obama is president!!!

[Commander]

Originally Posted by rootb33r

It's more about whether these countries agree with our REASON for doing what we are doing over there. There will always be disagreements between the countries on various policies, but there's a inherent political obligation from these countries, as our NATO allies, to help us. I'm not saying everyone is going to get along all the time, but foreign policy is all one big game; you must be careful where you tread.

I am saying that we will unite if necessary if there is a grave threat, regardless of our popularity. Look at Russia being part of the Allied Powers in World War II.

We buy from China because we still have free trade with China. We have free trade with China because it is vital to our economic welfare. Believe me, if we could survive without the Chinese goods, we would cut ties with them. But even the biggest opponents to outsourcing agree that our economy would crumble if we had a trade embargo with China. Occasionally we will pick and choose various industries and apply temporary embargoes on those goods to regulate/calibrate the US market for those goods.

If a country or two want to cut trade with us because they don't agree with us, so be it. We cannot play a popularity game just so countries will trade with us. We must stand up for what we believe in. With that said, any country who cuts ties with us, will likely hurt from it economically as much as we would hurt from it, if not worse. Besides, it is not like the USA is ever going to do something so drastic as to cut off its ties with the whole world.

I agree with you on foreign aid being done best in the private sector, but the US will continue to throw money out for it, so why not think of the most efficient way to use it? And that is with the help of other foreign governments in a collaborative fashion.


I may sound like an ethnocentric saying this, but this isn't a regular war we're fighting here. We're fighting a culture of guerrilla warfare combined with corrupt politics and political/religious factions. They kill each other over politics and religion! The culture is doomed to be implosive. There is too much unrest.

I hope I am proven wrong.



The only thing it had to do with Congress is the fact that Congress didn't have strict-enough regulation laws in place. There is speculation that Clinton's administration made it easier for people to get mortgages, and also there was a bill in 2003 that was supposed to tighten lending practices that congress voted against... but the blame should all be on the private sector.

The rest of it was pure greed on the banks' behalves, wanting to lend as much money as possible to people who didn't deserve it, and also by loaning more money than credit-responsible people could handle.

Check out some of the links below to see what Congress had to do with it. Specifically, the Carter Administration signed the Community Reinvestment Act into law in 1977, which basically told banks to lower their lending standards. Why didn't the economic crisis happen sooner? Because the language was vague and banks worked around it. The Clinton Administration strengthened the language of the act through revisions and banks began lending to people who couldn't afford to pay the loans back.

Are people responsible? Heck yes, people should live within their means and be happy to rent rather then getting into mortgages they can't afford.

Is Wall Street responsible? Yes and No, if you read the articles, it should be clear that some banks loaned money for fear of government prosecution. But, there were also greedy people who took advantage of the laxed lending standards.

And for people to miss the point, and think that we need government to protect us from this type of stuff, remember it was government that STARTED the whole mess with the Community Reinvestment Act!

Banks won't lend to people who can't afford it unless the government makes them and bails them out when they go bankrupt. If we had a government that would let banks fail when they make bad decisions, then banks wouldn't have taken such awful risks. You see, it precisely government involvement that mucks everything up. Let people make common sense decisions on their own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_...on_dollar.html

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev...n20080213a.htm

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....06370789279709

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...MxMmNhZWQ1MTA=

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aSKSoiNbnQY0

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...annie-mae.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...04Dec27_2.html

[rootb33r]

Originally Posted by Commander

If no outsiders enter this field, in a free economy, it is because they do not feel it is profitable. If it is not profitable, then the current M or O or what have you, must be doing things fairly efficiently and not hurting the consumer. The problem arises when you have a monopoly or oligopoly in a society where people are not free.

OK. I have a degree in Economics, and I am actually in agreement with most of your post. Nice summary of general monopoly and oligopoly theory. However, there are other non-economic factors involved in the decision of a firm to enter a market (barriers to entry), that play a role in M&O theory.

Originally Posted by Commander

All of the above, rests on the assumption that you reside in a free economy. The more socialist your economy than the more harm M or O will do. It is ironic people who feel government intervention is necessary because they think the free market doesn’t work, are OK with government regulations as a nation slowly slips into a socialist state. The original goal of the government regulations was to prevent M and O but when the socialist state is complete, government has a monopoly on everything! Pure irony!

This is freaking absurd. You drank the Republican kool-aid on this one. This country is barely any closer to Socialism than it was 10 years ago. The citizens of the United States of America will not let the country go to Socialism. It's really that simple. No one wants socialism, we only want what's best for the country. Different times call for different measures- we happen to be in a financial recession right now, and due to the so-called "credit crisis" we had to institute a fairly dramatic bail-out.

I repeat, the country will not turn Socialist- it just won't happen, and only the Socialist Party of the US wants that- and there are like 20 members (facetious).

[Commander]

Originally Posted by Bahir

As for Obama being a socialist - it's ridiculous. Compared to the system we have in Sweden (which happens to be one of the most democratic countries in the world), Obama's politics would be far, far to the right of our most right parties (well, maybe exept for one, due to them being racists).

Just because he may not be a socialist relative to your government, doesn't make him any less of one.

SOCIALISM:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Socialism, Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Obama’ Health Plan:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issue...reFullPlan.pdf

page 6, #4 in particular; it require large employers to provide healthcare or contribute to the public plan, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP.

Did you catch that, there is no freedom there, you either offer health insurance or pay into the government plan. That is one huge step towards complete government run health care. Remember the definition of socialism; government ownership and administration. They own their part of the healthcare and are making sure private companies administer healthcare or pay for the government plan.

Another highlight, page 7 #7

Obama’s Tax Plan:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes...Plan_FINAL.pdf

Just read through it the language is constantly in terms of benefiting the poorest, while taxing the wealthy more. Direct quote; “Obama will ask the wealthies 2% of families to give back a portion of the taxes they have received.” Do you see the language, Obama thinks this money is the governments! “Give back”, no the government gave it back when they gave the tax break, it was NEVER their money. “Received”, oh thank you wonderful government for allowing me to receive my taxes back (read this thick with sarcasm). The government receives my taxes to them.

Remember the definition of socialism, it is about government ownership. Obama clearly thinks that your money is the governments, how else can you give it back!

….and I’m sure everyone heard, but in case you didn’t, here is the “spread the wealth” clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZcEHLr4gBg
or, of course, taxes are patriotic, thanks Biden…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytIsTX_WNjo

[Commander]

Originally Posted by rootb33r

OK. I have a degree in Economics, and I am actually in agreement with most of your post. Nice summary of general monopoly and oligopoly theory. However, there are other non-economic factors involved in the decision of a firm to enter a market (barriers to entry), that play a role in M&O theory.

That's cool, I may not have posted had I known the credentials of who I was talking to, just kidding! Thanks for your honesty in regards to your agreement.

This is freaking absurd. You drank the Republican kool-aid on this one. This country is barely any closer to Socialism than it was 10 years ago. The citizens of the United States of America will not let the country go to Socialism. It's really that simple. No one wants socialism, we only want what's best for the country. Different times call for different measures- we happen to be in a financial recession right now, and due to the so-called "credit crisis" we had to institute a fairly dramatic bail-out.

I repeat, the country will not turn Socialist- it just won't happen, and only the Socialist Party of the US wants that- and there are like 20 members (facetious).

No Kool-Aid here, I don't consider myself a Republican, as you can tell from my posts I am a conservative and most of the Republican party is too far left for me (so I obviously feel the Democrats are even farther left!).

I will have to respectfully disagree with you. Welfare and other programs like it are growing at an alarming rate. What else is that but socialism, you are taking large portions of money and giving it to people who haven't earned it? And who is making those decisions...government. They are taking ownership of your money and administering it.

Giving to the needy, my Christian friends, is the Church's job. It is only charitable to give to the poor when it is a free choice. Now, I realize that we don't have a complete Christian society. Therefore, I acknowledge the need for sometypes of programs, but I feel they need extensive reform because the rampant abuse of welfare programs only promotes laziness which does not make our country a better place. People taking initiative makes our country better.

As discussed above with foreign aid, it is also done much more efficiently, because when it is YOUR dollars going to help the poor, you make sure that you are giving to a church or charity that is reputable!

I don't think the country will ever turn completely socialist if it was obvious that it was happening. But I worry that we create a sense of dependency on the government which makes it easier for the next "government program" to be initiated. Hence, we have a slow trip into socialism, without it ever being called by name. I do believe many new programs have good intentions, but in the long run are detrimental to our society.

I do not have an economics degree, but I do enjoy the subject and read up on it when I can. I (as you can probably tell) believe in the Austrian School. I think that the central economic fallacy that is perpetrated by these government programs is the failure to look at both the short and long term consequences and the programs effects on, not just one social group, but all social groups. Most programs are short-sighted and only focused on one group.

[rootb33r]

Originally Posted by Commander

I will have to respectfully disagree with you. Welfare and other programs like it are growing at an alarming rate. What else is that but socialism, you are taking large portions of money and giving it to people who haven't earned it? And who is making those decisions...government. They are taking ownership of your money and administering it.

Yes, believe me, I am appalled with our growing welfare system. I worked at a grocery store and saw people come through the line, dressed in brand new clothes, decked-out in jewelry, and buying ribs, shrimp, lobster, etc with their EBT food stamps. It really gets under my skin.

But, as you referenced Joe Biden's comments about taxes being patriotic, I believe that it is our duty as Americans, having been given the opportunity and the free will to grow up and become whomever we please and do whatever we want, to pay taxes. No, we won't always agree on what the government spends the money on, but there's little we can do about that except elect the people that we think will allocate the money appropriately. I think it is selfish to think otherwise.

As for economics, I don't shun the laissez-faire approach, though I prefer Keynesian economics myself. In economics, all theories are based on the underlying assumption that the "market is efficient." Well, the market is very inefficient, but the Fed helps with that, as do other Government regulations. Yes, we make mistakes, but in a laissez-faire environment there would be more things out of control.

[Commander]

Originally Posted by rootb33r

But, as you referenced Joe Biden's comments about taxes being patriotic, I believe that it is our duty as Americans, having been given the opportunity and the free will to grow up and become whomever we please and do whatever we want, to pay taxes. No, we won't always agree on what the government spends the money on, but there's little we can do about that except elect the people that we think will allocate the money appropriately. I think it is selfish to think otherwise.

As for economics, I don't shun the laissez-faire approach, though I prefer Keynesian economics myself. In economics, all theories are based on the underlying assumption that the "market is efficient." Well, the market is very inefficient, but the Fed helps with that, as do other Government regulations. Yes, we make mistakes, but in a laissez-faire environment there would be more things out of control.

Let's be careful about Biden's comments, He was saying that it was patriotic for the wealthy to pay more taxes then the rest of us. I don't want them paying more taxes, they are providing jobs to the non-wealthy. I will pay my taxes (as it is biblical) and I agree with your first statement that I bolded above.

I profoundly disagree with the second comment I bolded (is that a word, lol!). I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. To quote Adam Smith, “What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarcely by folly in that of a great kingdom.” I think the government pursues policies that distort the market and common sense would say they are detrimental. One example of what the government does that no thrifty family would do is engage in deficit spending, leading to inflation. Now, I acknowledge, that many people are getting themselves into debt, but Adam Smith was referring to people who were prudent.

[superbilt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by superbilt
As a Christian and a person I believe Obama is this country's and this world's best chance for peace.

OK, but you didn't answer why he is the best chance for peace?


Obama is our best chance for peace because he will bring a responsible end to the Iraq War for one reason. The Iraqis are agreeing to sign the contract now that Obama has won because they believe he will actually withdraw by 2012. They hesitated because they were afraid if McCain won then the U.S. wouldn't withdraw. The Iraqi military is getting stronger by the day and things are improving greatly in Iraq but it is far from peace. Obama isn't going to pull all troops out immediately and turn it into a disaster. Ending the war in Iraq will start the process of peace. Had McCain won there is a great chance we would have bombed Iran and possibly started another war. That would have been three middle east countries in a row Iraq/Iran/Afganistan. War is not a game of tick-tac-toe we dont need that nor can we afford it financially or militarily. People want to criticize Obama because he said he is willing to talk to leaders of rogue nations such as Iran like the current way we are doing business is working its a joke. We are taught as children that talking things out gets you much farther than ignoring each other or fighting. Tell me the last time a war has solved any problems. The answer is WWII and that is because we were dragged into it. Another reason Obama can bring peace is because other leaders respect him and believe he is not going to treat them like trash and ignore them.

Why do you feel other countries' perceptions of the USA matter so much? Are you assuming that all other countries are doing most everything correctly and have such great judgement that we should care what they think of us? How does another countries judgement effect the well-being of the USA? If other countries have policies that differ from ours and therefore think the USA is bad, stupid, or evil...Why should that matter to us? Isn't it courageous to go ahead to do what it right even in the face of opposition?

Other countries perceptions are very important. It is great to be proud to be an American but lets face it we need other nations. We need them for natural resources and for our economy. Not to mention that having friends in the world means that you have less enemies that want to see you go down in flames.

[rootb33r]

Originally Posted by Commander

I profoundly disagree with the second comment I bolded (is that a word, lol!). I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. To quote Adam Smith, “What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarcely by folly in that of a great kingdom.” I think the government pursues policies that distort the market and common sense would say they are detrimental. One example of what the government does that no thrifty family would do is engage in deficit spending, leading to inflation. Now, I acknowledge, that many people are getting themselves into debt, but Adam Smith was referring to people who were prudent.

Agree to disagree.

Laissez-faire has never truly been tested in any modern economy.

Public welfare economics analysis has shown that there is a lot of consumer surplus with government-provided public goods. Anything from public parks to government-backed student loans.

I dunno man, there's really nothing we can do about it so whatever It was a fun debate at least.

[gogogojoel]

Originally Posted by Commander

OK, but you didn't answer why he is the best chance for peace?



Why do you feel other countries' perceptions of the USA matter so much? Are you assuming that all other countries are doing most everything correctly and have such great judgement that we should care what they think of us? How does another countries judgement effect the well-being of the USA? If other countries have policies that differ from ours and therefore think the USA is bad, stupid, or evil...Why should that matter to us? Isn't it courageous to go ahead to do what it right even in the face of opposition?

I tend to agree with you here. It's a matter of personality more than anything... if you're a person who cares what people think of you, you're probably more likely to care what other countries think of America. I honestly couldn't care less mostly because many foreign counties rely on us whether they love us or hate us... and we will always respond, so why even try to look good?

[spider-man]

you guys are, and don't get me wrong, being very silly...

You speak of peace as if it is even an option... Look at the history of the world. SHow me when there was peace? You show me peace, and i will show you a hundred reasons why THIS DAY IN AGE is 100 times less likely to have peace then in the past. The biggest reason is this: technology. If someone wants to pick a fight with someone half way around the world, they can. Unlike 1000 years ago when it was practically impossible to fight anyone who didn't live in your continental neighborhood... not so anymore... shoot we could literally launch an attack on mars if we wanted to, now...

Do not think peace will come, your fooling yourselves. If not this war, there will always be another...

go ahead and wish for peace. I have better things to do...