Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Akalabeth Angel on September 18, 2008, 03:26:07 pm
-
Barack Obama and John McCain both talk about Iraq in their issues and policies, but do either one of them give a damn? Do either one of their policies actually give any consideration for the Iraq people? Here's some stuff from their website:
Obama:
A phased withdrawal will encourage Iraqis to take the lead in securing their own country and making political compromises, while the responsible pace of redeployment called for by the Obama-Biden plan offers more than enough time for Iraqi leaders to get their own house in order. As our forces redeploy, Obama and Biden will make sure we engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society—in and out of government—to forge compromises on oil revenue sharing, the equitable provision of services, federalism, the status of disputed territories, new elections, aid to displaced Iraqis, and the reform of Iraqi security forces.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/)
John McCain:
John McCain believes that economic progress is essential to sustaining security gains in Iraq. Markets that were once silent and deserted have come back to life in many areas, but high unemployment rates continue to fuel criminal and insurgent violence. To move young men away from the attractions of well-funded extremists, we need a vibrant, growing Iraqi economy. The Iraqi government can jump-start this process by using a portion of its budget surplus to employ Iraqis in infrastructure projects and in restoring basic services.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm)
So what, Obama says "revenue sharing", McCain says "help the government jump start the economic, employ Iraqis in infrastructure projects", blah blah blah. But what's the real economic issue in Iraq?
L. Paul Bremer's 100 Orders.
Bremer issued 100 orders to "help" Iraq during the time of the interim government. Those orders became law, and hard to get rid of. Basically they were included in an early constitution, they became law, the last constitution doesn't specifically state them but it doesn't repeal them either so they're STILL law. And what you say is Bremer's 100 orders? Who gives a crap?
In short, the corporate rape and takeover of Iraq.
In greater length: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=42948 (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=42948)
"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.
"Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.
"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.
"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.
"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.
"Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.
"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors." http://www.orbstandard.com/News/Zeese/Zeese_Corporate_US_Takeover_of_the_Iraq_Economy.html (http://www.orbstandard.com/News/Zeese/Zeese_Corporate_US_Takeover_of_the_Iraq_Economy.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Paul_Bremer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Paul_Bremer)
-----------------------
Barrack Obama and John McCain say they're for change? Changing what?
"Help the Iraq people"
"Withdraw our troops"
Bull****.
What about giving the the Iraqi country BACK to the Iraqis? And taking it away from the US Corporations. Iraq is a bonafide PUPPET state. That's the REAL issue with Iraq. So why in the hell isn't that being talked about? Because most like McCain and Obama like that situation, and they're not going to change it. Because they're not about Changing Iraq. The only change they'll bring is a new face to the corporate puppet in the Oval office.
Btw.
Bremer's orders are a violation of the Hague Conventions, ratified by the United States in 1907
"Under international law an occupying government has one set of responsibilities, and they're very clear. An occupying government must provide security and basic services. An occupying government explicitly cannot fundamentally rewrite the laws of the country they're occupying. The United States did exactly the opposite; we rewrote the laws, and we didn't provide basic services or security for the people."
http://www.stateofthepeople.org/news/BushClearsWayforCorporateDomination.html (http://www.stateofthepeople.org/news/BushClearsWayforCorporateDomination.html)
Thankyou US for breaking another International law. And thank you Obama and McCain for seemingly have no interest in trying to rectify that problem.
How many people even know about the Bremer orders?
-
I do. I also know that Bremer hasn't been in charge of Iraq for several years now.
You seem to want to get really agitated about a few paragraphs of information from the Internet. You can't translate these one-dimensional scraps into massive global problems.
Everything is more complex than it appears on the Internet.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am saying that this kind of rhetoric isn't really going to inform anyone, change anything, or draw attention to problems in a way that will help solve them.
-
I do. I also know that Bremer hasn't been in charge of Iraq for several years now.
You seem to want to get really agitated about a few paragraphs of information from the Internet. You can't translate these one-dimensional scraps into massive global problems.
Everything is more complex than it appears on the Internet.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am saying that this kind of rhetoric isn't really going to inform anyone, change anything, or draw attention to problems in a way that will help solve them.
Massive Global problems?
What rhetoric exactly will change things? That of Obama and McCain? The fact that Bremer's not in charge is irrelevant. His legacy continues. How is Iraq as a country supposed to improve if all the profits from their local economy is sent overseas? How can a country improve when they likely don't have so little control? If Iraq doesn't improve, will the US withdraw troops? Or if the US has such an investment in Iraq, the US corporations that is, will the US withdraw troops?
These are real important issues about Iraq. But the two presidential candidates don't even give them a mention. The media doesn't give them any mention. So do you REALLY think anything's going to change? In the other thread, you said "I believe Obama and McCain, that they'll change things" (paraphrased)
So explain to me, how you think Obama and McCain are going to clean up Bush's Iraq legacy when they don't even address the single most important issue that's screwing over Iraq. No matter who's elected president. Four years from now, the US will still be in Iraq.
-
*snip*
Why indent so much?
-
Hardline rhetoric and unthinking belief -- the affective death spiral -- are the enemies of human progress. Go back and read what I said. I'm trying to get you to step back and think rationally. I'm not attacking your beliefs.
"I believe Obama and McCain, that they'll change things" (paraphrased)
No I didn't. I said I believe they wouldn't behave like Bush (i.e. launch preemptive wars, take illegal executive action to a ridiculous degree.) They won't be angels, but they'll be an improvement, I think.
Please be careful about misquoting and misattributing statements. It shows that you're not really reading and trying to understand everything.
-
No I didn't. I said I believe they wouldn't behave like Bush (i.e. launch preemptive wars, take illegal executive action to a ridiculous degree.) They won't be angels, but they'll be an improvement, I think.
Please be careful about misquoting and misattributing statements. It shows that you're not really reading and trying to understand everything.
Ah you are correct, my mistake and my apologies.
So you believe, that they won't behave like Bush.
Here's a question, do you believe that they'll effect positive change? Actually, positive change, as opposed to diminishing negative change. And if the answer is no, would you support either one of them with a vote (hypothetically, since, it is after a secret vote).
-
No. The president has very little power to effect anything.
I support Obama because I believe he'll do the least damage, and because he's respected overseas, so he may help repair America's global reputation.
-
I support Obama because I believe he'll do the least damage
That's a great reason to vote for someone.
-
Don't be foolish. It's possible to simultaneously do damage and do good. Bush has done many things right and many things wrong.
I believe Obama will do fewer things wrong than McCain, and simultaneously do more good.
I support Obama because I believe he'll do the least damage, and because he's respected overseas, so he may help repair America's global reputation.
If you are going to quote me, please quote in full instead of clipping to support your own point.
-
I support Obama because I believe he'll do the least damage, and because he's respected overseas, so he may help repair America's global reputation.
If you are going to quote me, please quote in full instead of clipping to support your own point.
Who cares about your reputation?
Repair your country.
Repair the lives of the Iraqis and give them back their country.
Work towards true peace in Israel and Palestine.
Do these and your countries reputation will take care of itself.
-
International influence -- and the ability to accomplish foreign policy goals -- is bolstered by a strong reputation. Witness the recent hubbub in Georgia.
Since you have so much data to back up your statements, please tell 'us' (as if I somehow represent the whole diverse spectrum of US citizens) how to do the things you've requested.
If you cannot, please take a few days to research the issues in question, so that you may understand the full difficulty of these tasks.
Remember: tackling these issues as simple problems with clear solutions only makes them worse.
-
Who cares about your reputation? This makes the bottom three a lot easier with international cooperation aka having friends.
Repair your country. K lemme get the owner's manual
Repair the lives of the Iraqis and give them back their country. A little bit more difficult than that
Work towards true peace in Israel and Palestine. HEY! YOU GUYS!! STOP BEING SO MEAN TO EACH OTHER!
Do these and your countries reputation will take care of itself.
-
International influence -- and the ability to accomplish foreign policy goals -- is bolstered by a strong reputation. Witness the recent hubbub in Georgia.
Since you have so much data to back up your statements, please tell 'us' (as if I somehow represent the whole diverse spectrum of US citizens) how to do the things you've requested.
If you cannot, please take a few days to research the issues in question, so that you may understand the full difficulty of these tasks.
Remember: tackling these issues as simple problems with clear solutions only makes them worse.
How to do it?
Israel/Palestine - QUIT TAKING SIDES.
Iraq - Get out of the damn country and leave them alone
Your own country - quit buying guns, tanks, and missiles and try spending a LITTLE bit more money on education, infrastructure, clean drinking water, healthcare . . . oh wait, not healthcare, you already spend more than anyone else in the world, despite the fact people have to pay for it themselve and despite the fact many people die because they don't have healthcare. So try, changing your healthcare system, so it's actual a system for people rather than a system for private corporations to make money.
-
How to do it?
Israel/Palestine - QUIT TAKING SIDES. Again, a little more complicated than that. Do you actually have some plan to handle the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza/West Bank/Golan, to disarm the Palestinian militants in Fatah and Hamas, or to engage the Arab world in talks with Palestine and Israel? Or just some broad generalization that says you know nothing more about this topic than the average dumbass sheep anti-war protestor?
Iraq - Get out of the damn country and leave them alone K, we'll just drop everything and get out. Sound good? We can just leave the Iraqi infrastructure and security where it's at?
Please do some research on foreign policy before making these claims. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Many wars and atrocities in history have resulted from sudden power vacuums. Consider, for example, the massive instability in post-colonial Africa.
Whether or not US support of Israel is justified, whether or not the US was wise to take action in Iraq, sudden withdrawal of that influence would create instabilities that would likely result in greater tragedy. If the US stopped supporting Israel, Israel’s opponents might see that as an invitation to attack. Alternatively, an insecure Israel might feel the need to preemptively attack its neighbors. If the US abruptly withdrew from Iraq, the young government might collapse and leave the country vulnerable to another oppressive regime.
Don’t get me wrong: I believe that it would be to America’s benefit to extricate itself from both situations. But there are many, many complications to consider, and only a thoroughly reasoned solution is likely to succeed. It’s never as simple as it appears.
-
Well, I don't really have much to say about this aside from the fact that it should be blatantly obvious were here to stay in iraq >_<. Also, i've just gained ALOT of respect for Battuta :nod:
-
How t' do it?
Israel/Palestine - QUIT TAKING SIDES. Again, a little more complicated than wot. Do ye actually have some plan t' handle th' withdrawal o' Israeli forces from Gaza/West Bank/Golan, t' disarm th' Palestinian militants in Fatah an' Hamas, or t' engage th' Arab world in talks with Palestine an' Israel? Or just some broad generalization wot says ye know nothin' more about this 'ere topic than th' average dumbass sheep anti-war protestor?
Iraq - Get out o' th' damn country an' leave them alone K, we'll just drop everythin' an' get out. Sound good? We can just leave th' Iraqi infrastructure an' security where it's at?
Please do some research on foreign policy afore makin' these claims. Ye clearly have nay idea what ye're talkin' about.
So your answer is:
"It's too hard, let's not do anything at all"
And America rejoiced. Congratulations. You've become a proponent for the status quo instead of positive changed. Haliburton and the US Military Industrial complex would be proud.
-
I've said everything I want to by now. I respect what you're trying to say, and while I'm sure some would think you're damaging your own credibility by now, I recognize the point of view behind your statements.
You can keep making simple, proscriptive suggestions about how to fix extremely complex issues. Most US citizens I know have passed through the phase you're going through at one point (why don't we just do these common-sense things!) Then they realize that the world doesn't work that way.
If you're going to complain about health care, perhaps you should be aware that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama put health care reform at the top of their agendas. Clinton, in particular, had an incredibly comprehensive plan for health care reform.
Calm down, step back, and take a good long think about these things. I also suggest checking out Overcoming Bias (http://www.overcomingbias.com) for some awesome discussions of why complex thought and attempted objectivity are valuable.
Also, Talk like a Pirate Day is awesome.
-
No one has said that we shouldn’t do anything. We’ve said that these are complex issues that should be handled with care, and that thinking they’re simple is dangerous and counterproductive.
After all, “let’s invade Iraq and fix things” sounded like one of those nice, simple answers back in the day. Look what a mess that turned out to be.
-
Well, I don't really have much t' say about this 'ere aside from th' fact wot it should be blatantly obvious were here t' stay in iraq >_<. Also, i've just gained ALOT o' respect fer Battuta :nod:
Thank you!
-
I'm starting to think we should have a dedicated political forum with the pirate filter as a permanent fixture. It'd help take everyone down a peg or three. :p
-
It is pretty awesome.
-
Give me a break hearties! I can hardly read th' normal english :mad:
-
I'm startin' t' think we should have a dedicated political forum with th' pirate filter as a permanent fixture. It'd help take everyone down a peg or three. :p
I like this idea.
-
If you're going to complain about health care, perhaps you should be aware that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama put health care reform at the top of their agendas. Clinton, in particular, had an incredibly comprehensive plan for health care reform.
Clinton and Obama's so-called plans rely heavily on subsidies. The insurance companies, are already making bucket loads of money, and both their plans call to subsidize those companies???? Are you serious?
Oh, and btw, if you didn't know the government or the Federeal reserve, whoever just bailed out some corporation for several TRILLION dollars. And you support a plan where the government pays insurance companies or whoever, money so that everyone can get a plan? Please.
Why obama's health care plan sucks:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Top-Five-Reasons-Why-Barack-Obamas-Health-Plan-Will-Make-You-Sick&id=1430568 (http://ezinearticles.com/?Top-Five-Reasons-Why-Barack-Obamas-Health-Plan-Will-Make-You-Sick&id=1430568)
-
I think you're starting to catch on: there is an objection to everything and everyone. No one can agree on a perfect solution.
It's easy to scream about what everyone is doing wrong (which you've achieved so far.) Once you realize that everyone is doing it wrong, then you'll start to realize how complicated these issues are.
-
AIG is one of the largest insurance companies in the world. Allowing it to go under would drastically affect the US economy and the international scene as well, and would possibly be one of the worst mistakes any President could ever make.
Government normally should stay out of the economy, but when it does start to go down the ****ters, a little bit of government control and assistance can save it.
-
Yeah, I've been reading a bunch of articles about how better government regulation would probably have stopped the current economic crisis in the US. They're saying that no matter who gets elected there will be more regulation.
-
AIG is one of the largest insurance companies in the world. Allowing it to go under would drastically affect the US economy and the international scene as well, and would possibly be one of the worst mistakes any President could ever make.
Government normally should stay out of the economy, but when it does start to go down the ****ters, a little bit of government control and assistance can save it.
AIG cost what, 65 Billion . . . the other company they bailed out can cost you upwards of 5 TRILLION dollars according to Ron Paul. That's freaking crazy man.
And the fact is, the government doesn't normally stay out of the economy. They hand out corporate bailouts all the time. What's worse, bailing or buying some failing company? Or having the entire worldwide collapse of the dollar monetary system?
-
And the fact is, the government doesn't normally stay out of the economy. They hand out corporate bailouts all the time. What's worse, bailing or buying some failing company? Or having the entire worldwide collapse of the dollar monetary system?
No, I know it doesn't, and anyone who believes it should stay completely out is mad. The government has to regulate business practices and be ready to protect key businesses from going down the tubes, lest the US or world economies suffer as a result.
Believe me, I don't believe communism or complete state control of the economy, but reckless business practices and stock trading once resulted in the greatest economic tragedy the world faced in the 20th century. There needs to be a compromise between laissez-faire and state control, one that currently exists in the US. Does it need to be strengthened a little bit? Maybe.
Ron Paul, unfortunately, opposes any government regulation of the economy, despite the fact that it may be government regulation that will save the economy in the near future. Libertarianism's a great philosophy, but it's impracticable.
-
Ron Paul, unfortunately, opposes any government regulation of the economy, despite the fact that it may be government regulation that will save the economy in the near future. Libertarianism's a great philosophy, but it's impracticable.
The government doesn't regulate the economy, the Federal Reserve does. A private institution.
In fact, you're wrong on that point in more ways than one. Ron Paul advocates Congress taking on its constitutional authority and responsibility to print money. The US economy is regulated by the printing of money. When the Federal Reserve says they're lowering interest rates, what they're really saying is that they're printing more money and that the influx of money is going to devalue the dollar and therefore interest rates or somesuch nonsense. If the government, being congress, actually took on its governmental responsibilities that regulation of interest rates and the economy would be up to them.
Btw, it's interesting to note that the only modern President who passed a bill or somesuch to print money on a silver standard rather than the fiat system, or the dollar standard, in place. The only president to do that was assassinated 5 months later.
-
It's not nonsense, it makes perfect sense. I thought it was nonsense, but then I took a great econ course from a good professor.
-
It's not nonsense, it makes perfect sense. I thought it was nonsense, but then I took a great econ course from a good professor.
Thankyou for completely ignoring the point that Ron Paul advocates government regulation rather than regulation by a private institution.
-
Actually, uh, I'd rather have it be regulated by a private institution.
The Fed isn't subject to the pressure of reelection. Congress is constantly monkeying with economic policy to get the best economic results in election years at the expense of long-term performance.
In computer-science terms (inexpertly put, I know), a government regulation program would be a greedy search algorith, forever looking for short-term optima at the expense of the long term. The Fed, on the other hand, is far more stable and reliable -- a real strategist.
-
Actually, uh, I'd rather have it be regulated by a private institution.
The Fed isn't subject to the pressure of reelection. Congress is constantly monkeying with economic policy to get the best economic results in election years at the expense of long-term performance.
The Fed isn't subject to accountability or transparency either.
In computer-science terms (inexpertly put, I know), a government regulation program would be a greedy search algorith, forever looking for short-term optima at the expense of the long term. The Fed, on the other hand, is far more stable and reliable -- a real strategist.
I'll bet they are.
You're basically living in a monarchy where the US economy is controlled by the privileged elite. Who gained their power not through the divine right of God but the fact that they're daddies and mommies were money barons.
Why do you think you went to war in Iraq? To help the Iraqi people? To safeguard america. No, you went to war for the benefit of American corporations. Rich guys, with lots of power, and no public accountability, who likely also have some influence if not a chair on the Federal Reserve.
Enjoy your liberty.
-
You're basically living in a monarchy where the US economy is controlled by the privileged elite. Who gained their power not through the divine right of God but the fact that they're daddies and mommies were money barons.
Why do you think you went to war in Iraq? To help the Iraqi people? To safeguard america. No, you went to war for the benefit of American corporations. Rich guys, with lots of power, and no public accountability, who likely also have some influence if not a chair on the Federal Reserve.
Remember how I said I was a canvasser who'd talked to thousands of people?
Well, I hate to break it to you, but most Americans believe exactly what you say. People just differ on what to do about it.
You seem determined to find something to be outraged about. Carry on, if you must.
-
You're basically living in a monarchy where the US economy is controlled by the privileged elite. Who gained their power not through the divine right of God but the fact that they're daddies and mommies were money barons.
Why do you think you went to war in Iraq? To help the Iraqi people? To safeguard america. No, you went to war for the benefit of American corporations. Rich guys, with lots of power, and no public accountability, who likely also have some influence if not a chair on the Federal Reserve.
Remember how I said I was a canvasser who'd talked to thousands of people?
Well, I hate to break it to you, but most Americans believe exactly what you say. People just differ on what to do about it.
You seem determined to find something to be outraged about. Carry on, if you must.
And you see determined to find nothing to be outraged about.
Carry on.
If you're complacent with the current reality of your country then more lack of power and lack of civil liberties to you.
-
Uh, nooo...remember how I worked as a canvasser?
That means I went out the door and signed up to raise money for a political candidate who I believed would change things. You can want to change things without being outraged; outrage just makes you biased and prevents you from thinking tactically.
I want my civil liberties back. The fact that my methods for achieving that goal differ from yours doesn't mean that either of us are dumb, just that we have different ideas and standards.
You have my respect. I hope I have yours.
And being a canvasser is hard, hard work, so don't take any cheap shots at that kind of job. I doubt you've ever gotten that involved!
-
Uh, nooo...remember how I worked as a canvasser?
That means I went out the door and signed up to raise money for a political candidate who I believed would change things. You can want to change things without being outraged; outrage just makes you biased and prevents you from thinking tactically.
I want my civil liberties back. The fact that my methods for achieving that goal differ from yours doesn't mean that either of us are dumb, just that we have different ideas and standards.
I'm sure canvassing is a crapload a work and you're to be commended for it. But why a person spends so much time and energy for a candidate because they believe they'll do the "least damage" doesn't quite compute in my mind.
And yeah, here's your quote in its entirety.
I support Obama because I believe he'll do the least damage, and because he's respected overseas, so he may help repair America's global reputation.
But anyway, I'm not American. So whatever, americans can elect who they chose (or don't chose). And the rest of the world (ie me) will live with the consequences of that whether they are positive or otherwise.
-
You're basically living in a monarchy where the US economy is controlled by the privileged elite. Who gained their power not through the divine right of God but the fact that they're daddies and mommies were money barons.
No one rules through the divine right of God. They just think they do. 'Divine right of God' is a reason that has been used for some of the bloodiest wars in history, and both Musilims and Christians are responsible for some of them.
I'm sure canvassing is a crapload a work and you're to be commended for it. But why a person spends so much time and energy for a candidate because they believe they'll do the "least damage" doesn't quite compute in my mind.
Because even the smallest grain of rice can tip the scales.
Israel/Palestine - QUIT TAKING SIDES.
Easier said than done. As it stands, America is doing little more than military posturing. They don't control the Israeli forces, and definitely not the Palestinian militants. And peace isn't something easily achieved in the Middle East.
Iraq - Get out of the damn country and leave them alone
And create a power vacuum that can be filled by any Tom Dick and Harry with sufficient charisma to gather people to his cause? At this point in time, the American presence imposes order, however minor, in a country whose security and armed forces are not yet up to scratch. For now, I have nothing against the American presence in Iraq. In the future however, if Iraqi forces are sufficiently able to handle the numerous militants in the Middle East, then I can see no further use for American forces in Iraq.
Your own country - quit buying guns, tanks, and missiles and try spending a LITTLE bit more money on education, infrastructure, clean drinking water, healthcare . . . oh wait, not healthcare, you already spend more than anyone else in the world, despite the fact people have to pay for it themselve and despite the fact many people die because they don't have healthcare. So try, changing your healthcare system, so it's actual a system for people rather than a system for private corporations to make money.
Any country's primary concern will be security. Having the best healthcare, education or infrastructure in the world isn't worth a damn if you're military is basically a paper tiger. I don't know much about the healthcare system in America, so I'll leave it at that.
In the end, between the two candidates, I'd much rather have Obama, simply on the fact that like what Battuta said, that Obama would do less damage than McCain.
-
Alright, let's go with Congress sticking to printing money only (Congress actually has more economic powers than that but since you don't know them/didnt mention them, we'll just roll with that).
1. The Fed is a government institution with private elements created in the 1910s. Therefore, is part of the government regulation of the economy. As such, your friend Ron Paul opposes this.
2. The SEC, which is responsible for monitoring Wall Street for insider trading as well as the reckless business practices that led to the collapse of the economy in the 30s, is a government institution which regulates the economy. Therefore, Ron Paul opposes this.
3. The FDIC, responsible for insuring your money in the bank, is a government institution. Ron Paul opposes.
4. Bank holidays, authorized by the federal government, is an example of government regulation. So is authorizing banks to close to prevent banks from collapsing in the event of a paniced run.
So, in the event of a President Paul, we'll have insider trading on Wall Street, people buying their stocks on-margin, and banks becoming essentially worthless in the event of something going wrong--which may happen in the next few years.
So, thanks to President Hoover/Paul, the US economy is now ****ed.
Times have changed. The Constitution still works as the supreme law, but we've had to make some changes. Reverting back to what you're suggesting is the exact problem with libertarianism and ultra-conservatism--they're impractical.
-
Alright, let's go with Congress sticking to printing money only (Congress actually has more economic powers than that but since you don't know them/didnt mention them, we'll just roll with that).
1. The Fed is a government institution with private elements created in the 1910s. Therefore, is part of the government regulation of the economy. As such, your friend Ron Paul opposes this.
2. The SEC, which is responsible for monitoring Wall Street for insider trading as well as the reckless business practices that led to the collapse of the economy in the 30s, is a government institution which regulates the economy. Therefore, Ron Paul opposes this.
3. The FDIC, responsible for insuring your money in the bank, is a government institution. Ron Paul opposes.
4. Bank holidays, authorized by the federal government, is an example of government regulation. So is authorizing banks to close to prevent banks from collapsing in the event of a paniced run.
So, in the event of a President Paul, we'll have insider trading on Wall Street, people buying their stocks on-margin, and banks becoming essentially worthless in the event of something going wrong--which may happen in the next few years.
So, thanks to President Hoover/Paul, the US economy is now ****ed.
Yeah, probably all good points. But it's worth keeping in mind that the current financial situation is the result of the current system, and not as the result of anything that Ron Paul is advocating.
There should, one would think, be more transparency to an institution that's so vital to the country as the Federal Reserve. Though obviously one would not want too much information to affect the stability of the market.
-
And you see determined to find nothing to be outraged about.
Carry on.
If you're complacent with the current reality of your country then more lack of power and lack of civil liberties to you.
I'm outraged at a lot of things. I remain level-headed and rational about them, so that I can plan, strategize, and maneuver without prejudice.
I'm sure canvassing is a crapload a work and you're to be commended for it. But why a person spends so much time and energy for a candidate because they believe they'll do the "least damage" doesn't quite compute in my mind.
And yeah, here's your quote in its entirety.
I support Obama because I believe he'll do the least damage, and because he's respected overseas, so he may help repair America's global reputation.
You didn't understand what I was saying. I argued that no president could do anything but damage, because damage is subjective. One person's favorite piece of legislation is another person's atrocity. The president cannot please everyone.
Therefore, no president can be a pure do-gooder. All presidents will provide some mixture of damage and progress. I believe Obama will supply less damage and more progress than McCain or other possible presidents.
-
I think that's one of the biggest problems in the American political system. You can only choose between two candidates. Most people can not pick the one they like best, only for the least worst.
-
In Singapore, we usually only have one candidate.
-
I think that's one of the biggest problems in the American political system. You can only choose between two candidates. Most people can not pick the one they like best, only for the least worst.
You can vote for whomever you damn well please here...it's just that most people only vote for one of two people. :p
-
In Singapore, we usually only have one candidate.
Wait a minute... why do you bother with elections?
-
Wait a minute... why do you bother with elections?
The Revolution Will Not Be Vilified