Debate and Discussion

The Economy Is Going Well, Isn't It?
TnTComic at 11:27AM, Dec. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
CharleyHorse
It would be interesting for the common person to finally get enough of being treated like dirt by the wealthy and powerful in this nation, but I don't see a popular uprising happening.

I agree, poor people need to stop shooting each other and start shooting the people who are actually fucking them.

Guillotines are so 1700's.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 11:28AM, Dec. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
CharleyHorse
That aside, you can learn a lesson, which is never and I do mean NEVER ever turn the mechanisms of government over to a big businesses interests president like George W. Bush.

Yes, so much better to turn it over to a Democrat who is owned by the same big business intrests but lies about it better. It doesn't matter which side takes power, the big corps buy all the candidates off just to cover their butts.
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 11:29AM, Dec. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
TnTComic
I agree, poor people need to stop shooting each other and start shooting the people who are actually fucking them.

You mean Democrats? Sure, go for it. I'll bring the popcorn!
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
TnTComic at 11:54AM, Dec. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Mister Mxyzptlk
You mean Democrats? Sure, go for it. I'll bring the popcorn!

Ha ha… ha… Ha.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
CharleyHorse at 1:27PM, Dec. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
Mister Mxyzptlk, unfortunately I agree with you. Oh, the democrat leaders make good lip-flapping noises about giving a damn and redressing ills, but then they get into office and are either flat shut down by the republican opposition or turn out to actually be republicans in drag .

The only thing making the democrats marginally preferable to republicans as national leaders is that they do seem to have some vague grasp of the notion that it's better to steal only a comparative little bit now and have something left over to steal in the future. The republican leadership seem married to the notion that once you gain the upper political hand you had better steal everything in sight and let the future go hang.

It's just putting your future into the hands of the bad boys rather than into the hands of the really, REALLY bad boys.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
TnTComic at 1:43PM, Dec. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Sorry fellas, but you're way off. Clinton slashed military spending, and was actually making a dent in the national debt. Sound economic policies that led to a robust economy. Bush reversed all that. Life was fucking great under Clinton. Things started to tank almost immediately after Bush took office. So, you know, try to say they're the same all you like… doesn't make it true.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
horseboy at 9:24PM, Dec. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 139
joined: 8-27-2006
CharleyHorse
I also love the fantasy that anyone impoverished can waltz right into some help organization and be fed and clothed and receive free medical care.
We call it the Free Store. Despite being one of the poorest counties in the nation, we still have extra food to go around. Every month or so, we gather it up and ship it to the soup kitchens of STL. They send us their extra clothing. People that need clothing come in and take what fits them. The electric bill and incidentals of the place is paid for by donations from the local churches.
Funny thing, though, if you actually walk into those neighborhoods - don't forget your body armor or body guards – and interview a hundred residents you will discover that the numbers of residents actually receiving such aid is mysteriously, shockingly low. I wonder why? Again, this nation is fantastic at generating the illusion that we have no serious problems in that area to speak of.
Yeah, when I lived in Curtis Bay in a place across the street from the projects that wasn't as nice I noticed a very different form of poverty. It seemed almost selfish. The neighbor's family had had a fire and moved in with them. He apologized for the noise and told me what happened. When I showed up an hour later with a 4' box of canned goods they were utterly mystified that a neighbor would be willing to help them. I never had a lick of trouble in the bad neighborhood ever again. I don't understand why people in those neighborhoods don't help each other out. They're the only people that can help them.
There is no such word as “alot”. “A lot” is two words.
Voltaire
Never seek for happiness, it will merely allude the seeker. Never strive for knowledge, it is beyond man's scope. Never think, for in though lies all the ills of mankind. The wise man, like the rat, the crocodile, the fly, merely fulfills his natural function.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
CharleyHorse at 1:41PM, Dec. 3, 2007
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
horseboy, helping people out usually depends on the cultural makeup of a community and whether or not some brave and self-less soul devoted their life to being a shinning and tireless example to others by way of helping out with no strings attached.

You've got to have either one or two ‘rogue’ saints in an impoverished community or some sort of cultural history of helping out one another. Otherwise it's every peasant for themselves.

Recall that all people are just like all other people and that the ‘me, myself, and I; first, last, and always’ attitude of our ruling class is not unique to them alone. That is rather the fail safe setting of most communities of people, which is why noble activists are so vital to making changes. Of course these same activists come to the attention of the drug pushers and pimps, thieves, thugs, and petty gang chiefs who do NOT want such activism and attendant changes for the better occurring in their territory.

There are darn good reasons why people do not do the intelligent things as a community or as individuals for that matter; they are simply human and therefore more fallible than not.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 7:57PM, Dec. 3, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
TnTComic
Sorry fellas, but you're way off. Clinton slashed military spending, and was actually making a dent in the national debt.

Sure, he slashed spending while increasing the number of places the troops were blowing up brown people. As for the debt reduction, even has fans agree he did that because of a demographic aberration. SSI collections were WAY up in that time allowing him to funnel that into the general fund to make the budget look balanced. That little bonus went away near the end of his 8 years. Ever wonder why Al Gore made such a big deal about the “lock box”? It was because Bill Clinton opened the unlocked box and ripped it all off.

TnTComic
Sound economic policies that led to a robust economy.

You mean inflationary policies that were in place long before he came to office and Bush simply carried on with? Partisanship has such a blinding effect on people.
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
TnTComic at 4:25AM, Dec. 4, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Mister Mxyzptlk
Sure, he slashed spending

Good.

TnTComic
Sound economic policies that led to a robust economy.

You mean inflationary policies that were in place long before he came to office and Bush simply carried on with? Partisanship has such a blinding effect on people.


Your blind faith in your inability to be wrong is blinding you. If no one is responsible for the economy then we might as well hire a juggling monkey jerking off on a unicycle to do the job because presidents are nut-tightening loser burger flippers.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 6:29AM, Dec. 4, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
TnTComic
Good.

Wow, you are so blinded by partisanship you didn't manage to read the second half of that sentence… Amazing.

TnTComic
If no one is responsible for the economy then we might as well hire a juggling monkey jerking off on a unicycle to do the job because presidents are nut-tightening loser burger flippers.

I didn't say no one was responsible. I said blaming Bush for ALL of it is wrong. Bush, like Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter and Ford lacked the balls to try and change the course of the nations economy. They just kept driving toward the brick wall inflating all the way. So yeah, Bush is culpable, like the guy who drives the get away car for the bank robber who killed a guard can be charged with accessory to murder, but you gotta look at the bank robber too.

Oh, and yeah a monkey could do that job too.
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
TnTComic at 6:47AM, Dec. 4, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Yeah, blaming him for it ALL is not right, but its not wrong for blaming him for the failures that he is responsible for. No president is in entire control of the economy, but he does set policies that effect the economy. So why is it wrong to blame/credit them when the policies they control have an effect?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 7:20AM, Dec. 4, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
TnTComic
Yeah, blaming him for it ALL is not right

Well, a baby step in the right direction…

TnTComic
but its not wrong for blaming him for the failures that he is responsible for.

Sure, but which failures are really his? Blaming him for the economy simply isn't fair. If Gore had won in 2000 then he'd be the one in the hot seat for this mess. I doubt you'd be so quick to toss the blame on his shoulders.

TnTComic
So why is it wrong to blame/credit them when the policies they control have an effect?

Because most of the problems any president of the last twenty years has faced are simply not fixable without sacrificing their party. To fix the economy would take some drastic actions which would piss off a lot of people. The president to do that would doom their party to never electing a president again. Even then the next idiot to take office would likely put everything back on the same path because that's what the voters want. They like the bennies of inflation. They just don't understand the inevitable end game of inflating at the rate the US has done.

One of the problems with letting the ignorant peasants vote…
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
TnTComic at 7:23AM, Dec. 4, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Mister Mxyzptlk
Sure, but which failures are really his? Blaming him for the economy simply isn't fair. If Gore had won in 2000 then he'd be the one in the hot seat for this mess. I doubt you'd be so quick to toss the blame on his shoulders.

Dumping billions into a war. Increasing the size/scope of the government. Reversing fiscal policy of the previous administration with regard to deficit spending. I know shit about taxes, but it seems to me that the President decides who gets what breaks. There's lots of toys that effect the economy at the President's disposal. Clinton used his toys to the benefit of the economy. Bush is using his to its detriment. How is it wrong to praise on and boo the other?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 7:53AM, Dec. 4, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
TnTComic
Dumping billions into a war.

It worked for Wilson and FDR. In ten years history will look differently on it all.

TnTComic
Increasing the size/scope of the government.

Again, a trend that has been going for 100 years. It's what the voters want. They just don't want to pay for it.

TnTComic
Reversing fiscal policy of the previous administration with regard to deficit spending.

Again, Clinton simply dumped the SSI funds into the General Fund to make it LOOK like he wasn't deficit spending. It's a trick everyone did, up until Bush II because the SSI intake is now lower than the output. Sucks to be Bush I guess.

TnTComic
I know shit about taxes

At least you're honest…

TnTComic
but it seems to me that the President decides who gets what breaks.

Congress get to do that by modifying the tax code. The president proposes bills andsigns bills but wiithout congress he can't do squat.

TnTComic
Clinton used his toys to the benefit of the economy.

Only if you look at it through those partisan filter glasses. Clinton was lucky. He sat in office during an economic upswing that had little to do with his policies and the bubbles that were bursting on his watch (tech sector stocks, dot-com stocks) were too confusing to make good news. The housing bubble burst is something that makes great news so we hear more about it.
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
TnTComic at 8:00AM, Dec. 4, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
So it all comes back to the economy is never the president's fault?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
mapaghimagsik at 2:28PM, Dec. 4, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Saying the economy is entirely the president's fault makes about as much sense as saying he has nothing to do with the economy.

Greenspan traded one bubble for another. The President endorses the policy of the fed. The president also has a say in the budget and tax policy.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
TnTComic at 5:18AM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
mapaghimagsik
Saying the economy is entirely the president's fault makes about as much sense as saying he has nothing to do with the economy.

Yep.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
subcultured at 9:33AM, Dec. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
we could use that money going towards a million dollar unit tomahawk for something good.

also other weapon costs:
l M-220 TOW Anti-Tank Missile
This Guided missile weapon system is known for its “fire and forget” capabilities. Current versions can penetrate more than 30 inches of armor and launch 3 missiles in 90 seconds.
Manufacturer: Raytheon
Unit Replacement Cost: $180,000 (19)

l GBU-37 GPS Aided Munition
Among the largest of the guided bomb is the GBU-37. This massive weapons weighs roughly 5,000 pounds and is designed to penetrate buried bunkers, killing leaders and destroying command-and- control networks hidden underground. The GBU-37 can be launched by the B-2 stealth bomber and is guided by GPS satellites to its target (27).
Contractor: TK TK
Unit cost: $231,250 (28).


thank God, the president isn't at fault for our faltering economy…
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 4:17PM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
TnTComic
So it all comes back to the economy is never the president's fault?

Are you functionally illiterate or are your prescription partisan glasses too strong of a prescription.

I said you can't blame him ENTIERLY! I said there were things he could have done, but it would have meant sacrificing his party. I've agreed he's a ball less coward just like the last dozen bozos who have sat in the office.
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
mapaghimagsik at 6:01PM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Mister Mxyzptlk
TnTComic
So it all comes back to the economy is never the president's fault?

Are you functionally illiterate or are your prescription partisan glasses too strong of a prescription.

I said you can't blame him ENTIERLY! I said there were things he could have done, but it would have meant sacrificing his party. I've agreed he's a ball less coward just like the last dozen bozos who have sat in the office.

As you can see. Being a coward and getting your country into a senseless war which has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced over a million– and costing close to a trillion dollars is *exactly* like using surpluses in Social Security to balance the budget.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
bobhhh at 10:39PM, Dec. 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
mapaghimagsik
Mister Mxyzptlk
TnTComic
So it all comes back to the economy is never the president's fault?

Are you functionally illiterate or are your prescription partisan glasses too strong of a prescription.

I said you can't blame him ENTIERLY! I said there were things he could have done, but it would have meant sacrificing his party. I've agreed he's a ball less coward just like the last dozen bozos who have sat in the office.

As you can see. Being a coward and getting your country into a senseless war which has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced over a million– and costing close to a trillion dollars is *exactly* like using surpluses in Social Security to balance the budget.


Personally, given the options, I believe Al Gore would have done far less damage if he was elected president. I'll take SS lock box pickers over short sighted warmongering megalomaniacs any day.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 7:54AM, Dec. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
mapaghimagsik
As you can see. Being a coward and getting your country into a senseless war which has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced over a million– and costing close to a trillion dollars is *exactly* like using surpluses in Social Security to balance the budget.

Since we're playing “what if” what do you think Al would have done, had he been president, after 9-11 when the majority of the nation was screaming for Arab blood? Heck, everyone in his party went for the “hey, go get whoever you thinnk we ought to” resolution. So who do you think he would have gone after?
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
horseboy at 8:56AM, Dec. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 139
joined: 8-27-2006
Mister Mxyzptlk
Since we're playing “what if” what do you think Al would have done, had he been president, after 9-11 when the majority of the nation was screaming for Arab blood? Heck, everyone in his party went for the “hey, go get whoever you thinnk we ought to” resolution. So who do you think he would have gone after?
Their party? Hell even France said go for it, initially.
There is no such word as “alot”. “A lot” is two words.
Voltaire
Never seek for happiness, it will merely allude the seeker. Never strive for knowledge, it is beyond man's scope. Never think, for in though lies all the ills of mankind. The wise man, like the rat, the crocodile, the fly, merely fulfills his natural function.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
bobhhh at 9:13AM, Dec. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Mister Mxyzptlk
mapaghimagsik
As you can see. Being a coward and getting your country into a senseless war which has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced over a million– and costing close to a trillion dollars is *exactly* like using surpluses in Social Security to balance the budget.

Since we're playing “what if” what do you think Al would have done, had he been president, after 9-11 when the majority of the nation was screaming for Arab blood? Heck, everyone in his party went for the “hey, go get whoever you thinnk we ought to” resolution. So who do you think he would have gone after?

Afhganistan sure, and maybe he would have finished the job instead of preparing for Iraq.

Or perhaps he would have read the intelligence reports and possibly avoided 9-11…who knows?

We certainly wouldn't have been in Iraq and preparing to enter Iran.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
mapaghimagsik at 10:59AM, Dec. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Mister Mxyzptlk
mapaghimagsik
As you can see. Being a coward and getting your country into a senseless war which has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced over a million– and costing close to a trillion dollars is *exactly* like using surpluses in Social Security to balance the budget.

Since we're playing “what if” what do you think Al would have done, had he been president, after 9-11 when the majority of the nation was screaming for Arab blood? Heck, everyone in his party went for the “hey, go get whoever you thinnk we ought to” resolution. So who do you think he would have gone after?

See, its not playing what if when you list off what's actually happened. You're using false equivalence to say “Oh, they're all just as bad.”

There's bad. and there's really bad.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 2:01PM, Dec. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
mapaghimagsik
There's bad. and there's really bad.

Sure, Bush sucks. I don't disagree with that.

However this thread isn't about his use of military force in foreign lands. As the Clinton team said “It's the economy, stupid”. So Bush is a warmongering schmuck. What's that got to do with the fact that he inherited an massively inflated economy?
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
bobhhh at 11:02PM, Dec. 11, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Mister Mxyzptlk
mapaghimagsik
There's bad. and there's really bad.

Sure, Bush sucks. I don't disagree with that.

However this thread isn't about his use of military force in foreign lands. As the Clinton team said “It's the economy, stupid”. So Bush is a warmongering schmuck. What's that got to do with the fact that he inherited an massively inflated economy?

Well he did make it massively worse.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
TnTComic at 5:30AM, Dec. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Mister Mxyzptlk
mapaghimagsik
There's bad. and there's really bad.

Sure, Bush sucks. I don't disagree with that.

However this thread isn't about his use of military force in foreign lands. As the Clinton team said “It's the economy, stupid”. So Bush is a warmongering schmuck. What's that got to do with the fact that he inherited an massively inflated economy?

As has been said before, he reversed Clinton's spending policies. Tell me, where do the hundreds of billions that Bush has spent on this war end up?

To claim that Bush's war has had no effect on the economy is just another in a long list of idiotic things on your resume, Mxyzptlk.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 9:27AM, Dec. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
bobhhh
Well he did make it massively worse.

How exactly did he do that?

Did he keep interest rates low so people could get into debt they couldn't afford? Nope, that was Alan Greenspan and Ben “Helicopter” Bernanke.

Did he force people to take out ARMs? No, that was the ignorant home buyers.

Did he drive up the cost of labor so corporations built factories overseas? No, that was the unions.

Did he single handed run budget deficits for the last 100 years? No, it took a majority of politicians over all that time to run up the debt.

Did he set in motion the foreign policy that led to 9/11? No, that was the work of previous administrations and other nations as well.

Did he make every American family into oil junkies? No, that was a result of the economic boom that followed WWII.

So exactly what did he do to make it worse?


TnTComic
As has been said before, he reversed Clinton's spending policies. Tell me, where do the hundreds of billions that Bush has spent on this war end up?

Bill Clinton's spending policies were based upon absorbing the Social Security surpluses into the General Fund. Since Bush couldn't do that as the surpluses were already gone how was he supposed to continue those policies? It's like when a family has two incomes and spends in a certain way until one spouse looses a job. Then they by necessity change the spending policy. A source of “income” was lost.

As for the war, a majority of Americans WANTED the war. They were SCREAMING for SOMEONE to PAY!!! A majority of Democrats, including the current presidential front runner, went along with that call for blood. Now that the war is going badly of course the rats are jumping ship and trying to claim they never REALLY meant to support the war.

As for where the billions wind up, it's probably a more effective use of the public funds than welfare. At least the money employs folks who build the weapons. The war also takes unemployed boobs from dead end towns, puts them in pixies and sends them over to get killed thus decreasing the unemployment numbers. Sure the end products are most often blown up but hey, it looks good on TV and an episode of “Watch the Brown Guy Go Boom” probably costs less than an episode of some idiotic twitcom that's in reruns until the writers strike gets straitened out.
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved