Campaign Creations

You make a very good point.

I've said this already but, in the end after the election I doubt we will complain as much about Obama or McCain than we did about Bush.

Xenon wrote: One of the things that Ron Paul has damn right

The Medicare “trust fund” is already badly in the red, and the only solution will be a dramatic increase in payroll taxes for younger workers.  The National Taxpayers Union reports that Medicare will consume nearly 40% of the nation’s GDP after several decades because of the new drug benefit.  That’s not 40% of federal revenues, or 40% of federal spending, but rather 40 % of the nation’s entire private sector output!

The official national debt figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the federal government owes in current debts on money already borrowed.  It does not reflect what the federal government has promised to pay millions of Americans in entitlement benefits down the road.  Those future obligations put our real debt figure at roughly fifty trillion dollars- a staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth of the entire United States.  Your share of this fifty trillion amounts to about $175,000.

Don’t believe for a second that we can grow our way out of the problem through a prosperous economy that yields higher future tax revenues.  If present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare alone. The only options for balancing the budget would be cutting total federal spending by about 60%, or doubling federal taxes.  To close the long-term entitlement gap, the U.S. economy would have to grow by double digits every year for the next 75 years.

The answer to these critical financial realities is simple, but not easy: We must rethink the very role of government in our society.  Anything less, any tinkering or “reform,” won’t cut it.  A good start would be for Congress to repeal the Medicare prescription drug bill.

But hey, it doesn't matter if we're bankrupt as long as we're all equally bankrupt. 

That first part is a bald-faced lie.  Absolutely, entirely, retarded.  Please, you should just kill yourself right now.  Just think for a moment what that would mean. 

Also, RCX, the problem isn't spending.  The problem is spending on useless things.  If we spend on stimulus plans that actually produce more economic activity than the cost of the stimulus, we will save ourselves from a new great depression. 

I'd like all of you to realize how close we are to a major economic meltdown.  If, for example, we allowed our financial system to fail, saving the US government countless billions or trillions of dollars, the results would be catastrophic.  The word on everyone's lips is recession.  However, a collapse of the financial system would drag the economy to a complete standstill.  So, do we save the money and let the economy die, or do we do what we must and try to prevent it from happening again.  John McCain intends to bail out all of these banks and give them a mere slap on the wrist.  What we need is real regulation of financial markets.  I know that McCain cannot and will not implement this regulation. 

But hey, be cavalier about it.  Say that we need McCain to prevent the democratic congress from spending money.  Go ahead.  But when the depression comes, all I'll have to say is that I told you so.

It would mean something, he's trying, you never no what happens until it has. This generation of people in the U.S. have less of a chance of being successful, inflation is going up so much more dramatically then peoples salaries, jobs that were considered "decent" are no longer able to support a family. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the isn't really a middle class anymore.

Negi wrote:I'd like all of you to realize how close we are to a major economic meltdown.  If, for example, we allowed our financial system to fail, saving the US government countless billions or trillions of dollars, the results would be catastrophic.  The word on everyone's lips is recession.  However, a collapse of the financial system would drag the economy to a complete standstill.  So, do we save the money and let the economy die, or do we do what we must and try to prevent it from happening again.  John McCain intends to bail out all of these banks and give them a mere slap on the wrist.  What we need is real regulation of financial markets.  I know that McCain cannot and will not implement this regulation.

A regulated financial market is a failure by definition. Regulation implies inevitable stagnation, and there's no way back from that. Except war.

tipereth wrote:

Negi wrote:I'd like all of you to realize how close we are to a major economic meltdown.  If, for example, we allowed our financial system to fail, saving the US government countless billions or trillions of dollars, the results would be catastrophic.  The word on everyone's lips is recession.  However, a collapse of the financial system would drag the economy to a complete standstill.  So, do we save the money and let the economy die, or do we do what we must and try to prevent it from happening again.  John McCain intends to bail out all of these banks and give them a mere slap on the wrist.  What we need is real regulation of financial markets.  I know that McCain cannot and will not implement this regulation.

A regulated financial market is a failure by definition. Regulation implies inevitable stagnation, and there's no way back from that. Except war.

You base this assertion on what evidence?  Ideology doesn't count, numbnuts.  Would you like me to give you my huge list of examples of effective government regulation?  Unless you can provide evidence, I suggest you bow out of this conversation graciously.  If you fail to either provide evidence or stfu, I will flame you at every turn. 

Please, think before you make that next post. 

Edit: Upon rereading your post, I realized that I must stress how stupid it actually is.  A regulated financial market is a failure by definition?  By DEFINITION?  Are you mentally defective?  Regulation implies inevitable stagnation?  How?  By what twisted logic could you possibly have come to THAT conclusion?  Anti-trust regulations imply inevitable stagnation?  Food and drug health standards imply inevitable stagnation?  No, they clearly don't.  Markets fail when the wrong incentives are in place.  Regulations restrict incentives to those that are positive for the consumer and the economy at large.  But a regulated market is a failure by definition.  The federal reserve is a failure.  The FDIC is a failure.  Puh-leaze! Give me a break!  By that, I mean break your skull open with a two-by-four, you insipient asshole. 

That first part is a bald-faced lie.  Absolutely, entirely, retarded.  Please, you should just kill yourself right now.  Just think for a moment what that would mean. 

I believe I touched a nerve.

Of course you discount the government's role in the mortgage crisis.

Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more "affordable" loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.

Housing experts and some congressional leaders now view those decisions as mistakes that contributed to an escalation of subprime lending that is roiling the U.S. economy.

And something from the UCLA: FDR's Policies Prolonged Depression by 7 Years, UCLA Economists Calculate

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

I was referring to extreme examples of state-controlled economies, (see communist russia).

You must understand, being as hateful and self serving as I am, I immediately assume that any mention of 'regulated' economy refers to one wherein the private sector is entirely dismantled. Because I'm a zealot, you see.

Geez, it's an opinion on the internet. Don't get your goddamn panties in a twist.

On that note, since you so kindly listed regulations already in effect, what manner of devilry would you have the next president impose on the market? Provisions for people who can't read the fine print?

That fine print is getting smaller and smaller.

How about reinstating the red tape that was there to keep us from FALLING OFF A FUCKING CLIFF?  How about regulating mortgages to their pre-Bush standards?  How about refunding the SEC?  How about that?  You're a moron.

That UCLA paper is not evidence; it is a just-so story.  I can rebut that paper with a simple statement of fact.  Correlation does not prove causation.

Also note:
Stock market =/ Economy

=/ means not equal for all intents and purposes

Wow both of you, it's an internet forum that's on a site about video games, now you're debating like your on some politician show, calm down, seriously.

could someone please lock this tl;dr flame thread?

Negi wrote:How about reinstating the red tape that was there to keep us from FALLING OFF A FUCKING CLIFF?  How about regulating mortgages to their pre-Bush standards?  How about refunding the SEC?  How about that?  You're a moron.

And you're an overdramatic doomsayer. You have no problem with the government bailing out people, but when they save banks and businesses you blow your whistle. It IS possible to have your cake and eat it too, in this case.

I'm done with this argument, post your rebuttal and lets move on.

RCcola wrote: Wow both of you, it's an internet forum that's on a site about video games, now you're debating like your on some politician show, calm down, seriously.

This is general discussion, they're free to discuss what they please.

chris wrote: could someone please lock this tl;dr flame thread?

This is far from a flame thread, this is a debate with some tantrum, simple. So long as no one attacks anyone specifically, it's fine.

...
...

Obama!

actually idk about McCain