DescentBB

Gekko71 wrote:Not really Tunnelcat - if the CPI had been falling by 3-5% pcm for 6 months straight and was projected to keep on doing so, THEN you would have deflation. A one-month fall is only a correction.

True, lets hope that doesn't become a trend. Nasty, nasty times.

News flash on CNBC. Citi is looking for a handout to save it's rear end now that it's stock is in the toilet. I'm guessing that Vikram Pandit wants to dump on the government, us the taxpayer, Citi's toxic assets, especially the Hedge Fund, Old Lane Partners (he and some colleagues founded), that he originally sold to Citi in 2007 for $800 million. He also got 165.2 million for himself in the transaction and was named CEO of Citigroup as part of the deal.

woodchip wrote:Well it would appear the Dems are finally facing reality:

"Speaking to CBS News on Sunday, Ms Pelosi said any stimulus package should be aimed at creating jobs immediately, and could contain a tax cut.

"Something of several hundred billion would have to be some investment into the future, plus creating jobs immediately, and a tax cut," she said."

Starting to sound like Bush back 2001 no?

And now you see how the stock market responded. Biggest 2 day gain in 20 years.

Hostile wrote:No auto industry bailout....! Out of the ashes of that fallen industry will come a set of competitive companies and better products. Trying to prop up what they have now is ridiculous at best. Companies have to be allowed to fail for companies to really succeed.....

X3. We should not tolerate a handout of our money for the automakers to continue business as usual, which got them to this point in the first place.

I don't falt any of you for being consistant, but Spidey's posts do a have a ring of truth to them. $700 billion to the white collar financial industry, and $0 to the auto industry?

I don't like how quickly the $700b was shoved down our throats any more then the next guy. But these rally cries in the name of stopping socialism will only hurt the little guy.

The rally cries themselves won't do anything to the little guy, to nitpick the way you've chosen to express yourself.

Look Goob, I don't know what you're trying to argue here other than that we should set our ideals aside and try to go with some simplistic notions of trying to save everybody from negativity. All I can say is that if these ideals can stand to be cast off for the sake of convenience, then they aren't worth much. The way I see it, you agree on some level but you find yourself unable to follow through to such a difficult conclusion. That's the liberal in you, and that's pretty normal, in my opinion, for someone who doesn't fully appreciate the necessity of conservatism.

You're naive, I think (no offense). Is it really a choice between socialism and suffering? Wouldn't there have been suffering anyway, as a result of some of the decisions that were made? The dangers of socialism have been illustrated historically, and many people on this BB have taken some pains to point out the problems with it, and even the unAmerican nature of it (and unAmerican is bad for the same specific reasons that America is and has been so good--that's just an easier way to say it). The question that I think you need to answer is, just what is socialism, what are its effects, and is it worth a temporal lessening of suffering (provided that's truly the outcome) to allow that in. Historically we as a nation have felt ourselves indebted to, and we do honor the people who have endured difficulty and suffering to preserve and defend the ideal that is America.

America has this--the economic crisis--coming, for whatever reason, and if the people down below who are hurt by it didn't have anything to do with its cause, they certainly did nothing to prevent or guard against it. That's the way life is. Now the liberals come along with a get out of jail free card, and would have us reject conservatism and, more specifically, capitalism as being masochistic! What a ruse! Thank God I was raised with a sound mind, and see it for what it is, because it's a real doosey.

My point was, as stated, was that Spidey's posts have some truth to them, but feel free to rant on me if you'd like, I am on the other team and all .

I read a lot of bull ★■◆● theories day to day, and I read a lot of good ones. People publish theoretical devices all the time that could never be used, but almost always they may have this one little feature that beats what is currently on the market, and is why they get published. The point is, that even if something “is best” there will be aspects of it that suck hard, and other theories that handle more specific problems better. Socialism as a whole is bad, this 700 Billion was bad, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater by refusing to even analyze something that comes along in the name of a buzzword.

Capitalism has its drawbacks. Angela Davis argues that it is the main driving force of Racism, she is extreme but provocative. An individualistic society, especially in times of stress, causes people to form groups for security.

Socialism has its drawbacks. The main one: It ignores human nature, most notably it ignores ambition and greed. It ignores how important it is for someone to feel like he is making a contribution.

Clearly, History has shown that pure Capitalism triumphs pure Socialism. The question today, for our time, does it really have to be that binary? Face it, we live in a society with welfare, social security, public education, public libraries, public scholarships, and quite soon free healthcare. You can hate it, but if you don’t concede that we live and have been living in a society that is more hybrid then pure capitalism then you are not paying attention.

What I have come to learn over the years, which I know will light you up , is there is no such thing as a bad philosophy/theory or a good philosophy/theory, there simply are better and worse; and always with one more geared to improve a specific area then the problem as a whole. Talk radio makes this mistake all the time, here you have cheap hacks who know very little about the government they are ranting about, who just sit in the back and complain about the other side. If I had my way I would abolish any possibility of the fairness doctrine and replace it with simply forcing them to say at the beginning of their program, “This Program is for entertainment purposes only.” Because too many people think they have a clue about what they are talking about! Let’s look at Rush, he flunked out, was a disc jokey, he “got out” of the Vietnam war because of a football knee injury. Please tell me on what platform the man should be given credibility? I’ll answer it for you, simply because he makes good points from time to time.

That’s why when I can I listen to him, I listen because behind the rants and outright lies, there are pieces of truth. I read Angala Davis, and Malcolm X, because behind their rants there is some truth. Life is not black and white. Nothing is black and white. Hell half the time in my work I pretend a photon is a wave, and the other half I pretend it’s a particle. If nature can’t even make things that simple for me, why the hell should I assume that a single governmental philosophy could?

All I am saying, and all you should take away from this, Is that nothing should be rejected based on being associated with a buzzword. And “socialism “today, has become a ratings buzzword.

As I said in another post, I tend to believe in the pendulum a lot more then liberalism. Being able to oscillate back and forth is what gives us stability.

Thanks, Goob…

I think the Auto Industry will get the loan it needs to ride out the recession, the Congress needed a reason to put off dealing with it for now, so they used the “no plan” excuse. The makers have a month to come up with a plan. (good luck, without getting rid of those legacy costs tho) Yoo..Hoo.. tc, where are you…going to lose more of those “good jobs”

I can do without City Group…But I can’t live without NASCAR…Noooooooo….And I do mean “North American“…not PRSCAR…“Pacific Ring”….

And Thorne, I’m a conservative, and being “fair” is one of my principles. So if you are going to bailout the paper pushers, then you should bailout the rest. (I was against the entire thing, but hell….)

EDIT...

OMG…I can’t believe you actually said “free healthcare”…

It will be for many

Didn’t your mother teach you, there’s no such thing as a “free lunch”.

Yes, that is why I work. But not all mothers do

Don’t get me started.

Spidey wrote:OMG…I can’t believe you actually said “free healthcare”…

Gooberman wrote:It will be for many

Nothing is "free".

When someone can't pay for their health care, it still goes on the hospital's bottom line as a cost - and then has to be made up for by a charge to someone else; frequently resulting in increased charges to many someones.

............................................______ __
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,.............. .............`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_........ ..._,-%.......`

Now THAT^^^^^was kool.

Bee

awww, was that for me, Goob. Thanks.


because not everyone is as \"up on things\" as you and I and most of the other people on this board.





And yes, I agree with Bee. The illustration was very cool.

I can't take credit for it, its just one of those internet things.

And to that lady in the video....

I wasn't ranting, Goob, and if it was as simple as choosing a team you might be on the other one, but I think you're too conservative to be a total liberal. I know what you were replying to, and I think Spidey was off-base. But you took offense (or something), and sorta dismissed my whole reply.

I think you're too lenient on socialism, and who the hell's using "buzzwords"? When I talk about socialism I'm thinking of all it's subtle effects in our society, and the particulars of why it doesn't work. I'm not indulging in "buzzwords." I think denying reality is pretty serious, and amounts to a lot more than a "drawback" when its aim is governing policy, especially policy that seeks greater government administration. It's a recipe for disaster is what it is.

Gooberman wrote:You can hate it, but if you don’t concede that we live and have been living in a society that is more hybrid then pure capitalism then you are not paying attention.

??! Of course it's a hybrid, and it's a hybrid moving toward socialism from our constitutional ideals!

Gooberman wrote:What I have come to learn over the years, which I know will light you up ...

That looks more like an assumption that you've come to, to me. I would propose that, rather, the degree to which a philosophy or theory is good or bad, for the greater part, is the degree to which it is based on reality. If the goal of any theory is perfection, it will fail, plain and simple. This is an imperfect world, and you can see that all around us, but I'm speaking from a Biblical as well as a historical perspective. Capitalism won't make everything ideal, because we are not ideal, but it does provide incentive for people to work hard, to be inventive, and subsequently to reap the benefits--all of the benefits (of course we ought to pay what taxes are reasonable for the benefit/necessity of government).

Gooberman wrote:Let’s look at Rush, he flunked out, was a disc jokey, he “got out” of the Vietnam war because of a football knee injury. Please tell me on what platform the man should be given credibility? I’ll answer it for you, simply because he makes good points from time to time.

People don't just happen upon "good points". It's not so simply abstract as you would make it. I don't think Rush Limbaugh is right all of the time, but he tends to be closer to reality in his philosophy than a lot of people. That's the platform on which anyone of opinion should be given credibility.

Gooberman wrote:All I am saying, and all you should take away from this, Is that nothing should be rejected based on being associated with a buzzword.

Are you done ranting on me yet? One should always be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath-water. Take my word for it, you don't need to tell me that. It's a matter of accurately perceiving what is bath-water.

Gooberman wrote:As I said in another post, I tend to believe in the pendulum a lot more then liberalism. Being able to oscillate back and forth is what gives us stability.

I think that may be overly simplistic. I think if liberalism disappeared tomorrow the world would be better for it, but this country was not founded by people who thought everyone else should be like them (not a commentary on morality at all). We are a people of a diversity of interests, and if our government is anything but a contest between those diversities, in an attempt to find common-ground (only on the issues where it is governmentally necessary), then it is not working as it should. Morality, on the other hand, must obviously find the high ground, not common ground.

Spidey wrote:And Thorne, I’m a conservative, and being “fair” is one of my principles. So if you are going to bailout the paper pushers, then you should bailout the rest. (I was against the entire thing, but hell….)

You sure you wanna ride that train? It won't truly be "fair" until every receives government "help". I'm not interested in destroying our nation's economic system just to be "fair".

What I'm saying, with regard to the already perpetrated 700-billion dollar bail-out (which, as far as I understand it, I don't agree with either), is that the fact that we've started down that road is not good enough reason to allow it to go all of the way, if the problems with it are significant enough, which I think they are. I think every step we take in such an anti-capitalist direction puts another nail on the coffin of capitalism in America, arguably being actively and purposefully fashioned, and in the end I don't think it will have been worth it. Not to mention that it probably won't even be as effective as we are told, and won't have the outcome that has been projected, as a result of unsound principles and self-serving administration.

To depart from principle is a dangerous thing.

I’m not interested in destroying this country’s economic system for the sake of being “fair” either…where do you get that from? Why do you always have to go there.

It’s simple, the auto makers need a loan to get thru the resession, banks are not lending….even tho the government has infused billions of dollars into the industry…they are still not lending…

So why not take some of the already allocated funds and loan it to a needed industry.

As I see it…it’s you that is missing the point, not me. The money is already there, what’s the difference from AIG to GM? If the idea here is to save the economy, the auto industry is just as important as some bank.

I would like to see the government loaning money to all kinds of businesses right now, bypassing the financial industry, simply because the infusion has not freed up the lending. Then at the end of the crisis, the banking industry could buy out the government loans, and things would be as they should be.

At this point in the crisis, I can see the government making a list of the most important industries, and seeing them thru the crisis, then turning things back over to the private sector afterwards.

You don’t let the entire system fail, just to save capitalism. Capitalism will be just fine in the end.

Spidey wrote:I’m not interested in destroying this country’s economic system for the sake of being “fair” either…where do you get that from? Why do you always have to go there.

Abrasive personality? Don't take offense at that, Spidey, I never meant that you were, only that it would be the outcome.

Reading your post gives me a new perspective on the whole thing, though, so I guess I must have missed the point. In light of that I think I owe you an apology (I'm sorry).

I don't share you optimism about the survival of capitalism. It seems to me that there are an awful lot of people working against it...

Thanks, no problem, I don’t object to you disagreeing with me, I just took the “destroying the economic system” personally…we are good tho.

Ehhh, it’s just a peeve, I’m just really pissed because the people who are responsible for the problem are getting help, and businesses like mine can’t get a loan. (so I guess it’s an empathy thing)