StrangeSox Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) And your choices were a moderately compromised stimulus bill or no stimulus bill. You are making a fantastic case for why I should never vote for Democrats again. If this is the best they can or will do, f*** 'em. Let Republicans win, let the system collapse because it's fatally wounded anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:35 PM) You are making a fantastic case for why I should never vote for Democrats again. If this is the best they can or will do, f*** 'em. Let Republicans win, let the system collapse because it's fatally wounded anyway. "Let the system collapse". Yeah, worked great in the 1930's. Nothing bad came of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:37 PM) "Let the system collapse". Yeah, worked great in the 1930's. Nothing bad came of that. Actual progressive policies were enacted. A middle class formed. Edited April 26, 2011 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:35 PM) You are making a fantastic case for why I should never vote for Democrats again. If this is the best they can or will do, f*** 'em. Let Republicans win, let the system collapse because it's fatally wounded anyway. You have left reality. Let the system collapse? Fatally wounded would describe some dictatorships in the Middle East maybe, or some African countries without real governments. They US system, for all its flaws, is still in much better shape than anyone elses. And I am talking about financial, governmental, political, just about any "system" you could be referring to. Let it collapse? I mean, that's akin to deciding to lose some extra flab by taking a hunting knife to your love handles. And then oh by the way going back to eating nothing but Doritos and Nat Light. Behavior is the problem here, primarily - not the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Balta, the website you linked to is being proven quite silly. Do you care to respond to the people who have pointed this out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 If 2009-2011 is the best we can do, then yes, the system is fatally wounded. The plutarchy will only get stronger, the middle class will continue to disappear. That doesn't mean it'll collapse overnight, but is certainly is not sustainable at it's current pace. A fatal wound can still take a while for the infection to set in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:41 PM) Actual progressive policies were enacted. A middle class formed. Unemployment went to 25%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:44 PM) Balta, the website you linked to is being proven quite silly. Do you care to respond to the people who have pointed this out? I'll grant them that one. Politifact has a more up to date version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) Unemployment went to 25%. short term pain vs. long term gain. Or, alternatively, the Democrats actually bother with some progressive policies and people stop making excuses for them and we can just get the nice results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Who is saying 2009-2011 is the best we can do. You play the cards your dealt, Obama unfortunately was dealt a s***ty hand, most of which had nothing to do with him (think of the housing crisis). You can either fold, or you can play the hand out. As much as Obama hasnt done what I wanted, at least he has tried to do what he can when given a crappy deck. No way would I ever respect anyone who thinks that "letting the system fail" will somehow solve our problems. Letting the system fail would result in the end of a Republic in the US, i dont care if I have to eat 1,000 pounds of s***, I would not let the US fail on my watch. As for your graph, What important event happened in 1941...... Oh yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) I'll grant them that one. Politifact has a more up to date version. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pr...promise-broken/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pr...ngs/compromise/ He's also 5/25 in "Top 25 Promises," and I'd say that No. 175 is broken. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pr...s-top-promises/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:50 PM) What important event happened in 1941...... Oh yeah! It's actually interesting that from his graph, the moderately progressive policies of the 1930's did nothing to level the income distribution, the only thing that did was the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:52 PM) It's actually interesting that from his graph, the moderately progressive policies of the 1930's did nothing to level the income distribution, the only thing that did was the war. Signal can lag source, you know this Balta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:52 PM) Signal can lag source, you know this Balta. So, any change from Obama's policies wouldn't be viewed for 5-10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:50 PM) As for your graph, What important event happened in 1941...... Oh yeah! The US economy finally began to recover thanks to a myriad of reasons. If you want to credit the war, then that's another knock against Obama's way-too-small-and-full-of-tax-cuts stimulus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:56 PM) So, any change from Obama's policies wouldn't be viewed for 5-10 years? I will credit any positive changes to the continuation of the Bush tax cuts and the expansion of the estate tax cut. Oh, and also removing the grey wolves from the endangered species list. Oh, and also their failure to pass any jobs-killing and economy-crippling climate regulations. Edited April 26, 2011 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:56 PM) So, any change from Obama's policies wouldn't be viewed for 5-10 years? What happened in '37 when FDR finally acquiesced to Republican moaning about budget deficits instead of continuing to push for spending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:56 PM) So, any change from Obama's policies wouldn't be viewed for 5-10 years? Aren't you the same person that spent weeks if not months trying to convince the conservatives on this site that the stimulus was focusing on the wrong things, citing people like Krugman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Democrats care more about keeping power than actually exercising it to pass their agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 06:01 PM) Aren't you the same person that spent weeks if not months trying to convince the conservatives on this site that the stimulus was focusing on the wrong things, citing people like Krugman? Yes. And compared to doing nothing and a 2nd great depression (and that is, for once, not an exaggeration), I'll take the stagnant point we've reached right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 06:03 PM) Democrats care more about keeping power than actually exercising it to pass their agenda. Like the bill they passed containing $500 billion in medicare cuts. That was entirely to keep power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Well the war definitely helped the economy bounce back (and it has nothing to do with stimulus) Lets look at WWII. First you have a drastic increase in demand for US goods (weaponry) Second you have a drastic decrease in supply of world made goods (rest of the world is under attack factories are destroyed, no China to even compete with) Third you have a drastic reduction in the supply of labor (the draft). If the US had all 3 of those things today, our economy would surge. The problem is that we dont have 1, we dont have 2 and we dont have 3. So if you want an economic burst a la 1941, you need the conditions above. I personally dont think FDR's new deal made a big difference, the biggest difference it made was the mentality of the American public. Instead of going down the route of Germany with hyperinflation leading to no confidence in the govt, leading to the end of the Republic, FDR kept people believing in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 06:13 PM) Instead of going down the route of Germany with hyperinflation leading to no confidence in the govt, leading to the end of the Republic, FDR kept people believing in America. Well, just like now, hyperinflation wasn't exactly possible then, because just like now, having the government print money is a method of improving things. Germany in the 1920's was a different breed, where there wasn't a liquidity trap. There was no market that would absorb the extra government debt printed in Germany, there is for the U.S. now, just like in 1941 when we started spending on blowing thing sup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:25 PM) You guys seem like the type who would benefit from this site. http://tinyurl.com/2fl9gzk (Profanity in the website title so I used tiny) lol one of them 'Assigned First Chief Technology Officer'. The guy Obama assigned is an idiot and doesn't seem to have any purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Im not sure what you mean. The German hyperinflation was partially a result of massive borrowing during WWI while at the same time printing money... Also im not sure if its relevant, but wasnt the US still on the gold standard? I believe Germany went off in 1914, to print more money and then never could get their act straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts