John McCain vs Barack Obama Mega-Politic-Thread of super fun awesomeness.

[Zerzera]

Its just that the current debt brought the US to where is is today, a after all very powerfull economy.

Yes, you can bring it back to a single person. It's fine when you can borrow unlimited amounts of money, as long as no one will ever ask you to pay off.
The United States won't be asked to pay off as long as their economy makes money for the people who invested in it. The only thing they have to do is keep their economy running, to keep it one of the strongest in the world. May it crash or lose it's lucrative position, they will have that huge debt and no dollars to pay it off. That's why some American companies run at risk percentages well over 1000%, at some point it's just all or nothing anyway.

But realize that about everyone in the world will shudder when it were to happen. Like in Holland, most pension plans have their money invested in the US economy. If they would lose their money, a lot of Dutch people would have to work until their death.

[Shas'la T'au Kais]

WALLS OF MOTHERFUCKING TEXTf

[kthx]

Not. You can't invest money into a government and expect to see return. And yes this is where democratic politics are much like communism. Our government is bad with money, look at our debt, look at our public programs, look at anything that the government handles that requires us to use money in a smart way, they fail miserably. Obama and all democrats want to make the government bigger, whether it is creating more government jobs, adding new government programs, or letting the government have a larger say in your life. How these two are connected is, in the free market, if I buy a product from a company, the company pays that money to employees, and the money is returned to the economy eventually, when the government gets the money, sure some of it is returned to federal employees, but much of it is used to repay debt, as is much of any product the government creates in itself. So basically if the government has unlimited money, which apparently they do now then where is the reason for a government run business or program to do extremely well? There isn't one, business works, technology is invented, America is innovative because: If you create a product that is not good, people don't want, is too expensive, people won't buy it and the business will fail. That is the peoples way of telling a business that they suck basically. Now, when the government who is.. what 6 trillion i n debt not even sure and I don't have time to go look it up since I have to leave for work soon. They can just print money so basically nobody can tell them that they suck, nobody wants their product, etc etc etc. The only way to stop this is through conservatism, not liberalism, we need a smaller government, with a LOT of reform to fix the economy.

[Zerzera]

so basically nobody can tell them that they suck

Sorry, I thought the United States had democracy. And even if you are right, I believe the last 30 years the Republicans have been in charge of your country apart from two or three terms.

[Fluffz]

The only way to stop this is through conservatism, not liberalism, we need a smaller government, with a LOT of reform to fix the economy.

So you dislike the current situation, want a free market with a slim goverment and suggest conservatism instead of liberalism.


WHAT?

[gran guerrero]

WALLS OF MOTHERFUCKING TEXTf

preach brother preach

[kthx]

So you dislike the current situation, want a free market with a slim goverment and suggest conservatism instead of liberalism.


WHAT?

Sarcastic much? I hope so or else I can explain the word liberal without the ism for you. Oh and btw.

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2008/09/b...es-muslim.html

[Zerzera]

I hope so or else I can explain the word liberal without the ism for you.

You mean you will look it up on Google and flood us with the results without bothering to read them yourself. Hoping that we either waste our time reading it or hoping that we will think the essay proves your point and that you are really smart.

[Kolar]

Anything to get a reaction.

[Jerome Scuggs]

alot of what is being said is all fine and dandy except for the lack of correlation to actual events occurring. for instance, a "capitalist" nation has never been able to not pay any debts. that sort of thing - inability to pay debt - is a feature of centrally-planned economies, the extreme example being africa. in a free market companies who can't turn a profit go out of business before they can cause any sort of real systemic economic damage - unless they use alot of bureaucratic red tape to juggle books a la enron, of course.

no, i take that back. given recent events, any company that can't turn a profit can just go to the government for a $50 billion loan.

[kthx]

It had to happen or else the economy would be even more fucked when bank after bank declared bankruptcy or lost millions of dollars when these two firms tanked. I personally want to see some heads rolling from these organizations honestly.. where is the anger, these are the idiots who caused the current housing problems. The bailout however.. has to happen.. it will be interesting to see what happens in the future though.

[Ayano]

no, i take that back. given recent events, any company that can't turn a profit can just go to the government for a $50 billion loan.

The problem is when a company owns real estate and just so happens to hold a large share of that market. If fannie may or freddie mac ever went under, (if one went out, the other would soon follow) That coupled with the credit crisis would put the US a lot of shit dragging the world with it.

At first the Gov trusted in private enterprise's will to survive. Apparently, Freddie Mac and Fanny May were seeing this as a one-two punch where they could rectify their debt and increase personal gains at the expense of the government and tax payer dollars. They were going to use this crutch to the fullest, not to just recover, but recover with a large profit and an even larger market share.

[Fluffz]

Sarcastic much? I hope so or else I can explain the word liberal without the ism for you.

usually i would say: sure go ahead and make a fool out of yourself. But you already did that to an extent where you fail to amuse me so please dont.

The problem is when a company owns real estate and just so happens to hold a large share of that market. If fannie may or freddie mac ever went under, (if one went out, the other would soon follow) That coupled with the credit crisis would put the US a lot of shit dragging the world with it.

the current move does not solve the problem, the crisis still esists just in a different form. It changes the picture of reality and the bubble gets bigger and bigger. There is no way the state will make profit with this move and we all will pay the price for this politicaly motivated action.

[Zerzera]

alot of what is being said is all fine and dandy except for the lack of correlation to actual events occurring. for instance, a "capitalist" nation has never been able to not pay any debts. that sort of thing - inability to pay debt - is a feature of centrally-planned economies, the extreme example being africa. in a free market companies who can't turn a profit go out of business before they can cause any sort of real systemic economic damage - unless they use alot of bureaucratic red tape to juggle books a la enron, of course.

no, i take that back. given recent events, any company that can't turn a profit can just go to the government for a $50 billion loan.

Even in your perfect world where your neighbor builds the road and your friend decides the curriculum for your children. A government that only sticks to law enforcement needs a vast income, and will have less sources to get it. Especially since you wouldn't have income taxes etc.
Don't think you can get it by fining rotters, because they have no money to supply.
Again, Capitalism is an ideology, like Communism, where every human being has to participate in a inhumane way. I know that in the book you read it worked perfectly, but well, that's a book and it didn't really cover metaphysics in an unbiased way.

for instance, a "capitalist" nation has never been able to not pay any debts. that sort of thing - inability to pay debt - is a feature of centrally-planned economies

Okay, I want to see the United States pay off their debt in 5 years. A nation doesn't have to pay off its debt because it's impossible to enforce. You would need an free army to loot the country or something. They could/can, but they don't have to.

[kthx]

Hey fluffz, I will go ahead, when you are "liberal with your money" it means you spend a lot of money, now add an ism to it, and that is your government. Wow.