national debt guessing game
"[quote=maladroit]socialist innuendo is another way of saying socialist insinuation...you are insinuating that i am a socialist...that is attributing a position to me that is not really my position, which is the meaning of straw man fallacy:
Fallacy: Straw Man"
Hmmm, socialist talk. I like it. It brings out the best in people. FR you do lean that way sorta kinda as you do seem to think that government should play a large role in our lives. History has been erased, but my memory has not. Seems a lot of "socialist" talk is pointed at Obama too, and not much at bushy, who just signed on to buying stakes in US banks making the US government part owner of said banks. Couple that with the buying of wall street, and then add in mcsocialist mccains plan to buy up everyones home morgages with tax payers money and what do you call the neo-cons? Socialists! Personally, I would benifit from nationalized health care. Thats not really a bad thing unless its run like the economy is, and it most likely would be run that way. If we are to waste money though, at least let it be for a good cause, and not so some fat cat wallstreet greedy somebitch that created his own problems can get some relief from his companys debt that he created. Paying off all this bad debt, and giving the rich bastards that created this problem with greed and foolishnes a huge bail out so they can continue this foolishnes on the backs of the tax payers doesn't have a political term as of yet. It needs a new term for that one. A capitalist society, a true capitalist society, would never prop up failed companys, or failed anything. They would be let sink and a new, better run, company would take over its position. The idea that we can fix a failed market by throwing more money into the fire is retarded.
Somewhere in this thread part of the blame goes to the foolish people that took loans they could not afford, and I agree. If you did this, then its called tough shit for you. If I go take a car loan, and then lose my job, or w/e, and can't pay for it, I lose it. If I loan money to someone that defaults and leaves me hanging with a home that is worth less then the loan, it is the risk I took when loaning the money. Point is, if my greed caused me to lose my ass, tough shit for me. I should not expect to be bailed out by tax payers for my mistakes. The system we have does not work very good. It failed us how many times now? Putting a couple band aids on a festering and infected gun shot wound and hoping it will heal its self over time ain't very bright.
First things first, end the wars. Thats 10 billion a month or more right there. Then, pull the hell out of every other country. I don't buy the theory that our troops have to be all over the world to keep other countrys running. I am of the opinion that they can do just fine without US spending who knows how much on keeping troops in country. Bloated agencys, needless spending, world wide welfare, all needs to stop. The evidence is all around that we can not continue to spend abroad the way we do. It took a long to time to create this mess, and it will not be fixed over night by printing more money. It is going to take some serious sacrifices in spending to get our country back in the condition it should be in. Right now we are disscussing wealth redistribution and no one seems to see it or care. We are taking from the many of which most are not rich, and giving to the few, of which most are rich.
The fact is that both sides did this to US. The people that want to try to say bushy and mcsocialist are some how innocent in all this can't think for themselves. Same goes for those that say the left is innocent. Its just more of the same finger pointing to often repeated to show how "smart" we are. He did it! No, he did it! Naww, it was that guy right there. Nope, it was that one over there. mcsocialist/nobama = same team...... Funny thing, you never hear either one talk much about protecting our Freedoms.
Toker
national debt guessing game
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
It is now all to obvious you really do not know what you are talking about...
Actually, he looked kinda like he spanked you. You seemed to just blow a lot of hot air around and try to act like you know what your saying while screaming socialist. Having to make a statement like you just made there more then likely means you're not exactly correct in you observation of FR's talking points. Seems nothing he says or shows you can change your closed mind at all anyway. Hmmm, now where did we hear something about that before?
So, do you support a bail out package that rewards failure? If so, how is that not socialism if the government buys the banks, wall street, and my home? LOL, your worried about health care when there are way worse things going on atm. If the car companys can't pay back the "loan", or the banks, or who ever, what happens then? Who owns what then? The real question about socialism is where is all this going to end? How much will our government buy up? If they can adjust the price of my house down for bad times, will they then adjust it up for good times? You are crying for the government to help you while screaming socialist? Does that really make sense to you? It makes no sense to me at all. Maybe you could explain it a little for me.
Toker
national debt guessing game
"I would love nothing more to see a sample survey of people who do not have health insurance, and the things they buy instead."
Well here ya go. I have no health insurance. I buy food and pay my rent with all the extra money I have from not buying insurance. I then get hookers every night with all my saved insurance money, and do drugs until dawn. You act as if there would be some great expenditure on foolishness from a poor guy that can't pay for insurance. I run a small biz of my own, and guess what, I can't afford it. I went to the doc once last year, cost me 300 bucks. Makes no sense to pay 400 a month for that. Now if I was already paying taxes for foolish things like wars, and world wide welfare, why would wasting a little of that so I can get covered for major medical expenses from those taxes I pay be such a bad thing? What is socialist about that, but not socialist when banks are taken over by governments? No one is saying you have to have government help with your insurance, but it would be nice to have if it was needed. Lets see, I need a little help with my health insurance, and they need help because of bad biz decisions, but I would be a bad guy socialist for wanting help to stay alive when I have to pay taxes to keep fat cats fat? Something is fundimentally wrong with the idea that it is ok to bail out greedy bankers but not ok to help the poor if they are sick. I would be willing to bet these same bail out fans call themselves christians too. Are you a fan of this bail out?
Toker
national debt guessing game
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokerx
Actually, he looked kinda like he spanked you. You seemed to just blow a lot of hot air around and try to act like you know what your saying while screaming socialist. Having to make a statement like you just made there more then likely means you're not exactly correct in you observation of FR's talking points. Seems nothing he says or shows you can change your closed mind at all anyway. Hmmm, now where did we hear something about that before?
So, do you support a bail out package that rewards failure? If so, how is that not socialism if the government buys the banks, wall street, and my home? LOL, your worried about health care when there are way worse things going on atm. If the car companys can't pay back the "loan", or the banks, or who ever, what happens then? Who owns what then? The real question about socialism is where is all this going to end? How much will our government buy up? If they can adjust the price of my house down for bad times, will they then adjust it up for good times? You are crying for the government to help you while screaming socialist? Does that really make sense to you? It makes no sense to me at all. Maybe you could explain it a little for me.
Toker
Opinions vary:jointsmile:
The government bailout is a little too encompassing to consider US actions socialist. The world markets are collapsing. The US is not in as bad of a position then other countries (the UK has higher leveraged ratio defaults). Thursday night (Friday in Japan), the Nikki dropped nearly 10%. This is all very bad, therefore government intervention is needed because it is their actions that have led us to this field. Had markets been allowed to fall and rise at their own speed and way, a massive bubble such as the one we now all face would not exist. One of the contributing factors of the great depression was the fact that world wide market collaboration did not exist.
In almost any other scenario, i would loath government intervention, but the cost is just to great at the present time. I do not want to see mass people starving, living in the slums, mass suicides etc... By not having Universal Health Care, the scenario described will not take place.
national debt guessing game
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
Opinions vary:jointsmile:
The government bailout is a little too encompassing to consider US actions socialist. The world markets are collapsing. The US is not in as bad of a position then other countries (the UK has higher leveraged ratio defaults). Thursday night (Friday in Japan), the Nikki dropped nearly 10%. This is all very bad, therefore government intervention is needed because it is their actions that have led us to this field. Had markets been allowed to fall and rise at their own speed and way, a massive bubble such as the one we now all face would not exist. One of the contributing factors of the great depression was the fact that world wide market collaboration did not exist.
In almost any other scenario, i would loath government intervention, but the cost is just to great at the present time. I do not want to see mass people starving, living in the slums, mass suicides etc... By not having Universal Health Care, the scenario described will not take place.
Opinions may vary, but facts remain the same. Nationalizing the banking industry and making the US government the worlds largest bank is not socialist? Interesting! So if we help the poor a little with their medical insurance we have completely changed our system to a socialist nightmare, but a government take over of US industrys and banking is not socialist? I guess what is needed is a definition of socialism. You're kinda right I guess, its not really socialism, its something completely different, but just as disgusting as it only serves to make the problem worse and then of course, more government intervention and government ownership of industry. Thats socialism of sorts. Or is it fascism? Its kinda blurry atm because hey, we don't know what the ^%*& they are doing do we? No bank is going to loan another bank a dime unless the US backs it now. In effect it will have its hand in almost every aspect of banking. That leaves open room for all sorts of underhanded politicaly motivated BS from lenders and who ever is in charge of the government. Knowing that we have a VP choice that is said to have abused her power to punish on a personal level gots to make ya wonder at what could become of banks that are liberal, or conservetive, when the other has the power. If bank a will not loan bank b money because it is scared of bank b failing, then bank a loans money to the government who in turn then loans it to bank b. If bank b fails after said dealings, then who owns bank b? The US government and the newly created banking agency thats attached to the federal reserve??? Naw, they would never do that, right?
"The world markets are collapsing."
Yes, they are. Throwing money onto the bonfire will put out the flames? In the end it will just be fuel for the fire. You have to know that just printing a bunch of money will not help do anything but deflate the dollar. Trillion dollar packages or not, we are hosed. We can not buy our way outa this, so why keep making it worse? We could learn from mother nature. The weak are disposed of and replaced, they are not propped up artificially.
"The government bailout is a little too encompassing to consider US actions socialist."
No it is not. It is easy to see wealth distribution in governments buying houses and settling loans for people. That one lump of people with bad loans gets a bonus, a huge hand out while others get nothing, or they get higher taxes.
"The US is not in as bad of a position then other countries (the UK has higher leveraged ratio defaults)."
Its all tied together anyway. Really its still pretty bad though, and looks like it will get worse even if other economys are worse then ours.
"This is all very bad, t[B]herefore government intervention is needed because it is their actions that have led us to this field."
The best way to get control of people, to get them to give up their rights, or to accept things they normally wouldn't from government, is to create conditions that force people to accept those things. Some things are not created so much as siezed upon and used as it comes up. We had to have it right then and there, it was an emergency, and yet we have no clue as to what was even passed. We were warned it would be way worse not to let the government take control. They knew long before this that it was a problem, and did nothing. All of a sudden its this huge emergency that need to be delt with over night. 800 billion spent in such a willy nilly manner is just as disgusting as the greed that created the need for it in the first place.
"Had markets been allowed to fall and rise at their own speed and way, a massive bubble such as the one we now all face would not exist"
So why artificially prop it up some more? Are we not just blowing another huge bubble with this "bail out"? Government control of healthcare is just as bad as government control of banking. Check this out, you can't die from losing stocks.
"In almost any other scenario, i would loath government intervention"
Good for you. You fail here though, and thats the kind of thinking and isolationism that led to the rise of hitler and.................LOL!
"but the cost is just to great at the present time."
Oh yeah, we must have government intervention. Why? Because they told us we need it? Give them all the power they ask for my friend, because the cost is to high and they can fix this mess they created. Wait a sec, you want a reality market, right? So why give the people that screwed it up the power to screw it up even more?
"I do not want to see mass people starving, living in the slums, mass suicides etc..."
Nor do I. Can you tell me how this "package" is going to stop that?
"By not having Universal Health Care, the scenario described will not take place."
All or nothing, right? Lets think about these people you don't want to see, and what thier life will be like when they are sick and in a soup line. How many will jump when they can't afford to have their child seen and the child dies for lack of insurance or money to pay with? Helping a few poor people get insurance is not " Universal Health Care". Try to live in reality. Extremes are not reality, and only serve to create fog. Not in my mind, but in your own mind. You sorta propagate yourself with that kinda stuff.
Toker
national debt guessing game
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokerx
Opinions may vary, but facts remain the same. Nationalizing the banking industry and making the US government the worlds largest bank is not socialist? Interesting! So if we help the poor a little with their medical insurance we have completely changed our system to a socialist nightmare, but a government take over of US industrys and banking is not socialist? I guess what is needed is a definition of socialism. You're kinda right I guess, its not really socialism, its something completely different, but just as disgusting as it only serves to make the problem worse and then of course, more government intervention and government ownership of industry. Thats socialism of sorts. Or is it fascism? Its kinda blurry atm because hey, we don't know what the ^%*& they are doing do we? No bank is going to loan another bank a dime unless the US backs it now. In effect it will have its hand in almost every aspect of banking. That leaves open room for all sorts of underhanded politicaly motivated BS from lenders and who ever is in charge of the government. Knowing that we have a VP choice that is said to have abused her power to punish on a personal level gots to make ya wonder at what could become of banks that are liberal, or conservetive, when the other has the power. If bank a will not loan bank b money because it is scared of bank b failing, then bank a loans money to the government who in turn then loans it to bank b. If bank b fails after said dealings, then who owns bank b? The US government and the newly created banking agency thats attached to the federal reserve??? Naw, they would never do that, right?
I am impressed that you realize the difference between facisism and socialism. Keep going, you will find your truth soon enough:thumbsup:
Quote:
Yes, they are. Throwing money onto the bonfire will put out the flames? In the end it will just be fuel for the fire. You have to know that just printing a bunch of money will not help do anything but deflate the dollar. Trillion dollar packages or not, we are hosed. We can not buy our way outa this, so why keep making it worse? We could learn from mother nature. The weak are disposed of and replaced, they are not propped up artificially.
Interest rates were lowered in an artificial fashion 6 years ago, yet i doubt you even noticed or had an opinion at the time. You are highly mistaken if you believe this is throwing money into "a fire". If government is able to manipulate interest rates, and their so called regulation could not see this coming (with 12,000 + employees), it is in fact their mess to clean up. They have the tools, as their pockets are unlimited so to speak. It will improve eventually!
Quote:
No it is not. It is easy to see wealth distribution in governments buying houses and settling loans for people. That one lump of people with bad loans gets a bonus, a huge hand out while others get nothing, or they get higher taxes.
Its more of a facist measurement, as opposed to a socialist measurement. The treasury is not buying houses, i have no idea where you got that idea from... Higher taxes or lower spending are the natural reaction to high deficits.
Quote:
Its all tied together anyway. Really its still pretty bad though, and looks like it will get worse even if other economys are worse then ours.
Its called the bust of a business cycle.
Quote:
The best way to get control of people, to get them to give up their rights, or to accept things they normally wouldn't from government, is to create conditions that force people to accept those things. Some things are not created so much as siezed upon and used as it comes up. We had to have it right then and there, it was an emergency, and yet we have no clue as to what was even passed. We were warned it would be way worse not to let the government take control. They knew long before this that it was a problem, and did nothing. All of a sudden its this huge emergency that need to be delt with over night. 800 billion spent in such a willy nilly manner is just as disgusting as the greed that created the need for it in the first place.
:what: The bailout is not all at once, which brings me to question your knowledge of the current situation. Its not even set that they will need $700 billion, its just a psychological factor if the markets call for it.
Quote:
So why artificially prop it up some more? Are we not just blowing another huge bubble with this "bail out"? Government control of healthcare is just as bad as government control of banking. Check this out, you can't die from losing stocks.
The choice is, free up credit or world markets crumble. In a time like this, where we have many more people chasing even fewer available resources, the consequences could be much more grave as opposed to the great depression. You have failed to analyze this, and therefore your opinion has very little substance...
Quote:
Good for you. You fail here though, and thats the kind of thinking and isolationism that led to the rise of hitler and.................LOL!
It is false indoctrination such as this that sets many people up to not only become government dependent, but to underachieve...
Quote:
Oh yeah, we must have government intervention. Why? Because they told us we need it? Give them all the power they ask for my friend, because the cost is to high and they can fix this mess they created. Wait a sec, you want a reality market, right? So why give the people that screwed it up the power to screw it up even more?
Again, you have little knowledge of the current situation, and fail to recognize your history... A RTC (Resolution Trust Corporation) was enacted in the late 1980's and early 1990's following the Savings and Loans Crisis. I recommend you study the situation a little more before running your mouth.
Quote:
Nor do I. Can you tell me how this "package" is going to stop that?
The freezing of credit will undoubtedly halt a rather large percentage of production. Halting production will force companies to downsize, therefore creating massive unemployment. I do not have to explain to you what happens during periods of massive unemployment, or do i?
Quote:
All or nothing, right? Lets think about these people you don't want to see, and what thier life will be like when they are sick and in a soup line. How many will jump when they can't afford to have their child seen and the child dies for lack of insurance or money to pay with? Helping a few poor people get insurance is not " Universal Health Care". Try to live in reality. Extremes are not reality, and only serve to create fog. Not in my mind, but in your own mind. You sorta propagate yourself with that kinda stuff.
Currently, if you have children and do not make enough money, you are eligible for medicaid here in the US. Since you are not in the US, i have little doubt you were unaware of this. Your ignorance is has become apparent...
There is something familiar to your response style. Why not use the quotation tools? :wtf:
national debt guessing game
If you two want to debate an issue, great but leave the petty name calling for another site. Consider this a verbal warning.
Have a good one!:s4:
national debt guessing game
national debt guessing game
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
If you two want to debate an issue, great but leave the petty name calling for another site. Consider this a verbal warning.
Have a good one!:s4:
I covered that in the last post. We can debate without insults; "personal attacks not allowed"...that's been part of the guidelines on this site for a long time.
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
national debt guessing game
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
I covered that in the last post. We can debate without insults; "personal attacks not allowed"...that's been part of the guidelines on this site for a long time.
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
I understand that petty name calling is not allowed. But is telling someone that they posted out of pure ignorance an insult? If so, then i will refrain from the future, but i put about 35 minutes in that last post, of which the majority was in fact relevant, and central to my debate.
It would have been helpful to actually view what is not allowed, that way i can make a mental note to refrain in the future.
I have the last post saved in Microsoft office, so could i know what is considered offensive, that way i may remove it and repost?
