Originally posted by RJHinds This is not a wish, but a serious warning of what might happen soon, if we don't change course. Let's hope it is not already too late.
You mean if we don't turn income equality around and start taxing people proportionate to the benefit they receive from the system? I agree, but I think the collapse is a long ways off.
Originally posted by Kunsoo For better or worse, barring some major scandal, she is your next President. Mostly because the Republican choices are very weak.
Originally posted by Kunsoo For better or worse, barring some major scandal, she is your next President. Mostly because the Republican choices are very weak.
Donald Trump is not a weak choice, even Putin has said Trump is outstanding and talented.
Hillary already is in a major scandal with her handling of classified material by her personal unencrypted email server. That should put her in prison, if the Obama administration allows prosecution to go forward. 😏
but nobody (right or left) seems to be willing to get government out of mucking up economics.
Did it ever occur to you and the rest of the conservatives here that if it were not for the "government" insuring our bank account money, bailing out our failed banks, providing "government" backed law enforcement and regulation of our financial institutions in 2008-2010, our economy wouldn't exist?! Conservatives love to shake their fist in the air and want the "government off their backs" but turn a blind eye to the many protections and safeguards the "government" provides.
Originally posted by Kunsoo Every other depression/recession since the 1920s was ended by Keynesian spending - you don't worry about budgets in the short term, nor inflation. Every single one - including Reagan's double-dip recession in the early 80s before he lied about Soviet military superiority to justify the most massive spending increase any nation had seen and generating a defic ...[text shortened]... in power, Rush Limbaugh was calling it "the Obama recession." Yes, nihilists run congress now.
Interesting rewrite of history. Government spending can artificially move an economy, but usually favors the constituencies of the party in power, at the time. The early Keynesian policies of Roosevelt did not end the depression, and may likely have extended it, right up to the salvation of WWII.
Originally posted by bill718 but nobody (right or left) seems to be willing to get government out of mucking up economics.
Did it ever occur to you and the rest of the conservatives here that if it were not for the "government" insuring our bank account money, bailing out our failed banks, providing "government" backed law enforcement and regulation of our financial institutions in 2 ...[text shortened]... ir backs" but turn a blind eye to the many protections and safeguards the "government" provides.
Did it ever occur to you and the rest of the conservatives here that if it were not for the "government" insuring our bank account money, bailing out our failed banks, providing "government" backed law enforcement and regulation of our financial institutions in 2008-2010, our economy wouldn't exist?!
The repeated bailouts, encourage and create moral risk, that is people who make gobs of money with risky gambles that they ought to go broke on, but don't, because government keeps the afloat, so that they can repeat the same thing over and over.
We can only guess what the alternative might be, but it would not be supporting failure.
Originally posted by Kunsoo For better or worse, barring some major scandal, she is your next President. Mostly because the Republican choices are very weak.
I completely disagree. Cruz? Trump? Carson? Yes.
But I give Marco Rubio a 55+% chance of beating Hillary if he is the nominee. I'd give Kasich a solid 60% chance but I don't think he has a reasonable chance of being the nominee.
Originally posted by sh76 I completely disagree. Cruz? Trump? Carson? Yes.
But I give Marco Rubio a 55+% chance of beating Hillary if he is the nominee. I'd give Kasich a solid 60% chance but I don't think he has a reasonable chance of being the nominee.
It is quite common for opposing party members to see the opposition as weak. Sometimes it is correct, but in this case, Hillary's inevitability is somewhat overrated, as well as her alleged strength in the general.
Kasich could probably beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination, if he switched parties.
Originally posted by normbenign It is quite common for opposing party members to see the opposition as weak. Sometimes it is correct, but in this case, Hillary's inevitability is somewhat overrated, as well as her alleged strength in the general.
Kasich could probably beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination, if he switched parties.
I recall someone on FOX News saying that Kasich sounded like he was running for the Democrat nomination right after the first debate.
2016 Economic Collapse
17 Dec '15 02:24
Back to Top