Posted - 2008.10.09 11:59:00 - [3]

 

Time to hit the reset button.

Posted - 2008.10.09 14:00:00 - [5]

 

Originally by: annoing

---

Just goes to show that the free market, low taxes economy is working as intended

---

For once I can agree with you at least on the low taxes bit. Every presidential election the runners promise lower taxes and the people cheer but they don't realize it's screwing the nation as a whole, all they know is that it's more money in their pocket.

Posted - 2008.10.09 15:06:00 - [7]

 

Originally by: Micheal Dietrich

---

Originally by: annoing

---

Just goes to show that the free market, low taxes economy is working as intended

---

For once I can agree with you at least on the low taxes bit. Every presidential election the runners promise lower taxes and the people cheer but they don't realize it's screwing the nation as a whole, all they know is that it's more money in their pocket.

---

But raising taxes could possibly shock our economy and make it much worse.

Posted - 2008.10.09 15:56:00 - [9]

 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

---

The probloem isn't taxes, it's spending. There hasn't been a President willing to restrain spending since probably Truman(although Clinton restrained spending quite unwillingly), and there have been several who expanded it dramatically.

Bush 43 is virtually a socialist on spending(the Iraq war is about 10% of the extra spending since he came in), Clinton tried to spend on all sorts of things before Congress stopped him, Bush 41 had the S+L thing blow up in his face, Reagan spent his way out of the Cold War and bribed Congress with even bigger amounts of social spending to pay for it, Carter was Jimmy freaking Carter, Ford barely counts, Nixon was decent but not great, Johnson is to blame for that $50 trillion unfunded liability the US has 50 years out, Kennedy started Vietnam, and Eisenhower spent like mad on highways and such. For that matter, the only reason Truman was a cutter was because he was there for the end of WW2 - the Marshall Plan was hardly cheap. The last President to be a cutter both ideologically and practically was probably Calvin Coolidge or Warren Harding.

So yeah, the US has too big of a government and too much debt. It's not as bad as most of Europe, but it's getting there. I'm glad I live in Canada, where accusing an opposing politician of being willing to go into deficit is a massive, and almost invariably unjustified, slur on his character.

---

I don't know where you get your information but some of those points are just.....horrid.

Posted - 2008.10.09 16:27:00 - [11]

 

Edited by: DubanFP on 09/10/2008 16:27:44

Originally by: Wendat Huron

---

Originally by: Vigilant

---

...America will come back as usual, once we start getting less involved in other people wars...

---

First part is canceled out by the second part.

---

Sad but true

Posted - 2008.10.09 17:34:00 - [13]

 

Originally by: Vigilant

---

American history shows you, if you look at it in detail, that we always have a recessesion when we fight looooong wars. Which, if you have not noticed, we have been since 9/11.

America will come back as usual, once we start getting less involved in other people wars.

And no, I am not against the war, just don't like cost of it from lives and financial perspective.

---

there was a recessesion after 1945?

Posted - 2008.10.09 19:21:00 - [15]

 

Originally by: Vigilant

---

America will come back as usual, once we start getting less involved in other people wars.

And no, I am not against the war, just don't like cost of it from lives and financial perspective.

---

I am totally against these wars. I'm from the UK and I don't see why NATO countries should see themselves as political overlords of any other country. What ****** ******* did to his people may have been cruel but was none of our business. We had no right to stick our noses in and the WMD arguement was just an excuse for NATO to stick its nose in where it wasn't wanted.

Posted - 2008.10.09 19:49:00 - [17]

 

Edited by: Che Villa on 09/10/2008 20:11:29
Rialtor and Herschel are right on in their opinion. The problem is not low taxation it is spending. The buyout is a perfect example of American politicians approaching a problem with only one MO. Throw money at it and hope it will go away.

We have never had a true fiscal conservative, and we aren't due for one for a while most likely. Someday, a leader will come who will be prepared to make the tough decisions, not just the ones that are politically expedient.

We have to reign in spending NOW, it is a simple fact. The chief auditor of the US has said the same thing for a while now, we are spending our way into bankruptcy. And not one senator or representative disagrees with him. In only a few decades, at this rate, the US will only be able to make the interest payments on our debts and a few entitlement programs. No money left for National Defense, infrastructure, development, NOTHING. The video below was shot BEFORE the current situation.

http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/economy/videos/david-walker/unsustainable-debt/

We could, in theory, tax ourselves out of this mess, but the response from employers would be zero expansion and a rapid increase in the unemployment rate. Which would lead to greater dependence on entitlement programs, and more money being spent at the federal level.

Energy independence should be paramount to the next leadership. Hundreds of billions of petro dollars sent to far off lands so they can build islands that look like palm trees. Take that $700 Billion from the buyout and use that money to reward companies for the first efficient cellulosic ethanol plant that produces ethanol efficiently. Use that money to reward advances that directly influence a decrease in our dependence of foreign oil.

Only about 22% of the oil we import in America comes from the Persian Gulf, that seems like a good place to start. Americans could probably achieve that simply by changing their lifestyles a bit. We've already decreased the amount of gas consumed because of the high gas costs.

In my opinion, the high gas costs, and this current Wall Street debacle is good for us Americans. We needed a kick in the pants. And don't buy into the fear. Local banks are still giving out loans, those of us who didn't spend like mad men are doing good. Unemployment is still well below levels in Europe, and, up until the ****ing Fed cut the rate earlier this week, the dollar was doing fairly well amid the crisis.

We will weather the current storm, it is the storm gathering that I am really afraid of.

Posted - 2008.10.09 20:02:00 - [19]

 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

---

The probloem isn't taxes, it's spending. There hasn't been a President willing to restrain spending since probably Truman(although Clinton restrained spending quite unwillingly), and there have been several who expanded it dramatically.

Bush 43 is virtually a socialist on spending(the Iraq war is about 10% of the extra spending since he came in), Clinton tried to spend on all sorts of things before Congress stopped him, Bush 41 had the S+L thing blow up in his face, Reagan spent his way out of the Cold War and bribed Congress with even bigger amounts of social spending to pay for it, Carter was Jimmy freaking Carter, Ford barely counts, Nixon was decent but not great, Johnson is to blame for that $50 trillion unfunded liability the US has 50 years out, Kennedy started Vietnam, and Eisenhower spent like mad on highways and such. For that matter, the only reason Truman was a cutter was because he was there for the end of WW2 - the Marshall Plan was hardly cheap. The last President to be a cutter both ideologically and practically was probably Calvin Coolidge or Warren Harding.

So yeah, the US has too big of a government and too much debt. It's not as bad as most of Europe, but it's getting there. I'm glad I live in Canada, where accusing an opposing politician of being willing to go into deficit is a massive, and almost invariably unjustified, slur on his character.

---

Well in most of Europe with the notable exception of Iceland, national debt isn't anywhere near as bad as in the US. For one, as an example, the UK's national debt is only something like 36-37% of national GNP, and even though I detest Gordon Brown he has reduced the percentage of GNP that is national debt, but the US's debt level is approaching more like 70-80%.

Also, European nations tend to have "big government", largely owing due to high taxes. This works - it's largely living within it's means and not overspending ridiculously. Your problem is not low taxes or big government - it's both. You simply can't have them put together. It's either a sparse, low-tax government or a high-tax service-providing socialist government, it's not tenable to have both as the current economic predicament of the US shows.

Posted - 2008.10.09 20:34:00 - [21]

 

Edited by: Daxflame on 09/10/2008 20:44:30
The stock market - it's UNDER 9000????!!!!

Posted - 2008.10.09 21:38:00 - [23]

 

Originally by: Vigilant

---

American history shows you, if you look at it in detail, that we always have a recessesion when we fight looooong wars. Which, if you have not noticed, we have been since 9/11.

America will come back as usual, once we start getting less involved in other people wars.

And no, I am not against the war, just don't like cost of it from lives and financial perspective.

---

some of the victims of 9/11 and their families might think that this ISN'T someone else's war.

I happen to think that the US and Britain (my country) have stood together against the worst type of destabilising influence that want this largely peaceful world to become anarchic and ruled by an idiotic religious doctrine.

Posted - 2008.10.09 22:11:00 - [25]

 

Originally by: Eran Laude

---

Well in most of Europe with the notable exception of Iceland, national debt isn't anywhere near as bad as in the US. For one, as an example, the UK's national debt is only something like 36-37% of national GNP, and even though I detest Gordon Brown he has reduced the percentage of GNP that is national debt, but the US's debt level is approaching more like 70-80%.

Also, European nations tend to have "big government", largely owing due to high taxes. This works - it's largely living within it's means and not overspending ridiculously. Your problem is not low taxes or big government - it's both. You simply can't have them put together. It's either a sparse, low-tax government or a high-tax service-providing socialist government, it's not tenable to have both as the current economic predicament of the US shows.

---

BBC News put the national debt in the UK at an estimated 49.3% after the current round of financial bailouts. He (Brown) had given himself a limit of 40%.

And yeah, it would be nice if the US would stop getting into wars - the UK tends to help them and we can't afford it either. Yeah, I know we had a minimal influence in Vietnam, but I think (from memory) we may have had our own wars at that time as our empire crumbled and the UK adjusted. I agree with the war in Afghanistan purely because of the drugs coming from the country and the fact that elements in the country are ranging too far into western europe. Iraq, in my opinion, was handled badly in the first place (should have used far more infantry initially to secure land and the borders completely sealed afterwards) and, as a result, has left a longer legacy than was needed... but they're getting there slowly. I think that everyone will be glad when all our guys are home from Iraq and Afghanistan... it's costing too much for the current climate, unfortunately (not just pounds and dollars either). Not least is the shortfall in the funding our guys out there need to do the job properly and I, for one, hate the idea of our guys not being given everything they need.

As for the Iceland problems, to me, the government shouldn't be using foreign banks in my opinion in any case. As for anyone else, you invest in a company, you take the risk, in my opinion... I agree with helping people and entities from your own country, but if you invest in a company because of high interest rates, you do need to ask yourself where the security lies. In this case, I would be very happy to see anyone who was paid large bonuses as part of them investing in areas that have now crashed (especially anyone who bought those bad debts from the US that started all this) should be either paying those bonuses back or sacked - you can't get paid huge bonuses in the good times without paying the piper when it goes bad on you. The trouble is that it wouldn't be easy to do and people would probably just quit and look for a new job elsewhere.

I am uncomfortable about the use of anti-terrorism laws being used against Iceland though, even though I can sympathise with the reasoning behind it. The trouble is, that I don't think that Iceland has enough money to handle compensating too many people and that's what's lead to the current problems - someone in the banks involved has overinvested and left too little reserves to cover the explosion that's occurring worldwide. This *could* have been avoided, but I guess hindsight is great. :(

I just think that certain groups (eg Taliban, Al Qaeda (sp?) are laughing right now and that's what gets my goat most.

I don't think anyone expected banks to fall so quickly - I've always "known" them to be safe.

Am I the only one that would like to see a nationalised bank in the UK that only handles deposits and doesn't offer a fancy interest rate, but does offer security? Right now, I'm not sure where I'd be putting my cash if I had any... for once I'm glad to be broke (lost my job a while back and still no luck).

Posted - 2008.10.09 22:25:00 - [27]

 

Originally by: B0rn2KiLL

---

Originally by: CampyloBacter

---

Originally by: Vigilant

---

American history shows you, if you look at it in detail, that we always have a recessesion when we fight looooong wars. Which, if you have not noticed, we have been since 9/11.

America will come back as usual, once we start getting less involved in other people wars.

And no, I am not against the war, just don't like cost of it from lives and financial perspective.

---

some of the victims of 9/11 and their families might think that this ISN'T someone else's war.

I happen to think that the US and Britain (my country) have stood together against the worst type of destabilising influence that want this largely peaceful world to become anarchic and ruled by an idiotic religious doctrine.

---

Christians you mean? are we being a tad racist? hmmm ?

---

Yeah... there's no such thing as the perfect religion - most religions are fine as long as you don't get extreme. Extremist Christians are just as bad as Extremist Muslims (cf Spanish Inquisition and don't the *** claim Christian values?). If all religions were moderate and hence more tolerant of others, things would be better all over the world.

Of course, expecting people to drop their own national religion or suppress it when they move there is wrong IMO - you move to a country, you respect their native customs and religion or you move elsewhere (and yes, I know this is ironic coming from a Brit, given our track record in the past). Expecting special treatment when you move to a country just leads to increased tensions.

Posted - 2008.10.09 22:33:00 - [29]

 

Originally by: Sydonis

---

Originally by: B0rn2KiLL

---

Originally by: CampyloBacter

---

Originally by: Vigilant

---

American history shows you, if you look at it in detail, that we always have a recessesion when we fight looooong wars. Which, if you have not noticed, we have been since 9/11.

America will come back as usual, once we start getting less involved in other people wars.

And no, I am not against the war, just don't like cost of it from lives and financial perspective.

---

some of the victims of 9/11 and their families might think that this ISN'T someone else's war.

I happen to think that the US and Britain (my country) have stood together against the worst type of destabilising influence that want this largely peaceful world to become anarchic and ruled by an idiotic religious doctrine.

---

Christians you mean? are we being a tad racist? hmmm ?

---

Yeah... there's no such thing as the perfect religion - most religions are fine as long as you don't get extreme. Extremist Christians are just as bad as Extremist Muslims (cf Spanish Inquisition and don't the *** claim Christian values?). If all religions were moderate and hence more tolerant of others, things would be better all over the world.

Of course, expecting people to drop their own national religion or suppress it when they move there is wrong IMO - you move to a country, you respect their native customs and religion or you move elsewhere (and yes, I know this is ironic coming from a Brit, given our track record in the past). Expecting special treatment when you move to a country just leads to increased tensions.

---

Indeed, most mainstream religions preach a good message about love for one's neighbor, however when people twist religion(as they can twist anything on this planet including science).

The ideal however is what I believe in, which is anybody can believe in anything they want aslong as it doesnt lead to hurting me, or any other person.