Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So the gloomy headlines were "bad," prior to November, but now the positive headlines are "bad" too? Which is it, dude?
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Americans need a reality check (via higher taxes across the board, not just for the rich).
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm fine with deficit spending in rough economic times like these.
So are most voters.
Don't believe me? Wait until 2010 and 2012, and read the scoreboard.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm fine with deficit spending in rough economic times like these.
So are most voters.
Don't believe me? Wait until 2010 and 2012, and read the scoreboard.
The alternative being mccain? or republicans in general.Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm fine with deficit spending in rough economic times like these.
So are most voters.
Don't believe me? Wait until 2010 and 2012, and read the scoreboard.
Fallacy: false dilemma
Just because a slim majority voted for Obama doesn't mean they approve of massive deficit spending. It just means he's not quite as bad as the alternative.
Originally posted by: seemingly random
The alternative being mccain? or republicans in general.Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm fine with deficit spending in rough economic times like these.
So are most voters.
Don't believe me? Wait until 2010 and 2012, and read the scoreboard.
Fallacy: false dilemma
Just because a slim majority voted for Obama doesn't mean they approve of massive deficit spending. It just means he's not quite as bad as the alternative.
I assume you're one of those who doesn't approve of massive deficit spending. What's a better plan? I don't claim to know since I don't know enough about country and world scale economics to confidently plot a course. Do you?Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: seemingly random
The alternative being mccain? or republicans in general.Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm fine with deficit spending in rough economic times like these.
So are most voters.
Don't believe me? Wait until 2010 and 2012, and read the scoreboard.
Fallacy: false dilemma
Just because a slim majority voted for Obama doesn't mean they approve of massive deficit spending. It just means he's not quite as bad as the alternative.
Take your pick. The answer is the same either way. If on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being hate and 10 being love, a 2 is better than a 1, but you can hardly say people love the 2.
Originally posted by: seemingly random
I assume you're one of those who doesn't approve of massive deficit spending. What's a better plan? I don't claim to know since I don't know enough about country and world scale economics to confidently plot a course. Do you?Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: seemingly random
The alternative being mccain? or republicans in general.Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm fine with deficit spending in rough economic times like these.
So are most voters.
Don't believe me? Wait until 2010 and 2012, and read the scoreboard.
Fallacy: false dilemma
Just because a slim majority voted for Obama doesn't mean they approve of massive deficit spending. It just means he's not quite as bad as the alternative.
Take your pick. The answer is the same either way. If on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being hate and 10 being love, a 2 is better than a 1, but you can hardly say people love the 2.
Is there any politician who is more capable of handling the current economic environment in your opinion?
So, there's no hope?Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: seemingly random
I assume you're one of those who doesn't approve of massive deficit spending. What's a better plan? I don't claim to know since I don't know enough about country and world scale economics to confidently plot a course. Do you?Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: seemingly random
The alternative being mccain? or republicans in general.Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm fine with deficit spending in rough economic times like these.
So are most voters.
Don't believe me? Wait until 2010 and 2012, and read the scoreboard.
Fallacy: false dilemma
Just because a slim majority voted for Obama doesn't mean they approve of massive deficit spending. It just means he's not quite as bad as the alternative.
Take your pick. The answer is the same either way. If on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being hate and 10 being love, a 2 is better than a 1, but you can hardly say people love the 2.
Is there any politician who is more capable of handling the current economic environment in your opinion?
No politicians are capable of properly running an economy because an economy can't be run. Economies are simply the aggregate effect of the actions of individuals and unless said politician is a totalitarian who directly controls the actions of the people they don't have the ability to do much at all.
And even if they could, a centrally planned economy is destined for failure. Just ask the USSR.
I think people are not as depressed as predicted since we haven't slipped into the predicted economic depression. We're only in a deep recession so the suffering is not pervasive.Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
The news is still very gloomy, but perhaps we've become desensitized to it and it now appears to be merely regular news. Likewise, once the U.S. has become a third world country, Americans will have become accustomed to living the way people do in India, China, Mexico, and South America.
Basically this. I voted for the guy, but I honestly didn't expect the spending to be this nuts. I mean most candidates promise a lot of things but never deliver. I guess it's admirable that Obama is delivering on his campaign promises, but it sure is going to cost us a lot of money.Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm fine with deficit spending in rough economic times like these.
So are most voters.
Don't believe me? Wait until 2010 and 2012, and read the scoreboard.
Fallacy: false dilemma
Just because a slim majority voted for Obama doesn't mean they approve of massive deficit spending. It just means he's not quite as bad as the alternative.
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
We certainly don't hear about the #'s of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan anymore..
I never said there's no hope. But economies naturally ebb and flow and to expect politicians to be able to stop that is delusional.Originally posted by: seemingly random
So, there's no hope?
You misunderstand what economic power is. Politicians have financial power, not economic. The federal government spends trillions of dollars and lobbyists are there to pull some of it in their direction. That doesn't mean that politicians can steer the economy. I can spray someone with a garden hose but that doesn't mean I can make it rain.It makes one wonder what the lobbyists on k street do - why there are 10s of thousands of them (double in the last decade). You know they're trying to sway politicians for their clients for monetary gain. If politicians have no economic power, what are the lobbyists doing?
You are correct that they have influence, but influence is not control. Look at all these incentives currently being throw around. The government will give you thousands up thousands of dollars to buy houses, buy cars. But the market continues to fall. They could mandate that all cars older than five years old must be destroyed and prop up the automakers that way. But eventually everyone would have a new car and we'd be right back where we were with car manufacturers going under, only everyone would be further in debt.Politicians have some influence in the guise of regulations and their enforcement. For example, regulations were either not enforced or rescinded concerning financial transactions the last decade which, in part, precipitated the mess that exists now.
And, of course, the federal reserve has some affect - even though, it's supposed to be free of political pressures.