Discussion in 'Politics' started by fifthfiend, Apr 18, 2008.
Sucks pretty hard these days, I hear.
The American economy is basically in a recession,but it's so massive that it's still going. It's like a broken machine,the machine has so much power in it..that it still runs..even when it needs to be fixed.
Bush and the Republicans messed it up. They are too foolish to fix it,there needs to be drastic things done to save it.
A Capitalistic society like this needs to do nothing to the economy to have it run. It will run without regulation...
Now is it Bush's fault...humm...dont know...but the economy regardless who is in office will go thru its up and downs do to all the little sub sectors of it.
I can agree with that. Anyway, Congress has more to do with the economy because they introduce legislation that either stagnate or free Economic Growth, not the President.
Exactly, people on these boards are not comprehending what they are reading and lack understanding of the process... in many cases. Been saying this as well as others, for years on this board.
There are many factors, that is driving the current economy conditions, and most are not solely Bush doing. Bush bashing is distracting many uninformed Americans from a much larger, more complex picture of what is actually happening... What's sad about it, most may not have a profound understanding of what exactly is happening or even a concise explaination; however, most people know their suspicions to be true, and yet they cast a blind eye of apathy. Sad IMO... but the population of citizens that are the true foundation of this country, and the world economy, are accomplishing exactly what they desire.
when the president has veto power you cannot fully wrestle away his responsibility to entirely blame congress,
Who said its not the Pres's fault.
I think a few people meant, its not ENTIRELY the Presidents fault, as he is not the only guy in charge of the govt. Some groups dont like Bush, because he is a Rep, so HE HAS TO be a fault. And the same goes for the Reps, if a Dem Pres was in office. But that is stupid, granted the Pres is the largest voice in the government as far as influence goes....but dont JUST blame him, blame all those in congress...
i probably should have just quoted this. sorry malice. i i may have exagerated a little.
with the way i worded it, i was only trying to keep the president in the blame pool... cause i think they all are to blame, not just congress
The iraq war, which does have a hand in this, was done by both the president and congress... granted congress has changed since we left... but none the less, i think im on the level with you.
Gotcha my man!
I dont personally think Bush is as evil as people make him ouot to be...but I def think he had a good large part of the crisis...the other part is Congress...then the rest and simply be the ups and downs of the market because of the wonderfuls trends...stuff noone can predict, or this would have never happened.
^ Exactly, not only is it stuff no one can predict its something no one can control.Funny in the "If I were President" thread most mention the economy first on their list.But there isnt much you can do for the economy when you're president..Especially when it comes to inflating interest rates , whether it be the housing crunch , insurance crunch , credit crunch.Take health insurance in particular,you cant control the rising rate.The best you can do as president is offset the impact of costs in another area like bringing in cheaper prescriptions from Canada or whatever..Thats basically what you can do down the list.Not very much
A capitalistic society like this one needs to do a lot to the economy to have it run, because markets won't function and in fact do not exist without regulation.
Setting aside the President's enormous influence over the legislative agenda, I'll just say it's a shame that the current congress has seen fit to promote stagnation with its "free market"-oriented policies.
Please explain your theory on Regulation not causing Stagnation.
There has to be a balance between no regulation and total regulation. If there wasn't any regulation, then shoddy products would enter the market, the amount of pollution would dwarf any of the current levels, just to name a few things.
My lack of trust in the government is also accompanied by a lack of trust in businesses.
I can agree with that, that we could receive inferior products and what not, so we do need oversight. But, Regulation by excessive Taxation does not help either. I do not believe that excessive Regulation of any sort helps the free flow of the Free Market.
I'm curious to hear that, as well, especially considering that every additional regulation means compliance with said regulation . . . which means cost . . . which means expense . . . which means a reduction in net income . . . which means less opportunity for growth . . . which can lead to stagnation.
I can agree with that, as well. Some regulation is necessary, but it would definitely help if government takes a minimalist approach to regulating the market instead of trying to cure every potential ill with an ever-increasing burden of regulation.
I've got an idea: Pass a constitutional amendment banning anyone who owns a multi-billion dollar corporation or has been involved in business dealings with the corporations which have our country by balls from being President of the United States. And while we're at it, add another line which forbids anyone who has a college GPA of under 3.0 from being President, because if the President can't see that signing a bill into law which would have let millions of Americans purchase homes they could not afford in the long run is a bad idea, then he shouldn't have ascended to that position in the first place.
Obviously, this won't happen, but in a world where I made the laws, this would be one of the clauses in my constitution.
Though when I read the EU's tougher toy regulation, I see nothing wrong with that
Look, there is no doubt that some regulation is needed... come on. Let us not get carried away, on both sides. Too little regulation can be just as bad as too much of it.
The fact of the matter, businesses, companies, innovators, researchers, enginneers, medical...etc need some form of regulation to insure that certain standard are met, be what they may. However you don't want to penalize these groups from competing, producing, and ensuring a profit. That's the whole thesis of an Capitalist Society... to capitalize on an idea, mass produce it, and make money from it or provide the service for it.
The Market can take care of itself with the right balance of regulation.
Unfortunately, we don't have the right balance of regulation, which is why our economy is collapsing right from under us.
Perhaps because of too much regulation???
Not how I see it.You have to look at Greenspans "Quatrain" over the past few years...When Junk bonds are relative in cost to treasury bonds , you're headed for trouble.
The high risk market cost was out of control.If anything Greenspan was wrong only because it lasted as long as it did.
at what point does someone just have to point their finger at the American public and tell them to start living within their means? It's not all of the problem but it is a contributing factor
Funny thing about economies: they go in cycles. None of this is new.
I have to say we have a winner.