American economy: what's gonna happen? [Mobile/Archive]

fullmetalfan720

03-08-2008, 10:32 PM

They keep showing the trouble you guys are having with your economy in the USA. I don't know much about what's happening, but what are your previsions for the future?

Will the video games in Canada FINALLY cost the same price? Will you invade Canada and Mexico? Will you nuke everyone?

Tell me what you think will happen with the world economy in the next years. Should I prepare my nucleo-bio-zombio-chemical survival kit or book cheap airline tickets to florida?

It all depends on who our president is for the next 4 years. If it is the wrong person then yeah we're probably fucked. We need someone who can restore this country to it's former glory, and I feel that is Obama. Right now we are in an unpopular war, a recession, and as a country are terribly in debt. We need to restore our standing in this world, because right now alot of countries hate us. If we were to go to war with Iran, then that could cause WW3. We need a president who won't start unnecessary wars, who will combat terrorism and who will bring jobs back to this country. Also, we need a president who can get rid of our dependence on oil, because there isn't enough of it. This won't be easy, but it needs to be done. If we can't solve these problems then the consequences will be dire.

schuerm26

03-08-2008, 10:56 PM

Obama isn't going to do s--t. There were a few candidates who constitute actual change for this country but they were QUICKLY dismissed (hmm, wonder why?) with only Ron Paul getting numbers that even registered. Obama, Clinton, McCain? Same ol Same ol. If you expect anything to change with those 3 you are in for a shock.

Edit: Im playing Galleon for the XBOX. Im sick of him climbing on top of tables and s--t but it's a fun game now that I am playing it for a second time about after a 4 yr break.

fullmetalfan720

03-08-2008, 11:01 PM

Obama isn't going to do s--t. There were a few candidates who constitute actual change for this country but they were QUICKLY dismissed (hmm, wonder why?) with only Ron Paul getting numbers that even registered. Obama, Clinton, McCain? Same ol Same ol. If you expect anything to change with those 3 you are in for a shock.

Yeah, Ron Paul. The reason why people didn't vote for him is because he's crazy. The change he wants is ridiculous. He wants to pull out of N.A.T.O. the U.N. and get rid of most of the government. How will that help anything?

VanillaGorilla

03-08-2008, 11:01 PM

I'm sure the Liberals will be elected, and will save America, like they always do.

schuerm26

03-08-2008, 11:03 PM

Yeah, Ron Paul. The reason why people didn't vote for him is because he's crazy. The change he wants is ridiculous. He wants to pull out of N.A.T.O. the U.N. and get rid of most of the government. How will that help anything?

No, the change he wants is sensible. Our government is spending 42 million sending out letters to let people know that they are being given a tax rebate. What is going on in this country is absolutely insane and electing democrats or a different republican isn't going to change anything. Getting rid of most of the FEDERAL government is what will help this country the most.

fullmetalfan720

03-08-2008, 11:08 PM

I'm sure the Liberals will be elected, and will save America, like they always do.
Anyone is better than Bush.
No, the change he wants is sensible. Our government is spending 42 million sending out letters to let people know that they are being given a tax rebate. What is going on in this country is absolutely insane and electing democrats or a different republican isn't going to change anything. Getting rid of most of the FEDERAL government is what will help this country the most.

Okay, so he wants all of us to be able to run around with Assault Rifles and if you're poor go fuck yourself.

schuerm26

03-08-2008, 11:08 PM

Anyone is better than Bush.

Okay, so he wants all of us to be able to run around with Assault Rifles and if you're poor go fuck yourself.

Yep, that's EXACTLY what he wants. I think it boils down to him wanting us well off people to have assault rifles so when the poor people come asking for food, we can shoot them. Jesus, go to his website.

VanillaGorilla

03-09-2008, 01:03 AM

Okay, so he wants all of us to be able to run around with Assault Rifles and if you're poor go fuck yourself.Typical over exaggeration of the 2nd Amendment. Only trustworthy, law abiding citizens would be allowed to own those weapons.

Msut77

03-09-2008, 01:32 AM

Short Answer: American Peso.

niceguyshawne

03-09-2008, 09:53 AM

Typical over exaggeration of the 2nd Amendment. Only trustworthy, law abiding citizens would be allowed to own those weapons.

Just like it is now.

Temporaryscars

03-09-2008, 10:53 AM

fullmetalfan720

03-09-2008, 10:54 AM

Yep, that's EXACTLY what he wants. I think it boils down to him wanting us well off people to have assault rifles so when the poor people come asking for food, we can shoot them. Jesus, go to his website.

Okay, I looked at his positions on CNN. He wants leave NAFTA, NATO and the UN, but open up free trade to Cuba? So, now we like Cuba more than Canada? Also, he opposes a North American union, because he doesn't want to have anything to do with Mexicans. Also, he wants to open EVERYTHING up to the private market. He wants to let the free market decide whether or not to use stem cell research, among other things. To me that just doesn't seem safe. Then, he wants to be able to do surgical strikes against Bin Laden whenever he wants. Finally, he wants to abolish most of the federal government, and put the states in charge of everything. This would make so that each state was almost a different country.

Temporaryscars

03-09-2008, 11:03 AM

I just want affordable health care, and not have it forced on me. :(

daroga

03-09-2008, 11:36 AM

A little bit of a rough spot. The housing market will be a mess for a bit and will come out of it.

People who are acting as if this is 1929 all over again have got their tin-foil hats on a wee-bit too tight.

Likewise, whoever is president will be able to take credit for fixing everything, when it will have had next to nothing to do with that one man.

Temporaryscars

03-09-2008, 11:40 AM

Optimistic or naive? Nobody is acting like this is the Great Depression pt. II, but you'd be foolish to say this is nothing more than a "rough spot."

N1c0_ds

03-09-2008, 12:29 PM

Optimistic or naive? Nobody is acting like this is the Great Depression pt. II, but you'd be foolish to say this is nothing more than a "rough spot."

I expect something bad, but not "depression" kind of bad. We'll probably feel it here too, even if our economy is flourishing, we depend a lot on you.

Yes, our economy is in the shitter, so we'll.....nuke everyone? Wtf?
Didn't you spot an ounce of sarcasm? Unless Ron Paul gets elected, I doubt so. Seriously, this man is crazy. Isolationist America was back in WW2 BTW.

Temporaryscars

03-09-2008, 12:33 PM

It's a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. If we get involved in foreign affairs, the world bitches at us. When we don't, the world still bitches at us.

N1c0_ds

03-09-2008, 12:52 PM

It's a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. If we get involved in foreign affairs, the world bitches at us. When we don't, the world still bitches at us.

Well maybe if you didn't lead full scale wars for every possible reason it'd be great. Vietnam wasn't your war, Korea neither, and Iraq is about to be another of your shameful defeats.

If only everyone could retreat slowly from the middle east it'd be great. You're not alone there, you just grab more attention than everyone. See the "throwing puppy off a cliff" thread and you'll get my point.

Oh... and I know not all US soldiers throw puppies off cliffs, just a shining example of why we hate you all around the world.

Temporaryscars

03-09-2008, 12:54 PM

World War I and II wasn't our war either. Should we have stayed out of that? By the way, which country was first into Vietnam? Because it wasn't us....

N1c0_ds

03-09-2008, 02:04 PM

World War I and II wasn't our war either. Should we have stayed out of that? By the way, which country was first into Vietnam? Because it wasn't us....

You're not preventing world domination. As for Korea, it was strictly anti-communism. Vietnam? It was bad, the french sucked too, but we can't really blame french people for a military defeat... right?

Anyway what I say is that Iraq/Afghanistan is not anyone's war. It cost hundred billion dollars and human lives and we still didn't see a major change since the fall of Saddam. It was something useful in the beginning, but now our troops are mostly fighting civilians that want them out rather than terrorists, just the same way many American civilians would fight if their country was occupied.*

Again I know many things are hidden from us so it might even be worse than what the media tells us.

*I know, the french military rocks nowadays and they got the nukes, but hey, you lost Canada in 23 minutes, I'll hate you forever!
**I took this example out of somewhere, it might have been on CAG, sorry anonymous, here's your credit!

thrustbucket

03-09-2008, 02:29 PM

The economy is the number one issue for me. Which is why I was interested in Romney, he was the only candidate with experience in large-scale financial turn around.

I don't have any real facts to back this up, but I have a very bad feeling about where the economy is headed. I think it's going to be worse than anyone is expecting.

Ikohn4ever

03-09-2008, 03:15 PM

its going to take real work to fix the shitter, not just rebates which wont do shit, tax cuts for businesses arent the answer either. Stopping wasteful spending on a war that will cost us is a good start. The resources that we waste over there could be used to create various public works projects to rebuild America's infrastructure ala FDR. Getting off of oil will make us financially secure, environmentally sound(as long as it isnt made from Corn), and we will not be paying countries that "are state sponsors of terrorism"

HotShotX

03-09-2008, 05:11 PM

Likewise, whoever is president will be able to take credit for fixing everything, when it will have had next to nothing to do with that one man.I keep hearing that phrase tossed around. Funny how it seems to fluctuate from being a "4-Year Rule" to an "8-Year Rule" or a "0-Year Rule" whenever it seems convenient for the benefiting party.

In that sense, let's blame the entire war on terrorism on Clinton, give Bush Sr. all the credit regarding the economic boom in 1992-2000, and when the economy magically fixes itself and America achieves a new level of prosperity or regains stability, it'll be because we had a retard in office from 2000-2008.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. I understand some changes take years to make an effect on this country, but to credit the next 4-8 years on the guy that came before sounds like a cop out to me. Some people need to realize that sometimes things begin to improve BECAUSE someone's term was over, and the next guy immediately went to work (they do spend about 1.5 years planning what they'll be doing as a part of their campaign), and that yes, the guy you voted for SUCKED.

~HotShotX

daroga

03-09-2008, 07:45 PM

I keep hearing that phrase tossed around. Funny how it seems to fluctuate from being a "4-Year Rule" to an "8-Year Rule" or a "0-Year Rule" whenever it seems convenient for the benefiting party.

In that sense, let's blame the entire war on terrorism on Clinton, give Bush Sr. all the credit regarding the economic boom in 1992-2000, and when the economy magically fixes itself and America achieves a new level of prosperity or regains stability, it'll be because we had a retard in office from 2000-2008.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. I understand some changes take years to make an effect on this country, but to credit the next 4-8 years on the guy that came before sounds like a cop out to me. Some people need to realize that sometimes things begin to improve BECAUSE someone's term was over, and the next guy immediately went to work (they do spend about 1.5 years planning what they'll be doing as a part of their campaign), and that yes, the guy you voted for SUCKED.

~HotShotXI think you missed my point. Attributing wide-spread anything to one individual man, good or bad, past or present, is largely ignorant. Even a single person's administration is pushing it. Simply because something happened while someone was in office doesn't mean he's to blame / credit for it.

N1c0_ds

03-09-2008, 07:56 PM

Nonetheless he is still the one pulling the strings, so while a said person should not be credited for the whole thing, he still did help it happen.

A series of good/bad decisions from a single important person can change many things.

GuilewasNK

03-09-2008, 08:00 PM

I think you missed my point. Attributing wide-spread anything to one individual man, good or bad, past or present, is largely ignorant. Even a single person's administration is pushing it. Simply because something happened while someone was in office doesn't mean he's to blame / credit for it.

Agreed.

JolietJake

03-09-2008, 08:02 PM

GuilewasNK

03-09-2008, 08:23 PM

So then who is to blame for economic prosperity from about 92-2000? Has to be either Bush Sr. or Clinton.

It was Al Gore. After all, he created the internet. :lol:

The point is it's more than one person. It was a bunch of people who saw a new frontier and seized it. People like Jeff Bezos, the founders of Google, and Yahoo. The early dot-com visionaries where responsible for it more than anything. Govenment AS A WHOLE can be given credit but not one person. The exponential growth of the internet was a huge factor in prosperity. Once it slowed, so did the economy.

CocheseUGA

03-09-2008, 08:44 PM

A) Presidents get way too much credit for a good economy, and way too much blame for a bad one.
B) Why are we still talking about Ron Paul?
C) Let us worry about us.

cochesecochese

03-09-2008, 09:05 PM

B) Why are we still talking about Ron Paul?

He's got a pretty mouth.

BigT

03-10-2008, 12:24 AM

The biggest problem is that the government spends too much money (both democrats and republicans). When there is a time of prosperity, they approve more future spending, under an insane assumption that the current prosperity will continue into perpetuity. Of course, often times, the economy cools off and then there is a large imbalance between money coming in and money being spent.

At that time, they either borrow money, print more money, or go back to the well (taxpayers).

Is it so hard to see that this is not a sustainable system?

What should a sensible person do when he or she gets into financial trouble? Sign up for another credit card and steal money like the government does through excessive taxation or (and I know this is a shock) spend less money?

Ron Paul's message was simple and based on common sense and personal responsibility... so of course he had no chance of getting elected ;).

JolietJake

03-10-2008, 12:29 AM

Ron Paul would have had a better chance if he'd tempered his ideas a little more. If you want to change things, you do it a little at a time. He seemed to want to completely over haul the government in no time. He should have picked one core issue and let the others be introduced gradually.

onetrackmind

03-10-2008, 01:20 PM

It all depends on who our president is for the next 4 years. If it is the wrong person then yeah we're probably fucked. We need someone who can restore this country to it's former glory, and I feel that is Obama. Right now we are in an unpopular war, a recession, and as a country are terribly in debt. We need to restore our standing in this world, because right now alot of countries hate us. If we were to go to war with Iran, then that could cause WW3. We need a president who won't start unnecessary wars, who will combat terrorism and who will bring jobs back to this country. Also, we need a president who can get rid of our dependence on oil, because there isn't enough of it. This won't be easy, but it needs to be done. If we can't solve these problems then the consequences will be dire.

I hate to break it to you but Obama is not the answer and isn't going to change a fucking thing. Hilary and McCain wont change anything for the better either. Stop drinking the koolaid.

fullmetalfan720

03-10-2008, 04:54 PM

I hate to break it to you but Obama is not the answer and isn't going to change a fucking thing. Hilary and McCain wont change anything for the better either. Stop drinking the koolaid.

Who are you to tell me that Obama won't change anything? He is the only hope this country has right now.

CocheseUGA

03-10-2008, 05:00 PM

Who are you to tell me that Obama won't change anything? He is the only hope this country has right now.

Are we going to get into that 'Vote against hope' bullshit that he's been spouting?

All his 'hope' and a couple of quarters might get you a payphone call.

fullmetalfan720

03-10-2008, 05:07 PM

Are we going to get into that 'Vote against hope' bullshit that he's been spouting?

All his 'hope' and a couple of quarters might get you a payphone call.

No, I just don't think that people should say that candidates are always lying, and they will never do anything they say they will.

CocheseUGA

03-10-2008, 05:17 PM

No, I just don't think that people should say that candidates are always lying, and they will never do anything they say they will.

It's hard to judge people on future actions, especially when their past actions don't represent a very large pool to judge from.

I'd like him to actually talk about how he plans to make this change come about instead of waxing poetically about how 'we are the change we seek.' You know, before I put my vote behind Clinton.

GuilewasNK

03-10-2008, 05:35 PM

Who are you to tell me that Obama won't change anything? He is the only hope this country has right now.

The only hope this country has is a complete overhaul of government as it exists right now.

There are too many people with conflicts of interest in Washington. The whole back scratch culture makes it really easy for anyone with major party affiliation to be swayed into making decisions based on the almighty dollar instead of the betterment of society. It doesn't matter if you are Democrat or Republican. They are the political equivalent of the Bloods and Crips with each side doing whatever it takes to maintain control at the expense of the innocents around them. The two-party system needs to go the way of the dinosaur and people need to think freely instead towing party lines. The only problem with that is Independants will never have the power to affect such change because the current system is too deeply rooted into everyday life.

onetrackmind

03-10-2008, 05:40 PM

Who are you to tell me that Obama won't change anything? He is the only hope this country has right now.

Its my opinion moron. If you honestly believe a politician is going to change our country for the better of all americans, then you're about the most naive person i've ever met. When was the last time a politician brought forth legislation that really benefitted the masses and not the lobbyist, special interest, or super wealthy?

Is Obama going to bring all the industry we lost back to our country? Is Obama going to preserve the middle class? What about his lame ass plan for health care? Is Obama going to institute tariffs again on products coming into our country so we become competitive again in the world market? Is Obama going to get us off foreign oil? What exactly is his plan of "change" that he loves to tout? I'd say its more political bullshit the masses love to blindly believe in.

sweeetja713

03-10-2008, 05:51 PM

Its my opinion moron. If you honestly believe a politician is going to change our country for the better of all americans, then you're about the most naive person i've ever met. When was the last time a politician brought forth legislation that really benefitted the masses and not the lobbyist, special interest, or super wealthy?

Is Obama going to bring all the industry we lost back to our country? Is Obama going to preserve the middle class? What about his lame ass plan for health care? Is Obama going to institute tariffs again on products coming into our country so we become competitive again in the world market? Is Obama going to get us off foreign oil? What exactly is his plan of "change" that he loves to tout? I'd say its more political bullshit the masses love to blindly believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Guile and you. I wish we had true hope for change but the current system is so screwed up only the wealthy or those willing to cave to special interests have a chance at being elected. Obama is charismatic but he hasn't addressed the issues enough for me. That being said, I do think this election is a step forward in that I actually have some hope for minor change for once. It won't be as dramatic as it needs to be but given the system the only way any change is going to come about is very slowly with baby steps over time. I really wish McCain would've gotten the republican nomination in 2000. I had a lot more faith in him at the time then I do now.

fullmetalfan720

03-10-2008, 07:02 PM

Its my opinion moron. If you honestly believe a politician is going to change our country for the better of all americans, then you're about the most naive person i've ever met.
And you're the most negative person I've ever met. I believe that Obama might actually change things for once. He seems to be a regular person and not some politician that just wants to do the same old thing. He tells the truth about his life. Like I said, I feel that he is the only candidate who will actually change this country for the better.

CocheseUGA

03-10-2008, 07:36 PM

And you're the most negative person I've ever met. I believe that Obama might actually change things for once. He seems to be a regular person and not some politician that just wants to do the same old thing. He tells the truth about his life. Like I said, I feel that he is the only candidate who will actually change this country for the better.

That's fine to hold someone in high regard like that, but what aside from campaign rhetoric tells you that?

Obama is a great speaker. So was Reagan and Clinton. But that's about all he has in common with those two presidents. He talks this great talk, but I've not seen or heard anything that convinces me it's just that: talk.

HuppSav

03-10-2008, 08:10 PM

CocheseUGA

03-10-2008, 08:45 PM

What has convinced you anyone else would do a better job?;)
You can't compare Obamma to Clinton and Reagan. Obamma actually wants to help everyone the best he can. Bill Clinton came in at a good time and a lot of people are blindly voting Hillary. Hillary wasn't even good enough for Bill, what makes you think shes best for our country? And let me tell you my friends, Mccain is just as bas as Hill when compared to the greatness that is Obamma.

When you can spell his name correctly, I might take your arguement a little more seriously.

Basically, you're selling short on a stock that is all potential. It's big time for everyone if it comes through on that potential, but if it doesn't, you're worse off than you were before.

mtxbass1

03-10-2008, 09:00 PM

Back on topic...

I believe you will see a few things happen. First and foremost, you will begin to see home prices plummet even more than they already have in CERTAIN areas. Where I live, home prices have remained stable and increased in many instances. Of course this isn't the case everywhere. It wouldn't surprise me to see many more cases of people "walking away" from their homes and going back to renting. It makes it a great time to own more properties from a landlords perspective.

I believe you will see the market dip down below 10,000 before any of this mess is cleaned up. Keep this in mind however. Of the 14 companies that are still part of the DJA since Black Monday(1987), 13 of the 14 companies have risen in value 500% or more. 8 of those companies have gained 1000% or more. A simple $10,000 investment back then would be worth at least $50,000+ now. That is not a bad return for <20 years. Things will be bad for the short term, but in the grand scope of things (think 10+ years), things will be completely fine.

This is all unless we become what happened to Japan. In that case, our economy is fucked.

fullmetalfan720

03-10-2008, 09:15 PM

That's fine to hold someone in high regard like that, but what aside from campaign rhetoric tells you that?

Obama is a great speaker. So was Reagan and Clinton. But that's about all he has in common with those two presidents. He talks this great talk, but I've not seen or heard anything that convinces me it's just that: talk.

Kennedy was like that too. However, he turned out to be a great president. I think that if he can just achieve even half of what he has talked about, he would be a great president. I know it is a bit of a gamble, but he is the only candidate that actually wants to change this country for the better, and I agree with him on his stance on issues. I believe that he will do what he says he will, and we will have a better America.

When you can spell his name correctly, I might take your arguement a little more seriously.

Basically, you're selling short on a stock that is all potential. It's big time for everyone if it comes through on that potential, but if it doesn't, you're worse off than you were before.

True. The reason I support Obama, is he is the only candidate who might change this country for the better. We really need that now.

CocheseUGA

03-10-2008, 09:23 PM

Kennedy was like that too. However, he turned out to be a great president. I think that if he can just achieve even half of what he has talked about, he would be a great president. I know it is a bit of a gamble, but he is the only candidate that actually wants to change this country for the better, and I agree with him on his stance on issues. I believe that he will do what he says he will, and we will have a better America.

True. The reason I support Obama, is he is the only candidate who might change this country for the better. We really need that now.

Answer me this, what exactly did Kennedy do?

fullmetalfan720

03-10-2008, 09:59 PM

Answer me this, what exactly did Kennedy do?

Saved the world from nuclear war.

JolietJake

03-10-2008, 10:12 PM

Kennedy had his share of screw ups.

fullmetalfan720

03-10-2008, 10:15 PM

Kennedy had his share of screw ups.

The Bay of Pigs incident is all I can think of.

sweeetja713

03-10-2008, 10:29 PM

Of course Kennedy had his share of screwups. Everyone does but when you're a politician at the national level let alone president, people tend to remember it more.

JolietJake

03-10-2008, 10:45 PM

The Bay of Pigs incident is all I can think of.
The failed invasion of a country is no small deal.

camoor

03-10-2008, 10:46 PM

The Bay of Pigs incident is all I can think of.

Buying into the domino theory has to rank up there as one of the biggest screw-ups in US history.

N1c0_ds

03-10-2008, 11:15 PM

Buying into the domino theory has to rank up there as one of the biggest screw-ups in US history.

So damn true!

CocheseUGA

03-10-2008, 11:19 PM

Saved the world from nuclear war.

Kennedy decided to play chicken with Khrushchev, and luckily they blinked. Wasn't exactly a highlight on the ol' diplomacy scale. More of a point of what didn't happen than did.

He authorized a two-year old invasion plan without really reading it.

He basically helped train Sadaam Hussein to commit genocide.

He committed the US to failure in Vietnam by going at it half-assed until Johnson decided to stop pussyfooting around. He should have either done it right, or not done it at all.

He failed to push a total nuke test ban treaty.

Almost all of his domestic policies were only carried out after he was killed. It's unclear if any of them would have gone through otherwise.

To be perfectly honest, Kennedy would be held in much less regard had he served out his term.

thrustbucket

03-10-2008, 11:24 PM

The only hope this country has is a complete overhaul of government as it exists right now.

There are too many people with conflicts of interest in Washington. The whole back scratch culture makes it really easy for anyone with major party affiliation to be swayed into making decisions based on the almighty dollar instead of the betterment of society. It doesn't matter if you are Democrat or Republican. They are the political equivalent of the Bloods and Crips with each side doing whatever it takes to maintain control at the expense of the innocents around them. The two-party system needs to go the way of the dinosaur and people need to think freely instead towing party lines. The only problem with that is Independants will never have the power to affect such change because the current system is too deeply rooted into everyday life.

Wow. Nominated for post of the week. I haven't seen more truth in one post around these parts in months.

Bravo, good sir.

Problem is, even though you are right, people are really not interested in the "real change" you speak of. They just want to get excited about candidates that wrap "change" up into an even bigger state of dependency.

It honestly amazes me that so many people want to Europeanize our government. They should just immigrate there.

thrustbucket

03-10-2008, 11:28 PM

You can't compare Obamma to Clinton and Reagan. Obamma actually wants to help everyone the best he can.

Nothing personal but this is the type of rhetoric that makes me lose faith in this country. And it scares the shit out of me.

The overall entitlement mentality we have cultivated in this country over the past century is the real problem.

The most help the Federal government can be is if they get out of the way.

Msut77

03-10-2008, 11:42 PM

Nothing personal but this is the type of rhetoric that makes me lose faith in this country.

If you do not like it why don't you get out of my country?

Seriously GTFO.

thrustbucket

03-11-2008, 02:51 AM

If you do not like it why don't you get out of my country?

Seriously GTFO.

Because I like my country currently and I don't want my country to "change" into dependency land like Europe. I will stay and fight with my vote, and any other way I know how, to keep it/return it to a true land of opportunity for those that are willing to bust their asses.

If it does end up another welfare heavy, "it takes a village", pseudo-euro land full of dependents with a massive stagnant middle class population - like you and so many seem to want, trust me I will leave.

Msut77

03-11-2008, 08:37 AM

trust me I will leave.

Why wait? You obviously hate this country and most of its population and there is no doubt America would be better off without you.

thrustbucket

03-11-2008, 01:13 PM

Why wait? You obviously hate this country and most of its population and there is no doubt America would be better off without you.

And you are obviously delusional. Show where I said that. And stop putting words in my mouth.

Go back to gamefaq's where you can get away with acting like an imbecile.

CocheseUGA

03-11-2008, 01:17 PM

Well, in the world of idiots, not liking how the country is run = not liking the country.

It's one thing if you aren't interested in being part of the process.

JolietJake

03-11-2008, 01:45 PM

Yeah, that worked really well for Bush back in the early days of his presidency. Don't like the government= you're a terrorist.

fatherofcaitlyn

03-11-2008, 02:58 PM

Msut77

03-11-2008, 04:41 PM

Show where I said that.

Do you even read what you write?

Go back to gamefaq's where you can get away with acting like an imbecile.

I guess not.

ph33r m3

03-11-2008, 04:46 PM

fatherofcaitlyn

03-11-2008, 04:59 PM

I always hear people say, "Change the country for the better". What is Obama going to change? You mean his health care plan? His health care plan is a joke.

I'm not against Obama, really i'm either voting for him or McCain, but what's Obama going to change?

He could allow Congress to slow or stop the $12B per month being pissed away in Iraq.

That, in and of itself, won't make or break the economy, but it would be the step in the right direction.

CocheseUGA

03-11-2008, 05:05 PM

He could allow Congress to slow or stop the $12B per month being pissed away in Iraq.

That, in and of itself, won't make or break the economy, but it would be the step in the right direction.

And thanks to all the remaining senators and representatives in Congress that aren't about 'change,' that money will just be diverted elsewhere and we still won't see any benefit of it.

thrustbucket

03-11-2008, 06:04 PM

Do you even read what you write?

I guess not.

Interesting. So calling you an imbecile means I hate my country.....

Wow.:applause:

Msut77

03-11-2008, 06:35 PM

Interesting. So calling you an imbecile means I hate my country.

All that it means is that even you are unable to read and understand your incoherent postings.

sweeetja713

03-11-2008, 06:43 PM

Alright as I posted earlier in this thread or another one, not liking the way the country is headed does not equate to not liking the country. Please someone tell me what is wrong with wanting things to change for the better. Just because you don't agree with the direction another person wants the country to take doesn't mean they don't like the country or aren't a patriot. It just means they have different opinions on how to improve the country. We need different opinions so that we don't just assume our way is best or become narrow minded like many of the politicians, only voting along party lines. I may not always agree with everything thrustbucket says but I appreciate the different viewpoint he brings.

mtxbass1

03-11-2008, 06:46 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street

"Wall Street rebounded sharply Tuesday after the Federal Reserve and other central banks said they will pump $200 billion into the financial markets to help ease the strain from the credit crisis."

I'm thinking inflation.

Thanks, FR, I was getting sick of paying only $3.00 for a gallon of milk.

This was a terrible move. The federal reserve basically is replacing all of those junk bonds (mortgage based) with TREASURY BASED BONDS. You know who finances those? Tax payers. Swap JUNK for something half-way worthwhile.

It was a good day to sell if you were able to get your head back above water.

daroga

03-12-2008, 12:22 AM

All that it means is that even you are unable to read and understand your incoherent postings.Or perhaps you're the one with the comprehension issue?

Let me break it down for you:

1. thrustbucket likes America--maybe he even loves his country!
2. He doesn't necessarily like what has been done and/or might be done with the administration of said country.
3. He has ideas of how he would like things to be done that would improve the country overall.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his points, saying he should just leave the country if he doesn't like how things are going makes you look silly, bud. Part of liking/loving something is wanting what's best for it and not abandoning it the second things start to go a little sour. In fact, abandoning it would be the last thing you'd want to do if you really care about it!

But, of course, it's easier to tell someone to "leave my country if you hate it so much" than to come up with a calm, rational points to discuss where your views diverge from his, isn't it?

Msut77

03-12-2008, 12:30 AM

Or perhaps you're the one with the comprehension issue?

Not at all, I for one have actually read what the idiot in question writes. You evidently have not.

daroga

03-12-2008, 12:33 AM

Not at all, I for one have actually read what the idiot in question writes. You evidently have not.I rest my case.

Msut77

03-12-2008, 12:36 AM

I rest my case.

You would have had to have had a case first.

Your post is an admission that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

daroga

03-12-2008, 12:43 AM

You would have had to have had a case first.

Your post is an admission that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.Nope, not one bit. Not at all. COMPLETE MORON RIGHT HERE!

Because, as we've already established disagreeing on any issue, big or small, is tantamount to one or more of the following:

1) Treason
2) Loathing of the concept of "good"
3) Being devoid of logical processes
4) Something else really bad

If you didn't understand my post, I'm sorry. I can try to state it again for you if that would help.

Once again, though, it's easier to just say "You're an idiot and I'm right" and move on even in something as silly as this, eh?

Msut77

03-12-2008, 12:45 AM

If you didn't understand my post, I'm sorry.

I understood it perfectly.

COMPLETE MORON RIGHT HERE!

You made it so blindingly obvious after all.

daroga

03-12-2008, 08:53 AM

And you ignore the meat of yet another post. Cool! :roll:

I'll reecho was sweeetja713 said above as well as what I said. Just because someone posts a position different that yours doesn't make them wrong. But, if you want to talk about it, then talk about it. If you want to ignore it, then ignore it. Your "GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!" attitude is very akin to arguing about which Transformer was the coolest at recess in 1st grade. "No way! I'm right! You smell!"

I know it can be scary when someone has ideas that are different than yours. It can be especially scary when those ideas, perhaps, make you reconsider your preconceived notions about how things ought to be. But we can work through this together. Or at least we could, but you seem more content to insult people rather than talk. In which case, I guess we're done here.

Msut77

03-12-2008, 11:01 AM

And you ignore the meat of yet another post.

There is no substance to your last few posts. You can keep asserting there is but that makes no difference, the funny thing is that you have basically admitted you almost never read thrustbucket's posts and you have no idea what you are talking about. Your last several posts are nothing but inane twaddle based on faulty premises.

sweeetja713

03-12-2008, 12:23 PM

There is no substance to your last few posts. You can keep asserting there is but that makes no difference, the funny thing is that you have basically admitted you almost never read thrustbucket's posts and you have no idea what you are talking about. Your last several posts are nothing but inane twaddle based on faulty premises.

And you have still failed to point out where thrustbucket states that he hates this country. Once again he doesn't agree with the way things are going right now but that doesn't equal hate. He may be a bit more temperamental than some in his arguments but that doesn't mean he doesn't love his country. Please quit saying we don't understand or see it and show us where he says he hates his countries or even postings that you may view as hating this country. Give us something to debate rather than just saying well I've read it and you haven't. I assure you I've read this entire thread and you have yet to give one piece of supporting evidence.

fatherofcaitlyn

03-12-2008, 12:29 PM

And thanks to all the remaining senators and representatives in Congress that aren't about 'change,' that money will just be diverted elsewhere and we still won't see any benefit of it.

Well, yeah, but ... I don't really have a counter.

Msut77

03-12-2008, 12:31 PM

Once again he doesn't agree with the way things are going right now but that doesn't equal hate.

It goes far, far beyond that. Have you ever read anything he has written outside of this thread? Get back to me when you do.

thrustbucket

03-12-2008, 12:50 PM

It goes far, far beyond that. Have you ever read anything he has written outside of this thread? Get back to me when you do.

Look, friend, all you need to do is copy and paste quotes of me saying I hate this country. That's all. Then everyone will leave you alone and stop making you look like a bitter person with a grudge.

I do sometimes get temperamental, as sweetja713 says. I'll be honest, I often come into this forum when I am really frustrated at work and want to vent some steam. Sue me. I'm human. I apologize to anyone that I may have offended in the past. I'm a nice guy, I promise :)

The guys above have represented me very well. I summarize it like this:

I really like my country. It makes no sense to me why someone would go through so much trouble to change this country to be like another country, when it would be much easier to move to one of those other countries. That's all.

America is still unique. It's still very different, for good or bad. I like how it's different. I want it to stay different. I want free market to reign supreme and the Fed to stay the hell out of the way. That's all.

I came across a really interesting article today by playwright David Mamet entitled "Why I am no longer a brain-dead liberal" (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374064,374064,1.html/1). Don't let the inflammatory title fool you, it's actually a very well thought out and interesting article that summarizes very well where I'm coming from. I suggest anyone read it. I considered making a new thread on it for discussion but I have a feeling it would just attract bomb throwers.

Msut77

03-12-2008, 01:01 PM

The guys above have represented me very well.

That is hilarious because both of them have pretty much admitted they do not read almost anything you write.

I really like my country.

Here is the thing, you do not love this country so much as you are in love with a mythological past golden age. As for the actual country, my country and the country of all of us who dwell in reality you despise it and all of its inhabitant but a tiny number of like minded people.

Maklershed

03-12-2008, 01:22 PM

Short Answer: American Peso.

*appears*

Did someone say American Psycho? Oh .. no .. no you didnt.

*diappears*

sweeetja713

03-12-2008, 01:24 PM

That is hilarious because both of them have pretty much admitted they do not read almost anything you write.

Quit putting words in people's mouths. Nowhere did I state I haven't read almost anything thrustbucket writes. I have kept up with the majority of the threads in this forum, a large number of which thrustbucket has posted in. I've already stated that I don't agree with everything he has to say but you've still failed to point out one shred of evidence that says he doesn't love this country. All I've asked is that you rationally defend your allegations and you've failed to do so. You've given no evidence for any of your points. This best support you've given is read his posts. We have and still don't see your point. Unless you can support your statements all you're going to get are people that disagree with you and some flames.

daroga

03-12-2008, 01:25 PM

Msut77

03-12-2008, 01:32 PM

I've already stated that I don't agree with everything he has to say but you've still failed to point out one shred of evidence that says he doesn't love this country.

So when you say you do not agree with everything he has to say are you talking about all the times when thrust tells people to leave? Those people being the 90 plus percent of the country he accuses of being evil commies? Because you were strangely absent those times, using the power of deductive reasoning one must assume that you missed them.

Did you ever read his post where he expresses his wish to bring the United States back to the Great Depression? How about the time he said wanted to "reset" everything even though he admitted he has no idea how that would work even in theory.

sweeetja713

03-12-2008, 01:57 PM

So when you say you do not agree with everything he has to say are you talking about all the times when thrust tells people to leave? Those people being the 90 plus percent of the country he accuses of being evil commies? Because you were strangely absent those times, using the power of deductive reasoning one must assume that you missed them.

Did you ever read his post where he expresses his wish to bring the United States back to the Great Depression? How about the time he said wanted to "reset" everything even though he admitted he has no idea how that would work even in theory.

Really me not responding means I haven't read it? Wow than I haven't read a single deal on this site or just about anything on any other subforum and yet I could've sworn I read threads from across the board.

Despite your obvious exaggerations of thrust's views, no I don't agree when thrust tells people to leave the country. I actually went after him on that point in another thread which since you never posted in, by your logic you obviously didn't read it. No I'll admit I didn't read the post where you claim he wished to revert back to the great depression, however I have strong feeling you're taking that out of context. As far as wanting to reset everything that means he wants sweeping major changes, what's wrong with that? I want critical communication scholars to get their words and views out to the masses. Guess what I have no idea how to do that in theory or practice but it doesn't mean I can't work on it or at the very least express my views.

Msut77

03-12-2008, 02:00 PM

Really me not responding means I haven't read it?

That would be the only logical conclusion assuming there is no particular reason for selective outrage.

Despite your obvious exaggerations of thrust's views

I did not exaggerate, I sort of wish I did but no that is almost verbatim what he wrote.

sweeetja713

03-12-2008, 02:14 PM

That would be the only logical conclusion assuming there is no particular reason for selective outrage.

Of course there's a particular reason for selective outrage. I've already mentioned my reason in this thread and another. I get pissed off when people say or imply that if you don't like the way the country is to leave it. I don't like the way the country is right now but that doesn't mean I don't love the country itself. Wanting the country to be better is probably the truest form of patriotism I know.

Furthermore, I don't see how the logical conclusion for me not responding to a post is because I didn't read it. There are many posts that I read that I don't respond to because either I don't care, I can't argue my point effectively enough, I agree with the post, I'm don't feel like responding, or someone has beaten me to the point.

Do you respond to every single post you read? No, you selectively choose which ones to respond to. Even your first post in this thread was a selective response to thrust. You didn't comment on other people's posts.

fatherofcaitlyn

03-12-2008, 02:16 PM

Back on topic from this current insanity, can someone fill in someone like myself who is admittedly rather ignorant of big sweeping trends in economics, especially in regard to what the Feds did yesterday? Was their bail-out a stop-gap solution? I've heard really good things about it and really bad things about it. I get lost in the jargon a bit. :P

Let's say you lose your job, your credit cards are maxed out and bill collectors are harassing you day and night.

For some reason, your credit card's limit is increased.

Are you better off if you use the new limit to pay your current bills?

...

OK. Let's look at a bigger picture.

If the Fed's $200B starts a massive round of job creation, the economy as a whole will be better off for the long term.

If the Fed's $200B starts a massive round of debt enlargement, the economy will be better off for a few months and then crash even harder.

sweeetja713

03-12-2008, 02:20 PM

Great explanation fatherofcaitlyn.

Msut77

03-12-2008, 02:21 PM

Of course there's a particular reason for selective outrage. I get pissed off when people say or imply that if you don't like the way the country is to leave it.

It can be pretty bothersome especially when someone (like thrust) does it all the time. The selective part refers to how you seem to have ignored the roughly over 9000 times thrust tells people to leave.

Here is the kicker, I am being specific i.e. the country would be better off without thrust. thrust on the other hand is telling the majority of the country to leave.

sweeetja713

03-12-2008, 02:38 PM

From a thread you've posted in so maybe you've read it, but here's me disagreeing with thrustbucket on telling people to leave if they want to change the constituition.

What is my ilk?

I simply happen to like the constitution. I like most of how the country was originally set up. I don't like how it's changed since the new deal. What's wrong with that?

Seriously, it makes no logical sense to stay here if you disagree. If you don't like how this country was founded, if you want to change the constitution rather than enforce it, then why not go to a "better" country? There are millions of people in the world that would love to trade places with a despondent America hating American.

Funny, I thought our country was founded on change. Isn't that the reason we have the ability to amend the constitution, in case something needs changed? Our founders foresaw the fact that we would need change over the years. Why does everyone think being a patriot means blindly following the government. Some of the truest patriots want to change the country for the better.

It doesn't take a genius to see we're heading for some bad times right now and something does have to change. I'm not saying Obama or anyone else is the answer but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Basically I criticized him for the exact same thing I've criticized you for. What's the difference? Thrust was willing to acknowledge my points and come back with supported counterpoints. The reason the argument with you is still going on is because you've failed to do so.

CocheseUGA

03-12-2008, 04:13 PM

Quit putting words in people's mouths.

That's pretty much all he does here.

daroga

03-12-2008, 04:22 PM

That's pretty much all he does here.But it's easier to "win" if you're writing both the initial statement and your witty rebuttal!

---

Thanks for that brief explanation, FoC. That helps to resolve a lot of really contradictory statements I've read/heard on the matter in the last 24 hours.

RAMSTORIA

03-12-2008, 04:31 PM

rabble rabble rabble rabble

thrustbucket

03-12-2008, 05:55 PM

thrust, why do you keep posting? You're obviously confused about what you think. Msut77 has very plainly told you what you think, so start thinking it. His opinions about your opinions are fact. I don't care if you say you disagree with his opinion of you, nor can I even take into account an apology or two for overstating points or blowing up from time to time. That didn't happen. Msut knows the truth and he's informed all of us. You can't stop the signal, my friend. He's read what you've written!

..... must hate my country.... must hate my country.... must hate....:applause:

So when you say you do not agree with everything he has to say are you talking about all the times when thrust tells people to leave? Those people being the 90 plus percent of the country he accuses of being evil commies?

I've never used a percentage, or used the words "evil commies".

Did you ever read his post where he expresses his wish to bring the United States back to the Great Depression?

You misunderstood. I have never even typed the words "Great Depression", that I remember. You must be referring to when I said that most of our problems (i.e. government growing and dependency increase) seemed to start with the New Deal. I still stand by that statement. But that doesn't mean I wish we were in a depression. The New Deal was a near-sighted long-term fix to a problem at the time.

And I said that because Obama, near as I can tell, seems to essentially want to produce the movie - The New Deal II: Overdrive.

How about the time he said wanted to "reset" everything even though he admitted he has no idea how that would work even in theory.

Technically you are correct. I don't see a solution to our present situation or direction without a serious reconstruction of the Fed. More people than I have said as much, in this very thread, just a page or two back.

As far as the "people should leave the country stuff".... I thought I clarified this. I just think that if people like other countries better (which has been said here) and/or want to change our country to be more like other countries, it would be far more logical for them to just actually relocate themselves to those "better" countries, wouldn't it?

I mean, generally in nature, when an organism finds itself in an undesirable environment, it finds one that isn't. It's actually pretty rare for an organism to spend a lot of time and energy to change it's environment to suit itself, especially if it's aware of a suitable environment near by.

...must hate my country... must hate my country....

daroga

03-12-2008, 06:31 PM

...must hate my country... must hate my country....Keep at it. You're doing well.

mykevermin

03-12-2008, 09:10 PM

The New Deal was a near-sighted long-term fix to a problem at the time.

Tell me more about how it is shortsighted. I'm curious to hear how you perceive the 'problems' associated with the New Deal.

And I said that because Obama, near as I can tell, seems to essentially want to produce the movie - The New Deal II: Overdrive.

Well, if we're going to jump headfirst into meaningless banter drizzled with pop culture, then I suppose I'll offer up the notion that it certainly appears, economically, that the Bush administration has really enjoyed producing the prequel.

As far as the "people should leave the country stuff".... I thought I clarified this. I just think that if people like other countries better (which has been said here) and/or want to change our country to be more like other countries, it would be far more logical for them to just actually relocate themselves to those "better" countries, wouldn't it?

That's just such a cop-out, you know? It's one thing to say "I think that this social problem is answered properly by this country's policy," which is what some people say. They think Cuba or Canada is on the right foot with regard to health care, that The Netherlands or Sweden are on the right track with maternal (and paternal!) work leave. Turning that into a "well, why don't you go live there then???" argument is just childish, though. The US is not a perfect country just like no country is perfect, so conceding that other countries may do things a bit better simply can't be construed as an "I hate living in the US" argument unless you want to be childish and ignore the potential for improving the conditions under which we live.

But if you do wholly prefer living in another country, you are indeed cheating yourself by living anywhere other than there. That's not, at all, what people say when they argue that other nations have solutions to social problems that might be preferable to the US' current approach.

fatherofcaitlyn

03-13-2008, 01:08 PM

Tell me more about how it is shortsighted. I'm curious to hear how you perceive the 'problems' associated with the New Deal.

I was going to disagree with you here concerning Social Security. However, it was passed in the 1930s. They didn't really foresee the problems that could occur in the 21st century.

Compared to the Iraq War, I don't think Social Security was shortsighted.

CocheseUGA

03-13-2008, 01:15 PM

I do think the New Deal programs were overall short-sighted, because they were never meant to be permanent, and the needs of the people made them so. I think the best part of the New Deal were the public works programs, such as the TVA, the Overseas Highway, etc.

thrustbucket

03-13-2008, 01:25 PM

Tell me more about how it is shortsighted. I'm curious to hear how you perceive the 'problems' associated with the New Deal.

CochesesUSA pretty much said it. The New Deal was not, in itself, bad. It was a mixed bag and got the country out of it's depression. However, about the time of the New Deal seems to be where this country took a sharp turn towards government dependency on a number of levels.

I'm not saying the New Deal was the cause. It could be coincidence. I simply use the New Deal as a time marker for when the country really started to warm up to higher taxes, more government programs, more government interference and more bureaucracy.

It could be argued that there is a strong correlation between the Great Depression and the Iraq war. They both are just what the government needed to convince people to rely on them more.

Well, if we're going to jump headfirst into meaningless banter drizzled with pop culture, then I suppose I'll offer up the notion that it certainly appears, economically, that the Bush administration has really enjoyed producing the prequel.

Sigh.... Ok, sure. I'll run with that. Heaven forbid we criticize any policy of a candidate without first making sure we know it's all Bush's fault to begin with.... Seems to be standard tactic now. :roll:

Just like how Obama's favorite answer to his plan with the Iraq war is to mostly drivel on about blame and what we should have done.... Real constructive. Halmark of the left though.

That's just such a cop-out, you know? It's one thing to say "I think that this social problem is answered properly by this country's policy," which is what some people say. They think Cuba or Canada is on the right foot with regard to health care, that The Netherlands or Sweden are on the right track with maternal (and paternal!) work leave. Turning that into a "well, why don't you go live there then???" argument is just childish, though. The US is not a perfect country just like no country is perfect, so conceding that other countries may do things a bit better simply can't be construed as an "I hate living in the US" argument unless you want to be childish and ignore the potential for improving the conditions under which we live.
You must have missed some of the posts where someone (forgot who) flat out said other country's were better. Period. That's what I was responding to. Otherwise, I agree with you.

But it really does seem to me that many people on the left really dislike our country, universally. And they really like other countries more. Strictly going by their verbage. And that's what I was addressing. Honestly, you can only take person or group's bitching so long about so many things before you suggest they do something a little more drastic to fix their situation than bitch.

mykevermin

03-13-2008, 01:45 PM

CochesesUSA pretty much said it. The New Deal was not, in itself, bad. It was a mixed bag and got the country out of it's depression. However, about the time of the New Deal seems to be where this country took a sharp turn towards government dependency on a number of levels.

I'm not saying the New Deal was the cause. It could be coincidence. I simply use the New Deal as a time marker for when the country really started to warm up to higher taxes, more government programs, more government interference and more bureaucracy.

It seems to me that you're using such broad strokes to paint the entirety of the "problem of government" in this sense that you overlook the largest areas where the government has grown where overspending is a problem (namely, prisons and defense) that, I genuinely believe you would have a problem with a "small government" in that regard - which renders moot, more or less, any argument about wanting to shrink government spending or reduce the size or influence of government. You seem to want to end expenditures on policies and programs that you don't support and ignore those that you do - which makes the "small federal government" argument a red herring on your part.

I also think that you have no data whatsoever to back up your claims that New Deal programs are what cause spending problems, or that they are the root of government dependency. Are you arguing that ND *is* the problem, or that it *led* to the problem? I see much of both (with little confirmatory evidence).

As far as Bureaucracy and government interference is concerned, I could just as easily claim that shady tactics of those enveloped in big business, perpetually seeking means of shirking the tax system, caused said "interference" by trying to avoid their civic obligation to pay taxes in the first place. Their compliance would have led to less bureaucracy.

Sigh.... Ok, sure. I'll run with that. Heaven forbid we criticize any policy of a candidate without first making sure we know it's all Bush's fault to begin with.... Seems to be standard tactic now. :roll:

The point was that your "criticism" wasn't anything but the aping of the old, tired "those Dems are commies/socialists/pinkos/etc." polemic. It's completely unsubstantive, devoid of detail, and rooted in perception. If you want to point out which of his policies are unpalatable to you, then great - but don't rest your weary head after typing out the kind of statement that would fit, both in terms of size and intellect, on a bumper sticker, and accuse me of taking away your ability to criticize. I merely expect better of some people - yet you continually prove me wrong in that regard.

You must have missed some of the posts where someone (forgot who) flat out said other country's were better. Period. That's what I was responding to. Otherwise, I agree with you.

Msut? He's on my ignore list. I recommend you do the same.

But it really does seem to me that many people on the left really dislike our country, universally. And they really like other countries more. Strictly going by their verbage. And that's what I was addressing. Honestly, you can only take person or group's bitching so long about so many things before you suggest they do something a little more drastic to fix their situation than bitch.

1) "strictly going by their verbage" is still imposing your interpretation on their statements.
2) You could just ignore pathetic posts, you know.