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

Debates Forum

  1. 23 Jul '09 07:21
    Being the first minority president carries likely more scrutiny over his policies. Unfortunately, his economic policies are proving as weak compared to McCain's as many could expect from a tax-and-spend Democrat.

    Chief sin may have been banking, saving the banks by dragging out their solvency rather than doing a dramatic house cleaning, takeover, recapitalization, and reprivatization. Instead, he chose the slow and painful route in the long-run with a less dramatic a downturn in the short-run. Nobel prize economists are critical of his policies (including Krugman, Stiglitz, Becker, hundred+ others). His policies are to spend spend when we are already in record deficits, and after more than doubling spending, promises to keep a goal of reducing about half that increased level in the future.

    The current health care debate is very telling of the wrong economic direction in which he is leading the nation. He promises to save money in healthcare... by extending more benefits to more people... and the Congressional Budget Office called him on that nonsense. His plan will cost more than it will save.

    Any politicians left out there that actually want to see a strong America more than they want to push for their re-elections?
  2. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    23 Jul '09 10:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    Any politicians left out there that actually want to see a strong America more than they want to push for their re-elections?
    Is there any consensus left as to how one achieves a strong America anymore? One would suspect that the economic conditions that allowed a certain formula to be struck, that may have worked under Truman in the 50's when America had just emerged as a great big post ww2 industrial colossus and the normalised expectations of most people, were informed by respect for authority, strong family values and the power of the church and other organisation to exact a fairly homogenised response out of its citizens.

    Fifty years on and most of those structures and strictures that made for a closely knit society, where everyone knew their place and there was a neat little place for everything, that has all gone.

    If greatness is to be measured in uniformity and unquestioning response, then the America of that era was truly great. But if we are to measure greatness in terms of diversity and the ability of society to embrace and include difference, then we would be well served to recognise that America, in occupying a much different space in terms of its position in the world, if it is to be truly great will not do so by adopting an insular economically rationalist worldview. For one its position in the world has been underwritten by its influence and control over the way resources are exploited in much of the globe. The time for taking is over. the time for giving back is now begun.

    By converging onto a modified capitalism, one that incorporates socialist policies (the so called tax and spend approach) it at least signals the importance of people in the milieu of its policy agendas, and for a world that now has to reign in its first world energy aspirations given the prominence that carbon emission trading will have on the way that emerging nations can develop, at least if America starts taking collectivist initiatives, it will enable it to take the lead in this new energy future and re-establish its credentials as one of the world's most admired nations.

    I don't think anyone growing up in the sixties had anything but the highest regard of Americans and things American. That can do attitude that saw men walk on the moon captured the hearts and minds of young people the world over and inspired many to accept her views on freedom and democracy as being inalienable rights. I suppose greed and the eighties and contra and corporatism plus the oil wars fought in her name have certainly tarnished that gloss and tempered the glow felt by many towards that great heart, that indomitable spirit of independent individualism that would certainly help you on your way if you were fallen by the wayside. Spending on infrastructure and services to uplift people may yet be the way in which America will rediscover her true greatness. The greatness that enshrines the equality and one-ness of all people. I mean doesn't the Statue of Liberty, promise to do that?
  3. 23 Jul '09 11:47
    Originally posted by kmax87
    I mean doesn't the Statue of Liberty, promise to do that?[/b]
    Actually, Obama was seen at a local pawn shop in DC trying to sell the statue of liberty.

    Anyhew, what does all that have to do with spending like "W" on steriods?

    Nice speech though.
  4. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    23 Jul '09 13:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    Nice speech though.
    Thanks. Its been a while since I've written like that. I used to enjoy that style of stream of consciousness spray. It kept me awake while doing allnighters finishing up end of term assignments at uni. Brings back memories. Sigh!

    Its funny though, I always had the most to say when I could least afford the time to say it.
  5. 23 Jul '09 16:04 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Is there any consensus left as to how one achieves a strong America anymore? One would suspect that the economic conditions that allowed a certain formula to be struck, that may have worked under Truman in the 50's when America had just emerged as a great big post ww2 industrial colossus and the normalised expectations of most people, were informed by respect uality and one-ness of all people. I mean doesn't the Statue of Liberty, promise to do that?
    A lot of that past "strength" was likely the result of one of history's most frightening periods.

    It's hard for me to really imagine what it must've been like to go through the 1929-45 period. The Great Depression must have been unbelievably scary - it was really severe and no one really knew when it would end - I think most people (like Hoover) really did think that "prosperity was just around the corner" -- but the corner never arrived. FDR and Co. then basically threw a pile of stuff at the wall to see what would stick, but no one really seemed able to solve the problem.

    Then came WW II -- you had a madman in Germany with the power to enforce his madness. Imagine Osama bin-Laden with Germany's seemingly invincible WW II firepower rolling across the European continent with designs of taking over the world. And then Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. What would have happened if the US had been unable to defeat both of these threats? This wasn't Vietnam. Losing in WW II would've meant unspeakable horror for Americans and many other people around the world.

    It;s hard to imagine the feeling everyone must have felt after the US had gone through all of that and emerged both victorious and prosperous - it must have had a huge impact on everyone involved. Large-scale crises tend to unify people - and the slaying of the Dragons of Depression and Fascism surely filled people with an optimistic "can-do" spirit and a strong faith in "the system"
  6. 23 Jul '09 16:27
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    A lot of that past "strength" was likely the result of one of history's most frightening periods.

    It's hard for me to really imagine what it must've been like to go through the 1929-45 period. The Great Depression must have been unbelievably scary - it was really severe and no one really knew when it would end - I think most people (like Hoover) really ...[text shortened]... illed people with an optimistic "can-do" spirit and a strong faith in "the system"
    You don't know what would have happened if the Germans had "won". Their goal was absolutely unrealistic, so even if Germany would have conquered all of Europe and Russia it would have probably collapsed again fairly quickly.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Jul '09 16:41
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    You don't know what would have happened if the Germans had "won". Their goal was absolutely unrealistic, so even if Germany would have conquered all of Europe and Russia it would have probably collapsed again fairly quickly.
    Easy to say from the safety of 2009.

    The British "goal" of maintaining a worldwide sea empire in an age where long distance communications were virtually impossible or the "goal" of Europe to colonize Africa in the late 1800s/early 1900s or the "goal" of a Moscow government of governing Vladivostok and places on the Bering Strait that are 10 time zones away and in the backyard of Asian powers were all equally "unrealistic."

    We don't "know" what would have happened had Germany won. But we can guess. My first guess is that I wouldn't be here; so that's all I really feel the need to speculate.
  8. 23 Jul '09 16:43
    Originally posted by sh76
    Easy to say from the safety of 2009.

    The British "goal" of maintaining a worldwide sea empire in an age where long distance communications were virtually impossible or the "goal" of Europe to colonize Africa in the late 1800s/early 1900s or the "goal" of a Moscow government of governing Vladivostok and places on the Bering Strait that are 10 time zones away ...[text shortened]... uess is that I wouldn't be here; so that's all I really feel the need to speculate.
    Yes, and my guess is that the empire would have collapsed.
  9. 23 Jul '09 16:46
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    You don't know what would have happened if the Germans had "won". Their goal was absolutely unrealistic, so even if Germany would have conquered all of Europe and Russia it would have probably collapsed again fairly quickly.
    what if Germany had gotten "the bomb" first?
  10. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    23 Jul '09 22:35
    That's funny, or it would be if it weren't so sad. Do you honestly believe McCain's economic ideas would have failed to plunge us into a depression that made the 1930s appear prosperous in comparison?

    The latest economic news in cautiously optimistic, which indicates one of two things. The economy is already looking better as a consequence of Obama's efforts to restore sanity to government. Or, the media continues to underestimate the lasting damage done by nearly three decades of Reaganomics.
  11. 23 Jul '09 23:16
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    what if Germany had gotten "the bomb" first?
    I don't think Germany could have held together a world empire even with the atom bomb. I cant see the English being under German rule and they would have undermined the Nazies from within eventually. Here in the USA we have too many firearms in private hands for it to have worked. Who would be the target for the bombs? If one was used on Hitlers world empire I think it would have been very counter productive for his cause and there would have been greater resolve to destroy him.
  12. Standard member caissad4
    Child of the Novelty
    23 Jul '09 23:31
    More Republican nonsense !
    After 8 years of Bushenomics we went from the greatest surplus to the greatest deficit. Tax breaks for the wealthy and an almost total collapse of the US economy are the hallmarks of the Republican party.
    And now the Republicans believe that THEY have the solution. It would be just plain silly to trust a group who has successfully proven their total incompetence repeatedly. That goes beyond arrogance.
    Reaganomics and the "trickle down theory" is just another example of stupidity.
    "Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again"
  13. 23 Jul '09 23:57 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by caissad4
    More Republican nonsense !
    After 8 years of Bushenomics we went from the greatest surplus to the greatest deficit. Tax breaks for the wealthy and an almost total collapse of the US economy are the hallmarks of the Republican party.
    And now the Republicans believe that THEY have the solution. It would be just plain silly to trust a group who has successful just another example of stupidity.
    "Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again"
    That's rich. A partisan Obamamite groupie preaching about high deficits. You know, Bush and Obama might be twins you know. However, instead of trickle down prosperity we have trickle up poverty as we even out the playing field. Nice
  14. 24 Jul '09 00:18
    Originally posted by whodey
    That's rich. A partisan Obamamite groupie preaching about high deficits. You know, Bush and Obama might be twins you know. However, instead of trickle down prosperity we have trickle up poverty as we even out the playing field. Nice
    Trikle up wont go clear to the top don't you know. It should just about wipe out the middle class, and the wealthy they don't like.
  15. 24 Jul '09 00:32 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Trikle up wont go clear to the top don't you know. It should just about wipe out the middle class, and the wealthy they don't like.
    In truth, they are creating an elite society. Just look at the proposed health care. None of the Congressional members wish to be subject to it and they will be the only ones who have better access to health care. The only equalitiy they are seeking are for those on the outside looking in within the government. Just look at what lavish life styles they live in Congress and the rest of governemnt and with no one forcing them to pay taxes to boot!! That is, unless you are appointed to a cabnet position by the President.

    In short, its just about control and your right, the target is the middle class by in large.