Lion's Daily Blurb - Wed., Thurs., Fri., Nov. 12-14

[Lion]

Come to America, start a business, and if it fails, don't worry. The US government has ya covered! Government Bailouts is the HOT topic of discussion in my neck of da woods, and at many other places in America. It use to be that businesses had the freedom to succeed, and also the freedom to fail. That's what capitalism is all about...right? Well, the $700 Billion dollar bailout plan is not doing so hot right now since they can't figure out how to disperse the money. The stock market is falling fast because people don't believe the bailout plan can work the way it was planned to work. NOW, the US government wants to get into the Automobile business. Democrats are pushing for an emergency loan of $25 BILLION in exchange for a government ownership stake in Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors. Whatever happened to filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring? So we're rewarding the BIG three for what amounts to very bad management of those auto companies. Instead of focusing on fuel efficient automobiles, they were pumping out gas guzzlers. Now they're stuck with those big gas hogs. The problem with these US government bailouts is that other industries will be holding out the tin cup asking for help. Many industries in America are hurting because of our decaying economy. Where do you draw the line? In my opinion, the line was drawn in the original $700 Billion bailout plan (whatever the heck that was), but the US congress wants to cross that line. It won't stop with the auto industry. Circuit City, Home Depot, Lowes, Macy's, and other major retailers are hurting. Circuit City for instance filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy this week. I doubt it even survives a restructuring as they plan on closing over 150 of their stores by Christmas. They can't even keep their current stores stocked with merchandise due to the millions they owe creditors. Shouldn't we bail them out too? What the heck...Christmas is just around the corner. BAILOUTS FOR EVERYONE!


Discussion on this blurb will continue through Friday since it's a hot topic in America. New blurb coming this weekend.

[nilloC]

The initial government bailout should never had supplied bankers with more money. In my opinion the only possible "bailout" would be to create more jobs for Americans by expanding alternative energy businesses and avenues for production plants. I know you can't compare the Great Depression to now, but look at what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in the 1930's. FDR's version of a "bailout" was to inject money into the employment fields through the CCC, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), and several other companies whose names were also acronyms. One of the most popular of these state-created corporations was the Tennessee Valley Authori-tayy (TVA) which produced thousands of jobs for the unemployed to in a sense "upgrade" and build greater infrastructure in areas of Tennessee.

The government had to inject funds (if it chose to) into new enterprises, not stale ones such as the banking industry. Sure the banking industry failing would've led to a collapse on the house market, but Americans should have been prepared to grin and bear it. These things have a tendency to return to a state of stabilization.

Anyways, the government should not have given money to fat cat bankers victimizing people who were simply trying to get a home to live in. It is absolutely ridiculous. It really pisses me off to think the wealthiest bastards got a "get out of debt free" card. ****ers.

[Mpdabunny]

People have little reason to invest in companies aka the stock market right now, as if things weren't already bad enough.. now they have the promise of heavy-handed "CGT" hanging over there heads if they even made some money investing.

I'm just curious how long it's gonna be until the government owns a stake in just about every major company that's based in the U.S. :rolleyes:. I wont bring in the DREADED "S" ism word.. because I know a forum war will come down upon me. However, all of the people in charge of this country are "bleeding heart" morons. There's a point in time when you cease helping people by bailing them out. Our government is totally detached from reality, and needs to learn a little something about tough love. Unfortunately, our country is headed even deeper into this mindset and I doubt it'll get any better until something major snaps. Maybe the morons we "the people" of this country so intelligently elected into office will wake up if we crash head first into a very painful recession but maybe they wont, they're morons after all. We sure know how to pick 'em here in the states, don't we? :dead:

We don't need "nice guys" right now, "nice guys" are the ones handing out money hand over fist. Right about now we need mean.. stuck-up.. smart folks in office, who can stomach some pain for the greater good down the line. It seems we've been electing the spineless teddy bears who can't even stand to see a company fail (Booo Hoo), and would rather take the pain and pass it to the tax payers.

[Thumper]

like ive been saying for years, we need a good zombie uprising.

[Mpdabunny]

People who vote for real issues have been zombies for years. They run around voting for "a good reason" for no reason in a big popularity contest, knowing their vote will never be heard. :(

[Thumper]

i knew someone was gunna use my zombie line in such a way.

[Mpdabunny]

:D I couldn't resist you left the door wide open! LOL You gotta admit that a lot of the elections in the past twelve years or so have been jokes. :| It just doesn't feel like we vote for who's best for the country as a whole anymore.. dunno.

Sorry to be the predictable one. lol

[berlin88]

Lion, basic fundamentals of free market capitalism and economics would dictate that government stays out of the private sector and is only there to make sure to laws are broken. If a business fails than to bad, free market capitalism is all about survival of the fittest.

However, the free market capital America had as radically changed by the New Deal and progressive Liberals. The Supreme Court in NLRB vs Jones and Laughlin Steel legalized the ability of the government to interfere in the private sector. Court cases had previously ruled against the government interfering in the private sector, but the New Deal made it ok.

We are still living with the negative consequences of the New Deal today. The yare as follows:

1. Government can regulate goods/ service in the economy. During WW2, the government regulated the prices of food.

2. Government can regulate prices, such as the health care market where they can dictate what services you offer and how much you can charge.

3. They can regulate other aspects of the business and tell people how to run their company. Such as giving power and authority to the labor unions and telling them who they have ot hire.

4. With government bailouts, you are engaging in socialism!

5. Under The New Deal legacy, the government can take your business away, such as when Truman seized all the Steel Plants (though he gave them back). They can Nationalize aspects of the energy sector that should remain private sector.

6. They regulated the airlines industry by using legal roadblocks to prevent new airlines from entering the market, a clar violation of free market capitalism.

7. Regulation leads to socialism, and the destruction of the free market capitalism. I understand left wing radicals want a government run economy, but I don't.

8. If we bail out the auto industry, we reward bad behavior.

Democrats want the bailout because of all the jobs that would be lost and the fact many of those people are Democratic voters! If people lose their jobs and blame the Dems, they might get voted out of office. Secondly, many of the Labor Unions in the auto industry are big supporters of the Democrats, but they would lose power, money, membership and influence if the plants go out of business so the Dems are stepping in to help. Lastly, if the government gets a share of the auto giants, then they can influence the practices of that business. Its the shareholders that dictate who gets made CEO or how the business is run, so by giving the government a share, they can force their socialist agenda on the auto industry and maybe even take it over.


Bailouts and Regulation= Socialism, end of story.

Roosevelt's New Deal destroyed the wall between Public and Private, and has allowed the government to stick its hand into the economy, and interfer with free market capitalism whenever something happens they don't like. its now more of a government run capitalism.

America needs Goldwater Economic Conservatism, not Liberalism or Socialism

We also need to reform the labor Unions and return them to the legitimate functions they were founded for. Labor Unions are there to represent the workers when they sign a contract, and to help negotiate the contract, but that is it. This idea of non secret ballots, forced membership or involvement in politics is not something they should be involved it. Correctly operated, Unions can even act as a deterant against left wing Socialism and Democratic agenda. Sadly though, the labor unions have move well beyond their legitimate functions.

[Korona]

What got countries out of the great depression? That's right massive centralised government spending programmes generally called "the war effort". It Works! Eat it! :lmao:

On a related topic, it has always seemed ironic to me that they used to call WW1 "the great war". Such terms always turn out to be so relative...

[Derek]

This is simply ridiculous. There was a legitimate reason to the bank bailout that I'll get to later, but there is absolutely no reason for the government to get involved in the auto industry. As has already been stated, bad companies (of which the American auto industry is a prime example) are supposed to fail. They government is interfering with the survival of the fittest of the free market and introducing corporate socialism, which is no better than individual socialism. People say that the free market failed this summer, the real question is where the **** was the free market? It was lost sometime in the 1930's. Since then the government hasn't been able to get its greasy hands out of every nook and cranny. Like why are we still subsidizing crops while trying to push NAFTA?

The initial government bailout should never had supplied bankers with more money. In my opinion the only possible "bailout" would be to create more jobs for Americans by expanding alternative energy businesses and avenues for production plants. I know you can't compare the Great Depression to now, but look at what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in the 1930's. FDR's version of a "bailout" was to inject money into the employment fields through the CCC, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), and several other companies whose names were also acronyms. One of the most popular of these state-created corporations was the Tennessee Valley Authori-tayy (TVA) which produced thousands of jobs for the unemployed to in a sense "upgrade" and build greater infrastructure in areas of Tennessee.

The government had to inject funds (if it chose to) into new enterprises, not stale ones such as the banking industry. Sure the banking industry failing would've led to a collapse on the house market, but Americans should have been prepared to grin and bear it. These things have a tendency to return to a state of stabilization.

Anyways, the government should not have given money to fat cat bankers victimizing people who were simply trying to get a home to live in. It is absolutely ridiculous. It really pisses me off to think the wealthiest bastards got a "get out of debt free" card. ****ers.
Creating jobs would have been both impossible (government projects aren't actually creating jobs, they're just throwing away money and calling it employment) and ineffective. The problem was that liquidity had all but vanished: Banks weren't lending out money, and without that the economy simply cannot function. Its the oil that keeps everything running smoothly. The bailout was intended to get the banks lending again, once money was circulating the initial bailout money would have been multiplied several times though. However it seems that the banks have largely ****ed up their end of the deal. Certainly it seems that some liquidity has returned, but not as much as should have. Just another reason to stop giving government handouts.

[berlin88]

This is simply ridiculous. There was a legitimate reason to the bank bailout that I'll get to later, but there is absolutely no reason for the government to get involved in the auto industry. As has already been stated, bad companies (of which the American auto industry is a prime example) are supposed to fail. They government is interfering with the survival of the fittest of the free market and introducing corporate socialism, which is no better than individual socialism. People say that the free market failed this summer, the real question is where the **** was the free market? It was lost sometime in the 1930's. Since then the government hasn't been able to get its greasy hands out of every nook and cranny. Like why are we still subsidizing crops while trying to push NAFTA?


Creating jobs would have been both impossible (government projects aren't actually creating jobs, they're just throwing away money and calling it employment) and ineffective. The problem was that liquidity had all but vanished: Banks weren't lending out money, and without that the economy simply cannot function. Its the oil that keeps everything running smoothly. The bailout was intended to get the banks lending again, once money was circulating the initial bailout money would have been multiplied several times though. However it seems that the banks have largely ****ed up their end of the deal. Certainly it seems that some liquidity has returned, but not as much as should have. Just another reason to stop giving government handouts.


Derek, the current mess has been portrayed as the free market failing, and people have believed it. Bush and his cronies could have removed the new deal legacy and its bad policies, but they did not. They could have pointed out the differences between real free market capitalism and what we have now, but they didn't. They told people the current Bush economic ideas were free market capitalism and supported bailouts, now the left is using it as propoganda.

Obama is staying out of this mess, because Dems don't want him being associated with anything related to the current mess, out of fear it could damage him politically. They don't want to take responsibility and want to place all the blame on Bush.

If Obama opposes the Auto plant bailout, or supports it, he becomes public target #1. People will blame him if something bad happens.

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank will not be punished by the Dems, because they want to place all the blame on the GOP. They don't want to be blamed as well, even though they were partially at fault.

[Mpdabunny]

Anyways, the government should not have given money to fat cat bankers victimizing people who were simply trying to get a home to live in. It is absolutely ridiculous. It really pisses me off to think the wealthiest bastards got a "get out of debt free" card. ****ers.

Umm... yeah... they never tried to victimize the people who got mortgages that couldn't afford them. Instead they put the blame where it was rightfully deserved, the moronic politicians that pushed these banks to lend to people who couldn't afford them, it's just that no one wants to talk about it aside from a few people. Yes, there are predatory lenders out there too, but there are also banks that were being pressured to keep giving out these bogus mortgages. Damn, it amazes me how the brain dead politicians pushing these mortgages get away with murder and no one calls them on it. Barney Franks acted like a freaking white knight riding in to save the day when he was DEFENDING Fredie and Fannies' actions only a few years ago, and saying that they needed NO oversight.

People don't need a home to be happy. I live in a nice Apartment and I'm very happy with it. It gives me a reason to work harder to succeed later in life, so I CAN afford one. I don't want someone handing me something I can't afford. :freek: It's all "bleeding heart" BS "Everyone needs their own home" (Anyone who believes that needs to take a trip to Japan. Those poor impoverished Japanese, HOW CAN THEY LIVE IN THOSE APARTMENTS? UGH) "Everyone needs free money even if they don't work for it" "We can't let any big businesses go under!" It's all BS. This country needs to suck it up and start teaching people to fish, before we run out all the free fish we've been handing out for so long. The government is there to protect us, they're there to give us a working society, not pay peoples', and business' debts. Government gone wild, the big "S" word is right around the corner.

The good ol' U.S. of A the place where you can strive to succeed without any risk because if you screw up the rest of the country will buy you out of trouble, and suffer for your mistake. :D YAY!

Btw, everyone... EVERYONE Democrat OR Republican that defended Fannie or Freddie in those hearings three or so years ago, needs fired. Our government is officially a joke, broken well beyond broken. What ever happen to people taking responsibility for THEIR OWN actions? When was the last time a politician resigned for actually making a mistake? The only time you see one of these corrupt morons resign is when they get caught with their pants around their ankles, it's utterly disgusting. Unless they're Bill Clinton of course. *Gag*

[Statalyzer]

Umm... yeah... they never tried to victimize the people who got mortgages that couldn't afford them. Instead they put the blame where it was rightfully deserved, the moronic politicians that pushed these banks to lend to people who couldn't afford them, it's just that no one wants to talk about it aside from a few people.

Exactly! It was a pair of liberal Congressmen who lead the charge to push the mortgage companies into making more and more dangerous loans, and then when things failed Congress turned around and chided the companies for doing just that. Bush pushed several years for more regulation for Fannie and Freddie and senators Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank said that was ridiculous. We wouldn't have needed the bank bailout (that was a near-total failure in improving the economy anyway) if not for Democratic senators who ignored Bush and Greenspan's warnings for years!

The government had to inject funds (if it chose to) into new enterprises, not stale ones such as the banking industry. Sure the banking industry failing would've led to a collapse on the house market, but Americans should have been prepared to grin and bear it. These things have a tendency to return to a state of stabilization.

Not only would things have eventually restabilized, but we'd be a lot less likely to have a crisis in the future because the companies and banks with poor business models would have died off and the ones that knew their stuff would be the one surviving. It's a bit like a forest fire - destructive when it happens, but small ones now and then make the forest more healthy by clearing out choking underbrush and putting nails in the coffin of dying vegetation.

People who vote for real issues have been zombies for years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4

[Derek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4
EPIC! :rofl:

[truefeel]

congratz derek, post number 13,000:D.

[Mpdabunny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4

Ok.. that just about made my year! :rofl: I had to watch it 3-4 times so I was sure it was real. :D

It may be partisan.. but hell, when you're talking about the stuttering stammering deranged little garden gnome Franks, and how an entire party just chose to blindly allow him to get away with what he has done... yeah it's fitting. I wouldn't let that little moron pump my gas... so help me god.... he'd steal my freaking gas cap and blame it on Bush when he got caught. Hell he'd probably have Pelosi right there next to him giving a speech about how President Bush's policies led to Frank's delinquency. :wtf:

Morals, responsibility, common sense and the TRUTH, are simply no longer important in American politics or so it seems. :dead:

[Derek]

congratz derek, post number 13,000:D.
So double epic? :p

[truefeel]

Not anymore; post 13,001 is not special enough :p. Now you need to make 999 post again before you have double epic :p

[Korona]

@Mpda so you are saying that the followers of the puppet on the left are such fools but our puppet on the right is really cool?

This kind of rhetoric reminds me of Supply Side Jesus:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html ??

[DomerPyle]

People have little reason to invest in companies aka the stock market right now, as if things weren't already bad enough..

i somewhat disagree. while it's hard to determine which companies will survive the bear market and which ones will either get delisted or continue to decline, bear markets are great for building one's portfolio due to the low prices :D

as for the bailout, well, if you give a mouse a cookie...

[Statalyzer]

People have little reason to invest in companies aka the stock market right now

What? Ever heard of "Buy low; sell high?" This is the time to buy stocks! Warren Buffet - the guys who has made more money than anyone in history in the stock market - even said buying American stocks is the best way to go right now because the prices are so low. That's why the free-market system works so well - it corrects itself when things go bad because as the economy falls, the stocks become more affordable which makes the market pick back up.

This kind of rhetoric reminds me of Supply Side Jesus:

Which is a pretty dumb cartoon.

[nilloC]

I'll reply to Derek & Mpda's comments on mine when I have some more time, maybe later tonight when I've had a few beers. :p

But as far as investing in the stock market... I'm quite poor, eeking out a living, and i just invested a couple thousand in stocks because it would be stupid not to. Not gonna go into the titles, but really the things I put money in have literally nowhere to go but up. And if they go up even nickel, I'll make quite a nice profit. Stock's aren't too much my game though; IRA's are my safety net.

[Ace]

I think goverment was thinking about all the poor workers that would get unemployed and that would been bad, haha lol at who said america needs a war to get out of the new depression.. :p
Like what country would Usa go to war with? The Iranians or North Korea?
I think both are pretty well prepared .:D
I've heard the bailout plan was sort of intended to soften the blow... the blow that will come next year.. I've heard Volvo will be sold to China or Japan :D
Im loling at why the Swedish board or whatever that owned Volvo one day sold it to the americans..
Lol I wished I had a couple of hundred dollars extra now , Now would be like a perfect time to invest for sure when everything is on sale :D

[Pr0SEAL]

We also need to reform the labor Unions and return them to the legitimate functions they were founded for. Labor Unions are there to represent the workers when they sign a contract, and to help negotiate the contract, but that is it. This idea of non secret ballots, forced membership or involvement in politics is not something they should be involved it. Correctly operated, Unions can even act as a deterrent against left wing Socialism and Democratic agenda. Sadly though, the labor unions have move well beyond their legitimate functions.

I agree with you, but I have a question to ask about this part.

How do you handle Corporations that will attempt to wage bust, or even Union bust workers? I believe the notion that Unions protect wages and kept pushing for benefits is because the Companies would of left them for dead (and you got inflation making that pay raise, a pay cut...) They just had a contract change in K.S.C. and the Roads and Grounds crew only had 6 people rehired. This new company took away their equipment, brought in their own that factored in less machines, and they cut their wages while removing any benefits. Their Union is arguing with them on that. The point I am making is, where do you draw the line? Does the legitimate functions of the past protect the worker under these current conditions?

Another serious separate side question I have here... How does the Free Market handle accountability, and making sure Corporations don't scam the system and its people?

[Derek]

If a strike can be busted then clearly the union had no good reason to be asking for a pay raise (or benefits etc.). If someone else is willing to do the job for less, then they can. Unions in the US have become so powerful however that all they often achieve is to drive away companies.

The free market is the ultimate form of accountability: The better you perform, the better your rewards. If you're ripping off your customers, they will stop coming. You know what Wal-Mart has been so successful? Because they legitimately help the customer with the same products for lower prices. On the other hand, customers ought to be more informed themselves, thats their job.

[Mpdabunny]

@Mpda so you are saying that the followers of the puppet on the left are such fools but our puppet on the right is really cool?

This kind of rhetoric reminds me of Supply Side Jesus:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html ??

LOL! You're saying people follow Bush and don't blame him when he does something wrong? Hahahaha WRONG. Look at his approval ratings, it's NOT rocket science. Democrats have just let Frank's little project slip without saying a word. It's hilarious how you can bring up what he has done and the only response you ever get from a Democrat is to change the subject to Bush without ever addressing it. Thanks for proving my point.

I have yet to hear one... ONE Democrat call for Franks to resign, or hell even denounce what he has done on any news network, even better admit what he did was WRONG. All they do is change the subject to Bush and ramble until people are sick of hearing them. Basically the cookie cutter response Pelosi and all the other Democrats in DC have used for so many years now when they were called on personal mistakes. Bush is single handedly responsible for making every single Democrat act like a child that wont take responsibility for anything! ! ! Damn that Bush!

Btw I was an "independant" up until about a year ago, so don't give me that garbage I never blindly sat back and turned a blind eye to anything Bush has done. However everyone seems to be happy to do so with that pudgey annoying gnome.

[nilloC]

Mpda, no offense, but your post is a great example of why I need to be drunk to respond. It helps me not hurt as much.

I've only had a few rounds of beer tonight. Thus, no response out of this.

I get so sad by reading replies in here sometimes.

[Mpdabunny]

I'm sorry. :( I insulted your pudgy white knight who pretended to ride in and save the day when his own efforts lead to a severe blow to the U.S. economy? I wont insult your pudgy little hero anymore.. I should know better than to hold a Democrat responsible for anything when Bush is still around to blame. Shame on me. I'm still not hearing anything about Franks... just attacking my effort to point out that he played a MAJOR part in Freddie and Fannie. I guess it's hip for Democrats to ignore his existence. :eek:

I don't see how my personal insults against Franks are any different than people I have seen call Bush a "moron" in this very forum. The moral high ground isn't something you gain through verbally claiming it.

Btw you don't have to respond to a word I say. Last I checked no one is holding a gun to your head. You don't like what I have to say, don't say anything to me. It's all good by me.

Fact of the matter is, almost every Democrat including the big one that ran for president can do nothing but run against Bush and it's pretty sad. Where would the Democratic party be without Bush today? I dunno but they certainly would have a lot less to ramble about.

I'd be such a happy little camper if a high ranking Democrat just appeared on TV, and simply said that "Yes, Bush was partially to blame, but so are we." Unfortunately we never will, now will we? Hell, I'd even love to hear a defense for his actions, but apparently you can only attack me for attacking him, but not offer a valid defense of his careless actions.

Also, yeah I may talk very.. straight forward and "bluntly" about politicians and very loosely throw around personal insults. This stems from an utter frustration with all politics, and complete disgust with the blame game. Which like it or not the Democrats have owned for the last 6 years. I was raised to take responsibility for my own actions, excuse me for getting slightly pissed when these a-moral morons can't place the slightest blame upon their own heads when it's frankly their fault. "Frankly" That's hilarious! Maybe "Franksly" in this case. LOL

[Korona]

LOL! You're saying people follow Bush and don't blame him when he does something wrong?
Not in the slightest. I am saying that believing there is significant difference between the two political parties is retarded. They primarily represent two factions of corporate interest. They are both demonstrably to the RIGHT of mainstream US public opinion, (just like the mainstream press). This can be proved and I have shown it repeatedly. However maybe you don't read links I post, so if you want me to post the same links again I would be happy to...

The rest of the hysterical crap about the bogeyman of "socialism" that gets wheeled out incessantly I feel is summed up perfectly by Supply Side Jesus. The blatant self-serving denial of social responsibility, belief that helping the poor is counter-productive and myopic mis-characterisation of them as somehow earning their rotten place in society is the new (old) creed of the conservative right. It is as sickening as it is inescapable.

[nilloC]

I'm sorry. :( I insulted your pudgy white knight who pretended to ride in and save the day when his own efforts lead to a severe blow to the U.S. economy?

Not at all. Your ability to hold the Democrats completely responsible while talking very little about Republican and Independent mistakes is irrational and unfounded. I don't even like Barney Frank. Go figure! You also have a tendency to classify anyone who doesn't agree with you as a "kool aid" drinker, or a "Obama and Frank supporter" who are "morons" and "unable to actually do research to make decisions". In all, it's completely asinine. I'm quite liberal, yes. But does that mean I'm a democrat? I have a ton of problems with the democratic party.

Open your eyes and stop blaming one side for all the "horrible things" that have come upon this country. Your straight talk is completely one-sided accosting bull****, which is completely sickening and depressing. You criticize democrats for being unable to focus on anything outside of "it's Bush's fault", yet all you do is focus on how it's mostly entirely "the democrats fault" or a problem attributed to the left or the "s" word". Hypocrisy at it's finest. That is why I have to be drunk to even read through your message to feel like responding.

[Mpdabunny]

Your ability to hold the Democrats completely responsible while talking very little about Republican and Independent mistakes is irrational and unfounded.

I'd be such a happy little camper if a high ranking Democrat just appeared on TV, and simply said that "Yes, Bush was partially to blame, but so are we."

I clearly admit Bush was in part to blame, not as much over the Freddie/Fannie thing, but the economic mess as a whole.

Also as for bringing up Franks as an example, I'm sorry but the man came out and placed all the blame squarely on the "Bush economic policies" shortly after the **** hit the fan when he KNEW how large a part he played. President Bush didn't come out and say it was all Franks' fault.. had he I'd be saying the same thing, believe it or not. I'm sure you don't.

The rest of the hysterical crap about the bogeyman of "socialism" that gets wheeled out incessantly I feel is summed up perfectly by Supply Side Jesus. The blatant self-serving denial of social responsibility, belief that helping the poor is counter-productive and myopic mis-characterisation of them as somehow earning their rotten place in society is the new (old) creed of the conservative right. It is as sickening as it is inescapable.

The "Socialism" as brought up in this circumstance has more to do with the government buying up major companies to prevent them from going under, than the whole money for the poor thing. Now.. as for the money for the poor thing, maybe I should make my train of thought PERFECTLY clear right now before I'm accused of being some selfish greedy bastard...

I have no problem with the government helping the impoverished or unfit in this country, HOWEVER poverty is not is a disease it is something a person can be lifted out of with some effort. The "PROBLEM" is that our government writes checks sends them out and that's that. They offer few programs to help these people to STOP relying on checks from the government, get an education and ultimately get out and earn their own money.

On a darker side there are people who take advantage of these government programs so they do not have to work. I honestly see this all around me because of the line of work I'm in, and the general area I'm located. Yet, the government still has this pretty much no questions asked policy for handing money over to people who are very capable of working, just.. why should they? If you could sit on your ass an have someone pay your way through life, why would you lift a finger?

Say what you will about me, call me selfish call me whatever, but I'd be all for these types of things if I KNEW my tax money wasn't ending up in the hands of those who use our government's generosity to their advantage. Frankly I'd be much happier with this money going to programs to educate or create jobs for these people, not just pay their way. I'm sick of seeing people selling "food stamps" (which are for buying food for their kids) to get cash to buy cigarettes, then in the next breath complaining the government doesn't give them enough money to even buy food for their family. It's really sickening when you're faced with the reality of it every day. You can throw all the money you want at this problem, but until there is better oversight, and many more programs to help these people get jobs and be motivated to want one, you might as well be burning all of that money. When you're burning my money.... yeah, I'm not going to be very happy about it.

[Korona]

""HOWEVER poverty is not is a disease it is something a person can be lifted out of with some effort.""

This is the attitude I have a problem with. The people working multiple jobs and still struggling to make ends meet aren't putting in enough effort? Some areas are so damn poor that you can only get 2-bit jobs that pay next to nothing, and even that is something to be grateful for.

Success is as much luck as it is effort. People that fail are often victims of circumstances outside of their control. To write them off as lazy does them a disservice and to say they shouldn't be helped makes the situation worse.

[truefeel]

HOWEVER poverty is not is a disease it is something a person can be lifted out of with some effort.That's very ignorant, my friend. Say that the all the people who life in Congo, who not even have the means to flee their country.

Clearly you do not know what poverty really is.

[Statalyzer]

Clearly you do not know what poverty really is.

Hardly anybody in the USA knows what poverty really is. Helping the poor is one thing, but most of the people we are helping are really not poor, they are simply less rich than the guy next door or the guys in the next neighborhood.

Believe me, I used to work in H-E-B (a major grocery store chain in Texas) and I had plenty of people come in and use government aid such as food stamps and a couple of other social programs that were giving these people free money. And I could tell that most of them didn't really need it based on what they were buying.

To write them off as lazy does them a disservice and to say they shouldn't be helped makes the situation worse

It's not up to the government to decide who is lazy and who honestly has been screwed over by circumstances. Private charity is orders of magnitude more efficient at determining these things. Saying that I don't believe government officials should decide who is worth of aid and then force other people under threat of gunpoint to give away that aid does not mean I think the poor shouldn't get any help. I simply think it's up to me personally to be generous with my own money, and that goes for all of us. Any idiot can be generous with someone else's money!

The rest of the hysterical crap about the bogeyman of "socialism" that gets wheeled out incessantly I feel is summed up perfectly by Supply Side Jesus.

Nothing at all is summed up by Supply Side Jesus. It misses the point so badly it's hard to believe. For one thing, Jesus never advocated government aid to anyone - in fact he never addressed the topic at all. He did advocate that people use their own personal money to help the poor, which is totally different.

Also, let's take one of the many stupid panels from that cartoon as an example - the one where SSJ says his rich robe helped the poor people who make the robe keep their job. What the author apparently doesn't realize is that what he's making fun of is actually true and actually works! Let's say you're joe average worker at a clothing company that makes expensive ornamented robes - is it not accurate to say that if people don't buy from that company, you might eventually be out of a job? Of course it's accurate! For jobs to be in plentiful supply, there have to people who feel like they have the income to use the services of the companies that are out there! Duh.

The blatant self-serving denial of social responsibility

Society is a collection of individuals. I advocate individual responsibility instead of handing it over to the government to do your job for you. That's what's really self-serving - the self-serving denial of individual responsibility because you'd rather give money or time that isn't yours away instead.

belief that helping the poor is counter-productive

Instead of throwing out bad-sounding phrases, let's look at things logically. Sometimes helping people is counter-productive - it's a basic, intuitive, and obvious principle of life. If I'm in college and I spend my money wantonly and ask my dad for more money and he says "tough, I told you to spend responsibly and you ignored me", in the short run it's harder on me but in the long-term, I've learned something. If he bails me out every time I screw up, I will NEVER learn to stop making that mistake.

and myopic mis-characterisation of them as somehow earning their rotten place in society

What's really a myopic mischaracterization is the characterization you just made of the conservative position. There are some who did "earn their place" because life has natural consequences. If I climb a fence that says "beware of dog" and get bit, I earned it. If I cheat on my spouse and as a result she divorces me, I earned my consequences. If I do badly at work at get fired, I earned the consequences.

It might not always be my fault of course. Maybe I had an asshole boss who just hated me and fired me for no good reason. Well, that's life! We had an agreement and he has the right to fire me any day just like I have the right to quit any day, and now it's my job - nobody else's - to go find another one, which might be easy or it might be hard. But we have to end this stupid sense of entitlement. Socialism teaches people that they are entitled to things they want. We think that privledges are actually basic rights and think the government OUGHT to help us "keep up with the joneses", when the reality is that nobody owes you anything just because things aren't perfect.

And I grew up for part of my childhood below what the US government says is the poverty line. I can tell you for 100% sure that the US government has no clue what the hell its talking about.

[nilloC]

I clearly admit Bush was in part to blame, not as much over the Freddie/Fannie thing, but the economic mess as a whole.

Also as for bringing up Franks as an example, I'm sorry but the man came out and placed all the blame squarely on the "Bush economic policies" shortly after the **** hit the fan when he KNEW how large a part he played. President Bush didn't come out and say it was all Franks' fault.. had he I'd be saying the same thing, believe it or not. I'm sure you don't.


Okay, so you don't like Barney Frank. You have a ****ing phobia of anything to the left, it is ridiculous. That is what is so painful to read. This is (more or less) the most conservative board I post on. That doesn't bother me. Two guys who I frequently disagree with and are more "conservative" (or moderate, even) are also the two posters that I most like to read on political things (Stat and Derek). They post legit, logical, cohesive statements. Your posts tend to be demonizing any liberal agenda, saying we're trying to give money to people who don't deserve it and we're the reason the country is failing OMGOMG. That, again, is why I need to be drunk to not get overly amazed at the hypocrisy.

I too have worked (and have for several summers, as well as volunteering a ****ton of time throughout my life) in poverty-struck areas. There are people trying to eek out a living by not selling drugs (something that is 500 times more profitable than working legally at a McDonalds), they try to play by the rules. But they still get ****ed over. There's no support structure at all for them or their children. Parents would rather give their kids up for adoption, because they know they can't get out of the hole their in, no matter how hard they fight. It is sickening. There are people who leech off the system; the same is with any system. However to deny there are people who are fighting for their lives whom need financial assistance is incredibly misguided. I'm stopping myself from ranting about poverty and education in poverty zones... It's way too pathetic and depressing for a Friday afternoon.

[Slapper]

Oh dear, someone didnt feed the lions?. You guys are pissed off tonight?

1. Politicians dont give a rats ass about you, me or anyone else. One color is just as bad as the other and they all have 1 thing in common, greed.

2. The mistakes made were made by both sides and/or ignored by both sides. dont matter which color, blue or red. Blame both, Barack, Bush, their friends, their party, whatever, they are all guilty.

3. The Bankers and the failed Companies CEO's are still rich while regular people are struggling in the U.S. Thats again, greed. nothing new.

4. Thinking any damn Politico will admit they are wrong is the funniest **** i ever heard. As said, they only do it when they get caught playing the most basic of human games. The chase and the kill....or by tickling some Interns tonsils. Been done, not new.Kennedys and some others were well known for that, only noone gave two ****s back then{ aka when i was young} As long as the guy did his job, who cares were he stuck his penis.

So, moral of the story, Corporations, Government, The Rich, all in bed togther, the little guy gets ****ed, nothing new. Cry someore, suck it up and trod on.

[Mpdabunny]

That's very ignorant, my friend. Say that the all the people who life in Congo, who not even have the means to flee their country.

Clearly you do not know what poverty really is.

Excuse me, but are we talking about people around the world? No, we're talking about within the U.S. I understand there are people much worse off but we are talking about how people claim socialism is occurring when the government takes one mans money and places it in another mans pocket. I'm not ignorant in this situation, you're just ignorant of the context. ANYONE in the U.S. who lives in "poverty" can be lifted out. I was raised by a single mother ON food stamps, and here I am today working my way through life not relying on the government, so whatever.

Okay, so you don't like Barney Frank. You have a ****ing phobia of anything to the left, it is ridiculous. That is what is so painful to read. This is (more or less) the most conservative board I post on. That doesn't bother me. Two guys who I frequently disagree with and are more "conservative" (or moderate, even) are also the two posters that I most like to read on political things (Stat and Derek). They post legit, logical, cohesive statements. Your posts tend to be demonizing any liberal agenda, saying we're trying to give money to people who don't deserve it and we're the reason the country is failing OMGOMG. That, again, is why I need to be drunk to not get overly amazed at the hypocrisy.

I too have worked (and have for several summers, as well as volunteering a ****ton of time throughout my life) in poverty-struck areas. There are people trying to eek out a living by not selling drugs (something that is 500 times more profitable than working legally at a McDonalds), they try to play by the rules. But they still get ****ed over. There's no support structure at all for them or their children. Parents would rather give their kids up for adoption, because they know they can't get out of the hole their in, no matter how hard they fight. It is sickening. There are people who leech off the system; the same is with any system. However to deny there are people who are fighting for their lives whom need financial assistance is incredibly misguided. I'm stopping myself from ranting about poverty and education in poverty zones... It's way too pathetic and depressing for a Friday afternoon.

Lol The media jumps on every little mistake the right makes, so I don't have to period. The left gets a free pass almost every time, that's why I get pissed and come in here to rant. Hell, how many "average" people even know who the hell Barney Franks is? Enough said. For some reason I think if you were forced to watch Fox and hear about nothing but the left mistakes, such as anyone watching just about any other network hears about nothing but the right mistakes, you'd be just as mad.

I might also add I was all for every Republican that voted for that 700b package, back when this mess started, to be removed from their office, including McCain. If you watch the news networks such as I do all you hear is the right being attacked, then you come online and find out about people like Franks, which the "balanced" media just happened to forget to mention, is it supposed to make me happy?

As for you being the big expert on poverty because you volunteered EXCUSE ME! Sorry, buddy, but I grew up like that, and see it every day because my company has contracts to do work for section 8 housing projects. I grew up ashamed because my mother used food stamps, and lived in section 8 housing. Yet, today me and my sister are both perfectly capable of supporting ourselves... but yet people still claim that poverty "in the U.S." is an incurable disease like menace. Lol, you saw it, I lived it. I NEVER said everyone was taking advantage of the system either, try reading it again before ranting at me.

If you read what I wrote I'm not saying that all the money should be cut off. I'm SAYING there needs to be some support structure to help people get out of the economic mess they're in, instead of just handing over money every month. I understand what single parents have to deal with financially, obviously. I never once said abolish all government welfare, I'm saying put something there so more people can get beyond the point where they even need it.

[nilloC]

Jesus ****ing christ, no wonder I find you so intolerable at times. Is everything a pissing contest with you? Get over yourself.

I didn't know you grew up in a ghetto neighborhood on the west side of Chicago. I've spent quite a few summers there, actually living in those ****hole neighborhoods. I don't know quantitatively how this equivocates with your experience. But I know this---those people are pigeon-held and can't get out of it. Very little room for vertical achievement. So you lived it. I'm glad you got out of it. Was your mother a crackwhore? Your dad killed in gang warfare? Your school system's funds are suspended due to "underachieving"? You care more about protecting your mother than getting an education, you're afraid the thugs down the street are gonna kill her for not paying up for the rock? My first summer I was god damn terrified for my own life. I can't imagine what living there would've been like. Props for living it and getting out of it, seriously. However I challenge anyone to work or volunteer in the bowels of hell in some city; you won't believe what you see and find. For me, it was then that I realized America was a ****hole; it's only as good as it's most troubled family.

So yeah, that's why I say achieving a higher standard of living is nigh impossible for the majority of those in what I consider inner-city poverty. When your back is to a wall and no other people, not even the government, seem to care, you do whatever it takes for survival.

Also, your comment about the news: "Reality, as we know, has a far reaching liberal bias". Don't pout about it. Deal with it. And dealing with it doesn't give you a free pass to piss and moan rhetoric about Barney Frank over and over while condemning all liberals.

As for your proposal to target the sectors in which to give people money... The additional forms and searching necessary for the government to fulfill such an operation would be mindboggling; given the number of employees the government would need to contract just to do the research, I'm not even sure if much money would be saved.

I tend to be a humanist. Just care about your fellow beings. People need to stop elevating their own status as to something greater than what other peers are going through... Isolation of oneself will only throw humanity into greater turmoil.

[Mpdabunny]

Jesus ****ing christ, no wonder I find you so intolerable at times. Is everything a pissing contest with you? Get over yourself.

I didn't know you grew up in a ghetto neighborhood on the west side of Chicago. I've spent quite a few summers there, actually living in those ****hole neighborhoods. I don't know quantitatively how this equivocates with your experience. But I know this---those people are pigeon-held and can't get out of it. Very little room for vertical achievement. So you lived it. I'm glad you got out of it. Was your mother a crackwhore? Your dad killed in gang warfare? Your school system's funds are suspended due to "underachieving"? You care more about protecting your mother than getting an education, you're afraid the thugs down the street are gonna kill her for not paying up for the rock? My first summer I was god damn terrified for my own life. I can't imagine what living there would've been like. Props for living it and getting out of it, seriously. However I challenge anyone to work or volunteer in the bowels of hell in some city; you won't believe what you see and find. For me, it was then that I realized America was a ****hole; it's only as good as it's most troubled family.

So yeah, that's why I say achieving a higher standard of living is nigh impossible for the majority of those in what I consider inner-city poverty. When your back is to a wall and no other people, not even the government, seem to care, you do whatever it takes for survival.

Also, your comment about the news: "Reality, as we know, has a far reaching liberal bias". Don't pout about it. Deal with it. And dealing with it doesn't give you a free pass to piss and moan rhetoric about Barney Frank over and over while condemning all liberals.

As for your proposal to target the sectors in which to give people money... The additional forms and searching necessary for the government to fulfill such an operation would be mindboggling; given the number of employees the government would need to contract just to do the research, I'm not even sure if much money would be saved.

I tend to be a humanist. Just care about your fellow beings. People need to stop elevating their own status as to something greater than what other peers are going through... Isolation of oneself will only throw humanity into greater turmoil.

The cost of just handing out money no questions asked and not helping people improve their situation will become mind boggling too as the population grows. I never said there were not situations where people generally do need the assistance, you seem to fail to recognize that. I said that increasing the money handed out without tighter controls and without making attempts to rid people of the need for the assistance will in the end fail.

I don't know how the hell to put this to get my point across because it doesn't seem to be clicking. Maybe... If you had a brother who couldn't feed himself because he had a ****ty job or didn't have one at all, would you give him money every month for the rest of his life, or would you give him money for food and shelter WHILE helping him get a better education, or find a job until he could support himself?

The system as it is today is a band-aid not a cure, not even an attempted cure. That's the point I've been trying to get across this entire time, but somehow you don't understand what I'm trying to say. The purposed new programs to help the impoverished in this country focus on giving them more money without significantly improving a support structure to help them get on their feet, and that's a system that WILL fail. I did also mention people who take advantage of the system but never did I even remotely say it's a majority of the people receiving it.

Yeah, I do get passionate and pissed off about this crap because when someone says that when you start out poor you're destine to end up as such. It's a slap in my face and my sister's face. I didn't even work that hard to get on my feet and support myself, that's the amazing thing. However people like my sister, who I couldn't be more proud of, started out in a poor family and is today going back to school for her Master's degree. Pretty damn good for a "doomed" poor kid.

On the subject of the neighborhoods that aren't even safe I admit I can't speak much on that subject, because I just moved here in my early high school years. However, I do know what it's like to pass through a metal detector before school everyday, I have seen armed guards around my high school, and I have known kids that were killed when I was going to that high school.

Pissing contest, no? You're trying to attack the fact that I say that the idea of blindly throwing money into the air is going to solve the problem brought on by poverty is stupid and that it needs backed up. Then you try to use these "experiences" to validate your point over mine. You think I normally go around on freaking video game forums saying I grew up on food stamps? Uhh... no. I said it because you try to make you're limited experience in a subject the end all reason why you're right.

Anyway, I don't feel like parading around in circles talking about this because no matter how I try to put it, it's going to be twisted into me being an uncaring asshole who wants poor people to starve. It's obviously no longer ok to question how our government spends our money to help people, because that makes you a bad person. The government's solution to throw money at the problem just has to be right. Also, believe it or not I don't like talking about the way I grew up, I was more than happy to remove myself from that situation, and don't take great pleasure in talking about it.

So, back on to the main subject which is the economy, which does suck. It's going to continue to suck because our government (Republican and Democrat) as a whole is incredibly irresponsible, and believes if you throw enough money at something it will fix itself. Until we have people in charge who understand doing things like buying out a failing company or throwing money at banks and praying they'll start handing out more loans, is an extremely wasteful method of spending money that doesn't belong to them, we're just going to have to rot with this mess.