Advertisement
by Al-Aqar » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:50 pm
Avenio wrote:The gov'ment dun took ma baybay!!! Thayre comm'nist tayxes done took mah libertays! I ahm gonna geet mah gun and tayke back mah baybay aynd mah tayxes!
Tubbsalot wrote:Yes, the success of a generation should be judged solely by how well they can murder people. I'll get on to the UN about that right away.
by Blouman Empire » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:03 pm
Al-Aqar wrote:Blouman: I would argue that our current economic crisis directly stems from the economic theory known as Trickle-Down Economics, or Reaganomics; the idea that if taxes are cut for the very rich, the money will magically make its way into the pockets of the working class. This has never been proven effective (for a more useful model, examine John Maynard Keynes' system), and its propagation by Reagan and the Bushes only made the rich richer and the poor poorer.
When the working class has less money, they buy less. When less is bought, the companies that produce goods (such as automobiles) have less capital for wages, making the working class collectively poorer yet. As these companies spiral downward, the stock market follows, taking with it the funds that the rich invested (rather than spending) in these corporations (which paid the extra capital out as CEO wages and bonuses and spent it in stock buybacks rather than increasing worker wages). Follow? So, the money the rich got in tax cuts is where now? Gone. Down the drain, poof, disappeared, because it never existed. Isn't the stock market just wonderful that way?
The whole mess started in June 2007 when Bear Sterns confirmed that two of the hedge funds they managed were suffering major losses due to sub prime securities, now there are many reasons for this, including how the banks used their ability to be able to offset bad loans onto other people as well as into SPV's taking them off their balance sheet, people borrowing beyond their means, the creation of Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac by Congress in the 1970's (pretty sure Bush had nothing to do with that) changes to the Basel II Accord, monetary policy (while thy were during BUsh's administration the thing to remember is that monetary policy is set by the federal reserve that acts independently of the executive) as well as the abolition of the Glass-Stegall Act while CLINTON was President. I will say again the war wasn't apart of it.
by Dragontide » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:07 pm
Blouman Empire wrote:Barringtonia wrote:Don't be silly, the article is easily good enough,
Chalmers Ashby Johnson 1931 (age 77–78) is an American author and professor emeritus of the University of California, San Diego. He fought in the Korean war, from 1967-1973 was a consultant for the CIA, and ran the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of California, Berkeley for years.
Very well but even after going through it properly it doesn't exactly place the blame on it and this quote "Our excessive military expenditures did not occur over just a few short years or simply because of the Bush administration's policies" backs up my earlier point.
Our excessive military expenditures did not occur over just a few short years or simply because of the Bush administration's policies. They have been going on for a very long time in accordance with a superficially plausible ideology and have now become entrenched in our democratic political system where they are starting to wreak havoc. This ideology I call "military Keynesianism" -- the determination to maintain a permanent war economy and to treat military output as an ordinary economic product, even though it makes no contribution to either production or consumption.
Some of the damage done can never be rectified. There are, however, some steps that this country urgently needs to take. These include reversing Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy, beginning to liquidate our global empire of over 800 military bases, cutting from the defense budget all projects that bear no relationship to the national security of the United States, and ceasing to use the defense budget as a Keynesian jobs program. If we do these things we have a chance of squeaking by. If we don't, we face probable national insolvency and a long depression.
by Al-Aqar » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:41 pm
Blouman Empire wrote:However, the research being done in this is yet to support it, rather some of the reasons why it has happened I stated...*snip*
Now what you are talking about is to an extent true but not why we are in a global economic slowdown.
Avenio wrote:The gov'ment dun took ma baybay!!! Thayre comm'nist tayxes done took mah libertays! I ahm gonna geet mah gun and tayke back mah baybay aynd mah tayxes!
Tubbsalot wrote:Yes, the success of a generation should be judged solely by how well they can murder people. I'll get on to the UN about that right away.
by Maurepas » Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:07 pm
Blouman Empire wrote:Maurepas wrote:The problem is, when mass numbers of people are returning the keys causing the bubble to burst, and its not just homes that become a problem, its cars, contractors, etc...
requiring bailouts of these industries because their customers cant buy or pay off things they already bought...
And your point?
And if you can show me an academic papers that support the war caused the global financial crisis which caused the recession the please provide it.
The projections show the following:
-- After an initial demand stimulus, the effect of increased military spending turns negative around the sixth year. After 10 years of higher defense spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in the baseline scenario with lower defense spending.
-- Inflation and interest rates are considerably higher. After 5 years, the interest rate on 10-Year Treasury notes is projected to be 0.7 percentage points higher than in the baseline scenario. After 10 years, the gap would rise to 0.9 percentage points.
-- Higher interest rates lead to reduced demand in the interest-sensitive sectors of the economy. After 5 years, annual car and truck sales are projected to go down by 192,200 in the high military spending scenario. After 10 years, the drop is projected to be 323,300 and after 20 years annual sales are projected to be down 731,400.
-- Construction and manufacturing are the sectors that are projected to experience the largest shares of the job loss.
"It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy," said Baker. "In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment."
by Blouman Empire » Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:09 pm
Al-Aqar wrote:Pardon? I'm not sure of what you are trying to articulate here. Are you saying that there is some sort of current research that does or does not support something I said? Please do clarify; I'm honestly puzzled here.Oh, and a pet peeve of mine is misuse of terminology: a slowdown is a term for a labor strategy involving doing the absolute minimum required work by way of protesting unfair conditions; you're probably looking for the R word (recession - any downward economic trend, leading to a depression [bottom point, no matter how low; not always Great], followed by a recovery [upward trend] and a prosperity [peak] and another recession). Apologies if any or all of that was a waste of your time (the business cycle probably was; I got carried away typing).
by Free Soviets » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:02 pm
Mr Obama's job approval rating slid to 56 per cent from 61 per cent in April, according to the survey, which had an error margin of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
by Vetalia » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:06 pm
by Maurepas » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:07 pm
Vetalia wrote:That's usually what happens with any President. The honeymoon's long since worn off and people are starting to expect results.
by Vetalia » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:11 pm
Maurepas wrote:Well, at least the sex was good,
by Maurepas » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:17 pm
Vetalia wrote:Maurepas wrote:Well, at least the sex was good,
I'd definitely have sex with Obama before any other candidates. He's really not that bad looking, to be honest.
by Yootopia » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:26 pm
Parthenon wrote:Metallic Slumber wrote:Obama rules my friends. If McCain had been voted in i assure you that we would be in Iran already.
And rightfully so. Have you not been paying attention to the rioting over election fraud? If there is a time to act it would be know given the nation's instability.
by Eofaerwic » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:47 am
Parthenon wrote:Your run of the mill gang members don't have people on the outside with military grade ordinance and high explosives wishing to break them out...
Any domestic incarceration of high level terrorists would put the prison staff and other inmates in serious danger as well as the community as a whole. I would much rather these scumbags be located on a military compound across the gulf that is adjacent to a nation of fellow scumbags.
by Parthenon » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:07 am
Eofaerwic wrote:Parthenon wrote:Your run of the mill gang members don't have people on the outside with military grade ordinance and high explosives wishing to break them out...
Any domestic incarceration of high level terrorists would put the prison staff and other inmates in serious danger as well as the community as a whole. I would much rather these scumbags be located on a military compound across the gulf that is adjacent to a nation of fellow scumbags.
Really? Because we've been incarcerating terrorists, including Al Qaeda members currently and IRA previously, in our domestic high security prisons for years and we've never had any problems. I seriously think you underestimate the resources needed to break someone out of a high security jail and overestimate both the will and the ability of these groups to do so.
by Ring of Isengard » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:09 am
by Allbeama » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:25 am
by Cabra West » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:27 am
Ring of Isengard wrote:Why the fuck would anyone oppose the closing of Gitmo?
by Ring of Isengard » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:29 am
Cabra West wrote:Ring of Isengard wrote:Why the fuck would anyone oppose the closing of Gitmo?
Look at it this way :
Over the last couple of years, the US government has displaced a considerable number of people and interred them off shore, with or without charge.
They then preceeded to deny them all civil rights, even the regular prisoner of war rights, and eventually went so far as torturing some of them.
Now they're faced with having the people they mistreated moved onto the mainland. How would you feel about that?
Can't remember who it was once said "even if you had no quarrels whatsoever with the US and were in Guantanamo totally innocent, after the time you had there you're probably going to want revenge of some form".
I like how the US is trying to distribute these people all over the world now, I know Ireland will take some in. All this to avoid facing the consequences of the actions of the people they elected... ah well.
by Cabra West » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:32 am
Ring of Isengard wrote:Cabra West wrote:Ring of Isengard wrote:Why the fuck would anyone oppose the closing of Gitmo?
Look at it this way :
Over the last couple of years, the US government has displaced a considerable number of people and interred them off shore, with or without charge.
They then preceeded to deny them all civil rights, even the regular prisoner of war rights, and eventually went so far as torturing some of them.
Now they're faced with having the people they mistreated moved onto the mainland. How would you feel about that?
Can't remember who it was once said "even if you had no quarrels whatsoever with the US and were in Guantanamo totally innocent, after the time you had there you're probably going to want revenge of some form".
I like how the US is trying to distribute these people all over the world now, I know Ireland will take some in. All this to avoid facing the consequences of the actions of the people they elected... ah well.
That's stupid. They want people being tortured?
We best not have any.
by Cherry Sours » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:36 am
by Allbeama » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:39 am
by The_pantless_hero » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:15 am
Parthenon wrote:Note the term "high level terrorists". Johnny Jihad isn't worth anything to Al-Queda, there are thousands of them. There is only one khalid Sheikh Mohammed however...
Ring of Isengard wrote:Why the fuck would anyone oppose the closing of Gitmo?
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!
by Ifreann » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:39 am
Parthenon wrote:Gauthier wrote:Maurepas wrote:Id like to know who was asked in the supposed polling, Me and most people Ive talked to arent opposed to it, Its not like our maximum security prisons are any less maximum security than Guantanamo Bay...
Basically it's the Senate having a case of Not My Back Yarditis. Hell, the town of Harding, Montana is begging to take in the Guantanamo inmates since a prison there would boost jobs and economy over there, but even their own Senators are saying Hell No to that.
And for people blaming Obama for Gitmo staying open, keep in mind he wasn't the one who voted No on the funding to close the place.
Your run of the mill gang members don't have people on the outside with military grade ordinance and high explosives wishing to break them out...
Any domestic incarceration of high level terrorists would put the prison staff and other inmates in serious danger as well as the community as a whole. I would much rather these scumbags be located on a military compound across the gulf that is adjacent to a nation of fellow scumbags.
by DrVenkman » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:09 am
Al-Aqar wrote:Blouman: I would argue that our current economic crisis directly stems from the economic theory known as Trickle-Down Economics, or Reaganomics; the idea that if taxes are cut for the very rich, the money will magically make its way into the pockets of the working class. This has never been proven effective (for a more useful model, examine John Maynard Keynes' system), and its propagation by Reagan and the Bushes only made the rich richer and the poor poorer.
When the working class has less money, they buy less. When less is bought, the companies that produce goods (such as automobiles) have less capital for wages, making the working class collectively poorer yet. As these companies spiral downward, the stock market follows, taking with it the funds that the rich invested (rather than spending) in these corporations (which paid the extra capital out as CEO wages and bonuses and spent it in stock buybacks rather than increasing worker wages). Follow? So, the money the rich got in tax cuts is where now? Gone. Down the drain, poof, disappeared, because it never existed. Isn't the stock market just wonderful that way?
by Free Soviets » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:13 am
The_pantless_hero wrote:Ring of Isengard wrote:Why the fuck would anyone oppose the closing of Gitmo?
People are fucking idiots mostly. And they are being encouraged by the one thing the GOP is good at - fear mongering.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: British Arzelentaxmacone, Duvniask, Giovanniland, HISPIDA, Keltionialang, Likhinia, Plan Neonie, Psyuntinia, Simonia, The New York Nation, The republic of halizin, Uiiop
Advertisement