Rnc

ironeagle2006

ironeagle2006

Active Member
I am from IL and Obama 131 Present votes still hold the record for his time in office for the number of times ANYONE has voted Present. He refused to be held down on any issue yet always claimed he misvoted HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU MISVOTE WHEN THE MACHINE IS LABLED YEAH NEY OR PRES.
 
1knight164

1knight164

Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2748209
Very few people are in situations that they, themselves, did not get themselves into or cannot get themselves out of, yet refuse to be accountable for that and look to gov't to bail them out.
No government policy is going to improve the quality of your life, that is entirely up to you. OTOH, governmental policy routinely destroys the quality of life for many, on many levels.
Like the $25B taxpayers have to pay to help bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the 2% of those who bought more house than they could afford with very risky loans. Very well said.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2748209
Conventions are not about substance, whether they are democrat or republican. They are about the Rah Rah factor; to get their own party to rally around the chosen candidate and no other purpose whatsoever.
Economies don't need "fixing" by governments as a generality. They go in cycles, always have, always will. We, as a nation, had a booming period, time to take a break from it or else inflation will eat us up. A mild recession is good for the economy as a whole, brings growth down so prices will ease which will in turn stimulate growth, but it takes time. There will be some hard times for some, it's just life. Sounds harsh but that is the reality of it. Learn a new skill, move to where there is work, whatever, just don't sit there and complain that someone else isn't doing enough for you, that's your job. extremes.
No offense, but that sounds pretty conservative to me...
On a more technical note. The president/congress can and does effect the economy. In a couple of ways, first off he effects the economy like you and I do, with spending decisions. They are in charge of an entity large enough were it will reflect in economic statistics.
Secondly they can effect the economy in areas such limiting the profit of companies down to individuals in forms of taxes. By raising or lowering taxes they basically add or remove spending power of the individual up to corporation.
Thirdly he president does appoint the chairman of the federal reserve. He has TONS of power to influence monetary policy. And although he is theoretically independent. He is appointed by a president, and since a federal bank is chartered by congress, congress could close the federal reserve. In the short past, both dems and republicans have done a good job of not messing with the federal reserve too much. Like the Reagan appointed greenspan who HW nor Clinton nor W really messed with. This guy with decisions make in conjuction with the fed reserve board, has the power to really

[hr]
things up if they were so inclined.
Then you have legislation, from regulatory to tariffs, one of the most visible and one that had the most devistating effect was the Smoot-Haley Tariff. (today you won't see tariffs raised for the most part since they are sort of illegal now I was just using it as an example in history) That basically crippled our then industrial economy. And lowered world wide trade siginificantly. Likewise regulatory legislation can have an equally hindering effect. Like not having a refinery built in the last 30 odd years. Or taking years of "environmental studies" in order to build a home in california.
One of my biggest fears if Obama takes office would be for him to appoint a fed reserve chairman that takes a more keynesian approach to economics. A concept that he whole heartedly endorses by way of his rhetoric and proposed legislation.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1knight164
http:///forum/post/2748338
Like the $25B taxpayers have to pay to help bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the 2% of those who bought more house than they could afford with very risky loans. Very well said.

This imo is one of the problems with government intervention. Now if do allow them to collapse it will really hurt.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2748366
Palin's speech was good....but full of lies. You can say whatever you want about who is saying it, but it all checks out.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4414049.shtml
Like I said, I thought she was good at speaking, but thats about it.
Well to discuss a couple of points.
"5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."
She said on the national level that if they wanted the bridge Alaska would pay for it on the state level. This "proof" affirms that position.
"In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska's Congressional delegation during her run for governor. (..)
"People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting," Weinstein said."
Then turning around and using another biased person "Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat" is brilliant journalism. I can go out of find alot of different quote from democrats calling the war lost, to our (now acquitted) soldiers rapists.

So go out and make a standard democrat claim such as "she lies" and link a source who uses a biased democrat opinion as proof but come on you can do better.

Besides if you want to start discussing "lies" we can turn around and examine obama's "campaign trail policy development."
 
acrylics

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2748358
No offense, but that sounds pretty conservative to me...
No Offense taken, if it sounds "conservative" to you, that's fine, I am fiscally conservative, to this I can't/won't argue but I would not identify myself with the republicans in any way as they have many ideals on their platform which are deal-breakers to me. Same goes with the democrats.
On a more technical note. The president/congress can and does effect the economy. snip...
No argument here, please note I did *not* say the government has no effect on the economy, just that some feel the economy is "broken" and needs "fixing" by government - I don't feel this is the case at all. At this point, if the Fed lowers rates - he kills the dollar even more thus promoting more inflation. If the Fed raises rates, investors and homeowners will attack him as trying to kill the economy and destroy economic growth. He's stuck. If homeowners had bought homes they could afford, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Speculators are a different issue, let them fall, that's the nature of business - they made plenty on the way up.
FWIW, Congress voted to allow for an increase in the national debt by ~$800 billion to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Many projections state that it could cost $1.2-2 trillion by the time all is said and done. On that note, many had projected the S&L scandal to cost a lot more than it eventually did.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2748406
Speculators are a different issue, let them fall, that's the nature of business - they made plenty on the way up.
You don't think there are speculators making tons of $$$ selling short? Speculators don't have the effect on the price of oil or other commodities that they have been ginned up to have. But "speculating" you make money either way, up or down.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2748406
No argument here, please note I did *not* say the government has no effect on the economy, just that some feel the economy is "broken" and needs "fixing" by government - I don't feel this is the case at all. At this point, if the Fed lowers rates - he kills the dollar even more thus promoting more inflation. If the Fed raises rates, investors and homeowners will attack him as trying to kill the economy and destroy economic growth. He's stuck. If homeowners had bought homes they could afford, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
FWIW, Congress voted to allow for an increase in the national debt by ~$800 billion to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Many projections state that it could cost $1.2-2 trillion by the time all is said and done. On that note, many had projected the S&L scandal to cost a lot more than it eventually did.
There isn't that much "fixing" they can do. Most immediate improvements based on government intervention isn't sustainable. (without acquiring massive national debt which results in increasing the money supply which in turn increases inflation Fanny and Freddy are excellent examples of this) Any sustainable "fix" is to create a framework where the market "fixes" itself. You can lower taxes, you can lower taxes but only so much before you start getting a diminishing rates of return on the lower taxes plus you do have to fund the infrastructure that we do need to pay for.
As for the fed raising or lowering the target federal funds rate. There are two different types of thought in monetary economics, one is to target growth. And manage based on promoting growth. The other is target inflation. And limit inflation. I'm more of a limiting inflation person myself. But I do feel that Ben B. is for more of a growth person. Where bailouts fit into this strategy because it promotes temporary growth. That does make me nervous.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2748209
Conventions are not about substance, whether they are democrat or republican. They are about the Rah Rah factor; to get their own party to rally around the chosen candidate and no other purpose whatsoever.
Economies don't need "fixing" by governments as a generality. They go in cycles, always have, always will. We, as a nation, had a booming period, time to take a break from it or else inflation will eat us up. A mild recession is good for the economy as a whole, brings growth down so prices will ease which will in turn stimulate growth, but it takes time. There will be some hard times for some, it's just life. Sounds harsh but that is the reality of it. Learn a new skill, move to where there is work, whatever, just don't sit there and complain that someone else isn't doing enough for you, that's your job.
IMO what needs fixing in government is the same as what needs fixing in most homes; accountability and spending. A balanced budget amendment would be a welcomed addition to me but no one wants to talk about it on a public level.
Very few people are in situations that they, themselves, did not get themselves into or cannot get themselves out of, yet refuse to be accountable for that and look to gov't to bail them out. Whether it be corporate welfare or personal welfare, it's usually very much the same situation; someone acted recklessly and wants someone else to take responsibility. To me, it is a sickness in the American culture and needs to be addressed as such.
When folks are in a good place, the status quo is just fine, because they are in a good place. When folks are not in a good place - they cry for change even though the reason they're not in a good place is (usually) their own fault and they have the power to get themselves out of it - just not the initiative, which again - is not the government's responsibility, it's yours.
No government policy is going to improve the quality of your life, that is entirely up to you. OTOH, governmental policy routinely destroys the quality of life for many, on many levels.
/soapbox
If it matters, I'm neither republican nor democrat, they both sicken me. They both run on diametrically opposed platforms for no other reason to be diametrically opposed, this is not a logical response to any situation and the hypocrisy therein is astounding. Most folks are somewhere in the middle with certain tangential beliefs that can/will reach into both extremes.
ACRYLICS FOR PRESIDENT!!!
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2748209
Conventions are not about substance, whether they are democrat or republican. They are about the Rah Rah factor; to get their own party to rally around the chosen candidate and no other purpose whatsoever.
Well they do nominate the candidates as well... But yeah, that is it in a nutshell.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2748628
Now thats a reliable source of info ,if your a Dem .Along with CNN ,New York Times,Washington Post......
Doesn't matter who says it if you can find out the truth from the budget and video....now does it. Plus, I admitted/addressed the political leaning before I posted the link.
I suppose you prefer FauxNews.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Yeah, why? I suppose you found some item that would dispute this?
By the way, I'm not giving up on our debate, it's status is to be continued as far as I'm concerned. I've been busy, and I would attempt to continue it tonight, but I've had a long day of watching football and drinking beer. It's only gonna get worse tomorrow, as I don't get the seahawks game at home...so off to the bar it is
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2748995
Yeah, why? I suppose you found some item that would dispute this?
By the way, I'm not giving up on our debate, it's status is to be continued as far as I'm concerned. I've been busy, and I would attempt to continue it tonight, but I've had a long day of watching football and drinking beer. It's only gonna get worse tomorrow, as I don't get the seahawks game at home...so off to the bar it is

2 words
GREAT DEPRESSION
 
acrylics

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2748452
There isn't that much "fixing" they can do. Most immediate improvements based on government intervention isn't sustainable. (without acquiring massive national debt which results in increasing the money supply which in turn increases inflation Fanny and Freddy are excellent examples of this) Any sustainable "fix" is to create a framework where the market "fixes" itself. You can lower taxes, you can lower taxes but only so much before you start getting a diminishing rates of return on the lower taxes plus you do have to fund the infrastructure that we do need to pay for.
This is understood by some, but many folks will look at the candidate and say "we're in a recession and I don't have a job, what are you going to do about the economy and my unemployment?" They are looking for promises, these promises are "buying" votes IMO.
As for the fed raising or lowering the target federal funds rate. There are two different types of thought in monetary economics, one is to target growth. And manage based on promoting growth. The other is target inflation. And limit inflation. I'm more of a limiting inflation person myself. But I do feel that Ben B. is for more of a growth person. Where bailouts fit into this strategy because it promotes temporary growth. That does make me nervous.
I'm in agreement with ya on that for the most part. To me, the primary mandate of the Fed should be to help preserve a stable currency (targeting inflation.) Targeting growth should be a secondary cause for his existence but only after the primary is in check. It is often difficult to impossible to hit both mandates at once, in such cases the primary should be primary and if we go into a recession, so be it.
OTOH, I do recall watching meetings between Ben B and the Senate finance committee, Barney Frank was pressuring him to lower rates because ARMs were resetting and people will lose their homes. I'd like to think he wanted to have said "if they had bought a more modest home, they could have afforded the fixed rate loan" or something to this effect, but that's not going to make the committee happy. Since the Senate committee (in theory anyway) represents their constituency, they want to hear "we'll lower rates to accommodate your overspending" and to keep the market happy, despite the fact that it's not the best thing for the economy as a whole.
That said, I'm not certain what the ramifications would be if the Fed didn't bail out Fannie and Freddie. Can you imagine the fallout if they both went under? They could operate pretty well under BK protection for a little while but they would not have a source of cash if foreclosures went to high. If they did collapse completely, the domino effect could be disastrous. So I have to put some trust in him on this, he simply knows a whole lot more about it than I do.
Again, JMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top