OBAMA slam round 1 (the stimulus from hell)

**rock_lobster** · 01-27-09, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Rooster050

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

More government intervention = bigger problems

agreed.

I may take a picture of this....I don't recall us agreeing on anything since the time I've known you

I say stop the stimulus packages, cut taxes, and let the economy fix itself.

The bank credit crisis would have been easily fixed without the government laying one finger into the pie. Larger banks with more money would have bought them out. Same with the car companies....you can't make it, you get bought out.......viola, and no extra taxpayer money would have been spent.

***COMMANDER*** · 01-27-09, 07:29 PM

The simple answer to really boost the economy is quite simple. Regulate the price of fuel.

Fuel effect every consumer and producer in America.

If they American people have money left in the pockets, they will spend it and that makes the economy strive. Leave fuel prices high and every product goes up with it and consumers have a very tight budget without any money left in the pockets and therefore, do not travel or spend money, which leaves the economy in a very bad position.

Get the price of fuel down and keep it down and watch what happens.

Simple southern smart economics.

**sprite** · 01-27-09, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by ***COMMANDER***

The simple answer to really boost the economy is quite simple. Regulate the price of fuel.

Fuel effect every consumer and producer in America.

If they American people have money left in the pockets, they will spend it and that makes the economy strive. Leave fuel prices high and every product goes up with it and consumers have a very tight budget without any money left in the pockets and therefore, do not travel or spend money, which leaves the economy in a very bad position.

Get the price of fuel down and keep it down and watch what happens.

Simple southern smart economics.

Terrible idea... Regulating the price of fuel will only cause an increase in the demand. An increase in demand means the price should rise (since there is no change in supply) but will not because of the regulation, leading into major problems down the road (see Venezuela and the failure of their state controlled petroleum industry). People will just have to learn to live with higher energy costs because the hydrocarbons in the ground are harder and more expensive to extract than they were 10 years ago. Alternative energies are not cheap enough yet to be competitive economically. If you want the fuel prices to be more stable, stop the speculation on wall street (they're the ones that drove the price of oil up to $145 over the summer, not the oil companies).

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

i've taken economics 101 basically and actually according to principal economics the government should spend more during recessions and depressions and save more during periods of economic growth and prosperity. The idea being that you make money when things are going well and when shit hits the fan you can use the money you saved to fix things.

This is true from a macroeconomics perspective. But the spending we are talking about in the bailout is not the traditional spending on goods and services. But (correct me if I'm wrong) isn't the bailout more of a loan from the government and not traditional govt spending?

**ninja|oaklandr** · 01-27-09, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Rooster050

Originally Posted by ninja|oaklandr

Originally Posted by Rooster050

This is all the proof I need to never trust this man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Ohm...s.com/2008/10/

Explain?

By the was this was cut and paste. You need to get your sources right if you are going to be spouting bullshit.

By the way... You have no idea what the fuck your talking about. I can tell cut and paste v.s. non cut and paste... I happen to be a Recording Engineer witch evolves lots of Audio editing. That was the first thing I listened for. it is clearly not cut and paste, the ambiance stays the same the entire time and his voice maintains the same telephone type frequencies on it through out the entire track.. Its legit. Its real.

So don't call me on bullshit. And stay the fuck out of this conversation if you came here to tell me I'm full of shit.

Originally Posted by Rooster050

Originally Posted by ninja|oaklandr

Originally Posted by Rooster050

This is all the proof I need to never trust this man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Ohm...s.com/2008/10/

Explain?

By the was this was cut and paste. You need to get your sources right if you are going to be spouting bullshit.

By the way... You have no idea what the fuck your talking about. I can tell cut and paste v.s. non cut and paste... I happen to be a Recording Engineer witch evolves lots of Audio editing. That was the first thing I listened for. it is clearly not cut and paste, the ambiance stays the same the entire time and his voice maintains the same telephone type frequencies on it through out the entire track.. Its legit. Its real.

So don't call me on bullshit. And stay the fuck out of this conversation if you came here to tell me I'm full of shit.

Sorry I did not say what I meant to. I meant it was a 28 second cut from much longer interview. What was the context that this was said? Explain what he was talking about in the video.

**CivilWars** · 01-27-09, 08:11 PM

From what I read and hear the problem with the original bailout is that there were really no stipulations on it. They gave banks the money hoping it would open up lending, which would create more spending, and thus fuel the economy. Instead the banks sat on the cash, or even worse gave it out as bonuses, so the credit market still sucks, and businesses everywhere are having problems because of it. If future funding is approved there need to be stipulations on how it is to be used. Imagine that, Civil promoting regulation. Where is Moto now?

**MotoZ** · 01-27-09, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Where is Moto now?

ut reain I'm on my laptop with the broken keyboar

**ninja|oaklandr** · 01-27-09, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by MotoZ

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Where is Moto now?

ut reain I'm on my laptop with the broken keyboar

I thought you were messing around about that.

**jmw_man** · 01-28-09, 11:26 AM

The last time I took an economics class was like 10 years ago so I'm not a library full of knowledge when it comes to politics and economics. My girl on the other hand, has a bachelors in economics from Rice University so we have quite a few discussions. Her dad was an international banker so I get to learn from him as well. I work in civil engineering and get to have quite a few intelligent discussions with the senior engineers who seem pretty knowledgeable in economics and politics. It's amazing how different the views are between all these people.

From the discussions I've had with numerous people, I have to come up with my own conclusions about everything I've learned. These are my conclusions and opinions which may or may not be wrong.

Communism believes in complete government control.
Democrats believe in government control but at a much smaller scale.
Republicans believe in small government and less government control.
Capitalism believes in zero government control where the economy is completely controlled by private individuals or corporations.

Communism--------------Democratism--------------Republicanism--------------Capitalism

8 months ago we were here.............................................. ................................^
Then government started buying and moving us this way.................................. <
Then government started deregulating and moving us this way.......................... >
We are still here.............................................. ................................................^

IMO, we need to be here...........................^

Wanna know why they say the rich only get richer, because of greedy capitalists who take advantage of others. This easily drives the economy into the ground. The US has never displayed more capitalism than it had 8 months ago.

The government needs regulation and more buying. I'm not an economist so I don't know if spending is the same thing as buying but as far as I know, with respect to real estate, the government bought the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac backed loans. Does this not mean they own them now. The loans were originally backed by peoples 401k accounts. The supposed money that the government spent went to the people so they still had their investments. The purpose of buying the loans was to prevent the loss the people would have suffered and to help with the continuation of loan dispertion.

Ever since the economy meltdown, I've seen so many different numbers for different bailouts. It's starting to get confusing so I'm not sure if I'm on the right track with my conclusions. What do yall think?

**Consultant** · 01-28-09, 12:10 PM

Where are all the apologists?

Trigger? Hawg?

What are your thoughts on the nearly TRILLION dollar bailout bill? What about the tax credits to people who dont pay taxes? What about that?

**jmw_man** · 01-28-09, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Consultant

Where are all the apologists?

Trigger? Hawg?

What are your thoughts on the nearly TRILLION dollar bailout bill? What about the tax credits to people who dont pay taxes? What about that?

I'm a little out of the loop on some recent events but what is the Trillion dollar bailout bill specifically for?

Also, who doesn't pay taxes? Everyone pays taxes, some more than others but everyone pays. Are you referring to tax credits to people who have little income and inturn pay very little in taxes?