It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Prevailing Left blowing wind on ATS (Op/Ed)

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Grim,
I slept past the economics class, the absolutely most boring professor in the world. He spit when he talked.

I'll concede that what you say is correct, but is not a fluctuating economy also a sign of good health?

I do not put too much faith or fear in the euro, Ours is still the largest economy on the planet and will be for years to come. A static economy is one devoid of growth, correct?




posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Well yes it use to be, but that was because we were the dominate currency. We are losing that grip now, and when the dollar starts to lose value, we are going to start to lose trade in the dollar. Thats basic stuff though. If the euro starts to be worth a good amount more then the dollar, trade will switch to the euro because better faith in the euro. We cant afford to lose our dominate trade in the oil market. If we do, we will lose big time. We aren't living in the same times as we use to. If our dollar declines now, another currency will be there to take our place. Use to be our dollar declined, o well. Now it declines and we are in trouble.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by grover
......................
that's one of the rasons why i don't back liberals/democrats at all. Because they don't really stand up for issues, they just go along with whoever screams the most.

[edit on 9-6-2006 by Muaddib]


If that were the case muaddib i would be agreeing with you all the time. Semperfortis obviously supports bush, I have given him a great deal of respect. It is the shrill histronics of the likes of Tommy that I find both rather pathetic and absurd.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
BTW,when i said that i don't back liberals and democrats at all, I was refering to liberal/democrat candidates. I just didn't have the time to change it this morning since I had to go to work. I already changed the statement to reflect what I was talking about.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
If that were the case muaddib i would be agreeing with you all the time. Semperfortis obviously supports bush, I have given him a great deal of respect. It is the shrill histronics of the likes of Tommy that I find both rather pathetic and absurd.


gover, when you mentioned "Republicans, and all those who support any issues, or the issues that the president has brought forth", you labeled them all, which includes me and Semper. Semper might not react like I do, but then again Semper is a new member, and he hasn't seen what has been going on around the forums for over 2 years now.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
How many times do i have to say that I was painting with a broad brush to depict what I have read or personally heard. I am fully aware that not all republicans or bush supporters match the descriptions I made, in fact if you actually read what I have written I accknowledge that. So muaddib can you honestly say that you are aware that not all liberals and democrats are like you paint them? I have accknowledged my generalizations several times, have you? Can you?



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
And here I thought we had stopped all of that.

the lot on here are apparently very intelligent individuals, we just need to debate the issue and not turn personal.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
grover

Let me ask you a question, regarding this question you posed:

What type of response did you expect when you start off by calling their choice "an unqualified wennie"?

Sometimes it's as simple as that.

Just sayin'.


That was the very first thought I had as well Jsobecky. The choice of words in the question pretty much determined the ensuing response.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Well yes it use to be, but that was because we were the dominate currency.


Grim I think you have the tail wagging the dog. We did & do have the dominate currency because we did & do have the dominate economy.


We are losing that grip now, and when the dollar starts to lose value, we are going to start to lose trade in the dollar.


Yes we will lose some trade, but I suggest you look at the relative sizes of the economies supporting the two currencies. The economy of the U.S. is much larger than that of the Common Market Countries. As long as our economy continues to grow that situation is not likely to change--Therefore, the Dollar will remain dominant.


Thats basic stuff though. If the euro starts to be worth a good amount more then the dollar, trade will switch to the euro because better faith in the euro. We cant afford to lose our dominate trade in the oil market. If we do, we will lose big time.


This is just more of the same type of worry/comment as above. We will sink or swim based upon the underlying strength and volume of our economy, not on the relative value of the Euro and Dollar.


We aren't living in the same times as we use to. If our dollar declines now, another currency will be there to take our place. Use to be our dollar declined, o well. Now it declines and we are in trouble.


No, we aren't living in the same times as before, now China and India are emerging as fast growing economies. If those economies continue to grow at their present pace for a few more years they will overtake ours. If that happens, then it is likely the Chinese Yuan will become the dominant currency. However, that does not mean the Dollar will suddenly be worthless or that the U.S. will enter a deep economic depression.

The value of the dollar is low and sinking right now because of the huge deficits we are running and if we continue to run those kinds of deficits for very much longer then we will likely enter a depression. The switch of oil producing nations away from the dollar reflects the concerns of the various nations for the probable future value of the dollar because of those deficits. They don't want to get caught holding trillions of dollars and then have the real value of their holdings decrease.

The very fact of switching away from the dollar will cause the value of the dollar to decrease (relative to other currencies) and will impact our economy in a mostly negative way. Thus, in effect, shortening the amount of time we can continue to run deficits, but there is no immediate catastrophic consequence of the oil producing nations switching away from the dollar.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Grim, we then must agree to disagree, for I too see a natural progression of slight increases in the interest rates, which is in and of itself a good indicator of a healthy economy. Perhaps our sources differ in regards to the housing for everything I am seeing and reading indicates the greatest boon in new home sales in history. And just look at the unemployment rate! WOW, it has not been this low in our lifetimes.
Sorry I just see it differently.


I'd like to poke my nose in here with something that I've noticed. I think the reasons for the unemployment rate being as low as it is right now are plentiful, but the main one is very clear. All of these jobs that the administration is talking about are sub-wage jobs.

Do you know how hard it is for someone to make it on their own in any civilized area of this nation? On minimum wage, it's impossible, even with financial assistance. My opinion on the matter is that the rates have been artificially lowered in a vain attempt to try and get Bush's approval ratings back up. It seems as though that it's not working, thankfully. The fact is that I'm making more than minimum wage in my area, and I couldn't make it on my own. I'm forced to live with three other people just to get by. Now tell me that's good for the economy!! I know it's not good for me, since there's no room to excel, or to live the life that I desire for myself.

Now, some will say that that just means that I need to work harder, and to some extent, I think that's probably true. But, at some point, there has to come a compromise between what I must do and what the government must do to make my life as comfortable as possible. And with the dollar being worth less now than it has in a long time, it's going to be even more difficult to get level again, let alone ahead. It's just one more peg in the coffins of every middle-class person.

TheBorg



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Do you have any "evidence" that the numbers are being changed around as you claim? Otherwise is just unsubstantiated claims....and btw, the government doesn't have to do anything at all to "make your life more comfortable".... That is your job....not theirs...



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Muaddib hit the proverbial nail on the head in regarding the base difference in Conservative thinking and Liberal thinking. The conservative believes that it is a personal obligation to support yourself and succeed, the Liberal believes it is the governments responsibility to help you, or support you in the event you request it.

The "numbers" are not artificial. The unemployment figures are very simple and straightforward. The fact that a percentage of the population is attempting to live on Minimum wage in an area that is not conducive to that, is sad, but not indicative of any economic tragedy. There are no current restrictions on where anyone can live, hence, moving to a more lucrative location is always a viable option.
When presented with this, most people say things like, "My family is here" or "This is my home" and that is ALL personal choice. I even hear "I can not afford to move", a bus ticket is still very very inexpensive. I live in an area that has a high cost of living, and still there are a lot of people living here performing manual labor. A few examples does not an economy make.

We all tend to evaluate the state of any economy based on our own situation. It is difficult to see the figures, be in a worse situation and not understand that maybe you are an exception, not a rule. The fact is that unemployment is lower than it has been in our lifetime. Not artificially lowered a point or two, lower than it has been in decades. The interest rates are moving up, this is necessary to support this robust economy and frankly they have been far too low for far too long. Yes, Yes I know you can pull all sorts of stuff from the web to refute most of this, but I can show you "facts" from the web that Tom Cruise is an alien. Don't make it a fact, just makes it available.

It was self reliance that built this country, and self reliance will sustain it. Opportunity is a fundamental concept of this nation and it is out there for those willing to reach out and grab it. I am from WV and early on realized there were no opportunities there, so I have not been home other than vacation, in 30 years.

Again, I believe it is one of the fundamental differences between Liberal and Conservative. That of expected Government support and that of expected self reliance.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortisIt was self reliance that built this country, and self reliance will sustain it.
...
Again, I believe it is one of the fundamental differences between Liberal and Conservative. That of expected Government support and that of expected self reliance.

The whole point of having a government is that people survive better in groups and with depending on each other. It was only self-reliance in the sense of a self-reliant group that helped early Europeans colonize America. If every individual were to go out on their own, then they wouldn't be as successful. Members of a community supported, traded, and relaxed with one another.

You may have to redefine what makes a person conservative, as truly self-reliant means no government. Perhaps, you are talking about no social programs? If that's what you support, then republicans are not your party. Last I checked, Bush has increased the size and scope of the federal government by the most since World War II, even though there was that pesky threat of Communism.

As well, I find it interesting that "liberals" usually are for gay-marriage and some other social rights, while it is the republican "conservatives" that wish to use the government to make it illegal. I guess self-reliance doesn't really happen in that case, eh?

As a Libertarian, I would like to have the best of both...no social programs but all reasonable social rights. The only problem is that taking it to the private sector might create some other problems....

[edit on 10-6-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Grim I think you have the tail wagging the dog. We did & do have the dominate currency because we did & do have the dominate economy.


no, actually we did have the dominate economy not because of consumer rates or anything like that, its because every other major country was destroyed after word war 2. They were completely ruined. Russia was in bad shape, then got into worse shape because of the cold war. europe was in ruins in general. China and India weren't in the runnings yet and japan got crush by our two nukes, then we took their military away.

All in all you will find that everyone lost big on WW2 but us. We fought a battle on a foreign continent, didn't damage our cities, lost minimal casualities compared to most the other countries. They were devistated which allowed us to take the lead. It was an uneven playing field thats starting to level out now. We aren't going to be able to compete in the future. NOW is the future though.



Yes we will lose some trade, but I suggest you look at the relative sizes of the economies supporting the two currencies. The economy of the U.S. is much larger than that of the Common Market Countries. As long as our economy continues to grow that situation is not likely to change--Therefore, the Dollar will remain dominant.


china and India will out do our economies. See when a currency becomes the dominate currency, its hard for other currencies to compete with that unless it has a super promising future and extremely stable. When we lose the dominate currency, which we will because its inevitable, countries wont need our currency anymore. If people decide to try and do a hostile take over (meaning buying out the entire business is the country and such, just buying everything out and owning the country. Much like the stock market) you need the dominate currency. If a country is full of yen, and some one takes with the dollar, the dollar is going to win in the end. You need reserves of the dominate currency so you can buy your stuff back before its all gone. When we lose that, all we really have is the oil trade (traded in dollars), which supports our trade deficit. People cant dump the dollar because then they cant buy oil. Once we lose that dominate currency, we lose trade, and when we lose trade our dollar loses ALOT of value. Because we are in such a trade deficit we will have NO way of paying it back because the decreased value of the dollar. bankrupt is the word you here shortly after that. its inevidable, but the way we are heading now, it seems soon.



This is just more of the same type of worry/comment as above. We will sink or swim based upon the underlying strength and volume of our economy, not on the relative value of the Euro and Dollar.


its a matter of faith. The strength of the dollar basically says how well your economy is doing. We have been able to support the dollar through oil trade and interest rates rising. This wont go on much longer though. The worth of the dollar means everything when it comes to rival currency. if you have 50 pounds and the other person has 50 dollars. the pounds pretty much doubles the worth of the dollar right now. 50 pounds is actually worth 100 dollars.

basically this is what the real war in the middle east is about. If we lose our trade in dollars on oil, we lose completely. its the only thing holding this country together. its not that oil is running low or they are greedy, if they dont take the middle east and secure the oil trade in dollars, this country will fail.



No, we aren't living in the same times as before, now China and India are emerging as fast growing economies. If those economies continue to grow at their present pace for a few more years they will overtake ours. If that happens, then it is likely the Chinese Yuan will become the dominant currency. However, that does not mean the Dollar will suddenly be worthless or that the U.S. will enter a deep economic depression.


I think I describe everything in the above posts. Its a mix of reasons, not just one thing that is hurting us.


The value of the dollar is low and sinking right now because of the huge deficits we are running and if we continue to run those kinds of deficits for very much longer then we will likely enter a depression. The switch of oil producing nations away from the dollar reflects the concerns of the various nations for the probable future value of the dollar because of those deficits. They don't want to get caught holding trillions of dollars and then have the real value of their holdings decrease.

exactly, but its a chain reaction. When one gets set in place, it will domino until something stops it or until it hits the end point. Right now we are desperately trying to hold up the begining dominos because its already been set into play. We cant hold out much longer though.


The very fact of switching away from the dollar will cause the value of the dollar to decrease (relative to other currencies) and will impact our economy in a mostly negative way. Thus, in effect, shortening the amount of time we can continue to run deficits, but there is no immediate catastrophic consequence of the oil producing nations switching away from the dollar.

why do countries like china need the dollar. OIL. they buy alot of oil, therefor need alot of dollars. If the oil switches to euros, chinas 800 billion in dollars, switch to euros before the dollar completely crashes. money doesnt make the world go round, oil does.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
When all the rhetoric is stripped away, the purpose of government is to provide a safe place to raise crops and children. The rest is merely icing on the cake. The question is, what is that a mandate for? Is it solely a mandate for internal policing and external defense leaving everything else up to a laissez-faire marketplace and the individual? Or, is it a mandate for broader social and environmental concerns as well? For the conservative the answer is yes to the first question. For the liberal the answer is yes to second also. Put another way, the conservatives claim the rights and freedoms of the individual are deemed paramount. For the liberal, the rights and freedom of the individual must segue with, and at some point give way to the greater concerns of community. Actually it doesn't work that way, when you look at some of the Republican platforms, they are far more intrusive into the realm of the private than anything us liberals have come up with...Abortion and gay rights come immediately to mind. Actually Muaddib is totally wrong. The number one reason any society should have some sort of saftety net in place is social stablity. Indeed, it was not a liberal politican or country that came up with it (even Rome had its bread and circuses), the basic social nets of retirement and social security was inacted by Otto Von Bismark under imperial Germany in the late 19th century as a way of temepring social unrest. Even the Nazi's weren't so arrogant and stupid as to mess with or to attempt to dismantle it. Also as a personal matter of record in the early 80's, during Reagan's first recession, my late wife, her children and I had to resort to AFDC and food stamps for the duration and I can tell you from personal experince, it was no picinc nor was it an easy ride, and this was at the height of welfare. If fact it was demeaning and degrading and we were, far from trying to milk the system, were trying to get off of it, and we were penalized every step of the way for our attempts to get off of it. For example, at the height of the recession in Maine, I got a part time job, as a result human services took away more in food stamps and AFDC per month than I would ever bring in from the job, same was true with Paulette, may she rest in peace. Far from encouraging us, they were making it moe and more difficult. Yet I was grateful for every bit we did recieve. Yes welfare needed to be reformed but the punative way it has been done is wrong. No one knows the difficulties life will throw at you and as it has been said before a society is only as good as it treats its least fortunate. I have no problem with welfare, i do have a problem with corporate giveaways of tax dollars to businesses that already have billions. Trouble is you republicans have twisted jack kennnedy's call to public service, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask rather what you can do for your country" to read, Ask not what you can do for your country, ask rather what tax cut and bailout your country can give to you. Bullhoosey on that.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Ok, then that would be an opinion. I have never heard that definition of Government before and can find nothing on that particular analogy on the net.

I see the government as a structure that allows for individual growth and accomplishment. If you would have read my posts, you would have read where I specifically stated that certain social programs are necessary. You either did not read or chose to ignore what I said.

What source did you find that said that the Bush administration has increased the size of government more than any other? I can not find that either. If these are your opinions, fine, but please state them as such.

Also what does self reliance have to do with sexual orientation?



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
And Grover it does not work that way for the Liberal either.

If you look at the fact that the top 3% of the wage earners paying 95% of the taxes, then you can see the liberal government in action. The mere fact that less than 10% of us are supporting the vast majority of people that either can not or will not support themselves should give liberals a nice cozy feeling.

When the welfare programs were started they were only meant to be a temporary fix. No one back then envisioned as many people relying on the government as there is now. Exactly the same as the income tax, only meant to be temporary. The problem is with the ACLU and the other such liberal soldiers, more and more people are realizing that al they have to do is sit around, have babies and draw a bigger check from the government. A check that we have to pay for. There are some that these programs are needed for, but what percentage? We have projects where people are paid to live there. they get a check because they are considered so indigent that the expected apartment rent is so high they get a refund every month! Most of the residents do work, as amateur pharmacologists on the corner.
And yet there are adds on adds in the paper for jobs they will not even consider because they will lose their checks.

Humans are basically a lazy lot and now we are only facilitating that basic laziness and paying them for it.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
I have never heard that definition of Government before and can find nothing on that particular analogy on the net.

I see the government as a structure that allows for individual growth and accomplishment.

Also what does self reliance have to do with sexual orientation?


Read your second sentence, you can infer my description of government from that. Regardless what does a government do? it provides protection of its citizens from thugs, theives and invasion. What is the prime purpose of any culture? the growing of food and the rasing of children... it is basic anthropology. I know what you have written Semper and I was not addressing you specifically, more the notion that government has no place in making someone's life happier or easier. As for self reliance vs sexual orientation I was merely saying that republicans talk about staying out of the individual life but then two of their key platforms are by their nature deeply intrusive.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I am no where near the top 10% of anything but I pay my fair share of taxes and have absolutely no problem with it. What bugs the crap out of me isn't someone on welfare or even a welfare cheat, it is someone who makes 10, 20 or 400 times more than I do weasling their way out of paying taxes at all.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
As far as India and China go, I just don't see the hype becoming reality. There has been talk for YEARS about China doing this and China doing that. Now it is India. Look at the population explosion in both of those countries and tell me they are going to be doing anything except trying to stop their people from overloading the country in the next few generations.

It is the very size of their population that is causing them to have any impact in the market anyway. There is no way that they can support that level of growth and maintain anything even approaching a healthy economy. Their economies are what they are, do to the trade with US. We are supporting them and it is further enhancing our economy.

As for countries just now recovering from WWII.... WT??? Canada was less effected then us and by that evaluation, they should be the superpower, how about Mexico? There is just no sound reasoning there at all. Economies breathe in 10 year increments and it has been over 60, no that dog wont fight.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join