Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-01-2012, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,872,826 times
Reputation: 5661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
How, exactly, is Obama suppressing the economy and jobs? The economy is down because of lack of sales (demand), period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Because of his actions. To be clear though, it's still a hangover from the late actions of Bush also.
Note the word "exactly." So far, nobody has answered with any specifics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-01-2012, 01:31 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,828,510 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
This first words on your link:
What parts were wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Note the word "exactly." So far, nobody has answered with any specifics.
You dont have the same standards when discussing Bush.. how very odd
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2012, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,872,826 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
What parts were wrong?
As far as I am concerned the entire citation's conclusion was nonfactual. It considered programs designed to put unemployed people to work with government programs under a Democracy akin to fascism, which is preposterous. Under fascism, such programs were compulsory and under a dictatorial regime. The comparison of the NRA to fascism is like comparing apples to moon rocks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2012, 01:54 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,828,510 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
As far as I am concerned the entire citation's conclusion was nonfactual. It considered programs designed to put unemployed people to work with government programs under a Democracy akin to fascism, which is preposterous. Under fascism, such programs were compulsory and under a dictatorial regime. The comparison of the NRA to fascism is like comparing apples to moon rocks.
By definition, thats fascism
  1. dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism
You not liking it, doesnt mean its wrong, because how much more extreme nationalism could you get other than having a large percentage of the nation dependant upon the national government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2012, 02:06 PM
 
277 posts, read 227,515 times
Reputation: 71
From the 1850s onward progressive corporatism developed in response to classical liberalism and Marxism.[4] These corporatists supported providing group rights to members of the middle classes and working classes in order to secure cooperation among the classes.[4] This was in opposition to the Marxist conception of class conflict.[4] By the 1870s and 1880s, corporatism experienced a revival in Europe with the creation of workers' unions that were committed to negotiations with employers.

The idea of liberal corporatism has also been attributed to English liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill who discussed corporatist-like economic associations as needing to "predominate" in society to create equality for labourers and give them influence with management by economic democracy.[27] Unlike some other types of corporatism, liberal corporatism does not reject capitalism or individualism, but believes that the capitalist companies are social institutions that should require their managers to do more than maximize net income, by recognizing the needs of their employees.[

Liberal corporatism was an influential component of the Progressivism in the United States that has been referred to as "interest group liberalism".[29] The support by U.S. labor representatives of liberal corporatism of the U.S. progressives is believed to have been influenced by the syndicalism and particularly the anarcho-syndicalism at the time in Europe.[29] In the United States, economic corporatism involving capital-labour cooperation was influential in the New Deal economic program of the United States in the 1930s as well as in Keynesianism and even Fordism.

Fascism's theory of economic corporatism involved management of sectors of the economy by government or privately controlled organizations (corporations). Each trade union or employer corporation would, theoretically, represent its professional concerns, especially by negotiation of labor contracts and the like.

Italian Fascism involved a corporatist political system in which economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level.[33] This non-elected form of state officializing of every interest into the state was professed to reduce the marginalization of singular interests (as would allegedly happen by the unilateral end condition inherent in the democratic voting process).

1932 Doctrine of Fascism as thus:
When brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2012, 02:12 PM
 
79,900 posts, read 43,866,989 times
Reputation: 17184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Note the word "exactly." So far, nobody has answered with any specifics.
Obama supported the bail outs and it was Obama's administation that allowed the QE programs.

As to the QE programs specifially, they created inflation for the benefit of keeping Wall Street profits inflated.

Inflation has caused people to spend more but not for more things. Without QE gas never reaches $4.00. Look at what has happened to the price since the QE programs ended.

Spending $4.00 for gas (and more for milk, bread, etc) means you have less for anything else. With this lack of demand, even though corporations are taking in more money there is no need for them to hire.

Now, you didn't ask me what parts of all of this is Bush's fault, just what is Obama's. In simplistic form, there you go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2012, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,872,826 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Obama supported the bail outs and it was Obama's administation that allowed the QE programs.

As to the QE programs specifially, they created inflation for the benefit of keeping Wall Street profits inflated.

Inflation has caused people to spend more but not for more things. Without QE gas never reaches $4.00. Look at what has happened to the price since the QE programs ended.

Spending $4.00 for gas (and more for milk, bread, etc) means you have less for anything else. With this lack of demand, even though corporations are taking in more money there is no need for them to hire.

Now, you didn't ask me what parts of all of this is Bush's fault, just what is Obama's. In simplistic form, there you go.
Yes, Obama supported the bailouts. That's why GM is a viable corporation today and hiring workers.

Quantitative Easing (QE) was done by the Fed. I think I need to remind you that the Fed doesn't report to the President. The Fed is a completely independent agency.

In addition, what was wrong with QE, exactly? The QE kept the nation from slipping into deflation as it did during 2008.

You speak of inflation, as if inflation has been high. Inflation has been 2-3% or lower. (Psst, that's low inflation.)

On prices, prices have been very stable and not on the rise. Here is the CPI:



If what you put in your post are the ideas that you believe, you really do not have a firm grasp of the facts.

Also, what I read from you is that you were against the government bailing out failing companies, you were against the government infusing money into the banking system and you were against the government intervening in monetary policy. So, you don't want the government to do anything but you blame the government for all that you don't like (whether your perception is real or not.)

Do you have any idea of the depression the policies (or lack of policies) would have caused?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2012, 02:29 PM
 
1,332 posts, read 990,211 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Yea right. This theory presumes that making people starve will give them the incentive to lift themselves out of poverty and providing a program that provides nutrition for children keeps children in poverty; providing Medicaid for the poor keeps them in poverty.

What pghquest and others who think like him don't want to acknowledge is that these programs were put in place because we had poverty. If social programs cause poverty why is it than when we only had claw-in-tooth capitalism there were lots of poor people?

But this outlines the differences in the Parties. The GOP uses whatever excuse, no matter how baseless, to justify cutting programs for Americans while cutting taxes for the rich.

Uh....did I miss something? Did the GOP do away with medicaid?

The difference between the 2 parties is that the republicans realize that continuing to spend as we are, then the whole house of cards will come down....BANKRUPT...devastation for ALL. The democrats don't seem to realize that this same spending has to be curbed. They don't seem to understand that we are in DIRE STRAITS and it we cannot withstand another 4 years of obama.

Why don't the democrats understand? What is soooo hard to get that you cannot continue to spend more than you take in? Why can't they get the simple concept that eventually you will not be able to pay your debt, and you will no longer be able to support the entitlement programs when the dollar crumbles? It's just abasic economics but it seems to escape the democrats.

And this concept that taxing the rich will cure all that is wrong is blatantly IGNORANT...designed by obama to make him look to be a hero. If that was the case...and it was that easy to do...then he had 2 years at the beginning of his term when gthe democrats had control of BOTH houses of congress. he could have done away with the Bush tax cuts for 2 straight years...he had the votes...but he didn't. Why? But now....it's the republicans who will not raise taxes on the rich....who are 'blocking' obama from making the rich pay their 'fair share'.

I find such illogical thinking to be laughable. It is hard to imagine anyone with the ability to think for themselves could swallow such a load of BullS**t and adopt it as truth...but the democrats have....I read it here every day.

Now...if the social programs were controlled better and the debt was lower...and we didn't have a president who believes in printing as much money as we can spend...and we had a president who actually had a PLAN to get the economy rolling again...and didn't REGULATE business to DEATH...or at least to the point where they don't DARE grow.....then we would have more jobs....we would have fewer people NEEDING social programs because they are poor.....

this president has it all backwards....he has no clue....he has made the United States into a rudderless ship....with no direction. THAT is the difference between dems and reps. Facts...just the facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2012, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,872,826 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall_Rep View Post
Uh....did I miss something? Did the GOP do away with medicaid?
...
No. My response was to pg who was claiming that social programs make people lazy and not want to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2012, 02:46 PM
 
79,900 posts, read 43,866,989 times
Reputation: 17184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Yes, Obama supported the bailouts. That's why GM is a viable corporation today and hiring workers.
GM was a very small part of the bailouts. If as an Obama supporter you are saying that you support bailing out Wall Street, well, O.K.

Quote:
Quantitative Easing (QE) was done by the Fed. I think I need to remind you that the Fed doesn't report to the President. The Fed is a completely independent agency.
The Fed is not an independant agency despite what is claimed. It is a quasi-government agency. Obama had the option of not nominating Bernanke but he did. If the Fed is doing things the administrion feels is harmful to the country, all Obama has to do is ask for his resignation. The fact that he picked Geithner shows that Obama supports the actions of the Fed.

Quote:
In addition, what was wrong with QE, exactly? The QE kept the nation from slipping into deflation as it did during 2008.
I think this is the third time today. A little deflation would not have hurt except for Wall Street. If the price of something goes down a little, you are not hurt. Wall Street is.

QE created inflation. Gas, milk, bread, etc all went up. Main street was spending more for everything but not getting more but Wall Street was remaining inflated. Look at gas. Under QE it went to $4.00. Was main street helped out by $4.00 gas? The QE programs ended and down goes gas. That is going to be good for the economy.

So even though businesses were indeed taking in more money they were not creating more things so there was no need to hire. Rumblings of QE3 are on the horizon and with the markets falling I would not be surprised if it happens but it does not happen without the consent of the administration.

Quote:
You speak of inflation, as if inflation has been high. Inflation has been 2-3% or lower. (Psst, that's low inflation.)
The governments inflation numbers are low because of housing still falling and they do not figure in gas or food. The numbers are bogus. If inflation was figure the same today as it was 30 years ago, inflation would be around 10%.

Quote:
On prices, prices have been very stable and not on the rise. Here is the CPI:
Again, yes as an example of "all consumer items". Now remove housing from that equation and repost the graph.

Housing is still falling. That is a double hit on main street. Prices for staples rising while the equity in their houses are falling.

Quote:
If what you put in your post are the ideas that you believe, you really do not have a firm grasp of the facts.
Unemployment just went up. I don't think it is I that is lacking grasp.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top