Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
The US is Choking on Debt
huffingtonpost.com — The US economy has been sustained almost exclusively on borrowed money since 2001. There is a marked difference between economic growth & debt-induced demand. Instead of letting the market take its medicine & enter recession in 2001, the powers that be injected fiscal and monetary drugs to dull the pain and induce stock gains.
unlawflcombatnt- 1872 diggs
- digg it
- GrandmaSheila, on 03/23/2008, -15/+258Privatize the profits, Socialize the losses. Your tax dollars at work: trillions for the warcrime in Iraq, billions for the pillaging bankers who have destroyed the economy, and "***** you" for the despoiled, bankrupted, people who pay for it all
- verusdies, on 03/23/2008, -5/+59"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price."-Ronald Reagan
Depressing how ***** repeats itself- blast_flame, on 03/23/2008, -4/+25Reagan had a lot of good quotes. Too bad he didn't put them into action when he got elected.
- odigity, on 03/23/2008, -7/+12That's why I'm a Ron Paul Republican, nor a Reagan Republican. Ron Paul says the same things Reagan said before winning the Presidency, but he actually does them when he gets into office.
- omnis, on 03/24/2008, -4/+12Wait? What? Was this written from the future? How do you know?
- kazamx, on 03/24/2008, -0/+13@Omis,
I think he means when he was elected in Texas (for 10 years?) he lived by the rules that he preaches. For example he doesn't take state pension, and gives a % of his money back each year to prove that other members are wasting theirs.
- Hangly, on 03/23/2008, -0/+36This isn't repetition, it's the same damn crisis. Now it's 10x bigger, has the mobility-1 promotion, and is coming after our asses.
While reagan talked the talk, he deficit-spent more than any present that came before him.
1989 - Hooray, we spent the USSR into oblivion and won the cold war!
2008 - *****! We spent ourselves into oblivion too! (Shut the ***** up Russia, I can hear you over there giggling.)- kazamx, on 03/24/2008, -0/+8LOL at the idea of a load of Russians drinking vodka and giggling like schoolgirls.
- VonBargenJL, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2lol awesome quote
- bananasplit1586, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2LOL @ that beautiful comment and @ kazamx putting that image into my mind - school girl was not my first visual from that comment but what an awesome one it was.
- Gerz1219, on 03/23/2008, -2/+15Wise, eloquent words. It's unfortunate that Reagan used such rhetoric to fool people into voting for a series of borrow-and-spend policies that have bankrupted our country, by allowing Republicans to cut taxes, raise spending, pay no political price for their malfeasance, and demonize anyone who objects as a "liberal". Without Reagan's intellectual dishonesty and misleadership, Bush could never have gotten away with his rape of our country.
- dexter411, on 03/24/2008, -3/+11) Cutting taxes is essential in an economic slump brought about by people losing their equity lines of credit due to ***** decisions made about subprime mortgages.
2) I agree with the raised spending. It's nutty.
3) I don't think a small group of people brought any of this about. For all the people wanting change, one is surprised to find that the only real policy that would absolutely help up the economy (the FairTax Act, HR 25) is supported almost exclusively by small-government Republicans.- Gerz1219, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Well, I may have worded my sentence poorly, but my issue isn't with tax cuts in general. I just feel that every tax cut should be accompanied by a spending cut, and that we should always have a balanced budget except in extreme emergencies. And if circumstances change, necessitating a sustained higher level of spending, we should raise taxes immediately to cover the shortfall. Reagan stumbled onto a rather grotesque form of widespread fraud when he successfully made the phrase "raise taxes" anathema to any American politician, forever. He won middle-class votes by promising to cut their taxes without cutting any of their services. He even raised the Social Security payroll tax to secure the senior vote. Voters (and Reagan) got to have their cake and eat it too; no sacrifice was asked from them, and the policies appeared to work, because hey -- the roads are still paved and here's my disability check, and my taxes are lower. Such is the political evil of deficit spending: the appearance that you could have kept your money all along, without giving anything up, if only the liberal Jew demons hadn't snatched it from you -- when in reality, the government has really just run up a credit card debt that you'll have to pay off later. Big government conservatism is the worst of both worlds.
- biotch, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3FairTax Act = a shift in allocation of resources to the rich.
The rich keep increasing their portion of the total income in America at the expense of everyone else. This was true even under the Clinton tax plan. Why then would we make it even easier for the rich to gain wealth? They dont have any trouble getting more and more of the total almost every year since 1980. Trickle down economics does not work, it has been proven again with this administration. GDP growth, real income, deficit and debt management, investment, inflation/production, poverty elimination, and job growth, are unrivaled in the non-trickle down Clinton era. Even after the economic downturn in 2000 the economy was far better off then it was when he started with over 20 million more jobs and more than a 300% gain in the stock market. However, Im all for lower taxes and lower spending, but only if the benefits of the tax cut do not make it even easier for the rich to keep expanding their portion of the economic pie.
sources:
Income percentages:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h02a ...
poverty rate:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate ...
Stocks:
http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900. ...
GDP growth:
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp? ...
debt:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
jobs growth:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/were_clinton ...
real income:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h01a ...
(note nominal and real income listed here, real income (adjusted for inflation) is below the first list)- dexter411, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1What does that even mean? Do I need to cite the percentage spread of money paid versus income?
"The rich keep increasing their portion of the total income in America at the expense of everyone else." How so? Does a rich guy getting richer because he's good at investing make you poorer? Nope.
"Why then would we make it even easier for the rich to gain wealth?" We aren't. This is already their money (and everyone else's); why does the government have more right to more of anyone else's money just because they make more in one year?
All those problems you cite... all addressed by FairTax. GDP would grow 5% in YEAR 1, real income would increase by up to 8%, investment would blow up since there would be no tax pain, inflation would settle as equity wouldn't be taxed (twice), jobs would be created, etc... Any REAL arguments against FairTax? Beyond that you have a terrible fear of people who are really rich remaining really rich, I mean... - Terr01, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Ah yes, the old: "It'll work because the economy will magically improve" ploy.
Why bother with "real" arguments against it when your arguments for it are naked assertions of unfounded utopian futures?
- dexter411, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1What does that even mean? Do I need to cite the percentage spread of money paid versus income?
- dexter411, on 03/24/2008, -3/+11) Cutting taxes is essential in an economic slump brought about by people losing their equity lines of credit due to ***** decisions made about subprime mortgages.
- 4d669, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4Good quote, but I don't care about words, I care about actions and his actions were Iran Contra and Rex84. Now we're paying the consequences for that *****.
- DangerCollie, on 03/23/2008, -1/+25Actually, it was a "So?" for the despoiled, bankrupted people who pay for it all. I think that sums up the White House attitude toward us all very well.
- nickerbocker, on 03/23/2008, -1/+10They don't care. Bush is banking on the $4/gallon gas that he didn't hear about.
- dexter411, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1Point of information: in 2004, the bottom 50% (I assume they're the despoiled and bankrupt people you're referring to) contributed to 3.30% of national income taxes paid. So much for your logic...
- KhanneaNL, on 03/23/2008, -1/+12Sue. Those. Reponsible.
Conduct a full investigation. Drag open even cesspit. And then TAKE BACK every penny taken illegally or corruptly and SEND TO PRISON every single crook who broke the law. If you americans DONT this will go on and on and on for a long long time. This is the time to end this way of doing business. This is the moment to demand an accounting in full.- yaddayaddayoda, on 03/23/2008, -0/+13The problem is that the Democrat politicians don't want to impeach because they are afraid that corruption on both sides of the aisle will be exposed.
- Zaeboes, on 03/23/2008, -34/+2America isn't in dept, other countries owe us so much it isn't funny. Its only when we do stupid things like forgive dept to small African nations that we become in dept.
Besides, if you don't like that your country is falling into crap, just leave! Well, we can do that in America anyways.- sapo916, on 03/23/2008, -4/+25What's up with you idiots and leaving. Always leave leave leave, only a pussy leaves when things get hard. Men fix the ***** and ***** up people like you.
- NgoDimPhuk, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1'Always leave leave leave, only a pussy leaves when things get hard. '
haha digg is funny. Is good thing all do not leave................ - positron, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2Totally. It's like all those girly sissies that run away when their house bursts into an uncontrollable blaze. Damn pussies, too afraid to burn to death trying to fight a fire they have no chance in hell of stopping.
- NgoDimPhuk, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1'Always leave leave leave, only a pussy leaves when things get hard. '
- bananasplit1586, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1dude, america's got over 20% of the world's total external debt. Now you're right in a way, lots of ppl owe them money as well so they can run up the bill a bit...but consider 2 things on top of this 1) the total of debt burden for other is divided between what is owed to IMF, world bank & other rich nations ... so the fraction of what is owed to the US doesn't come close to clearing their debt and B) this isnt even including what they owe their public, so again, so the fraction of what is owed to the US doesn't come close to clearing their debt
I assure you, they are heavily in debt. and the COMBINED third world debt isn't close to america's, so leave africa out of it.
- sapo916, on 03/23/2008, -4/+25What's up with you idiots and leaving. Always leave leave leave, only a pussy leaves when things get hard. Men fix the ***** and ***** up people like you.
- mchugh22, on 03/24/2008, -2/+10In the words of George Carlin we are getting "a big red white and blue dick rammed up our asses." Grandma Sheila said it 100% right.
- elliotys, on 03/24/2008, -1/+13The American Public is just as much to blame. Fiscal responsibility has been ***** on by the majority of the baby boomers. The attitude turned from "buy only what I can afford and only what I need", to "I want it now". We went from the "American Worker", to the "American Consumer" without even batting an eyelash. Shame.
- 0ceanic, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-Thomas Jefferson- Archer007, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Did he say anything about their money?
- wakananda, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Thomas Jefferson would be branded a "terrorist," abducted, waterboarded and thrown into a secret prison if he'd said that today.
- Hyperion1144, on 03/24/2008, -2/+5In economics theory, this is known as the The Tragedy of the Commons. Private interests will corrupt all types of public spaces and good in the interest of profit. Even if one or most companies want to be good and play fair, it doesn't matter. The lowest, dirtiest, most amoral among them will play unfair, externalize their costs as much as possible, and become more profitable as a result. This, in turn, will drive the ethical fair-players out of business. It is a system of reduction to the lowest common denominator of behavior.
This, by the way, is why businesses, even the good ones, NEED regulation. They need the government to help them to be good. Without regulation to create a new level on the playing field (one of minimal ethics and responsibility) the worst players will win by default. But regulations applied to all do not alter the competitiveness of any one firm unfairly, by the very fact that these regulations apply to all.- blast_flame, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2The real solution to the tragedy of the commons is privatization not regulation.
- Hyperion1144, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4Somebody needs to retake a class. Tragedy of the Commons is one of the unfortunate results of privatization. You take really good care of all the stuff you own and to hell with everybody else's stuff.
- blast_flame, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2Wrong type of privitization. Consider these two cases; A) different logging companies is given a 15 year leases of wooded government plot of land and B) the land is sold to them outright. A) suffers from the tragedy of the commons while B) does not. If no regulations are imposed then A) will clear cut the land as it is in their best interest while B) is more likely to practice sustainable logging so they can reap the land's benifits into the future. One could argue that B) solves the tragedy of the commons by disposing with the commons.
- wakananda, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1blastflame: in your example, B) turns a complex ecosystem into a tree farm. Solution: neither A) nor B) serve the interest of the public who own the forest, and neither should be allowed.
- Hyperion1144, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2A nice way to cherry pick a scenario so as to promote your pre-determined conclusion that unfettered free markets have no flaws. Even if I ignore the fact that you basically just argued against all public lands in general and universal private ownership of all land, maybe next you can paint me a scenario where you establish private air and water borders. I am not talking about fly-over rights, or imaginary ocean borders. I mean how it is you privatize the air and water, and then keep it from flowing around to the public in general.
Air, for example, is a public good, no matter what. There is no way to establish air borders that keep one entity’s pollution from ultimately affecting all others. So, private people can pollute the public good or space (the air), because it is cheaper to do so than to say, install air scrubbers in their factory. They can then internalize the profits of cheap and dirty production while externalizing the costs to the public in general. Your example pretends that things like this don't exist. In this case, even a business that wants to be good and install the scrubbers in their own plant will compete with the bad business that does not. The bad business is rewarded with lower costs, and thus a competitive advantage.
Your example was specially chosen to avoid scenarios like the one above. The Commons is more than just land. The Commons is the whole planet.
Dispose them Commons.
- Hyperion1144, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4Somebody needs to retake a class. Tragedy of the Commons is one of the unfortunate results of privatization. You take really good care of all the stuff you own and to hell with everybody else's stuff.
- blast_flame, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2The real solution to the tragedy of the commons is privatization not regulation.
- verusdies, on 03/23/2008, -5/+59"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price."-Ronald Reagan
- americangoy, on 03/23/2008, -4/+15bonddad?
i think i remember him from daily kos - his were one of the few articles posted there that didn't make me gag on the partisanship...
i could be mistaken here - going from memory, but possibly same guy.
GOOD article, DUGG- afx114, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Yep, same guy, he always puts things into laymans terms, which is quite difficult to do with economics. His blog is great:
http://bonddad.blogspot.com/index.html
- afx114, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Yep, same guy, he always puts things into laymans terms, which is quite difficult to do with economics. His blog is great:
- bossm4n, on 03/23/2008, -13/+75The problem is plain and simple. People have been trying to live beyond their means for years. Everybody wants more than their neighbors--bigger houses than they need, expensive cars, every new gadget that hits the street. Not only are people not saving for their future, they are spending their future. The problem is an addiction. Credit card companies and mortgage companies are the enablers.
- caferrell, on 03/23/2008, -5/+24People are told that they can and that they "deserve" to live better by the brainwashers from Madison Avenue. The fact that eveery household has a TV that is disseminating mind control 4 or 5 hours a day makes it very hard for Americans to make good decisions.
- rficwizard, on 03/23/2008, -3/+8Do people really watch 4 - 5 hours of TV a day? Who has time for that? I must be working too hard.
- yaddayaddayoda, on 03/23/2008, -1/+4Avg is more like 8.5 hours per day.
- ScottMitchell, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Even if you are working 8-9 hours a day, with lunch and commute you still have maybe 13 hours per day during the week. Maybe you cram in 7 hours of sleep, so that leaves 6 hours of TV time. On the weekends you can fit in 8-12 hours and still get the requisite sleep and socialization time.
- rficwizard, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1That sounds like a great schedule. I was right, I am working too hard.
- Branyers, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2What you're saying is a cop out, and it's the reason why the word "sheeple" exists.
- PeppermintPig, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Correct. People DO deserve and COULD do better, but not while burdened with high taxes, nor can people do better by living off the taxed money of others or begging politicians to give them 'stuff'. It's the taxing, and the regulating, and the stripping of our liberty that leaves many of us unable to live prosperous and free. People CAN live better and afford the things they desire if we could eliminate the sources of tyranny in our lives.
- drgmdp, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1it amazes me to read how americans tend to blame on taxes for everything...
- PeppermintPig, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2I think you'll find that it's natural for people to want control, no matter where they live. However the distinguishing factor is whether you seek to control others or to have control over your own life, assets, and the ability to make choices concerning those assets.
I can reasonably argue that taxes are not merely a negative loss of money, but a negative impact on my ability to retain and grow my wealth.
- PeppermintPig, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Correct. People DO deserve and COULD do better, but not while burdened with high taxes, nor can people do better by living off the taxed money of others or begging politicians to give them 'stuff'. It's the taxing, and the regulating, and the stripping of our liberty that leaves many of us unable to live prosperous and free. People CAN live better and afford the things they desire if we could eliminate the sources of tyranny in our lives.
- rficwizard, on 03/23/2008, -3/+8Do people really watch 4 - 5 hours of TV a day? Who has time for that? I must be working too hard.
- Picaroon, on 03/23/2008, -6/+11I just hope you don't put any blame on those "enablers." Stupid people who buy beyond their means have no one to blame but themselves. They especially don't have "mind control" from the TV to blame, caferrell.
- bruce86, on 03/23/2008, -1/+7psychologically speaking it takes two to tango
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2True, but companies wouldn't mass market if it wasn't effective. Ultimately, it boils down to individual responsibility. They can't sell it to you if you refuse to buy into it.
- bruce86, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1True, but it wouldn't be effective if companies didn't mass market. Ultimately, it boils down to corporations responsibility. We can't buy it if they refuse to sell it.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2True, but companies wouldn't mass market if it wasn't effective. Ultimately, it boils down to individual responsibility. They can't sell it to you if you refuse to buy into it.
- caferrell, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Ask a Madison Avenue ad agency what they can do and they will guarantee you that they can convince people to do anything and to believe anything. And they have the statistics to prove that is true.
If it were not true would we have a medical system that costs way more than any other country (over 15% of GDP, closest competitor is below 12% GDP) while leaving 20% of Americans without coverage and having one of the statistically worst systems among developed nations? If the TV is not capable of mind control why would Americans believe the lie that we have the best health care in the world.
If you watch TV with advertising regularly you are brainwashed. Period.
And where is the voice of good advice telling Americans that they should turn the damned thing off, or better yet, take it out back and shoot it to death? The average slob has never even considered the fact that watching the glowing screen makes him act and react in ways that are against his own interests.
We allow companies to brainwash people and then we blame them for bad decisions. Nice, really nice- TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Yep, it's all the fault of the companies that people are mentally lazy slobs who let the TV tell them what to think. You'd have a point if that was true for everyone, but it's not. I cut off cable a long time ago because I couldn't stand the vapid ***** that it showed me. I download a few shows and call it good. Ultimately, PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES. You can blame The Man™ all you want, but at the end of the day, you're responsible for your own actions. People need to quit passing the buck and take care of themselves for a change.
- caferrell, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1OK Finale I agree. I absolutely believe in personal responsibility. But.... somebody needs to start a movement to get people to realize the damage that the idot box does to them.
"Oh, but there is good programming too..." *****. Turn it off, throw it away and read literature. - TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1I can agree with that. It'd be nice if people would toss out the TV, but that is a task that is beyond Herculean. Maybe if we have the TV constantly tell them to toss it out, we could do it, but the lethargy of the masses is never to be underestimated.
- caferrell, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1OK Finale I agree. I absolutely believe in personal responsibility. But.... somebody needs to start a movement to get people to realize the damage that the idot box does to them.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Yep, it's all the fault of the companies that people are mentally lazy slobs who let the TV tell them what to think. You'd have a point if that was true for everyone, but it's not. I cut off cable a long time ago because I couldn't stand the vapid ***** that it showed me. I download a few shows and call it good. Ultimately, PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES. You can blame The Man™ all you want, but at the end of the day, you're responsible for your own actions. People need to quit passing the buck and take care of themselves for a change.
- bruce86, on 03/23/2008, -1/+7psychologically speaking it takes two to tango
- TopherT, on 03/23/2008, -2/+12the enablers don't deserve ANY blame? Hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing would suggest that people are at least to some extent malleable and it is to that extent that the competition of these companies for consumer dollars is to blame for unrealistic and unsustainable consumer spending. Of course the opaque lending practices of credit card and mortgage companies also bear part of the blame, for lending to people who don't understand the situation they're getting themselves into. The accruing of short term interests in this country has come at the cost of long term planning.
- odigity, on 03/23/2008, -2/+7With freedom comes responsibility. If people make stupid decisions, they must face the consequences. Do try to prevent it is to try to ignore reality, and will result in a worse catastrophe later on.
While Americans' stupidity in spending their way into debt privately is a major problem, and we each individually need to have more discipline, the private debt pales in comparison to the problems created by the federal government, and in particular, the scam of the Federal Reserve. Therein lies true evil. - TopherT, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Wrong, private debt is many times larger than public debt in this country. Even if all that is counted is private debt held by foreign banks the figure is larger than all public debt. Oh, and if Americans cannot handle the freedom of choosing between a bunch of byzantine predatory lenders and it is destroying our financial system it's a social problem. We have laws for a reason.
- odigity, on 03/23/2008, -2/+7With freedom comes responsibility. If people make stupid decisions, they must face the consequences. Do try to prevent it is to try to ignore reality, and will result in a worse catastrophe later on.
- Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -2/+10They haven't just been *trying* to live beyond their means, they've been succeeding fabulously! Housing prices have been going up, up, up for years, and people kept paying those bloated prices. Maybe they thought the prices would keep going up, and they'd find someone to buy their home who'd pay even more than they did.
"People are told that they can and that they "deserve" to live better by the brainwashers from Madison Avenue."
Sorry, I don't buy this. In this day and age, even children know enough to be skeptical of advertising. Even before TV some people had the "keep up with the Joneses" mindset.
I personally couldn't care less how much my neighbors make or spend or what kind of car they drive or whatever.
I'd like to see basic financial education a part of every high school curriculum. The average person is amazingly unaware of basic things like compound interest, how taking on debt can ruin their credit rating and their future, and how to live within their means.- odigity, on 03/23/2008, -0/+3Just don't let the government control that curriculum, or you'll continue to perpetuate the fallacy that Keynesian economics is good. As a parent, you are ultimately responsibility for your children's education.
- crabman484, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2But what if that parent didn't know anything to begin with? They'd just be passing on useless, or harmful information to their children.
- odigity, on 03/23/2008, -0/+3Just don't let the government control that curriculum, or you'll continue to perpetuate the fallacy that Keynesian economics is good. As a parent, you are ultimately responsibility for your children's education.
- Zaeboes, on 03/23/2008, -10/+2It doesn't matter if people spend more than they make! They are going to get a raise soon! Minimum Wage is rising faster than ever, and thats what is sickening. Lowers the value of hard-earned higher paying jobs until we live in communist Russia. Why try hard if a part time job at Miccy D's will pay as much as a docter?
- york2600, on 03/23/2008, -0/+8Just a quick stop by the Department of Labor website and you can see that the minimum wage was 1.00 in 1956 and 6.55 this year (7.25 next year). Then we head of to the Bureu of Labor Statistics to find a CPI inflation calculator. Pop in 1.00 in 1956 spending power and out comes....$7.78 in 2008 dollars. So even next year the spending power of minimum wage will be the less then it was in 1956. Minimum wage isn't out of control. It's barely kept up with inflation. Before it was raised people were really getting screwed compared to inflation.
- darylyounge, on 03/23/2008, -1/+0A part time job at Rotten Ronnie's = same pay as a doctor. Give your head a shake.
- Ishiguro, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3The problem is that there is little to no incentive to save when the currency will devalue, and your money is worth less than when you started.
- ScottMitchell, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Agreed, but I don't think that's the thought going through Joe Sixpack's mind when he's trying to determine how he can afford a 42" plasma TV when he only has $200 in his checking account.
- PeppermintPig, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Yes, many people are not giving the economic situation much thought, which may reflect on how mindful they are of their own financial books. But you can't say Joe Sixpack is not hobbled by other effects beyond their control. The moral hazard has been snared. Entities, mostly large and some small, are being numbed to the consequences of their bad decisions.
We have banks providing high risk loans on the premise that the economy will remain stable, whilst the government is engaged in a costly war. Furthermore, we have some banks that are facing implosion and being bought up by others at cut rates.. What's more, the Fed is printing a massive amount of money for government programs... are we to assume such activity will not effect the economy in any way? And what of lowering interest rates to permit further bad behavior on behalf of certain financial organizations, or bad spending by the public??
- PeppermintPig, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Yes, many people are not giving the economic situation much thought, which may reflect on how mindful they are of their own financial books. But you can't say Joe Sixpack is not hobbled by other effects beyond their control. The moral hazard has been snared. Entities, mostly large and some small, are being numbed to the consequences of their bad decisions.
- PeppermintPig, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1This.
We can all point out how some people are bad with money, but we should not ignore the devaluing currency and the fact that many of us are taxed to the hilt to support the absurd and the wasteful ideas of our so-called leaders. Whether intentional or not, and I would have to argue it is intentional, the policies of this government, along with the actions of the Federal reserve have incited the people to spend, and certain 'economists' have the audacity to declare that this is THE problem. It's only a symptom.
- ScottMitchell, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Agreed, but I don't think that's the thought going through Joe Sixpack's mind when he's trying to determine how he can afford a 42" plasma TV when he only has $200 in his checking account.
- my10cent, on 03/24/2008, -4/+3The credit card companies attach kids before they even turn 18, they dont know better because they think they have a great paying job waiting for them at the end of college, the CC companies keep increasing interest and balance and people get caught! if America wants to survive the government needs to limit the amount of money people can get on a credit card and eventually make the legal age for borrowing money 21, they also need to lower interest rates.
I am sorry but NO parents should not be responsible for their kids bad credit choice.- fjc8, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal. Laws should not be based on reason, not emotion.
Since 2004, credit card applications in the US have these things called Schumer boxes. They clearly identify all rates and fees associated with the card in a table. I have no sympathy for those who can't read them.- PeppermintPig, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1@my10cent
First, I agree that parents should not be responsible for the actions of their children, though there are cases where they would have the incentive to be accountable for the actions of their children. The problem is that we have this arbitrary demarcation of child/adult in the legal world, and it influences to a great degree how responsible individuals are treated even though they may be under the 'legal' age of adult. Contrarily, we have adults who don't want to take accountability for their actions. It's frankly discriminatory, and while private citizens should be free to discriminate in regards to whom they interact or do business with, the state should certainly not.
However, I agree with fjc8 that writing laws will not solve this. If people are to survive in the US, the government needs to stop bailing people and companies out for making bad decisions... In fact, it's really the responsibility of the people, however ill equipped they are, to deal with the insane growth and wastefulness of the state, which contributes to the cost of goods and services, including the inflation of tuition prices...
- PeppermintPig, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1@my10cent
- ScottMitchell, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6The REAL problem is that society has taken the bait put out by credit card companies hook, line and sinker. Namely that one can't survive in modern America without a credit card. That it's STUPID to not have a credit card .That you can never buy a house, boat, or enjoy event attendance without building up your credit score (which is essentially a score on how willing you are to go into debt). It's all rubbish.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4You do realize that it's possible to have credit cards and not spend money out the wazoo, right? That you can pay the balance every month and still get by? You can get high credit ratings by doing this, you know. Credit in and of itself is a good thing. Abuse of it is not.
- PeppermintPig, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1You both make good points here. Banks do profit from the ignorance of some of its customers, yet fiscal responsibility will always be an issue for people. The only critique I would point out is that going into debt to create good credit is not a system meant for people who wish to prosper. It's basically a model of consumerism and scarcity (socialistic). Debt is almost never an asset, and constantly buying on credit is irrational if one gives it some thought!
- ScottMitchell, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Yes, I realize that it's possible to have credit cards and not abuse them, as do most people. If someone says, "I have credit cards," what's the general response? "So what?"
Now, try saying the opposite to someone. Say, "I don't have any credit cards." What's their response? "OMG, you need to build credit! Don't you ever want to own a home!?!? You are throwing away money by not getting the reward points! OMG!"
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4You do realize that it's possible to have credit cards and not spend money out the wazoo, right? That you can pay the balance every month and still get by? You can get high credit ratings by doing this, you know. Credit in and of itself is a good thing. Abuse of it is not.
- fjc8, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal. Laws should not be based on reason, not emotion.
- diggingaround, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4My favorite SUV commercial ".... it's not more than you need, it's more than you used to..... the roomier, more powerful SUV ..... blah, blah..."
- linagee, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3"It doesn't drink gas, it chugs it down as fast as possible"
- kolinkoolface2, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2i think it's more of you think they need to live better.... not everyone deserves a car, education, health care or a house. In this country your are given: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That pursuit is the car, education, a house etc. People can purchase whatever they wish. The reason we are in debt is because of yes causality wars across the globe but mainly social welfare programs that have failed. No one wants to acknowledge their failure so we throw more money at these programs, adding to our debt. Corporate america is not nearly at fault as the government is.
- acudoc, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1The problem is that under our present system, the only way money is created is by people going into debt to a banking cartel that creates the necessary medium of exchange by promissory notes and collects interest for the privilege of what amounts to a simple bookkeeping operation. If you don't understand this, and perhaps 90%+ of the population doesn't, then there is no way to make progress. Historically this method of money creation has always resulted in inflation and eventual bankruptcy, but the money changers get a good ride until the system crashes.
- caferrell, on 03/23/2008, -5/+24People are told that they can and that they "deserve" to live better by the brainwashers from Madison Avenue. The fact that eveery household has a TV that is disseminating mind control 4 or 5 hours a day makes it very hard for Americans to make good decisions.
- life38, on 03/23/2008, -13/+6The price of oil effects every individual’s ability to live since most do not have a choice not to drive a vehicle, have goods delivered or buy something wrapped by plastic; a by product of oil. The USA 's dependence on foreign oil strangles the ability of the USA to make the right decisions. Making deals base on self -dealing benefits only the dealmaker.
Foreign oil interest for Bush and Saudi Arabia provided special interest. Foreign oil for the Clinton’s provided special interest to foreign governments. Obama should make energy independence number one. With this initiative he can turn on economic growth targeting the retooling of industries hard press by the impact of NAFTA.
Being in fear of how to pay the next bill, being in fear of whether your child can get sick, being in fear of loosing your job, being in fear of being able to care for your parents is overwhelming enough then to worry about your government making bad choices.
The President is elected to be a leader. The President is expected to be held at a higher standard. It is about making the right choice even when there is not total agreement. I feel I can Trust Obama and not Trust Clinton. She can say as much as she wants about whether he has been vented. She has and I do not like what I have seen. Obama has been in the trenches as an activist, as a person sticking to his morale beliefs of right and wrong, and knowing that tough choices have to be made at times. We need to look to Obama to lead a government that you can trust to follow its own rules and what is best for the country. Not what is best for importing oil and creating billion dollar profits. The America people have been financially rapped.
Clinton has been stating all of her experience and abilities makes her better to lead. If she was so great why didn’t her Senate peers elevate her to the leadership. They picked another women. Who knows Clinton better, the voter or her peers. The Clintons have used their presidential connections to promote their economic well being. How much economic benefit do voters want to give them?
Obama has throughout his life shown to be that individual whom is open minded to hear all opinions and that self does not come first.
Finance Markets Should Learn Transparency From Nonprofits: Social Responsibility
http://mynonprofitwebsite.com/blog/
Emo Questions why
http://mynonprofitwebsite.com/blog/2008/02/22/emo- ...- neuron79, on 03/23/2008, -2/+10Unless Obama alters the current debt-based private central banking system, nothing will really change. We'll still be in severe debt (over 9 trillion dollars at the moment), we'll still borrow money at interest from the Federal Reserve to pay for war and social welfare programs (adding to the debt), and we'll still need taxes to cover the interest charges on our debt.
Becoming independent of foreign oil will help to some extent, but hurt in other ways. In particular, if America is no longer buying oil from other countries, those countries are going to be less likely (and able) to buy American products. Also, since the US dollar is essentially backed by oil, countries will be more likely to switch to buying and selling oil in other currencies (the Euro in particular). The value of the dollar will *really* fall then, as countries shed their stockpiles of US Dollars they currently hold to be able to purchase oil.
Obama is appealing in many ways, but I don't think that any of the three remaining viable candidates will institute the type of "change" required to fix our system.- elint6, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1Agreed. The question remains whether they lack the political will to do so, or whether they lack the ability to see the problem. I pray that it's the former, because if you don't acknowledge a problem, you definitely cannot fix it.
- neuron79, on 03/23/2008, -2/+10Unless Obama alters the current debt-based private central banking system, nothing will really change. We'll still be in severe debt (over 9 trillion dollars at the moment), we'll still borrow money at interest from the Federal Reserve to pay for war and social welfare programs (adding to the debt), and we'll still need taxes to cover the interest charges on our debt.
- flavioribeiro, on 03/23/2008, -2/+86Not only is the US deep in debt, but American financial institutions have used borrowed money to enter extremely speculative contracts that could only succeed if the market kept rising. They would've made insane amounts of money if the bubble didn't burst.
Banks such as Bear Stearns used their assets (worth $80 billion at best before they went bankrupt) as collateral in order to control about $13 TRILLION.
Here's an article with more details: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/m ...
Don't ever expect the American media to report how big the problem is. And don't think for a minute that this is going away. A lot of people on CNBC are calling a market bottom, but they're LYING. The financial system is built on fraud, and they want to perpetuate the fraud.- elint6, on 03/23/2008, -4/+2I think you mean $3 trillion - the U.S. GDP is ~ $13T.
- flavioribeiro, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4No, I don't. I really mean $13 trillion.
Read the article, and no, it's not a typo.- kingsaliva, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2I believe I read, that if you take all of the derivatives of American financial companies, they are over $500T. 9:1 Reserve ratios do not apply unless your a bank. I cannot even imagine how deep some of these companies are.
- flavioribeiro, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4No, I don't. I really mean $13 trillion.
- bgolds99, on 03/23/2008, -8/+0alright, so we should panic and take all our money out of banks? It's people like you that let recessions become worse than they are. If the general public believes the economy will stay somewhat stable, it will; if they do not, then it will not, Macroeconomics 101 people. Putting fear in people will just make it worse, why do that?
- hillkiwi, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5So they can prepare themselves for what is coming.
- flavioribeiro, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3Depending on your bank, then yes, you should cash out and buy treasuries. A lot of major banks and investment banks are technically insolvent. Citibank* is just the prime example. For instance, Lehman Brothers' clients have been moving to Goldman Sachs because they Lehman was operating with a portfolio similar to Bear Stearns'.
* Fortunately for Citibank clients, the Fed now considers it "too big to fail". The Fed would rather nationalize Citi than let millions of clients lose their savings, so don't expect it to crash soon.
Anyway, If the economy were truly solid, you wouldn't be trying to lecture me. The banks are full of *****, the population is in denial and the media refuses to talk about it.- PeppermintPig, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1By treasuries, you mean gold and silver? >:)
- drgmdp, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1By nationalize, you mean that awful practice so often critizised when done by other countries?
- PeppermintPig, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1By treasuries, you mean gold and silver? >:)
- Hangly, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5Fractional reserve banking, stock markets, and investment of every kind depends on a expanding economy to perpetuate. When the price of oil passes a certain point (or the economy contracts for any other reason) these systems are so leveraged that they don't contract along with it, they collapse completely. That's the downside of all this hedging and leveraging.
Before the great depression there were the margin loans that let investors turn $10 into $100 worth of stock purchases. Everyone agrees that was bad, and margin loans are now illegal. Thank Bob! The thing is though that right now EVERYTHING works on the same principle as a margin loan. Company stock options, hedge funds, fractional reserve banking, most of the value of all of these things is pure illusion.- PeppermintPig, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Well articulated.
To add onto Hangly's point about expanding economy, people must be careful not to confuse the inflation of prices and the effects of thriftless printing of fiat and fractional reserve practices as actual growth of the economy. Federal Reserve no longer publishes M3 data, and the Government has no incentive to explain economy performance.
The rate of devaluing in the USD is hitting prices hard, and Oil is a fine indicator of the situation.
- PeppermintPig, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Well articulated.
- heystoopid, on 03/23/2008, -2/+1In regard to comments on the failed bank , I would strongly suggest you read the annual stock holders report which gives a detailed report of the Bank finances structure and assets as you appears to have exaggerated their assets by more then an order of magnitude .
- hillkiwi, on 03/23/2008, -0/+6I too was amazed by the lack of news coverage last Monday - on all the Canadian and UK news stations it was all they talked about all day, yet the US news stations (CNN included) barely even mentioned anything was happening and seemed to shrug it off. Perhaps as bgolds99 suggested they were trying to prevent a panic/massive sell-off.
- flavioribeiro, on 03/24/2008, -0/+7All the US news stations have been hiding the news for months now, and will continue to do so. The financial media keeps pumping the markets so that the investment banks and hedge funds can unload their positions to unsuspecting fools.
- hoodster, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Yeah, last week a moderator on CNN announced that Bear Stearns was SAVED by JP Morgan...LOL...She really made my week.
- diggingaround, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Please guys.. watch at least 2 min of this video.. it explains in plain English how are we all taken for a ride:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfXavRTM4Fg - Risingashes, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1It isn't as disasterous as you make it out to be.
Financial markets are a hell of a lot more unstable than you'd imagine them to be. It's mostly due to the multiplier effect cycling money that doesn't technically exist through the markets. (When you deposit money in to your bank account banks can then lend that money out to people, which is generally spent and then put in the bank accounts of whoever got the money which can then be leant out again. This doesn't go on forever due to reserve requirements imposed on the banks, around 10%)
The negative savings rate is actually not America's fault, in fact it's a symptom of a world wide savings glut (EU, Japan and China have an overly high savings rate which needs to go somewhere).
The major problem with the Bear Stearns situation is that it gives a powerful incentive for future bad behavior. Bear Stearns went down due to putting most of their money in to the subprime loans that required housing prices to keep going up. Soon as they went down they needed to sell peoples houses which caused the house prices to fall further etc etc. Having a bank fail is horrible for an economy but it should have been allowed. Banks should not be given the message that if they cheat or make overly risky investments that they will just get bailed out.- flavioribeiro, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1It's quite disastrous. Regardless, I agree that the government should let banks fail. It's tough medicine, but it's the only economically and morally sound solution.
However, don't expect the powers that be to let banks go bankrupt. They will keep the music going until this practice is absolutely unsustainable and the dollar gets dumped.
- flavioribeiro, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1It's quite disastrous. Regardless, I agree that the government should let banks fail. It's tough medicine, but it's the only economically and morally sound solution.
- elint6, on 03/23/2008, -4/+2I think you mean $3 trillion - the U.S. GDP is ~ $13T.
- zomgflamer, on 03/23/2008, -24/+29Just 1 more year and i get a dual citizenship. After that I will fly the ***** out of here. Good Luck Folks.
- lazyfisherman, on 03/23/2008, -2/+7where?
- Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -0/+11Hope you're not going to England or Spain, their housing markets are also deep in the crapper. Their overall economies will probably be pulled into the downturn.
- KhanneaNL, on 03/23/2008, -5/+0Oh so it's we don't win unless everybody loses?
- mike17032, on 03/23/2008, -11/+27Dont let the door hit your worthless ass on the way out.
- KhanneaNL, on 03/23/2008, -6/+2Welcome to the EU buddy, we can use clever people like you!
- DFrag, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6It's so funny that people like you get angry when people get fed up and leave. You actually think the government loves you and that anything short of unquestioning loyalty and sacrifice are unspeakable insults. LOL The government counts on brainwashed people like you.
- Hangly, on 03/23/2008, -8/+11Does Europe offer some kind of Right of Return for us white folks?
This America place is very pretty, but it's got some kind of Native American curse on it that makes conquerors go ***** insane after a few generations.- DevilInPgh, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2I believe Ireland and Italy have laws for Right of Return.
- SatansSpatula, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Ireland: so long as a parent or grandparent was born there, you're inn like Flynn.
- DevilInPgh, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2I believe Ireland and Italy have laws for Right of Return.
- hillkiwi, on 03/23/2008, -3/+1Wrong post - sorry.
- Tetraca, on 03/24/2008, -3/+4How about you do something about your country and fix it rather than fleeing it? We can recover and prosper, but we need people to make it recover and prosper. It will be 300 million people in some degree of suffering on your ass because you didn't have the balls to do anything about it. This is a democratic nation: We need more than one person to change it.
- drgmdp, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1no you can't. you're doomed.
- ORBAT, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1The major flaw in your reasoning is assuming that you're living in a democratic nation.
- logosx1, on 03/24/2008, -0/+0Part of the "fix" is to take our money and/or ourselves to greener pastures in order to teach idiotic governments a lesson. Hit them in the pocketbook, and they're more likely to pay attention than if you trudge to the polling place and elect another criminal to office. Competition among sovereignties is healthy and should be encouraged.
- clokwise, on 03/24/2008, -7/+13I'm with zomgflamer... I got my Aussie citizenship a few years back. In fact I bought my one way ticket to Sydney on the day GWB was "elected". That was not a coincidence. Yeah, it takes more than one person to fix the US problem, but when you are living a country where the populace are induced into a state of mental retardation by the media, and deprived of all but the most simplistic knowledge of the goings on in the rest of the world, there is practically no hope. Ironically, Obama IS the ONE man who could turn it around. If he fails to get elected it would not surprise me. At all. Sorry guys. I'm now proudly Aussie and have no regrets. Good luck.
- rugby4ward, on 03/24/2008, -14/+9Get the ***** out of here *****, we don't need you.
- DFrag, on 03/24/2008, -0/+7Hush redneck, smart people are talking.
- NightVortez, on 03/24/2008, -0/+6What country? I have a dual citizenship with Russia, so it's a lose/lose for me.
- drgmdp, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1come to argentina. no need for citizenship to stay down here.
- linagee, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3Welcome to being double taxed. USA plus whatever other country you decide. Hahaha.
- kolinkoolface2, on 03/24/2008, -6/+2yea have fun paying much higher taxes. The US pays some of the lowest taxes in the world you dumb *****. This place is great, why do you think so many people risk their lives to get in? We just need to remember why our country was created. I hope you never look back you lazy *****.
- DFrag, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5They pay higher taxes because they are decent people who don't think people should die from lack of healthcare. American takes our money but doesn't do anything for it. And you defend that. Sucker. No smart person would come back. God, STFU, people already think Americans are stupid and you prove them right.
- kolinkoolface2, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1hahahahaha go take macro or micro economics..... you know nothing. You know what feels good. Not what reality is. When you understand how government intervention is bad for anything, then we can have a conversation. I don't defend the government taking any of my money, in fact i think the income tax is the most fraudulent amendment ever created. God people on this site think they are so sophisticated but know nothing about how economics works.
- DFrag, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5They pay higher taxes because they are decent people who don't think people should die from lack of healthcare. American takes our money but doesn't do anything for it. And you defend that. Sucker. No smart person would come back. God, STFU, people already think Americans are stupid and you prove them right.
- trghpy, on 03/23/2008, -4/+40Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like. - Will Rogers
The problem is people are stupid, corporations are greedy, and the government is too encumbered to do anything useful.- rficwizard, on 03/23/2008, -4/+9Corporations are supposed to be greedy. Their function is to earn money for the stockholders. The consumer is supposed to protect himself or herself.
- odigity, on 03/23/2008, -0/+10Corporations with government are infinitely more dangerous than corporations without government. Without government, a corporation cannot coerce, they can only engage in consensual trade, or fraud, in which case they won't last long. The problem is corporations + government, which is what happens when you try to use government to regulate industry. It's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture.
- hillkiwi, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5Agreed - the credit card companies pretty much rewrote the US bankruptcy laws in 2005.
- skinnyskittles, on 03/23/2008, -0/+4amen
- aeoo, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1> Too many people spend money they haven't earned
That's called "leverage".
- macwac, on 03/23/2008, -2/+19I have the grandest idea.. write off all the debt by crediting it to Bush's personal account! I'm sure he still got extra $ to spare...
- lazyfisherman, on 03/23/2008, -4/+2The Bush will find you and his people will show you much waterboard loving
- Hangly, on 03/23/2008, -1/+5While Bush has his hand in this mess, he doesn't control the budget or monetary policy. Budgets are passed by congress, and monetary policy is controlled by the Fed.
Not trying to defend Bush one bit, but he's not exactly the end boss you have to beat to win the game. There are thousands of these ***** who need to be rooted out. Bush is just the one on teevee the most. - scamper22, on 03/23/2008, -0/+11Cosmo Kramer: It's a write-off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write-off?
Cosmo Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: You don't even know what a write-off is.
Cosmo Kramer: Do you?
Jerry: No, I don't.
Cosmo Kramer: But they do, and they're the ones writing it off.- darylyounge, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2Yes indeed.
- specialK16, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4Dugg not only for the Senfield reference, but also for usage of Kramer's full name.
"Cosmo Kramer?"
- VacaN, on 03/23/2008, -50/+8This country needs Jesus and morals and maybe that will end this Liberal state we live in which is filled with material things and homosexuals.
- ralphthemagi, on 03/23/2008, -4/+40Yes. Clearly all of the country's problems can be attributed to anal sex. I just read a report in The Economist the other day about the correlation between butt sex and debt. Good to know there are people like you out there trying to fight the good fight. Carry on.
- darylyounge, on 03/23/2008, -1/+12Can't stop laughing. Thanks.
- ralphthemagi, on 03/23/2008, -1/+11You think this is a joke? Teh buttsecks was the #1 cause of bankruptcy in 2007.
- specialK16, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2"Yes. Clearly all of the country's problems can be attributed to anal sex"
LMAO, have some cake.
- darylyounge, on 03/23/2008, -1/+12Can't stop laughing. Thanks.
- xensoldier, on 03/23/2008, -3/+4If that wasn't sarcasm without the tag.. then you sir are dugg down for your moronic statement.
- rficwizard, on 03/23/2008, -3/+6It had to be sarcasm. No reasonable person could actually think that our financial problems are caused by individuals' sexual preference. Also, of course, all countries are filled with "material things." I've never visited a country where the "things" were imaginary, or made entirely of energy.
- nickerbocker, on 03/23/2008, -2/+8I don't think it was sarcasm. Crazy ***** like that is said on Fox News everyday.
- rficwizard, on 03/23/2008, -3/+6It had to be sarcasm. No reasonable person could actually think that our financial problems are caused by individuals' sexual preference. Also, of course, all countries are filled with "material things." I've never visited a country where the "things" were imaginary, or made entirely of energy.
- elint6, on 03/23/2008, -4/+2I hope you were being sarcastic.
- nycmac247, on 03/23/2008, -6/+4pls go back to your gay scat porn
- rand0mm0nkey, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4Um, Jesus was a liberal. Happy long-haired zombie day to you, while we're on the subject.
- linagee, on 03/24/2008, -5/+1i was almost going to click digg, but then you had to take a pot shot at the *****. WTF is that all about? Don't be a hater.
- ralphthemagi, on 03/23/2008, -4/+40Yes. Clearly all of the country's problems can be attributed to anal sex. I just read a report in The Economist the other day about the correlation between butt sex and debt. Good to know there are people like you out there trying to fight the good fight. Carry on.
- airwalkery2k, on 03/23/2008, -0/+21Just like a credit card, it's all fun and there seems to be no downside until the bill collectors start calling and you aren't able to apply for any new cards.
- DBNKR, on 03/23/2008, -1/+10This fact is by far the most weird thing about Americans. I will NEVER understand how the usage of a CREDIT card can become almost the norm... A culture, the thing to do. Its beyond me. I've always said no to credit card offers from my bank. I just do not understand why I should use it for anything. Why not just save money for ***** you want instead? "The waiting is the best part" my mom always said. Save money for a new phone instead of borrowing money for it. While you wait, maybe there'll come a new model?
- airwalkery2k, on 03/23/2008, -2/+7I used to think like that. Credit cards are stupid so I will never sign up for one. But everything has become centered around credit scores here. You can't get an apartment, a loan, or sometimes even a job with no credit score to your name. Of course a bad credit score also hurts.
So, I have one that I charge groceries or clothes to once a month. Small purchases that I can easily pay back and which I treat as spent money.- cmackattack, on 03/23/2008, -2/+2
Instead of using credit scores many will accept tax returns, bank records, or other assets...if they do not then they are not worth your time, effort, or currency. If they do that enough, their business will suffer because of it...period. - thatsthewayitis, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3might be sound advice for most locales, but at least in New York City, you're pretty much screwed if you don't have a credit history.
- linagee, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Good for you. Karma++
- cmackattack, on 03/23/2008, -2/+2
- lovedunks, on 03/23/2008, -1/+5I guess it all depends on if you are lacking in self control. I've been using credit cards since I was 18 and I have never missed a payment and never gotten into troublesome debt. I usually pay off my balance in full each month. I don't like giving out my check card # over the Internet when I buy stuff because it doesn't have the same protections that my credit card does. Credit cards are not the problem, it's a lack of self control and an environment that does not encourage personal responsibility.
- ScottMitchell, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4FALSE.
Debit cards with the VISA logo have the exact same fraud protection as VISA credit cards.
"The Zero Liability policy covers all Visa credit and debit card transactions processed over the Visa network—online or off." [http://usa.visa.com/personal/security/visa_securit ...- covertbadger, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3It's not quite as simple as that though. If someone gets hold of my debit card and goes on a spending spree, I might well get the money back eventually but there's a good chance it'll take a while, and during that time I'm exposed to other financial problems if my car breaks down or I lose my job. With credit cards, it wasn't my money that got lost, and my money stays where I can access it.
- lovedunks, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Thanks covertbadger -- that is exactly what I was referring to. I don't want someone to have the ability to clean out my checking account, even if it's only temporary. Plus, I have had problems when using my check card in the past where some dumb merchant will double/quadruple bill me and then I don't have any funds for my rent check. You may eventually get the money back, but it is not fast.
- ScottMitchell, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4FALSE.
- airwalkery2k, on 03/23/2008, -2/+7I used to think like that. Credit cards are stupid so I will never sign up for one. But everything has become centered around credit scores here. You can't get an apartment, a loan, or sometimes even a job with no credit score to your name. Of course a bad credit score also hurts.
- DBNKR, on 03/23/2008, -1/+10This fact is by far the most weird thing about Americans. I will NEVER understand how the usage of a CREDIT card can become almost the norm... A culture, the thing to do. Its beyond me. I've always said no to credit card offers from my bank. I just do not understand why I should use it for anything. Why not just save money for ***** you want instead? "The waiting is the best part" my mom always said. Save money for a new phone instead of borrowing money for it. While you wait, maybe there'll come a new model?
- dksupremacy, on 03/23/2008, -5/+12Quic! Someone give the US the Heimlich maneuver
- linagee, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1$600 Heimlich maneuver?
- wiretapped, on 03/23/2008, -5/+11is this because of the iraq war?
- nickerbocker, on 03/23/2008, -3/+12Duh
- Zaeboes, on 03/23/2008, -8/+4No
- olenick, on 03/23/2008, -1/+6Putting a $2 trillion war on the national credit-card probably didn't help, but I don't think it's the sole cause. The willingness on the part of government officials (mainly Republicans but Hilary lent plenty of help) to lie and cheat and defraud to wage their war -- and the example they set for both US consumers and businesses -- did cause the meltdown though.
- cmackattack, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2
That is one (of the most recent) of the five major reasons, yes.... - PhilMoskowitz, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1The cost of "we're a bunch of bellicose, crazy *****, please invest in America" can't be measured on a chart. People tend to walk away financially from a country that's trying to destroy itself.
- SirBrittanicus, on 03/23/2008, -4/+5Old news...
- elint6, on 03/23/2008, -0/+7but never more relevant than now.
- Loornadune, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1Who would bury that? It's so true.
- Accolade1, on 03/23/2008, -2/+8How is this news? I thought this was obvious..
- sentinel106, on 03/23/2008, -1/+11American debt isn't anything new, as a matter of fact it's one of the biggest issues in the elections...
- JimmyRyan, on 03/23/2008, -2/+15Watch The Money Masters (its on Google Video), This is only the beginning of whats wrong with the economy today.
- ThrstForKnwldge, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Yeah I've seen that film it's very informative. The Federal Reserve ,which is just a group of private banks and isn't federal at all, printing our currency is why we have so much debt. There is something wrong with the government having to take out loans from private banks that have the power to print the currency instead of just having the government print the money itself and bypass the bankers. The American people have been duped into believing the Federal Reserve system is actually a good thing when nothing could be further from the truth.
- rolf, on 03/23/2008, -12/+57As a long-time Ron Paul supporter, this is one thing I've been keenly aware of. While the rest of digg is indirectly supporting more spending (by cheering candidates who support more spending). Go on, look up your candidates position -- they will keep or increase the current spending through a bunch of wonderful programs they want to push. None of the mainstream (officially sanctioned) candidates are talking about reducing spending. Not one democrat or one republican.
- EarlOfLade, on 03/23/2008, -23/+6Yeah, Paul... the sure way to an even bigger disaster!
Why are you so blind? Nothing of what Paul suggests will have any positive effect on USA, quite the opposite.- rolf, on 03/23/2008, -4/+16Wow, I guess you showed me through your deep analysis and convincing logic the flaws in Ron Paul's loony positions.
I know when I'm thoroughly whipped.... so I guess I'm sorry I ever thought any of Paul's stances were any good. A tip of my hat to you, good sir. Thank you for showing me the light. - Hangly, on 03/23/2008, -3/+6Are you retarded, or are you attacks merely baseless?
- 0Degrees, on 03/23/2008, -2/+4We failed to bring people like EarlOfLade into the light folks. This is why Ron Paul failed, we weren't able to wake enough people up in time for the Iowa caucuses.
- agaudet, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3Because George Bush had a very positive effect on the USA right ;)?
- NightVortez, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Him (as well as the whole austrian school) had been predicting this economic fall for over forty years now.
- StaticThunder, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Keep predicting and someday you might be right.
- rolf, on 03/23/2008, -4/+16Wow, I guess you showed me through your deep analysis and convincing logic the flaws in Ron Paul's loony positions.
- MikeFallopian, on 03/23/2008, -12/+3Isolationism, reneging on treaties and alliances, and basing his economic policies on the teaching of the philosophically-minded, data-averse Austrian school? I'll pass, thanks. I'd love to see a candidate who held MODERATE libertarians beliefs, Ron Paul is not that candidate.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 03/23/2008, -1/+6"Isolationism"
Go look it up in the dictionary so you don't make as much of a fool out of yourself again. You sound a bit like one of the Cato (Stato) Institute's pro-war libertarian types.- MikeFallopian, on 03/23/2008, -4/+2Pulling out of the UN, pulling out of NATO, pulling out of NAFTA, and bringing every single US soldier stationed throughout the world back onto US soil... if that's not isolationism, I'm not sure what is. Oh, and I'm not interested in your libertarian institute flame wars (amusing as they are to watch from the sidelines).
- 0Degrees, on 03/24/2008, -2/+8Time has shown that US involvement in NATO and NAFTA violates the role of federal government as outlined by the Constitution. Ever heard the quote, "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none"? Sending any American troop anywhere based on a NATO resolution is strictly unconstitutional as such action would require a declaration of war by Congress - something that has never happened in conjunction with a NATO resolution requiring American military presence.
If you actually understood the Constitution you would understand what non-interventionism is all about. How do you think this country came to govern itself? Could it be that Britian was too spread out over the world intervening in everybodies affairs to suppress our American revolution? How about the fall of the Roman empire... if the Romans had adhered to a non-interventionism philosophy, Rome may still exist.
Surely the founders studied history and realized why all great empires wither and die. This is exactly why the constitution makes it explicitly clear that any military actions should only occur as a result of Congress declaring war, make senses when you apply logic doesn't it? When you remove the ability for Congress, or any other entity, to declare war then you've entered the realm of isolationsim - something that, at this point, is only possible via a Congressional vote. Take the second World War for instance, if Congress had not declared war then they would have decided on Isolationism (as Nazi Germany would have clearly been a threat to US national security). Now take the war in Iraqi, had Congress actually been given the opportunity to declare war they would have surely voted it down. Would that be because Iraqi was no threat to our national security: yes.
When you start manipulating and bypassing the Constitution there is no end to how ***** up the government will become. NATO and NAFTA are both prime examples of this. So I digress...
Name one mother-***** thing NATO has done good for the USA. ONE. You can't name one because there isn't one (and if you can your in ***** fairy-tale world with Bush, McCain, Obama, and pretty much every other mainstream political candidate). Now, lets ponder how much money, time, and lives have been lost because of useless NATO resolutions that make the USA look like tyrannically world-policeman. When you stop to think about it, this country was founded on ideas that were formed by men who had experience with what government should not be and although those men were far from perfect, it's the reason this country has prospered for so long. When we abandon the Constitution we abandon any hope of a free and prosperous society, but I guess that's okay with a ***** such as yourself.
/powned. nuff said.- MikeFallopian, on 03/24/2008, -5/+1You really think that the geopolitical realities of the late 1700s should be the guiding force behind our 21st century foreign policy? I don't know whether to laugh at that or weep. I'm really sick of these tired arguments, quoting people who died 200 years ago and inexplicably comparing us to the Roman Empire. Look, the founding fathers had some great ideas but the country that they forged barely lasted 50 years before falling into a devastating civil war. They weren't infallible. As for Iraq, Congress did authorize miltary force and has continued to support the war financially. And as for NATO, one of its primary roles was as a bulwark against potential Soviet aggression, a role which it carried out rather well.
- 0Degrees, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Congress authorized the war based on facts that have now be falsified. This is exactly why a declaration of war is required by the constitution. But oh gee, like you imply, it's just a piece of paper from the 1700s that has absolutely no bearing on the current situation.
Keep in mind, occupation != war. And btw, how's the weather in Oz today?
- 0Degrees, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Congress authorized the war based on facts that have now be falsified. This is exactly why a declaration of war is required by the constitution. But oh gee, like you imply, it's just a piece of paper from the 1700s that has absolutely no bearing on the current situation.
- cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3
"Look, the founding fathers had some great ideas but the country that they forged barely lasted 50 years before falling into a devastating civil war."
And again...that would be because the US government didn't follow the constitution at that time either...Whether it's 1 year, 75 years or 220 years after what we agree is a "good idea" ...if you decide to ***** on that idea and pull a 180 degree reverse on those ideals you cannot claim that this new idea or action is an evolution of the original idea due to the times or by any means a good idea to start.- covertbadger, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2So...the government has been ignoring the constitution since 50 years after it was written? Doesn't that kind of undermine the claim that the constitution is "the reason this country has prospered for so long"?
- MikeFallopian, on 03/24/2008, -2/+0"At the time", the constitution considered slavery legal, with the infamous 3/5 of a person clause. So you're saying that the government should have gone along with that status quo because the founding fathers were completely infallible in their vision? Also, who's talking about a 180-degree reverse? There is a middle ground between total non-intervention, and empire-building. That middle ground involves working with other countries to promote freedom and security. We might not exist as a nation if the French hadn't intervened in our war of independence.
- cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2
"So...the government has been ignoring the constitution since 50 years after it was written? Doesn't that kind of undermine the claim that the constitution is "the reason this country has prospered for so long"?"
Putting words in people's mouth which they did not say, good try. Most sensible people would say it's actually the people that have made us prosper. The constitution allows for people to have a framework and fulfill their prosperous potential. No one said it has been ignored continually...but at various times, yes...we go very far astray.
"So you're saying that the government should have gone along with that status quo because the founding fathers were completely infallible in their vision?"
Very likely as there are provisions for amendments and ratification by the States when things needs to be changed.
- MikeFallopian, on 03/24/2008, -5/+1You really think that the geopolitical realities of the late 1700s should be the guiding force behind our 21st century foreign policy? I don't know whether to laugh at that or weep. I'm really sick of these tired arguments, quoting people who died 200 years ago and inexplicably comparing us to the Roman Empire. Look, the founding fathers had some great ideas but the country that they forged barely lasted 50 years before falling into a devastating civil war. They weren't infallible. As for Iraq, Congress did authorize miltary force and has continued to support the war financially. And as for NATO, one of its primary roles was as a bulwark against potential Soviet aggression, a role which it carried out rather well.
- 0Degrees, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1You know what I'm tired of MikeFallopian? I'm tired of people like you who have no clue what the constitution is all about. Slavery was never considered legal by the constitution. It was not explicitly made illegal - so in other words it was an individuals states decision.
Go back to high school history class for christ sakes before you start touting your opinion as-if it has any validity what-so-ever. I bet you didn't even realize the Korean war was actually the result of a UN resolution... and without doing any research I'd venture to say 80% or more of the troops sent by the "coalition" were American boys. ***** the UN, ***** NATO, ***** NAFTA, and ***** you. They do no good and never will.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 03/23/2008, -1/+6"Isolationism"
- colincornaby, on 03/24/2008, -4/+1I would say that any candidate for ending the war is for reducing spending. The concepts go hand in hand.
- patch6, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3If you're talking about Obama, you can be sure that his foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, will have more armed conflicts planned. Just look at his history.
- sloppychris, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4Good luck cutting funding from the military industrial complex. There was only one candidate with the courage to make that bold of a move.
- kaelyiesta, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3Net spending considers more than war expenditures. One can still spend above ones means despite cutting down on wars.
- cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1and we do...
- SchmuckofNI, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2I agree, none of the other candidates have said anything about getting the country out of debt. The problem is, even if the U.S gets out of the Iraqi war anytime soon, the interest rates alone from all that borrowed money will further kill the economy. More the reason why the FED needs to be abolished.
- wordglue, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3I KNOW. Thank you...I think I just might vote for the corpse of Alexander Hamilton this coming election. I mean the current candidates are simply perpetuating his theory of debt as a way to make the world invest in our success....but they're not even doing THAT the right way, everyone hates us. /cry
- EarlOfLade, on 03/23/2008, -23/+6Yeah, Paul... the sure way to an even bigger disaster!
- xixphz, on 03/23/2008, -2/+3hmmm i wonder when we are going to start making kites out of dollars and getting paid daily...
- rficwizard, on 03/23/2008, -0/+7Supposedly, inflation was once so bad in Germany that workers insisted on being paid at lunch time (and again at the end of the day) so that they could spend what they made in the morning before prices rose.
- DBNKR, on 03/23/2008, -2/+1Wont happen. Just use a credit card. Its easier than money...
- HoratioHellpop, on 03/23/2008, -13/+12002 called. They want their news back.
- santaliqueur, on 03/23/2008, -0/+81994 called, they want its joke back.
- heliox, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5Elvis called. He wants a peanut butter and banana sandwich.
- darylyounge, on 03/23/2008, -5/+0Everyone knows Elvis hates bananas.
- provost, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1elvis hates bananas? *****.. that was the most anticlimactic ending to this reply-fest that I could imagine.
- heliox, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5Elvis called. He wants a peanut butter and banana sandwich.
- santaliqueur, on 03/23/2008, -0/+81994 called, they want its joke back.
- GhostyBoy, on 03/23/2008, -2/+48It's too bad none of the presidential candidates brought this up and offered a solution as part of their platform....oh wait....
- 4d669, on 03/24/2008, -0/+6Unfortunately people preferred someone who shouted 'change' over and over with no explanation.
- jmpeagle, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4when was the last politician that won without heavy usage of hackneyed political expressions about shaking things up inside the beltway or reaching across the aisle to bring about consensus reform?
- 4d669, on 03/24/2008, -0/+6Unfortunately people preferred someone who shouted 'change' over and over with no explanation.
- TheAwakenedOne, on 03/23/2008, -3/+13The plans for our system were laid down during the post WWII era. When our interstate highway system was designed during the Eisenhower administration we were totally self sufficient (i.e. we did not rely on foreign oil). Essentially our nation is built around transportation hubs. First it was the railways, then the US Highway system, followed by the Interstate Highway system.
Unfortunately there was a bug in the ointment. The plan did not consider future consumption and existing reserves. The plan for Urban sprawl suggested that everyone invest in their houses. Using IRS tax incentives and government supported Fannie Mae loans, everyone was encouraged to buy a home, then sell it for a larger one. We kept on building bigger and bigger and farther apart just like our Urban Assault Vehicles the H2.
Now we have these monstrosities that look more like hotels than family homes, and we are spread so far apart that the overhead of consumption is eating us alive. To solve the problem, we must have new forms of transportation that do not rely on fossil fuels, or have much more condensed living arrangements like they do in Europe, where home, work and shopping are all within walking distance. Much of this activity was fueled by the expanansion of our military indurstrial complex which Dwight Eisenhower warned us about in his final address. To correct the problem we must pull the plug on military, eliminate the national debt and trade deficit, cut spending at all levels and focus on the economy.
For more information on the solution, the problem, and why we act this way see my blog at http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog. ...- TheAwakenedOne, on 03/23/2008, -2/+2http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog. ...
Sorry it stripped it. - CHANNELOCK, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1sounds good but thiers no real money to be made by thinking smart,America cant correct the problems without falling hard from grace.
- TheAwakenedOne, on 03/23/2008, -2/+2http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog. ...
- withears, on 03/23/2008, -1/+18republicans decry "tax and spend" Democrats, yet the republican approach is "borrow and spend."
Yoo hoo! It has to be paid back eventually.- mOdQuArK, on 03/23/2008, -1/+15I think the plan is that the RICH Republicans won't have to pay back any of it, just everyone else. The poor Republicans are just gullible & easily-manipulated morons.
- brad3378, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2That is debatable, but the indisputable truth is that Retirees won't have to pay for any of it because they will no longer be paying income taxes. If you're too young to retire, I suggest saving your pennies for a rainy tax day.
- mOdQuArK, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Oh, the poor ones will pay for it one way or another. They'll get their benefits cut, they'll have to depend on the largesse of their descendants, and their final days will probably be in miserably poor health since they won't b able to afford better health care. Some of them might even figure out how they got swindled (although I'm pretty sure most of them go right ahead blaming everything on the "libtards"), but it will be too late for them to do anything by then.
- brad3378, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2That is debatable, but the indisputable truth is that Retirees won't have to pay for any of it because they will no longer be paying income taxes. If you're too young to retire, I suggest saving your pennies for a rainy tax day.
- Hangly, on 03/23/2008, -0/+3Actually, it doesn't have to be paid back eventually. And let's be realistic, it probably won't be. It's just way way too much money. The only way out is bankruptcy and collapse and all the fun things that will bring.
- ScottMitchell, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2As they say, when you owe the bank $2,000, it's your problem. When you owe the bank $2,000,000, it's the bank's problem. What would happen if the US just sort of shrugged off it's national debt? If it said to China, Japan, and all the other nations that have bought our debt, "Yeah, um, sorry, but we're going to trash the USD and just come up with a new currency and sort of write off our previous obligations. Mmmmkay?"
- mOdQuArK, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Probably like when you declare bankruptcy, but on a global scale. No other country would be willing to do business with U.S. businesses without demanding cash up front, in denominations other than U.S. currency.
- ScottMitchell, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2As they say, when you owe the bank $2,000, it's your problem. When you owe the bank $2,000,000, it's the bank's problem. What would happen if the US just sort of shrugged off it's national debt? If it said to China, Japan, and all the other nations that have bought our debt, "Yeah, um, sorry, but we're going to trash the USD and just come up with a new currency and sort of write off our previous obligations. Mmmmkay?"
- mOdQuArK, on 03/23/2008, -1/+15I think the plan is that the RICH Republicans won't have to pay back any of it, just everyone else. The poor Republicans are just gullible & easily-manipulated morons.
- SilverBlade2k, on 03/23/2008, -0/+9If a regular citizen has to be forced from their home, forced to return merchandise, or forced to sell off possessions in order to pay debt, then why can't the same be done on a federal level? Why do the banks and other countries continue to lend money to the U.S, damned well knowing that it can't be repaid? And why does congress keeping approving more spending at the will of the President?
- KhanneaNL, on 03/23/2008, -4/+1Hihihihi good idea! And LOTS of arabs and chinese are already drooling over various strategical US industries.
Oh wait didnt the US played the same game with several third world countries, leaving the native people there in never-ending debt slavery?
Ohh payback's a bitch! - darylyounge, on 03/23/2008, -0/+0Because they can.
- postingbh, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2"Why do the banks and other countries continue to lend money to the U.S, damned well knowing that it can't be repaid?"
- So they can own our economy and our military.
- KhanneaNL, on 03/23/2008, -4/+1Hihihihi good idea! And LOTS of arabs and chinese are already drooling over various strategical US industries.
- nycmac247, on 03/23/2008, -1/+9"pay no mind to that $500 trillion dollar derivative monster behind the curtain"
was one of the comments ... so true.
The bad stuff has not even started yet, not by a mile.- bwdd, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2500 trillion?
I'm a few hundred below that...
- bwdd, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2500 trillion?
- dho331, on 03/23/2008, -6/+4I knew this months ago, the economy has been failing tremendously. The government is only lowering interest rates to save banks and companies that are doomed anyways. The whole world is screwed, and it's not George Bush's fault, it's the fault of the corrupt corporations. I'm not a democrat, I hate the socialist principles that their party conveys, and I fully support huge industries. The problem is the vast array of scandalous industries that are dishonest, malevolent, and power hungry.
- odigity, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5You're not quite there yet. The problem isn't corporations, it's corporations + government - in other words, fascism. This is the result of socialist policies. Every time you try to regulate industry, the industry will take over government to fight back and use the force of government for profit. Halliburton and Blackwater are the two most obvious examples. And then there's the Federal Reserve, and the lack of a sound monetary system... the rabbit hole is deep, indeed, but don't let that confuse you as to the appropriateness of free market economics. Don't blame free markets for our troubles when it is the lack of such that is the culprit. As with all of history, the problem is and always will be government.
- Aokitsune, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2The trouble is it pays to be dishonest, malevolent and power hungry- as long as you aren't caught (for a few it's profitable even if they're caught.) Huge industries are just better at manipulating the situation for their benefit.
Despicable things can easily be done in the name of God or Profit - DBNKR, on 03/23/2008, -0/+4Yeah, but that is the way a corporation is supposed to work. It has owners (investors), and for them the board members are obliged to make the company grow.
http://www.thecorporation.com/
- tufftugg, on 03/23/2008, -3/+11Ah Mr.Bush....what was that? Fiscally Responsible...lmao. Ah, American's are so easy!!
- DangerCollie, on 03/23/2008, -0/+8For a lot of years we were financing our lifestyles on credit card debt. Then the housing market came along made it possible for people to finance their lifestyle with home equity, and sometimes to pay their credit cards with their home value. But when the housing and credit markets collapsed there's nothing else to tap. Real income has been stagnant ever since the Republicans took power, so the average household loses ground even if they spend within their means. Coupled with the eroding dollar and exploding wheat and gas prices, the squeeze hit hard and fast. A perfect economic s**t storm and the same people who picked an Arabian horse guy to head FEMA are calling the shots.
And this is just the beginning. It hasn't really started to get bad yet. You think you got it tough now, there are many corners yet to turn. The good news for people who have cash are the many things people will do when they're desperate for cash. - mike17032, on 03/23/2008, -9/+3How odd to see huffingtonpost trash on the homepage, that almost never happens...
- KhanneaNL, on 03/23/2008, -1/+5Keep on denying, collaborator.
- CourtesyFlush, on 03/24/2008, -4/+1Keep on labeling dissent, comrade digger.
- ORBAT, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1That showed the damn liberal pinko fag.
- KhanneaNL, on 03/24/2008, -0/+0Well we do have some experience with sell-out traitors here in Europe. But we had the worst ones hanged and most spend several years in prison after WW2. So you fun laddies have a nice future ahead of you. Oh and yes, I am very liberal, very damned, very pinko and I *love* a nice dick.
- CourtesyFlush, on 03/24/2008, -4/+1Keep on labeling dissent, comrade digger.
- KhanneaNL, on 03/23/2008, -1/+5Keep on denying, collaborator.
- 3leggedHorse, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5 Money is exactly the same as drugs abuse them and will get ***** up or die. And ***** me the amount of abuse over the past 10-15 years is incredible. Over drawn = Over dose.
- KhanneaNL, on 03/23/2008, -9/+18The US deserves a USSR collapse by now. I am deeply enjoying this and I will get seriously hard nipples the more I'll be dug down. C'mon I'll be able to score at least a -100.
- Flipperbw, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2you're a little sick.
- bwdd, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2In the sense of perverse?
In that case:
HARD NIPPLES! HARD NIPPLES! HARD NIPPLES! HARD NIPPLES! HARD NIPPLES! HARD NIPPLES! HARD NIPPLES! HARD NIPPLES!!!!!!
- bwdd, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2In the sense of perverse?
- bwdd, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2You're nipples are getting softer and softer...
- KhanneaNL, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Yah but lots of americans are reading that damn Eorotrash is gloating over the US collapsing like a high pile of camel turds in the midday sun. Being faced with such ridicule you might actually go and get off your obese asses and do something about it before it actually happens. After all you dont want degenerate liberal pinko fag eurotrash to be right in this yes?
So *what exactly* are the required measures you would have to implement to make absolutely 100% sure the US will NOT have a USSR style collapse. -apart from invading a few countries that is- Well, give me an idea, what would be required to make absolutely goddamn sure the US doesnt magically transform in turd world New Brazil in a few years?
- KhanneaNL, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Yah but lots of americans are reading that damn Eorotrash is gloating over the US collapsing like a high pile of camel turds in the midday sun. Being faced with such ridicule you might actually go and get off your obese asses and do something about it before it actually happens. After all you dont want degenerate liberal pinko fag eurotrash to be right in this yes?
- Flipperbw, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2you're a little sick.
- JointVenture, on 03/23/2008, -9/+2Digg is dead.
Amazing how many economist are on the scene today.- KhanneaNL, on 03/23/2008, -2/+3Go and cry. It will make you feel better.
- Hangly, on 03/23/2008, -2/+3We may have been running exclusively on debt since 2001, but we've been dependent on debt since the beginning of the Cold War.
Also, debt is counted as an asset when calculating GDP. Consider that when someone tells you the economy must be fine because the GDP is growing.- Aokitsune, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5Wow. Debt is an asset? I wish I lived in their world.
(Unless you mean *debt owed to* the US is an asset)
- Aokitsune, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5Wow. Debt is an asset? I wish I lived in their world.
- mikemil828, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5//Instead of letting the market take its medicine & enter recession in 2001//
It DID go into recession at about that time, We didn't completely recover to what it was in 2000 until late 2007- Flipperbw, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1the 2001 recession was from march-november officially. fiscal policy can be and IS effective in aiding the economy in ways the market is not always instantly able. digg users are so gung-ho about "down with america" mentality that they don't even do proper due diligence when making outlandish claims.
- godseyeview, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2here are more details on how it happened and how to solve the problem.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383 ...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-443054337 ...- gibsonorbust, on 03/24/2008, -0/+0We know Bush has profited profoundly from oil. We know Bin Laden was an ally with the US against Russia. We know things cant be as they seem.
But to assume Israel had anything to do with 9/11 is foolish. We have spoiled that state beyond our wildest imagination. 9/11 is about US occupation in "The Holy Land", pre and now post 9/11. Word gets around and people profit off lives--as is the way of Capitalism.
- gibsonorbust, on 03/24/2008, -0/+0We know Bush has profited profoundly from oil. We know Bin Laden was an ally with the US against Russia. We know things cant be as they seem.
- pja7, on 03/23/2008, -1/+10It's a big ***** sandwich, and we're all going to have to take a bite
- DonTazeMeBro, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1I'll pass.
- NightVortez, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Life is like a ***** sandwich, the more bread you have, the less ***** you have to eat.
- chuckDontSurf, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3Technically, you still eat the same amount of *****; you just don't taste as much of it.
- spamcrusher, on 03/23/2008, -7/+7WTF is going on when liberal blogs are saying "hey, wait, slow down the spending!" and they're the ones calling for fiscal responsibility! I can't believe I'm living in a world where Republicans are now the big spenders and liberals are calling for responsible spending. Of course, the liberals are also calling for higher taxes, which is not the answer either, but our biggest priority is to decrease the level of our debt. I just hope whoever gets in office can decrease debt by decreasing spending (no national health insurance, no subsidized home loans, etc).
- regeya, on 03/23/2008, -2/+6Well, if nationalized health care and health insurance were managed correctly, it would be a win-win, because it's another highly-overvalued market. Some of those McMansions are owned by dermatologists and plastic surgeons, you know.
- JohnFlux, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2America currently spends twice what the UK does on health care. It would seem that having national health care would decrease overall spending, not increase it.
- odigity, on 03/23/2008, -2/+4It's kind of sad to see everyone reaching for scape goats from recent memory. "Oh, it's cause the mortgage bubble!" "Oh, it's cause the Iraq war!" "It's cause we've done got too many credit cards!" Yes, these are all bad, and are all contributing factors, but you'll never understand the world, nor how to solve this problem, until you expand your perspective.
There's a lot of learning to do, but in a simplified nutshell, the problem is government intervention, and especially the Federal Reserve and our monetary system. If you want to try to save your community at the local level before the inevitable collapse, look into the Liberty Dollar: http://libertydollar.org/- regeya, on 03/23/2008, -3/+1Yes, and it's been shut down, raided by federal agents in November. It's illegal to use anything other than the stuff the Treasury prints as legal tender. Now, afaik Liberty Dollars don't claim to be legal tender, but the DoJ has decided that doesn't matter, so as long as the DoJ takes that position, it's as worthless as, well, the dollar.
- cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2
"... as long as the DoJ takes that position, it's as worthless as, well, the DoJ"
fixed.
Exhibit A: 2000 presidential election.
- cmackattack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2
- regeya, on 03/23/2008, -3/+1Yes, and it's been shut down, raided by federal agents in November. It's illegal to use anything other than the stuff the Treasury prints as legal tender. Now, afaik Liberty Dollars don't claim to be legal tender, but the DoJ has decided that doesn't matter, so as long as the DoJ takes that position, it's as worthless as, well, the dollar.
- GreyFlcn, on 03/23/2008, -1/+8Anyone notice a trend?
http://greyfalcon.net/debt.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
Perhaps we need to realize that paying for spending via deficit loans, costs more in the long run than simply paying tax in the first place.- JasonMath, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1The main reasons why debt fell during the Clinton administration (at least near the end) was 1) the effect of Ross Perot and 2) the split legislative and executive branch. Despite Ross Perot not winning the 1992 election, he got a large enough percentage of the vote to steer one of the parties (the Republicans) toward advocating fiscal responsibility. This led to the Contract for America and to welfare reform. In addition, the Republican Congress (starting in 1994) coupled with a Democratic president helped grind business to a halt in Washington D.C. Less time on the legislative floor = less spending.
- provost, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1yes, I notice the trend that you are now posting two doonsbury cartoons for every debt.png.. did I get it right?
- Look4Truth, on 03/23/2008, -0/+13It's ok though, the Fed will save us. They'll just whip out more printing presses and bail out all the banks, things will be fine. Never mind that we'll pick up the tab for it all, at least the banks will be saved.
- leubstop, on 03/23/2008, -0/+28my 3 year old was pre approved for a visa with a 5,000 limit.. 3.
- wordglue, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1You're right to complain...he can't even buy a Porsche with that measly limit!
- ExiL3, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2wow... that's illegal where I live, think you can have a visa here after the age of 13 with the consent of your parents, without the 5000 credit of course.
- sfacets, on 03/23/2008, -1/+12Who gave the wife the bloody Credit Card?
- DonTazeMeBro, on 03/24/2008, -7/+1Liberals.
- NightVortez, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4Actually I'd say Neo-Conservatives have been a much bigger contributors.
- DonTazeMeBro, on 03/24/2008, -7/+1Liberals.
- ThrstForKnwldge, on 03/23/2008, -5/+1Our currency is based on debt. Without all the debt it would be worthless. That's the way the Federal Reserve system works.
Money As Debt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-905047436 ... - aj81, on 03/23/2008, -1/+0it is $13 trillion
- pstroll,
