United States Heading towards a Depression?

Please read it again.... you are NOT believed. Why do you think you have facts to share ? Remember, "More Debt Does Not Equal Lesser Debt". If you want to share real facts, share that one. "More Debt Does Not Equal Lesser Debt"...

 

That's the plan man.

Basically UNDO everything dipshit has done.

 

"The best government is that which governs least." -- The United States Magazine and Democratic Review

 

Breeze, what would you know about facts? Nobody believes you.

Nobody.

 

I'm not anti-capitalism nor pro-socialism, Like I have said previously I support a mixed economic system where people have reasonable freedom and opportunities while at the same time can afford basic necessaries regardless of the market forces and where consumers have protection against business malpractices (which Will calls "freedom").

And regarding the rest of your accusations I'll only address one - Considering the way wealth has been accumulated over the past few centuries its only fit that it be redistributed. Why do you think so many blacks are uneducated, poor and engaged in Crime? Whose fault is it? I think you are smart enough to get my point.

Profit= Very good
Supernormal profits as a result of monopoly (specially in things like healthcare) = Nothing Worst

I'm not going to explain the entire economics or the common sense behind this to you, just do some research.

I'll ask you only one question: Define Shortage of skilled labor according to you. I know you are smart enough to foresee where this would go but hope you won't lose your honesty because of it.

Don't cry about it now grampa, you made a claim that Singapore doesn't regulate its health industry which was ignorant and factually incorrect.

 

Is there any elaboration for such a grossly deceiving, self indulgent prevarication of the truth?

The truth of course is Bush and the Republicans were unable to legislate as the liberals and relied on deception for their initiatives and like Mia were incapable of facing reality while holding positions of authority. The Republicans then again drove the economy into a spiral of deficit spending only now being curtailed.

 

Yes, its called history kid.

I lived it. Lived through it. Was alive when and while it happened.
Most of all, I REMEMBER IT.

No, that's your altered understanding of reality.
In other words, you've read some rewritten version of history somewhere. I can only imagine public school or wikipedia.

 

Just in: Repayments to TARP lead to a $108 billion “profit” this past year. The cost of bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from $91 billion to $40 billion. Deposit insurance costs declined $55 billion.

 

You really think Fannie and Freddie were bailed out? They are doing what they've been doing all along and are doing it all over again.

Its kinda hard to repay what was never there to begin with, don't ya think?

 

Who is going to get the money ? Will taxpayèrs get it ? How much will actually go into the pockets of the people who are the heart and soul of this country ? I will predict that any profits will go into the bankers pockets and those who authorized the loans.

 

It's silly when you lie to us. It's pathetic when you lie to yourself.

 

Could not have put it better myself, though you missed one:

And government run health care is not a monopoly... how? I happen to agree. Nothing worse.

Let me see... are 20% unemployment and declining wages an indicating factor of a shortage of skilled labor? Try and be honest when you answer. I find it very curious that you, in one breath, disparage the "obscene profit taking at the expense of the American people" allegedly done by health care companies, and in the next breath defend companies who want to import immigrant labor to drive down costs in a given labor market. It seems the companies are only evil when their profit taking doesn't benefit you. Right now, any politician that can be successfully connected to overseas outsourcing is being voted out of office, including Republicans. Of course Bill Gates is still pushing his globalist agenda and some are still buying, but depending on how our economy goes over the next year or two, you'll either see his type reigned in a bit to a sensible pace that doesn't destroy American jobs, or you will see angry Americans swing all the way over to protectionism, including many on the right. Its no joke.

Breeze keeps going on about how great it is that we are creating inflation by devaluing our currency, but there is one sunny side effect of that activity. It makes it much harder for foreign markets to manufacture and sell into the American market at a profit, indirectly stimulating American manufacturing jobs. It wont help much against China who has been artificially devaluing their currency for a very long time, but the rest of the foreign economies who make their bread and butter selling into the American market are going to take it up the ass when they need to double all their prices to maintain profits. Sure, they'll pass those costs on to American consumers for a while(inflation), but the net effect could be American jobs. I suppose you could devalue your currency to keep pace with the US, which will wreak havoc and create poverty in your country. Not an attractive set of choices really.

So now you are a Bush fan. When do you expect the stimulus money to come back? By the way, I really appreciate when you and Breeze Wood bring up repaid tarp funds, and the associated interest. Fair accounting would have us deducting those amounts from the enormous deficit supposedly left by Bush. Those same amounts would also need to be added to the deficit created by Obama, unless he by some off chance uses the money to pay down the debt, like that is going to happen.

We can go on and on talking about how things are or are not better, but it all boils down to one thing. Employment. America was never the best because we had the wealthiest wealthy people, of which we have many. The rest of the world has wealthy people as well, with a man in Mexico currently being the wealthiest man on the planet. America wasn't the best because of our world leadership in the area of state enforced social justice. America wasn't the best because the government guaranteed every citizen some minimum level of comfort, regardless of how hard he/she worked. If anything, that is the most un-American thing I can think of.

America is/was great because it is/was the land of opportunity where anyone can make it big with a bit of brains and hard work. It is/was a place where a person could succeed or fail on their own merits. That principal yielded our country perhaps the largest middle class in the history of mankind, regardless of education level. When people referred to "rich" Americans, it wasn't because King Obama was so wealthy. It was because your average Joe had more money in his pocket than the average Joe in most other countries. It was taxes from such populist wealth that fueled the end of the cold war, not super high taxes on a few super wealthy while the poor and unwashed masses(90% of the nation) paid nothing.

Sadly, our current leadership frowns on the very thing that made us great. They refer to any person holding such values as someone who wishes to roll back the clock on all the "progress" America has made. Not only are they happy to see America in it's current state, they would not have it any other way. They will fight tooth and nail against anyone who would change us from our present course, and are winning, as our shrinking middle class will tell you. It won't be long until they are handing out copies of THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM by Emmanuel Goldstein to keep us calm. Ignorance is strength.

Don't take this personally Helvetti, because my opinion has nothing to do with dislike for India, China, Nigeria, Viet Nam, or any of the of the other locations world wide that American wealth and consumption has contributed to a thriving economy. We should most definitely not be taking advice from foreigners as to what is best for our economy because you certainly do not have our best interests at heart. You may not care if most of your countrymen are proles, so long as you belong to the outer party, but I for one am not buying into it.

 

Capitalism creates places like Taiwan; socialism creates places like Red China.

Capitalism creates places like South Korea; socialism creates places like North Korea.

Capitalism creates places like West Germany; socialism creates places like East Germany (now defunct).

Capitalism creates places like the Bahamas; socialism creates places like Cuba.

What system would you rather live under?

Even the old hard-line Chinese Communists are sick of socialism and even Fidel Castro is finally admitting that socialism doesn't work.

It is impossible to be intellectually honest and concurrently support socialism as a good thing for the majority of people. Socialism is good only for the bureaucrats and their friends, who live off of society as non-producing parasites.

 

You and Will. I guess you don't understand the meaning of socialism and wealth redistribution. I know Will-I-ran-away-to-asia-and-do-a-lot-of-trolling-Spencer is dumb but are you going to play dumb and make me explain it all to you?

Can't believe how much time I wasting in this, I actually had to postpone the delivery of my Volkswagon to later today just to reply here and for some other trivial things.

Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism "such as tax laws, monetary policies, or tort law".

Fact: Redistribution is a continuous process, government policy only decides how it should be done. Pro-Capitalism policies result in regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich. Rich become richer and poor become poorer, don't tell me "but Eminem became rich from poor" there are a few exceptions but thats the general historically and logically proven trend. Like you wanted Tax breaks which meant you would be left with more income while the government would have to incur (more) debt to make up the shortfall in taxes which would be shared by you and the poor equally, even though the not so well off din't benefit as much as you from the tax break or not at all. Rich (you) became richer and poor got poorer. Simple Capitalism explained for you.

Now another thing is progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, by means of progressive tax slabs, welfare, free healthcare etc. Its creates a balance and a more egalitarian society, reduces crime, gives equal opportunity to access services such as education and health care. Studies show that a lower rate of redistribution in a given society increases the inequality found among future incomes. When you people exploited the blacks for centuries, denied them rights and treated them as slaves its your job to take care of them if they need welfare and provide them with not just theoretically but practically equal opportunities.

Wealth Distribution is different from Socialism. It necessarily takes place in all economies. I previously said that I'm self employed and make a decent income, why the hell would I want fullscale socialism? I'm not going to explain this again and again, I have a life. This is me telling you the last time: I'm not pro capitalism nor pro socialism, I believe in eliminating the worst out of both systems and bringing out the best without being labeled a capitalist whore or socialist czar.

Huh? When did I say that government should run the healthcare system and ban private capital in the field? Or even imply? Can you quote me please? Regulating irresponsible businesses which deal with people lives and wellbeing is so evil restriction of freedom

That essay doesn't answer my original question which could have be answered in 2 sentences. Looks more like you trying to avoid answering it. I'll repeat it for your benefit: Define Shortage of skilled labor according to you.

Agreed. I'm discussing basic economics with you. I hope its okay to discuss economics with foreigners.

@Grampa: You don't have anything to discuss you have formed an opinion based on nothing, which makes anything anyone says sound like BS to you. I had heard people become thick and stubborn as they age but this is the first practical example I'm seeing.

 

Thanks for your version of economics. Let me sum it up:

"Wealth Redistribution by the Government happens"

You should make a bumper sticker. Shit may happen, but that doesn't mean we should be encouraging it. The fact you think regressive tax policies are "pro-capitalism" tells us two things. 1) You are, by your own proclamation, anti-capitalist, because you think any non-progressive tax system is a "capitalist" one. 2) You have been so indoctrinated in the ideals of socialism, you no longer have the first clue as to what capitalism is.

Don't feel singled out. Yours is the common wisdom taught to many of our college students. "Socialism is good and it isn't socialism". It flies in the face of all historical data, but hey, no problem. If killing off social mobility, productivity, and hard work give us government enforced social justice, so be it! The "egalitarian" society you describe does exactly that.

United States President Grover Cleveland vetoed an expenditure that would have provided $10,000 of federal aid to drought-stricken Texas farmers. When explaining to Congress why such an appropriation of taxpayer money was inappropriate, he stated:

Source

Happily.

What is happening in America is the slow conversion to Single Payer health care, otherwise known as government health care or "Socialized" health care as you call it. Nobody on the left denies this agenda except the President who has to sell it to the rest of us. Since you are "selling" it to me, I suppose your denial isn't at all out of place. In any event, trying to pitch the ObamaCare legislation as "Responsible Regulation" is laughable at face value and doesn't even need to be addressed.

LoL. It was long winded. Let me shorten it up and explain it to you. You asked me to define shortage of labor, to which I responded with what are obvious signs that there is no labor shortage(20% real unemployment, and declining wages for over a decade). While I didn't define labor shortage, I answered the implication in your statement which was, 'The US has a labor shortage". You are a smart guy, I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

If there were a labor shortage in a particular field, at 20% unemployment , the responsible thing to do would be to train our own citizens. Speaking to IT specifically, wages have stagnated and fallen in the US for more than a decade, which is an indicating factor of oversupply, not under supply. People like Bill Gates who rely on mass quantities of such laborers will constantly tell you about the "Labor Shortage" of qualified IT people, because declining wages mean higher profit for Microsoft stock holders, and he holds a LOT of Microsoft stock. The reality is, most of the foreign trained IT labor brought into the US over the last decade were less qualified than the people whose jobs they took.

Even when unemployment was at 5%, we should have looked at people like you and Bill Gates selling the "Labor Shortage" story with an eye of skepticism, as you obviously have something to gain from it. Trying to sell the labor shortage myth at 20% real unemployment is just insulting.

When you say economics, you are referring to the economic condition of you and your countrymen vs the economic condition of me and mine. You are also talking about socialism vs. capitalism. I think the word you were looking for is "politics" not economics, and yes, it is OK to discuss politics with you, any other foreigner, or even a Democrat.

 

Are you including Breeze Wood in this category ?

 

No clue as to why it tells you whatever it tells you. I might have not worded my previous responses properly but I thought my point was obvious. Earlier when I had said that I'm not anti-capitalist it was in context of someone accusing me of hating it tooth and nail and wanting government to take over all economic activities. But well duh..ofcourse I'm against the kind of capitalism you capitalist sell. Pure Capitalism you profiteers preach like all economic systems has flaws which need to be dealt with. Like I have said a zillion times already I'm for a mixed economy biased toward capitalism.

If you guys can't defend your positions its okay but atleast don't put words into my mouth, draw crazy conclusions and pretend as if I haven't explained anything to you.

He was a Democrat, and Texas has been a republican stronghold, I could be wrong here but anyways his opinions are shared by millions and millions share one exactly opposite of it.

I think Fox news must be pretty good at what it does if it could make you believe that Obama wants to close down or takeover drug companies, hostpitals, DME manufacturers etc and want everyone to be treated by government. LOL. Don't even know what to tell you.

Sorry man I din't ask you to tell me whether there is labor shortage or not or how much stock bill gates owns, or what the unemployment rate is or who is more qualified. I just asked you to Define Shortage of skilled labor according to you, so that I could take this discussion further, please take a shot at answering that unless ofcourse giving an honest, straight, to the point answer would make you look like an biased hypocrite. I'm sorry for trolling you about there being some hidden meaning behind the question, just forget that and answer it. We can't have a decent discussion if only guy speaks sense.

@ You and Will: Since you guys are so pro-freedom to the extent of saying that drug companies should not be stopped from selling untested drugs would you concede that an employers right to employ whoever he wants is also freedom and a good thing? I'm don't say it is but then I'm not the hypocrite.

 

It wasn't a matter of in-artful wording. I think you worded it in exactly the way you think of it. You run on the assumption that A) the government is, and should be in the business of wealth redistribution, and B) you'd prefer the wealth redistribution go from the rich to the poor(Socialism). I'm hard pressed to figure out what other way there is to interpret that. It seems President Cleveland, myself, and the founding fathers of America felt the government should not be in the business of wealth distribution at all.

You also referred to regressive taxes as pro-capitalist when they have very little to do with capitalism. When you refer to something you feel is evil (regressive taxes) and associate it with Capitalism, how is one to come to the conclusion that you are not anti-capitalist? Without taking the implications of your words to their worst case scenario, one could never come to the conclusion that you are biased toward capitalism. It is very clear you are biased towards socialism.

LoL. They are your words man. I didn't make them up or misquote them. I cant be blamed if Orwellian double-speak sounds logical to you.

So let me get this straight. The implication here is that he denied funding to Texas for political purposes, and it had nothing to do with his political beliefs? I suppose that could be true. Then again, I suppose Bush could have orchestrated the 9-11 attacks. Do you have any evidence to support such an absurd claim that flies in the face of the man's own words? No, I didn't think so.

The fact he was a Democrat does tell us one thing though. The Democratic party of today is a far cry from the Democratic party of 1893. I'd say the political beliefs of the Republican party today fall far to the left of the Democratic party of 1893. Its comic to hear people on MSNBC talk about how the right is drifting farther to the right.

Hello Mr. straw man. You really think Obama needs to close down the drug companies to take them over? Hell no. All he needs to do is regulate their activities to the point they essentially work for the government. When you control 100% of the people who might buy their goods and services(single payer monopoly), they essentially report to you, regardless of how you'd like to word it.

I'm sorry if I incorrectly guessed at your motive for asking the question. If you could explain to me how the question is relevant to the conversation, I would be more than happy to answer it. We could go on for hours in some academic discussion of the true meaning of full employment and labor shortage, but unless it has some relevance to the conversation, it just seems like a waste of time I'd rather not spend. If its off topic, maybe it needs its own thread.

First, you are the one who keeps bringing up the FDA. You are the one who built the straw man saying we want to abolish the FDA. If you want to have a discussion about ending the FDA, it would appear you'll have to have it with yourself.

Second, regarding an employers right to employ whoever he wants, that is simply a right employers in the United States do not have. If an employer wishes to hire someone, that person must be of legal working age and have legal permission to work in the United States, or the employer can face fines or jail time. If an employer wishes to hire someone, they must pay that employee federal or state minimum wage(whichever is higher), as well as carry workers compensation insurance on said employee, or face fines and or jail time. If an employer wishes to hire someone, they must withhold ~7% of their wages, as well as match another 7% of their wages to be paid to payroll taxes. Failure to make such with holdings and payments can result in fines and/or jail time. Thanks to Obama, employers wanting to hire someone must now offer all of their employees health insurance or pay a penalty of 8% of the employees wage. Failure to pay these fees can result in fines and/or jail time. Employers must make all the necessary federal and state income tax with holdings from their employees checks. Failure to make said with holdings can result in fines and/or jail time.

I can't speak for Will, but I'm a believer in reasonable regulation and taxation. What we have is an environment that starts off foreign workers working abroad with a huge cost advantage over American workers. Not exactly clever and not exactly good for America. The idea of bringing in foreign workers in favor of paying workers from your own country market wage takes a brand of stupidity that is unfathomable.

 

When you read his quote, philosophy and read the results it is obvious who the fools are that believe the quote.

 

Glad to see I have you doing a bit of research(again). Of course the Panic of 1893 has nothing to do with the quote I provided, but it's causes definitely have a few cautionary notes for modern history. Now grab a clue, and read the rest of the story. Kind of reminds you of the government buying up bad mortgages to prop up home prices. Fannie and Freddie, now 80% owned by taxpayers, back 90% of the mortgages in the US. Health care is next, to be followed by education. Maybe then, we can all refer to each other as "comrade".