The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Obama Reveals Detailed Economic Plan For the First Time
barackobama.com — In a major economic address at Cooper Union today, Senator Barack Obama called for immediate relief for homeowners hit by the housing crisis, modernization of our regulatory framework, and an additional $30 billion stimulus package to jumpstart the economy and help protect families from the economic slowdown.
diggrnumber1- 1951 diggs
- digg it
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -175/+273Obama is absolutely clueless as to the real problems in the economy. Creating more give-away schemes and increasing taxation will not help, it will cause the spiral to move down FASTER.
He spoke about the "trillion dollar war" yet he voted to fund it.
The entire thing was based on a flawed concept and remains flawed throughout.
FTA:"The Federal Reserve should have basic supervisory authority over any institution to which it may make credit available as a lender of last resort. When the Fed steps in, it is providing lenders an insurance policy underwritten by the American taxpayer"
Can you believe the ignorance of this man? Does he not see that the federal reserve IS the problem?- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -67/+31buried for assuming that the federal reserve is the problem without citing evidence
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -25/+20How much evidence do you need?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj9KHJRRUbQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8pLpI5rzKI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EQ1sg6GhZE&feature ...- l33tspam, on 03/28/2008, -19/+16oh wow, youtube videos sway everyone...
do you have some sort of REAL evidence? I suppose you want to bring back the gold standard too. Is it just me or did we learn this ***** in economics and you dumb ***** stoners were too busy going to a ten man ron paul rally to attend.- maiku00, on 03/28/2008, -14/+12I know how much you Ron Paul fans love to live in your fantasy world where you don't pay any taxes and everything is fine and dandy (selfish and ignorant), but if you would come back to reality for a few minutes, you could see some of the merit of Obama's plan. What do you do when you accidentally cut yourself? Let yourself bleed to death? You put some short term effort into stopping the blood loss, and a long term effort into making sure you dont cut yourself again.
Obama is doing the same thing. If foreclosures continue, it just drags our economy further and further into the hole. We need to stop the damage, and the short term emergency way to do that is a bandaid of home relief and stimulus. This will help in the short term to stableize the economy. He then wants to put regulations (oh no! regulations are bad BAWWW) back in place so that these kind of crap doesn't happen again. Next, bringing an end to the Iraq war will end our massive hemorrhaging of money that we don't have. - philipl411, on 03/28/2008, -3/+10This reply is to mailu00. There is a big difference between someone cutting themselves or walking on a floor that full of razorblades, throwing yourself down and rolling all other the place hope that nothing goes wrong. When it does then start crying for mommy. The Iraq war is cost 12 billion a month, that's a total of 144 billion a year. but we are over budget by more than 500 billion. I AGREE WE NEED TO STOP SPENDING ON THE WAR, but how is bush spending the rest?
- maiku00, on 03/28/2008, -14/+12I know how much you Ron Paul fans love to live in your fantasy world where you don't pay any taxes and everything is fine and dandy (selfish and ignorant), but if you would come back to reality for a few minutes, you could see some of the merit of Obama's plan. What do you do when you accidentally cut yourself? Let yourself bleed to death? You put some short term effort into stopping the blood loss, and a long term effort into making sure you dont cut yourself again.
- l33tspam, on 03/28/2008, -19/+16oh wow, youtube videos sway everyone...
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -22/+21Want more evidence? Anyone who is paying attention to the problem knows the fed is the problem.
Watch the videos.- MrColdheart, on 03/28/2008, -26/+8your answer is Ron Paul?
give me a break.
Ron Paul did move me for like 5 min when he first ran but he has no real solutions.
It's just like chess, you have to think ahead and see where the next step will take you.
Paul goes on crazy rants about how the fed is bad and I do agree to a certain point but the good does out weigh the bad.
His explanations for what to do when we take out the fed is like telling someone to take their tires off there car and not replacing it with anything.
he has no plan past his initial platform.
Bush did the same damn thing. - eFiniTi, on 03/28/2008, -4/+10"the good does out weigh the bad."
LOL! The good outweighs the bad when it works to your favor. But for those who work hard, don't keep all our money in the banks, and make economically smart decisions, we somehow get the ***** end of the stick.
Ron Paul advocates decentralizing money. The majority shouldn't have to suffer for the actions of a minority and vice-versa. The Fed is bad because if we're all using fiat money, we all suffer for the poor decisions of those in control of that fiat money.- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -7/+1you don't keep your money in the bank? so i take it you either spend it all, invest it in the financial markets, or you just keep it under your bed? which is it?
- subterfuge, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3@ diggrnumber1:
why does it matter which he does? and anyway, it's retarded to put all your money in the bank when it could be in the stock market and making you even more money - diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1i agree. that is why i have mine in the stock market.
- tfedullo, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1I am sorry for the spam... but i would just like to point out to people at cooper union is a great engineering school, it offers all of their students a full tuition scholarship and is highly ranked (3rd in the nation i believe) in engineering bachelors degrees
im sorry about the spam, but i go there and it is a ***** of work, and it sucks for people to think it is a tiny community college - Blankcheque, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1subterfuge1.
How much money have you made off the stock market per dollar invested?
I guarantee it's not nearly as much as it would have been in the early 90's because of the ***** economy and rapid out of control inflation. Right now because people are going bankrupt off of these over valued properties with ARM's that balloon the over valued property to the point that no one has enough money to burn on bad real estate investments.
By having economic stability, and using the fed as it's supposed to be used, ending the war and cutting the trillions of spending over ther, will have an IMMEDIATE impact.
Right now it's all about trying to recover from the recession we are in. And offer some growth, rather then shrinkage.
- MrColdheart, on 03/28/2008, -26/+8your answer is Ron Paul?
- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -16/+24i'm talking about quantitative evidence from real economists. ron paul is not an economist. when you show me a video of a prominent economist arguing with bernanke over the interpretation of economic data, then i will believe your evidence. ron paul is just not a credible source on this matter.
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -23/+30Ron Paul is more of an economist than Obama ever will be. Did you watch the videos? You can't argue with the facts he presented. Don't give me that"real economist" crap, look at the facts. If all you are going to do is parrot someone you think is a "real economist" there's no point in discussing it with you. Ron Paul stated what the problems are and if you can refute his assertions DO SO OR SHUT UP.
- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -17/+11but is ron paul more of an economist than milton friedman, the founder of monetarism and the modern policies of the fed? the answer is no.
- l33tspam, on 03/28/2008, -14/+18No, dumbass, its not OUR responsibility to refute YOUR claims, its YOUR responsibility to back them up with ACTUAL EVIDENCE, NOT A POLITICAL CANDIDATES OPINION!
Take a ***** economics class, and then come back and we can talk. - slimjim85, on 03/28/2008, -7/+11Small changes in taxes and spending are not what is causing our economy to fall apart. Its the millions and millions of dollars we spend to Iraq every day that is. As soon as we leave that war our economy will start to rebound. As long as Obama gets that, his economic plan is good enough for me.
And on a side note... you cant possibly say "bring me a real economist" isn't a valid argument. Believe it or not, economists are the people we should look to in order to find answers. - Envark, on 03/28/2008, -0/+11To be fair, Milton Friedman admitted to some regrets near the end of his life...
"It never occurred to me at the time that I was helping to develop machinery that would make possible a government that I would come to criticize severely as too large, too intrusive, too destructive of freedom. Yet, that is precisely what I was doing. Rose has repeatedly chided me over the years about the role that I played in making possible the current overgrown government we both criticize so strongly." - diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2@envark
i can't find a citation for that quote that is not in a blog. i'm not saying he never said it (if he did, it is probably pulled out of context), but i just can't find it. i need a reputable source. - Envark, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4diggrnumber1,
It is from the following autobiographical book written by Friedman and his wife, Rose:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kvf0b1pmJsMC&pg=P ...
Page 123 contains the context of the quote. - godseyeview, on 03/28/2008, -4/+4diggrnumber1:
You are a complete moron and totally clueless idiot. Milton Friedman was in favor of abolishing the fed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman Go watch "Free to Choose" or some other basic friedman first, moron. Misinformed morons that dont know what the hell they are talkin bout piss me off. Ron Paul is almost a protege of Friedman.. You ***** idiot just STFU now. clueless tool. - diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2godseyereview:
milton friedman did say that he was in favor of abolishing the fed, but he didn't want to abolish it the way that ron paul wants to. friedman was in favor of increasing the money supply at a steady rate, which is the opposite of what ron paul proposes. although i concede that friedman was not in favor of the fed, he did greatly influence the way it works today. fed economists today are big proponents of monetarism. but you are even more wrong than i was. ron paul is the opposite of friedman, and and ron paul has criticized friedman multiple times. - ThndrShk2k, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Diggrnumber1:
"which is the opposite of what ron paul proposes"
Has ron paul stated that? Show me a quote stating that fact
If you're referring to gold backed dollar, then think: We base the value of the dollar on the value of gold to the dollar, if there is need for more money in the system, due to population gain, then a /CONTROLLED/ inflation rate comparatively to the worth of gold should be in place, as well as other measures. All currencies inflate, but to control the rate of inflation is key to make sure that it doesn't run away and destroy the economy.
I personally am not sure what Ron Paul's stance on this viewpoint, but to have a dollar with a set amount in circulation and not to go over it is just insanity from an economic standpoint, it's basically saying "Once we're out of dollar bills to hand out, we ain't printing more to compensate." As a person who accurately predicted the 1987 bust, as well as has studied economics for years now, I tend to think he would know how to hand the dollar once it is stable. Which right now, it's very far from it. - godseyeview, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1diggnumber1:
you truly are the most CLUELESS *****. I told you to STFU and quit spewing the most moronic misinformed lies Hilary style. ***** TOOL.http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html CAN you even READ? if u can ***** READ. I doubt you can from what you say and certainly not any Paul or Friedman so here Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tetcj8qIuo YOU ARE A MORON STFU YET? GARBAGE go DIE if u cant learn anything.
http://www.google.com/search?q=milton+friedman+ron ...
GET A CLUE. - ThndrShk2k, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Err, last sentence should go:
"As the person who accurately predicted the 1987 bust, as well as someone who has studied economics for years now, he would probably know how to handle the dollar once it is stable. Which right now, it's very far from it."
Backwards editing and ambiguity made it seem like I was claiming those things. So Fix'd - diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2godseyereview:
at least from what paultards have told me, ron paul is opposed to increasing the money supply in any form, which is the opposite of what friedman proposed. ron paul liked milton friedman because he was a libertarian, but ron paul was definitely against monetarism. so their economic ideas were fundamentally opposed to each other. - godseyeview, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1monetarism is policy aimed at keeping the supply and demand for money at equilibrium, as measured by growth in productivity and demand.
Ron Paul advocates a Market based determination of the value and supply of money by backing it with gold and silver.
In a growing economy with a stagnant gold and silver supply, the demand for the gold goes up and so therefore its value does as well.
In a stagnant economy with a growing gold and silver supply, the demand for the gold goes down and so therefore its value does as well. The other two scenarios are somewhere are basically the same as those.
In other words if u can think which, you proven you cant. Paul achieves the effects of monetarism of reducing economic volatility when the free market determines interest rates and money supply. At least from what you have told me paultards arent retards like u are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul Don't talk like you know anything cause you dont know what the ***** you're talkin bout. BAMABOTARD - diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0From Dictionary.com:
"monetarism - A policy that seeks to regulate an economy by altering the domestic money supply, especially by increasing it in a moderate but steady manner."
you cannot alter the supply of gold at a determinable rate. therefore, ron paul is not a monetarist.
“Even the monetarists endorse sustained inflation, albeit at a lesser rate than is presently the case,” admitted Dr. Paul in 1979. “The best-known monetarist, Dr. Milton Friedman, says the Fed should expand the money supply at three to five percent a year, the actual figure being less important than the absence of fluctuations.”
http://www.silvermonthly.com/199/ron-paul-washingt ... - diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I took the following from
http://www.silvermonthly.com/199/ron-paul-washingt ...
As one might expect, there are plenty of economists who disagree with Dr. Paul’s views, and they come not only from the political Left. In fact, the twentieth century’s principal opponents of socialism and Keynesianism — the monetarists and the supply-siders — both take exception to Dr. Paul’s support for a fixed money supply.
“Even the monetarists endorse sustained inflation, albeit at a lesser rate than is presently the case,” admitted Dr. Paul in 1979. “The best-known monetarist, Dr. Milton Friedman, says the Fed should expand the money supply at three to five percent a year, the actual figure being less important than the absence of fluctuations.”
The emphasis above (which is the author’s, not Dr. Paul’s) indicates another criticism of Ron Paul’s economic views: They may be outdated. Annual inflation was as high as 15% in the late seventies and early eighties, but it has averaged less than 5% in twenty-three of the last twenty-four years, and averaged less than 3% for the bulk of that time.
As Keynesian bankers have been replaced by “rational expectations” thinkers at the Fed, it now seems a little excessive to consider inflation “the greatest threat facing middle- and working-class Americans” or to suggest “there is probably little future for the dollar and dollar-denominated assets,” as Dr. Paul did in 1979.
This is how Alan Greenspan, a former gold advocate himself, answered Dr. Paul in 2005 congressional testimony: “Would there be any advantage, at this particular stage, in going back to the gold standard?… I don’t think so… Would it have been a question at least open in 1981, as you put it? … Yes. Remember, the gold price was $800 an ounce. We were dealing with extraordinary imbalances, interest rates were up sharply, and the system looked to be highly unstable — and we needed to do something.”
“Now, we did something… Paul Volcker, as you may recall, in 1979 came into office and put a very severe clamp on the expansion of credit, and that led to a long sequence of events here, which we are benefiting from up to this date. So I think central banking … has learned the dangers of fiat money,” said Greenspan.
And of course, supply-siders take issue with Dr. Paul’s assertion that “no additional utility can be derived from additions to the money quantity.” They say that expanding the money supply creates incentive to work for that money, and so long as adequate goods and services are produced to soak up the new liquidity, then economic growth is real. Most investors over the past twenty-five years would be hard-pressed to disagree. - godseyeview, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1DiggrNumber1:
Lookin at the political landscape of the running candidates no other fiscal policy more closely resembles milton friedman than ron paul. He may have a difference on whether the market evaluation of on the supply and value of the dollar should be based on gold or a 3 - 5 percent inflation based on production but milton friedman is in no way condoning the runaway inflation policies of Keynesian policy which is the actual stand of the FED since the fed no longer releases the m3 reports they can arbitrarily inflate the money supply to wotever value they want. Studies recreating the m3 reports say the inflation rate is closer to 18 percent which is the statistics the fed are saying. This is in no way equilibrium with the GDP of the usa and because of the corruption and insidious motives of the fed (AMERO, NAU) it is not even remotely similar to similar to Austrian economic unlike Ron Paul who has a solution because of the corruption by destroying the arbitrary arbiter of value (fed) and use real value for money. - diggrnumber1, on 03/29/2008, -1/+0if there's 18% inflation, i'm certainly not experiencing it. besides gas, things cost only slightly more now than they did a year ago (2-3% more). i can't even tell the difference.
- ThndrShk2k, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Just because something doesn't have an immediate effect, doesn't mean it's not happening.
Think of how gas price has risen. Is going to rise during the summer.
Price of food going up. I've seen soda go up basically $1 or more for a 12 pack in the past year. - godseyeview, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1diggrNumber1:
http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX&v=dmax
you are not very bright are you?
- Ishiguro, on 03/28/2008, -3/+8Well watch Ron Paul question Bernake, and watch Mr. Fed chair squirm and jump around with his answers.
- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -4/+3bernanke is not a public speaker. ron paul is. bernanke was probably squirming with anger since he was pissed-off that an idiot like ron paul would ever think to question a real economist like him. i really don't know if bernanke is doing a good job. and i know that although he has his supporters within the economic community, there are now a large number of economists that disapprove of the job he is doing. but essentially all economists disagree with ron paul's economic ideas. i would like to see a video of a real economist debating bernanke, and then i could take the debate seriously.
- capiCrimm, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Well I doubt any administration is going to give honest answers about their own term, but they're normally happy to put down previous terms...
"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." ~ Ben Bernake
... of course, they're *always* smarter then the last people who ***** ***** up. - subterfuge, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2here is one example: a weak dollar is bad for the purchasing power of american citizens, but it is a good thing for investment, because other countries will get more bang for their buck by investing in america. however, when the federal reserve cuts the interest rate, they're making america less attractive as an investment, which leaves us with low purchasing power AND less investment, which would have helped to INCREASE purchasing power, as well as employment
- godseyeview, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2 sf
- mmd643, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Go study at the Mises Von Ludwig institute and then get back to me.
- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2@mmd643:
exactly. most of the prominent economists that support ron paul are now dead. as are their economic theories. ron paul is just an old man with an outdated economic theory. - matador3, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Argumentum ad Verecundiam *yawn* Keynes was a prominent economist, he thought building useless pyramids and digging pointless ditches could stimulate the economy and end the Great Depression. Paul Krugman thinks 9/11 was a boon to the economy. I may be a simpleton but at least I understand the Broken Window Fallacy. I know for a fact that Ron Paul does as well.
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -23/+30Ron Paul is more of an economist than Obama ever will be. Did you watch the videos? You can't argue with the facts he presented. Don't give me that"real economist" crap, look at the facts. If all you are going to do is parrot someone you think is a "real economist" there's no point in discussing it with you. Ron Paul stated what the problems are and if you can refute his assertions DO SO OR SHUT UP.
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -21/+47Who is more credible? When did Obama discuss the problem with Bernanke? When did Obama submit a bill to change the economy or the way the government works?How long has Obama been on banking and finance committees?
Do you even have a CLUE as to what Ron Paul has done and who he is and have you ever in your life paid attention??
Tell me what exactly is Obama's experience in economics and WTF makes him credible?- 0xception, on 03/28/2008, -15/+6how's ron pauls nuts taste? ...
Sorry to anyone else, this is a stupid comment to post to cashman57, but gzzz he's just been going to town on dem' nuts!- godseyeview, on 03/28/2008, -6/+5how's obama's nut taste assmuch peice of *****. I know that you like cause obama ***** down your throat.
- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -13/+17here are just a few of the many (as in almost all) economists that disagree with ron paul:
* Karl Brunner
* Phillip D. Cagan
* Milton Friedman
* David E.W. Laidler
* Allan H. Meltzer
* Anna J. Schwartz
all of these people are modern monetarists, unlike the decrepit old policy of mercantilism that ron paul supports. i thought digg was supposed to be about modern ideas and technology, not returning to the old british economic system!- BESTenemy, on 03/28/2008, -5/+9 Gold backing is 6000 years old, and you're making it sound like the British invented it. By the way, the Fractional Reserve Banking model that both of our nations have adopted is Austrian. I suggest you pick up a few history books before making statements. Almost all economists disagree with Ron Paul? That pretty much explains why we're in so much of a financial mess right now.
Oh, and one more person disagrees with Ron Paul - Ben Bernanke. Tell him I said hello. - herkimer65, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I guess we'll see who was right in the next couple of months. Hope you've got your parachute packed.
- BESTenemy, on 03/28/2008, -5/+9 Gold backing is 6000 years old, and you're making it sound like the British invented it. By the way, the Fractional Reserve Banking model that both of our nations have adopted is Austrian. I suggest you pick up a few history books before making statements. Almost all economists disagree with Ron Paul? That pretty much explains why we're in so much of a financial mess right now.
- guzba, on 03/28/2008, -3/+6i'm sorry but your a moron. "all of these people are modern monetarists" -> thats the opposite of RP so of course they dont agree with him. thats like insulting a republican by saying all the democrats disagree with him. digg should continue to represent BOTH sides of any argument, your the arrogant one here so shove off.
- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2monetarism has worked for us over the years. just look at what it was like before the federal reserve:
http://www.thehistorybox.com/ny_city/panics/panics ...
- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2monetarism has worked for us over the years. just look at what it was like before the federal reserve:
- rlbond86, on 03/28/2008, -2/+8Ron Paul's not so qualified in Economics either. He has NEVER voted for a tax increase, but in Econ 101 you will learn that some taxes are important, and lowering them will HURT the economy.
- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7this is what the paulites don't get. econ is not a black and white, right or wrong science. it is not math.
- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5sorry, that sounded really stupid. i meant to say it is not physics.
- godseyeview, on 03/28/2008, -9/+2diggrnumber1:
YOU ARE STUPID. - diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3@godseyeview:
exactly. you have proven my point. - herkimer65, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Taxation is nothing more than armed robbery. I don't care how you wish to whitewash things with your "modern" viewpoints. Taking someone's money at the end of a gun barrel is theft.
It continues to amaze me that there are those who live in this country and despise the tenets on which it was founded. I guess the FF were a bunch of idiotic morons who just didn't realize that we should have remained under the power of a monarchy, allowed the unjust taxation and been happy with whatever scraps were left over for the people?
- 0xception, on 03/28/2008, -15/+6how's ron pauls nuts taste? ...
- z0l0pht, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Dude, that was a quote from the article...
- ralphthemagi, on 03/28/2008, -9/+19The Federal Reserve is a problem because it is the life force that sustains all Ronulans. Without it, they would die a slow and horrible death from lack of anything to talk about.
- libertao, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1All the evidence you need: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -25/+20How much evidence do you need?
- MrColdheart, on 03/28/2008, -17/+89Fine I'll humor you.
Which candidates economic platform do you think best addresses the economy?
If Clinton has the balls to do something about this "federal reserve" problem I'll eat a boot.
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -38/+30http://www.ronpaul2008.com/prosperity/
Clinton is not capable either. None of the Senators have a clue.- WasabiBomb, on 03/28/2008, -17/+33Okay, now which candidate WITH A CHANCE IN HELL OF GETTING ELECTED has a platform which best addresses the economy?
- dracostimpy, on 03/28/2008, -8/+3What do you win by picking the winner? This isn't ***** Deal or No Deal or March Madness. If you don't pick Ron Paul, you lose no matter who the hell you vote for. Screw you and every person in history who has ever treated voting like a popularity contest instead of voting for the person who would TRULY serve your interests best, because you and your kind are the reason America is in the ***** right now. Thanks a bunch, idiot.
- 3ugene, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2none.
- Jeffler, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Draco - RON IS ALREADY MATHEMATICALLY ELIMINATED, FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME!
- str1fe, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Honestly draco...I liked RP too, but it's time to let go.
- MrColdheart, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1There's only one Senator I'm concerned with.
Senator Palpatin - dracostimpy, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Jeffler - Go read a book about the electoral process, especially the part about "write-in". If you do, you'll realize that you actually get to vote for more than just the token Republican and Democrat that are trotted out for your consumption. Mathematically eliminated means nothing if you aren't trapped in the Rep-Dem paradigm that the politicos use to box us all in.
Of course the guy won't stand a chance in hell as long as we all stay comfortably confined in our thought cages that automatically reject all but the two major party candidates. As long as people like yourself look for excuses not to vote for GREAT men like Ron Paul, we'll keep electing *****. Voting for McHillBama is a great way to mathematically eliminate any chance for your children to succeed in life as anything other than tax slaves; how's THAT for some math? - ubrikkean, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Draco, name one presidential candidate that got at least 1% popular or electoral vote as a write-in.
- Dustmuffins, on 03/28/2008, -5/+13RON PAU...
aww nuts - tj111, on 03/28/2008, -6/+6President Bear!
- Macam, on 03/28/2008, -10/+4I find it astounding that a Ron Paul supporter, of all people, would have the chutzpah to suggest that someone else doesn't understand the real problems in the economy. When you get off planet Libertopia and come back to the real world where everyone else lives, we'll talk economics.
- rdoger6424, on 03/28/2008, -7/+6No. The REAL economy, not your fake-ass libertarian economy.
- Kerrigore, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3I believe he meant "Which candidate that has a chance"
- WasabiBomb, on 03/28/2008, -17/+33Okay, now which candidate WITH A CHANCE IN HELL OF GETTING ELECTED has a platform which best addresses the economy?
- patch6, on 03/28/2008, -10/+22The candidate whose plan can actually reduce the impact of a credit crunch, rather than delay and worsen it, has been marginalized by an ignorant public.
They've made their cake, and now they can eat it.- onetimer, on 03/28/2008, -12/+15Yes, you've already told us countless times, if we aren't voting for paul than were ignorant, we get it.
Oh, us poor ignorant fools who while support cuts in spending, do NOT support the abolition of anti-trust laws, the cut off of all medical research funding, college grants, Net neutrality, and the FDA.
Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water...- dracostimpy, on 03/28/2008, -9/+3You're ignorant simply because you can't even choose properly between "then" and "than". Until you can get that straight, don't bother wasting your effort pondering concepts like politics; it's way over your head.
- notanidiot, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5Wow, yeah, if you make a typo, you must be ignorant.
- dracostimpy, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1Than/then is not a typo because I'm sure he knows how to spell both words. The hard part for idiots is choosing the appropriate word when they both sound so similar. A typo would be his use of "were" instead of "we're", but I didn't mention that since typos are not signs of idiocy. You're not an idiot, but you are a jackass.
- onetimer, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5I see. I make one grammatical typo (it was late) and instead of focusing on my argument, you dismiss it for unrelated reasons?
Are you telling me if I look through your posting history I won't find a single grammatical error either?
You may have not made a grammatical error in your "rebuttal", but you're look like a ***** tool when you have to resort to a grammar-nazi rebuttal instead of addressing an argument. (which is why you're being dugg down)
By the way, based on the fact that you're a 9/11 truther, I have no doubt that I am smarter THAN you by a ***** long-shot. - dracostimpy, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2I suspect you fancy that you're smarter than all goys. In this instance, however, you're sadly mistaken.
I've offered MANY times to engage you, Herk and all your Zionist pals in meaningful debate by simply asking you one question: Which candidate is better than Ron Paul and why? As of yet, not one of you has answered that because you know to support any other candidate is indefensible compared to a true patriot and Constitutionalist such as Dr. Paul.
In fact, you have no beef at all with any of those issues like the FDA, college grants, etc that you mention above. Your one and ONLY problem with Ron Paul is that he will stop giving Israel yearly billions of US taxpayer dollars. If you're such an intellectual, why can't you compellingly defend your one true point of contention against Ron Paul instead of attacking him over myriad issues that we all know mean nothing to you? C'mon smart guy, dazzle me with some compelling arguments for your one true position and stop jerking us off by telling us you care about government-funded medical research. We goys aren't THAT stupid. - onetimer, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2THAT's your intelligent argument? To discount everything i've said about why I don't support paul, and make up your own argument on why I don't support him? Mind you, I don't think I have EVER cited Paul's policy regarding israel as a reason I don't support him (I frankly don't care)
For someone that wants to engage in "meaningful debate", you've done a ***** job so far (starting off with a strawman argument, and then just, well, I don't even know what to call the act of making up points your opponent never actually made)
No wonder you think everyone else is ignorant. It must be easy to win arguments in your mind when you simply get to throw away your opponent's argument and replace it with one you've contrived out of nothing.
At first I thought you were just an ignorant tool. Now I see that you are indeed an idiot as well. - dracostimpy, on 03/29/2008, -2/+1You still haven't named your candidate of choice, have you? Bawk bawk bawk!
- MasterGrief, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2This is, indeed, a triumph.
- StaticThunder, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1I'm making a note here.
A huge success.
Its hard to overstate my satisfaction.
- StaticThunder, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1I'm making a note here.
- onetimer, on 03/28/2008, -12/+15Yes, you've already told us countless times, if we aren't voting for paul than were ignorant, we get it.
- thecoolestguy, on 03/28/2008, -23/+20Ron Paul's economic platform is by far the best.
- pigtown, on 03/28/2008, -11/+18If by best, you mean ***** insane and circa 1850, you're head on.
- dracostimpy, on 03/28/2008, -10/+4Ignorance: Apply directly to forehead. Oh wait, you did already...
- thecoolestguy, on 03/28/2008, -4/+3It must be terrifying to not add $3 trillion to the national debt and not significantly increase the entitlement deficit during 8 years of Republican control of the government.
Watch this video and stop being a mindless *****:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8
- notanidiot, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2I like ron paul's ideas, some of them, but he doesn't have the best platform, otherwise, he'd still be standing on it. When you sound like a radical, people think you're insane, and noone wants an insane president.
- thecoolestguy, on 03/28/2008, -6/+2pigtown, you support Obama, proving you are absolutely without any substance. What is Obama going to do about the growing entitlement deficit? It's at $2 trillion a year, and the comptroller general of the United States says that it will lead to the collapse of the American economy.
Why did Obama support the prescription drug plan, which severely compounded the entitlement deficit? The comptroller general of the United States described it as "probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960's."
America is facing total collapse, and no substance worthless pieces of ***** like you are voting based on glitz and glam, rather than what will save America's economy and standard of living.
Here's a man who has spent 30 years trying to protect your livelihood, and you repay him by calling him "insane". He must be insane to give a ***** about ungrateful petty pieces of ***** like you. - BrandonMills, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Ron Paul fell from this election a long time ago. He's not going to be President. This might be breaking news to some, but it's the truth.
- pigtown, on 03/28/2008, -11/+18If by best, you mean ***** insane and circa 1850, you're head on.
- snowblind113, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4None of the candidates have a clue
- BrandonMills, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Obama's plan is still a lot better than McCain's "Things are great! Let's continue this!" plan.
- wmarcello, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8If none of the major candidates have a clue, then I still vote Obama if only because of his superior reasoning, judgment, and listening skills. Of the three remaining, he seems like the one most likely to really research the problem, listen to his advisers, and change course if something isn't working. The last 8 years have been filled with a president too stubborn to admit when he's made a mistake, and would rather be wrong and forceful than actually spend time trying to fix his mistakes.
- libertao, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Excellently put. I don't agree with any major candidate's platform 100% so I support the one who's intelligence and judgment is the best.
- vikdog28, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0It's more important to figure out what we want and make it known. There is no reason to support a candidate through thick and thin just because he has most of what we want. I agree Obama is a good choice, but it's important to make our voices heard by him now, when he candidates actually have to listen to us.
- vat0r, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2It's not even really an issue. The economy is in the dumps, it's going down either way. So why not let the fed print some extra monopoly money and pass it out to the minions? Give us Americans a piece of that imaginary apple pie before the whole thing goes bust.
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -38/+30http://www.ronpaul2008.com/prosperity/
- DukeMojo, on 03/28/2008, -14/+59Greed-driven corporations with their hand in government affairs is the problem. The reason it's a problem is because after so many years of corporate anal-fisting of America's people and economy, taking away those hands would cripple us.
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -7/+10Especially the corporation called federal reserve.
- Prosequi, on 03/28/2008, -8/+10Corporate tax rates by country:
US 39.9%
France 34%
Sweden 28%
Ireland 12.5%- spamcrusher, on 03/28/2008, -7/+6Well, uh, that's not enough! Those greedy corporations shouldn't be allowed to make a profit at the expense of, uh, poor people! That's un-American!
- br0ck, on 03/28/2008, -1/+19USA isn't a solid 39.9%, it's a range from 15% to 39%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_ ... Also, corporations in those other countries don't have to pay any employee insurance costs ($12000 avg per employee per year) nor match the 6.6% of salary FICA cost.
- aperfectnumber6, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5The US business tax code is geared to average out at about 35% once the company gets to the highest bracket. They are also double-taxed, as shareholders are taxed on dividends.
- MrSteamTank, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4@br0ck
the US also has a state corporate tax from 0-12% on top of the federal tax so it can actually be higher than what prosequi is hinting at.
- betweenthelines, on 03/28/2008, -9/+8Hey DukeMoJo... what are you typing on? Is it a computer? Did you make it? No the big "evil corporations did", what about that TV? And the car you drive? EVERYTHING you buy is from an "evil corporation". People love to vote for socialists and populists because their TV, gasoline, cars, and TVs are cheap enough. It is so sad
- Killer57, on 03/28/2008, -2/+9What kind of an argument is that? That's like telling people in North Korea: " Oh is the 'big bad government' horribly oppressing you? Do you live in a house? Do you have a job? Who puts food on your table? EVERYTHING you receive is from the government." Simply because they provide goods and services does not mean that they are not responsible for policies that are detrimental to most Americans.
- betweenthelines, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0yeah, what the hell is your problem? What policies are so detrimental to most Americans? The price? Captialism, charge what the market will bear, period. I bet you are one of those people who think the president should make the oil companies lower the price of gas. That's the most ridiculous thing ever, it should be $20 a gallon. It is a non renewable resource and you don't HAVE to buy gas, ride the damn bus. Get a job, make money and then choose to buy a product or not. Comparing our corporations, despite their flaws, to North Korea is moronic and naive. My point was you group all companies who make money as "greed driven corporations" but that didn't stop you from buying all the crap you own. If you hate these companies so much stop buying their products, go live in section 8 housing and walk to work.
- Midtowner, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Killer, would you rather receive those goods and services from corporations or North Korea? The corporations depend on your consumption to sustain their existence. A totalitarian government does not. It's an easy choice for me.
- Killer57, on 03/28/2008, -2/+9What kind of an argument is that? That's like telling people in North Korea: " Oh is the 'big bad government' horribly oppressing you? Do you live in a house? Do you have a job? Who puts food on your table? EVERYTHING you receive is from the government." Simply because they provide goods and services does not mean that they are not responsible for policies that are detrimental to most Americans.
- z0l0pht, on 03/28/2008, -15/+28I think the handouts are stupid too, but it's only one aspect of his plan. His policies towards outsourcing and repealing Bush's tax cuts for the rich are still sound. Even though I disagree with a SINGLE aspect, I still support his plan for its other merits.
- TctclMvPhase, on 03/28/2008, -12/+10God forbid we let rich people keep the money they work for....I mean after all doctors don't deserve all that extra money. I mean they only save lives and stuff, it makes perfect sense that we should take more of their money... simply because they put in the time to get the education and the long hours to achieve their salaries.
sarcasm- puter, on 03/28/2008, -6/+10I agree. I get tired of hearing people say that we should just take the money from people who earned it. I say if they want to take money from rich people, then start investigating all of the corrupt politicians out there and take all of their money as punishment when it turns out they got it illegally.
I went through (and am still going through) many years of school to earn my current salary. - macweirdo42, on 03/28/2008, -13/+9OMFG, the rich don't "achieve" their salaries - 99% of the time, they had parents wealthy enough to finance their continued education, a luxury the poor can't afford. And that extra education, which is honestly a piece of piss compared to an actual job, is all that separates the rich from the poor, in terms of job stress.
- aperfectnumber6, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4I'm pretty sure 99% of people living comfortably aren't trust fund babies as you assume. There's no way I would be able to afford going to a university for four years if I didn't earn a scholarship. And maybe you should blame the government's education system for ignoring the fact that personal finance directly affects more lives than Darwin's theory of evolution or Emily Dickinson's poetry.
I'm not saying biology and English lit aren't important, I'm just saying that teaching kids personal finance would create a more even playing field in terms of knowledge of money, how it works, and how to use it effectively. Right now, those who come from parents with money are the only ones who receive this education. - puter, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2That statement shows how little you know.
1) I had a friend that had so little money he was getting paid to go to college.
2) anyone who is willing to put the effort in, get the scholarships, etc. can go to school. One of my good friends right now has no way to afford school on her own, but she is going to be a doctor...and a damn good one....
3) Even if you have a trust fund (I did) to get you through college, that does not mean it isn't work. I have a CS degree, a CE degree, and a minor in mathematics and am getting my major in CS (on my dime). I worked my ass off for these degrees. I spent more hours on those degrees than I have had to at my 40hr/wk job that I got after undergrad. and WHILE I was getting those degrees I was working 20hr/wk at an IT job.
That is hard work and those that do it deserve the higher salary. ANYONE can go to a university, not everyone is willing to put the work in. I have seen people who are having their education paid for by their parents fritter it away and fail out, I have also seen people there who have no money but do better than I did, get scholarships, and leave with relatively little debt.
This claim that higher education is not available to the poor is *****. there are MORE scholarships than there are people. Go take a look at the stats, there are thousands of unclaimed scholarships every year because people simply did not apply for them. anyone who is willing to put the effort out can get multiple scholarships.
Let people who are willing to put the effort out and do the work get the money. Those that quit college because they can make more money right then (which is one of the main reasons for dropouts...people realize they can work a 40hr/wk job and make a lot more money than working a job part time in college) end up with lower paying jobs...that is their choice. Those that stick it out, get the education, deserve the extra money they get for it. - Apophis574, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Wow. Poor man has a grudge doesn't he? Learn facts before posting idiot, puter put it perfectly. Oh wait you probably won't look up facts since your probably too lazy to do that also just like your too lazy to work for an education and a better job and all you do it bitch that others have what you don't. Grow up.
- macweirdo42, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Who says I'm a "have not," idiot?
- puter, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0not to flog a dead horse here, but I also thought I'd add that the current statistic at my university is that 80% of people are getting some sort of college scholarship....just something to note when you claim that college is not attainable by those without money.
- Jektal, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1A simple thought for all those extolling the virtues of college scholarships and hard work:
Where does a college degree get you? Off the poverty line, but not into the wealthy bracket.
I have no sympathy for someone making $300,000+ a year whose taxes go up. - puter, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0jektal: that depends on what degree you get.
doctors make a lot of money, but they also have to go through a lot of schooling.
- aperfectnumber6, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4I'm pretty sure 99% of people living comfortably aren't trust fund babies as you assume. There's no way I would be able to afford going to a university for four years if I didn't earn a scholarship. And maybe you should blame the government's education system for ignoring the fact that personal finance directly affects more lives than Darwin's theory of evolution or Emily Dickinson's poetry.
- pintomp3, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5the rich pay a higher share of the taxes than the poor, but they have an even larger percentage of the wealth. no need to shed any tears for them.
- tape250, on 03/28/2008, -6/+2You're a moron. Give me an example of when the rich HAVEN'T had a larger percentage of the wealth. Let's do an example for fun, ok?
There are only three people in the world.
Person A earns $10.
Person B earns $9.
Person C earns $8.
Thus, a total of $27 is paid out to three people with just a dollar separating their incomes.
10/27 = 37%. Person A earns 37% of the total income while only representing 33% of the population.
Oh no! Basic math turns out to be accurate! Clearly the rich are favored because their percentage of the population controls a larger percentage of the wealth! Alert the press! - pintomp3, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4no need for examples, just look at the data of wealth distribution.
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/C ...
The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%.
- tape250, on 03/28/2008, -6/+2You're a moron. Give me an example of when the rich HAVEN'T had a larger percentage of the wealth. Let's do an example for fun, ok?
- puter, on 03/28/2008, -6/+10I agree. I get tired of hearing people say that we should just take the money from people who earned it. I say if they want to take money from rich people, then start investigating all of the corrupt politicians out there and take all of their money as punishment when it turns out they got it illegally.
- mmd643, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3His overall plan is Socialism, and I'm not cool with that.
- nick111, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4His overall plan is not ***** socialism. Do you even know what socialism is?
- OneLess, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1By rule, anyone who applies the word 'socialism' to mainstream Democratic policies does not know what the word means.
- nick111, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4His overall plan is not ***** socialism. Do you even know what socialism is?
- TctclMvPhase, on 03/28/2008, -12/+10God forbid we let rich people keep the money they work for....I mean after all doctors don't deserve all that extra money. I mean they only save lives and stuff, it makes perfect sense that we should take more of their money... simply because they put in the time to get the education and the long hours to achieve their salaries.
- coffeebaby, on 03/28/2008, -22/+76he voted to fund the war so the soldiers would get taken care of.
- Memitim, on 03/28/2008, -13/+15Yeah, because the Bush administration would have told them to start farming and carving bullets out of wood. Please, the administration would have simply been forced to call it a day and spend years trying to spin it as a "loss" even though there is not, and never was, a "win" to be had.
- thatcoolrushguy, on 03/28/2008, -3/+11I think you underestimate just how stubborn George Bush really is.
- nclester, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0No *****.
- bigsteve, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2You were trying to be sarcastic but it's not come far from that. Friends in the service, friends who have friends or family in the service, and servicemen and women who've spoken out via public channels have told reoccuring stories of using spent ballistic glass, cases of silly string sent by families from US retail party supply stores used to find trip wire, GPS units because it was so easy to get lost in very dangerous parts of the desert... the stories go on. Shame, really. Brings new meaning to "Support the Troops!"
- Memitim, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1And that is with every funding bill getting approval. So how's that working out?
- IpecacNeat, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1^^ Truth, get your head out of the sand Memtim. My family had to pay money for my cousins body armor. That is ***** up. Unless the Senators are going to fly planes over and pick up our men and women, they better damn well vote to fund the war. Plus, Obama is smart politically. The money was going to be passed no matter what, he would have been made to look like a fool if he didn't vote for it, and tried to run for Prez.
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Obama campaigned on a promise of doing all he could to bring our troops home. Then he voted to fund the Iraq use of force and spend trillions off-budget.
The claim that he was supporting the troops is specious at best.
There is enough money in the pipeline to pull our troops out or arm them, but Congress has failed to make that a priority.
If you are an environmentalist would you buy the biggest gas guzzler you could find?
You would if you believe Obama opposes the Iraq use of force and voted for a trillion dollars to run it. - OneLess, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2After Walter Reed and the Iraq War armor debacle, you seriously have the balls to say that sarcastically?
- richmessenger, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7I'm sure that's what he hoped for, but the sad reality is most of the money goes to pay government contractors. They go over there and do jobs the military can do for 5 times the pay. The fact is the military wasn't sent with the right equipment and were told to do worse things than carve bullets out of wood like to drive through areas with IED's and no armor.
- richmessenger, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6Just to clarify, I don't think we should have been there at all, I'm just saying.
- whoaohh, on 03/28/2008, -7/+5If he voted to fund the war so that "the soldiers would get taken care of," yet is outspokenly against the war, Obama just lost my vote.
That's like saying "I'm against abortion, but I'll fund an abortion clinic to make sure that the procedures are safe." It means well, but it either shows weak morals or weak understanding.- richmessenger, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7 Since has no control over whether or not our troops have to be there, which they will be regardless of how much funding we have, he should not help the troops have the best equipment possible? By your rational a leader should let troops die for his personal feelings and beliefs. That sounds like another President we have. If Obama was that guy he would have lost my vote.
- IpecacNeat, on 03/28/2008, -4/+5Whoaohh, you obviously don't have anyone you care about over there. The Senator that doesn't vote to fund the troops better be flying cargo planes until all the troops are home. Stop letting your personal feelings get in the way. My family had to pay for my cousins body armor! You know how messed up that is? Stop with the partisanship for a second.
- incredibilistic, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Buried for being an idiot and letting your vote be swayed by a comment on Digg.
- 3ugene, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Funny how all that money went to pay Halliburton so the troops would need even more money next month for congress to vote on. I am still voting for Ron Paul. Call me a kook, but I've got facts.
- KirbyMeister, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1But Ron Paul already lost, the Republicans already elected McCain
- str1fe, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1nominated != elected
- Memitim, on 03/28/2008, -13/+15Yeah, because the Bush administration would have told them to start farming and carving bullets out of wood. Please, the administration would have simply been forced to call it a day and spend years trying to spin it as a "loss" even though there is not, and never was, a "win" to be had.
- xptoast, on 03/28/2008, -14/+36Giving handouts instantly makes me lose any sort of hope in this guy. Staving off inflation by making the deficit higher is about as intelligent as buying more stuff while paying off your credit care with a different credit card. Gah. At least with any handouts I get I will be paying my credit card off as well as other bills in preparation for the possible bad times. Time to get self sufficient people. Things are about to get ugly.
- Tenlow, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11actually the smarter thing to do would be to buy gold with your credit cards and make the minimum payments. When hyperinflation hits you can buy enough dollars with one ounce of gold to pay off the debt you racked up buying 2 pounds of the *****.
- xptoast, on 03/28/2008, -1/+7Sounds actualy quite sane lol. Not bad at all.
- xptoast, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4So...how much is gold anyhow? Strangely enough I might try that lol.
- xptoast, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Gold is around 953 and up today.
- Kyan, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2After tanking 10% the other day.
- patch6, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Better read the fine print thoroughly, since the issuer can likely adjust rates in a manner that compromises your plan, leaving you worse off than when you started, once the credit crunch really picks up steam.
- PeppermintPig, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2There's some truth to that, but mostly not. If things get THAT bad, you are better off buying canned food and other essentials.
- Tenlow, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2There is however a legal limit to what they can charge you. 30%? Sure. That'll add a few bucks to my bill. I'll just trade 1/10th an ounce of gold for 400bn USD and buy the entire company.
My comment was a half joke. I doubt it will get bad enough for that to happen. The way I see the worst case scenaro: Great depression all over again. Life sucks, we all lose a few pounds, ***** gets better inside of 20 years. Lasting effects for another 30 - 50 years, but not uber instadeath the way some would like you to believe.
I'm not going to pull all of my money out of the bank and put it into gold just yet.
- xptoast, on 03/28/2008, -1/+7Sounds actualy quite sane lol. Not bad at all.
- IpecacNeat, on 03/28/2008, -4/+0What happens when the government doesn't give help? Huh? All the home foreclosures? People can't pay credit cards etc. etc. That will hurt the economy even more. Giving people a stimulus check puts money back into the economy, which will help it start up again.
- zebraz, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a solution.
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Adding billions of dolars in spending will make the problem worse, not better and those things you say will happen are going to happen. The difference is whether we finance the loss by borrowing more money from unborn Americans.
- notanidiot, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Yeah, I don't think an impending recession, possibly leading to a depression, is really a time to be cutting everyone off of public assistance, or expecting people to be "self sufficient." You may sing a different tune if you lose your job along with a bunch of others, and there are no new jobs to be had.
I hope you remember your little "self sufficience" speech then.
- Tenlow, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11actually the smarter thing to do would be to buy gold with your credit cards and make the minimum payments. When hyperinflation hits you can buy enough dollars with one ounce of gold to pay off the debt you racked up buying 2 pounds of the *****.
- Ruqsaq, on 03/28/2008, -9/+50My neighbor is having mortgage problems will he get a check? I'm upside down in my car... can I get a stimulus check? I have too many student loans and can't land a job to make my payments... I'd like a check for that too. My fridge just died, I have kids and don't want my food to spoil... check please?
When does it stop?- p0s3r, on 03/28/2008, -11/+23When there's no more money for the Liberals to steal out of our pockets.
- mpritc1019, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7you have it figured out! thank you. this candidate of hope will fall apart when he has to fund all the programs aka handouts.
- notanidiot, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2Thank you, Ann Coulter.
- andj, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1their isn't that much money - the neocons have spent it on a war.
In fact the noecons have done a good job of spending, spending and spending. (look at the track record)
Need a democrat in white house to bring the deficit down .
PS thats why all you neocon are so afraid of Ron Paul. You cant even stick to your own fundamental beliefs.
- cubicledrone, on 03/28/2008, -10/+3When there are ten good jobs advertised. Just ten. That's all. Right now, there are zilch.
- 919kwjc, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5Cubicledrone - please stop breathing. You're stupidity is messing up the gene pool.
- bxblox, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Rugsag meet welfare, welfare meet rugsag
- coffeebaby, on 03/28/2008, -7/+13it stops when america changes it's trade policies and starts taxing companies who outsource. it stops when we aren't spending 200 million a day on a pointless war.
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2It stops when the government backs off and doesn't spend as much. Trying to spend your way out of a depression will not work. When Obama had the chance to vote no, he voted yes to all of that funding.
Adding more debt is no solution.
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2It stops when the government backs off and doesn't spend as much. Trying to spend your way out of a depression will not work. When Obama had the chance to vote no, he voted yes to all of that funding.
- IpecacNeat, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3Rugsag, if not stimulus checks then what? How do you propose to jump start the economy? You're making things seem easier than it really is. Obviously you aren't having a hard time right now. But for everyone of you, there are 5 people just evicted from their house. Or a single mother whose daughter just got diagnosed with cancer, and she can't make hospital bills.
And don't give me the, "work harder" crap. Until you've been on the other side, please stop. Life is difficult for some people.- dagnome1984, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5So we should spend money that we don't have? That is the dumbest "solution" ever. The economy right now is in a much needed correction thanks to the fed and its low interest rates that caused mal investment because the banks have hardly any incentive to let loose risky ventures. Kill the feds capacity to boom and bust the economic cycle and then you will have stability.
- p0s3r, on 03/28/2008, -11/+23When there's no more money for the Liberals to steal out of our pockets.
- RepubOperative, on 03/28/2008, -32/+23The Marxist Barack Obama wants to implement a recurring tax on Americans to the tune of $800 BILLION US Dollars to provide for poor countries.
Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote
www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/
A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.- spamcrusher, on 03/28/2008, -3/+17Wow, thanks for making me aware of this. I just can't support Obama anymore. I like his stance on the war, which is GTFO, but seriously is it worth having the most liberal guy? He likes the idea of gun control, he wants higher taxes, he wants to increase spending beyond what Bush would like which I thought was impossible.
- d03boy, on 03/28/2008, -2/+9..and to be honest, his stance on the war isn't very strong towards the GTFO position
- notanidiot, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Y'know, if it weren't for gun control, in some form or fashion, anyone could go buy a bazooka or a rocket launcher and go to town. Gun control is already here, and its necessary.
The 2nd amendment gives a right to bear arms, and the arms they referred to back then were muskets and bayonets. Considering that now, arms can be used to describe WMD's, we have to somehow find a line to draw saying what people can have, and what they can't.
Noones trying to take all your guns away, don't worry! - cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Obama wants all of the guns. He wants to ban handguns and ban rifles and ban Americans from being able to defend themselves. Obama would be a disaster as president.
- br0ck, on 03/28/2008, -12/+5You're fabricating numbers left and right. You say $800 billion at the top and then say it's over 13 years at the bottom. Then you cite the bill, but a thorough reading of the bill show that the plan only calls for 25 billion per year divided amongst 8 countries. 25/8 is ONLY 3 billion per year. Stop copy and pasting this every day until you can cite some better sources. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...
- DeadFox1, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1OMG! a republican!... on DIGG!!!! eh. i thought it was funny.
- godseyeview, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Get a job, parasite
- thecoolestguy, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4shutup commie
- DeadFox1, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1OMG! a republican!... on DIGG!!!! eh. i thought it was funny.
- notanidiot, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2That Son of a Bitch! How dare he try to pass a bill that will help people who are starving and suffering far worse than you can possibly imagine! Of course, never mind that our nation is in dire need of some good publicity, and maybe we could build GLOBAL ALLIES this way, and win the hearts and minds of countless countries and people,... and then perhaps when we get hit be terrorists, people around the world won't be CHEERING!
But no, you shouldn't have to give up a single dollar that might actually go to help someone who needs it and deserves it far more than your ass! You were born here, and born into opportunity and money, and damn the person who tries to make you share! - shortysmyname, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2The UN argument is bunch of lies from Limbaugh.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802210011
The act would establish no specific funding source, and would not commit the United States to any targeted level of spending. The bill does not impose a tax, nor does it give the U.N. the power to "force the U.S. to pay 0.7 of GNP in increased foreign aid" or to impose a tax. It is just a guideline to help end global poverty for people who live on less than $1 per day.
We committed a long time ago to this initiative, as did most other countries. The 0.7 percent of GNP recommendation was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution.
As far as the small arms and light weapons ban, the bill says "To take concerted action to end illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons, especially by making arms transfers more transparent and supporting regional disarmament measures,”
It has nothing to do with legal, personal gun ownership in the US or anywhere else. It’s about *illicit* traffic in weaponry where there is a high probably that they’ll be turned against our military.
- spamcrusher, on 03/28/2008, -3/+17Wow, thanks for making me aware of this. I just can't support Obama anymore. I like his stance on the war, which is GTFO, but seriously is it worth having the most liberal guy? He likes the idea of gun control, he wants higher taxes, he wants to increase spending beyond what Bush would like which I thought was impossible.
- orangedude, on 03/28/2008, -11/+22What's the alternative then? Hillary has no clue either. McCain is up for continuing to drain billions of dollars into the never-ending Iraq War. His plans are no worse than any of the others.
- stonewaljacksn, on 03/28/2008, -5/+6dont vote for any of them.
- orangedude, on 03/28/2008, -4/+7If you don't vote, you're just giving the stupid, uninformed people all the power in this country. That's how George Bush got elected... twice.
If you disagree with all three candidates, pick the one that is least disagreeable to you. Why not Obama on the merit of all his other policies?- stonewaljacksn, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2How about you take a stand for your own principles and vote for who you believe in even if they have no chance. "Settling" for a democrat or a republican is the reason we have to choose between one of two embarassingly similar, destructive parties. I can't believe you are arguing in favor or reinforcing the two party system, but to each his own. I'll do my thing, you do yours
- dagnome1984, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Gore would have been any better? Oh please.
- orangedude, on 03/28/2008, -4/+7If you don't vote, you're just giving the stupid, uninformed people all the power in this country. That's how George Bush got elected... twice.
- d03boy, on 03/28/2008, -6/+6When you stop letting the media persuade you into thinking that this or that candidate "has no chance" (even before the FIRST PRIMARY) then (a) you're stupid or (b) you're stupid or (c) you need to learn something and (d) you need to learn about the delegate process
- Marijuana, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3I agree, although you were a little callous with the "you're stupid" accusations.
- IpecacNeat, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1People did, idiot. Obama had "no chance". They gave Hillary the nod even before the Primary season. Just because people think Ron Paul is a nutball. It isn't the media.
- godseyeview, on 03/28/2008, -7/+17Ron Paul is still running.
- melek, on 03/28/2008, -6/+4Ron Paul is still Losing :(
- faithfreedom, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3He's good on track!
- thecoolestguy, on 03/28/2008, -5/+13Ron Paul. GTFO and stop taxing and nannying the population through failed government programs. And END THE WAR ON DRUGS!
- godseyeview, on 03/28/2008, -3/+9So you get to vote for Hitler, Mao, or Stalin. HELLO ... anyone home? do you have a memory anymore? remember RON PAUL?!
- IpecacNeat, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1Absolutely no clue. You don't have a clue.
- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -6/+2if you look at his other comments, you'll realize that he's probably some sort of paranoid schizophrenic.
- IpecacNeat, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1Absolutely no clue. You don't have a clue.
- Cyberen, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5Gravel is still running.
- Tommyhawk, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2The alternative is move. America will be as much or more socialized than Europe 8 years from now. I've already given up.
- misconstrued, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5I say vote for anyone BUT obama/clinton or mccain. Gravel? Paul? Pencil in your grandmother for all I care.
- stonewaljacksn, on 03/28/2008, -5/+6dont vote for any of them.
- puter, on 03/28/2008, -3/+9I agree that he has not presented a solution (just said what other politicians have).
My question to is: What is the solution?
I have yet to hear anyone give any idea as to what can be done. Rather than wasting breath complaining about various politicians, why not come up with a solution that would work? Instead of saying what won't work, say what will.- xlar54, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7Solution 1: Stop the goddamn giveaways. Pay off the debt. End the war. Cut spending. Any takers?
- puter, on 03/28/2008, -2/+0that is not a solution, that is the end you want.
My guess is that you have no idea how to achieve it.- whoaohh, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3"Stop the giveaways" is a solution. No national debt is an end.
- IpecacNeat, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0"Stop the giveaways"? What will that do? That helps many people, and the money goes right back into the economy. National debt isn't just going to dry up by taking back tax breaks. The country has to start making money through a favorable balance of trade, getting into future fuels, green energy and like you said, cut spending.
- puter, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2lpecacNeat:: You're somewhat right. It is true that the money goes back into the economy, the problem is the fact that the money is being created from nothing. This isn't money the government has to give away...it is essentially printing money to give away...which will only increase inflation (devalue the dollar). While it may be a temporary stopgate to make things seem better in the short run...in the long run it will only hurt the economy.
The caveat on it hurting the economy is that if the economy recovers before it tanks from the inflation then it will help That's a pretty big gamble for the government to make.
- puter, on 03/28/2008, -2/+0that is not a solution, that is the end you want.
- blitzman, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3The solution is for the government to cut spending until the deficit is erased. This pretty much means ending the Iraq war and its corresponding spending as soon as possible.
- puter, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0That is true, but now that it's started we cannot just pull out. I wish we could. My point is that there is no easy solution, and while the politicians are not coming up with one, why waste time complaining...why not spend it finding a solution?
- IpecacNeat, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0Besides, just ending the war isn't going to send us back to a deficit. It is deeper than that.
- Tommyhawk, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3We just marched in, we can just march out.
- xlar54, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7Solution 1: Stop the goddamn giveaways. Pay off the debt. End the war. Cut spending. Any takers?
- xrant, on 03/28/2008, -10/+8If you have the answer, why aren't you doing something about it? Oh wait, that's right, you are. You're creating negativity. I'd say you're a clear cut political genius. er.. not
- stonewaljacksn, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6criticism is not negativity
- puter, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0actually, all the criticism is one of the main reasons why the economy is the way it is.
People believe the market is going to tank, they pull their money out, it tanks. people believe the dollar is going to go down, they put their money in foreign markets, it goes down. Etc. Etc....
You want a solution? one of the biggest things that would help the economy is if all of the digg articles were a positive outlook on the economy...along with all other social news site articles. That would improve the view of the economy in the people's eyee and encourage investing and spending...which would help jumpstart the economy much more than tax rebates.
- puter, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0actually, all the criticism is one of the main reasons why the economy is the way it is.
- d03boy, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2here is some positivity that obviously helps so much +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- Jones82, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3"You're creating negativity"
And we all know Digg users don't stand for creating negativity toward presidential candidates - novaculus, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I am staunchly anti-negativity! No no no more negativity!
- notanidiot, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1***** negativity, and all the moronic idiots who perpetuate the idea. Bunch of Commies if you ask me!
- stonewaljacksn, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6criticism is not negativity
- aklaxman, on 03/28/2008, -9/+3Funny 33% of the republicans think he did a great job, 43%of Hillary's supporters think he did a good job and 84% of his own supporters think he did a good job. Sounds like the folks here just think to much of themselves as economists, complain and present little if any real ideas to solve the problem. I'm not an economist but I can tell you I don't think McCluesless is the answer, Hillary is not my cup of tea either, so I'm sticking with Obama if it means giving a hand to those who need and deserve it so be it. If it means getting America back on the right track then let's do it.
- lgm1213, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Cite those stats please. i hate to sound like an ass but I can't just take your word for it
- mmd643, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0If people think it, it must be true.
- lgm1213, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1its the american way
- lgm1213, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Cite those stats please. i hate to sound like an ass but I can't just take your word for it
- xlar54, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4Ya know, its not just Obama...they're all morons. Im waiting for a candidate that will stand up and speak the damn truth. We're going broke, and we need to get out of this war, cut spending, and...oh yes...raise taxes. I mean, do we want OUT of this financial mess we're in or not? But instead you get morons like Obama buying his ticket to the white house by promising more ***** we cant afford. Whatever.
- ytsejam29, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4One candidate stood up and spoke the truth, but he was quickly marginalized and ridiculed. What is right is not always popular.
- Andyschism, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Two candidates . . . I do believe his name was . . . . Dennis something or other . . .
- xlar54, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I hearby donate one million virtual diggs to a charity of both your choice...
- ytsejam29, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4One candidate stood up and spoke the truth, but he was quickly marginalized and ridiculed. What is right is not always popular.
- slothlovechunk, on 03/28/2008, -11/+10You're an idiot.
Blaming the federal reserve for all of our economy's woes is pretty ***** stupid. I have no idea how digg can be so full of people as irrational as you to get you up to 38 diggs. Whatever...- godseyeview, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3you're an idiot. Thats how.
- Apophis574, on 03/28/2008, -4/+3The federal reserve isn't the one to blame in the first place dumbass, it's the consumers. The fed is making it worse. Read before posting moron.
- mmd643, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0It's much more complex than that.
- Apophis574, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Ya but I dont feel like typing 20 paragraphs to explain it to people who wont read it and/or digg it down.
- mmd643, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0It's much more complex than that.
- 3ugene, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1It appears that when you talk about the economy on digg most of the people educated on economic policy come out of the wood work. Maybe there is hope for digg after all.
- aoya, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0These aren't people educated in Economics, these are morons who took Economics in High School and Econ 101 in College and somehow think they know the solution to the complex problems that plague society today.
I simply can't believe how vapid and uninformed Digg users think they are. This is like being in the Great Depression and Digg users going "LET THEM STARVE, WHO TOLD THEM TO MISMANAGE MONEY?!" Social Darwinism MIRITE GUYS?
For the record, FDR's plans to jump the economy was met with animosity too, but it's undeniable that he did more good than bad for the economy.
Furthermore, dismantling the Reserve is about as dumb as it gets. We need someone to regulate interest rates to preserve the value of the dollar. Just because they're doing a bad job doesn't mean that the institution isn't necessary. Bush does a crap job but we still need a President.
I'm probably going to get Dugg down because Digg is more akin to mob mentality than actual discourse, but if that's what it takes, that's what it takes.- Qtip42, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1You're missing the point of the government not providing a sound currency and the fed (a private company) profiting from all of this. They are no different than a business you might own. They are a for profit institution which has more power than our own stupid president (who btw, we're better off without.....same goes for the VP and everyone else in the administration and congress).
- mmd643, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0FDR's meddling in the market only further prolonged the great depression. His institution of wage and price controls drove businesses under that could have survived by instituting moderate wage cuts. When those businesses went under, those former employees were left without a job. That hurt them far far more then if the company lowered their wages to compensate for the lack of overall business and sales. My grandfather affected by such a situation and cursed FDR for his meddling until his death. If you had a job, the great depression wasn't so b ad. However those that didn't, suffered greatly.
To suggest that FDR's first term was anything but a disastrous, shows a complete non-understanding of american history and what he actully did. I recommend to you a great book that every American should read... The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes. Pick it up and then get back to me.- aoya, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0Are you kidding, since FDR took office in 1933, the GDP jumped from 55 billion to 85 billion by 1939, and unemployment decreased from 15 million to 8 million by the end of 1940.
What kind of success are you trying to aim for? Sure maybe it didn't get done in FDR's first term, but that sort of change that fast is difficult to ask for.
- aoya, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0Are you kidding, since FDR took office in 1933, the GDP jumped from 55 billion to 85 billion by 1939, and unemployment decreased from 15 million to 8 million by the end of 1940.
- nubix02, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0Hitler cured the Depression
- aoya, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0These aren't people educated in Economics, these are morons who took Economics in High School and Econ 101 in College and somehow think they know the solution to the complex problems that plague society today.
- Gorgamel, on 03/28/2008, -12/+15I love how digg drooled over how progressive and hip Obama was, right up until he released some substance. Now everyone is starting to see through the ***** of his campaign.
- mmd643, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2You say "progressive" like it's a good thing. Look at what Woodrow Wilson did and tell me "progressive" philosophy was good.
- chrisj33, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1lol wut? Wilson was very conservative. In the worst years of the depression, he still refused to give any direct aid to anybody.
- tim3094, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Wilson was the guy who made the League of Nations (essentially the UN) but failed to convince the US to join, he was a democrat. You're thinking of Hoover (Republican), the Guy who was president when the great depression happened
- mmd643, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2You say "progressive" like it's a good thing. Look at what Woodrow Wilson did and tell me "progressive" philosophy was good.
- stockjones, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4He is correct in the fact that we need "some" regulation on banking and financial institutions. Not just because of the loose ease at which brokers can dole out scrupulous loans, but also in light of the whole "identity theft crisis". How many times do banks send blank credit card checks through the mail when you dont request them? So many things that are so dangerous in this day and age and yet nobody does anything.
With that said, however, his concept of taxing to fix problems is wrong. Increasing taxes to fix problems never helps anything and in the long run if you keep doing it, you wont have to worry about taxes because you wont have any job, which means no salary, no taxes, no robust economy. Many People live in a Romper Room world when they think about business and profits. Its easy to say companies are evil. The reality, Its good for all of us if companies are profitable and doing well. Seriously. There has never been a good economy when companies are struggling and being burdened with excessive penalties and taxes. What we need is more regulation to make sure companies dont break the rules under the tempting guise of greed, but not to tax companies to death. Plus how do you define wealthy? I don't consider someone making over $30,000 wealthy.- MixMastaKooz, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Raising the capital gains tax on the top 5% and taxes on the top 5% is what Bill Clinton basically did in the early 90's. He really drove our economy into the cellar....
- arillan, on 03/28/2008, -2/+0He has consistently defined wealthy as the top 2% in his speeches. This means those making approx. $225k per year and over. The median annual household income in the US is almost $50k, so I don't think you have to worry about someone thinking $30k is "wealthy."
- Frnnkdlxx, on 03/28/2008, -3/+14"If only you would have _____ Ron Paul....."
- notanidiot, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3umm... rickrolled? I don't know, what goes in the blank?
- MoldPrince, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3definitely rickrolled. you win.
- notanidiot, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3umm... rickrolled? I don't know, what goes in the blank?
- addiktion, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11Why the hell should I pay my tax money to bail out these people? They are the ones who stretched their pockets beyond their means. The government should stop bailing out those people who make poor decisions. I can understand some people need legitimate help but if you've been enjoying your 3500$ a month home and live well beyond your pay checks or live pay check to pay check then you need to go back to school and learn how to manage your money. Live within your means and save up! Eventually you may realize that your better off in hard times of need or when you make a financial mistake.
I'm not trying to be negative here but we can't have the government bailing out every single American that is in trouble over their financial idiocies.- IpecacNeat, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1You have no clue. None. I agree though, some people are bad with money, but it isn't as easy as you make it out to be. I'm beginning to think many of you diggers are very privileged, and don't know how hard it is for some people. Plus, if you don't bail out some people, what happens, where do they go? What then, is their contribution to the economy? I don't see it as a hand out, more of a hand up.
- searage, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1It's called private charities. Those that are able and want to help you, will. You don't need the federal government stealing from your fellow citizens to help you.
Oh, that's right. Democrats like Obama don't give to charity. They would much rather the federal government forcefully take it from others.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-07 ...
- searage, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1It's called private charities. Those that are able and want to help you, will. You don't need the federal government stealing from your fellow citizens to help you.
- notanidiot, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Yeah, its hard to imagine people who have to work would actually have time for all this digging some of these pogues do.
- andj, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1should we only bail out the elite?
We in the financial community let greed override reality. We sold products that were not worth anything, we "mispoke"about the value. We manipulate the markets. We encouraged people to take out loans assuring them it was within their means. We "mispoke" to the small investors about the risk. Okay sometimes we lied. Hey we even fooled ourselves. So the fed is spending tax payers money bailing out a system we ***** up. A lot of us made a lot of money - but thank God the taxpayer is picking up the tab(real cost).
Is that fair?. - addiktion, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1I don't think anyone should be left out from help, but I do think that people take advantage of the system. I can think of about 5 people off the top of my head that milk the government because they can't keep a job longer then 2 months, or because they tend to sleep around and pop out babies like no other. I don't make a "high paying" salary of any sort. I'm a poor college student like many but I live within my means and have easily surpassed many peers in terms of short term and long term savings. I just have very little sympathy for people who splurge on that big screen TV when they know they can't afford it without pulling out the credit card.
In the same sentence businesses make it easy for poor creditors to get access to things so it's quite a mess in the long run when the consumer is flooded with debt. For others that have harder lives (mother with 1+ kids etc) then I can understand they need help due to the difficulties of raising a kid and working a full time job. But you could also argue that they should of thought about that before they messed around right? I'm not trying to get to deep into the topic because each situation has its own stipulating circumstances but the point is you shouldn't live beyond your means.
- IpecacNeat, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1You have no clue. None. I agree though, some people are bad with money, but it isn't as easy as you make it out to be. I'm beginning to think many of you diggers are very privileged, and don't know how hard it is for some people. Plus, if you don't bail out some people, what happens, where do they go? What then, is their contribution to the economy? I don't see it as a hand out, more of a hand up.
- Chazx, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3Hoho yes forget the dozens of people he has advising him and their careers, YOU KNOW BETTER HOW TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY!
- mmd643, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Just because you don't understand things yourself, and put somebody like Obama on a pedestal, don't think that others don't have a much better grasp of the situation than you and Obama.
- misconstrued, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2They all want to keep the ponzi scheme going. They have a vested interest in it's survival...
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1You can't blame anyone for funding the war since Bush held the military hostage over funding. He was going to keep the people there despite lack of funding. He made decisions about the war assuming he'd have the funding, and then turned around and said it's Congresses fault if anything goes wrong because he doesn't get his money.
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1When the vote was 100-0 to fund the Iraq use of force, how would it have been different if he had been a man of his word and made the vote 99-1?
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1You're forgetting the political game. (as played by liars and cheats)
Anyone who voted no to fund the war, would be accused of putting soldiers at risk. "You don't think soldiers should have...", "Body Armor", "Protection", "Equipment".
Yeah basically they try to make people forget who put them in Iraq, and pin the whole mess on someone else. (And take credit for any victory)
If that makes any sense to you. - searage, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1So you are saying that when Obama voted for the funding he was just playing a political game (as played by liars and cheats)
I get it now. He is no different than the other scumbags in Washington. He has no political backbone and manipulates his votes based on his future ambitions of power.
Makes complete sense to me.- MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1That's why you see people denouncing the war and voting for the funding.
Voting to fund the war necessarily doesn't mean they support the war.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1That's why you see people denouncing the war and voting for the funding.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1You're forgetting the political game. (as played by liars and cheats)
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1When the vote was 100-0 to fund the Iraq use of force, how would it have been different if he had been a man of his word and made the vote 99-1?
- theclashrocker, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4Bailing out corportions like bear stearns
vs
Bailing out real people who lost their homes
ill choose the latter.- CoopsPal, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1Here here! All these people on here bitching about government 'handouts', but it's perfectly fine to bail out this huge corporation. I do understand that they can't screw their stockholders, but what about screwing our fellow citizens? Not all of them made terrible decisions! Many were laid off, some had bad luck, and some just made mistakes...like the rest of 'we' humans tend to do. I understand people take advantage of these situations, but we can't just let the whole bottom part of the middle class fall apart! A country is only as strong as its weakest people, not its richest 5%. Please people, it's called empathy...you know, putting yourself in someone else's shoes? ...realizing that not everybody else has perhaps been as lucky or privileged as you have.
- Midtowner, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2I choose neither. Let the market sort it out. Let the banks who made dumb loans fail. Let the people who took out loans they couldn't afford lose their homes.
There is no right to free money.
- snowblind113, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3bring the feds in? socialism?
- Foxehh, on 03/28/2008, -2/+6What would you propose as an alternative to the Federal Reserve? Just curious...
- matador3, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Repeal legal tender laws and allow competing currencies a la Friedrich Hayek. No real need to do anything about the Fed because nobody in their right mind would hold FRN's if they keep inflating, especially for saving. If the Fed can't provide a currency that holds value it would eventually disappear on it's own, if it can great, it'll just be another player in the market. Competition improves the breed as they say.
- sw1nglinestaplr, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Come on guys. Clearly pouring more money--and thereby eroding the buying power of the consumer--into the economy clearly isn't the answer. Loose and easily attainable credit is what got us into this mess, and issuing credit to the people on a governmental level is a tragic caricature of our problem. Fiscal irresponsibility breeds more fiscal irresponsibility.
*****. - cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3The federal reserve is bailing out bad decisionmakers. That means we all lose.
Every time the federal reserve lowers interest rates and creates billions of dollars to put into the economy the dollars you hold and the dollars you earn and the dollars you save became worth less.
If you can't see that the federal reserve is the problem, you are not looking at the problem objectively.
How long has Obama been a Senator without proposing any solutions?
If he had a realistic answer that would be one thing but clearly the man is an economic mental midget. - NewGTGuy, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2The FED has been pumping and dumping our economy since the 1920s.
Please listen to this mp3 by Howard Freeman for the truth about the United States we live in today:
http://www.catfreedom.com/MP3/Howard%20Freeman%20r ...
Good luck! - WildTurkey101, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Obama is just a senator without any real experience and no real direction other than shouting the mantra CHANGE. I really hope this douche bag doesn't get elected.
- Neo31rex31, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Kill the money hand-out social programs, (thus ultimately causing all Americans to get off their collective asses and work)
*Warning* Causing people to work for their money instead of taking it through government social programs via the working American will stimulate the economy more than ANY government enacted handout program EVER will!
- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -67/+31buried for assuming that the federal reserve is the problem without citing evidence
- Odenized, on 03/28/2008, -42/+9Got you Dugg! Keep it up!
- Tehrooni, on 03/28/2008, -10/+3His name is not Dugg. It's Barack Hussein Obama, and he's here to finish the job his cousins Ossama and Saddam started.
- RAEP, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3You are either a fantastic troll or one of the most ignorant people I've ever come across.
- Japskunk, on 03/28/2008, -2/+0Not as ignorant as Busta Rymes
- RAEP, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3You are either a fantastic troll or one of the most ignorant people I've ever come across.
- newguy96, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3you got us all dugg into a grave if you vote for anyone but Ron Paul.
- Lyk4n, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1LOL
- Tehrooni, on 03/28/2008, -10/+3His name is not Dugg. It's Barack Hussein Obama, and he's here to finish the job his cousins Ossama and Saddam started.
- cashman57, on 03/28/2008, -89/+68The only real plan for peace and prosperity.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/prosperity/- diggrnumber1, on 03/28/2008, -42/+60ron paul should be the candidate of either economic