Thread: I have changed my view.

Originally Posted by Elliette

What I find funny (as in it makes me want to scream) is that the Obama policies are so very close to the Bush policies that the factional fighting means something close to nothing at this point.

Thats because there are no real differences between the candidates, we the people will scratch each others eyes out for our prefered candidate, while the powers that be who own/control those candidates go about their business as usual. It wouldnt have mattered wether you voted McCain or Obama, you wouldve gotten the same thing, its just how policies are presented that make them left or right. Government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

^^^^THats right folks we allow that to vote too!!!

WOW.

What I like about forums like this is that people with widely varying viewpoints get to bounce their ideas around. Tim, are you really that surprised to find people who are displeased with Bush/Cheney policies of the past eight years? I am one, even though I voted for them in 2000.
Cheney can defend torture all he wants. That doesn't make it right, or good for our country.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

I agreed with some of what you said, and ignored a lot of it, but I can't let this one go.

The problems with our economy started largely with the collapse of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. If you think Bush and/or Cheney were responsible for that, you've missed a few important pieces of history, like the fact that Republicans in congress tried for several years to push reforms to those organizations, because their imminent collapse was clear to see, and they were stopped by House Democrats at every turn.

How's that? Republicans controlled congress, the senate and the white house for six years? What did the democrats filibuster or block?

I agee that there is plenty of blame to go around for this economic collapse in both parties (especially Bill Clinton for repealing glass steagall)

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

"Presidents are just like baseball pitchers. They get too much credit when things go right, and too much blame when things go wrong."

Agreed on this one!

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

Also, regardless of which party is doing what, I'd rather see NOTHING done about the economy than see this idiotic bailout dump trillions of dollars into companies which will continue to waste it.

It's easy to play monday morning quarterback, and just SAY that everything would've come up roses if we just let every major financial institution in the US fail....but, really, stop and think what would've happened..... pretty much every economist in this country agreed that it would almost certainly lead to a massive despression, possibly worse than the great depression....in short:

- Massive failure of banks would've caused a run on the credit markets and commerical paper, credit would completely freeze up, debts would be called in, leading to further isolation of credit.
- without access to money markets and commercial paper, businesses would collapse in numbers never seen before in this country.
- massive unemployment would lead to even less spending, resulting in even more layoffs, again less spending, more layoffs, etc...a downward spiral of unemployment like this country has never seen
- Due to frozen credit markets and massive unemployment, homeowners would find it nearly impossible to refinance or get loans to pay their mortgage and families would become homeless in record numbers.
- in a worst case scenario there would be a run on the dollar and other countries (ie. China) would call our foreign debt due.
- this would give the dollar even weaker buying power in international markets, excacerbating the problem at home and possibly leading to a "house of cards" style collapse of the entire economy

....especially at this point in our nation's history that would've been DISASTROUS and could possibly have lead to the literal downfall of this country (similar to the collapse/bankruptcy of the soviet union).....but we avoided a situation like this because the Obama administration (and congress, and the senate, and the fed, and just about every major economist) made the right choice...a tough choice, not a choice anybody wanted to have to make, but the right one

Even the Bush administration understood this and passed the first $787 billion bailout (which, unfortunately was terribly managed).

My point is that Obama inherited a bad problem, with no "good" solution....there was no easy fix....he chose the best solution, based on the best advice available by top economists....if he had let our major financial instutions collapse, we'd REALLY be screwed and of course he'd get blamed for all of it (ironically, probably by the same people who are attacking him now for NOT letting them collapse)......so c'mon, lay off the guy....he inherited a lose/lose situation and did what he had to do.

PS: If all goes to plan, we'll quickly pull out of this recession (notice NOT massive depression) and the banks and auto industry will recover and pay us back most of the money we LOANED them....this is probably wishful thinking, but even if they don't pay us back a penny, I think we're still better off.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Thats because there are no real differences between the candidates, we the people will scratch each others eyes out for our prefered candidate, while the powers that be who own/control those candidates go about their business as usual. It wouldnt have mattered wether you voted McCain or Obama, you wouldve gotten the same thing, its just how policies are presented that make them left or right. Government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation.

Ironically that argument is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you don't fight AND VOTE for your prefered candidate, then your voice as a citizen becomes weaker....the voice of THE PEOPLE becomes weaker....which makes the voice of THE CORPORATIONS and their $$$ all that much stronger. If everybody thought this way and nobody voted, then the corporations would be the only game in town....

You can't say that things would be the same in 2009 if Al Gore were elected in 2000 instead of Bush....maybe they'd be better, maybe worse, but I gaurantee you they'd be different.... (among other things) we wouldn't be in this war with Iraq and thousands of American troops and Iraqi citizens would still be alive and healthy....c'mon, you can't say that's semantics. You've gotta vote! It's your duty as a citizen! Even if it's for the Green or Libertarian candidate or La Rouche or frikking Chuck Norris.....just vote and make your voice heard!!! Otherwise corporations get exactly what they want....if the public doesn't elect politicians, and hold them accountable to their interests, corporations will swoop in and do it.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

^^^^THats right folks we allow that to vote too!!!

WOW.

Dude you'd probably AGREE with the way I vote on most issues.....I'm pro gun rights, pro-immigration enforcement and border security, all for preserving American Language/Borders/Culture and don't really buy into most of the global warming BS that comes from the left......I'm a strict constitutionalist, freemarket capitalist (within reason) and for a smaller gov't than we currently have (again, within reason).

I find myself agreeing with REAL conservatives (ie. michael savage) and libertarians more than I do liberals on most issues.....that said, the policies of the Bush administration were far from conservative or libertarian and far from American.....they were self-serving, indulgent and wreckless.....no-bid contracts undermine free-market capitalism, and violating about half of the first ten amendments to The Constitution is NOT American.....torturing prisoners of war is NOT American.....fixing "facts" around flawed policy is downright wrong.

Originally Posted by jdurango

It's easy to play monday morning quarterback, and just SAY that everything would've come up roses if we just let every major financial institution in the US fail....but, really, stop and think what would've happened..... pretty much every economist in this country agreed that it would almost certainly lead to a massive despression, possibly worse than the great depression....

There's a few of problems with this.

First of all, I never said that "everything would've come up roses." What I'm saying, is that this bailout has had no appreciable benefit, what limited improvements we have seen are just as easily explained by non-bailout related changes, it's unlikely to have any appreciable benefit, and yet will cost the government (by which I mean you and me) a billion dollars or more that it does not have.

So, given the choice between major economic upheavals or the same major economic upheavals + $1,000,000,000.00 in additional national debt, I'll take the messed up economy without the extra national debt. It seems like a no brainer to me. It's like asking whether you want your finger broken, or your finger broken and a knife in you gut. If those are the only options, I'll take the broken finger without a lacerated small intestine.

Don't get me wrong, I'd have preferred that congress chose to do something with a reasonable chance of success, but that wasn't an option.

Second, at no point did pretty much every economist in this country agree about anything. There was never agreement (outside of CNN and the New York Times) that the bailout would fix anything. Nor was there ever agreement that the recession would turn into a depression.

Third, to go to the history books once again, after the great depression a wide variety of highly effective safeguards were put in place, making another great depression virtually impossible without a disaster of epic proportions, such as a pandemic (A real one, not swine flu), nuclear attack from another country, or some form of natural disaster so extreme that it wiped out our ability to produce food. Anything short of that, and another great depression is virtually impossible

Its due to the interest system as it is
(practically all interest is money that has never existed)
and due to the fact that there is no reserve for the money anymore
(like silver or gold you can trade for the paper)
and there have been far too many dollars released.

The interest system has no limit and sucks money like an endlessly powerful vacuum cleaner
moving it exponentially from the bottom to the very top.
Hence the economy needs to break down and and start from zero every now and then
cause the debts are just rising to an astronomous amount.

In germany its already out that we're facing a crisis of the same size as the breakdown in 1929

((just wish there would be an English translation for the stuff I've just read and listened to but until now I have none))

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

Third, to go to the history books once again, after the great depression a wide variety of highly effective safeguards were put in place, making another great depression virtually impossible without a disaster of epic proportions, such as a pandemic (A real one, not swine flu), nuclear attack from another country, or some form of natural disaster so extreme that it wiped out our ability to produce food. Anything short of that, and another great depression is virtually impossible

Brother, I did go to the history books. Look up glass steagall on wiki, or the graham-leach-bliley act. Many of glass-steagall's provisions have been repealed over the years. The graham-leach-bliley act (phil graham) repealed a major portion of the glass-steagall which basically said that commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies must owned and operated SEPERATELY from one another. The repeal of this provision arguably paved the way for this economic situation. BTW, graham, leach, bliley, all Republicans and it was passed mostly by Republican vote in the house and senate. Unfrotunately, Bill Clinton didn't have the foresight to veto it.

Anyway, you had a lot of politicians and talking heads speaking out against the bailouts, but very few real economists. I listen to and read news from both sides of the political divide, and the vast majority of actual economists I heard were in favor of the bailouts (albeit reluctantly, as I think we all were)

And you're assumption that we'd be better off without the bailouts....we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see how letting every major financial institution in the US fail would have a minimal impact on our country. I think we would've ended up with a broken finger and a huge gaping hole in our head....i just really believe the bailout option is the lesser of the evils.

BTW, here's an interesting video from Byron Dorgan in 1999....this is part 2 of 2, check out 1 for more:

YouTube - Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999-Part 2