Economy

[DarkNemesis]

Storamin, I suggest you say more against what people say instead of just accusing them to not know what the fuck they're talking about, because at the moment that person looks like you.

got my MBA from a top b school 25 school and CPA license and stopped unless somebody was paying for my opinion

Moving on...

What I find funny and ironic is Obama bitching about Bush and his deficit, yet he want's to spend three times as much, or more, (800 billion-1 trillion) to so called "boost" the economy. There is no doubt Bush spent way too much, that's a no-brainer, but at least, for the most part, his spending went to stuff like defense and the army. Obama, however, wants to give all little kids in Arkansas high-speed internet access and hire government workers to screw in light bulbs in public buildings, as if it requires so much arduous labor.

You're certainly trivializing what Obama wants to do. I guess I don't understand -- paying for the army is somehow better spending than giving students access to the internet?

Uknow the Library of Congress? Do you know how much information is in there? "It contains some 18 million books, 2.5 million recordings, 12 million photographs, 4.5 million maps, and more than 54 million manuscripts." Lot of stuff? Literally, a Library of Congress worth of information is created every 15 minutes on the internet. Hell, the time it took me to read this thread & reply another one was created. By providing internet access, you allow someone to access that information, and increasing their education. The relationship between education and the economy is well documented.

There are 2 major ways the government can influence the economy. Supply side & Demand side. Supply side is the Fed and controlling the dollar, and they're doing a pretty damn good job. Demand side is the government spending. As it is, government spending is ~35% of GDP. ANY increase in government spending has significant effects on GDP, and the economy. Then the trickle down theory kicks in...

Think of it this way: Go to any restauraunt. Look around you and what do you see: mass consumption. EVERYTHING in there is consumption, the chairs you sat on, the plate you ate off of, the food. Our economy has been built on this. For years other people have been willing to lend us the money so that we could spend it. People from China, Japan, all over the world. They saved money, which we borrowed and spent. This paradigm is over, and has significant impacts. Imagine what would happen if that shit just stopped.


And I agree with you, DarnYak, that we're afraid of letting companies fail. A lot of my former classmates are out there on the street... so I'm quite biased. It's much different when you get calls from friends who are on the street and want a bailout than if you think of them as stupid, rich fat cats with $$$$$

we blamed this crisis on the harvard MBAs. they dont know jack shit.

Uh, actually it is. Allow me to explain.

The Constitution states that Government (Congress) is supposed to fund and fight our wars. So money going towards these wars is both right and vindicated. However, nowhere does it state that Government is suppose to provide additional "care" to children/students. That should be left up to the state, not the president. The same is true with social issues, such as gay rights and religious freedoms. having a Supreme Court judge say what is acceptable is actually unconstitutional: i.e praying in school, gay rights, so on and so forth. I'm not saying what Obama is doing is wrong, just unnecessary and petty. We have a financial issue here and hes worried about some kid in Nevada that might not have blazing-fast internet. Just seems a little ridiculous to me.

[Storamin]

Uh, actually it is. Allow me to explain.

The Constitution states that Government (Congress) is supposed to fund and fight our wars. So money going towards these wars is both right and vindicated. However, nowhere does it state that Government is suppose to provide additional "care" to children/students. That should be left up to the state, not the president. The same is true with social issues, such as gay rights and religious freedoms. having a Supreme Court judge say what is acceptable is actually unconstitutional: i.e praying in school, gay rights, so on and so forth. I'm not saying what Obama is doing is wrong, just unnecessary and petty. We have a financial issue here and hes worried about some kid in Nevada that might not have blazing-fast internet. Just seems a little ridiculous to me.

i believe this is an economic debate, NOT a political debate (note the title of the thread)

the facts: spending on education will greatly increase the economic prowess of the US, more so than any direct spending on defense.

when you spend money on educating a population (blazing-fast interest for the kids in Nevada), your population will earn more, which will help your economy. we can sit here and debate the effects on the economy of education spending vs military spending. (hint: education spending will win)

however, whether or not it is politically 'better' to fight a war or educate your population... I won't go there.

[DarkNemesis]

Uh, actually it is. Allow me to explain.

The Constitution states that Government (Congress) is supposed to fund and fight our wars. So money going towards these wars is both right and vindicated. However, nowhere does it state that Government is suppose to provide additional "care" to children/students. That should be left up to the state, not the president. The same is true with social issues, such as gay rights and religious freedoms. having a Supreme Court judge say what is acceptable is actually unconstitutional: i.e praying in school, gay rights, so on and so forth. I'm not saying what Obama is doing is wrong, just unnecessary and petty. We have a financial issue here and hes worried about some kid in Nevada that might not have blazing-fast internet. Just seems a little ridiculous to me.

i believe this is an economic debate, NOT a political debate (note the title of the thread)

the facts: spending on education will greatly increase the economic prowess of the US, more so than any direct spending on defense.

when you spend money on educating a population (blazing-fast interest for the kids in Nevada), your population will earn more, which will help your economy. we can sit here and debate the effects on the economy of education spending vs military spending. (hint: education spending will win)

however, whether or not it is politically 'better' to fight a war or educate your population... I won't go there.

Oh sorry, Storiman, it seems we misunderstood each other. I'll elaborate further.

Yes, your absolutely right! Education would help this economy, since most of US revenue comes for consumer spending, and, as cliched as it sounds, the more money you have, the more likely are to spend it, generally, mind you.

Blazing fast internet, however, isn't to make your smarter, or earn you a higher income, a college degree will.

I wasn't trying to debate the pros/cons of military vs. economy spending, and I do apologize for sounding that way. All I'm saying is it seems slightly ridiculous for Obama to worry about petty things like that. Yes, those things could help, in the long run, but we need something fast that is going to start to work fast, and spending another 1 trillion isn't, imo, go to do that, at least not now.

What Obama needs to do is remove the heavy burdens his other Liberal friends have placed upon small businesses. Since these guys ARE THE JOB CREATORS, right?? I mean, it makes perfect since. I know a guy who owns a business and hes going to have to pay another $150,000 and year, just on additional taxes. Think how may people he could hire with that money, or give a raise even.

Taxing the five percent, as Obama has stated, is a huge mistake, because those are the ones creating the jobs.

[Ion]

At least you're not screwed like Canada is.

Our wonderful government just made up its own bailout plan. It's exactly the same as yours but they divided everything by 10.

But our junior team kicked ass : D

[Elreth]

as cliched as it sounds, the more money you have, the more likely are to spend it, generally, mind you.

this is not correct by the way. the opposite is correct. you are super, mega wrong. but it is okay because at least you are not simultaneously extolling the virtues of a completely free market and complaining about big businesses screwing over small business/consumers. at least not as blatantly anyway.

[Ion]

What Obama needs to do is remove the heavy burdens his other Liberal friends have placed upon small businesses. Since these guys ARE THE JOB CREATORS, right?? I mean, it makes perfect since. I know a guy who owns a business and hes going to have to pay another $150,000 and year, just on additional taxes. Think how may people he could hire with that money, or give a raise even.

The very least you could do is elaborate on the "extra $150,000", why he's paying it and the kind of business he owns. As well you have, have, have to remember that one person doesn't equal the other 300 some million people who are in the United States, so you always need more then just "one guy". You're not being very specific with your information and you're hyper-generalizing to the point where the information is less then valid, it is detrimental to the conversation. It's not like we can sit here and prove everything everyone says and who cares enough to, but it makes it a lot less easy to dismiss information if it's provided in a way that at least implies credible method and with the intent to implore comprehension and understanding. "Knowing a guy" who "has to pay another $150,000 a year" doesn't tell anyone anything about the American taxation system, since you're not really pinpointing taxes you hate.

On that note, calling people "liberal" or "conservative" is probably the weakest possible argument ever in any situation. Just to vent.

Also:

Kibiyama wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiology?

As I was saying...

"Psychological"

I hope just by reading that you understand there's a serious, serious difference between the two, and that I'm missing some not-funny attempt at a joke here.

[Tehw00tz]

Well at first DarkNemesis had said,"No kibi I think you have serious physiological problems" instead of psychological before he edited his post.

[DarkNemesis]

What Obama needs to do is remove the heavy burdens his other Liberal friends have placed upon small businesses. Since these guys ARE THE JOB CREATORS, right?? I mean, it makes perfect since. I know a guy who owns a business and hes going to have to pay another $150,000 and year, just on additional taxes. Think how may people he could hire with that money, or give a raise even.

The very least you could do is elaborate on the "extra $150,000", why he's paying it and the kind of business he owns. As well you have, have, have to remember that one person doesn't equal the other 300 some million people who are in the United States, so you always need more then just "one guy". You're not being very specific with your information and you're hyper-generalizing to the point where the information is less then valid, it is detrimental to the conversation. It's not like we can sit here and prove everything everyone says and who cares enough to, but it makes it a lot less easy to dismiss information if it's provided in a way that at least implies credible method and with the intent to implore comprehension and understanding. "Knowing a guy" who "has to pay another $150,000 a year" doesn't tell anyone anything about the American taxation system, since you're not really pinpointing taxes you hate.

On that note, calling people "liberal" or "conservative" is probably the weakest possible argument ever in any situation. Just to vent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiology?

Uhm, why don't you get over that? Your just rehashing, again.

I honestly don't know the fine areas of it. But he owns small telephone and internet business with around 50-60 employees. The business itself is going quite well, though it could be doing better. I was told by him that he would have to pay that much, and this guy is one of the most honest people I know, he wouldn't lie about it. Period.

A small business is a small business, its called a tax bracket. So generalizing is actually correct in this instance, though your right, it doesn't apply to EVERY business, though quite a few.

I didn't call him a Liberal as a put-down for argument foothold, don't know were the hell you got that idea. I called him one because he is....honestly???!!!?



As I was saying...

"Psychological"[/quote]

I hope just by reading that you understand there's a serious, serious difference between the two, and that I'm missing some not-funny attempt at a joke here.[/quote]

[Ion]

Uhm, why don't you get over that? Your just rehashing, again.

I was trying to check what went wrong, that is lawl though. You should make sure these things don't happen again.

I honestly don't know the fine areas of it. But he owns small telephone and internet business with around 50-60 employees. The business itself is going quite well, though it could be doing better. I was told by him that he would have to pay that much, and this guy is one of the most honest people I know, he wouldn't lie about it. Period.

You're not being very specific with your information and you're hyper-generalizing to the point where the information is less then valid, it is detrimental to the conversation. It's not like we can sit here and prove everything everyone says and who cares enough to, but it makes it a lot less easy to dismiss information if it's provided in a way that at least implies credible method and with the intent to implore comprehension and understanding. "Knowing a guy" who "has to pay another $150,000 a year" doesn't tell anyone anything about the American taxation system, since you're not really pinpointing taxes you hate.

It seems you saw my point and then fell through a hole of epic miss. I am not auditing you and telling me "this guy is one of the most honest people I know, he wouldn't lie about it" does not solidify, validate or improve your argument, since it has nothing to do with the taxes and is hardly anything useful with us being on the internet.

Until you provide something more useful to the argument- like what tax we're talking about (corporate income? something evil, liberal and new?), where he actually fits into the tax bracket and how $150,000 sizes up to his income- really, there isn't much to talk about. We'll just have to ignore this in the mean time, since it's irrelevant and I've wasted all this space talking about it.

What Obama needs to do is remove the heavy burdens his other Liberal friends have placed upon small businesses.

What burdens. And he isn't even in office yet- I am assuming you know that, and you are just predicting the future in the present tense. The best way to predict!

A small business is a small business, its called a tax bracket. So generalizing is actually correct in this instance, though your right, it doesn't apply to EVERY business, though quite a few.

Tax brackets are progressive measures of income relative to the amount deductible by their yearly salary, except in the many numerous exceptions that come up when dealing with corporate taxation. And I don't even know if we're talking about that, or income tax, or some other tax levied against his business. In any case, unless you're going to be specific about the tax you hate, you don't really have anything to generalize and certainly give no one anyone any real inclination to pay attention except to say "lullz@logix". Since you haven't been specific at all about anything and all I know is this guy is really honest, period., there's not much else to say.

On that note, you saying "it doesn't apply to EVERY business, though quite a few." is funny because midway through the sentence you seem to give up trying to have some point and concede you really do like generalizing, even when you claim you shouldn't be generalizing. That was fun!

I didn't call him a Liberal as a put-down for argument foothold, don't know were the hell you got that idea. I called him one because he is....honestly???!!!?

You're right, labels are a fun way to sound smart, like you do! I've always wanted to ask, do you speak English as a first language?s

""Psychological"[/quote]

I hope just by reading that you understand there's a serious, serious difference between the two, and that I'm missing some not-funny attempt at a joke here.[/quote]"

You seem to have managed to misplace the quote on the side of the word you initially intended to quote and then stopped it before it even began. I guess we're just getting to physiological here.

[Storamin]

I didn't call him a Liberal as a put-down for argument foothold, don't know were the hell you got that idea. I called him one because he is....honestly???!!!?

You're right, labels are a fun way to sound smart, like you do! I've always wanted to ask, do you speak English as a first language?s

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings"

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

and yes, i voted for him.

[DarkNemesis]

I didn't call him a Liberal as a put-down for argument foothold, don't know were the hell you got that idea. I called him one because he is....honestly???!!!?

You're right, labels are a fun way to sound smart, like you do! I've always wanted to ask, do you speak English as a first language?s

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings"

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

and yes, i voted for him.

Yes, I've heard this as well. Why then, is it "low" to call him such when that's exactly what he is?? (ION).


I'm not attacking you or anybody else, Storamin, but voting for Obama just because you don't like Bush is very lame excuse. Again, never said you did this, just whoever may have.

Kinda like voting for him just because hes black, that's why he got something like 90% of the black vote. ironic, racism!!?? in its own way.

[jamn455]

Actually, I voted for him because I didn't want Johnny McMaverick and the Pitbull with Lipstick in the white house.

[Ion]

Yes, I've heard this as well. Why then, is it "low" to call him such when that's exactly what he is?? (ION).

You seem to misunderstand what exactly I said and you have made up your own quote for me. I suppose that is okay, but not really, since I never said "low" I said "probably the weakest possible argument ever in any situation." But thanks for the creativity. You still haven't answered my question about your first language.

For that matter, my problem is more with you being somehow satisfied that labeling someone as "liberal" somehow satisfies the necessity for arguing well. It is about as irrelevant as you can get except for vaguely describing some of his policies. Since we're talking about economic-policy (apparently it's just a poll guys), it's probably best to actually talk about his policies, rather then rant on about him being "liberal". As of now, I haven't heard anything out of you that suggests you disagree with anything he's said. I can't even tell, from prediction in the present tense whether you are aware President Bush is still in office. Please, clarify!

Kinda like voting for him just because hes black, that's why he got something like 90% of the black vote. ironic, racism!!?? in its own way.

What I want to know is, how is a half-black man running for president and getting 90+% of the African-American vote ironic? I want to see the irony, I want in on the joke!!

[jamn455]

It doesn't matter that his mother is white, he is still all black apparently. Some people are still too ignorant of race to see through the color of people's skin.

[Storamin]

I'm not attacking you or anybody else, Storamin, but voting for Obama just because you don't like Bush is very lame excuse. Again, never said you did this, just whoever may have.

Kinda like voting for him just because hes black, that's why he got something like 90% of the black vote. ironic, racism!!?? in its own way.

I previously voted for Bush, and am a conservative.

Besides, he's more white than I am. the dude went to Occidental, Colombia, and Harvard law.

this thread = http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=C69SNL5IdT4

[Dekar]

this thread forum = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13E73B3p5b4

[Storamin]

i believe the more accurate description:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQCje-a ... re=related

[Discombobulator]

Sadly, unlike Bush, one can't call Obama an idiot because that's racist.

[Leek]

Sadly, unlike Bush, one can't call Obama an idiot because that's racist.

You know, and the fact that he isn't an idiot :p

Welcome back Disco

[DarkNemesis]

Sadly, unlike Bush, one can't call Obama an idiot because that's racist.

Hes an idiot. And a dumbass.

[Discombobulator]

Sadly, unlike Bush, one can't call Obama an idiot because that's racist.

You know, and the fact that he isn't an idiot :p

Welcome back Disco

Bush wasn't an idiot on his first day in the oval office, either. Give Obama a chance.

[DarkNemesis]

Sadly, unlike Bush, one can't call Obama an idiot because that's racist.

You know, and the fact that he isn't an idiot :p

Welcome back Disco

Bush wasn't an idiot on his first day in the oval office, either. Give Obama a chance.

Bush didn't release convicted terrorists or overturn the equal-pay for women bill/whathaveyou. Don't get me wrong, I believe in equal pay for women. But you'd think 180 days would be plenty to figure out if your be cheated or not...

You do have a point though, fair enough.

[jamn455]

The KKK should be ashamed, the political party they once backed openly had the first African-American president elected. Failures.

[DarkNemesis]

The KKK should be ashamed, the political party they once backed openly had the first African-American president elected. Failures.

The Left should be ashamed. They bash Conservatives for claiming their "unamerican" then cover up for bastards like Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright who make blatantly anti-American remarks. Failures.

Btw, what the hell does the KKK have to do with anything? Do I really need to pull up all those posts were you were telling me to stay in topic, Jamn?

[Tehw00tz]

You tell me, Dark, what does Rev. Wright have to do with the economy?


Your posts are driving us offtopic.


Circuit City is gone ;_;