Global New Deal!

[Triple Five]

Hell yes!

I bet Obama gets suckered into this. Spending massive ammounts of OUR money on global issues sounds right up his alley. Lets take care of our own **** first before we think globally. I just feel the Euro style socialism will fit Obama's plan perfectly.

It's really to bad that Obama's personality cult is to into him to actually pay attention to his actions becuase I feel like any logical individual would be against a lot of what he has been proposing. For example Obama's plan to help your neighbor pay for a car with your money.


British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hopes to forge a "global new deal" with President Obama to rescue the world's economy when he makes his first visit to the White House since Obama's inauguration.

The Times of London reports Brown, who arrives Tuesday, will reportedly introduce a plan requiring massive spending on a worldwide scale.

The prime minister is expected to invoke the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who proposed the government-financed New Deal to confront the Great Depression in the 1930s, the paper reports.

"There is no international partnership in recent history that has served the world better than the special relationship between Britain and the United States," Brown writes in an opinion piece published Sunday in the Times of London.

Brown's 21st century deal calls for "universal action to prevent the crisis spreading" and "action to kick-start lending so that families and businesses can borrow again." It also requires "reform of international regulation to close regulatory gaps" and "the creation of an international early warning system."

Brown, who has hinted at increasing Britain's tax cuts to boost that nation's economy, is expected to present his proposal during a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.

Click here to read more on the story from the Times of London.

Click here to read Gordon Brown's opinion piece in the Times of London.


British PM to Propose 'Global New Deal' to Rescue World's Economy - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/01/british-pm-propose-global-new-deal-rescue-worlds-economy/)

[O'Brien#12]

Oh Gordon Brown you are such a pale imitation of a prime minister!

No one gives a crap what you think or do, no one is going to vote for you you big jock twat. He looks like a scrotum that has had eyes and a misreable face drawn onto it, who wants that representing the country!

[CR125guy]

Oh Gordon Brown you are such a pale imitation of a prime minister!

No one gives a crap what you think or do, no one is going to vote for you you big jock twat. He looks like a scrotum that has had eyes and a misreable face drawn onto it, who wants that representing the country!

:funny:

I would suggest we all pay close attention to the next four years. Should be very interesting. I'm sure this new global plan includes freshly printed US dollars going to fund Mexico and Zimbabaway abortions. :nuts:

[Falcon991]

There is already a bumbper sticker floating around here that reads "Impeach Obama."
:rotfl:

Too early, Id say. Although the bailout is a horrendous failure already, it appears. (See the recent stock market crash for evidence - Wall street is unimpressed.)

[odeezie]

8 years of failure and you expect Obama to fix it in a few months :lol::nuts:

[CR125guy]

8 years of failure and you expect Obama to fix it in a few months :lol::nuts:

Bush is no longer our president, Obama is. How long do we have to give him before we stop blaming things on Bush? How much longer do we have to give him chances? His ratings drop daily! I'm looking toward the future and one thing is for sure, no shades neccessary.

Obama’s Top Five Broken Promises « FOX Forum « FOXNews.com (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/03/kerpen_obama_budget/)

Obama’s Top Five Broken Promises (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/03/kerpen_obama_budget/)


By Phil Kerpen
Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity (http://www.americansforprosperity.org/)
Promise #5: Sunlight Before Signing
What he said:
“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” (BarackObama.com campaign Web site (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/))
What he did:
Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter bill, the SCHIP/cigarette tax hike, and the stimulus bill all with far less than a five-day waiting period that he promised–and continues to promise–on his campaign Web site.
Promise #4: Lobbyist Revolving Door
What he said:
“No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.” (BarackObama.com campaign Web site (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/))
What he did:
Obama appointed Goldman Sachs lobbyists Mark Patterson chief of staff at the Treasury Department, where he directly oversees his former employer, a recipient of $10 billion of taxpayer funds from the TARP. Obama also appointed Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn to be an undersecretary of Defense.
Promise #3: No Tax Hikes on the Poor
What he said first:
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” (September 12, 2008, Dover, N.H.)
What he did first:
By signing H.R. 2 into law, Obama happily signed onto the idea that smokers should pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP). Cigarette taxes are going up 61 cents a pack starting April 1. Obama signed this bill knowing that the majority of smokers in the United States are working poor, and one in four lives below the federal poverty line.
What he said next:
“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” (February 24th, 2009, Address to a Joint Session of Congress (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress/))
What he did next:
Ignored the already-hiked cigarette tax at the time of the statement and then this restated promise was broken just two days later, when the Obama’s budget proposal was released. His new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured.
Promise #2: Pork Barrel Earmark Reform
What he said:
“The system is broken. We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.”
(Statement on Earmarks, March 10, 2008 (http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=355049))
What he is expected to do:
The White House has signaled that it intends to sign the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill, which according to Taxpayers for Common Sense (http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=1961&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS), contains 8,570 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion, including dozens of wasteful pork-barrel projects. These earmarks were awarded based on seniority, not on merit, and were mostly the result of high-priced lobbying, precisely the process that Obama promised to end. When the omnibus reaches his desk later this week or next week, we’ll find out if this is one more broken promise.
Promise #1: Big Government
OK, so this one is more of a statement than a promise, but it’s the biggest whopper of all.
What he said:
“Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.” (February 24, 2009, Joint Address to Congress (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress/))
What he did:
Obama proposed a budget that is breathtaking in scope, a blueprint for the biggest permanent expansion of government in history right on the heels of a sweeping trillion dollar stimulus plan. The budget lays the foundation for a government takeover of the health care and energy sectors and dramatically increasing spending across the board, other than defense weapons programs. Spending as a percentage of the economy under this budget will reach the historic level of 27.7 percent this year. The deficit as a percent of the economy, at 12.3 percent, is set to be the biggest in the entire history of the country outside of the four peak years of World War II. Anyone who offers such a budget can only fairly be described as a believer in bigger government.
Phil Kerpen is director of policy for Americans for Prosperity.


P.S. Wallstreet doesn't wait to give people chances. It see's bad on a daily basis, and it shows.

[odeezie]

Bush is no longer our president, Obama is. How long do we have to give him before we stop blaming things on Bush? How much longer do we have to give him chances? His ratings drop daily! I'm looking toward the future and one thing is for sure, no shades neccessary.

Well the first stimulus package was pushed through on Bush's watch. It was 700 billion that went to the banks, and it is not accounted for. It was rushed through congress with the greatest urgency so it would pass before people could really understand what was going on or what its ramifications would be.

The point I made is that the Bush Administration dug this country a hole for 8 solid years. Then Obama is elected and has been unable in his first few months to fix everything....wow! Truly shocking! :nuts::nuts::nuts:

Obama will have 8 years to fix it since what you are pushing is Rush/Palin 2012! :lol:

[Triple Five]

"Blame Bush" is the mantra we will be hearing for the next 8 years when all Obama's hope/change rhetoric fails.


People say, oh Obama isn't doing bad, look at him compared to Bush. This is bull****, just because we had one ****ty president doesn't make it okay to be the successor.

[odeezie]

"Blame Bush" is the mantra we will be hearing for the next 8 years when all Obama's hope/change rhetoric fails.


People say, oh Obama isn't doing bad, look at him compared to Bush. This is bull****, just because we had one ****ty president doesn't make it okay to be the successor.


Oh man....thats not what I am saying....What I mean is that Obama was handed a completely broken country in almost all respects. Now, you guys are complaining because he hasnt fixed it in the first few months he is in office.
Where were you when things were falling apart for the last 8 years? Oh yeah, you supported it because for you guys, party > country.

[Triple Five]

Oh man....thats not what I am saying....What I mean is that Obama was handed a completely broken country in almost all respects. Now, you guys are complaining because he hasnt fixed it in the first few months he is in office.
Where were you when things were falling apart for the last 8 years? Oh yeah, you supported it because for you guys, party > country.



Negative solider. You have me completely wrong.

I'm against the WAY he is trying to fix the country. I know that it needs to be fixed but growing government is not the way to go about it. I don't fault him for not fixing the country, I fault him for ****ing the country up more with his spending, same as W.

My purpose in starting threads like this is to enlighten the Obama voters that got duped into believing this guy. He ran with the campaign slogans "hope and change" and that made everyone feel good. But feeling good doesn't satisfy me when more and more money is coming out of my pocket for big government spending that I will never see.

[odeezie]

Negative solider. You have me completely wrong.

I'm against the WAY he is trying to fix the country. I know that it needs to be fixed but growing government is not the way to go about it. I don't fault him for not fixing the country, I fault him for ****ing the country up more with his spending, same as W.

My purpose in starting threads like this is to enlighten the Obama voters that got duped into believing this guy. He ran with the campaign slogans "hope and change" and that made everyone feel good. But feeling good doesn't satisfy me when more and more money is coming out of my pocket for big government spending that I will never see.

Actually according to most economists the last option for mitigating the current economic crisis after lowering interest rates to nothing, and purchasing bad debt from banks in order to free up the credit markets is a massive influx of government spending. Most economists think the mistake that is being made is that these stimulus packages are only a fraction of what is needed to avoid another serious depression.

Besides this, who cares about the "I told you so's"? What was the alternative, to stick to the exact same course that we were on? That was already a proven failure. I can understand how you disagree with the means, but we are all striving towards the same end.

[Triple Five]

Actually according to most economists the last option for mitigating the current economic crisis after lowering interest rates to nothing, and purchasing bad debt from banks in order to free up the credit markets is a massive influx of government spending. Most economists think the mistake that is being made is that these stimulus packages are only a fraction of what is needed to avoid another serious depression.

Besides this, who cares about the "I told you so's"? What was the alternative, to stick to the exact same course that we were on? That was already a proven failure. I can understand how you disagree with the means, but we are all striving towards the same end.

I like the debate we are having here.


The problem I see is that people believe that government is the solution to our financial problems. When in actuality the problems are caused by society's collective bad decisions compounded by some external factors. (Oil)

Young people hop on the FDR bus because he apparently "saved the great depression." When you look at it, all he did was make it easier on some of the people on the bottom through his public works. What really got us out of the GD is WW2 not government spending and expansion.

I brought this up because today people are fine with accepting the same type of big government expansion in hopes of FDR'ing the economy. They think that Obama can somehow FIX the market. The problems in the market aren't just US problems they are global problems that take time to unwind.


What I'm trying to get at is that, in my opinion, there is no way to fix our current solution. All it takes is time to rebound. Instead I think we need to learn what got us hear instead of what can we do to make us better this second. The type of dependence on the government is the way our system will end. People realize they can rely on the government to fix there problems until government is in charge of everything in our lives.

The problem with government growth in these times is that never gives back the powers it takes on. One of the problems today is the devaluing of the dollar. But what are we doing? Printing record numbers of it DAILY. This will only make our problem worse. You were right ODEEZIE that government spending is an option but not when the money we are spending has no backing.


It's to bad we don't have this guy. It's times like these when we need a true fiscal conservative.

http://www.infowars.net/pictures/aug07/060807ron-paul-internet.jpg

[odeezie]

I am not saying that expanding the government is the solution. I am all for small government. I do not believe that we should do the same as was done during FDR's time.

What I said was that at this point, if the current recession is to be saved from turning into a depression, the government is the one who has the resources to do it. They have been trying to control it with Fiscal and monetary policy, but to no avail.

This was not necessarily caused by society's (im assuming by society you are meaning the people)collective failure. Part of the equation was people living beyond their means, and biting off more than they could chew in regards to the value of the home they chose to purchase. The main factor was the banks and the de-regulation by the government. Predatory lending takes as much blame as the people, and the lack of regulation on the government's part, along with extremely risky financial practices on the part of the large banks are mainly to blame. They played the game because the they were reaping huge profits without regard for the downside of their gambling.

I agree with you that there isnt a way to fix this and that things would have corrected themselves much quicker without the government pumping in vast amounts of money. I dont think most people realize the devastation that would occur in this instance, but I fear it will happen anyway, and all the stimulus has done is delay (and ultimately will prolong) the inevitable.

I would also like to see Ron Paul be in charge of things, but sadly that wont happen. I think it is also important to note that a fiscal conservative and a Republican are about as far apart from each other as Tree Huggers and people who bomb abortion clinics.

[Triple Five]

I would also like to see Ron Paul be in charge of things, but sadly that wont happen. I think it is also important to note that a fiscal conservative and a Republican are about as far apart from each other as Tree Huggers and people who bomb abortion clinics.



Good points.


The Republican party once showed the values of fiscal conservatism but it seems like they have abandoned them in the last few years.

[Dudley]

Remember what happened to Bush' "economic stimulus plan" in 2001? Uncontrollable inflation, collapse of the dollar and the chain reaction that ensued. Interest rates were so low, EVERYONE bought a house. In the meantime, the housing values were falsely inflated. You can say people "bit off more than they could chew", but that wasn't the only problem. Ever wonder what would have happened if the government would have left it alone? I think we would be much better off today, but I'm no expert.

I'm fearful that the government is doing the same thing again. Only difference is this time we are in a real crisis. I sincerely hope Obama's advisors are smarter than Bush' was, but only time will tell.

[Triple Five]

Remember what happened to Bush' "economic stimulus plan" in 2001? Uncontrollable inflation, collapse of the dollar and the chain reaction that ensued. Interest rates were so low, EVERYONE bought a house. In the meantime, the housing values were falsely inflated. You can say people "bit off more than they could chew", but that wasn't the only problem. Ever wonder what would have happened if the government would have left it alone? I think we would be much better off today, but I'm no expert.

I'm fearful that the government is doing the same thing again. Only difference is this time we are in a real crisis. I sincerely hope Obama's advisors are smarter than Bush' was, but only time will tell.

Exactly. Government never helps these situations. Stay the hell out.

[CR125guy]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

I could be wrong, but it looks like the gap here is getting narrower and narrower.

This guy doesn't want to do what's right for America, just what he see's fit for his own personal beliefs. Please, 8 years of liberal Bush bashing, and now that he is out of office, the bashing continues. Yet now the focus is on bashing Limbaugh as well because eventually you have to stop hating on the former president and blaming crap on him, so you go after one of the most outspoken conservatives. Do the libs feel threatened? I think so.

To the Obama supporters, or at least the guys that say give him a chance, at what point do you stop giving chances. I mean if by some miracle this guy lasts 8 years, and the administration is a complete failure, will we still blame Bush. Does anyone find it ironic that the media bashed the W for 8 years, but cheered for a man they new nothing about? Obama doesn't deserve a chance, he has already failed in my opinion.

[odeezie]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

I could be wrong, but it looks like the gap here is getting narrower and narrower.

This guy doesn't want to do what's right for America, just what he see's fit for his own personal beliefs. Please, 8 years of liberal Bush bashing, and now that he is out of office, the bashing continues. Yet now the focus is on bashing Limbaugh as well because eventually you have to stop hating on the former president and blaming crap on him, so you go after one of the most outspoken conservatives. Do the libs feel threatened? I think so.

To the Obama supporters, or at least the guys that say give him a chance, at what point do you stop giving chances. I mean if by some miracle this guy lasts 8 years, and the administration is a complete failure, will we still blame Bush. Does anyone find it ironic that the media bashed the W for 8 years, but cheered for a man they new nothing about? Obama doesn't deserve a chance, he has already failed in my opinion.


Hmmmm...good debate until you get here. :8/ Arent you the one that said you were done talking politics on an MX board? You are the reason the political forum is gone because you were done with it and didnt want to talk about it anymore. Should I change your username to LEE?

[CR125guy]

Hmmmm...good debate until you get here. :8/ Arent you the one that said you were done talking politics on an MX board? You are the reason the political forum is gone because you were done with it and didnt want to talk about it anymore. Should I change your username to LEE?

The only reason I talk politics here is because that is all that is posted. At least 80% of the threads here are political. The biggest difference between me and Lee is I don't cry about how mean everyone is and threaten to leave only to come back and and whine some more. I like to chime in here and there, why is it such an issue? Excuse me for having an opinion, I'm not the only one who feels strongly about certain topics, sheesh man. You really have to change the subject because you don't like my opinion?

[odeezie]

The only reason I talk politics here is because that is all that is posted. At least 80% of the threads here are political. The biggest difference between me and Lee is I don't cry about how mean everyone is and threaten to leave only to come back and and whine some more. I like to chime in here and there, why is it such an issue? Excuse me for having an opinion, I'm not the only one who feels strongly about certain topics, sheesh man. You really have to change the subject because you don't like my opinion?

No, I find it funny that when you get your ass handed to you in a debate you cry about how this is an mx board and the elections are over and there shouldn't be a political forum. You said you definitely wont be posting in it anymore. Now, here you are spilling your garbage without any insight whatsoever....

[CR125guy]

Wa wa wa, sorry for hurting your feelings because we have opposing views. Maybe as a moderator you should do more to attract new members rather than hate on everyone who oppses your view points. Then maybe we wont have these same old stale topics that linger for weeks and months. While Lee did cry alot, he had a good point.

[odeezie]

Wa wa wa, sorry for hurting your feelings because we have opposing views. Maybe as a moderator you should do more to attract new members rather than hate on everyone who oppses your view points. Then maybe we wont have these same old stale topics that linger for weeks and months. While Lee did cry alot, he had a good point.

Youre not hurting my feelings big guy. I just point out that you cannot debate your way out of a wet paper bag. If you want to bag on the site and complain about lack of topics, I would suggest you leave or step up to the plate. You are probably the most ignorant person here when it comes to reading comprehension and discussion. Your rebuttals are painful to read and full of logical fallacies. You only post purely partisan hate articles, nothing that ever offers up anything of substance. Go to vital if you want to be a neocon troll. Lee couldnt take people ripping him about his bankruptcy, and he had a fit when Copsey brought back his last farewell speech that he had deleted. Again, I dont see how this argument reflects poorly on me at all.....just another example of how you suck at linking events and developing any sort of logical argument.

If you dont like it here I suggest you follow LEE's example.

[Triple Five]

Take it easy fellaz :cheers:

Obamasiah is prez now, we're supposed to all get along!

[CR125guy]

you cannot debate your way out of a wet paper bag
You are probably the most ignorant person here
Your rebuttals are painful to read and full of logical fallacies
Go to vital if you want to be a neocon troll
you suck at linking events and developing any sort of logical argument
You only post purely partisan hate articles

Am I really the hater? At least I know when to stop when it comes to personal attacks, especially with people I don't know on a personal level, just seems kinda weak. But it being the internet, I can give a crap. I don't go home crying thinking "Odeezie was mean to me today", haha! And I do like it here, I enjoy debating, I enjoy throwing in my perspective. Your the only one who throws a fit when you don't like what I say. I don't have anything against ANYONE who disagrees with me, we all have our opinion, I will disagree and say I don't like someone's view. If I am so full of crap, why do you continue to debate with me?

F'ng 'A Is it time to go home and drink yet?!

[CR125guy]

Take it easy fellaz :cheers:

Obamasiah is prez now, we're supposed to all get along!

:-D Nice on the comical relief bud!

[odeezie]

Am I really the hater? At least I know when to stop when it comes to personal attacks, especially with people I don't know on a personal level, just seems kinda weak. But it being the internet, I can give a crap. I don't go home crying thinking "Odeezie was mean to me today", haha! And I do like it here, I enjoy debating, I enjoy throwing in my perspective. Your the only one who throws a fit when you don't like what I say. I don't have anything against ANYONE who disagrees with me, we all have our opinion, I will disagree and say I don't like someone's view. If I am so full of crap, why do you continue to debate with me?

F'ng 'A Is it time to go home and drink yet?!

Im not calling you a hater....all you post is partisan garbage with no input. That is what I said. I am telling you what I think. Yes, I dont know you on a personal level and this **** doesnt bother me....i could care less about politics anymore.....I just find it hilarious that you do not answer any questions addressed to you, you dodge them with strawmen arguments. I do not agree with 555 on his views yet I can have a debate with him....I think you need to reassess the situation here. You add nothing....everytime you make a post about politics its the equivalent of posting the National Enquirors opinion on things....its so outrageously dumbed down that its not worth reading. Its garbage and gossip and attacks....nothing more.

[CR125guy]

OK Odeezie, I would ask for some examples as no one else here has the same complaints, but whatev. I will be sure, in future posts, to not "dodge" stupid questions and post only "relevant" topics that coincide with YOUR veiw points and everything will be all better :-P

[odeezie]

OK Odeezie, I would ask for some examples as no one else here has the same complaints, but whatev. I will be sure, in future posts, to not "dodge" stupid questions and post only "relevant" topics that coincide with YOUR veiw points and everything will be all better :-P

Thanks man. I will meet you in the middle and try to stick with posting cartoons and pictures so your time here can be more understanding and enjoyable too. I also just put in a request for a political Baby Einstein package and I will post up a featured video for you once a week. :thumbsup: :-D

[Demon]

You guys are communists

[CR125guy]

You guys are communists

Ha!

[odeezie]

I think many of us with opposing viewpoints will agree with the views here: :-D

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

[Triple Five]

D.L. Hugley is a nut, "you make to much sense to be a Republican" as he bashes policies of FDR and Obama.

[O'Brien#12]

Didn't the black dude play turks brother in scrubs??

[Triple Five]

Didn't the black dude play turks brother in scrubs??




Do you know how I know you are gay?

[odeezie]

D.L. Hugley is a nut, "you make to much sense to be a Republican" as he bashes policies of FDR and Obama.

Yeah....lol.....I was referring to what Ron Paul had to say not so much Hughley. :-D

[Triple Five]

Yeah....lol.....I was referring to what Ron Paul had to say not so much Hughley. :-D


I think celebrities have the best perspectives on politics. They are where I get most of my views from. D.L. brings a lot to a political discussion, he's a real asset to that show.

[CR125guy]

I think celebrities have the best perspectives on politics. They are where I get most of my views from. D.L. brings a lot to a political discussion, he's a real asset to that show.

Why do I detect crap loads of sarcasm in that post?!

[Triple Five]

Seriously, celebs are credible because they are just like us except smarter. That is why they have more money.

[Demon]

I don't know who is worse George Clooney or Ted Nugent. I may have to go with Ted since he sh*t his pants to avoid Nam and now he's a war monger. Susan Surandon is worthless too.

[Triple Five]

This is my hero:

http://www.topnews.in/light/files/Alec-Baldwin1.jpg

[DBerg649]

I stopped reading the replies after the personal attacks came into play, so maybe I'm completely off topic by now, but I don't think sitting back and allowing multiple large businesses to die out would be the right solution. For instance, letting Chrysler and GM collapse would not only hurt all the businesses that are related to those companies, but also kill what little confidence is left in the U.S. auto industry, and ultimately lead to Ford's falling apart (just using them as examples). Then you end up with a large portion of the production market, dealerships, and other organizations directly or strongly related to that market failing, which leads to a HUGE increase in unemployement which leads to a ripple effect that has a negative effect on other markets as well. (which is exactly what is happening, but the car market was an example... I'm not saying they are to blame for all economic problems)
People seem to have the idea that the govt should step in and FIX the economy and that Obama is/isn't doing the right things to FIX the economy, but using the word "fix", IMO, is the wrong terminology. The only people that can fix the economy are the consumers. That's how the economy works. Ofcourse if people aren't making money or are fearful of losing jobs, obviously spending goes down and the economy suffers. All the govt can do is damage control. Point out the important economic factors in regards to keeping the economy going, and try to keep them alive until the general society can reach a point in which they are comfortable enough with their financial situation, to start spending again. Basically try to maintain certain markets until the whole thing blows over.
Ofcourse there's almost an infinite number of variables to consider, a lot of guessing and probabilities to figure out, and maybe a little luck, but IMO, the govt has the right idea, but is perhaps taking it a little too far.
As far as taxes are concerned. You can tax people or big businesses, but either way, the people will pay it. It's just a matter of whether you're going to pay those taxes directly, or by losing certain benefits at your work, or completely losing your job, or through increased prices on the products you buy. Almost everything that happens in the economy has a ripple effect, and rarely will find a situation where something happens in regards to large amounts of money, and the only people effected are those directly involved in the transaction, and because of that, there aren't really any simple clear cut answers


my $.02

[Dudley]

Re: Global New Deal!
I stopped reading the replies after the personal attacks came into play, so maybe I'm completely off topic by now, but I don't think sitting back and allowing multiple large businesses to die out would be the right solution. For instance, letting Chrysler and GM collapse would not only hurt all the businesses that are related to those companies, but also kill what little confidence is left in the U.S. auto industry, and ultimately lead to Ford's falling apart (just using them as examples). Then you end up with a large portion of the production market, dealerships, and other organizations directly or strongly related to that market failing, which leads to a HUGE increase in unemployement which leads to a ripple effect that has a negative effect on other markets as well. (which is exactly what is happening, but the car market was an example... I'm not saying they are to blame for all economic problems)
People seem to have the idea that the govt should step in and FIX the economy and that Obama is/isn't doing the right things to FIX the economy, but using the word "fix", IMO, is the wrong terminology. The only people that can fix the economy are the consumers. That's how the economy works. Ofcourse if people aren't making money or are fearful of losing jobs, obviously spending goes down and the economy suffers. All the govt can do is damage control. Point out the important economic factors in regards to keeping the economy going, and try to keep them alive until the general society can reach a point in which they are comfortable enough with their financial situation, to start spending again. Basically try to maintain certain markets until the whole thing blows over.
Ofcourse there's almost an infinite number of variables to consider, a lot of guessing and probabilities to figure out, and maybe a little luck, but IMO, the govt has the right idea, but is perhaps taking it a little too far.
As far as taxes are concerned. You can tax people or big businesses, but either way, the people will pay it. It's just a matter of whether you're going to pay those taxes directly, or by losing certain benefits at your work, or completely losing your job, or through increased prices on the products you buy. Almost everything that happens in the economy has a ripple effect, and rarely will find a situation where something happens in regards to large amounts of money, and the only people effected are those directly involved in the transaction, and because of that, there aren't really any simple clear cut answers


my $.02

Good points. I agree corporations don't pay taxes, the consumers pay the taxes.

The only problem with consumer spending IMO, especially the last decade, is it has been borrowed spending. As we are experiencing that is a delicate process. So helping financial institutions "free up credit" seems more like a patch rather than a fix to the problem to me. Again, I'm no expert.

[Triple Five]

Corporations don't pay taxes? Around 40% of what you are paying for an American car goes to the government.

[Demon]

If people lived by the same standards we place on the government and corporations we wouldn't be in this mess. Governments and corporations are run by people the same traits of greed and selfeshness that people have are reflected in the organizations they run. The bottom line is everyone wants someone else to pay its less of an economic problem an more of an issue of accountability and values.

[Triple Five]

Right now we are arguing about who to tax. Bull****.

Our government has too much waste and spending. Instead of hiking taxes let them manage our money better. Cut back all the bull**** worthless programs that we are paying out the ass for. 900 million to Palestine for relief? **** YOU! That is my money keep it here.

[Dudley]

Corporations don't pay taxes? Around 40% of what you are paying for an American car goes to the government.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. We pay the taxes that are handed down to the corporations. So taxing corporations doesn't help the consumer.

[copsey]

Bingo, nothing is "paid" by the corps everything is passed on to the consumer in the final cost of the good sold or service provided.

[DBerg649]

555 - def agree with you on the wasteful spending. I don't see how some of the grants they hand out actually pass. It's like barely having enough money for groceries for the week and buying a bunch of candy bars, beer, blow, and 2 Bulgarian hookers who's name you can't pronounce all in one night.

[CR125guy]

555 - def agree with you on the wasteful spending. I don't see how some of the grants they hand out actually pass. It's like barely having enough money for groceries for the week and buying a bunch of candy bars, beer, blow, and 2 Bulgarian hookers who's name you can't pronounce all in one night.

Oh, crap, I think I need to make some life changes then. :-D

[DBerg649]

Oh, crap, I think I need to make some life changes then. :-D

Right? My reply wasn't nearly as random as it seems... but hey maybe the 2012 thing is true and we won't have to worry about it too much longer anyways, hah