all the economists who studied this economy. Hell, even Adam Smith's theories indicate that this economy can't be sustained. How it held as long as it did is anyone's guess, but it's sure as hell not going to hold now.

I don't like Bush. I don't like McCain. I don't even like Barr. But I fucking hate Obama, and this is just one of many reasons why.

[Everto]

Yeah, McCain sucks.

But so does Obama.

The only argument NOW is who sucks more. I'ma go with McCain, because his favorite song is Dancing Queen by ABBA.

I like that song.

[Yobaj]

Yet another BS "Bush is at fault for every problem we're having now" argument. Bush can be thought of as mostly at fault for Iraq, and the comparatively small economic impact that that has had. (For those who disagree, note that this economic downturn didn't start in, for example, 2006, even though the war had been going on for years at that time as well).

Other than that, there is rather little that you can actually blame Bush for. This economic strain is not the result of his actions, and it's really not the result of Congress' actions either (although their exorbitant overspending is part of it). I'd say what's at the heart of it all is a fundamentally dysfunctional economy that produces no goods. We've been told for 50+ years that this economy couldn't function, by all the economists who studied this economy. Hell, even Adam Smith's theories indicate that this economy can't be sustained. How it held as long as it did is anyone's guess, but it's sure as hell not going to hold now.

I don't like Bush. I don't like McCain. I don't even like Barr. But I fucking hate Obama, and this is just one of many reasons why.

What the fuck are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Nice economic politics, well, at least the money was spent on good things for the american tax payers that are gonna pay that back in the future.... OH WAIT I'm sorry, those money have been spent on military contractors like... Halliburton and Lockheed Martin, right in to the pockets of Dick Cheney and pals huh?

[Honest Bill]

I would also like to express my heart felt thanks to McCain. Their oven chips have been a constant source of inspiration for me

Thank you McCain.... thank you

[Heartnet~]

Thank you McCain. Hell, you're definitely a president I could sit down and have beer with.

[Gloomrender]

Silly or not, John Mcain is neo-con.

[alfaroverall]

What the fuck are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Nice economic politics, well, at least the money was spent on good things for the american tax payers that are gonna pay that back in the future.... OH WAIT I'm sorry, those money have been spent on military contractors like... Halliburton and Lockheed Martin, right in to the pockets of Dick Cheney and pals huh?
1. Those industries drive this completely dysfunctional economy as I said. Clearly Sweden gives you a rather slanted view of how this economy functions. Not surprising that a socialist state would offer a cynical view of a capitalist one, saying that "zomg they give all their monies to the eevul corporations!!111one!!!!1one!!" It's bad that it's like that, but it's been like that for a long time. Changing it in any substantive way (which Obama is NOT promising to do, since he couldn't; that would require the removal of pretty much every official in power and the collapse of nearly every major corporation in the country) would require decades upon decades of changes in the economy, and during that entire time there would be a massive worldwide depression since America is basically the world's Lockheed Martin, economically speaking.

2. What the hell does this have to do with Bush being blamed for the economic issues? Those military contractors have driven the economy and sucked up massive chunks of change all along, not since Bush came into office. Way to comment on the wrong decade buddy; this was being protested in the 1960s. "The man" and "the military-industrial complex" pretty much are comprised of Lockheed Martin et al. and the government. It's all been said already, and has little to do with the current downturn.

[Gloomrender]

The current downturn is the result of being under neoconservative rule for 8 years.

[alfaroverall]

The current downturn is the result of being under neoconservative rule for 8 years.
Care to elaborate on how exactly that works out? I'd argue a completely different stance, as would any traditional economist.

[Yobaj]

1. Those industries drive this completely dysfunctional economy as I said. Clearly Sweden gives you a rather slanted view of how this economy functions. Not surprising that a socialist state would offer a cynical view of a capitalist one, saying that "zomg they give all their monies to the eevul corporations!!111one!!!!1one!!" It's bad that it's like that, but it's been like that for a long time. Changing it in any substantive way (which Obama is NOT promising to do, since he couldn't; that would require the removal of pretty much every official in power and the collapse of nearly every major corporation in the country) would require decades upon decades of changes in the economy, and during that entire time there would be a massive worldwide depression since America is basically the world's Lockheed Martin, economically speaking.

2. What the hell does this have to do with Bush being blamed for the economic issues? Those military contractors have driven the economy and sucked up massive chunks of change all along, not since Bush came into office. Way to comment on the wrong decade buddy; this was being protested in the 1960s. "The man" and "the military-industrial complex" pretty much are comprised of Lockheed Martin et al. and the government. It's all been said already, and has little to do with the current downturn.

You are serious? Bush has loaned more than all previous presidents togheter, that's what I'm pointing out, that he is fucking you guys up, your economy isn't driven by the americans today, but in the coming decades, you guys have borrowed crazy amounts of money from China, lol, seriously, if you can't see the retardation in this... well.. you have to be retarded.

[Gloomrender]

Care to elaborate on how exactly that works out? I'd argue a completely different stance, as would any traditional economist.

Printing the shit out of money, unprecedented overspending, foreign wars costing over a trillion dollars/raising the price of gas, and borrowing trillions from other nations. That's all I got for ya atm, and It's enough on It's own, even though there's a lot more to be mentioned. Of course housing can't be blamed on conservatives, but I don't buy that being the cause of all our problems for a second. So I hope you got something special coming up for me.

[alfaroverall]

You are serious? Bush has loaned more than all previous presidents togheter, that's what I'm pointing out, that he is fucking you guys up, your economy isn't driven by the americans today, but in the coming decades, you guys have borrowed crazy amounts of money from China, lol, seriously, if you can't see the retardation in this... well.. you have to be retarded.
The government is driven by China et al.; outside of the DC area, that money doesn't really get into the economy all that much.

Not to mention that Bush hasn't done any of that. This is yet another thing that Bush gets blamed for that he didn't fucking do. The president doesn't have the power to take in loans, Congress does. They then ramp up spending by forcing him not to veto certain bills (for example, they put a crucial education decision into a bill that produces a meaningless project such as the so-called Bridge to Nowhere) and completely circumvent his power. It's a fundamentally flawed system in Congress and in the economy as a whole. The President just gets fucked over by all of it. It doesn't help Bush that he's not a great President even in this environment, but he's not responsible for the vast majority of these problems. Regarding Iraq he is almost entirely, yes (neglecting the CIA's screwup about evidence) but regarding all this other stuff, fuck no.
Printing the shit out of money,
Was being done before.
unprecedented overspending,
Has increased, yes, but it increased even further when the Democrats took power in Congress.
foreign wars costing over a trillion dollars
The implications of wars for an economy are very complicated. "Costing a trillion dollars" is a gross oversimplification. Note that most wars actually boost economies, not weaken them. This one may have had some detriment, but it's not $1 trillion worth.
/raising the price of gas,
Again, gross oversimplification. The gas market is peculiar because it defies fundamental economic principles: it is an almost completely inelastic good that is only sold by a very small number of companies who can use a wide variety of techniques to manipulate the price (for example, they can charge someone in an ideal location to sell gas more than they do for someone just down the street, forcing him to raise his prices just to make a profit and thereby making him lose money overall since his lease is higher than the guy down the street). Note that Exxon Mobil has made record profits in each of the last several quarters. That wouldn't happen if they were raising prices to adapt to a decrease in supply from the loss of Iraq as a supplier.
and borrowing trillions from other nations.
Has happened and would happen under a liberal government. In fact, it would probably increase. You act as if Obama is somehow proposing a balanced budget.

[Yobaj]

The government is driven by China et al.; outside of the DC area, that money doesn't really get into the economy all that much.

Not to mention that Bush hasn't done any of that. This is yet another thing that Bush gets blamed for that he didn't fucking do. The president doesn't have the power to take in loans, Congress does. They then ramp up spending by forcing him not to veto certain bills (for example, they put a crucial education decision into a bill that produces a meaningless project such as the so-called Bridge to Nowhere) and completely circumvent his power. It's a fundamentally flawed system in Congress and in the economy as a whole. The President just gets fucked over by all of it. It doesn't help Bush that he's not a great President even in this environment, but he's not responsible for the vast majority of these problems. Regarding Iraq he is almost entirely, yes (neglecting the CIA's screwup about evidence) but regarding all this other stuff, fuck no.


Lol, so you really are serious with this bullshit? The CIA issued a report that said that Saddam Hussein was no threat to America and had no ties to al-Qaeda, some weeks before Bush and friends started with their propaganda. I don't know where to begin, your post is so filled with bull.. Oh well, vote for another 4 years with McBush, Sweden will manage anyways.

[alfaroverall]

Lol, so you really are serious with this bullshit? The CIA issued a report that said that Saddam Hussein was no threat to America and had no ties to al-Qaeda, some weeks before Bush and friends started with their propaganda. I don't know where to begin, your post is so filled with bull.. Oh well, vote for another 4 years with McBush, Sweden will manage anyways.
lol? I'd like to see this report. The media in the U.S., which has always been highly biased against this whole thing, has always said that the CIA gave Congress and Bush evidence that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that the evidence turned out to be wrong.

Not to mention how fucking retarded it is to reply to an entire post with a comment on a mere parenthetical.

Also:
I don't like Bush. I don't like McCain. I don't even like Barr. But I fucking hate Obama, and this is just one of many reasons why.

[Septus]

1. Those industries drive this completely dysfunctional economy as I said. Clearly Sweden gives you a rather slanted view of how this economy functions. Not surprising that a socialist state would offer a cynical view of a capitalist one, saying that "zomg they give all their monies to the eevul corporations!!111one!!!!1one!!" It's bad that it's like that, but it's been like that for a long time. Changing it in any substantive way (which Obama is NOT promising to do, since he couldn't; that would require the removal of pretty much every official in power and the collapse of nearly every major corporation in the country) would require decades upon decades of changes in the economy, and during that entire time there would be a massive worldwide depression since America is basically the world's Lockheed Martin, economically speaking.

2. What the hell does this have to do with Bush being blamed for the economic issues? Those military contractors have driven the economy and sucked up massive chunks of change all along, not since Bush came into office. Way to comment on the wrong decade buddy; this was being protested in the 1960s. "The man" and "the military-industrial complex" pretty much are comprised of Lockheed Martin et al. and the government. It's all been said already, and has little to do with the current downturn.

Wow, that was good for a laugh. Please elaborate on how inefficient no-bid contracts paid by printing money sustains/helps the economy.

I'd try and set you straight but you're so far off base it's ridiculous.

[Yobaj]

lol? I'd like to see this report. The media in the U.S., which has always been highly biased against this whole thing, has always said that the CIA gave Congress and Bush evidence that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that the evidence turned out to be wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html

[Gloomrender]

Was being done before.

Not at the rate that's done now. At the least, they didn't improve things one bit.

Has increased, yes, but it increased even further when the Democrats took power in Congress.

For that short period of time that they've been "in power" in congress (congress hardly has any power anymore). Measure that against 8 solid proven years of unprecedented spending by neo cons, and It's a very weak argument.

The implications of wars for an economy are very complicated. "Costing a trillion dollars" is a gross oversimplification. Note that most wars actually boost economies, not weaken them. This one may have had some detriment, but it's not $1 trillion worth.

This war has only boosted the economy of the rich war related companies that fuel it. It hasn't boosted the overall economy worth a shit, as that sector is a small disconnected slice of our economy. It doesn't 'trickle down'. And, yes, the money spent so far to pay for the war is between 1 and 2 trillion dollars.


Again, gross oversimplification. The gas market is peculiar because it defies fundamental economic principles: it is an almost completely inelastic good that is only sold by a very small number of companies who can use a wide variety of techniques to manipulate the price (for example, they can charge someone in an ideal location to sell gas more than they do for someone just down the street, forcing him to raise his prices just to make a profit and thereby making him lose money overall since his lease is higher than the guy down the street). Note that Exxon Mobil has made record profits in each of the last several quarters. That wouldn't happen if they were raising prices to adapt to a decrease in supply from the loss of Iraq as a supplier.

The gas from Iraq isn't the factor that raised gas prices. The war has been used as one big excuse for oil companies to keeping jacking up the price. And the neo cons in the Bush Administration all have stocks in it and profit from it. That's cause and effect, step by step.

Has happened and would happen under a liberal government. In fact, it would probably increase. You act as if Obama is somehow proposing a balanced budget.

Were not talking about how things might be with neo liberals, or how Obama might be...In the past 8 years the BA has been actually doing it, and doing it recklessly. Again, we have an established record, proving that neo cons did this stuff at the expense of our economy. Therefore neo cons have hurt our economy, definitely. And they will continue to do so, definitely.

[alfaroverall]

Wow, that was good for a laugh. Please elaborate on how inefficient no-bid contracts paid by printing money sustains the system.

I'd try and set you straight but you're so far off base it's ridiculous.
Because it keeps the economy producing something. Again, it won't sustain things in the long term because such an economy is not sustainable in the first place, but that's not the fault of the government or the current corporations.

If somehow the idea that having some system, however flawed it may be, causing the economy to produce actual goods is a good thing is incorrect, I'd be interested to see an explanation.

Damn that is a clunky sentence...

[Slypieguy]

Does Barack Obama approve that message?

Of course not, he's way above all these Washington insider politics.... .... right?

[Gloomrender]

Because it keeps the economy producing something. Again, it won't sustain things in the long term because such an economy is not sustainable in the first place, but that's not the fault of the government or the current corporations.

If somehow the idea that having some system, however flawed it may be, causing the economy to produce actual goods is a good thing is incorrect, I'd be interested to see an explanation.

Damn that is a clunky sentence...

Contracts are "goods" now? What didn't you understand about "no bid contracts paid by printed money"?

[Yobaj]

Alfar, you wanted to read about that report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html
Did u miss it the first time I linked it? well, you have to notice it this time..

[alfaroverall]

Not at the rate that's done now. At the least, they didn't improve things one bit.
We really don't have numbers on how much money is printed as I recall, so this discussion is really a moot point.



For that short period of time that they've been "in power" in congress (congress hardly has any power anymore). Measure that against 8 solid proven years of unprecedented spending by neo cons, and It's a very weak argument.
Haven't they been in power 4 years? Or at least 2?

Also, lol @ congress hardly has any power anymore. The President can't write the budget. He can't write any bills. He can't reject critical bills because they contain pork he doesn't like. Those three things alone are huge powers that Congress bears almost exclusively.


This war has only boosted the economy of the rich war related companies that fuel it. It hasn't boosted the overall economy worth a shit, as that sector is a small disconnected slice of our economy. It doesn't 'trickle down'. And, yes, the money spent so far to pay for the war is between 1 and 2 trillion dollars.
I didn't say it boosted the economy in net. But the cost of a war in an economy is complex, and so saying "it costed the taxpayers $1 trillion and gave them back nothing" is a flawed statement, even though it did cost that much money overall.



The gas from Iraq isn't the factor that raised gas prices. The war has been used as one big excuse for oil companies to keeping jacking up the price. And the neo cons in the Bush Administration all have stocks in it and profit from it. That's cause and effect, step by step.
1. They would've found another excuse anyway, since this is pretty obviously a BS excuse (again, noting Exxon Mobil's record profits).
2. Why wouldn't you have stocks in oil? That doesn't mean you support them or anything. Oil's a profitable business. Anyone who has a wise portfolio would have stocks in oil, imo.Were not talking about how things might be with neo liberals, or how Obama might be...In the past 8 years the BA has been actually doing it, and doing it recklessly. Again, we have an established record, proving that neo cons did this stuff at the expense of our economy. Therefore neo cons have hurt our economy, definitely. And they will continue to do so, definitely.
OK, touché, you've got me here. I will say, though, that you are presenting a problem without a solution. Liberals won't get anything done in this department; in fact, they would probably just do more of it. It's a fundamentally dysfunctional economy that functions by pumping money in from loans. It has done so for decades, and it will continue to do so until it completely collapses and has to be replaced. I just hope that happens after I die.
Contracts are "goods" now? What didn't you understand about "no bid contracts paid by printed money"?
Wait, what? Now I'm confused about what you're talking about. I was referring to contracts to produce military items: things like guns, tanks, helicopters, etc. What are you referring to?

Also, Yobaj: that report and the sources it uses was long after the war started, assuming I read it correctly. How does that have anything to do with the CIA making a mistake in misinforming Congress and the President in 2003 and late 2002?

[Muse]

I couldn't vote for McCain even based on SUPERFICIAL aspects of his party and the way he is running his campaign, not to mention that I am diametrically opposed to the vast majority of his policies, his world views, and don't trust him as a competent president.

If the McCain of 2000 saw the McCain of 2008, he would punch him in the face. It's really sad, I keep telling myself his campaign advisors force him to do all these ridiculous things, because I want to believe he's a good person.

[Septus]

Because it keeps the economy producing something. Again, it won't sustain things in the long term because such an economy is not sustainable in the first place, but that's not the fault of the government or the current corporations.

If somehow the idea that having some system, however flawed it may be, causing the economy to produce actual goods is a good thing is incorrect, I'd be interested to see an explanation.

Damn that is a clunky sentence...

because the WAY you got them to produce more goods was by defacing the currency, stealing from everyone, and creating massive inflationary pressure.

I can't believe I have to explain this. There's a much easier way to spur production. Lower govt. spending and decrease taxes. People will immediately spend more money, AND the money will retain its value.

But then corrupt officials get less money to dole out to their buddies with no-bid contracts, and said buddies have to compete in a free market. Can't have that.

[alfaroverall]

because the WAY you got them to produce more goods was by defacing the currency, stealing from everyone, and creating massive inflationary pressure.
Wait, what? You're saying things and not explaining them at all, nor are you citing any sources that do explain them. There's a lot of elaboration needed here.

I can't believe I have to explain this. There's a much easier way to spur production. Lower govt. spending and decrease taxes. People will immediately spend more money, AND the money will retain its value.
Would they necessarily spend money here? I don't think so. I think they'd buy Chinese and Japanese products. If we had actual goods to speak of (which would be the case in a functional economy) we'd be better off, and you'd be right. But we don't. People buy things from other countries. It's a flawed system, and the system you're talking about would be better, but it would require a massive change to the fundamentals of the entire economy to get it started.
But then corrupt officials get less money to dole out to their buddies with no-bid contracts, and said buddies have to compete in a free market. Can't have that.
And the alternative is...? I just debunked your previous one. This is basically a way to sustain the unsustainable for a short time. There is no way to sustain it for a long time.

[Gloomrender]

We really don't have numbers on how much money is printed as I recall, so this discussion is really a moot point.

We can surmise that It's a whole lot though.


Haven't they been in power 4 years? Or at least 2?

Less than 1, I think. No more than 2 for sure. Either way, neo cons have been the dominant party in congress for most of the 8 years.


I didn't say it boosted the economy in net. But the cost of a war in an economy is complex, and so saying "it costed the taxpayers $1 trillion and gave them back nothing" is a flawed statement, even though it did cost that much money overall.

That isn't much of an explanation for where 1-2 trillion dollars all went. And for how this doesn't negatively affect the economy to be spending all that money. I don't see how it couldn't.


1. They would've found another excuse anyway, since this is pretty obviously a BS excuse (again, noting Exxon Mobil's record profits).

It's BS all right, but it worked. Gas prices have never raised this much in a such a short period of time.

2. Why wouldn't you have stocks in oil? That doesn't mean you support them or anything. Oil's a profitable business. Anyone who has a wise portfolio would have stocks in oil, imo.

It's not just that they have oil stocks. They invaded the country in part to raise oil prices to profit from the war, among other sectors.


OK, touché, you've got me here. I will say, though, that you are presenting a problem without a solution. Liberals won't get anything done in this department; in fact, they would probably just do more of it. It's a fundamentally dysfunctional economy that functions by pumping money in from loans. It has done so for decades, and it will continue to do so until it completely collapses and has to be replaced. I just hope that happens after I die.

Probably.

I don't know your age or your future plans...but I myself am not optimistic about the chances of it happening sooner than later. In addition to other very nasty things happening.

Wait, what? Now I'm confused about what you're talking about. I was referring to contracts to produce military items: things like guns, tanks, helicopters, etc. What are you referring to?

Nm then. Although I don't see how those items would boost the overall economy either.

[alfaroverall]

We can surmise that It's a whole lot though.
True, true, we just can't really do any analysis without numbers and a context for those numbers.
Less than 1, I think. No more than 2 for sure. Either way, neo cons have been the dominant party in congress for most of the 8 years.
It would have to be at least 2, since the last elections were in 2006.

That isn't much of an explanation for where 1-2 trillion dollars all went. And for how this doesn't negatively affect the economy to be spending all that money. I don't see how it couldn't.
That's because there's complications to it. It's not just money that just disappears from the economy. That's what I've been saying this whole time. This is the kind of stuff that we need Ph D level economists to think about, because we peons pretty much can't comprehend how these things work.




It's BS all right, but it worked. Gas prices have never raised this much in a such a short period of time.
True, true.


It's not just that they have oil stocks. They invaded the country in part to raise oil prices to profit from the war, among other sectors.
Edited because I re-read this section and saw that we were saying the same thing.


Probably.

I don't know your age or your future plans...but I myself am not optimistic about the chances of it happening sooner than later. In addition to other very nasty things happening.
You mean later than sooner? And yeah, I don't have much optimism about it either. I really hope I can get my finances in a row quickly after college so that I can decently establish myself for a subsistence lifestyle when this massive collapse comes around. Luckily I'll be inheriting 1/5 of a fairly large ~$2 million estate, so I won't have to actually buy land to use for food.



Nm then. Although I don't see how those items would boost the overall economy either.
Production of goods. You have to produce something for an economy to function properly in the long term, that's some really basic economics. Weapons are one of the few things we do produce, and not just for ourselves; we're also one of the world's leading arms dealers.

[Drunkenork]

The government is driven by China et al.; outside of the DC area, that money doesn't really get into the economy all that much.

Not to mention that Bush hasn't done any of that. This is yet another thing that Bush gets blamed for that he didn't fucking do. The president doesn't have the power to take in loans, Congress does. They then ramp up spending by forcing him not to veto certain bills (for example, they put a crucial education decision into a bill that produces a meaningless project such as the so-called Bridge to Nowhere) and completely circumvent his power. It's a fundamentally flawed system in Congress and in the economy as a whole. The President just gets fucked over by all of it. It doesn't help Bush that he's not a great President even in this environment, but he's not responsible for the vast majority of these problems. Regarding Iraq he is almost entirely, yes (neglecting the CIA's screwup about evidence) but regarding all this other stuff, fuck no.

Was being done before.

Has increased, yes, but it increased even further when the Democrats took power in Congress.

The implications of wars for an economy are very complicated. "Costing a trillion dollars" is a gross oversimplification. Note that most wars actually boost economies, not weaken them. This one may have had some detriment, but it's not $1 trillion worth.

Again, gross oversimplification. The gas market is peculiar because it defies fundamental economic principles: it is an almost completely inelastic good that is only sold by a very small number of companies who can use a wide variety of techniques to manipulate the price (for example, they can charge someone in an ideal location to sell gas more than they do for someone just down the street, forcing him to raise his prices just to make a profit and thereby making him lose money overall since his lease is higher than the guy down the street). Note that Exxon Mobil has made record profits in each of the last several quarters. That wouldn't happen if they were raising prices to adapt to a decrease in supply from the loss of Iraq as a supplier.

Has happened and would happen under a liberal government. In fact, it would probably increase. You act as if Obama is somehow proposing a balanced budget.

At least someone gets it. People always want to blame Bush for everything it is almost hilarious. The sad fact it is easier to point a finger at a president then to go to the root of the problem. It is sad so many people are swayed by party hysteria instead of acting like they have a mind of their own and researching wtf they are shooting out of their mouths, and that means left and right wingers alike.

[Gloomrender]

True, true, we just can't really do any analysis without numbers and a context for those numbers.

Ya.

It would have to be at least 2, since the last elections were in 2006.

Foggy memory. Go figure.

That's because there's complications to it. It's not just money that just disappears from the economy. That's what I've been saying this whole time. This is the kind of stuff that we need Ph D level economists to think about, because we peons pretty much can't comprehend how these things work.

Well It's going into the war...Isn't that leaving the economy?

You mean later than sooner? And yeah, I don't have much optimism about it either. I really hope I can get my finances in a row quickly after college so that I can decently establish myself for a subsistence lifestyle when this massive collapse comes around. Luckily I'll be inheriting 1/5 of a fairly large ~$2 million estate, so I won't have to actually buy land to use for food.

Farmer overall, eh.


Production of goods. You have to produce something for an economy to function properly in the long term, that's some really basic economics. Weapons are one of the few things we do produce, and not just for ourselves; we're also one of the world's leading arms dealers.

I suppose the arms dealer part of it would benefit it indeed.

[Septus]

Wait, what? You're saying things and not explaining them at all, nor are you citing any sources that do explain them. There's a lot of elaboration needed here.

There are numerous sources on basic economics. The CBO offers papers, Austrian school of economics flaunts many books on the subject (Human Action maybe/), hell even www.investopedia.com will get you started.

If you don't understand the problem with sustaining production by increasing public debt, you're not that bright.


Would they necessarily spend money here? I don't think so. I think they'd buy Chinese and Japanese products. If we had actual goods to speak of (which would be the case in a functional economy) we'd be better off, and you'd be right. But we don't. People buy things from other countries. It's a flawed system, and the system you're talking about would be better, but it would require a massive change to the fundamentals of the entire economy to get it started.

And the alternative is...? I just debunked your previous one. This is basically a way to sustain the unsustainable for a short time. There is no way to sustain it for a long time.

In the case of cars for example, buying Japanese is not a problem. Most cars sold in the US are manufactured in the United States (whether the brand is American or Japanese). The plants are all here. Just because the brand name is Toyota doesn't change that.

As for manufacturing/production, there are two solutions. You either let our corporations use slave labor like the Chinese, or you implement social tariffs, so that at least the two countries are competing on an even playing field.

As for your ridiculous notion of people "just buying foreign products," I wasn't just talking about the income tax. The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the WORLD (even including all those "socialist" countries). That is not conducive to growth in business genius.

I could go on all day, but what you're asking me to do is waste my time regurgitating info that you could (and should) look up yourself.

[alfaroverall]

Gloomrender's post and my reply:
Well It's going into the war...Isn't that leaving the economy?
Here's my understanding of it. An initial thought is that a boy breaks a window at a potter's house. The potter has to spend money to get it fixed. By paying the glazier to fix his window, he puts money into the economy and thereby brings benefit to it.

But then you notice that this is a fallacy, because he could have spent this money at any number of places; for example, he could've gotten new shoes from the cobbler.

When generalized to macroeconomics, however, you get a sort of a middle ground between the two. Some of the money could have been spent on something else, sure, but not all of it. The concept of jobs being created where they did not exist before adds in another variable which further complicates things. It's just not meant for the non-economist to try to understand, sadly.
Farmer overall, eh.
Indeed, indeed. My basic plan is to get some solar panels on that house and use those to power lights, heat water, and hopefully heat at least part of the house (it's a damn big house though, so this probably won't work; winters and summers will probably be pretty unpleasant in this situation). Then I'd plant some crops that are fairly easy to raise in the climate and soil that is there (central Virginia) and maybe raise some livestock as well (5-10 chickens is what I'm thinking of). With that, I would probably be able to keep myself and some of my family going without having to spend a dime in civilization. I'd just need civilization to keep functioning for another 8-10 years. (I'll be done with college and grad school in 5, and then I'll need a few years to get the money together for seeds, farming tools, livestock, solar panels, etc.) Hopefully it'll at least do that :bang:




I suppose the arms dealer part of it would benefit it indeed.
Quite, quite.
Septus' post and my reply:
There are numerous sources on basic economics. The CBO offers papers, Austrian school of economics flaunts many books on the subject (Human Action maybe/), hell even www.investopedia.com will get you started.
Part of the problem, I'd say, is that basic economics doesn't simulate these conditions. I've learned some basic economics just from public education. It's nowhere near enough to really discuss topics like these in depth, but it's some, and the US economy as it is doesn't even fit with what I've learned already.

You're right that I should read more, but you should at least back up what you're saying with something. I still don't understand the statement that I quoted there. That might be my fault, it might be yours, but this is a forum that isn't dedicated to economics; you shouldn't expect people to go hunting on the Internet for an explanation of what you're talking about.
If you don't understand the problem with sustaining production by increasing public debt, you're not that bright.

You have read throughout this thread that I've said this is a method of desperately sustaining the unsustainable, yes?

In the case of cars for example, buying Japanese is not a problem. Most cars sold in the US are manufactured in the United States (whether the brand is American or Japanese). The plants are all here. Just because the brand name is Toyota doesn't change that.
Does the fact that the profits are shipped back to Japan somehow have no impact? Sure, it's employing Americans, which is beneficial, but the profits don't stay here, do they?
As for manufacturing/production, there are two solutions. You either let our corporations use slave labor like the Chinese, or you implement social tariffs, so that at least the two countries are competing on an even playing field.
You can't do the former. Unions prevent you from doing the former, and the Constitution protects their rights. So you're left with tariffs, and with tariffs you get expenses on products that aren't produced in any quantity in this country. This is yet another example of how this economy is fundamentally flawed, an area where we seem to agree and yet you seem to completely gloss over it.
As for your ridiculous notion of people "just buying foreign products," I wasn't just talking about the income tax. The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the WORLD (even including all those "socialist" countries). That is not conducive to growth in business genius.
Touché, though our GDP continues to be highest, strangely enough.

[Septus]

Part of the problem, I'd say, is that basic economics doesn't simulate these conditions. I've learned some basic economics just from public education. It's nowhere near enough to really discuss topics like these in depth, but it's some, and the US economy as it is doesn't even fit with what I've learned already.

Human Action isn't "basic economics," maybe I shouldn't have lumped it in with www.investopedia.com

It's definitely worth your time. And yes, a highschool economics teaches you jack shit; what did they teach you? Utility, diminishing returns, blah blah. You learned terminology.


You're right that I should read more, but you should at least back up what you're saying with something. I still don't understand the statement that I quoted there. That might be my fault, it might be yours, but this is a forum that isn't dedicated to economics; you shouldn't expect people to go hunting on the Internet for an explanation of what you're talking about.

You have read throughout this thread that I've said this is a method of desperately sustaining the unsustainable, yes?

This isn't sustaining the unsustainable. It's what's *making* it unsustainable. We're using credit cards to fund wars and bullshit projects that no one sees any benefit from. The debt is maintained by our GDP (what we *actually* produce, see: debt/GDP ratio), along with us pushing our currency on the world (propping up its value). A major reason for the world's cooperation is the fact that we made up 20% of the world's consumption (ie. if you fuck with our economy, you erase 20% of the world's demand and everyone's fucked).

There's something else we do to sustain production. We *LEND* money through the federal reserve, which is then paid back later by the lendees (investment banks, etc), as opposed to being a debt thrust upon the american tax payers.

So please, like I said, read the fuck up.


Does the fact that the profits are shipped back to Japan somehow have no impact? Sure, it's employing Americans, which is beneficial, but the profits don't stay here, do they?

Profits are "shipped" to share holders you nutty bastard. Anyone can own shares in Toyota. That the CEO lives in Japan is irrelevant.


You can't do the former. Unions prevent you from doing the former, and the Constitution protects their rights. So you're left with tariffs, and with tariffs you get expenses on products that aren't produced in any quantity in this country. This is yet another example of how this economy is fundamentally flawed, an area where we seem to agree and yet you seem to completely gloss over it.

Then why do we have a minimum wage? It is an artificial price floor. Were there no min. wage, then it might be in a corporations best interest to fire union workers and take the temporary hit while getting much cheaper labor.

Instead, we pay our employees far above "world average," add in many benefits, etc, to the point where we simply can't compete. The point of the tariff is to level the playing field. You don't just go "surprise bitches, there's a tariff, WEEEEEEE" You initiate it slowly: declare the intended policy, vote for an effective date, etc, so that China & US business have a chance to react.


Touché, though our GDP continues to be highest, strangely enough.[/spoiler]

Of course; we still have GREAT companies in America, no question. Walmart, Dell, Hp, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Starbucks, McDonalds, etc etc. And the American populace is still the most productive world wide.

The issue is price performance: it's hard to justify paying Americans when you can open a plant in Mexico and get workers who are 70% as productive for 30% of the price.

This globalist agenda is bullshit; it's just stealing from everyone except those in power.

[lastpatagonian]

when everyone goes to vote , you should all write my name in, once elected i will get rid of everyone in the government and replace them with DF forum peeps.

[Gloomrender]

You'll need a source of water, like a well or something.

A gun or two with ammunition wouldn't be a bad idea either, for animals, or in emergencies, certain kinds of people.

What else...some way to get rid of human waste that doesn't depend on running water. And lots of supplies of anything that is produced in society that you would need/want and wouldn't be able to get. Paper, electronic stuff, etc.

[alfaroverall]

You'll need a source of water, like a well or something.
The plumbing at the house actually comes from a well. I'm not sure if I can get at the well without functional plumbing, though.

A gun or two with ammunition wouldn't be a bad idea either, for animals, or in emergencies, certain kinds of people.
True, true...luckily this state has reasonably lax gun laws, so it shouldn't be too hard for me to get a couple guns.

What else...some way to get rid of human waste that doesn't depend on running water.
I suppose I could just go in the forest? If I only had a handful of people (most likely it would be me, my parents, my two sisters, and their two children in the end, though I suppose I couldn't keep the remainder of my dad's family from coming, since they will inherit the remaining 4/5 of the estate between them), it would be doable. It would suck, but it would be doable.
And lots of supplies of anything that is produced in society that you would need/want and wouldn't be able to get. Paper, electronic stuff, etc.
Indeed. My financial estimate is that I can make $90,000 a year after grad school and then get by on $50,000 a year for the time after that. If I spend 3 years like that, I can save $120,000, which should be enough to buy solar panels panels, seeds, and huge amounts of random stuff that I'll eventually need (in addition to paying the significant property taxes that I'll incur as long as government remains in existence).

[deja TBH]

lolforumfalleconomicexperts

[Zuku]

Yet another BS "Bush is at fault for every problem we're having now" argument. Bush can be thought of as mostly at fault for Iraq, and the comparatively small economic impact that that has had. (For those who disagree, note that this economic downturn didn't start in, for example, 2006, even though the war had been going on for years at that time as well).

Other than that, there is rather little that you can actually blame Bush for. This economic strain is not the result of his actions, and it's really not the result of Congress' actions either (although their exorbitant overspending is part of it). I'd say what's at the heart of it all is a fundamentally dysfunctional economy that produces no goods. We've been told for 50+ years that this economy couldn't function, by all the economists who studied this economy. Hell, even Adam Smith's theories indicate that this economy can't be sustained. How it held as long as it did is anyone's guess, but it's sure as hell not going to hold now.

I don't like Bush. I don't like McCain. I don't even like Barr. But I fucking hate Obama, and this is just one of many reasons why.

If you're talking about the present mortgage meltdown and it's rippling effects through the financial markets, it's directly attributable to de-regulation.

[Carl Ragadamn]

If you're talking about the present mortgage meltdown and it's rippling effects through the financial markets, it's directly attributable to de-regulation.

If you call strong arming the banks into writing loans for people who couldnt afford them, deregulation.

Look there were problems all over the system, but without the massive losses in the mortgage world, nothing would have fallen apart. Over regulation is a bad fix.

All we can really hope is that the taxpayer funded organization that swallows up the debt can turn a profit in the end like the S&L corp. did.

[Delthayre]

If you're talking about the present mortgage meltdown and it's rippling effects through the financial markets, it's directly attributable to de-regulation.

I have seen that alleged very often, but seldom explained, as if merely invoking the sacred name, "regulation," were sufficient, so, pray enlighten me.

[Septus]

If you're talking about the present mortgage meltdown and it's rippling effects through the financial markets, it's directly attributable to de-regulation.

Well, de-regulation... or just a completely inept SEC that was asleep at the wheel. No enforcement of anything (naked shorting for one), etc...

And most importantly, a failure to keep an eye on the trade of mortgage promissory notes (liquid assets my ass).

[Lycurgus-BoD]

If you're talking about the present mortgage meltdown and it's rippling effects through the financial markets, it's directly attributable to de-regulation.

The answer is clearly more government and more government control! How could we have missed it! This method has worked great for countries like Russia and North Korea! I even heard that China allowed some people to have another child after they lost the one they had in that disaster.

Stalin for President, I mean...Obama for President!

[Septus]

All we can really hope is that the taxpayer funded organization that swallows up the debt can turn a profit in the end like the S&L corp. did.

I agree. But I think we can be sure these assets are all exceedingly undervalued (ie. the govt. won't eat the loss).

More important is to address how to avoid this kind of bullshit in the future. Auction rate securities, enforcement of SEC regulations, capital requirements, etc.

Edit: Delthayre, Lycurgus, if you knew anything about what was going on, you'd know the difference between socialism (govt. ownership & distribution) and regulation (ie. law enforcement).

[Zuku]

Meh, since this thread's been pretty much totally de-railed, I'll just put up some numbers having to do with the fruits of de-regulation in the form of credit default swaps:

The value of the entire U.S. Treasuries market: $4.5 trillion.
The value of the entire mortgage market: $7 trillion.
The size of the U.S. stock market: $22 trillion.
Latest estimate on the size of the credit default swap market: $60-$70 trillion.
GDP of the entire world: $65 trillion.

Credit default swaps, which are entirely unregulated, are just the insurance policies of the subprime lending market.

[Lycurgus-BoD]

I agree. But I think we can be sure these assets are all exceedingly undervalued (ie. the govt. won't eat the loss).

More important is to address how to avoid this kind of bullshit in the future. Auction rate securities, enforcement of SEC regulations, capital requirements, etc.

First step...getting someone into the SEC that knows what to do and actually does what they are supposed to do.

[Zuku]

If you call strong arming the banks into writing loans for people who couldnt afford them, deregulation.

Look there were problems all over the system, but without the massive losses in the mortgage world, nothing would have fallen apart. Over regulation is a bad fix.

All we can really hope is that the taxpayer funded organization that swallows up the debt can turn a profit in the end like the S&L corp. did.

This is a conservative meme. Even assuming you are right, this doesn't explain how bad mortgage spilled over into lending banks, investment firms, and insurance companies.

[Lycurgus-BoD]

Meh, since this thread's been pretty much totally de-railed, I'll just put up some numbers having to do with the fruits of de-regulation in the form of credit default swaps:

The value of the entire U.S. Treasuries market: $4.5 trillion.
The value of the entire mortgage market: $7 trillion.
The size of the U.S. stock market: $22 trillion.
Latest estimate on the size of the credit default swap market: $60-$70 trillion.
GDP of the entire world: $65 trillion.

Credit default swaps, which are entirely unregulated, are just the insurance policies of the subprime lending market.

So what do you propose that would not hinder market growth? The current regulations would work if someone enforced the current rules. Its like saying the economy will grow by cutting taxes and then tax the people who are the economy.

Edit- Fixed my last paragraph...the lack of sleep isn't doing me any favors!

[Zuku]

I have seen that alleged very often, but seldom explained, as if merely invoking the sacred name, "regulation," were sufficient, so, pray enlighten me.


Well, de-regulation... or just a completely inept SEC that was asleep at the wheel. No enforcement of anything (naked shorting for one), etc...

And most importantly, a failure to keep an eye on the trade of mortgage promissory notes (liquid assets my ass).

The answer is clearly more government and more government control! How could we have missed it! This method has worked great for countries like Russia and North Korea! I even heard that China allowed some people to have another child after they lost the one they had in that disaster.

Stalin for President, I mean...Obama for President!

I am refering to specific laws designed to deregulate the markets. I was going to do this in a thread tomorrow with several articles on both sides of the issue but here is a link which does as good a job as summarizing what I'm talking about as I've found:
http://devilstower.dailykos.com/

Yea, it's from DailyKos but it's a good summary. I'll do a thread tommorow summarizing the arguments from both sides.

[Lycurgus-BoD]

I'll be bored tommorrow, so I look forward to the thread.


Watch me end up being busy....

[Zuku]

So what do you propose that would not hinder market growth? The current regulations would work if someone enforced the current rules. Its like saying the economy will grow by cutting taxes and then tax the people who are the economy.

Edit- Fixed my last paragraph...the lack of sleep isn't doing me any favors!

Maybe you need to look at those numbers and think what they mean. The amount of money for which subprime mortagages are insured for is greater than the entire GDP of every country in the world combined.

[Lycurgus-BoD]

Maybe you need to look at those numbers and think what they mean. The amount of money for which subprime mortagages are insured for is greater than the entire GDP of every country in the world combined.

I understand that the numbers are bad. I do not argue that the companies involved are total jackoffs for screwing us all over. I do argue however, that more regulation is not the answer. I am of the belief that we let all these bastards fail. This does include the dumbasses who bought houses they couldn't afford in the first place.

For example, the house I own now is worth over 70k. I live in the south, outside of Florida, so the market is normal. I can pick my house up, move it to Cali, Florida, or New York and magically its work over 150k. Now that is a problem. The companies aren't the only ones to blame though. The dumbasses who buy these houses for outrageous prices and for more than they can afford are also to blame. Now, these same douchebags on both sides, want us to bail their stupid asses out.

Regulation isn't the answer...letting em burn is.

[Carl Ragadamn]

This is a conservative meme. Even assuming you are right, this doesn't explain how bad mortgage spilled over into lending banks, investment firms, and insurance companies.

Lehman bros exposure to the sub prime market was to the tune of 8+ billion dollars. That is alot to write down. The buck was being spread around until the whole house of cards started to collapse. We are left in a bind created by congress forcing subprime loan practices on everyone. Mix in some corruption and the worlds banking system is hurting hard.

Instead of postulating on political sides try putting on your critical thinking cap.

Regulation isn't the answer...letting em burn is.

the problem is there would be so much burning that the entire world banking system would tank. A total default by the big players in the states would spark the same problem in europe, and once both are shaken all the major consumers in the world are out of the game.

[Septus]

I understand that the numbers are bad. I do not argue that the companies involved are total jackoffs for screwing us all over. I do argue however, that more regulation is not the answer. I am of the belief that we let all these bastards fail. This does include the dumbasses who bought houses they couldn't afford in the first place.

For example, the house I own now is worth over 70k. I live in the south, outside of Florida, so the market is normal. I can pick my house up, move it to Cali, Florida, or New York and magically its work over 150k. Now that is a problem. The companies aren't the only ones to blame though. The dumbasses who buy these houses for outrageous prices and for more than they can afford are also to blame. Now, these same douchebags on both sides, want us to bail their stupid asses out.

Regulation isn't the answer...letting em burn is.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I seem to say that a lot here, but you fuckers keep besting yourselves.

[Septus]

Lehman bros exposure to the sub prime market was to the tune of 8+ billion dollars. That is alot to write down. The buck was being spread around until the whole house of cards started to collapse. We are left in a bind created by congress forcing subprime loan practices on everyone. Mix in some corruption and the worlds banking system is hurting hard.

While forcing large institutions to lend to the less credit-worthy was a mistake, it pales in comparison to many other problems.

1. repackaging of risky loans (securitization)

2. not accounting for risk (this goes far beyond sub-prime), over-leveraged balance sheets.

3. *deregulation* (repeal of Glass-Steagall Act specifically) opened the door for a lot of nasty practices (CDO's, mortgage securitization, SIV's, etc). This was probably the biggest problem by far.

So yes, forcing corporations to take on extra risk was wrong; but it could have been accounted for. What the banks basically did was do what they were obligated to do (give out loans), while not factoring those bad loans into the rest of their investments/liabilities.

And if you look at the issues I laid out, you'll understand what actually happpened; Many banks that were not forced by govt. to give out loans to non-worthy applicants still did... Because when the first few banks started making huge sums of cash, everyone wanted to follow suit. Plus, I'm not sure you understand the govt's role in the "subprime regulation."

[Titus Ultor]

lol? I'd like to see this report. The media in the U.S., which has always been highly biased against this whole thing, has always said that the CIA gave Congress and Bush evidence that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that the evidence turned out to be wrong.


LMFAO. LMFAO. You really think the media was biased against Iraq? They were fucking exciting the whole time to cover a war. It's probably been the best thing for business since 9/11 itself, and now on top of that it's got scandal written all over it.

The media loves Iraq, don't ever doubt that.

[Lycurgus-BoD]

While forcing large institutions to lend to the less credit-worthy was a mistake, it pales in comparison to many other problems.

1. repackaging of risky loans (securitization)

2. not accounting for risk (this goes far beyond sub-prime), over-leveraged balance sheets.

3. *deregulation* (repeal of Glass-Steagall Act specifically) opened the door for a lot of nasty practices (CDO's, mortgage securitization, SIV's, etc). This was probably the biggest problem by far.

So yes, forcing corporations to take on extra risk was wrong; but it could have been accounted for. What the banks basically did was do what they were obligated to do (give out loans), while not factoring those bad loans into the rest of their investments/liabilities.

And if you look at the issues I laid out, you'll understand what actually happpened; Many banks that were not forced by govt. to give out loans to non-worthy applicants still did... Because when the first few banks started making huge sums of cash, everyone wanted to follow suit. Plus, I'm not sure you understand the govt's role in the "subprime regulation."

And apparently you don't understand this "role" you speak of either. It is pointless explaining things to mindless clones who only argue a point based off of what they hear on TV. Would you like me to quote some things from Fox News and pretend that it means something? How about CNN or MSNBC?

You amuse me. Please continue being so "smart" and explain the "problems" with our banking industry. While you are at it, why don't you give us the answers all mighty one. We all know that big execs troll these forums, and only you know the answer.

And no...a community college degree doesn't qualify you as an "expert."

[Lycurgus-BoD]

LMFAO. LMFAO. You really think the media was biased against Iraq? They were fucking exciting the whole time to cover a war. It's probably been the best thing for business since 9/11 itself, and now on top of that it's got scandal written all over it.

The media loves Iraq, don't ever doubt that.

The media loves anything that has a negative spin to it.

[alfaroverall]

LMFAO. LMFAO. You really think the media was biased against Iraq? They were fucking exciting the whole time to cover a war. It's probably been the best thing for business since 9/11 itself, and now on top of that it's got scandal written all over it.

The media loves Iraq, don't ever doubt that.
Financially, yes, but their stance was always oppositional. The media is one of the few venues that directly profits from that which it hates.

[Nafelos]

Ocarter '08! VOTE IRISH!

[Mazer]

Financially, yes, but their stance was always oppositional. The media is one of the few venues that directly profits from that which it hates.

You can't group the entire media. Saying a station like Fox had an oppositional stance on the war is an outright lie.

[Dolmar]

Obama is Bush cuz in fact ? who would be more like him ?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/familytree/545460,BSX-News-wotreea09.article

[Ziegler]

the problem is there would be so much burning that the entire world banking system would tank. A total default by the big players in the states would spark the same problem in europe, and once both are shaken all the major consumers in the world are out of the game.

I still dont see the down side to this.

All the rich bankers in the world go broke for being too greedy and making stupid business decisions. That's called life, if I make a bad decision, the govt aint gonna do shit for me, especially since I am a white middle aged male. But the govt has to bail these fuckers out, because why? other rich people in other parts of the world might suffer as well? BS.

Just because deregulation was allowed, didnt force the banks to do these things...greed pure and simple greed did. But please...show me where the govt forces banks to make bad loans, I'd be interested in seeing that one.

Now here's my other question....if the rest of the world banks would fail if the US banks do....why the fuck is it that the american taxpayer is the only one having to foot the bill on this?

It's supposed to be ....a govt of the people by the people for the people....not a govt of the people by the corporations for the corporations.

Let the whole god damned world economy fail completely, total anarchy reign, and perhaps we can put the pieces back together as a civilized society.

[alfaroverall]

I still dont see the down side to this.

All the rich bankers in the world go broke for being too greedy and making stupid business decisions. That's called life, if I make a bad decision, the govt aint gonna do shit for me, especially since I am a white middle aged male. But the govt has to bail these fuckers out, because why? other rich people in other parts of the world might suffer as well? BS.

Just because deregulation was allowed, didnt force the banks to do these things...greed pure and simple greed did. But please...show me where the govt forces banks to make bad loans, I'd be interested in seeing that one.

Now here's my other question....if the rest of the world banks would fail if the US banks do....why the fuck is it that the american taxpayer is the only one having to foot the bill on this?

It's supposed to be ....a govt of the people by the people for the people....not a govt of the people by the corporations for the corporations.

Let the whole god damned world economy fail completely, total anarchy reign, and perhaps we can put the pieces back together as a civilized society.
This whole separation of "the eevul corporations" and "the common working man" is a BS facade created by the media. These companies drive the entire economy. If the financial services industry collapsed, the entire economy of this country would as well, and in fact most likely the rest of the world's economy would collapse to boot, just because we drive so much of the world economy.

Now, if you advocate the complete collapse of civilization, then I can't really argue with you. That's a firm, well-founded stance that, although radical, doesn't really have any fundamental holes in it. I can respect that opinion. I can't respect this whole "why the hell am I paying to keep the rich afloat?" opinion that a lot of people seem to be holding right now, because it's bullshit.

[Ziegler]

This whole separation of "the eevul corporations" and "the common working man" is a BS facade created by the media. These companies drive the entire economy. If the financial services industry collapsed, the entire economy of this country would as well, and in fact most likely the rest of the world's economy would collapse to boot, just because we drive so much of the world economy.

it's not a seperation of the eveil corps and the common man....it's the fact that the govt wouldnt come bail me out if I was in trouble. and I am the people, a large multinational corporation is NOT the people, so it is not the responsibility of the government to bail them out from poor business decisions. Yet, we have to almost the tune of a trillion dollars.

Now, if you advocate the complete collapse of civilization, then I can't really argue with you. That's a firm, well-founded stance that, although radical, doesn't really have any fundamental holes in it. I can respect that opinion. I can't respect this whole "why the hell am I paying to keep the rich afloat?" opinion that a lot of people seem to be holding right now, because it's bullshit.

Well, that is what we are doing though. We, the people, are giving massive amounts of money to keep afloat businesses, that; if smaller and made the same mistakes, would be allowed to fail and considered the standard order of things. But instead...the people are propping up these businesses instead. Banks make money, lots of money..and now all of a sudden, because they let their greed get the better of them, we are expected to keep them afloat, because somehow, I am supposed to believe, that if they fail, there wont be a shitload of other rich MF'ers out there willing to step in and take their place?

[Septus]

And apparently you don't understand this "role" you speak of either. It is pointless explaining things to mindless clones who only argue a point based off of what they hear on TV. Would you like me to quote some things from Fox News and pretend that it means something? How about CNN or MSNBC?

You amuse me. Please continue being so "smart" and explain the "problems" with our banking industry. While you are at it, why don't you give us the answers all mighty one. We all know that big execs troll these forums, and only you know the answer.

And no...a community college degree doesn't qualify you as an "expert."

None of what I mentioned is on TV. I'm by no means an "expert." But this is stuff INVESTORS should know. An EXPERT would know many more details than me (ie. case studies, past arguments, etc).

And I don't have to be an expert to explain basics like this to people here; because you obviously don't have the first clue as to how financials work. I bring up several very important issues and your response is "lol whatever smartypants."

[Septus]

Well, that is what we are doing though. We, the people, are giving massive amounts of money to keep afloat businesses, that; if smaller and made the same mistakes, would be allowed to fail and considered the standard order of things.

I have to agree that our system is unfair. I think the inherent problem is that the Federal Reserve lends money, but the common man is forced to interact through a proxy (member banks, etc).

As for what the Fed is currently doing, *most* of the money is a line of credit (ie. it's going to be paid back). This is not the same as Congress overspending and adding debt onto tax payers.

Freddie & Fannie were special cases; they have a history of having special government backing (which I completely oppose(d)). I would find it laughable for you to bitch & moan now though, when intervention was almost NECESSARY (unless you want tens/hundreds of millions homeless), instead of back when it would have actually changed things.

[Donny]

McCain 08
hai

[Incanam]

God Damn it, my history teacher is right. Neither candidate is supporting themselves, all they're doing is attacking the other. Americans are stupid.

[Ziegler]

As for what the Fed is currently doing, *most* of the money is a line of credit (ie. it's going to be paid back). This is not the same as Congress overspending and adding debt onto tax payers.
This is assuming that someone who just bankrupted their company is somehow going to be faithful in paying it back? If they couldnt be responsible with their own money, how am I to believe they will be responsible with mine?

Freddie & Fannie were special cases; they have a history of having special government backing (which I completely oppose(d)). I would find it laughable for you to bitch & moan now though, when intervention was almost NECESSARY (unless you want tens/hundreds of millions homeless), instead of back when it would have actually changed things.

I have no problems with people losing the houses they couldnt afford to begin with and the extra plus to that is that some of the fucking illegals will vamoose back across the boarder where they belong. Of course, when you say homeless, I am assuming you are trying to play on sympathy and make me think that they wouldnt be able to move into an apartment or rent another place to stay. Sorry....aint falling for that....they lose their house, and move into an apartment or rent another house. Been that way for years and years. The idea behind F&F was to give low interest loans to people who couldnt qualify for them by means of credit. A laudable goal. (although I understand why, it is still counter intuitive to me to charge the highest interest rate to the least capable of paying)

[Delthayre]

God Damn it, my history teacher is right. Neither candidate is supporting themselves, all they're doing is attacking the other. Americans are stupid.

No, Americans are people, democracy is stupid.

[Zithin]

Lol, Woo! go John Mccain!(Jokingly)