What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
26 Comments
- chupavacas, on 01/28/2009, -1/+34Thank You! When I would hear Obama say that economists from both sides of the aisle think that having government spend more and increasing the size and scope of government is the answer I begin to wonder if I'm living in the Twilight Zone. Indeed that is exactly the wrong thing to do and will only make matters worse.
- leaftoilet, on 01/28/2009, -1/+23I think it's good in the long run because it will mean a revolution sooner
- PuterPrsn, on 01/28/2009, -3/+23Oh, yes, there IS disagreement. Me, for example.
Contrary to what President Obama is saying, government money is NOT the answer. His plan is too-expensive and too-long-range. Even he says it will bring trillion-dollar deficits for "years to come". We don't need more debt.
I disagree with this "whole new approach" - it's a very old idea that hasn't worked before. All it will do is expand the debt and increase the size of a government "umbrella" that is already twice too large.
We need a REALLY free market, lower corporate and middle class taxes, and more incentive for welfare people to get a job. If we must have some kind of governmental "stimulus", then put the money to work by hiring some welfare mothers to work in free daycare services for other welfare families and put into place a WPA to teach them skills at the same time as we do get needed work done in national and state park systems, entry-level positions in government offices, cleaning schools and other government offices, etc.
I don't want to think that we're putting a crushing debt on the next three generations because of the actions of a few bad business leaders and errant congresspeople. - Pete1the1gamer, on 01/28/2009, -2/+21Good submission, I couldn't agree more.
Pumping more money into the economy hasn't helped yet, and Obama's spending desires are only spending the future of our children. - XanderDee, on 01/31/2009, -1/+13So does it take a professional to figure out you can't spend money you don't have by printing it? Got Gold?
- mmclaurin, on 01/30/2009, -1/+13This was never about stimulating the American economy. It's about political payback and entrenchment. Why else do you funnel billions of dollars to illegal groups like ACORN and LARAZA (the race) at the expense and well being of this country?
- tajitj, on 01/30/2009, -1/+13And Obama says Bush used "scare tactics" leading up to the war. What does Obama call what is doing in the media now.
This is the economic equivalent to the Iraq War. - inactive, on 01/31/2009, -1/+12I am protesting this illegal wealth redistribution through the illegal bailouts and illegal inflation tax (by both the Bush and Obama administrations) by dumping my dollars for gold and silver and keeping a tiny balance in the bank.
I keep my monthly needed cash at home - it's not earning much interest at the bank anyway, but at least I am not contributing to the fractional reserve debt pyramid. - inactive, on 02/01/2009, -0/+10We need to let the banks that played with poinous deri¡vatives die. Quit bailing out the incompetent companies with the money of the succesful companies.
Let the incompetent banks with their criminal self serving star management go bankrupt.
Bankruptcy court will allocate their good assetts to creditors who will take good care of them.
The way out of this down turn is to let it work itself out, and let the sick die. - GovernmentSp00k, on 02/01/2009, -0/+7Where in the United States Constitution does it state such a massive transfer of wealth is permitted? Where trillions of dollars can be taken (stolen) from the hands of one group of people against their collective will and given to another? Without real oversight or justification.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::crickets:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Thought so... - Beautyon, on 01/30/2009, -2/+7"Please Sir, can I have some more"?
Honestly.
These Economists should apply their own logic to the form of their request/protest.
They should know that any kind of petition or open letter is going to fail, just as printing money and bailing out failed banks is not going to solve the problem; both have been tried in the past and have failed, so doing them again is INSANITY. - FreedomsFire, on 01/31/2009, -0/+4I'm with Jay on this. How does cutting the size of government and lowering taxes inflate the dollar? The dollar's value is based largely on how many of them there are. Simple supply and demand makes fewer dollars worth more, and more dollars worth less. Internationally, this is of course affected by diplomatic concerns, perceptions of US military might, and any implications in various trade agreements. But generally speaking, the dollars value is most affected by money supply volume ... as it has no real tangible backing whatsoever.
Inflation comes primarily from the printing of more dollars, expanding the supply so the value goes down. The government prints the money it can't tax or borrow, and prints much of what it borrows as well.
Lowering the burden of government, or shrinking it, will only slow down the printing press against inflation. Did we lose some government jobs? Yes, but it's a totally unproductive job which only serves to take money out of the economy and feed it to government, which is only making matters worse. Reducing the size (burden)of government in conjunction with leaving the money in the hands of it's rightful owner will create new jobs - productive jobs.
We need to shrink the size of government by the size of the personal income tax, and close the IRS. We need to start moving toward a gold or multi-metallic backed monetary system and close the Federal Reserve. This mess is only going to get worse and worse until we do. This isn't just a downturn in the economy, we're witnessing the entire system collapse under it's own weight.
It's time to go back to reality. - inactive, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3Would you care to explain how a reduced government size is the same as inflating the dollar?
I do agree that it would cut jobs - no productive government jobs which are a drag on the economy. - inactive, on 01/30/2009, -1/+4That isle Obama's talking about is inside an exclusive club called The Beltway Club, and the only way to get in is to suck your way in.
- FreedomsFire, on 01/31/2009, -1/+4I agree - a sentiment that echoes the latest Naomi Wolf video about meaningless "fake" protest in the US. We need to get serious about real resistance. Not advocating violence, but a strike, serious Constitutional lawsuit, a bank run ... something with more teeth than standing there holding a sign, or taking out a page in the NYT.
- inactive, on 02/01/2009, -1/+4Free market didn't cause this. Interventionism caused this. Blame Clinton.
- allowners, on 02/01/2009, -2/+5I agree with neither Obama nor the economists. The system must be fundamentally changed to recognize the reality that objectification of greed as morality is a bankrupt concept allowing narcissism to masquerade as virtue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism - jaymzdean, on 02/01/2009, -1/+4We've been operating under a system of mercantilism, not free-market capitalism, like you've been told.
When communists attack our failing system as a free-market, they reveal their dominance over straw men. - Beautyon, on 01/31/2009, -1/+3You would think that economists would ACT and design and deploy a currency to virally wipe out the Federal Reserve Note...but no, its more of the same feel good drivel. Their power lies in their understanding of all the facts behind the crisis. They are uniquely positioned to produce a remedy. If it is designed correctly, no force in the world would be able to stop it. Like the internets, this new currency would simply become an indispensable fact of life, uncontrollable, unregulatable and immune to interference by authority. Like the internets, interfering with it would destroy peoples ability to do business; even congress critters are aware that interfering with the internet might cause business to suffer. This is the way they should be thinking!
- inactive, on 02/01/2009, -1/+2Explain how the free market caused this? The fraudulent Federal Reserve System and fractional reserve banking caused this. http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/englund/2 ...
- MorganMghee, on 02/03/2009, -0/+1GOP chanting 'Leave it to the free market' to sustain they're pullout of the people's oversight endeavors in the way of the FDA, DEA, EPA and DOD. All the while knowing full well we haven't had a 'Free' market in the US for quite some time. Manipulated, finagled, bribed and blackmailed market, sure, but Free? No. Shiploads of toxic toys and gadgets from China, unregulated fruits and Vegetables from South America and beyond containing chemicals we don't allow here for safety reasons and which haven't been inspected to the quality levels required here in the US, also for public safety reasons. Toxic coal ash spills due to relaxed standards, jet fuel levels in water ok'd for human consumptions, mercury in high fructose corn syrup ok'd for human consumption, beef farmers banned from performing their own mad cow testing because it would make all the other farmers feel they needed to do the same implying that the FDA cannot or will not uphold the standards... Private Military Corporations doing the work of US soldiers, in the name of the US, under no obligation to act in a manner befitting such an honor and responsibility, all in the name of the 'Free Market'... SHOULD I GO ON?!
- mediamannaman, on 02/10/2009, -0/+0Thank you. That was a very efficient and accurate description of the REAL problems - greed (of money, power, popularity) and the abandonment of virtue.
- inactive, on 02/09/2009, -1/+0Made me laugh
Soooo true
I am tired of calling and emailing! - MorganMghee, on 01/31/2009, -7/+1I guess this is about what I would expect from free marketers. Blind to the current situation 'free market' and 'limited government AKA limited regulation' have brought us to.
- inactive, on 01/28/2009, -12/+3If you haven't realized it, "Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government" is another way to say "inflate the dollar and cut jobs". We need to shift the tax on services to tax on transactions. That isn't the complete answer, but it fixes what is larger portion of what is wrong now.
- inactive, on 01/28/2009, -19/+2Are the economist pro-monetary or pro-resource based economy? If they are for a resource base economy, then I would say it is quite a biased disagreement.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is