Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > The Woodshed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-13-2009, 10:52 PM
MattHughesRocks's Avatar
MattHughesRocks MattHughesRocks is offline
Stump Rules!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 9,788
Default



Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRN
I love you Michelle. No homo



~Amy
__________________


http://stumpdotcom.com/
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-14-2009, 12:22 AM
bradwright
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
True, nobody knows the future, however, we do know some things for sure:

1. Nobody on this planet has $800 billion to loan us. So borrowing it is not an option. Which only leaves raising taxes or printing more money.

2. If Obama raised taxes to 95% of every American's income, it wouldn't even come close to paying off his stimulus plan in our lifetimes (that's not even counting the deficit and Bush's bank bailout.

3. Printing money will only devalue our currency and will lead to inflation and maybe even hyperinflation.

4. Even the Democrats are only 40% sure that this stimulus will even work, which is why they are talking about a second stimulus.

Historically, hard economic times force Americans into greater periods of innovation and progress. So maybe doing nothing is the best option for America in the long term. Sure it will be uncomfortable, but growth is rarely comfortable.
in the past though Nate people ran their lives pretty much on the cash they had on hand,
now most people do everything on credit,and that is why you need to keep cash flowing,
if you allow the flow of money to slow down it will have a much greater impact on everybody and everything then it did in the past.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-14-2009, 12:30 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradwright
in the past though Nate people ran their lives pretty much on the cash they had on hand,
now most people do everything on credit,and that is why you need to keep cash flowing,
if you allow the flow of money to slow down it will have a much greater impact on everybody and everything then it did in the past.
People use credit because it is convenient. They usually still have money in the bank that they can withdraw. However, if a person is broke and living off of credit cards, then they are a financial disaster waiting to happen. We shouldn't be using taxpayer money to "reward" bad spending habits.

I have yet to understand exactly how the credit market collapsing would affect those who use credit responsibly (pay off the balance of their cards at the end of every month) or don't use credit at all (like me, I have no debt and no credit cards).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-14-2009, 12:48 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
People use credit because it is convenient. They usually still have money in the bank that they can withdraw. However, if a person is broke and living off of credit cards, then they are a financial disaster waiting to happen. We shouldn't be using taxpayer money to "reward" bad spending habits.

I have yet to understand exactly how the credit market collapsing would affect those who use credit responsibly (pay off the balance of their cards at the end of every month) or don't use credit at all (like me, I have no debt and no credit cards).
It wouldnt. I understand what Brad is saying...but Nathan is right. The people may use credit more...but they still HAVE cash...they just dont want to spend and invest. Flooding the market only makes it easier for them to spend without a loss...actually cutting the credit would force them back into spending with money...and that would only have them spending what they truely have.

might kill off a few banks...but for those who use credit properly it would be alright.

But the banks should be restricted by law in how much they can tempt people.

Lets face it. Noone needs more then one credit card. yet banks will offer you billions of them...its not right that they market them to promote greed. it should be illegal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-14-2009, 01:25 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
It wouldnt. I understand what Brad is saying...but Nathan is right. The people may use credit more...but they still HAVE cash...they just dont want to spend and invest. Flooding the market only makes it easier for them to spend without a loss...actually cutting the credit would force them back into spending with money...and that would only have them spending what they truely have.

might kill off a few banks...but for those who use credit properly it would be alright.

But the banks should be restricted by law in how much they can tempt people.

Lets face it. Noone needs more then one credit card. yet banks will offer you billions of them...its not right that they market them to promote greed. it should be illegal.
So, I guess that begs the question, if the only people who are going to suffer here are the ones who were irresponsible with their finances and the people who profit off said irresponsibility; then why is this credit crisis something that we should care about?

I understand that lots of innocent bystanders (like spouses and children) are going to suffer from the bad decisions made, but why do we want to artificially prop up a flawed system that is doomed to fail by it's very nature?

Finally, is mirroring those very same bad financial practices on an astronomical scale (the stimulus/spending bill), really going to solve anything?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-14-2009, 01:34 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
So, I guess that begs the question, if the only people who are going to suffer here are the ones who were irresponsible with their finances and the people who profit off said irresponsibility; then why is this credit crisis something that we should care about?

I understand that lots of innocent bystanders (like spouses and children) are going to suffer from the bad decisions made, but why do we want to artificially prop up a flawed system that is doomed to fail by it's very nature?

Finally, is mirroring those very same bad financial practices on an astronomical scale (the stimulus/spending bill), really going to solve anything?
Well...to a certain extent we dont have to do anything. Recessions eventually pass.

Ensuring the Banks was a big deal, not for America but for the rest of the World. Now that is done, we dont need to worry about it. Except for the fact that the Governments ARENT standing back and letting this play out.

That makes it our business aswell...because suddenly, they want more taxes...and suddenly they are devaluing OUR savings accounts in order to give back to those who didnt save in the first place.

Obama doesnt have the guts to stand back and watch things fall apart to heal naturally. Its a shame..because I think it would have worked better...but he's not like Bush. Obama will do the right thing IF UNLESS it damages his credibility and his status. He cares about his image. That might be his eventual downfall.

Now Bush knows what its like to make mistakes...and by the EARLY point of his second term...he did what was right REGARDLESS of his credibility. Bush was willing to sacrifice himself and his portrayal in history for the good of the Nation....Barack Obama wouldnt dare...his image and reputation is everything...and that was the international criticism all along...no experience, no failures, no nothing...just a good rep...what happens when that gets tarnished...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-14-2009, 02:00 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
Well...to a certain extent we dont have to do anything. Recessions eventually pass.
That's what I've been hearing too. If we had done nothing, this situation would have fixed itself in a few years. Granted it would be a tough period, however people would simply have to relearn time-tested, sound economic habits: save more, spend less, do without luxuries and stick to necessities, and NEVER spend money you don't actually have.

If people starving to death on the street is what everyone is afraid of, then just bring back Ronald Reagan's government food program. (Is anyone here old enough to remember the government cheese and peanut butter that they would hand out to needy families? That stuff was a staple at our house in the mid-80s.) Eliminating sales tax on food items (excluding restaurants and fast food establishments) would be a big help also.

But don't spend money on manure research and studying the genetics of grapes and pretend that it's stimulating the economy. Only the most ardent, slobberingly-loyal Obama-worshippers would see that as anything but wasteful government spending in a time of financial hardship.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-14-2009, 01:01 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
That's what I've been hearing too. If we had done nothing, this situation would have fixed itself in a few years. Granted it would be a tough period, however people would simply have to relearn time-tested, sound economic habits: save more, spend less, do without luxuries and stick to necessities, and NEVER spend money you don't actually have.

If people starving to death on the street is what everyone is afraid of, then just bring back Ronald Reagan's government food program. (Is anyone here old enough to remember the government cheese and peanut butter that they would hand out to needy families? That stuff was a staple at our house in the mid-80s.) Eliminating sales tax on food items (excluding restaurants and fast food establishments) would be a big help also.

But don't spend money on manure research and studying the genetics of grapes and pretend that it's stimulating the economy. Only the most ardent, slobberingly-loyal Obama-worshippers would see that as anything but wasteful government spending in a time of financial hardship.
See the growth would have to halt, the frivilous research would have to stop, and yes certain sections of the country would die back until such time as the recession was over.

Your empire would retract, would appear to disolve and possibly look like it would collapse. But it would spring back, in about ten odd years. It would make your leader very unpopular because he would seemingly be doing nothing to combat the poverty, nothing to stimulate growth, nothing...he would be criticised for ignoring the recession, for being dillusional, for hoping of something other citizens and politicians dont see.

He would go down as the worst President in History for YEARS after his first term, (the recession would likely not heal itself for about ten years, a president serves 4. You'd need TWO preidents to steer the course for 8 years before you see the benefits.

It wont happen. Even if Obama held that line, in four years they'd drop him like a hot coal for someone who would be seen to target it. No other campaigner for doing nothing would be revoted. The people would feel conned.

But the people, Nathan are stupid and dumbass. It has to be said. They look out for themselves, and their IMMEDIATE wants. They wont wait ten years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-14-2009, 04:06 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
But the people, Nathan are stupid and dumbass. It has to be said. They look out for themselves, and their IMMEDIATE wants. They wont wait ten years.
Oh, I agree completely. This election proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I have no problem with people who voted for Obama because they were the party faithful, truly thought he was the right man for the job, or were just dissatisfied with Bush. My problem is with the idiots who treated him like he was some kind of Messiah who was going to solve all of their problems with flowery speeches. All they cared about was what Obama was promising to them personally. They didn't care about what the consequences of that would be for other Americans or our future generations, as long as they can live comfortably then that's all that matters to them.

Reagan, so far, has been the only President to do what it really takes to get our nation out of a recession.... nothing. He retracted the government and made sure that people weren't starving to death, but he had the guts to allow the economy to recover on its own. Of course, he was vilified for that, but it worked. Reagan got us out of the worst financial crisis this nation had seen since the Great Depression... by essentially doing nothing.

During the Great Depression, Roosevelt is given a lot of credit for ending the Depression with the New Deal, a massive spending program based on Keynesian theory. However, it still took a world war to finally end the Depression, so many argue that Roosevelt's policies might have actually extended the Depression longer than it would have gone on if the country had just stuck to Hoover's lack of intervention.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-14-2009, 04:18 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
Oh, I agree completely. This election proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I have no problem with people who voted for Obama because they were the party faithful, truly thought he was the right man for the job, or were just dissatisfied with Bush. My problem is with the idiots who treated him like he was some kind of Messiah who was going to solve all of their problems with flowery speeches. All they cared about was what Obama was promising to them personally. They didn't care about what the consequences of that would be for other Americans or our future generations, as long as they can live comfortably then that's all that matters to them.

Reagan, so far, has been the only President to do what it really takes to get our nation out of a recession.... nothing. He retracted the government and made sure that people weren't starving to death, but he had the guts to allow the economy to recover on its own. Of course, he was vilified for that, but it worked. Reagan got us out of the worst financial crisis this nation had seen since the Great Depression... by essentially doing nothing.

During the Great Depression, Roosevelt is given a lot of credit for ending the Depression with the New Deal, a massive spending program based on Keynesian theory. However, it still took a world war to finally end the Depression, so many argue that Roosevelt's policies might have actually extended the Depression longer than it would have gone on if the country had just stuck to Hoover's lack of intervention.
I think that Franklin was lucky. Yes his country suffered during the Great Depression, but first not as much as Europe, and remember its all in ballence. If you have little, but everyone else has less...suddenly by default you are on top. Essentially thats what helpped America. Europe which suffered worst during the Depression, was also hit by two world wars...you were going through hard times...but we were bankrupt.

America had the only Western Wealth left, and suddenly found its investment in rebuilding the west. Now how much this deal helpped generate the wealth for that I dont know...I dont know much about America financially until POST the war.

Reagan...I dont know anything about except that lots of people hated him. But doing nothing is sometimes the hardest thing of all. The most competant leaders struggle with it. Leaders who have been in power for years, and with great experience...how much worse must it be for Barack...he was a senator for less time then I've been on the Forum...during which time he actually wasnt responsible for anything major, he just kept his rep intact with good ideas.

I wonder, seriously wonder...if now he wishes in all honnesty that MaCain had won, because I dont think he's power hungry, not truely...he wants the fame and reputation.but he doesnt want to command and lead, he's a diplomat, other then manipulation he wont want direct rule. He got himself ellected at the worst point for someone of his character. He might now be realizeing that being President...isnt quite what he thought it was going to be.

The public have always been dumbass. The problem is, enmass a public can be conned with nothing but soothing words and promises, particularly if they are already in hard times. Right back to Rome, Nate, all the way back to Rome.

I have no idea what will happen...but I found it fascinating that States are saying, they ARE having the guts to say "NO" We do Nothing, with the banks safe, those who die, die. If it goes bad for Obama, it makes them look like Saints...Saints enough in Texas certainly to be considered better, and more competant then the American President...an issue, with the Union get out clause that Texas has...if the US did go down the swanny, could Texas pop up like an airfilled life raft from a sinking ship....?
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.