Obama on Fiscal Responsibility

[Guest Jules]

In case anyone was wondering, the economy officially fucking sucks.

[Good Old Neon]

In case anyone was wondering, the economy officially fucking sucks.

 

That probably is the most accurate economic indicator at the moment.

 

What happens when we fall below

[bleedorange]

That probably is the most accurate economic indicator at the moment.

 

What happens when we fall below

[dondoboy]

There's a big part of me that still feels like everything is going to work out just fine. It seems as though when misery strikes everyone jumps off the cliff. "Oh Lord we're all going to work for Uncle Sam and he's going to take everything!" Or the opposite "Get up all the canned goods and bullets we're heading for the hills." In the end today doesn't feel all that different then this time last year. Except I got laid off. But even that doesn't seem like a disaster. It seems like the proper business decision. As much as its bad, the country is in better shape, structurally than 1929. It also seems ridiculous to try and pin it on any political party.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Worse. Government dependency.

I know this is a joke (sorta), but this is what I was referring to (sorta) in my earlier post in this thread.

 

The problem is people are downright dogmatic about the political and economic philosophies they subscribe to. It is like the worst of the worst Yankees fan vs. the worst of the worst Red Sox fan. Rush is one of the worst offenders and worse yet he rallies people to act the same way (damn, that's a lot of worse and worsts). Not to say there aren't offenders on the left as well. Shouldn't we all want what works? If that is nationalized banks then so be it. I am generally pretty fiscally conservative, sot he notion rankles me a bit. But I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand because it might mean MY philosophies aren't the right ones. Who knows what the one true philosophy is... except Unitarian. If that's the one true religion I'll eat my hat.

 

I, if life existed in a vacuum, would probably be Libertarian. Such as life is -- i.e., not in a vacuum -- I probably most closely align my political beliefs with Lincoln. It sucks to simplify something to such a degree (this is the Internet) but I find a particularly salient idea of Lincoln's to be (probably paraphrased), "that government should do for people only what they cannot do for themselves." The problem is that as our country grows, so too does the list of things that the people cannot do for themselves. Hell, even the Una-Bomber used government maintained roads to get to the government run Post Office to send his packages through the government-run postal service. My point is government dependency is a fact of life. The question we must ask ourselves is to what degree can we do things ourselves. I, personally, found the financial institution bailout, while distasteful to me, necessary as no other institution could come to its rescue and it was simply NEEDED for credit (which we have become all-too-dependent-on) to continue to flow. Anyway, I will say once again that we need to throw away our dogmatic views and look at what works and what is needed. Are there going to be issues? Of course, people will abuse the system -- they always do -- but we must ask ourselves if that distastefulness is enough to cause us to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

Anyway, I probably shouldn't post to political threads after a DIPA.

[Tweedling]

Am I overreacting if I asked my wife today to strategically buy bottled water and canned food over the next few months as we watch the stock market stimulate?

[Sir Stewart]

Am I overreacting if I asked my wife today to strategically buy bottled water and canned food over the next few months as we watch the stock market stimulate?

 

I don't know, but you're definitely being over-annoying by consistently posting negative stuff that offers no insight or information.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

That is exactly right. His brand of "conservatism" flourishes when its adherents feel persecuted, kind of like Islamic extremism and National Socialism.

 

 

CLOSE THE THREAD...VIOLATION OF GODWIN'S LAW

 

 

[bjorn_skurj]

Breaking the law, breaking the law!

[Moe_Syzlak]

I am beginning to take it personally that the joke posts always seem to follow my posts. I guess at least I can take solace in lightening the mood and bringing people together in comedy.

[mountain bed]

I am beginning to take it personally that the joke posts always seem to follow my posts. I guess at least I can take solace in lightening the mood and bringing people together in comedy.

It's alright, Moe.

 

I think the fact of the matter is that no one knows wtf is gonna happen. Seriously. And no one knows for sure what to do. All I can say for sure is this : if the whole shithouse goes up in flames I'm still gonna get my kicks until that time. Peace.

[Guest Jules]

That probably is the most accurate economic indicator at the moment.

 

What happens when we fall below

[EL the Famous]

If we took all the collective brain power wasted on labelling the situation (are we in a recession yet? yet? now? yes! depression? etc.), and instead focused it on fixing the problem, I think we'd be much closer to a solution.

 

A-fu**ing-men. i feel like we're in some sort of media/analyst-induced downward spiral that is making things even worse than they actually are. yes, they're really bad...but for the love of god, stop w/ the flailing about.

[Good Old Neon]

One thing that always sort of confuses me w/r/t conservatives, is how they are usually fairly strict law and order types who tend to believe that humans require laws to ensure that they behave themselves, but then quite conversely, for some reason also tend to believe in deregulation, as if business is some other entity not subject to the same sort of selfish, socially destructive (for the rest of us) whims that often lead the individual to behave vilely where no laws, i.e. regulations, exist.

 

Why is that? If, on the individual level, humans are selfish and cannot be trusted to do the right thing outside of laws that enforce positive behavior, why do they tend to believe that if you throw a bunch of humans together under a corporate umbrella, in direct competition with other groups of humans who themselves fall under a differently named umbrella, without strong government regulation (laws) to limit their potential destructive power, that they will, quite miraculously, just sort of behave themselves, spontaneously?

[mountain bed]

One thing that always sort of confuses me w/r/t conservatives, is how they are usually fairly strict law and order types who tend to believe that humans require laws to ensure that they behave themselves, but then quite conversely, for some reason also tend to believe in deregulation, as if business is some other entity not subject to the sort of selfish, socially destructive (for the rest of us) whims that often lead the individual to behave vilely where no laws, i.e. regulations, exist.

 

Why is that? If, on the individual level, humans are selfish and cannot be trusted to do the right thing outside of laws that enforce positive behavior, why do they tend to believe that if you throw a bunch of humans together under a corporate umbrella, in direct competition with other groups of humans who themselves fall under a differently named umbrella, without strong government regulation (laws) to limit their potential destructive power, that they will, quite miraculously, just sort of behave themselves, spontaneously?

Quoted for awesomeness.

[bjorn_skurj]

One thing that always sort of confuses me w/r/t conservatives, is how they are usually fairly strict law and order types who tend to believe that humans require laws to ensure that they behave themselves, but then quite conversely, for some reason also tend to believe in deregulation, as if business is some other entity not subject to the sort of selfish, socially destructive (for the rest of us) whims that often lead the individual to behave vilely where no laws, i.e. regulations, exist.

 

Why is that? If, on the individual level, humans are selfish and cannot be trusted to do the right thing outside of laws that enforce positive behavior, why do they tend to believe that if you throw a bunch of humans together under a corporate umbrella, in direct competition with other groups of humans who themselves fall under a differently named umbrella, without strong government regulation (laws) to limit their potential destructive power, that they will, quite miraculously, just sort of behave themselves, spontaneously?

Werd. I think it might have something to do with the more money you have, the more morally correct your actions are.

[NightOfJoy]

Werd. I think it might have something to do with the more money you have, the more morally correct your actions are.

 

Yeah........then there's the option to accrue even more money because money is important and money is power and I'm not gonna share any of my money with you loafing welfare queens and money makes the world go round. Dont forget that money makes oneself attractive too. Money, money, money!!!

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

One thing that always sort of confuses me w/r/t conservatives, is how they are usually fairly strict law and order types who tend to believe that humans require laws to ensure that they behave themselves, but then quite conversely, for some reason also tend to believe in deregulation, as if business is some other entity not subject to the same sort of selfish, socially destructive (for the rest of us) whims that often lead the individual to behave vilely where no laws, i.e. regulations, exist.

 

Why is that? If, on the individual level, humans are selfish and cannot be trusted to do the right thing outside of laws that enforce positive behavior, why do they tend to believe that if you throw a bunch of humans together under a corporate umbrella, in direct competition with other groups of humans who themselves fall under a differently named umbrella, without strong government regulation (laws) to limit their potential destructive power, that they will, quite miraculously, just sort of behave themselves, spontaneously?

 

 

Sounds a bit disingenuous there.

 

It seems (to me) that it is a more libertarian kind of view. Government's job is to protect property rights.

 

It is really interesting that when all is said and done...it is all about getting, keeping and protecting your nut.

[John Smith]

Not a lot of chatter out there about this (the first one is the retraction of the others):

 

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/olc-memos.htm

 

 

We essentially lived in a dictatorship from late September 2001 till about the time of Obama

[NightOfJoy]

"Why would they retract these if they were sound legal advice that falls within the constitution?"

 

Woo and Gonzolez knew these memo's were crap, that's why.

[ZenLunatic]

I don't see a contradiction at all. It's not like he's planning on making this stimulus a continuous thing. The purpose it to create jobs and stabilize the markets. Once that happens theoretically more people should be in a position to spend money again and things should improve. It's not perfect, but my guess is that it will help (certainly more than doing nothing at all). As things turn around then it's his responsibility (as well as everyone else's) not to just spend like maniacs and instead try and reduce the debt burden in general. That's where the responsibility part really comes into play. For now, I don't see any contradiction between saying "here's a lot of money to boost the economy" and "spend responsibly."

 

I missed 9 pages of talking but want to respond to this if anyone hasnt.

 

You cant grow the economy on borrowed money. So we borrow billions to create jobs and this will give people money and jobs, but all that money is borrowed and needs to be paid back. If that money is used to build infrastructure and buy cars and homes that prop up bad companies and support people that cant afford their bad mortgages, how do we pay back the money????? Where do we actually make the money??? Where are the goods and services that produces the money??? We are just passing around borrowed money to prop up our horrible businesses and maintain our fake way of life.

 

We need to consume less as a country. We need to produce goods and services we can export to other countries to make money.

[MattZ]

I missed 9 pages of talking but want to respond to this if anyone hasnt.

 

You cant grow the economy on borrowed money. So we borrow billions to create jobs and this will give people money and jobs, but all that money is borrowed and needs to be paid back. If that money is used to build infrastructure and buy cars and homes that prop up bad companies and support people that cant afford their bad mortgages, how do we pay back the money????? Where do we actually make the money??? Where are the goods and services that produces the money??? We are just passing around borrowed money to prop up our horrible businesses and maintain our fake way of life.

 

We need to consume less as a country. We need to produce goods and services we can export to other countries to make money.

 

Let's say you buy a house for $100 by putting $10 down, and borrowing $90.

Let's say that five years later you sell the house for $150, and pay the bank back their $90.

Did you not just increase your own wealth on borrowed money?

Of course you can grow wealth (and an economy) on borrowed money. I dont even understand what you are arguing half the time.

[bjorn_skurj]

Any economy more complicated than the Cro-Magnons runs on borrowed money. The trick is not lending too much money to people who can't pay it back ever. They can take a long time to pay it back (the longer, the better for the lender, actually) but they have to pay it back for the system to work properly.

[ZenLunatic]

Let's say you buy a house for $100 by putting $10 down, and borrowing $90.

Let's say that five years later you sell the house for $150, and pay the bank back their $90.

Did you not just increase your own wealth on borrowed money?

Of course you can grow wealth (and an economy) on borrowed money. I dont even understand what you are arguing half the time.

 

 

That appreciation is not real. It is based unsubstainable low interest rates in an inflationatory economy that keeps alive by borrowing and not actually making money. Thats what you dont get. The overblown equity value you state is based on borrowed money which isnt real. The bubbles are not real money making.

[ZenLunatic]

Any economy more complicated than the Cro-Magnons runs on borrowed money. The trick is not lending too much money to people who can't pay it back ever. They can take a long time to pay it back (the longer, the better for the lender, actually) but they have to pay it back for the system to work properly.

 

 

I agree. And America is in the worst position because we are the biggest consumer and debtor. We dont have any plans of paying back our money, sooner or later we will get screwed for it.