Banned
I have came to only one conclusion as to why they are doing what they are doing, and it is because they must be trying to crash the system. I guess that makes me a conspiracy nut. And then when it happens they are going to tell people, see I told you so, capitalism doesn't work, while at the same time they were the ones who pulled the rug out from under the whole system.
Ya'll are stupid
0.jpgOriginally Posted by crimsonedge
On topic, spending money is what really helps the economy, but spending money that gets you into debt doesn't really help. I would say that the government needs to spend money, but needs to make the limit on what they spend a lot smaller, and follow that limit.
I've been listening to too much Sean Hanity.
Hope and Fate
Pretty much. Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.</hanlon>
Were I inclined, I could probably do something up on how the differing parties of Congress believe their pet economic policies will save America and the world, and why, in their own world-views, the opposite viewpoints will not. Unfortunately, I'm not. Basically, though, members of both parties are in love with power, and will not willingly take any action that will risk that power, which includes driving their country off the edge of a cliff. However, unfortunately, this also means that they're only willing to go so far in preventing it from driving itself off a cliff, and their ideological preconceptions, combined with an anti-intellectual malaise, lead to a certain specific mindset that promotes ideologically sound policy over a short-term destructive, but ultimately necessary (in practical terms) policy.
...yeah, probably, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.I've been listening to too much Sean Hanity.
Banned
They don't mind running the country into the ground as long as they can turn around and blame the other party.Pretty much. Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.</hanlon>
Were I inclined, I could probably do something up on how the differing parties of Congress believe their pet economic policies will save America and the world, and why, in their own world-views, the opposite viewpoints will not. Unfortunately, I'm not. Basically, though, members of both parties are in love with power, and will not willingly take any action that will risk that power, which includes driving their country off the edge of a cliff. However, unfortunately, this also means that they're only willing to go so far in preventing it from driving itself off a cliff, and their ideological preconceptions, combined with an anti-intellectual malaise, lead to a certain specific mindset that promotes ideologically sound policy over a short-term destructive, but ultimately necessary (in practical terms) policy.
...yeah, probably, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
IMO there should be a change in the voting system, instead of being forced to choose between the lesser of 2 evils, you can simply vote "no confidence" and then if a certain % of people vote no confidence then the ballots get rerolled, and the people that ran previously and barred from running again until next election. Only downside is that it could be hard to get anyone elected.
Robot Spaghetti
That's an interesting concept, but I feel like that would end in a state of anarchy. Assuming that's how you want all voting to be done, not just the Presidency.
Unless you're on a 24 clock.
Last edited by TheRealSpiders; 19th-July-2011 at 04:09.
Super Moderator
It was a joke. The stereotypical american reaction to the slightest hint of socialism.
It didn't really work like that though. It was more of a restructuring and recirculation. Taking money out of private sector spending and putting it into as many hands as possible. Money gets moved around. That's also part of why the recovery spending is sorta slow going. There's a limit to how much money can be moved around in short order. If they were simply "priting more money", funding for the recovery act would be progressing much more smoothly.
Banned
There is no perfect system, everything that is humanly imaginable is flawed. But we can do better than the current one. Gotta start thinking out of the box. The intention is that it would get some people who actually care running for office instead of just the crooks, the idiots or the commies.
Economics is really deep, and it gets down to the core of each individual, do people feel comfortable spending money right now? Do they feel secure at their job? If not then they are probably saving almost every penny they got no matter what the government tries to do to make more money exchange hands. I would bet if every person in the country got $500 handed to them, majority would save it, and not spend it. Printing more money does nothing but make the dollar worth less, which in turn would encourage people to save instead of spend if they already aren't really tight on their bills right now. And most of the money being printed is not seeing the hands of everyday people, its going straight to the banks and bailing out companies which deserve to fail.
Basically any way I look at it, what the government is doing isn't working and won't work.
Also unemployment rates, their numbers are usually greatly understated for the actual number of people unemployed, because that number only counts people that are actively receiving unemployment benefits. So anything on the news that says unemployment rate dropped by .5% last month really doesn't mean shit.
Last edited by crimsonedge; 20th-July-2011 at 00:36.
Fear and Loathing
Reduction in the value of money tends to spur spending, because people realise that they can spend that $500 now and get $500 worth of shit or hang onto it and get caught with $500 thats now worth $200. The real killer on spending is deflation.
Of course, these phenomenons are well known and form part of the reason why government spending stimulus rarely takes the form of direct cash handouts.
Banned
The biggest problem with rising inflation is that wages are very slow to catch up to inflationary levels, and remain stagnant for years. In fact it wasn't until the early 90s when wages started catching up to inflation from the 70s. Higher skilled jobs probably catch up faster, but low wage crap jobs, fast food, walmart, etc pay about the same as they did in the 90s.
Last edited by crimsonedge; 20th-July-2011 at 00:44.
Ya'll are stupid
And now they're thinking of raising the debt cieling.
How many hits to the head with a hammer does it take to be a stupid as a politician.
Cookie Thief
I wouldn't mind having more than 2 parties, but even then, people would complain thats UnAmerican and throw a shit fit.
Yeah, it would be huge, China heavily depends on our debt, so if we fall, they fall too.
thats how we'll beat them commies!
Thats not what my history teachers say, they say war generates money.
Super Moderator
You say that like they haven't raised the debt ceiling constantly in the previous decades.And now they're thinking of raising the debt cieling.
How many hits to the head with a hammer does it take to be a stupid as a politician.
Indirectly, yes.
Directly, no.
And war itself doesn't generate money, the stuff surrounding it does. And even then, it's both short term and specific to certain areas.
And that hasn't been relevant in a long, long time. So unless the government is going to start snatching up industries, hiring everyone who can hold a hammer, and such, war isn't about to stimulate anything.
Vagrant Wizard
It eliminates people
Jackass Penguin
I chuckle whenever anyone acts like this is the first time it's ever happened.
Hipsters bought newspapers?
aww damn
Creepers Gonna Creep
Get rid of the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest 3% of Americans and cut military spending by at least 20%. Problem solved. Too bad neither of these things (especially the second one) will ever happen.
Also, stop giving massive bailouts to failing institutions/businesses, end political corruption, and stop wasting money on "limited kinetic engagements." A man can dream, can't he?
Posting Permissions
