[Nuke]

i realized that if there is one thing liberals are good at its backstabbing and slander.

[BS403]

She hated McCain. She thought he was too liberal. BUT since she wasn't going to vote at all, I convinced her to vote for Obama.

Either your mom's retarded or your lying, because nobody would ever do that if they knew anything at all about the candidates. (edit:Meaning no one would switch to a more liberal candidate when they thought the other was too liberal.)

[Nuclear1]

What--isn't doing what's popular--i.e., what you're people want you to do--the whole point of a republican system of government?

[Scotty]

a republican system of government also tends to fall over quite rapidly if the leader ONLY does what is popular.  Take ALMOST EVERY SINGLE LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRY for example.  Besides, it's an open secret that the vast majority of people have no idea what it takes to run a government, and therefore dislike every single decision that is not in their most direct and immediate interests.

[Nuclear1]

Of course the public can't be trusted to make all the decisions--not being elitist or anything, but people as a whole are just uninterested in dedicating all their time to making decisions. That's partly why republican systems exist for large countries, so representatives can make decisions.

But if Bush was going to do unpopular things, they could have at least been necessary. Fighting an unnecessary war of which over 50% of your population disapproves isn't one of these examples. Nor is violating the sanctity of nearly every rights charter or human rights convention in the name of "anti-terrorism". 

The government can't be fickle and simply collapse at every whim, but it at least needs to be responsive enough to change somewhat after four or more years of protests. Otherwise, why bother with the election process or even call the US system republicanism at all? Representatives exist in the House and Senate to respond to their constituents' will. There's no arguing that.

[Janos]

I think that the Stimulus package will help, because it's this adrenaline rush that'll HOPEFULLY lead to more jobs being created.

I'm sorry, but things don't work that way.  The first one didn't work.  Why should another.  Better to just hand the offending businesses out to dry.  It will be better in the long run.  By giving money to failing companies, it encourages them to do the bad things they did before because, hey, what the hell, they'll get paid if they mess up again anyway.  That isn't the way the country should run.

hmmm whyyy yeees let's let the US credit rating drop what a marvellous idea

and yes tens of millions of people would be severely affected by this company going down, i mean like "lose your home" affected but hey, eventually thing will be normal

and obviously the two stimulus packages are the only ones ever proposed. there have never been large public investations in markets both public and private before. nooooo.

What I say is **** politics.  Republican/Democrat arguments are stupid and just perpetuate more arguments.  Do what works, not what makes you popular.  (Btw, I support Bush for doing exactly that.  Don't argue this statement.  This is not meant to start a flame war.  That is what I think, deal with it.)

"MY STUPID ARGUMENT DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT IT"
- favour efficiency over popularity argument? right in the beginning!
- then favouring bush right afterwards what ever did that guy do?
- if you think politics are stupid then why are you talking about them
- and if you don't want to someone to jump on your argument then hey, maybe you shouldn't post it, especially if the argument has the constistency and feels of diarrhea

[Scotty]

My God, what did I JUST SAY in my last post.  That's my opinion, not an argument, I have a right to have it.  It was NOT meant to spark discussion.  I was merely referencing the popularity of his decisions.  Drop it.

hmmm whyyy yeees let's let the US credit rating drop what a marvellous idea

and yes tens of millions of people would be severely affected by this company going down, i mean like "lose your home" affected but hey, eventually thing will be normal

and obviously the two stimulus packages are the only ones ever proposed. there have never been large public investations in markets both public and private before. nooooo.

The people who lose their homes are the people who should not have been able to get a loan to get those homes in the first place.  They brought this on themselves.

Of course there have been large public investations, but they don't have a track record of working very well.  Don't feed me any BS that the New Deal was what helped us out of the depression.  All it did was pay people to do stuff like make parks and spend gov't money.  What helped us out of the Great Depression was the entrance into WWII and the patriotic fervor that lead millions of peolpe to volunteer for jobs they would not otherwise have volunteered for, and that weren't there before the war began.

Stimulus plans don't work.  They haven't yet, and they aren't going to. 

[Janos]

My God, what did I JUST SAY in my last post.  That's my opinion, not an argument, I have a right to have it.  I was merely referencing the popularity of his decisions.  Drop it.

Hey seriously you have a right to say whatever you want but if you post your opinions then they're free for all. You are no one, you don't get to dictate whether people respond to your posts or not. Call a mod or something. Until then I will respond to your posts.

If you don't want to discuss, then don't post. Especially dumb **** that you refuse to quantify. What did you mean by Bush getting things done? You brought it up, it interests me!

It was NOT meant to spark discussion. 

So I take it that you have nothing to add to the discussion and and merely spamming for... no postcount?

The people who lose their homes are the people who should not have been able to get a loan to get those homes in the first place.  They brought this on themselves.

what the **** is wrong with you
Usually those who loan money are not the same people giving out the loan, so accusing people with low credit rating of getting loans that the banks marketed to them is hypocritical. Yeah, people are stupid and take out loans they cannot pay back, but what on earth causes banks and other financial institutions to think that subprime loans are a good thing?

An entire lifestyle built around housing, the entire residential economic scene built around loans backed by estate, aggressive marketing, a goddamn nation on a credit, and when it fails, well, **** the poor I got mine.

Of course there have been large public investations, but they don't have a track record of working very well.  Don't feed me any BS that the New Deal was what helped us out of the depression.  All it did was pay people to do stuff like make parks and spend gov't money.  What helped us out of the Great Depression was the entrance into WWII and the patriotic fervor that lead millions of peolpe to volunteer for jobs they would not otherwise have volunteered for, and that weren't there before the war began.

Yes, the economic scene of the world is wrong and you are right, New Deal did no jack. Prove your statement. I mean, if the US GDP only grew 43,4% from 1933 to 1937 and 104% from 1938 to 1944, it's pretty damn difficult to argue that A) the world war 2 didn't cause anything BUT as well that B) that ND didn't cause anything either.

Stimulus plans don't work.  They haven't yet, and they aren't going to. 

I can go to the goddamn wikipedia and find out this:

Economists such as Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz,[7] Martin Feldstein, Daron Acemoglu, Larry Summers and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman[8] favor large economic stimulus to counter the economic downturn. Some economists, such as Stiglitz and Krugman favor a much larger measure. While in favor of a stimulus package, Feldstein expressed concern over the act as written, saying it needs revision to address consumer spending and unemployment more directly[9].

This would that at least some people think that the current reincarnation of "stimulus package" works. I bet you can find people who disagree with them!

Government spending during times of economic recession has often skyrocketed. This is pretty standard Keynesian theory. What is a stimulus package anyways? Increased government spending during economic downturn? That has been a standard for the last... 50 years?

[NGTM-1R]

Of course there have been large public investations, but they don't have a track record of working very well.  Don't feed me any BS that the New Deal was what helped us out of the depression.  All it did was pay people to do stuff like make parks and spend gov't money.  What helped us out of the Great Depression was the entrance into WWII and the patriotic fervor that lead millions of peolpe to volunteer for jobs they would not otherwise have volunteered for, and that weren't there before the war began.

I call bull****. Janos cites the relevant statistics to prove the point, but I'm going to note that the New Deal built the infrastructure that made industry's accomplishments in WW2 possible. Pre-New Deal US could never have supported the efforts that went into building the USAAF and USN of World War 2, never mind concurrently building the atomic bomb (which, it must be remembered, was an achievement more or less equivalent to building the auto industry from scratch).

[Solatar]

I'm not denying that a stimulus would help the economy. I'm 100% behind a stimulus, but what we have in Congress right now is not a stimulus; it's just spending.  There's money in there for the National Endowment for the Arts, Honeybee Insurance, new government cars, and a whole host of other things that aren't really going to grow the economy.

My dilemma is that while I would love money for the National Endowment for the Arts (I'm a violin major in college, I love the arts) or for mass transit (I would kill for Europe's train system) and I hope President Obama pushes those later in his presidency, it simply does not belong in a bill labeled "stimulus". Furthermore, one time tax cuts or returns are not going to help the economy any more than those useless stimulus checks half the country got last year. The industries KNOW it's a one time spending increase (that's if people don't just use it to pay down debt like that last time they got some extra cash from the government) and are not going to suddenly increase production and hire more people based on a spike they know will not continue. If you want to see sustained job growth, you have to convince people to spend more regularly.

[darkone]

I'm 100% behind a stimulus, but what we have in Congress right now is not a stimulus; it's just spending.  There's money in there for the National Endowment for the Arts, Honeybee Insurance, new government cars, and a whole host of other things that aren't really going to grow the economy.

We need to cut some of our programs and lower a few taxes and we are back in business. Look at all the biggest democrat controlled states and see what there condition is (CA, MA, NY, NJ etc...) let me give you a hint they are all asking for HUGE ballouts for their states and proposing more taxes.

I'm not heartless but there is going to be some pain in this process because we let the government get this way. So state/govt jobs need to be cut or salaries reduced and programs not necessary for the state to run need to be trimmed or dropped entirely.

Now CEO's they are an issue in this whole thing and maybe some type of law on salary and bonus cap needs to be put into effect. We cannot just create money we don't have an expect everything to be ok. There will be a time if this continues that other countries will not loan money to us... Right now we owe China roughly 2-2.5 TRILLION dollars. What happens if they wanted to collect on that debt and image the interest that is getting charged the USA for that loan.