United States Heading towards a Depression?

I think this pretty much sums up people who think and believe in an alternate reality like you.



Keynesian economics can be summed up simply as a system by which consumption is created by spending. The spending that takes place is government-stimulated spending only. People are able to consume and in turn they are given work to do. According to Keynes, to be wealthy is to consume and to consume is to make possible the work of the producer.

So let me explain why this does not work.

Keynesian economic theory relies on a method of shifting wealth from one group to the next. In order to accomplish this, you need a group producing that wealth. Eventually those that consume that wealth outnumber those producing it.

Egypt, Italy, Spain, Greece... to name a few are fine examples of what happens to a society that has consumers outnumbering producers of wealth.

 

The truth Mia is you simply do not know what you are talking about, Keynesian Economics and are afraid yourself for your own finances that you believe serve your purposes but in fact has been proven to be the real threat you fear by the outcome produced by the (your) Policies and Principles that caused the 07-09 Republican Recession.

 

Bold, Italic, underlined = run on.

Keynesians believe that wealth is created by spending other people's money to consumer their goods.
The problem with that system is eventually you run out of people producing wealth because everyone is consuming it.

 

Obama is not investing in education.

No. Education has nothing to do with transferring wealth, because it is an established right and responsibility for U.S. citizens to receive a proper education, the same way that citizens are entitled to police and fire protection.

But I see that educating children is of no concern for you, gworld. For you, they are merely debating tools, right?

gworld, I think that the US government needs to provide children with the best technology education in the world. What say you?

 

That is a picture of those who are hoping hoping hoping that those who are in charge of the money are going
to bail them out again. They are expecting QE3 to be right around the corner... will it bail them out or ruin
the currency ??

 

What's this? Education isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, as far as I'm aware. When was it declared an alienable right to receive someone else's idea of education? Next you'll be claiming health-care (whatever that is) to be a right, too.

 

Obviously USA has failed in it´s responsibility to provide proper education. Do you need proof? Look at mia´s rambling.

 

You sure you want him to engage in the conversation? That's like asking a 2 year old to drive a car.

 

Since you already agreed that chimps are smarter than you are, I don´t think you should discuss 2 year olds.

 

The right to an adequate education is not mentioned in the US Constitution because the US Constitution only mentions matters that are the responsibility of the federal government - although it's been argued that the right to an education is implied by the "general welfare" clause. You will find the right to adequate education in most state constitutions because education is administered by the States. You do not go to a Federal grade school, it's a State school, state board of education, state board of regents, etc.

It can be argued that health care might be a Federal right - however, if health care is indeed a right, then the government must pay for it only via taxes, and not by Obama's mandatory fees (there's no such thing as "pay-for-a-right", right?). The Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether health care is a right or not around 2013 or 1014.

 

Corwin that's still a big surprise for me, given that a lot of state constitutions were written during 17th and 18th centuries. We didn't have "state" education til the 1800s.

In my opinion one would have a right from being prevented from receiving education and medicine, like the First Amendment which states The People have freedom of and from religion. That being said, it's not everyone else's responsibility to make sure you're "well read" or healthy. People these days assume they're entitled to anything and everything.

Latest hubbub from Airstrip-1:

"It's disgusting that hospitals no longer provide synthetic milk for my new-born, it's my right!"
"Education is a right! Abolish university tuition fees!"
"EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance - Dole for 16-18 year olds at college/sixth form) is our right because our family is poor! We demand others' money so we can do x and y"

I'm studying at university but you'll never see me with the brain dead protesting because the coalition decided to end university subsidies.

To me there's nothing more abhorrent than the state spending everyone else's taxes as it sees fit. For instance, here I have no say where my money is spent. The infanticide that the masses here seem to have no problem with is being funded with my money, which is something I feel strongly against. Then again the same thing is happening where you are through federal-state subsidies. Would you really support Obama spending your taxes to create something like the NHS?

 

State constitutions can be amended. However, some state Constitutions, such as Massachusetts, had a right to education from the beginning.

A child's education is needed and necessary for a person to have any chance at the pursuit of happiness.

No, the First Amendment does NOT say that "The People have freedom of and from religion". (The First Amendment also does not say there is a separation of Church and State).

The First Amendment basically says that the Federal government cannot pass laws with the intention of promoting or restricting a particular religion.

Yes, many people these days think they are entitled to anything and everything. But education is universally considered a basic and necessary need.

 

And I'm smarter than you, so what does that say kiddo?

 

Anyone can read your statement and know that you have much lower intelligence than a chimp if you really believe this.

 

Given they have extremely high intelligence, I'll take that as a compliment.

 

Compare to you, they are geniuses.

 

You mean "Compared"; genius.

 

The Administration can not be too disappointed with the latest survey after a difficult month of May. With an upturn in the economy and continued successes overseas the election may just be a cake-walk after all.

 

It takes a rather optimistic person to turn a dismal jobs report, increased unemployment claims, rising energy, food and other costs and then turn it into a positive.

Oh wait, you're looking at poll numbers, not economic indicators.

Not sure how anyone can read dropping poll numbers as a percentage gain. The reality is (and I will use a liberal network so no one can say "fox news") Obama' sapproval rating has fallen below 50 percent.
source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20070207-503544.html

Breeze, you strike me as one of those insisting the Titanic was not sinking.

 

That's not how I see it. The First Amendment reads, as you correctly point out:

While there is no direct reference to the separation of church and state and explicitly the freedom of and from religion, I think it's quite clearly an indirect and intended result.

Because the government may not pass any laws respecting an establishment of religion, it holds that government has no interest in (or authority over) religion. Therefore, citizens are free from any institutional religion, which does provide people to be free from religion as only private establishments may uphold religious dogma and sovereign free-will determines obedience within this mutual and contractual sector, not law.

Obviously the specific mention of protecting the free exercise supports freedom of religion.