The John Mccain Experience

[Daniel Andersson]

 

[Daniel Andersson]

 

[Tonyk212000]

I thought the family guy one was hilarious.

 

[Line]

 

[Daniel Andersson]

Come on Line I thought it was funny

 

[theweapon]

 

[Braaq]

kinda messed up but funny.
The more I am seeing these debates and this campaign go on the more I just want Obama to win so it will be over. I couldn't imagine what this country would do with four years of McCain/Palin after 8 years of Bush/Cheney..anything would be better.

My only thing is this, if Obama says he is fighting for the middle class Americans then why did he vote for the $700 billion bail out? He couldn't possibly think that printing up $700 billion is going not cause massive inflation on top of the current deficit. That inflation is not going to hurt the rich as much as it will cripple the poor and middle class. When inflation rises and unemployment reaches an all time high I am curious what he will say to that. :wutyousay:
Anyone else care to discuss?

 

[Duality]

the inflation will hurt everyone no doubt. but his logic (and the logic of many others) is that if these companies had been allowed to fail and the market go as it was than that would have been even more harmful (and quite truthfully this is completely right in regards to AIG, they HAD to save them). honestly i have yet to feel any of these reprecussions from the market (maybe a little at work but not too significant) and actually so far it is helping me. i don't know about the rest of you guys, but $30 almost fills my tank now. it seems like forever since gas has been below $3 and oil less than $80 a barrel

 

[Ironslave]

the inflation will hurt everyone no doubt. but his logic (and the logic of many others) is that if these companies had been allowed to fail and the market go as it was than that would have been even more harmful (and quite truthfully this is completely right in regards to AIG, they HAD to save them).

No they didn't.

http://mises.org/story/3142

http://mises.org/story/3132

honestly i have yet to feel any of these reprecussions from the market (maybe a little at work but not too significant) and actually so far it is helping me. i don't know about the rest of you guys, but $30 almost fills my tank now. it seems like forever since gas has been below $3 and oil less than $80 a barrel

Yep, less demand means lower prices. Market magic.

 

[Duality]

No they didn't.

http://mises.org/story/3142

http://mises.org/story/3132



Yep, less demand means lower prices. Market magic.

we'll when insurance companies started to go under in the 30's and we did nothing about it we had a depression. and even then the government eventually did bailout companies.

if AIG would have failed, EVERYONE would have pulled out of the stock market. Do you understand the WORLDWIDE reprecussions of a company that monumental in size going down? seriously, america would be in horrendous shape and absolutely on the way to a depression.

 

[Ironslave]

we'll when insurance companies started to go under in the 30's and we did nothing about it we had a depression. and even then the government eventually did bailout companies.

if AIG would have failed, EVERYONE would have pulled out of the stock market. Do you understand the WORLDWIDE reprecussions of a company that monumental in size going down? seriously, america would be in horrendous shape and absolutely on the way to a depression.

I'm not posting any more articles if you don't read them.

 

[Ironslave]

Another article, specifically mentions AIG... Though you probably will maybe just skip it, maybe someone here will

http://mises.org/story/3119

 

[Rageking]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080926/OPINION01/809260301/1008/OPINION01

 

[Duality]

I'm not posting any more articles if you don't read them.

i read the first one. and myself, my brother, and my ex economics teacher (who is a Dr. of economics) all disagree with you. you are incorrect to think allowing another depression is the proper call. either way those companies will be bailed out eventually (it's one of the things that brought us out of the first depression) and it's better they do it in a preemptive strike against a depression than after it's too late and even more things have gone to hell.

 

[Bulkboy]

i read the first one. and myself, my brother, and my ex economics teacher (who is a Dr. of economics) all disagree with you. you are incorrect to think allowing another depression is the proper call. either way those companies will be bailed out eventually (it's one of the things that brought us out of the first depression) and it's better they do it in a preemptive strike against a depression than after it's too late and even more things have gone to hell.

completely agree. its easy to sit here and say that: oh lets just let it all go to hell! but i think the people in power see that thats just not realistic with our global economy, it would send the economy into complete chaos. one thing is having an ideology, but following it blindly no matter what is just not healthy, and to me it seems thats what IS is doing here. ur so obsessed with ron paul and libertarianism and these ideals that it blinds u from even considering government solutions. the government doesent always fuck things up. in the 30s the reason why the depression lasted so long was because it took the government so long to get involved. keynes got it right, the government have a role to play in the economy when it takes a downward spiral and to prevent market collapses like we are seeing today.

 

[Ironslave]

i read the first one. and myself, my brother, and my ex economics teacher (who is a Dr. of economics) all disagree with you. you are incorrect to think allowing another depression is the proper call. either way those companies will be bailed out eventually (it's one of the things that brought us out of the first depression) and it's better they do it in a preemptive strike against a depression than after it's too late and even more things have gone to hell.

completely agree. its easy to sit here and say that: oh lets just let it all go to hell! but i think the people in power see that thats just not realistic with our global economy, it would send the economy into complete chaos. one thing is having an ideology, but following it blindly no matter what is just not healthy, and to me it seems thats what IS is doing here. ur so obsessed with ron paul and libertarianism and these ideals that it blinds u from even considering government solutions.

I'm not blindly following anything. Duality, your brother is in high school, so he doesn't count as a source. (This is like Nap3onater using "my dad says so). The articles I linked were written by doctor's of economics as well. This will make the eventual depression much worse! It needs to adjust, we need to go through the period, get it over with, and return to normal. This is like saying the solution for someone who is addicted to heroin needs to keep shooting up with higher and higher doses so he doesn't experience the crash. That is what they're doing, forcing government bailouts using tax payer money (which is illegal), and they're just making things worse. How much more money will they have to print because of this? America is broke, and now probably around 10 trillion dollars in debt. No country (in their right mind) is going to lend them money anymore, they can't pay it back. People's confidence in the dollar is starting to plummet, which will be hell when it happens.

Look at the Soviets, they collapsed in a similar way.

the government doesent always fuck things up. in the 30s the reason why the depression lasted so long was because it took the government so long to get involved. keynes got it right, the government have a role to play in the economy when it takes a downward spiral and to prevent market collapses like we are seeing today.

Bulkboy, Bernanke has ADMITTED that the Federal Reserve was the CAUSE of the great depression. This is absolutely not a market induced crash, that point isn't even up for debate.

 

[Duality]

I'm not blindly following anything. Duality, your brother is in high school, so he doesn't count as a source. (This is like Nap3onater using "my dad says so). The articles I linked were written by doctor's of economics as well. This will make the eventual depression much worse! It needs to adjust, we need to go through the period, get it over with, and return to normal. This is like saying the solution for someone who is addicted to heroin needs to keep shooting up with higher and higher doses so he doesn't experience the crash. That is what they're doing, forcing government bailouts using tax payer money (which is illegal), and they're just making things worse. How much more money will they have to print because of this? America is broke, and now probably around 10 trillion dollars in debt. No country (in their right mind) is going to lend them money anymore, they can't pay it back. People's confidence in the dollar is starting to plummet, which will be hell when it happens.

Look at the Soviets, they collapsed in a similar way.






Bulkboy, Bernanke has ADMITTED that the Federal Reserve was the CAUSE of the great depression. This is absolutely not a market induced crash, that point isn't even up for debate.

ok firstly i suggest (though you don't know him so it's understandable) that you don't bag on my brother in terms of intelligence when discussing these things. his viewpoints are basically those of his teacher (who is again a Dr of economics) so please don't belittle his opinion because of his age. i believe that is called the fallacy of personal attack.

secondly, it is hard to argue with this post. are we just delaying the inevitable? and if so for how long? no one really knows these answers definitively so it is hard to tell. i think we agree that the 700 billion bailout was something that did not need to be done and is just perpetuating our massive debt. however i disagree in regards to AIG. this is the largest insurer IN THE WORLD! do you understand the massive withdrawl of investing in the stockmarket that would have happened had they failed? or the reprecussions it would have caused worldwide? not saving them would have been a big mistake that would put not only america, but some of the world in a very bad situation.

 

[Braaq]

I have to agree with IS on this one, here is a recent interview with Ron Paul:

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, who has been an opponent of the government's bailout plan, spoke Friday with CNN's Kiran Chetry on "American Morning."
Ron Paul: "Give up on this idea that inflation solves everybody's problems."


The Texas Republican says the bailout's infusion of government money will lead to inflation, that our current monetary system is coming to end, and the market, not politicians, can best solve the economic crisis.

Kiran Chetry: The last time you were with us you explained why you were against the government's bailout plan, why you were voting against it, and you didn't believe focusing on buying these troubled assets was the smart thing to do. Since then, they've tweaked it and decided to buy stakes in some U.S. banks. Do you think that's a better strategy to help heal the economy?

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul: They tweaked it up. It started out as a three-page document and went up to 450 pages. Instead of $700 billion it's up to $850 billion. Reuters had a story out today. They estimate it's going to cost the American taxpayer about $5 trillion. It's tweaking in the wrong direction, and I don't think it's going to do any good whatsoever.

Chetry: The credit markets are starting to loosen up a bit, at least from what we've seen this week. Is that a sign that maybe it is working?

Paul: Maybe to some degree in the short run, but that just means we'll have more inflation. You can't create $5 trillion out of thin air and not expect inflation. So although the dollar may be up a little bit right now because the markets are a little calmer, this just means that in time we're going to all suffer and pay for this, and we're going to pay for it with higher prices. Video Watch Ron Paul warn of bitter economic times ahead »

This is the serious problem. It's the attack on the dollar system. They're trying to save the dollar, but this system that we've had since 1971 is nonviable, and it's coming to an end. That's what this whole story is about, the end of a monetary system that we've had since 1971.

Something has to give. You just can't create more money out of thin air and propping up everybody. It's an immoral system. You're asking the poor people to bail out the rich. You're asking the innocent people to bail out the guilty. You're asking people to just totally defy the Constitution because there's no place in the Constitution that says that we can do these things.

Besides, economically, it's a disaster. This is going to cause a great deal of harm. It's like a drug addict taking a strong fix, and he feels better for a day or two, but believe me, we're going to kill the patient. And the patient here is the dollar system and our entire world economy. I would say let's get off this addiction.

Chetry: Congressman, have you heard anything from either of the presidential candidates about their economic plans that you think are good things that need to be implemented?

Paul: No, not really, but it's tough to find out the good parts. I do think that John McCain has a better approach to the medical problem, and Obama has a better approach to trying to save some money by coming home from Iraq. We're spending $10 billion a month over there. We could save a lot of money, and that money should be spent back here. Quite frankly, how can we trust anybody? When it comes to the bailout, how do they differ? Both McCain and Obama come rushing back to Washington and vote for the bailout.

Chetry: It was approved in both houses. I know you voted against it. That leads me to another question. If Barack Obama ends up winning, it looks like the Democrats would have a trifecta in Congress, both houses and the White House. What does that mean for the American people and also for the GOP?

Paul: I mean, it's a disaster for the country and everybody because, even with all the shortcomings of John McCain, his strongest argument to be president is keep the Congress and the presidency in separate hands. The American people are going to be a lot better off if they're fighting a little bit instead of just having no restraints whatsoever. That's a poor reason to argue for McCain.

Chetry: I know what you're saying. Staff members writing on your own Web site say the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress and the White House this November would be a "repudiation of false conservatism of the Republican Party." How do you get back to some of those fiscally conservative ideals?

Paul: It's going to be tough because you have to convince the American people that that's what we need. And everybody now is realizing in the country there's something seriously wrong with our whole financial system and our governmental system.

But the big question is: Does the majority of the American people believe the government can still take care of us, or should we get the government out of the way, quit spending money, balance the budget, bring our troops home, and let the American people keep the money they earn? That means drastically reducing taxes.

Get the government out of this overregulation, and give up on this idea that inflation solves everybody's problems. If inflation, that is the creation of new money, could solve everybody's problems, which they're claiming right now, nobody would ever have to work again. If $5 trillion could save this economy, why work? Just print money, and everybody will be happy.

They don't understand the idea that people have to work. People have to save, instead of consumers spending more money.

The market is saying you should back off, spend less money, and save money. Everybody says, no, don't save money. You're supposed to go out there and spend money.

The people who have saved in the last five years have money in the bank, and cash is good right now. They're going to buy up the bargains. They're going to get a good deal on a house. Prices on houses should come down. We shouldn't keep them artificially high. We shouldn't try to stimulate housing. There are too many houses. We should let the market make these decisions.
advertisement

It's arrogant for the politicians and the bureaucrats to believe they can plan the economy and sort this all out. We've been doing it for all these years, and the monetary system is so confusing and so corrupt, that the sooner we get back to believing in ourselves, believing in freedom, believing in sound money, believing in the Constitution, we're going to solve these problems.

Right now there's a fight going on in this country. Our numbers are growing. We're not the majority, but our numbers are growing. And as this situation deteriorates, more people are going to say, hey, maybe it's right. Maybe limited government and freedom works. Maybe freedom is popular, and maybe freedom really works. And this idea that we have to depend on government for all these programs is an illusion.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/17/ron.paul.qa/index.html

 

[Ironslave]

ok firstly i suggest (though you don't know him so it's understandable) that you don't bag on my brother in terms of intelligence when discussing these things. his viewpoints are basically those of his teacher (who is again a Dr of economics) so please don't belittle his opinion because of his age. i believe that is called the fallacy of personal attack.

I wasn't bagging on your brother, but saying "my brother thinks so" is like napol3onator going on about his dad getting whatever on the ACT's. There are cases where it is acceptable to quote "authorities" for evidence, for example, if I was to discuss something on the neuromuscular system and exercise, Digby Sale or Pavvo Komi's thoughts might not be gospel, but they're pretty close. My brother in high school doesn't fall into this category... just saying.

secondly, it is hard to argue with this post. are we just delaying the inevitable? and if so for how long? no one really knows these answers definitively so it is hard to tell. i think we agree that the 700 billion bailout was something that did not need to be done and is just perpetuating our massive debt. however i disagree in regards to AIG. this is the largest insurer IN THE WORLD! do you understand the massive withdrawl of investing in the stockmarket that would have happened had they failed? or the reprecussions it would have caused worldwide? not saving them would have been a big mistake that would put not only america, but some of the world in a very bad situation.

Sure, of course it would put the world in a horrible situation. But, it's because of government and the monetary system which got us in the problem in the first place, why might repeating the mistake be the solution? Worldwide repercussions are already here, and are going to get worse.

Jim Rogers put's things really well, especially in the beginning when he questions why we should believe the people who created this problem? This is a great watch.

 

[Bulkboy]

Bulkboy, Bernanke has ADMITTED that the Federal Reserve was the CAUSE of the great depression. This is absolutely not a market induced crash, that point isn't even up for debate.

i dont think he has said that the federal reserve alone was the cause of the great depression, there were many factors responsible for that depression. the thing is that, yes u are right, depression like situations will occur, the economy will grow less at some point. i just strongly disagree with u that the right thing to do then, is to sit on the fence and let the whole financial market collapse and drag the whole economy with it down. the government waited 4 years before taking action during the great depression, thats why it lasted so long, and then government went in and the economy started growing again. look at the situation now, it was bad but its turning around again now, stocks are up today. if u libertarians had got it ur way we would be facing total collapse right now. imo government could spend less, and be less involved when the economy is growing, but when the downward spiral begins, i see no reason why the government shouldnt provide stimulus by building new projects, that will create more jobs etc.

there is one thing to have an ideology, the problem arises when u follow it to the point where u are almost blind to any other solution. its one thing to say that, hey, let the bad banks go bankrupt, they deserve it. the problem is that almost all banks were involved, and when these banks are dependent on lending to eachother, u will get a total collapse in the economy, when the banks go bankrupt, the liquidity markets dries out, people can no longer borrow, businesses can no longer borrow. i think the people in charge see this, and they decide to take action for the greater good of society. whereas for u it is easy to sit here and say let it all go to hell, especially when u know that its not realistic whatsoever.

also, how is this not a market induced crash? this all could have been avoided if it werent for corporate greed and CEO's on wall street seeking to enrichen themselves. this lending to so called NINJNA(people with no income, no job, no assets) were totally irresponsible, and they knew that the bubble had to burst, when prices stopped going up, and people had to leave their homes. but still it happends because some people see it as an opportunity to enrichen themselves. actually i agree that the government is partly to blame, they are to blame for not having regulated the financial sector enough, and make this kind of activity illegal.