Like all things British, I found the rhetoric to be very ho-hum and insignificant. Some of you are quite easily impressed by hot air, which is all it was.
I don't see the parallel because I don't pay attention to the economy. I know nothing about business, I am your typical useless liberal arts major who thinks war is bad and watches the Daily Show. The depth of my economic knowledge is that I don't think enough goes towards education and science. So, uh, again. I just liked the way the dude said it, and wished we had enough cahones in American politics to go on a hilarious rant like this dude.
Fair enough. And I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph. Now the question is, which politician would we like to see try to say it?
Yes, he is. When the U.S. government starts buying up banks, car companies, and insurance companies, it is expanding way beyond anything we have seen.
not that this is relevant to the thread in any way, but the economics major was in the liberal arts college at my school. though i do tend to agree with maris when he said "I found the rhetoric to be very ho-hum and insignificant." the guy clearly wanted to make a big show of things and accomplished just that, but i don't find what he said to be hugely significant.
Dude, what are you even talking about? Bush is the one who almost doubled the size of the government from what it was at when Clinton left office. That's not reckless and irresponsible? Now that someone else is in charge, NOW you can complain about it? Christ.
He acknowledged that Bush grew the government while in office. Just because Bush grew the government more than he should have, doesn't mean that Obama can't grow it even more. Which he is. Some of you Obama supporters really need to stop using Bush as justification for Obama's screw-ups.
So let me get this straight. Obama's 700 billion stimulus package is a screw up? What was Bush's 700 billion stimulus package, then? I still can't believe we're having this conversation considering he's trying to pull the country out of a giant financial hole, which I might add, "conservative" policies got us into. How about this: if you disagree with his policies, get the fuck out. America, love it or leave it. Man, I've been waiting eight years to say that.
As you mentioned earlier, you clearly don't follow, care, or know anything about the economy. This is very clear in your incredibly ignorant response.
Let me state this for the record: Bush expanded the size of the federal governement during his tenure, and I wasn't happy about it at all. Now Obama is outdoing even Bush, and it's mind-boggling. He's going to bankrupt this country or turn it into a massive welfare state that will drag us down to the mediocre level of the European socialist countries.
One bill was a capital infusion to keep our financial system from completely collapsing and the other was used as a payoff for the people that elected the President and for Nancy Pelosi's pet projects. Hell, even the people that wrote the bill don't call it a "stimulus" package. The full data isn't yet out there, but it appears our entire financial mechanism was on the verge of simply shutting down in the 4th quarter of 2008.
Right. I remember you saying that. I just don't see how after Bush nearly doubled the size of the government after Clinton, we get all of our shit in a tissy about Obama's first 2 months. Especially in the midst of financial ruin. Maybe if this were the age of milk and honey and shit went sour, I could see your point. At least give the guy time get situated before you shit all over him. Just to play devil's advocate: what's wrong with Europe, again? That's a bit extreme, don't you think? Well they certainly don't call it the Payoff for People that Elected the President package. Right. So the "capital infusion" saved it? Okay. I can agree with that. I'm confused about this: why is it that when Bush gives unimaginable amounts of money to a small number of mega-companies that failed, essentially rewarding their incompetence, that's fine? And why is it when Obama gives untold amounts of money to numerous programs and projects (pet or otherwise, they're still projects that theoretically do something), then OMFG HE IS RUNNING THE COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND? I mean, I get it. It's about money, money and more money. But can anyone admit that maybe funding some of these things might make some progress, even if it's not *gasp* financial progress?
It might be nice to live in a dream world, but there isn't anything in our world that gets accomplished without money. You think we will get cures for cancer and AIDS without monetary incentive? Will we be able to provide food to the poor in our country and others without available financing? I can understand you wishing that money and greed didn't drive human incentive, but it does, has and probably always will. The key is harnessing that greed and turning it into incentive to improve our world. Try all you want to eliminate greed, but that is a pretty endless path to go down.
I understand that it takes financial incentive to make any progress nowadays. However, this whole big to do is because we cannot accept a step backwards. Is there anyone here who thinks Americans haven't been living beyond their means for the past 30 years? Why is it seen as such a cardinal sin to downsize? There would still be financial motives for progress, but perhaps not everyone involved would get a luxury fucking yacht. Sigh.
If you look at some of our responses ( I know for sure mine, and maxiep's) you will see that this is exactly what we WANT to see and why we DISAGREE with what Obama is doing. We have definitely been living beyond our means in America. We WANT the bubble to "downsize" and prices to get back to sustainable levels. And for somebody that is pretty heavily in the real estate market, it seems weird that I would feel that way. But I am confident that with a real market, and realistic prices, I will be able to get back in a more sustainable market and have more good investments. Obama is trying to throw money at a problem and create an artificial market, which will lead to a lot more of what you are referring to as "Americans living beyond their means". The biggest problem is that Obama and this congress want to fund this "living beyond their means" by reducing the incentive for financial progress and investment by punishing the rich and best economic utilizers. This is not the right way to create a sustained increase in standard of living for our country and the world.
There are at least two alternatives: 1) Let the companies crash and burn. That's the way it should work in a free market. If you invest foolishly, or you can't compete, you lose. Someone else who can do the job better takes your place. I reject any kind of government bailout for private business. It's just not the role of the federal government. 2) If you ARE going to give out massive amounts of money, give it to the American taxpayers. Let them spend it on mortgages, or flatscreen TVs, or new cars. All of that would stimulate the economy from the bottom up, and get businesses moving again.
