[Nuclear1]

I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.

Kosh, you have been around some really rotten Christians if you have that view if them.  Were/are they're not nice people that were Christians? yes  Are the majority of Christians like those few?  not really no

its called the roman catholic church of the middle ages

[Blue Lion]

Depends, the Recession of 1921-23 took about a year to resolve and the government didn't intervene all that much.

So a  recession now, in a global economy and with our current state of power, should take how long? Longer or shorter? At what cost to the people or government?

The Federal Government does not equal the people.

I voted for quite a few federal offices. Explain how it does not equal me.

The federal government allowed for the bonuses to be paid by including language in the bailout bill.  The "people" got screwed by their public servants who are to serve in the public interest.

And if I read the arguments correctly, some are arguing the federal government shouldn't even have looked into it at all.

Which is the correct path here, to do something about it, or not?

Getting angry at the CEOs for being greedy is like expecting wolves not attack a flock of sheep.  It is simply the nature of the animal.  Now understand, that this isn't some moral justification bull****.  Knowing that some CEOS will inevitably take the path of the "bad guy", government comes in as the "good guy" and says it will "right the wrongs of the evildoers".

Yea, but you don't let the wolf eat the sheep "cause that's what they do". You try to stop them. That's a poor analogy.

However, it turns out the "good guy" isn't as good as it claims it is, allows for the "bad guy" to do more things that pisses off the people, then claims it didn't know anything, then retracts and says it did.  Either the "good guy" is just another "bad guy" with a false moniker and is outright lying to the public, or is grossly incompetent and easily manipulated by the "bad guy".  Either way, the people are getting screwed.  So, what's worse, the bad guy we all know about, or the "bad guy" pretending to be our "good guy"?

By that horrible logic, it doesn't matter, since they're both bad guys. But in another way, I wouldn't trust a CEO or business exec with my freedom or liberty because I know he is concerned with neither. He wants what is in my wallet, period.

[peterv]

Which is the correct path here, to do something about it, or not?

That's the point: A capitalistic system is not suppose to do anything. Unless that it's declared that it's not working anymore. There's no way for something good to come out of Hypocrisy. (I mean good  for the people, not for the "wolves").

[Blue Lion]

Which is the correct path here, to do something about it, or not?

That's the point: A capitalistic system is not suppose to do anything. Unless that it's declared that it's not working anymore. There's no way for something good to come out of Hypocrisy. (I mean good  for the people, not for the "wolves").

Except we aren't a pure capitalistic system. No one is.

[Liberator]

its called the roman catholic church of the middle ages

Which was over 500 years ago.  At what point do the sins of the father stop being the sins of the son exactly?

[karajorma]

its called the roman catholic church of the middle ages

Which was over 500 years ago.  At what point do the sins of the father stop being the sins of the son exactly?

You were talking about the founding fathers and their reasons for framing the separation of church and state. Strangely enough that is also based on things that happened hundreds of years ago.

Do you really need to keep being reminded what you are arguing about?

[Commander Zane]

Seperation of Church and State...ha...like that ever happens.

[Kosh]

Kosh, you have been around some really rotten Christians if you have that view if them.  Were/are they're not nice people that were Christians? yes  Are the majority of Christians like those few?  not really no

Not all but quite a few that I've met in my life have put pressure on me to join. I got crap for being an atheist for most of my life, and continually harrassed into joining them, which I always refused. I've heard many stories from other atheists in America who had exactly the same experiences. Christianity is inherently imperialistic, and actually was used as justification for European imperialism in the 18th and 19th centuries.

You were talking about the founding fathers and their reasons for framing the separation of church and state. Strangely enough that is also based on things that happened hundreds of years ago.

And at that time it was still happening in Europe, especially in France. One of the goals of the French Revolution was to overthrow the oppressive religious caste.

[peterv]

Except we aren't a pure capitalistic system. No one is.

But i would like to know what exactly are we.
For the last years we were something like globalization-free market-neoliberalism crap. Mainly "Sosialist's" were those who brought this situation on Europe and on US were the democrats. And the consevatives took advandage of it and pushed it to the limits.

What i see happening now is the extention of this failure whith the use of public money (regardless the US debt to Cnina  )

And as a response, Americans start to feel that socialism could be a better system (which socialism by the way?) and Europeans do the same, turning to the "left" parties, the very same who created this mess in the first place.

So what are we? (Yes, i know, we are idiots and speak for yourself peterv)

[BloodEagle]

The United States is a bloated mega-corporation, obviously.

[Grizzly]

The credit crunch is caused by overvaluing of stock, and doeing all sorts of decisions for short-term profits because then the shareholders will give you gigantic bonusses.

If this is indeed caused by socialism, then why are all the socialist 'left' parties opposed to these massive bonuses (long before the credit crunch)?

Seperation of Church and State...ha...like that ever happens.

Oh, it did. Just not in the USA.

[blackhole]

The system is broken because humans are broken.

[maje]

I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.

Oppressive and imperialistic nature of Christianity? Okay, I hear this quite a bunch from atheists, and I'm going to have to ask just what is so oppressive and imperialistic of Christianity that cannot be found in other belief systems.  Islam can be oppressive and imperialistic (The Ottoman Turks, anyone?), The pagan Roman Empire can be oppressive (slaughtering Christians and Jews for refusal to burn incense to Caesar), Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).

This is a flaw of human nature.

I think it's erroneous to claim that the Founding Fathers mistrusted Christianity's general influence considering many of them had studied to be clergy of their respected churches while others had participated in Christian freemasonry.  I think that this needs to be clarified that some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were critical of the religious establishments run by the clergy (such as the more mythological elements) as opposed to the beliefs and values espoused by Christianity.

I'm sorry that you've had poor experiences with other Christians if you were being pressured into something you're not ready for.  If atheism is where you are in you spiritual development as a person, then, quite frankly, that's where you are.  I fully support people converting over to Christianity, but only if it is an honest conversion (knowing what they are getting into, what the beliefs are and why) and not simply "going with the flow" because it's the trendy thing to do (though that's a poor reason to do anything).

[maje]

Seperation of Church and State...ha...like that ever happens.

Well considering we still haven't set up a national church that everyone has to attend as well as the freedom to practice whatever religion we want, yeah, I'm pretty sure we don't have to fear returning to the bull**** the Pilgrims had to face under the Church of England.

[General Battuta]

I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.

Oppressive and imperialistic nature of Christianity? Okay, I hear this quite a bunch from atheists, and I'm going to have to ask just what is so oppressive and imperialistic of Christianity that cannot be found in other belief systems.  Islam can be oppressive and imperialistic (The Ottoman Turks, anyone?), The pagan Roman Empire can be oppressive (slaughtering Christians and Jews for refusal to burn incense to Caesar), Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).

Those don't sound like much better reasons to trust any religion or ideology, Christianity included.

This is a flaw of human nature.

Yep.

I think it's erroneous to claim that the Founding Fathers mistrusted Christianity's general influence considering many of them had studied to be clergy of their respected churches while others had participated in Christian freemasonry.  I think that this needs to be clarified that some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were critical of the religious establishments run by the clergy (such as the more mythological elements) as opposed to the beliefs and values espoused by Christianity.

I'm sorry that you've had poor experiences with other Christians if you were being pressured into something you're not ready for.  If atheism is where you are in you spiritual development as a person, then, quite frankly, that's where you are.  I fully support people converting over to Christianity, but only if it is an honest conversion (knowing what they are getting into, what the beliefs are and why) and not simply "going with the flow" because it's the trendy thing to do (though that's a poor reason to do anything).

Please restrain from personal attacks, my friend. For all you know he's had excellent experiences with Christians and simply doesn't agree with the ideology. Atheism is not some kind of larval stage of spiritual development.

[peterv]

The credit crunch is caused by overvaluing of stock, and doeing all sorts of decisions for short-term profits because then the shareholders will give you gigantic bonusses.

If this is indeed caused by socialism, then why are all the socialist 'left' parties opposed to these massive bonuses (long before the credit crunch)?

Massive bonuses are only the top of the iceberg and the credit crunch is only the end phase of the "mistake" Alan greenspan admited : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=1

This thing started in early 90's, not now. (Perhaps even earlier, i'll have to do some research on this).

[Blue Lion]

But i would like to know what exactly are we.

A combination of socialism and capitalism... like practically everyone. Everyone looks for that mix between socialism and capitalism. The more time you spend thinking about how capitalist we are, the more time you miss fixing big issues.

For the last years we were something like globalization-free market-neoliberalism crap. Mainly "Sosialist's" were those who brought this situation on Europe and on US were the democrats. And the consevatives took advandage of it and pushed it to the limits.

I don't get what you're saying here. Free market was taken to "limits" by conservatives because of what Democrats did? When did Democrats do anything? They haven't controlled anything in any serious capacity since 1994.

Do you even understand what the current problems are?

What i see happening now is the extention of this failure whith the use of public money (regardless the US debt to Cnina  )

If public money fails, how did the New Deal work? Public money has worked as a spending system in this country for over 200 years. The current problems we have now is NOT due to the most recent stimulus package, no matter how much "grassroots" tea party guys (teabaggers?) pound on about it.

And as a response, Americans start to feel that socialism could be a better system (which socialism by the way?) and Europeans do the same, turning to the "left" parties, the very same who created this mess in the first place.

So what are we? (Yes, i know, we are idiots and speak for yourself peterv)

We're what we've been forever, a Constitutional Democracy that has a capitalist system with socialist aspects. That people are throwing fits over government spending and socialism lead me to believe 1 of 2 things.

1. People just don't understand soclialist programs or government and do whatever the big heads on TV tell them to do.

2. They're mad at Obama and Democrats and really have nothing to latch onto to be mad about.

Now that I think about it, maybe it's both.

[Blue Lion]

The credit crunch is caused by overvaluing of stock, and doeing all sorts of decisions for short-term profits because then the shareholders will give you gigantic bonusses.

If this is indeed caused by socialism, then why are all the socialist 'left' parties opposed to these massive bonuses (long before the credit crunch)?

Massive bonuses are only the top of the iceberg and the credit crunch is only the end phase of the "mistake" Alan greenspan admited : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=1

This thing started in early 90's, not now. (Perhaps even earlier, i'll have to do some research on this).

Actually it's kind of a do-over of the "savings and loans" problems that flared up oh so long ago. To pass the buck farther back is just cheesy.

[Liberator]

1. People just don't understand soclialist programs or government and do whatever the big heads on TV tell them to do.

Actually, the outrage is from both sides.  Dems and Republicans are pissed that the government is putting the nation so far into debt that they're grandkids will still be paying for it.  Contrary to what you seem to think, most people don't like being told that they have to give money to people who won't work it themselves.

2. They're mad at Obama and Democrats and really have nothing to latch onto to be mad about.

I'm not mad at Obamarama, he's what he is.  I am pissed that he's lying about it and can't come off the teleprompter or he'll get himself and his political supporters(not the rank and file but The Usual Suspects) into so much hot water, they'll get boiled.

[maje]

So a  recession now, in a global economy and with our current state of power, should take how long? Longer or shorter? At what cost to the people or government?

At a guess, I'd say longer considering we no longer are the big exporters that we were then, nor the manufacturing powerhouse, but I could be wrong.

I do know that the Congressional Budget Office claimed that the Trillion dollar "stimulus" package will Triple our debt in 10 years and that the private sector will shrink considerably.  It's already been stated that our grandchildren will be mired in debt and paybacks to China for the money we borrowed, so that's approx. 60+ years. assuming that each generation comes about every 30 years (I'm taking into account that if born this year, our children will have children in 30 years, and when their children are in the workplace, 60 years will have passed from this year).

I voted for quite a few federal offices. Explain how it does not equal me.

Voting does not mean the government equals you, as you, do not make up the whole of the people.  If the government really equaled the people, then I think you need to ask yourself why today, on tax day, we have over 2000 national tea parties going with pissed off Americans protesting the very actions of the federal government bailouts and tax and spend.

And if I read the arguments correctly, some are arguing the federal government shouldn't even have looked into it at all.

Which is the correct path here, to do something about it, or not?

I think that investigations into the financial industry should be sanctioned independently and guilty parties found doing something illegal to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  Normally, I'd actually have the government do this, BUT considering the lack of stewardship of Fannie and Freddie by such renowned boobs like Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd, I'd prefer to NOT have them part of the investigation.

I would NOT bail out failing companies.  If you wish to reap the rewards of a capitalist system, you must also consider the possibility of failure.  It IS a risk-based system.

I may even consider other measures if appropriate and applicable to solving the problem pendent on further research, but that, is currently the conclusion I have arrived at.

Getting angry at the CEOs for being greedy is like expecting wolves not attack a flock of sheep.  It is simply the nature of the animal.  Now understand, that this isn't some moral justification bull****.  Knowing that some CEOS will inevitably take the path of the "bad guy", government comes in as the "good guy" and says it will "right the wrongs of the evildoers".

Yea, but you don't let the wolf eat the sheep "cause that's what they do". You try to stop them. That's a poor analogy.

I think you misinterpreted this analogy as I was comparing the natures of government and the CEOs.  What you're supposed to get from this is that Government (or more accurately, the politicians running the government) basically claim to be helping you, while doing the opposite and rewarding bad behavior (due to political contributions, no doubt).  In other words, you seem to be pissed off only at the CEOs and dismissive of those in government who allowed for this fiasco to happen, which suggests to me, a double standard due to an ideological belief that government can do no wrong (which of course if hogwash, because government is run by man who is a corruptible creature and thus prone to imperfection).  Now, if I am wrong about my analysis of your perceived anger limited only to one party and not the other, please say so and I'll retract that statement.

However, it turns out the "good guy" isn't as good as it claims it is, allows for the "bad guy" to do more things that pisses off the people, then claims it didn't know anything, then retracts and says it did.  Either the "good guy" is just another "bad guy" with a false moniker and is outright lying to the public, or is grossly incompetent and easily manipulated by the "bad guy".  Either way, the people are getting screwed.  So, what's worse, the bad guy we all know about, or the "bad guy" pretending to be our "good guy"?

By that horrible logic, it doesn't matter, since they're both bad guys. But in another way, I wouldn't trust a CEO or business exec with my freedom or liberty because I know he is concerned with neither. He wants what is in my wallet, period.

Ironically, the politicians who run the government don't much care for your freedom or liberty either, because if they did, Congress would NEVER have allowed language to be put into the bailout that created this situation where AIG execs are entitled to their bonuses.  Face it, you've been had.

And I do agree that the logic is horrible, especially because one must consider the reality that government is corrupted.  The approval ratings of the House and the Senate haven't been in the toilet for the past two years for no reason.