Topic: WHY SHOULD WE BAIL ANYONE OUT? | |
---|---|
Edited by
Winx
on
Thu 04/02/09 09:08 AM
|
|
did you see that British Prime minister drooling over Obama...telling him what a great job he's doing...this coming from a Socialist...what does that tell ya'...Obamas over their selling out his own country...blaming America for all the ills in the world...by the way...if you watch him speak...you'll now understand why he reads everything...um...ah...ah...um... Ummm...Our President is over there speaking to our ally as did every President before him. I did see him speak in St. Louis. He's a great speaker. he was reading it... Are you saying that no other candidate or President has read a speech? He does more then read it. I saw him in person. Bush read it and still couldn't get it right. It's refreshing to see someone speak well now. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Thu 04/02/09 08:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Thu 04/02/09 09:07 AM
|
|
Oops.
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Thu 04/02/09 09:22 AM
|
|
i'm still confused....how does giving more and more money (that we don't have) to these companies help? Winx, this one is to you as well: As Winx cleverly brought up doctors to analyze this i am going to add to it. The analogy i think was very accurate. In order to understand why intelligent economists are both for and against the bailouts you have to understand the system and how fiat currency works with the fractional reserve banking system. Bailouts help keep us above water in the short run, but in the long run it will hurt us more. Different docs have different philosophies. I will use "depression" as a topic since i've looked into the subject medically. Take someone who has clinical depression followed by mild anxiety. The economists that are for the bailouts i believe are like the doctors that would prescribe Wellbutrin. Wellbutrin, although an antidepressant, would help in the short run, it is a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor which would make the anxiety much worse causing need for an antianxiety pill. Unfortunately you have side affects with both pills and the long-term affects aren't well known. Other economists, on the more fiscal conservative side, are look at a bigger picture. Like the doctors that would monitor the depression patient's eating, and health habits. Maybe they find a vitamin k deficiency, or b complex deficiency, etc. and/or find that a change in diet, followed by regular exercise would treat the problem without the use of meds. The big difference here, is the fact that the more natural and noninvasive method must be treated with a change in lifestyle. But the long term affects are much, much healthier than those of being dependant on prescription drugs. Our system relies completely on inflation. We need constant inflation, and to spend, spend, spend, to keep the system going (or to keep the "bubble" inflated). Big wigs decided that should be the case because they were already established, and lots more spending ultimately gives the elites much more money. Inflation is also a nifty way to tax you and i without us even knowing it, through the devaluing of our money. I say again, short term, to keep a temporary system going, bailouts make perfect sense. Long term, it's like giving a drug addict more heroine to prevent withdrawl. Good job, Drivinmenutz. Even it is short-term, we are in need of doing something right now, IMO, before it gets worse. Btw, I've worked in the mental health field. You talk about exercise and diet helping depression. Yes, it does. But..it can only do so much when there's a chemical imbalance in the brain. In severe cases, shock treatment is used. Nobody wants to do that but sometimes it's necessary. We have a bad economic imbalance right now. Sometimes drastic measures need to be taken. |
|
|
|
i have read the posts o here as well as other places and i cann't find anyone that agrees with this bailout crap except people who make more than 250,000 a yr.don't people realize that the average american home makes less than that and it's those people that actually keep this country going not the rich that invest in corporations only to benefit their own pocket.
who do you think all big contracts are going to be givin to? obama is proven it's bussiness as usauall in washington and we are so ignorant that we are letting him!!!!!!! BTW: we keep the the gov more and more control when we except crap like this headed for a socialist nation folks |
|
|
|
i have read the posts o here as well as other places and i cann't find anyone that agrees with this bailout crap except people who make more than 250,000 a yr.don't people realize that the average american home makes less than that and it's those people that actually keep this country going not the rich that invest in corporations only to benefit their own pocket. who do you think all big contracts are going to be givin to? obama is proven it's bussiness as usauall in washington and we are so ignorant that we are letting him!!!!!!! BTW: we keep the the gov more and more control when we except crap like this headed for a socialist nation folks Deke, I haven't noticed that it's been an income based approval situation. Yes, it is the middle class that keeps this country going. I voted for Obama because he is for the middle class people. |
|
|
|
i have read the posts o here as well as other places and i cann't find anyone that agrees with this bailout crap except people who make more than 250,000 a yr.don't people realize that the average american home makes less than that and it's those people that actually keep this country going not the rich that invest in corporations only to benefit their own pocket. who do you think all big contracts are going to be givin to? obama is proven it's bussiness as usauall in washington and we are so ignorant that we are letting him!!!!!!! BTW: we keep the the gov more and more control when we except crap like this headed for a socialist nation folks Yes, this is close to be correct. As bailouts will lift the stock market more that they will help housing or other parts of economy, of course, the people who have funds to gamble on the market are the ones most happy with bailouts. I'll tell you this: while his bailout will may-be stop the increase of job lost and foreclosures, may-be lessen those numbers a bit, it will get this: multiply the stock market by a factor of 8, at least. This is why. Are you in a stock market? Living paycheck to paycheck? If you are, then do not make the mistake of "entering the stock market", because you will be flushed quickly, and never see those multiples I spoke about earlier. Keep in mind, that this stock market is not free, meaning it is a setup to flush the people to enrich the few. |
|
|
|
i'm still confused....how does giving more and more money (that we don't have) to these companies help? Winx, this one is to you as well: As Winx cleverly brought up doctors to analyze this i am going to add to it. The analogy i think was very accurate. In order to understand why intelligent economists are both for and against the bailouts you have to understand the system and how fiat currency works with the fractional reserve banking system. Bailouts help keep us above water in the short run, but in the long run it will hurt us more. Different docs have different philosophies. I will use "depression" as a topic since i've looked into the subject medically. Take someone who has clinical depression followed by mild anxiety. The economists that are for the bailouts i believe are like the doctors that would prescribe Wellbutrin. Wellbutrin, although an antidepressant, would help in the short run, it is a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor which would make the anxiety much worse causing need for an antianxiety pill. Unfortunately you have side affects with both pills and the long-term affects aren't well known. Other economists, on the more fiscal conservative side, are look at a bigger picture. Like the doctors that would monitor the depression patient's eating, and health habits. Maybe they find a vitamin k deficiency, or b complex deficiency, etc. and/or find that a change in diet, followed by regular exercise would treat the problem without the use of meds. The big difference here, is the fact that the more natural and noninvasive method must be treated with a change in lifestyle. But the long term affects are much, much healthier than those of being dependant on prescription drugs. Our system relies completely on inflation. We need constant inflation, and to spend, spend, spend, to keep the system going (or to keep the "bubble" inflated). Big wigs decided that should be the case because they were already established, and lots more spending ultimately gives the elites much more money. Inflation is also a nifty way to tax you and i without us even knowing it, through the devaluing of our money. I say again, short term, to keep a temporary system going, bailouts make perfect sense. Long term, it's like giving a drug addict more heroine to prevent withdrawl. Good job, Drivinmenutz. Even it is short-term, we are in need of doing something right now, IMO, before it gets worse. Btw, I've worked in the mental health field. You talk about exercise and diet helping depression. Yes, it does. But..it can only do so much when there's a chemical imbalance in the brain. In severe cases, shock treatment is used. Nobody wants to do that but sometimes it's necessary. We have a bad economic imbalance right now. Sometimes drastic measures need to be taken. Printing more money is hardly a drastic measure. A drastic measure would be to institute executive order 11110 and print sound money, at no interest to phase out federal reserve notes. You are right about depression. It is all the result of a chemical imbalance. What we need to do to treat the imbalance is first ask ourselves what caused it. Then we look at our system as a whole and our general economic philosophy. Lets say a patient is depressed because he or she took extacy and the affects wore off. Ever time in the last hundred years this happened we increase the dosage of exacy to this patient. This is metaphorically exactly what we did with the bailout. We just gave a quick fix by increasing the amount of illegal drugs to induce a temporary high. The problem is eventually the body can overdose. We have to cut off the drugs and detox the patient. The process is painful at first, but much healthier in the long run. We are dependent on overspending, and throwing our money away. This is unstable, just like someone dependent on a drug. |
|
|