Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    30 Jul '09 15:07
    There have been several posts recently regarding the American economy, focusing on the national debt and unemployment, these posts bring up legitimate points that must be addressed, let us not forget however:

    1. The American economy is very large, it took several years to fall into this economic hole. It will take at least that long to recover.

    2. Presidents Bush and Obama saw a large economic stimulus plan was necessary to avoid another great depression, since the private sector did not provide this, the Government had to. Despite the risks involved in running up a large national debt.

    3. Laws providing oversite and regulations regarding lending practices which were slowly stripped away under Ronald Regan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, will take some time to replace and begin to have an effect on the overall economy.

    4. The majority of the stimulus money has yet to be spent, despite this, the overall economy has begun to stablize, and some legitimate and sustainable gains have been made in the housing and stock markets.

    It is wise to keep pressure on the President and Congress to control unnecessary spending, fraud, and other wasteful practices, however considering the overall state of the American economy just 9 months ago as opposed to now, it's clear that our lawmakers (while far from perfect), are generally on the correct economic path.
  2. 30 Jul '09 19:31
    Originally posted by bill718
    There have been several posts recently regarding the American economy, focusing on the national debt and unemployment, these posts bring up legitimate points that must be addressed, let us not forget however:

    1. The American economy is very large, it took several years to fall into this economic hole. It will take at least that long to recover.

    2. Pres ...[text shortened]... lear that our lawmakers (while far from perfect), are generally on the correct economic path.
    No
  3. Standard member StTito
    The Mullverine
    30 Jul '09 20:03
    Originally posted by voltaire
    No
    very witty. Do you plug your ears and yell Nanananana too?
  4. 30 Jul '09 20:14
    Originally posted by bill718

    1. The American economy is very large, it took several years to fall into this economic hole. It will take at least that long to recover.
    Indeed!! In fact, it took 8 years of irresponsible Bush spending to get us where we are now. So what do we do now? That's right, we increase spending. Brilliant!!!
  5. 30 Jul '09 20:15
    Originally posted by bill718
    2. Presidents Bush and Obama saw a large economic stimulus plan was necessary to avoid another great depression, since the private sector did not provide this, the Government had to. Despite the risks involved in running up a large national debt.
    We are just fortunate I guess that Bush and Obama seem to be on the same page, eh?
  6. Standard member StTito
    The Mullverine
    30 Jul '09 20:18
    Originally posted by whodey
    Indeed!! In fact, it took 8 years of irresponsible Bush spending to get us where we are now. So what do we do now? That's right, we increase spending. Brilliant!!!
    If you think it took a mere 8 years for us to get in this mess you are delusional. It started with Reganomics.
  7. 30 Jul '09 20:20
    Originally posted by bill718
    3. Laws providing oversite and regulations regarding lending practices which were slowly stripped away under Ronald Regan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, will take some time to replace and begin to have an effect on the overall economy.
    Guess what, even though we pass more laws and regulations to help keep us "safe", there looms future enonomic catastrophies that will no doubt come despite the measures. I suppose then they will have more excuses to make government more inclusive in our lives than it already is today. But I'm sure that will make people like you happy knowing that they would make us "safe" once again.
  8. 30 Jul '09 20:20
    Originally posted by StTito
    If you think it took a mere 8 years for us to get in this mess you are delusional. It started with Reganomics.
    Fair enough. In fact, we could go as far back as the turn of the century if you desire. So the question begs, is the status quo acceptable?
  9. 30 Jul '09 20:22 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by bill718

    4. The majority of the stimulus money has yet to be spent, despite this, the overall economy has begun to stablize, and some legitimate and sustainable gains have been made in the housing and stock markets.
    So the economy stablized without a stimulus? That just can't be!!! I mean, does it not take government to stabalize and grow the economy? Heretic!!


    Now if you don't mind, I wish to propose another trillion dollars of our hard earned money to go for another stimulus Obama and company are talking about.
  10. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    30 Jul '09 20:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    So the economy stablized without a stimulus? That just can't be!!! I mean, does it not take government to stabalize and grow the economy? Heretic!!


    Now if you don't mind, I wish to propose another trillion dollars of our hard earned money to go for another stimulus Obama and company are talking about.
    You sound like just another Republican sore loser to me.
  11. 30 Jul '09 20:34 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by bill718
    You sound like just another Republican sore loser to me.
    Am I not bashing Bush? Am I protecting the hollowed Ronald Reagan of the Republican party? what I am doing, which is incomprehensible to most, is not be a partisan shill. How bout you? Its time to wake up and see that both parties got us into this mess, so to point to what one party has done and demonize them and thendefend the other is simply madness.
  12. Standard member StTito
    The Mullverine
    30 Jul '09 20:36
    Originally posted by whodey
    Fair enough. In fact, we could go as far back as the turn of the century if you desire. So the question begs, is the status quo acceptable?
    sorry, the turn of the century(last) was one of the US' more progressive times where we made laws that helped the workers and put breaks on bad business practices. Thing like the 40hr work week, child labour laws, solid unions, anti monopoly laws. You know, controls and regulations(soooo evil). Until the businesses freeked out and got Calvin in there. Then we had the booming twenties and everything was fine again. Little regulation, small government,we made unions=commies, life was good, oh wait forgot about the whole great depression thing. I guess Regan made everybody forget about it too.
  13. 30 Jul '09 21:20
    Originally posted by StTito
    If you think it took a mere 8 years for us to get in this mess you are delusional. It started with Reganomics.
    It started in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act
  14. 30 Jul '09 21:44 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by StTito
    sorry, the turn of the century(last) was one of the US' more progressive times where we made laws that helped the workers and put breaks on bad business practices. Thing like the 40hr work week, child labour laws, solid unions, anti monopoly laws. You know, controls and regulations(soooo evil). Until the businesses freeked out and got Calvin in there. Then we ...[text shortened]... orgot about the whole great depression thing. I guess Regan made everybody forget about it too.
    I suppose there have been some good that has come out of the progressive movement, otherwise it could not have been justified. However, does it make it worth our while? Does it cause more harm than good?

    For me, the crux of the progressive movement is expanding government beyond what the Constitution ever planned for it to expand. As was rightly pointed out, the spark for this was in 1913 when the states ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which authorized Congress to tax the incomes of its cititzens. Ironically, this type of tax was put in place in 1864 and once challenged the Supreme Court later declared it unconstitutional because it represented direct taxation on the citizenry which was not allowed under the constitution. But as we can see, they had a change of heart. LOL.

    So once the money began to poor in, so went the spending. From the year 1910 when the debt was $2.6 billion the debt is now over $11 trillion. It seems the more money that is sent to Washington the money they spend doubles. Now it is to the point that last year the government spent $412 billiion just to cover interest payments to the holders of the national debt. To compare, our educational system, which efffects our nations future, only recieved $61 billion. In fact, the interest expense paid on the debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget. Only defense and income redistribution (The departements of health and human services, HUD, and argiculture "food stamps" are higher. Social security spending is the largest item in the federal budget. As the debt increases, so does the interest payment. Social Security is not part of the Federal Budget general fund. The money goes into a trust fund but the left over money in it is routinely barrowed and used as if were general budget revenue. That said, the ponzi shceme then becomes part of the national debt.


    So what are the implications of this progressive movement? Well the US dollar is now being replaced as the international trade standard. In fact, the economic stimulus may shift us away from an economic crisis to a debt crisis. In fact, it is projected that in the year 2011 that the gross debt will exceed the percentage of the GDP for the first time in history.


    Having said all that, all we can do is come up with more costly entitlements such as universal health care and tax us more with cap and trade Nice!!!
  15. 30 Jul '09 22:02 / 2 edits
    some things that need to be done

    1. There is only one federal budget -- no more of these "separate budgets" and "trust funds" -- everything needs to go into the general budget.

    2. One of the main things the federal government spends money on is healthcare. Skyrocketing healthcare costs are a major threat to the budget. So we need to focus intensely on finding ways to reduce those costs. If the current healthcare proposals fail to do this, we need to find one that does.

    3. The government does spend a lot of money. There are undoubtedly lots of places where cuts could be made. But all cuts will be VERY unpopular with those affected by them. As such, there is no way we will ever see realistic spending cuts until candidates have the guts to be upfront during their campaigns with detailed plans about how they would make cuts. If candidates lay it on the line and still got elected, they could then make a strong case that the people specifically voted for these cuts.

    4. No more huge tax cuts on the theory that it will somehow "starve the beast" -- it doesn't work -- the beast keeps growing, and all we end up with is tons of debt.