OT: Rating the President

Fyron · #1 February 6th, 2003, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
People with no money can't buy things. How could the poor by a lot of things? Only the ones with money can make purchases. It only makes sense that the rich own more per-person than the poor. But, the rich do not own _everything_.

Ok, now your just being a bit too fastidious.
The rich own/control pretty much everything.

That is how it is everywhere. That is how it has always been. Why is the US so special in that regard?

Quote:

The point I was making is that the situation now is analogous to the situation before the depression: Cut taxes on the wealthy, induce spending. And the President may not sit in the Fed meeting, but he certainly has influence over what the fed does.

Except that the economy is not so simplistic as it has to be for that to work.

Quote:

That's a matter of opinion: some people would argue that the reason we haven't had a depression again is because of regulation - overproduction might have been a factor, but if overproduction were the cause of a depression then there would have been a worse depression after WWII.

There was less overproduction after WWII than there was after WWI. I did not say that overproduction was the only cause, only that it was more important than the 2 things you mentioned.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't pretend to know my philosophies based on an occasional post or two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right I shouldn't draw any conclusions from your Posts.

Don't take what I said out of context. That is worse than drawing conclusions about things I never mentioned.

Quote:

You implied the deficit was a problem, during the depression it wasn't, it didn't become a problem until it ballooned in the 80's.

The deficit did not magically become a problem in the 80s. It was a problem long before then. The 80s are only when it became popular for people to complain about it.

[ February 06, 2003, 02:57: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tesco samoa · #2 February 6th, 2003, 05:28 AM

ohhh those poor rich lobby Groups...

Business does not want the tax removed from dividends...

Now every yahoo will want dividends...

But sorry this whole point that rich people are the minority thus they in the minority because of voting...

Ummm.... I do not see this to be a problem in the USA or Canada or any other country for that matter.

The majority of people do not want levies on cdr's... but still we get them...

Govn't is run by money , influenced by buisness and their lobby Groups.

The day where you and I made a difference in voting on country wide issues and policies are long gone. But still I vote as it is my right to vote.

where is this going... Bah I do not know...

But I do know that were we are in life is where we will remain. Once you realise that the carrot on the end of the stick was really just a stick and no carrot , or string...

The great wheel of beaurocracy controls all in Canada and USA.

Instar · #3 February 6th, 2003, 06:37 AM

Here, I have a solution.
Elect me supreme ruler of Earth. Everything will be fixed in about 3 months! <-- My campaign promise

Askan Nightbringer · #4 February 6th, 2003, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Instar:
Here, I have a solution.
Elect me supreme ruler of Earth. Everything will be fixed in about 3 months! <-- My campaign promise

Well, the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship, providing I am that dictator.

Askan,
Apologising to Plato.

Fyron · #5 February 6th, 2003, 08:59 AM

There is no such thing as benevolent dictatorship.

Askan Nightbringer · #6 February 6th, 2003, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
There is no such thing as benevolent dictatorship.

And why is that?

Krsqk · #7 February 6th, 2003, 03:29 PM

"You implied the deficit was a problem, during the depression it wasn't, it didn't become a problem until it ballooned in the 80's."

Um, I think we're mixing up deficit and debt. A deficit is just the annual bottom line. If you spend more than you took in, you ran a deficit. That's acceptable for short periods of time when you have extra money and have a specific short-term goal which will increase your income. Debt (borrowing) is only acceptable when cash (or rapidly liquifiable assets) are insufficient to cover the cost for a transaction, or when doing so would disrupt normal fiscal operation. In either case, debt must be paid off as quickly as possible, both out of moral obligation and fiscal prudence.

Congress perpetually runs deficits with no short-term goals; they borrow to cover their deficit spending; and they have no production to pay for their spending. Reagan gets slammed for "his" deficit spending. It couldn't be, of course, that the Democrat-run Congress passed the tax cuts they promised him, but didn't cut spending (like they also promised him), and then took advantage of the booming deficits to attack him. Too bad the American people saw through it and re-elected him.