It's official, Bush is an Idiot
- Thread starter TheBrutalTruth
- Start date
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Not really...
:: shrugs :: What's really surprising is the fact that we are either going to get stuck with Obama or McCain, both of which have shown that they are not really interested with what is best for the United States, but what is best for their financial backers on Wall St.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
You obviously didn't read the article, or are a socialist.
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
Well, there are probably around 20-50 million brand new socialists in the country now -- all the people with retirement accounts, who'd lose everything and end up homeless and starving on the streets in their old age if we didn't throw our financial markets a socialistic lifeline. They've already lost so much that some of them ending up penniless and homeless is inevitable. But a little emergency socialism, a la the New Deal, can probably save quite a few million people from that fate. The free market solution would be to say, oh well, we had some crooks in the financial industry, and we'll fix that, but you tens of millions of people who lost your life's savings because of this, well, sucks to be you.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Bongulator, you sir, need to go and study your history a lot more. The new deal did not end the depression, it extended it. All those useless government programs just interfered with the markets.
Just like this "emergency" socialism has directly caused the crash, or have you been ignoring what the markets have been doing since the worthless bail out has been passed?
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
Actually, I was listening to the financial people saying that without this bailout, the crash would have been much, much worse than it was. And the New Deal put millions of jobless people to work, and thereby fed them and their families. We can't know if it extended the Depression or not without a time machine, but would you rather be poor for twelve years, but have enough food to eat, or would you rather have no food or job at all for half that time?
My grandpa endured the Depression, and he told me, without that government intervention, he would have died, which means that my father would not have been born, which means that me and my four siblings would not have been born, which means that their seven or eight kids, and *their* kids would never have been born. The New Deal saved a lot of lives. A whole lot. If it extended the stock market decline and caused a few more fat cats to take a concrete dive, well, that's better than looking away as millions of normal folks die.
My grandpa endured the Depression, and he told me, without that government intervention, he would have died, which means that my father would not have been born, which means that me and my four siblings would not have been born, which means that their seven or eight kids, and *their* kids would never have been born. The New Deal saved a lot of lives. A whole lot. If it extended the stock market decline and caused a few more fat cats to take a concrete dive, well, that's better than looking away as millions of normal folks die.
ViRedd
New Member
Government intervention under the direction of FDR deepened a recession into a depression and extended it way beyond what was necessary. Its fact ... there were more unemployed at the start of FDR's third term than what there were at the start of his first term.
Another thought ... when government "puts people to work," they are paid from funds taken from private capital. What seems at best to be a wash, isn't, because government bureaucrats extract their brokerage fee from the proceeds.
Vi
Another thought ... when government "puts people to work," they are paid from funds taken from private capital. What seems at best to be a wash, isn't, because government bureaucrats extract their brokerage fee from the proceeds.
Vi
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Yes, and I'm sure you also believe everything you read Bongulator.
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
Well, financially, yeah, it's a wash. It's basically the emergency redistribution of wealth to prevent mass starvation.
But practically speaking, those job corps programs did some good stuff, things that endure to this day. Dams, roads, bathrooms on public parks, rural post offices, that kind of stuff, mainly construction-type work creating useful infrastructure-type things that have lasting value. So, it was kind of a long-term investment and in that way, not really a wash.
I guarantee, if we see unemployment hit 25% again, we'll have some more government jobs programs. The alternative would be...what? Just let the free market starve a quarter of our population out of existence. That's...inhumane. I just hope if it happens, that we use the workers for some needed stuff -- repair bridges and roads, upgrade our electrical grid, build some wind turbines and take at least all government buildings off the grid, whatever. It won't just be money down the drain. You have to think long-term.
But practically speaking, those job corps programs did some good stuff, things that endure to this day. Dams, roads, bathrooms on public parks, rural post offices, that kind of stuff, mainly construction-type work creating useful infrastructure-type things that have lasting value. So, it was kind of a long-term investment and in that way, not really a wash.
I guarantee, if we see unemployment hit 25% again, we'll have some more government jobs programs. The alternative would be...what? Just let the free market starve a quarter of our population out of existence. That's...inhumane. I just hope if it happens, that we use the workers for some needed stuff -- repair bridges and roads, upgrade our electrical grid, build some wind turbines and take at least all government buildings off the grid, whatever. It won't just be money down the drain. You have to think long-term.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Yes, and next you're going to be saying that by jacking tax rates up to 91% that the government was doing the right thing.
You're also neglecting the fact that building a bunch of wind turbines would be pointless busy work. Why bother building something to replace something else, that is more efficient, more reliable, and more cost-effective?
The International power Bankers have caused all this turmoil, poverty and war. This is not a surprise this Rescue Plan (bailout) went through nor will it be a surprise when none of this helps we the people.
Government only acts as though it is serving the people when in reality the People are serving the Government
Government only acts as though it is serving the people when in reality the People are serving the Government
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
What's more cost-effective? Nuclear plants? Well, okay, put workers to work building 500 of them. From the energy-use curves projecting into the future, 500 large nuclear plants would provide this country with enough energy until at least 2050. We might not need that many though, because the curves were based on us having a vibrant and growing economy throughout that period, and that's obviously not going to be the case.
But that's nit-picky anyway. Obviously, if we employ 5 million people or more in jobs programs, we can think of useful things for them to create that will strengthen our country long-term, and that will have lasting value. There are more than 800 bridges in need of repair in my state alone.
But that's nit-picky anyway. Obviously, if we employ 5 million people or more in jobs programs, we can think of useful things for them to create that will strengthen our country long-term, and that will have lasting value. There are more than 800 bridges in need of repair in my state alone.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Why not abolish welfare and create a jobs program to repair the infrastructure? Better yet, leave welfare alone, but require the recipients to join work crews to repair the infrastructure, how's that for simple solution?
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Just thought of something even better, require the government employees to repair...
nevermind, that's not a better idea, everyone knows that government employees are retarded.
nevermind, that's not a better idea, everyone knows that government employees are retarded.
ViRedd
New Member
Or better yet, why not abolish the capital gains tax and let private sector capital flood the system and pay for NEEDED uses and to create jobs? And while were on the subject, why not reduce the corporate income tax rates so we are competitive with our foreign trade partners? Seems to me, the more government gets out of the way, the better the economy will be.
Vi
Vi
CannaPanda
Well-Known Member
Last Sentence Quoted for Truth
If The Democrats were smart.. they should have bartered (synonym needed
) with them to remove an equal (money) amount of troops out of Iraq, since theyre so fixated on ending a 'war that shouldnt have been waged'... but then again.. i think just before the election were gonna have a reason to keep all our troops just where they are...
if not, then theyll bring them home (to 'watch over' us)
I Hope I Am Wrong
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
I can assure that you are wrong CannaPanda.Last Sentence Quoted for Truth
If The Democrats were smart.. they should have bartered (synonym needed
but then again.. i think just before the election were gonna have a reason to keep all our troops just where they are...
if not, then theyll bring them home (to 'watch over' us)
I Hope I Am Wrong
Any attempt to interfere with the seemless "transition" of power from "one party to another" would be met with rebellion, resistance and great amounts of civil disturbance.
Besides, it's not a real transfer of power, the bankers are still in charge,
