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.

 

Poll: Liberals, Democrats flunk Economics 101

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by guohua

And Our Economy is Where right now? The Crapper You Say. Correct You when the Green Winnie Award.
The last time you had a good job was when? Don't start blaming this on Bush, Most real Conservatives consider Bush Liberal leaning.
OK, I've said my 2 cents, Now Lamb Bast Me.


 


Mod edit: Trimmed external content and added external content tags.

[edit on 6/8/2010 by AshleyD]




right

I can't even consider thinking that maybe Bush did such a great job that we are still being rewarded for it.

Gee, come to think of it, this modern incarnation of government and its spending habits
all seem to have escalated during Reagan the liberal, liberal Liberal!!!

Pa tooie

I spit on that liberal

Really I blame the mentality that believes that deregulation of certain parts of a highly regulated structure is smart.

Did you digest that?

Just remove enough rules to allow that exalted marvel of $$$ to flow up faster and faster. In the name of business is not always in the name of the countries well being.

I am going to deregulate driving

But just the part that mandates which direction people drive on either side of the road!

FREEDOMMMMMZ!!! MORAL HAZARDS OH MY



[edit on 8-6-2010 by Janky Red]




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Bush deregulated all the regulations that were required because of government created moral hazard.

If the government is going to create a federal reserve system, then that system must be heavily regulated.

If the government is going to create a federal deposit insurance corporation, then that deposit insurance must be heavily regulated.

If the government is going to create a mortgage security corporation, then that corporation must be heavily regulated.

If the government is going to create a retirement trust, then that trust must be heavily regulated.

Of course, all of those regulations are necessary only because government created the organizations in the first place.

Deregulation of the private sector is good, but it is a horrible tragedy when that deregulation results in abuses of the tax payer through government created entities.

Do you understand why Bush's deregulation was bad, but deregulation in general is a good thing now?

Or do you want me to explain further?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Conservatives don't expand government, they contract it.


Thats like me saying that the true communist nation is a utopia when evidence points to the fact it never is. Is this how its going to be? Every time a self proclaimed and praised 'conservative' is elected to office and his/her policies lead to opposite results, those on the right will just lump them out as liberals?

Lets take a hypothetical scenario. If Rand Paul is elected president in 2016 and by 2020 as the result of his libertarian policies on the nation is more debt, financially in the goober (again) and government has overgrown, will you lump Rand Paul as a liberal as well? or will you take responsibility in the name of conservatism?


Right!

It gets old

All flap and no sack

I don't understand why it always seems to stink to high heaven, this conservation in action.

Is it in fact conserving the power structure with inaction or action of benefit?

Oh course this religion is always so mystical, but always seems to birth pro PRO corporate, turn a blind eye laze.

Chenny was a liberal, but he sure loved his MARKETS


Sure smells like a conservative, but I guess I am too stupid to ascertain the obvious.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
If liberal have not figured out yet that the current economic downturn is linked back to the clinton era that's sad. It has been cited several times in other threads. Liberals pushing for easy credit. I would go as far as saying that the majority of foreclosed homes are associated with democratic or liberal voters. We'll never know though. My girlfriends very liberal parents over extended themselves on their house by remodeling their kitchen to the tune of 100,000 $. Not kidding, 7000 on the stove alone for a couple that make max 85k$ a year combined. Now they are struggling to stay afloat and can't even afford to eat out at all anymore. As a business major I took macro and micro econ long ago. Its common sense I literally did not study once. Attended have my lectures maybe and only attended the lab after taking an exam to get it back. COMMON SENSE. Its too easy.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by A Novel
 


The economic down turn is linked back to 1969 when the government went off the gold standard.

By doing that, they allowed the federal reserve and treasury to expand the money supply to fund their wars and welfare.

Ultimately, that came about because of the federal reserve being created back in 1913.

This destruction of the dollar has been a long time in the making.

Clinton is a bit player in this disaster.

The removal of the gold standard was necessary to pay for the war in Viet Nam. If the gold standard was kept, the government would have had to declare bankruptcy and liquidate assets to pay for that war.

That should tell you how screwed we are now.

By going off the gold standard, government effectively gave itself a no-limit credit card. It has been running up the charges ever since.

It has used the federal reserve to artificially lower the rate on that credit card so it could continue borrowing without limit.

Now the bills are about to come due.

We are going to be paying for 40 years of excess in this depression. The country and the currency will not survive.

The dollar is finished.




[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Bush deregulated all the regulations that were required because of government created moral hazard.

If the government is going to create a federal reserve system, then that system must be heavily regulated.

If the government is going to create a federal deposit insurance corporation, then that deposit insurance must be heavily regulated.

If the government is going to create a mortgage security corporation, then that corporation must be heavily regulated.

If the government is going to create a retirement trust, then that trust must be heavily regulated.

Of course, all of those regulations are necessary only because government created the organizations in the first place.

Deregulation of the private sector is good, but it is a horrible tragedy when that deregulation results in abuses of the tax payer through government created entities.

Do you understand why Bush's deregulation was bad, but deregulation in general is a good thing now?

Or do you want me to explain further?



Sir I have always attempted to understand this notion, I have spent months trying to communicate and learn from people with your leaning SPECIFICALLY.

However my conclusion is that the complete destruction of our current framework is
no different from pure communism in that it does not produce the prescribed results.

This country is filled with a long history of industry mistreating and misusing citizens
in manners that circumvent any form of recourse. Much of the regulation you hate was born of plenty of suffering, unfortunately you did not have the fortune of working in the 1890's, or have your entire saving STOLEN by calculated manipulation, the market working in tandem for a few. At a certain point COMPETITION is not the same as we perceive, an NBA player still makes millions win or lose, it is not hunger or misery for one failure or mistake.

I believe regulation is bad when it is in the hands of people who place markets above people. Markets are constructs, I do not base my moral compass upon profit or constructs of that manner. Cold hard nature is accountable for 100% of all deaths my friend, 100%, man beating back cold hard nature is what accounts for our society today .



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Novel
If liberal have not figured out yet that the current economic downturn is linked back to the clinton era that's sad. It has been cited several times in other threads. Liberals pushing for easy credit. I would go as far as saying that the majority of foreclosed homes are associated with democratic or liberal voters. We'll never know though. My girlfriends very liberal parents over extended themselves on their house by remodeling their kitchen to the tune of 100,000 $. Not kidding, 7000 on the stove alone for a couple that make max 85k$ a year combined. Now they are struggling to stay afloat and can't even afford to eat out at all anymore. As a business major I took macro and micro econ long ago. Its common sense I literally did not study once. Attended have my lectures maybe and only attended the lab after taking an exam to get it back. COMMON SENSE. Its too easy.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



You mean the Deregulation that was penned by three conservatives???

Damn!!!

Can I have some of your common sense?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
The original article comes from the Wall Street Journal.

Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

The subtitle is "Are you smarter than a fifth grader.

There were 8 questions and very liberal people gave unenlightened answers on 5.26 questions.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I would argue that all abuses of industry are a result of government.

Government supporting industry through government contracts.

Government limiting competition of a specific corporation through regulation.

Government bailing out failing corporations.

Government granting tax breaks to specific corporations.

etc.. etc.. etc..

I would argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a corporation to abuse the public all on its own, because if it did, the public would vote with their dollars and put it out of business.

For example, Goldman Sachs would be in bankruptcy court right now if it weren't for government.



[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by A Novel
 


The economic down turn is linked back to 1969 when the government went off the gold standard.

By doing that, they allowed the federal reserve and treasury to expand the money supply to fund their wars and welfare.

Ultimately, that came about because of the federal reserve being created back in 1913.

This destruction of the dollar has been a long time in the making.

Clinton is a bit player in this disaster.

The removal of the gold standard was necessary to pay for the war in Viet Nam. If the gold standard was kept, the government would have had to declare bankruptcy and liquidate assets to pay for that war.

That should tell you how screwed we are now.

By going off the gold standard, government effectively gave itself a no-limit credit card. It has been running up the charges ever since.

It has used the federal reserve to artificially lower the rate on that credit card so it could continue borrowing without limit.

Now the bills are about to come due.

We are going to be paying for 40 years of excess in this depression. The country and the currency will not survive.

The dollar is finished.




[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]




See, I think you have it wrong...

I think this will continue on because it is a great set up-

I forgot to mention

In this digital age... HOW can mankind survive a FREE market comprised of binary code?

PLEASE ANSWER THE ABOVE?

NO RULES, ON BINARY, DIGITIZED TRANSACTIONS, is that not a recipe for chaos, is that possible?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I would argue that all abuses of industry are a result of government.

Government supporting industry through government contracts.

Government limiting competition of a specific corporation through regulation.

Government bailing out failing corporations.

Government granting tax breaks to specific corporations.

etc.. etc.. etc..

I would argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a corporation to abuse the public all on its own, because if it did, the public would vote with their dollars and put it out of business.

For example, Goldman Sachs would be in bankruptcy court right now if it weren't for government.



[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]


The public did not vote out the railroads with their dollars when they were sending Chinamen off a cliff to demo the passes of the Rockies did they?

Or the folks who fell in the sausage Hopers?

Or the people who would ingest Opium and lead by the truckload?

Or corporations driving down the wages by recruiting people from poorer and poorer nations, chewing up families, discarding them to natures wrath only to be replaced by
a poorer class of fodder.

It was by intervention, via representation that these things are no longer in practice.

Your treat people like rats and they will do what they can to survive, which is cheap,
which breads more cheap and more rats.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


And what happened?

They were exposed by the press and the market punished them.

Corporations don't let rats crap in the food today, not because of government, but because they would lose business if they did.

The good government does is unnecessary and is entirely outweighed by the bad government does.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Historically, Democrats do a much better job with the economy than Republicans(and it's not even close). See the link below for a variety of statistics from an assortment of reliable sources:

www.eriposte.com...

[edit on 8-6-2010 by hawkeye1717]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkeye1717
Historically, Democrats do a much better job with the economy than Republicans(and it's not even close). See the link below for a variety of statistics from an assortment of reliable sources:

www.eriposte.com...

[edit on 8-6-2010 by hawkeye1717]


I would argue that those numbers indicate expansionist government policy.

When the government issues a lot of debt at a low interest rate, it liquors up the economy with easy money.

That reflects in better economic indicators.

However, that doesn't mean the economy is better off in the long run.

As we can see today with our debt levels, we are screwed.

There is no hope for the dollar.

There is no hope for this country.

We are doomed.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I would argue that those numbers indicate expansionist government policy.


Where is your chart?

Second line.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Property rights as you describe them will not prevent environmental damage, but could harm it. If BP or some other private entity bought a portion of the sea and land and had the right to do whatever it want, the pollution it created would eventually seep over into other people's land and to parts of the sea they did not own.

It is more economical for BP and other companies to bear ALL the costs of oil production including pollution. Not only should BP pay all those who were harmed by the oil spill every cent (which they will not due to statutory caps), but they should pay for every cent of damage their product causes to the environment under normal circumstances. For example, European farmers recently had low crop yields due to global warming. Greenhouse gas producers, like BP, should pay for these damages too.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I would argue that those numbers indicate expansionist government policy.


Where is your chart?

Second line.


I don't need a chart, just common sense.

When the government pumps in a lot of easy money, it will create the appearance of prosperity.

It is only a facade though, its not real growth.

When government spends money, it spends it on bureaucracy and cronyism, this does nothing to improve the underlying market fundamentals.

It is an illusion.

One which we are paying for dearly right now, and will continue to pay for until the entire country is a smoking hulk of ruin and despair.

There is no hope left for the dollar, it is doomed.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Property rights prevent environmental damage.

This is a fundamental law of economics called "The Tragedy of The Commons."

This can only be avoided with strong private property rights.

In fact I have a massive amount of lectures by professional economists on this topic of free-market environmentalism. If you want to watch them, I'll link them here.

I'm not just pulling this crap out of my azz.



[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Target Earth
well I think at this point we all know, the left has no real knowledge of economics.
right now, I believe that are kicking around the idea of dumping the mortgage tax deduction.


No, we are just so busy swimming in piles of money from the amazing right wing "trickle down" policy that has been enriching all of us lo these 30 years.


REPLY: Well, how many here know that the financial meltdown we and the world are experiencing started with policies put in place by Jimmy Carter? How many people here know that it was Fanny and Freddy that got us to where we are today? How many here know that after the Bush tax rate reductions took place, in two years our economy generated "new wealth" (not redistributed) equal to the entire Chinese economy? How many know that McCain and Bush Jr. together tried 14 times to get congress to see what was happening, and why? Nothing trickles up.... I've never seen a poor guy sign a paycheck. Low tax rates are an economic tool, work every time it is used.... from Queen Elisabeth the 1st, to Kennedy, to Reagan to Bush Jr. Any time you lower the cost of an activity, more people engage in that activity.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red
 


And what happened?

They were exposed by the press and the market punished them.

Corporations don't let rats crap in the food today, not because of government, but because they would lose business if they did.

The good government does is unnecessary and is entirely outweighed by the bad government does.



Punished???

There is no punishment for the elite class, there has never been.

Government is necessary, why do you think the founding fathers created a pliable entity?

For such a logical creature you either lose your logic on this subject or are afraid to
explore that concept with the other side of your brain. MAnkind has spent its existence shaping and forging nature with purpose, yet you would like to apply the opposite
principle to society. You also seem to forget the exponential advantage capital can provide, the results of which CAN be tyrannical... There is not a magic force that
suspends your theory in gods light... Again I have a very hard time thinking that you are so sheltered.

I will state that there is certainly such a thing as bad government, but I do not trust an unmitigated force such as capital to fill that void, for the same force is what taints government, to leverage that force as the unrivaled dictator of fate is a bridge too far.

I believe in balance- I will admit trying to defame a faceless whim is tiring, it is impossible because its basis and function are speculative.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join