|
|
Is the goverment bailout of the banking industry going to be enough to avoid a prolonged recession? Should the auto industry - or any other sector - get a goverment bailout as well?
|
Posts:
4,168
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1162 of 1222)
Dec 1, 2009 9:27 PM
|
DaN,
Most of my generation that I know have drank the koolaid.
|
|
|
Posts:
35,528
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(1161 of 1222)
Dec 1, 2009 9:18 PM
|
DaN
The young folks like Jared have to start their adult lives in this jobless wasteland. They're doing the military thing and going to school if they can swing it financially but what should we advise them to study, what jobs are going to be there for them and see them through a lifetime and not be outsourced...
|
|
|
Posts:
35,528
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(1160 of 1222)
Dec 1, 2009 9:14 PM
|
> Nice sentiment there DaN.
>
> One thing to add: we aren't even using the money on
> social engineering. We are using the money to blow
> hundreds of thousands of strangers, their homes, and
> their infrastructure to he'll and back. Our actual
> aid rate is one of the lowest percentages of any
> modern nation.
>
> --
> Edited by JaredP at 12/01/2009 6:01 PM PST
Jared,
Bingo. We're spending billions to kill poor people in a country where our help is not welcome and letting millions of our own people lose jobs, homes, their lives right here at home.
Cruelty on both fronts.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,132
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1159 of 1222)
Dec 1, 2009 9:11 PM
|
JaredP,
Re: your last
Fuel for the fire. Question? Why aren't you and your's (I'm assuming you're 20-30'ish) more engaged on this stuff?
It's YOUR money MY generation is squandering for ENTIRELY questionable reasons. If I were you, I'd be ENTIRELY PISSED OFF!
But of course, that's just me, and I've been known to "have my moments (I'm blaming age, that's my story and I'm sticking to it)."
Cheers!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
2,132
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1158 of 1222)
Dec 1, 2009 9:03 PM
|
JaredP,
Thanks, but please realize, IT'S NOT JUST A SENTIMENT! It's a genuine concern, especially on the cusp of several $Billion of spending for military (now virtually certain) and healthcare (MUCH LESS certain).
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
2,132
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1157 of 1222)
Dec 1, 2009 8:59 PM
|
By the way, 'Lawyers, Guns, and Money' (the previous post's primary source) should be considered required reading (among others) for those in the know. Add it to your favorites and look at it every day. You'll be smarter for the effort, no matter your political disposition.
The internet is TRULY a GREAT THING!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
4,168
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1156 of 1222)
Dec 1, 2009 8:57 PM
|
Nice sentiment there DaN.
One thing to add: we aren't even using the money on social engineering. We are using the money to blow hundreds of thousands of strangers, their homes, and their infrastructure to he'll and back. Our actual aid rate is one of the lowest percentages of any modern nation.
--
Edited by JaredP at 12/01/2009 6:01 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
2,132
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1155 of 1222)
Dec 1, 2009 8:53 PM
|
You know, I just KNEW I was gonna use this today:
Americans have come to believe that spending government revenues on U.S. citizens here at home is usually a bad thing and should be viewed wth suspicion, but spending billions on vast social engineering projects overseas is the hallmark of patriotism and should never be questioned. This position makes no sense, but it is hard to think of a prominent U.S. leader who is making an explicit case for doing somewhat less abroad so that we can afford to build a better future here at home. Debates about foreign policy, grand strategy, and military engagement ? including the current debate over Obama?s decision to add another 30,000-plus troops in Afghanistan ? tend to occur in isolation from a discussion of other priorities, as if there were no tradeoffs between what we do for others and what we are able to do for Americans here at home.
Primary source: http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/
Secondary source: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/01/building_at_home_and_abroad
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
35,528
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(1154 of 1222)
Dec 1, 2009 8:34 PM
|
JimEarl
Thanks for the Taibbi article, I just love him.
"Anyone who was paying attention might have noticed that almost simultaneous to these pronouncements from the White House came a series of releases from Democratic congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi promising just the opposite ? another deficit-fueled jobs program planned for launch next year. Pelosi openly dropped a turd on all the White House fretting about deficits:
?The American people have an anger about the growth of the deficit because they?re not getting anything for it. ? If somebody has the idea that the percentage of GDP of what our national debt is will go up a bit, but they will now ? and their neighbors and their children ? will have jobs, I think they could absorb that, and then we ride it out and bring money in.?
|
|
|
Posts:
4,168
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1153 of 1222)
Nov 30, 2009 7:07 PM
|
|
Because Iraq wouldn't sell us their oil below cost.
|
|
|
Posts:
786
Registered:
2/7/09
|
|
(1152 of 1222)
Nov 30, 2009 5:13 PM
|
> Bullshit. Those governments tax more because they
> have more social programs, and their companies much
> more regulated are never allowed to grow into
> monopolies in the first place. Time to clean up the
> mess from taking away the cops and letting the crooks
> run rampant.
Another difference is that in many of those countries, the government actually owns a lot of the natural resources, such as oil, minerals, etc. Those assets belong to the government, and the proceeds from its exploitation go towards the stuff that we can only fund through taxes, fines/penalties and user fees.
--
Edited by Don17000 at 11/29/2009 1:59 PM PST
That's the key isn't it? The governments are able to fund more social programs because they control the base resource instead of 'giving' it away and then taxing. It is nothing about monopolies though. The government gave away assets for short term funds. Sure the government can tax, but when they give away all 'rights' to a resource, the gains are significantly less. The only benefit is that it may be cheaper to the 'consumer' to use that resource but a loss of a resource for the government who can only tax. It makes you question why the US is busy fighting for resources and cheap goods when it does not even control its own.
|
|
|
Posts:
786
Registered:
2/7/09
|
|
(1151 of 1222)
Nov 30, 2009 5:07 PM
|
Two problems that I can think of for wind.
First, people in the US have complained about the noise impact of wind farms. Second environmental impact is becoming more of an issue.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/oregon_wind_farms_whip_up_nois.html
http://www.windstop.org/
I love how the US tarp money may be siphoned off to pay a foreign set of workers. The belief of giving it to US citizens to benefit is offset by the benefits it is actually giving to non-US workers. They might as well give the money to SS or Insurance instead.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,041
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
|
Posts:
7,789
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
|
Posts:
3,046
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(1148 of 1222)
Nov 29, 2009 4:58 PM
|
>
> Bullshit. Those governments tax more because they
> have more social programs, and their companies much
> more regulated are never allowed to grow into
> monopolies in the first place. Time to clean up the
> mess from taking away the cops and letting the crooks
> run rampant.
Another difference is that in many of those countries, the government actually owns a lot of the natural resources, such as oil, minerals, etc. Those assets belong to the government, and the proceeds from its exploitation go towards the stuff that we can only fund through taxes, fines/penalties and user fees.
--
Edited by Don17000 at 11/29/2009 1:59 PM PST
|
|
|
|
|
