Obama turns left
CanadianJeff @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:43 pm
commanderkai commanderkai:
romanP romanP:
John McCain would have done the same thing. The only difference would be that, instead of calling out AIG executives for giving themselves bonuses, he'd let them walk and do everything in his power to defend it.
How do you know? He wasn't elected. Do you have a parallel universe viewer that you've been holding back from the world?
He tends to express that he knows what everyone everywhere is thinking and doing so long as they are on this forum. Clearly we all know that's not the case.
Donny_Brasco @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:30 am
Proculation Proculation:
$1:
So what are you suggesting then?
Let the businesses fail, like AIG and GM?
Let the businesses fail, like AIG and GM?
yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
I really don't mind that.
I always thought that handing out cash to each citizen would be better that handing it to corrupt and mismanages organizations.
That way the 'free market" could choose what to spend their money on... a mortgage payment or a downpayment on a car from a manufacturer that they choose...a TV or a vacation.
That way the weak sink and those who have a good plan and a good product survive.
I mean for $3500 a citizen what have they got so far...more CEO's asking for more of their money and giving millions of bonuses as a reward for their failures.
Fuck that.
Like I said if I had that $3500 then I could buy something from you and you could buy something from Jack and he could buy something from Betty and she might by something from me and so on....every time a bit of that goes to taxes.
Instead a chunk of cash went to the banks and WTF happened to it? No one really knows.
You would definately know if the cash came to me because I would be unloading a giant plasma into my house.
N_Fiddledog @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:18 am
Just cause it's cute...
Proculation @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:34 am
From Chicago Tribune, 1934:
N_Fiddledog @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:44 am
Proculation Proculation:
From Chicago Tribune, 1934:
Damn though, the plan was foiled by the second world war, after which the economy recovered. They had to wait over 60 years for another chance.
Proculation @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:46 am
And still after 75 years, they think again you can spend your way out of a recession caused by overspending.
Proculation @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:48 am
N_Fiddledog @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:25 am
Wow...that's scary. America will be a good place to go for cheap hookers, but what else will it be good for.
We need to make some new friends to trade with.
sandorski @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:22 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Proculation Proculation:
From Chicago Tribune, 1934:
Damn though, the plan was foiled by the second world war, after which the economy recovered. They had to wait over 60 years for another chance.
WW2 didn't foil Government Spending out of the Depression at all. In fact, it increased it many fold. It was Government Spending that Won WW2 and it was Government Spending that caused the Economic Prosperity after WW2. The only difference between the 2 was where the $$ was spent and for what reason.
Pseudonym @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 8:15 am
sandorski sandorski:
WW2 didn't foil Government Spending out of the Depression at all. In fact, it increased it many fold. It was Government Spending that Won WW2 and it was Government Spending that caused the Economic Prosperity after WW2. The only difference between the 2 was where the $$ was spent and for what reason.
Incorrect.
Proculation @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 8:25 am
Pseudonym Pseudonym:
sandorski sandorski:
WW2 didn't foil Government Spending out of the Depression at all. In fact, it increased it many fold. It was Government Spending that Won WW2 and it was Government Spending that caused the Economic Prosperity after WW2. The only difference between the 2 was where the $$ was spent and for what reason.
Incorrect.
I agree. All the money spent in war could have been used for much better things. You don't build an economy on shells and cannons.
The babyboom that happened after the war when the soldiers returned and build a family, THAT helped. Not the money lost in the war. (see, "The broken window" by Bastiat)
N_Fiddledog @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:30 am
sandorski sandorski:
WW2 didn't foil Government Spending out of the Depression at all. In fact, it increased it many fold. It was Government Spending that Won WW2 and it was Government Spending that caused the Economic Prosperity after WW2. The only difference between the 2 was where the $$ was spent and for what reason.
One of those comments that makes sense until you think about it. Then you ask questions like why did the New Deal fail, yet WWII succeeded. Is it just a matter of amount spent? Very well, then, why did the USSR fold?
Is there a difference in investing towards something, and digging holes to fill them up again so-to-speak? What came out of the new deal economically speaking? What came out of WWII? More new industry and such for WWII, right? Why is that?
Are Obama's investments more New Deal-ish, or more WWII-ish?