You are not logged in.
Tom, you don't understand what it's like not to be rich. I heard complaints like yours all my life. Unfortunately, now I understand what it's like to be poor. When I tried to run as a candidate for the Canadian federal election, someone stomped on me hard. The Canada Revenue Agency garnisheed my wages, despite the fact they had already provided a formal written assessment confirming how much money they owed me. Turned out they counted all my income for 2005 twice. Took years to get that straightened out. But I lost my job in March 2007, since I've struggled with minimum wage jobs or not even that. I'm a senior computer systems analyst, when I worked for the government of Miami-Dade County the contracting firm paid me $50 per hour in US funds. I was a contractor, a lot of expenses, but when I returned to Canada the mortgage for my tiny little house had only 3 months left. Since July 2010 I have been self-employed. But that doesn't pay enough. Although I have no mortgage, there's still property tax, house insurance, and utility bills. Heating was so expensive this year that effective New Years Day I had to go on welfare. Yup, welfare. Me. I could brag about other jobs with fancy titles, I have 33 years experience in software development and I.T., but I'm on welfare. Actually, I had a problem with welfare the last two months because they don't know what to do with someone who is self-employed and actually working. I refuse to sit on my butt, I work as much as I can, and continue to apply for regular full-time jobs. And don't think flipping burgers is an option; I applied, they said no. I could give details, but the point is Social Security is not expendable.
Sceptical it was political? Someone in the corporate office of my bank decided to shut down all my accounts, call all loans. The branch manager did not agree, and did everything she could to stop it. But someone had too much influence. They tried to take my house despite the fact I don't have a mortgage; came damn close to doing it. Did get that resolved too, kept my house, but my credit is shot. The party replaced me for the election. Two days after the public announcement of the new candidate, the same bank pulled the same stunt on him. I was present when he got the first call. He was a senior citizen, cell phone volume cranked up so loud that I could clearly hear both sides of the conversation. They did to him what they did to me. He had to sell his business. At least he didn't have to go on welfare. Two candidates; do you really think that's a coincidence?
The point is the Social Safety Net, as it's called in Canada, is not for some "other people". I was an employed senior computer professional. This could happen to you.
As for military, you keep acting as if spending gigantic gobs of cash is necessary to live. That isn't so. And that's the most polite way I can put it. I'm very tempted to use an expletive. Military contractors complained that China spends $70 billion per year when the US only spent $700 billion. Riiiiiiight! Let's cut that to just 5 times China, instead of 10 times China. As for Russia, their budget is also small; well below $400 billion. The US military did not evaporate in year 2000.
Don't even think of touching Affordable Healthcare. Don't touch Social Security. You do need to abolish the tax cuts that George W. put in place, but no tax increases beyond that. But yes, cut the stimulus.
I started this thread because I was afraid it would escalate to a major military conflict. But there is another major danger: an excuse to over spend on military. The US needs to cut spending *NOW*. Cut spending before another financial crisis like 2008. If the debt continues to raise as it is, then it's only a matter of time. One strategy that I'm sure Putin is doing right now is to bait the US into over spending. Cause a collapse as bad as the Soviet Union in 1993. I'm sure he's still bitter about that, and wants to inflict it upon the US. Why do you want to go along with that?
Offline
Tom, you don't understand what it's like not to be rich. I heard complaints like yours all my life. Unfortunately, now I understand what it's like to be poor. When I tried to run as a candidate for the Canadian federal election, someone stomped on me hard. The Canada Revenue Agency garnisheed my wages, despite the fact they had already provided a formal written assessment confirming how much money they owed me. Turned out they counted all my income for 2005 twice. Took years to get that straightened out. But I lost my job in March 2007, since I've struggled with minimum wage jobs or not even that. I'm a senior computer systems analyst, when I worked for the government of Miami-Dade County the contracting firm paid me $50 per hour in US funds. I was a contractor, a lot of expenses, but when I returned to Canada the mortgage for my tiny little house had only 3 months left. Since July 2010 I have been self-employed. But that doesn't pay enough. Although I have no mortgage, there's still property tax, house insurance, and utility bills. Heating was so expensive this year that effective New Years Day I had to go on welfare. Yup, welfare. Me. I could brag about other jobs with fancy titles, I have 33 years experience in software development and I.T., but I'm on welfare. Actually, I had a problem with welfare the last two months because they don't know what to do with someone who is self-employed and actually working. I refuse to sit on my butt, I work as much as I can, and continue to apply for regular full-time jobs. And don't think flipping burgers is an option; I applied, they said no. I could give details, but the point is Social Security is not expendable.
Sceptical it was political? Someone in the corporate office of my bank decided to shut down all my accounts, call all loans. The branch manager did not agree, and did everything she could to stop it. But someone had too much influence. They tried to take my house despite the fact I don't have a mortgage; came damn close to doing it. Did get that resolved too, kept my house, but my credit is shot. The party replaced me for the election. Two days after the public announcement of the new candidate, the same bank pulled the same stunt on him. I was present when he got the first call. He was a senior citizen, cell phone volume cranked up so loud that I could clearly hear both sides of the conversation. They did to him what they did to me. He had to sell his business. At least he didn't have to go on welfare. Two candidates; do you really think that's a coincidence?
The point is the Social Safety Net, as it's called in Canada, is not for some "other people". I was an employed senior computer professional. This could happen to you.
As for military, you keep acting as if spending gigantic gobs of cash is necessary to live. That isn't so. And that's the most polite way I can put it. I'm very tempted to use an expletive. Military contractors complained that China spends $70 billion per year when the US only spent $700 billion. Riiiiiiight! Let's cut that to just 5 times China, instead of 10 times China. As for Russia, their budget is also small; well below $400 billion. The US military did not evaporate in year 2000.
I can think of one country that ceased to exist due to lack of military spending, Poland! Also about 11 million people died in Poland because it didn't spend enough on defense. You ever hear of Auschwitz? That was constructed because Germany conquered Poland because it was not deterred or stopped by Poland's military, Poland's horse cavalry was not enough to stop German tank columns and bombers. I don't think the Auschwitz inmates would have benefitted from the money that was not spend on Poland's military to stop the Germans, and I don't think social security would have helped those behind the barbed wire in those camps!
Don't even think of touching Affordable Healthcare. Don't touch Social Security. You do need to abolish the tax cuts that George W. put in place, but no tax increases beyond that. But yes, cut the stimulus.
Because it was Obama's, I thought Obama was that devious American President that ordered the CIA to start up the Ukrainian rebellion. When you need someone to stand in as the American Villain, Obama will do just as any other American President, but when you like Obamacare, Obama's your man! Obamacare really doesn't do much other than destroy Americas health system and which you hope is a pretext for the government to take over the entire health care system and run it like Canada's, thus when rich Canadians want affordable healthcare, they will now have to travel much further than just the United States as they used to. Now it will be long waiting lists for Americans and Canadians for needed surgery, some will die because the bureaucrats decided to make them wait in order to ration health resources. Liberals like waiting on lines rather than paying more for something, remember the gas lines of the 1970s? But in this case, if you make some patients wait, they will die!
I started this thread because I was afraid it would escalate to a major military conflict. But there is another major danger: an excuse to over spend on military. The US needs to cut spending *NOW*. Cut spending before another financial crisis like 2008. If the debt continues to raise as it is, then it's only a matter of time. One strategy that I'm sure Putin is doing right now is to bait the US into over spending. Cause a collapse as bad as the Soviet Union in 1993. I'm sure he's still bitter about that, and wants to inflict it upon the US. Why do you want to go along with that?
Should the United States have cut its defense budget when the Germans invaded Poland, would that have been a good idea? Putin has done all he can to mimic Hitler, first he had the symbolic Olympic games, then he invaded a neighboring country just like Hitler did, and you say we should not follow the example of FDR and increase military spending, we should cut it instead? You know FDR did a lot of deficit spending prior to World War II, how is our situation different? Would cutting America's defense spending in 1939 have defeated Hitler more quickly?
Actually you seem to forget. World War II Military spending. not social spending on the New Deal, is what got us out of the Great Depression, so I think a higher military budget would be great for getting us out of this recession, why don't you agree? Worked for Roosevelt didn't it?
Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-04-02 05:51:50)
Offline
One simple way to cut spending: abolish Homeland Security. You will still have the TSA, which is airport security. And the CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, and more spy agencies than I can even name. Border Security would have to be restored as a separate agency. And stop NSA from spying on Americans, stop indiscriminant collecting phone records and tapping overseas phone calls. And take away weapons on Coast Guard vessels on the Great Lakes; that's actually in violation of the Rush–Bagot Treaty. Stop treating the Canadian boarder as Mexico. Many American politicians keep claiming that 9/11 terrorists came from Canada. Not a single one did; they all entered the US directly.
Canada's economy is closely tied to the US. Canada does more trade with the US than any other coutry, and the US does more trade with Canada than any other country. If the US government acts stupid and cases another Great Depression, they'll drag Canada down with them. So stop being stupid.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-04-02 08:46:36)
Offline
I'd say abolish the IRS. Every time a President abuses a government agency for political gain, such as spying on Republicans, we should abolish it. The United States collected revenue before the IRS, it could do so again. I think there is no need to tax individual citizens, we should tax businesses instead based on their profits, and get rid of the sales tax. Department of Homeland security has been misused by the Obama Administration, so therefore we should get rid of it! But we should buy more planes, tanks, and build more naval ships and missiles, that is what got us out of the Great Depression after all, not adding more agencies. building stuff is what brings us out of Depression, simply hiring more government workers does not do the job.
Offline
Tom, I've said before that President Obama has been a gigantic disappointment. He failed to do many of the things that Democrats expected. I actually watched the New Hampshire primary debate in 2008 (over the internet), so I knew that Obama had no intention of doing some of the things that many Democrat voters wanted. But Obama has failed to do many of the things he did promise. Healthcare is his one success. And that was a compromise, it's modeled on the plan that Mitt Romney proposed in Massachusetts. Many Democrat voters feel it doesn't go far enough. There's no way any Democrat politician can afford to give up their one success. After decades of trying to do something to make healthcare affordable, they finally have something. It's far from perfect, but better than nothing.
There have been many media reports of American healthcare problems years before Obama was elected. One man was diagnosed with cancer. Rather than spend his life fortune, sell his house, sell everything, instead he chose to commit suicide. He locked himself in his garage and ran his car. Poisoned himself with carbon monoxide. That's the American healthcare system: no healthcare at all. If you get sick, just kill yourself. Go watch a movie called Elysium. It's Sci-Fi, but a metaphor for the US right now.
The Canadian healthcare system is far from perfect, but doesn't have the long lines you claim. When I was 18 and had a cyst on the back of my wrist, I got surgery right away. No long waiting list. It was not life threatening, just an unsightly lump. Taken care of quickly. And part of the Canadian system is you can see a general practitioner any time you want. No medical bill, no deduction, no co-payment, no limits. Some people obsess about hypochondriacs, but the bean counters found this means people go to a doctor sooner. Serious medical conditions get caught sooner, and it costs less to treat when it is caught sooner. Simply from cost, the expense of treating serious conditions is so much less when caught early that it outweighs expenses of hypochondriacs. Besides, most people can't tell the difference between a mole vs early stage melanoma, for example. If you're concerned, get it looked at, let the doctor decide.
One excuse here in Canada is to say "At least our system is better than the US." Many people are tired of hearing that excuse. Just because the US is worse does not excuse deficiencies here. But you want to go back to what the US had?
From a practical point of view, there's no way any Democrat Congressman would ever let Obamacare go. It's the only success the Democrats have.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-04-02 08:48:23)
Offline
Tom, I've said before that President Obama has been a gigantic disappointment. He failed to do many of the things that Democrats expected. I actually watched the New Hampshire primary debate in 2008 (over the internet), so I knew that Obama had no intention of doing some of the things that many Democrat voters wanted. But Obama has failed to do many of the things he did promise. Healthcare is his one success.
It was a success only in that it got passed, he had the votes and he pushed it through congress and Senate, but that is the only respect in which it was successful, it was a legislative success and nothing more, it doesn't actually provide healthcare, and many lost healthcare because of it, and many liberals suggest that it is a good thing that it destroys the current healthcare arrangments, that is supplied by private insurance companies, people are losing their healthcare because of it, and it can be called a success only in that it forces people to sign up for new healthcare to replace their old insurance that Obamacare has declared illegal.
And that was a compromise, it's modeled on the plan that Mitt Romney proposed in Massachusetts. Many Democrat voters feel it doesn't go far enough. There's no way any Democrat politician can afford to give up their one success. After decades of trying to do something to make healthcare affordable, they finally have something. It's far from perfect, but better than nothing.
It is only a success in that the Democrats can claim they passed a bill, if the bill does not do the job it is supposed to do, I do not call that a success. But if we are going for points, then yes the Democrats can call it a success in that they got it passed despite Republican opposition.
There have been many media reports of American healthcare problems years before Obama was elected. One many was diagnosed with cancer. Rather than spend his life fortune, sell his house, sell everything, instead he chose to commit suicide. He locked himself in his garage and ran his car. Poisoned himself with carbon monoxide. That's the American healthcare system: no healthcare at all. If you get sick, just kill yourself. Go watch a movie called Elysium. It's Sci-Fi, but a metaphor for the US right now.
That is for people who can't afford it, for those who can, Obamacare has made their health insurance more expensive, and sometimes that made the difference between affordability and unaffordability.
The Canadian healthcare system is far from perfect, but doesn't have the long lines you claim. When I was 18 and had a cyst on the back of my wrist, I got surgery right away. No long waiting list. It was not life threatening, just an unsightly lump. Taken care of quickly. And part of the Canadian system is you can see a general practitioner any time you want. No medical bill, no deduction, no co-payment, no limits. Some people obsess about hypochondriacs, but the bean counters found this means people go to a doctor sooner. Serious medical conditions get caught sooner, and it costs less to treat when it is caught sooner. Simply from cost, the expense of treating serious conditions is so much less when caught early that it outweighs expenses of hypochondriacs. Besides, most people can't tell the difference between a mole vs early stage melanoma, for example. If you're concerned, get it looked at, let the doctor decide.
Then why do some Canadians travel to the United States to get treatment?
One excuse here in Canada is to say "At least our system is better than the US." Many people are tired of hearing that excuse. Just because the US is worse does not excuse deficiencies here. But you want to go back to what the US had?
From a practical point of view, there's no way any Democrat Congressman would ever let Obamacare go. It's the only success the Democrats have.
have you seen the latest poll? 26% of Americans approve of Obamacare.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/obamacar … id/562261/
Seems we had a conversation previously about Canada joining the United States, you thought that was a bad idea, why is Crimea joining Russia a good idea? Would you rather Canada joined Russia and be under Russian management? Would Putin do a better job than Obama?
Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-04-02 09:05:46)
Offline
MSNBC has a poll that says 59% of Democrats support Obamacare, only 29% want to repeal. I would provide a link, but the website is blocked for anyone outside the US. ABC has an article that says amoung all Americans, 49% support Obamacare. These polls have such wild results, I have to question all of them. But the point is Democrats want it, so Democrat politicians have to support it. They have to please their voters. It's their only success.
I'd say abolish the IRS.
Interesting idea. As you know, I am seriously pushing a similar idea in Canada. Not to abolish the Canada Revenue Agency, just federal personal income tax. That requires treating the federal debt as a mortgage, pay the whole thing off. There would still be EI and CPP (equivalent to Social Security), and provincial taxes are under authority of provincial governments. Corporate tax would have to go back up, but not as high as it was in 2006. And GST (federal sales tax) would have to go back to what it was on election day, January 2006. A couple other little things. But that doesn't mean completely abolish the CRA, just reduce it. In the US, you don't even have federal sales tax. How would you pay for that gigantic military without the IRS?
Offline
I don't think annexing Crimea is justified. But what can we do about it? Yes, the referendum was a joke. The complication is many people in Crimea do actually want to join Russia. If the Russians had not invaded, would the majority of citizens in Crimea vote to join Russia anyway? We may never know.
Offline
We could do lots of things that the Russians wouldn't be happy with.
1) We could sell some nukes to Ukraine, we have more than we need after all, to reduce our nuclear stockpile we could have a nuclear warhead and missile sale. Since Ukraine is a successor state to the Soviet Union - a recognized nuclear power, we could legally sell our spare nuclear warheads to Ukraine, since they agreed only to give up their nukes on the condition that Russia recognizes its borders, since they went back on the agreement, Ukraine is therefore free to get nukes once again, and we can shorten the process, by simply selling them some of ours.
2) Get Ukraine membership in NATO and the EU, after all there is no neutrality after Russia has made itself into an enemy by forcibly taking some land away from Ukraine, Ukraine obviously can't be neutral about that. So basically Russia gets eastern Ukraine and NATO gets western Ukraine, a net plus for NATO, if Russia invades, we have a larger buffer zone. If Ukraine has nukes, that is a good reason for Russia not to take more land. After all Russia owes us after assisting the Iranians in their nuclear program, adding one nuclear power on their side of the ledger, seems NATO should add one nuclear power on its side to balance that out, and maybe them the Russians will find reason not to further proliferate nuclear weapons! Give them a reason why that's bad for them!
3) Cuba is vulnerable to a United States invasion based on the same pretext that Putin used for Crimea, this probably would not be a bad thing for Cuba.
Its just a question of how far Russia wants to take this new cold war, maybe some Russians won't like worrying about their cities getting nuked once again, maybe they'll depose Putin so they can be a normal European nation rather than a menace.
Offline
3) Cuba is vulnerable to a United States invasion based on the same pretext that Putin used for Crimea, this probably would not be a bad thing for Cuba.
Invasions, specifically of Cuba, have really been great successes for the US in the past.
-Josh
Offline
Joe Biden has already announced he's installing a ballistic missile defence system in Poland. And quoting from the New York Times: "an additional 12 F-16 fighter jets for Poland and 10 more American F-15’s, instead of a planned four, assigned to a NATO operation that polices the skies over the Baltic states. He also spoke of rotating more American ground and naval forces through the Baltics for training exercises."
Ukraine membership in NATO? That's what started this whole mess. That would just escalate.
Cuba? Devestated third world country. You don't want their economic mess. Besides, Russia abandoned them years ago.
You realize you're talking about Russia's only navy port that isn't icebound. They won't give it up. It's already gone too far. Joe Biden demanded that Russia comply with the previous agreement, which is Russia keeps their navy port but Crimea remains part of Ukraine. That's ideal, but Russia has already passed a bill to annex Crimea. They've taken it so far, I don't know how to go back.
Offline
Robertdyck, I question your statement that the Bush administration caused the financial collapse by printing money and asking the banks to fund his wars. Do you have a source for those assertions?
While I believe that US military spending is too high, I don't think you are really supported in your assertion that military spending is driving the US federal deficit. For FY13, the US budget was composed of 5 main parts: Social Security (~20%), Medicare (~20%) Medicaid (~20%), Defense (~20%), and "everything else" (~20%). Social Security is actually somewhat more than 20%, while Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense are somewhat less; Discretionary is somewhat more.
The Federal deficit in FY2013 was $680 billion. Military spending (both discretionary and non-discretionary, actually) was $672.9 billion. Even if we eliminated the military entirely we would still have a deficit, and that's ignoring the "Fiscal Drag" from cutting spending by $670 billion.
I'm not PolitiFact, but I'm giving your statement a rating of "mostly false", insofar as military spending is responsible for $672,900,000,000/$3,450,000,000,000 of the total deficit, which is to say 19.5% of it. That's the whole "Common Treasury" thing we have in our Constitution.
Now, if you're asking me how to fix it:
Cut the defense budget by closing military bases and formally transitioning to a high-tech, highly robotic, defensive military. Cut $100 billion per year from the defense budget, mostly the Army and Navy, with the possibility for more in the future. In an ideal world you fold medicare and medicaid into a national health care system, or at least the "public option" that was dropped from Obamacare before it was passed. Failing that, means-test medicare so that the money spent is going to people who need it. Eliminate the cap on social security income. Tax capital gains as income. Make the tax code nice and simple, as well as continuous (Instead of having tax "brackets", have a tax "formula" that you can simply plug into based on your income and a limited number of tax credits. End indirect subsidies supporting suburban sprawl. Raise the retirement age to 72, but allow for a person to receive SS Disability if they are unable to work before then.
How much would this change the deficit? If economic growth continues, I'd expect to have a surplus soon enough.
Edit: Also save money with policy goals such as stopping the NSA's unlimited spying on Americans, cut the budget for Border security in half, repeal the TSA, give illegal immigrants a 5 year pathway to citizenship and require them to pay taxes, increase immigration to the US (This is a good humanitarian and demographic move, too), and ending subsidies both to oil companies and to renewable energy sources that are not capable of providing a significant (say 20%) portion of total energy needs. I'm looking specifically at Wind and Tidal power, and their ilk.
-Josh
Offline
That's not exactly what I said. I said Congress demanded the banks find a creative way to raise funds, so they could continue to fund the US federal deficit. That caused the financial crisis of 2008. George W. printed money to pay government bills, that caused inflation and devalued the US dollar.
Offline
Tom Kalbfus wrote:3) Cuba is vulnerable to a United States invasion based on the same pretext that Putin used for Crimea, this probably would not be a bad thing for Cuba.
Invasions, specifically of Cuba, have really been great successes for the US in the past.
John F. Kennedy wasn't fully committed to that invasion, he didn't back up those Cuban exiles he sent, he left them hanging. I think we could take Cuba, and if Russia don't like that, we could make a deal, if they give back Crimea, we'll give back Cuba, and if they don't want to give back Crimea, that means we get to keep Cuba. Fair is fair after all. We got a base in Cuba, Russia's got a base in Crimea, I'm sure they would understand. I believe its called quid pro quo. There is nothing the Cubans themselves could do to stop us, in the past it was the threat of nuclear war with Russia that stopped us, now that is gone. I'm sure if Russia wants us to respect its near abroad, it will set a good example by respecting ours and Cuba is in it!
Offline
When Ron Paul ran for the Republican nomination, he proposed closing many overseas military bases. Great idea! Let's start with Guantanamo Bay. All prisoners who were citizens of Afghanistan at the time they were captured are prisoners of war as defined by the Geneva Convention. Under the Geneva Convention, you're required to release them as soon as a cessation of hostilities is declared. So just let them go. Transfer all other prisoners to a prison on the continental US. Remove all military equipment from Gitmo, sell the buildings back to Cuba. The land is leased at $1 per year, but the buildings are an excuse to sell it back to them. I'm sure they would be willing to pay something to get American military off their island.
When Ronald Regan invaded Granada, he did so from contental US bases, not Gitmo. It's not needed.
Offline
JoshNH4H wrote:Tom Kalbfus wrote:3) Cuba is vulnerable to a United States invasion based on the same pretext that Putin used for Crimea, this probably would not be a bad thing for Cuba.
Invasions, specifically of Cuba, have really been great successes for the US in the past.
John F. Kennedy wasn't fully committed to that invasion, he didn't back up those Cuban exiles he sent, he left them hanging. I think we could take Cuba, and if Russia don't like that, we could make a deal, if they give back Crimea, we'll give back Cuba, and if they don't want to give back Crimea, that means we get to keep Cuba. Fair is fair after all. We got a base in Cuba, Russia's got a base in Crimea, I'm sure they would understand. I believe its called quid pro quo. There is nothing the Cubans themselves could do to stop us, in the past it was the threat of nuclear war with Russia that stopped us, now that is gone. I'm sure if Russia wants us to respect its near abroad, it will set a good example by respecting ours and Cuba is in it!
Fair is fair-- They invaded a country 15,000 km away so we'll invade an island for no reason? That's not "Fair is fair", that's "Let's invade two sovereign countries instead of one for no reason".
We don't want Cuba, and Cuba doesn't want us. But thanks for reminding me, another policy prescription with budgetary implications: Open trade with Cuba. It'll generate lots of economic activity in southern Florida and generate tax revenue from trade.
-Josh
Offline
Yes, I'm asking that you provide evidence of those assertions.
Here's a long-winded explanation. Complicated, but did drive down the value of the dollar. It also says under the Obama administration, it hasn't stopped, just slowed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2 … uch-worse/
Offline
I don't know what your trying to do Vincent. Try using a bit more tact. I know the Middle East is not a peaceful place, I don't see much hope for peace there until their oil advantage dries up. Oil = money = power, and the people who want power are driving the violence and the fanaticism there. The fanatics are just pawns manipulated by the power brokers because they are so easy to manipulate. Religion can be a means of control. Osama Bin Ladin can be compared to Lenin, they were both revolutionaries in it for power. Al Qaeda are the equivalent to the Russian Bolsheviks, they want to overturn the existing order so they can rule. Russia is trying to use oil as a weapon too, but oil can be used as our weapon as well, if we frack for oil and increase the world wide supply of it so as to reduce Russia's wealth. Without oil propping up the Russian economy, Vladimir Putin or hopefully his successor will be forced to reform the Russian economy. The Russians have many talented people, and the real wealth of Russia is its people, not its natural resources, though Russia has considerable amounts of the later, but then so do we. It takes time to go from a command economy to a market oriented one. 72 years of Communism brought Russia to this point, The Russians were too impatient. Boris Yeltsin, though courageous, was a lousy manager. Democracy and capitalism take time to work. What Russia needs is good leadership, and most of the leaders in Russia are corrupt, they need to bring in an outsider. I think they could do worse than to make Mitt Romney their President, I think he would know what to do. Sure he'll need translators, but so what?
Yes indeed.
Powers that be do not care, unless they can make a few bucks. That’s why I get gassed….
Who comes on the news and talks about those who were killed They only talk about the poor slob who thought it was a good idea to strap a ton of TNT on his body and kill his brothers Or maybe kill the poor American slaves who go to work in the towers
America is not blind, we are learning.
Argument expected.
I don't require agreement when presenting new ideas.
-Dana Johnson
Offline
If you live in the middle east, stand by. Christian faith or the bible, says Esrieal will be reestablished. The power from the north will be drawn down in defense.
Armageddon is about to begin, this year.....
Argument expected.
I don't require agreement when presenting new ideas.
-Dana Johnson
Offline
While I do not consider my understanding of the US Financial system to be sufficient to evaluate the veracity of that article (My counterpoint would be that, whether you agree with their arguments or not, obviously someone-- e.g. Ben Bernanke-- thinks that QE is a good idea), I don't think it quite supports your claim that the Fed is printing money. Let's see what your article says about whether or not the Fed is printing money, shall we?
To be clear, the Federal Reserve has not been printing money.
And:
What about the supposed “money printing” by the Fed? There’s once again no such thing occurring.
Finally, in the conclusion:
So no, the Fed is not printing money.
Oh, but let's not forget the title of the article (emphasis mine):
The Fed Is Not Printing Money, It's Doing Something Much Worse
Kind of a funny article to use in support of a claim that the government is printing money, no? This doesn't necessarily disprove your point, of course, I just think it's a very poor choice of citation.
In any case, the existence of the QE program does not really have much relation to military spending, seeing as it began after the Recession and certainly couldn't have caused the recession because, again, the recession happened first.
My knowledge of macroeconomics is more or less nonexistent, and when it comes to the financial system my general feeling is that the amount of money that banks (and other organizations that primarily exist to move money around) skim way more off the top than is even remotely merited given that all they're really selling is a reduction in risk. I've seen it argued that the fact that the average rate of return on an investment is higher than economic growth is a strong driver of inequality, and this seems pretty reasonable to me. I'd like to see macrolending replaced with microlending as much as possible, and various other steps to eliminate the financial system as it currently exists.
What I would like to see citations for really is your much more conpiratorial claim that "Congress demanded the banks find a creative way to raise funds, so they could continue to fund the US federal deficit." and that this caused the Great Recession.
-Josh
Offline
Christ did not die because there is no death....
Argument expected.
I don't require agreement when presenting new ideas.
-Dana Johnson
Offline
Many will ask, "am i back" the answer is yes.....
Argument expected.
I don't require agreement when presenting new ideas.
-Dana Johnson
Offline
Many will ask, where were you...Christ says, "I miis you a little."
Argument expected.
I don't require agreement when presenting new ideas.
-Dana Johnson
Offline