Naethyn wrote:The primary duty of government is to protect it's people and it's people's rights. Capitalism has nothing to do with this. Laissez-faire does not equal capitalism. There is a huge difference between government regulation and the government buying out the private sector to keep it afloat.
We are living beyond our means. Spending more money does not correct this situation. We have to cut expenses and bring our budget back into balance. We cannot sustain this mind set of spending more to avoid certainty.
sorry to say but you don't really sound like you know what you're talking about
Naethyn wrote:The primary duty of government is to protect it's people and it's people's rights. Capitalism has nothing to do with this. Laissez-faire does not equal capitalism. There is a huge difference between government regulation and the government buying out the private sector to keep it afloat.
We are living beyond our means. Spending more money does not correct this situation. We have to cut expenses and bring our budget back into balance. We cannot sustain this mind set of spending more to avoid certainty.
sorry to say but you don't really sound like you know what you're talking about
Arlos, the best rebuttal you can make is about a link at the end of the article? Who cares about chick tracks? Honestly... The U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP - 65 Trillion
We are in more debt than ever before and we keep spending. Debt is the cause of the problem. The solution you are advocating is to spend more to correct the situation. We are living beyond our means. Spending more money does not correct this situation. We have to cut expenses and bring our budget back into balance. We cannot sustain this mind set of spending more to avoid certainty.
So tell me, do you think we are living beyond our means? Do you think spending more money to increase our debt further is beneficial long term to the US? Where does the coin stop? Do we keep spending more and never care to think about how much we owe? Do you honestly believe that spending more will correct the situation? And if so, explain how.
Maeya wrote:And then your head just aches from having your hair pulled so tight for so long...
Nate, to comply with your request, we'd have to lock down budgets, not spend a dime, this will result in further collapse. However that isn't to negate the point you make, collapse could be unavoidable. BTW there is zero certainty in any of this, this isn't balancing your check book. Also that site you linked seemed to prey on folks "fears" of the unknown.
Option A) Inject cash into the system in an attempt to get folks spending, and really just get money moving from hand to hand. This can build new industry, new tech., new oppertunity, the engine will stop being idle and actually pick up speed.
Option B) Do nothing, let the banking system collapse, let the housing system re-collapse, let industry collapse, let our 401ks, retirements, etc all get liquefied, etc.
Perhaps your blind by your age, I'm not sure, perhaps your parents are rolling in money, perhaps you have enough cash to pay for your parents retirements. However if you are this person then you are probably about .1% (if that) of the overall population. WTF do you plan on doing for the baby boomers that are just now dieing off? How about the 30-40-50 something's that have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested into a system that will become liquid. How is your solution helping them?
What I hear from you Naet is you're saying fuck all them, let them all go bankrupt, take it on the chin, etc. But who is going to pay for all those people, you realize all the folks you want to fuck over are a bigger drain on the system then folks that have jobs, homes, pay taxes, etc.
As for all this debt, you know what, who cares. Who is going to come to our front door and say, hey bro, it's time to pay up. While our country is shifting away from the power we had, until the process is done NO ONE we owe is going to ask us for cash. Our country is the engine and our people are the oil to a global economy. You take the US out and the global economy would collapse in the short term, far far worse than what we see right now.
Until all the uber rich investors get ALL their money out of our system, we are somewhat safe against the collectors. However we still hold the keys to the car and we still generate an ass ton of cash for uber rich folks.
/rant off Naet, what is you would do different? It is easy to poke holes in a direction set by someone else, but typically folks that bitch about this solution or that solution tend to offer nothing but bitching. They also tend to have tunnel vision and think short term, and frankly only think of themselves.
Naethyn wrote:Arlos, the best rebuttal you can make is about a link at the end of the article? Who cares about chick tracks? Honestly... The U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP - 65 Trillion
We are in more debt than ever before and we keep spending. Debt is the cause of the problem. The solution you are advocating is to spend more to correct the situation. We are living beyond our means. Spending more money does not correct this situation. We have to cut expenses and bring our budget back into balance. We cannot sustain this mind set of spending more to avoid certainty.
So tell me, do you think we are living beyond our means? Do you think spending more money to increase our debt further is beneficial long term to the US? Where does the coin stop? Do we keep spending more and never care to think about how much we owe? Do you honestly believe that spending more will correct the situation? And if so, explain how.
The more people with jobs, the more money being spent, the more taxes being collected, the more programs that can be paid for, the more money we have towards paying down the debt. Noone is arguing that we haven't lived beyond our means and got ourselves in this situations. The argument is what to do now. If we can spend money to get people working again, those people will spend money and get the economy moving.
So... the Government spends money from working people to get more people working, rather than letting those people spend their money themselves and having it go directly into the economy (which to me is the only true way to "stimulate"). We make the Government a middle man, taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive, and of course, taking their share to cover the costs of the extra bureaucracy that comes with it.
It will not help the economy, it will hurt it. It will distort market forces and misallocate resources. It will make us far less productive than we could be.
If you want more spending and more jobs, then lower/get rid of taxes. Make it easier to start a business, and allow businesses to be more profitable so that they can afford to hire more people. Get the Government out of the way, and let the economy work.
If you want a stagnant economy (at best), allow the Government to allocate resources as it sees fit. Allow the fed to artificially manipulate interest rates. Allow more deficit financing and taxation. Keep thinking that the Government isn't the cause, and can solve all our problems.
Have you ever thought to wonder where the money from this stimulus package comes from? It is printed out of thin air! Nothing else.
The only answer this stimulus package brings is to keep printing more money. The same failed strategy that has brought us to the exact position we are in now. You think the market failure of right now would be painful? Wait for the day when the dollar is worth nothing. The taller the system is artificially inflated the harder it will fall.
Maeya wrote:And then your head just aches from having your hair pulled so tight for so long...
If there are no banks, there are no small business loans. If there are no loans, there are no businesses. Quit being idealistic and be realistic. EVERYONE realizes how fucked up things are, the question is how to fix it and no, eliminating taxes will NOT fix it.
