What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Handyman said:
You cant please everyone, so why try?
Click to expand...

Because they'd be looking at losing both houses cleanly if they did... and you can't rule if you're not in power... which means you can't bring the world your great vision if you're not in power.... that's the problem of the Democrats... the things they want that they think are great will remove them from power.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

ScottM said:
You do, and I do. In the form of higher interest rates and higher taxes, and most likely fewer services in return.
Click to expand...

Yep. Gluttonous spending now screws you in the end. I'm not opposed to government stimulus in principle. It just needs to be targeted a lot more carefully. A LOT more carefully.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I disagree that they will lose power because of them, I agree that they THINK they will lose power because of them. You and I both know 3/4 of the seats in Congress never switch and I just don't think the American people care enough about the issues for it to matter.

If people want Health Care Reform (for example) and the Dems do ANYTHING to reform it (even if it means nothing upon review) and tout that come the next elections then the same idiots who voted for them before will do it again. I mean come on Bush got reelected and no one liked him yet he said the right things at the right times and boom there ya go!

Just like in the next Presidential Election Obama will justify his lying about ending the Wars (I will bet right now neither will have ended by then or even be close to starting to end) by touting the terrorists he just recently caught and will most likely catch in the future. Sure he lied but no one will care.

It is all about PR...the Dems suck at it and the GOP is brilliant about it. If the Dems treated America like the GOP does (all flash and no substance...that is how we roll!) they might actually win an argument. The problem is they think the average American is smarter than the average American Idol/Jersey Shore fan...which they aren't :D
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

dxmnkd316 said:
Yep. Gluttonous spending now screws you in the end. I'm not opposed to government stimulus in principle. It just needs to be targeted a lot more carefully. A LOT more carefully.
Click to expand...

You dont think it is careful...I think it is VERY careful. The problem is it is carefully targeted at the special interests ;)

Now I am only partially serious...although it was blatantly obvious who was going to be the big winner in the Economic Stimulus...I will give you a clue they weren't allowed to fail (unlike their competitors...funny) and pretty much every economic advisor or chairmen (under Bush and Obama) out there is connected to said company in some way. :D

Trust me they are all careful, they put the money where it serves THEM best :D
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Handyman said:
You dont think it is careful...I think it is VERY careful. The problem is it is carefully targeted at the special interests ;)

Now I am only partially serious...although it was blatantly obvious who was going to be the big winner in the Economic Stimulus...I will give you a clue they weren't allowed to fail (unlike their competitors...funny) and pretty much every economic advisor or chairmen (under Bush and Obama) out there is connected to said company in some way. :D

Trust me they are all careful, they put the money where it serves THEM best :D
Click to expand...

Ok, point taken (bold). You know what I meant though.

Wait, are you confusing the stimulus and the TARP/bailout(s)? Not that both were semi-fails.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

dxmnkd316 said:
Ok, point taken (bold). You know what I meant though.

Wait, are you confusing the stimulus and the TARP/bailout(s)? Not that both were semi-fails.
Click to expand...

Yes I knew what you meant...but you left the door opened so I walked in :D

Yes I mis-spoke I meant TARP. Or maybe I misquoted myself :eek:
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

5mn_Major said:
How can posters talk about socialism so casually...when they have absolutely no idea what socialism is?

Socialism is a form of economy where the public (or workers) own all means of production. You are mistakenly assuming individual govt services are socialism.

Most really want efficient government. You appear to be advocating complete anarchy where there are no public services (your socialism) such as roads or police...and where the US would be entirely vulnerable with no defense whatsoever. Sounds like a conservatives dream to me. :confused:
Click to expand...
Sorry, but my definition of socialism is a little bit more than yours. Mine includes a detail conveniently left out of your definition. Where the public sector controls production as well as DISTRIBUTION. Now, can you honestly tell us that you do not see any difference in the 3 examples you gave from the 7 examples I gave? If one is socialist, then all are? If any one is not socialist, then none are?

Let's make a game out of it. Three of these things are not like the other seven;

A) Social Security
B) Medicare
C) National Defense
D) No Child Left Behind
E) Police
F) Cash for Clunkers
G) Cash for Calkers
H) Roads
I) Unemployment Insurance
J) Food Stamps

Here is a hint. Three of these don't entail taking money from one group of tax payers and giving that money to another group, without the first group recieving any benefit.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Wol4ine said:
Sorry, but my definition of socialism is a little bit more than yours. Mine includes a detail conveniently left out of your definition. Where the public sector controls production as well as DISTRIBUTION. Now, can you honestly tell us that you do not see any difference in the 3 examples you gave from the 7 examples I gave? If one is socialist, then all are? If any one is not socialist, then none are?

Let's make a game out of it. Three of these things are not like the other seven;

A) Social Security
B) Medicare
C) National Defense
D) No Child Left Behind
E) Police
F) Cash for Clunkers
G) Cash for Calkers
H) Roads
I) Unemployment Insurance
J) Food Stamps

Here is a hint. Three of these don't entail taking money from one group of tax payers and giving that money to another group, without the first group recieving any benefit.
Click to expand...

Actually it really depends what kind of society the rich wants to live in.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

ScoobyDoo said:
Actually it really depends what kind of society the rich wants to live in.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. While I don't believe government should be handing out cash for clunkers/caulkers, I think they all serve a purpose, if not an overreaching waaaaay overspent purpose.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Wol4ine said:
Sorry, but my definition of socialism is a little bit more than yours. Mine includes a detail conveniently left out of your definition. Where the public sector controls production as well as DISTRIBUTION. Now, can you honestly tell us that you do not see any difference in the 3 examples you gave from the 7 examples I gave? If one is socialist, then all are? If any one is not socialist, then none are?

Let's make a game out of it. Three of these things are not like the other seven;

A) Social Security
B) Medicare
C) National Defense
D) No Child Left Behind
E) Police
F) Cash for Clunkers
G) Cash for Calkers
H) Roads
I) Unemployment Insurance
J) Food Stamps

Here is a hint. Three of these don't entail taking money from one group of tax payers and giving that money to another group, without the first group recieving any benefit.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. None of the items you listed seem to meet that definition. I guess you lose.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

dxmnkd316 said:
Yep. Gluttonous spending now screws you in the end. I'm not opposed to government stimulus in principle. It just needs to be targeted a lot more carefully. A LOT more carefully.
Click to expand...
How does government spending stimulate an economy? Anything spent by the govt is taken from the private sector - it's called "opportunity costs" in economics. Govt must either tax or borrow for the money. It it taxes, it's a direct taking from the private sector entity. If it borrows, it's an indirect taking from private entities by way of crowding out the lending markets. The Federal govt is in the process of borrowing more than ever yet private entities are supposed to be staring at a credit freeze. Private entities can't find the liquidity to invest in future growth right now, when they should due to interest rates being so phenomenally low.
dxmnkd316 said:
I tend to agree. While I don't believe government should be handing out cash for clunkers/caulkers, I think they all serve a purpose, if not an overreaching waaaaay overspent purpose.
Click to expand...
Yeah, to pay off government interests, appeasing the greenies or getting people to purchase more Govt Motors vehicles.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

St. Clown said:
No. There's legitimate govt spending and then there's the majority of what the Federal govt spends.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm a i lean to the right of the fiscal aisle but I'm generally pretty libertarian. While I agree with you in principle, the government does need to provide some programs. Would you argue that the hoover dam was a bad thing? I mean that was government spending and now provides a quite a bit of "clean" :rolleyes: energy to a lot of people.

I'm just saying that there are some good parts of government stimulus but for the most part there is a lot of horribly misplaced dollars.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

dxmnkd316 said:
Agreed. I'm a i lean to the right of the fiscal aisle but I'm generally pretty libertarian. While I agree with you in principle, the government does need to provide some programs. Would you argue that the hoover dam was a bad thing? I mean that was government spending and now provides a quite a bit of "clean" :rolleyes: energy to a lot of people.

I'm just saying that there are some good parts of government stimulus but for the most part there is a lot of horribly misplaced dollars.
Click to expand...
had they directly put the money into infrastructure, that'd be one thing. that's not what the bill did, though. Everyday on the drive to work, I pass under the Portland Ave bridge on Hgwy 62. I see the iron rebar where portions of the bridge's concrete has fallen away. It goes back to the reports released after the 35W bridge collapsed. They could have put a ton of money into infrastructure, but instead decided to replace portions of their fleet with hybrid cars, and direct money towards a slew of fluff projects.

Back in the late 1800's, the govt went into debt by aiding companies build the America's railroad system. It was a temporary spending initiative that was designed to take on projects deemed too large for individual corporations at the time. Their actions kicked off a great expansion within the Industrial Revolution. While now our govt is looking simply spend money in order to aid consumption.

I didn't support Stimulus 1 when Pres. Bush did it, nor Stimulus 2 (TARP) that happened under his watch (direct payments made/forced to my employer, by the way). Then Pres. Obama came in and doubled down on Stimulus 2 in order to make Stimulus 3. Then came Stimulus 4 by way of Cash for Clunkers, which did nothing for the automotive industry. (There was a major decline in sales prior to official kickoff date of CARS and again afterward. Dealers are really struggling right now.)

We saw that the economy had an annualized growth rate of 1.6%, I think, during 2009 Q3, but further delving into those numbers shows that the private sector shrank while the only thing expanding was the govt. Stimulus packages simply do not work.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Stimulus that works towards the future is anything that individuals won't fund that will foster efficiency... roads and transport are important because they foster efficient movement across the country. The problem is "stimulus" became a catch-all idea that if we prime the system with money, any money, that will get the economy moving again. The problem is that they system, and it is a system, isn't that easy to work with and it doesn't solve the problems with the economic engine. Dems will have you believe that the problems with the economy are one of a moral hazard but in reality the problems are specific in nature and need to be specifically handled as our problems are more of system stress and shock than anything else.

Basically its like kicking a dead cat and assuming its alive... when it bounces to the ground again it'll still be quite dead.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

So to summarize. Some stimulus projects are good. Most aren't. In fact, the vast majority aren't. Pretty much the position i've had all along.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top