TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The Obama thread - Without flaming!
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

LOL @ the Bush Supporter in the thread and there reasons for supporting Bush.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan yes... we all saw what US's isolationist policies got them into early to mid 20th century if you got something your neighbour wants, your neighbour will try to take it, either directly or indirectly if you cannot defend yourself there's a reason why Russia is trying to invest in military, because some slant eyes with need for resources is eyeing Siberia Canada is already being tried to dicked around with. Yanks think NW passage is international waters, despite being in Canadian Arctic. Even Denmark wants a piece of Hans Island, for potential oil and other natural resources what about moral responsibilities? do you think places like darfur and rwanda required/requires international intervention?

i wish i could answer your questions re: darfur/rwanda ...but i dont have knowledge on the current problems/issues

quote:

Originally posted by feelgood I'd argue that the solution to this recession is not more taxpayers money being infused to the situation, but a change in social consciousness. How do you do that? You don't. Decrease corporate taxes. Destabilize unions. Unfortunately there will be job losses, and companies will go bust, but its a natural deflationary process. ie. bailing out banks, does not increase lending because people are far more conservative spenders than they were 2 years ago and are less likely to make purchases requiring big loans. Not to mention banks are less likely to give out loans. Re: recessions are also shifts in consumer mindsets with the economy being a function of it.

I think you're oversimplifying what is arguably the most complex recession in history, depression aside.

I agree that letting the economy function without intervention would be the most natural way for things to proceed, but the devastation that would affect multiple generations must be avoided. You can argue whether it's tax cuts or spending that's the best way to do it, but net net, the gov't has to cough up. There is simply no other way to free up credit markets, for one. (and the issue with credit markets is not that consumers don't want to borrow, it's businesses that need to borrow to grow)

quote:

Originally posted by devnull i wish i could answer your questions re: darfur/rwanda ...but i dont have knowledge on the current problems/issues

it's simple question to answer really

do you believe that we, as humans, have moral responsibility towards other humans?

if yes, is it justifiable to send in military forces in order to stop humans from killing each other?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Oh sweet jesus. Organizations and employees are on opposite sides of the market equation; reduce the profits available to one and you inevitably reduce the wages available to the other. That's just how a market works. The other alternative - higher income taxes - always hurt the middle class the most. How many failed attempts at socialism will it take before people understand that it is impossible to raise the average quality of life using taxpayer money? When have "average" people ever benefited from these policies? I would love to see your evidence for this. Only Democrats seem to believe it. *sigh* Nobody is for war any more than they are for abortions. They simply accept it as an imperfect but necessary solution to specific (rare) problems, when the only alternatives are worse. Wow. Just, wow. Canadians are flocking across the border in droves because they're unable to get timely medical treatment here, more and more people are clamoring every year for the ban on private care to be lifted in Canada, and your solution to stability in the middle east is to "improve" American health care to be more like Canada's. Have you been living under a rock since the 80s?

whether it is possible or not to raise the quality of life of average people is possible or not....its is a noble goal to achieve, which can beneficial to most. Question is... what do you suggest to improve the quality of life for the majority of people ?
I work hard day in day out to help out myself.. and the majority. I make decent money, which a good part is used to help the less fortuned. My mom is on welfare and is on disability and i do my darn best to help out for what the gov isnt doing.




Ah, so it's okay to bitch about Bush in here, but not Obama. How wonderfully mature.

What is so great about bush to praise about and what has obama done so bad so far....i think hes been quite noble about his goals...which are reasonable!

I would love to see your evidence for this. Only Democrats seem to believe it.

Im not all for democrats, pple like Barney Frank should be kicked the fuck out of congress. On both sides of the alley, some should not be in there. In terms some financial reforms, I think republicans have a leg up lately, based on the fannie/freddie scandals.

Wow. Just, wow. Canadians are flocking across the border in droves because they're unable to get timely medical treatment here, more and more people are clamoring every year for the ban on private care to be lifted in Canada, and your solution to stability in the middle east is to "improve" American health care to be more like Canada's. Have you been living under a rock since the 80s?
Im nowhere saying the canadian health system is perfect. I mean waiting months and months for treatment is not acceptable. But it is still better than spending your life savings on to get basic treatment. A friend of mine had back problems in the last year. Yes, he had to be flown to Buffalo for surgery (not minor) but still. But it happened. In the US, ud be pooling resource across the family and taking loans u can affort to support such an operation.

Back to my mom, todays surgery cost nothing...and possible future surgeries will be free....this is quite nice when you look at the US where u'd have to spend thousands for a 1-2 hr surgery

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I think you're oversimplifying what is arguably the most complex recession in history, depression aside. I agree that letting the economy function without intervention would be the most natural way for things to proceed, but the devastation that would affect multiple generations must be avoided. You can argue whether it's tax cuts or spending that's the best way to do it, but net net, the gov't has to cough up. There is simply no other way to free up credit markets, for one. (and the issue with credit markets is not that consumers don't want to borrow, it's businesses that need to borrow to grow)

I agree with Sarah on this. Shit has gotten out of hand that someone with the powers has to take action. I work for one of the most well respected companies in Canada and im currently shitting my pants for loosing my job.

you look at the biggest companies in the US like Walmart and they are not doing so well. Imagine the mom and pop shops!

Overall i think that we've gone too far in borrowing to spend...and i hope it will stabilize over time, but right now, we're in a crisis... We need to start spending based on our current abilities

This current recession will teach everyone to stop believing in double digit growth and be fine with stable growth (over greediness). the next 2-3 years will have an impact that we've never seen before.

quote:

Originally posted by UmmiE LOL @ the Bush Supporter in the thread and there reasons for supporting Bush.

Except I'm not a Bush supporter. Haven't been for a long time. There happen to be reams of legitimate criticisms against him - but you all somehow manage to focus on the totally braindead ones. We can never learn from our mistakes with that sort of superstition.

The USA is about 50% Republican. You don't seriously think that they voted Bush out because of Iraq, do you? Obama barely even mentioned that during his campaign, because he knew it was irrelevant.

quote:

Originally posted by devnull whether it is possible or not to raise the quality of life of average people is possible or not....its is a noble goal to achieve

Ah, good old "end justifies the means" argument. That deserves an equally clich� response: A goal without a plan is a dream. What matters is not whether or not the goal is noble, but whether or not the goal can actually be achieved. Spending taxpayer money on unprofitable and unsustainable social programs is adding to the problem, not solving it.

quote:

what do you suggest to improve the quality of life for the majority of people ?

Do what the constitution promises: protect civil liberties and private property rights. History has shown us time and again that with these basic elements in place, the quality of life will improve by itself. Too much interference, on the other hand, will slow the pace drastically.

quote:

I work hard day in day out to help out myself.. and the majority. I make decent money, which a good part is used to help the less fortuned. My mom is on welfare and is on disability and i do my darn best to help out for what the gov isnt doing.

That is wonderful, I mean that sincerely, and I believe that everybody should do what they can to help friends and family in need (and perhaps, if the resources are available, strangers through charities and such).

However, in order for the market to function, people still need to have the ability to choose what to do with their money or other resources. Otherwise, the act of giving suddenly becomes a lot less noble, it becomes much harder to ensure that the money goes to those truly in need, and funds that could go toward the development of ideas and technology for improving the quality of life for all often end up getting shunted elsewhere.

Governments did not invent refrigeration, TV, cell phones, central heating, cars, prescription drugs, or computers, and yet these inventions are all essential for our quality of life today and would not have been possible without enormous amounts of capital.

quote:

What is so great about bush to praise about and what has obama done so bad so far....i think hes been quite noble about his goals...which are reasonable!

Obama hasn't done anything so far, and Bush's goals were noble too - it was his means that were questionable, and so are Obama's, for different reasons of course. Everybody has noble goals, but in the real world, what matters is action, not aspiration. Behaviour, not motives.

quote:

In terms some financial reforms, I think republicans have a leg up lately, based on the fannie/freddie scandals.

I ask again, how are Republicans responsible for this?

quote:

But it is still better than spending your life savings on to get basic treatment.

First of all, that's more than a minor exaggeration. Nobody spends his life savings on "basic treatment", and nobody is refused emergency treatment based on financial status.

Second, and more important, which is better - spending your life savings on an operation, or not being able to get that operation before your condition becomes critical or even life-threatening? My cousin had a problem with her knee and was refused treatment at a Canadian hospital, but told to re-apply in 6 months' time, because by that time it would have gotten much worse and would be "serious" enough to get on the waiting list. You'll have to try a lot harder to convince me that any price tag justifies this.

Third and finally, you ignore that Canadians pay for this through taxes. The amount we pay is not quite as much as Americans have to pay for comprehensive medical insurance (which is in line with our inferior quality of care), but it is not that far off, and proportional to the quality of care it is roughly equivalent.

quote:

In the US, ud be pooling resource across the family and taking loans u can affort to support such an operation.

Or you'd have insurance. Or go through the public system (yes, the USA does have one). And don't tell me that Americans can't afford medical insurance when they're paying mortgages and car insurance.

It's an issue of budgeting and priorities. Those who assume that they don't need insurance because they are in good health today (which is still the no. 1 reason for being uninsured) have nobody to blame but themselves when their health fails.

I would support one and only one type of additional government interference in the American health care system, and that is mandatory health insurance. Mandatory auto insurance is already common, so this isn't that much of a stretch. Not socialized, not heavily regulated, just mandatory, and if someone can prove that he has sufficient assets to pay for the most expensive operations then he/she would be able to opt out.

Only time will tell...

He is just another American president with no powers to really change anything drastically.He will still stand behidnd the zionist regime of Israel 100% because if he doesnt he ll be shot before he knows it.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I think you're oversimplifying what is arguably the most complex recession in history, depression aside. There is simply no other way to free up credit markets, for one. (and the issue with credit markets is not that consumers don't want to borrow, it's businesses that need to borrow to grow)

Correct, businesses need capital/borrowing money to grow, however true profitability and true growth stem from investing personal capital, not credit. Infusing more government credit into an unstable economy which is built on credit (akin to house built on sand) is just going to prolong and exacerbate the problem and unfortunately, the amount of government sand is finite.

Providing businesses with more credit options does nothing to stimulate the economy. Providing more supply, does not provide more demand.

While you can argue that it would be foolhardy not to get some sort of government intervention, you have to put the figures into context. Think of what $800b of taxpayer money could do for a health care system, an education system, transportation system... etc.

So.. do you panic and drop all this money into a sinking ship, which despite your best efforts is irrepairable. Or do you put this money into something that is universally accepted as a worthwhile investment.

Again, Obama's bailout is identical in principle to Roosevelt's new deal which did nothing for improvement as unemployment, gdp and private investment figures show.

0.02$

quote:

Originally posted by feelgood Think of what $800b of taxpayer money could do for a health care system, an education system, transportation system... etc. So.. do you panic and drop all this money into a sinking ship, which despite your best efforts is irrepairable. Or do you put this money into something that is universally accepted as a worthwhile investment. Again, Obama's bailout is identical in principle to Roosevelt's new deal which did nothing for improvement as unemployment, gdp and private investment figures show. 0.02$

I suggest you read up on what Obama's stimulus package entails (he made a speech last Thursday that I'm sure you can find on youtube or his website) - his plan is not to keep bankrolling financial execs, but rather to invest in technology and physical infrastructure as well as clean energy.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I suggest you read up on what Obama's stimulus package entails (he made a speech last Thursday that I'm sure you can find on youtube or his website) - his plan is not to keep bankrolling financial execs, but rather to invest in technology and physical infrastructure as well as clean energy.

TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) ie. the bailout, is different from his stimulus package.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I suggest you read up on what Obama's stimulus package entails (he made a speech last Thursday that I'm sure you can find on youtube or his website) - his plan is not to keep bankrolling financial execs, but rather to invest in technology and physical infrastructure as well as clean energy.

Beside clean energy the rest of his package is just fancy spending for a bankrupt country and that will get them nowhere!

quote:

Originally posted by feelgood TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) ie. the bailout, is different from his stimulus package.

Yes, exactly.
And the TARP was not a product of the Obama administration. His plan has nothing to do with easing credit markets and bailing out banks.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Yes, exactly. And the TARP was not a product of the Obama administration. His plan has nothing to do with easing credit markets and bailing out banks.

He certainly made no effort to stand in its way.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...1Esc&refer=home

quote:

Originally posted by feelgood He certainly made no effort to stand in its way. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...1Esc&refer=home

He supported it. In fact if he was the president at the time, he would have came up with the exact same plan.

quote:

Originally posted by feelgood He certainly made no effort to stand in its way. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...1Esc&refer=home

Most didn't. When the markets lose close to 10% the day it doesn't pass, people get pretty spooked into getting the thing through. Don't say "if Obama were president he'd have done the same thing" - that argument could be applied to essentially everyone, both red and blue. I think Obama would have implemented with more oversight than Bush did, which you guys are ignoring.

The possibility that the government could make money off of some of the assets it is buying with TARP is another discussion entirely.

...if you're going to argue about his policies, make sure you're talking about the ones he has created.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Most didn't. When the markets lose close to 10% the day it doesn't pass, people get pretty spooked into getting the thing through.

That's a very poor argument and I don't know where to begin really so let's just skip how the markets are going to react on day to day basis.

quote:

Don't say "if Obama were president he'd have done the same thing" - that argument could be applied to essentially everyone, both red and blue.

I'm not sure what you gain by saying that. I think any other US president would have done the exact same thing. Yet that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

quote:

I think Obama would have implemented with more oversight than Bush did, which you guys are ignoring.

Who cares? TARP is fundamentally flawed and wrong in so many levels so yeah who cares if there was more oversight or transparency?

quote:

The possibility that the government could make money off of some of the assets it is buying with TARP is another discussion entirely.

LOL, at least you're funny.

quote:

...if you're going to argue about his policies, make sure you're talking about the ones he has created.

And those are?

quote:

Originally posted by spolitta I don't know where to begin really

Clearly.

Obama's biggest and first initiative as president is his $775b economic recovery plan. It does not involve bailing out banks. Stop confusing it with TARP; it is completely different and is not part of his administration (and thus not part of this thread).

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Clearly. Obama's biggest and first initiative as president is his $775b economic recovery plan. It does not involve bailing out banks. Stop confusing it with TARP; it is completely different and is not part of his administration (and thus not part of this thread).

I'm not confusing anything. He fully supported the 700 Billion aka TARP and he wants to be responsible for spending the $350 which is leftover from the $700. Not to mention that during his campaign he insisted that the TARP was the right thing to do. Now you want to argue that if Obama was in full power he would have done a better job of handling TARP in the first place and particularly he wouldn't have bailed out Wallstreet. Correct me if I'm wrong but what I don't understand is you've already stated in this thread that systemic risk should have been avoided yet you don't like bailing out wallstreet?

It'll be a great Hollywood story for America's democracy that Obama won but in the end he'll be a politician with his hands tied up by various corporations and other powerful individuals. Anyone that truly thinks Obama will save the world is delusional.

Obama is fucked, instead of trying to fix a broken economic system he wants to do run trillion dollar deficits for ever. What kind of change is that?

They have no money, China will stop lending them money because they need it for themselves now. They will have to print print print and then its all inflation.

They were worried about the market crashing and losing peoples pensions, so they came up with TARP and stimulus packages. But the inflation they create will make people retirement funds and pensions worthless.


The only change here is the color of skin.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I think you're oversimplifying what is arguably the most complex recession in history, depression aside. I agree that letting the economy function without intervention would be the most natural way for things to proceed, but the devastation that would affect multiple generations must be avoided. You can argue whether it's tax cuts or spending that's the best way to do it, but net net, the gov't has to cough up. There is simply no other way to free up credit markets, for one. (and the issue with credit markets is not that consumers don't want to borrow, it's businesses that need to borrow to grow)

Think of the devastation that would result from trillions of dollars of debt to future generations.


People have spent tooo much and don't need anymore credit, US is way over consumed. If you give Americans credit they will use it to buy Chinese products.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Most didn't. When the markets lose close to 10% the day it doesn't pass, people get pretty spooked into getting the thing through.

Having the reserve and foresight to listen to the voice of reason within a panic is what defines a good decision.

US citizens now have the next 'X ' many years to pay off the results of this rash spooked decision.

but im gonna get off the internet now.. ive had far to many drinks tonight, and need to spin some deep dark drunken progressive. My new muse: Jay Lumen - Surface Reborn (Quivver Remix)...sooo goood. yayaya

cheers

quote:

Originally posted by feelgood Having the reserve and foresight to listen to the voice of reason within a panic is what defines a good decision.

And virtually no one did that, Obama or otherwise. I don't think another US politician would have acted differently if they had been in shoes at that time.
All I'm saying is that it's unfair to pin the TARP, successful or not, on Obama. Wasn't he not even the democratic candidate at that point?
If the point of this thread is to discuss his policies and intentions, then do that.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.