[quote] So spending money when the economy is bad is better than spending money when the ecoomy is good? That doesn't make sense [/quote] During a period of growth, the economy is likely almost at full capacity, and is gorwing through increases in the aggregate supply curve. Government spending will cause an increase in demand, but because there isn't sufficient capacity in the economy all it will lead to in the end is inflation (output increases beyond capacity, meaning prices ris
aeortar
[quote] Other than marital sex between a husband and wife, anyone who engages in sexual behavior opposes chastity [/quote] No, just because you don't do something, it doesn't mean you oppose it. [quote] In saying such, you evidently don't understand public school sex education [/quote] I thought we were talking about Obama here. Furthermore not supporting abstinence programs in public education does not mean you think people should not abstain. Has Obama supported sex
Running a budget deficit when the economy is growing = bad Running a budget deficit (and looking to increase it) when the economy is suffering a recession = standard economic policy. Bush spent more than he received when the economy was growing. Instead he should have been saving up money for a rainy day. That rainy day is now here. So it's not necessarily hypocritical to oppose budget deficits under bush and support them with Obama. It'd only be hypocritical if you were to st
[quote] you just completely ignored what I wrote. MOST income inequality in the United States is due to amount of hours worked. Not differences in per hour [/quote] So covering differences in hours worked in my example is completely ignoring that?! You seem to have ignored what I wrote however, since MOST of the point of a fine is to deter people from doing it again. Meanwhile I'd be fascinated to see figures that show the difference in income inequality wrt income per hour an
[quote] Two people make $10 per hour. Person A works 50 hours a week and thus earns $500 a week. Person B works 20 hours a week and earns $200 a week. Person A and B get a ticket. Because Person A makes twice as much, he is fined $100. Person B is only fined $40. [/quote] Alright lets compare it to the status quo: Three people, A, B, C, make $10, $200 and $200 per hour. Person A works 50 hours a week,
[quote] 70% of participants said the response of governments around the world to the global recession has been inadequate [/quote] Unfortunately from what I could read they didn't give the precise figure for Obama, simply saying "a majority" were dissatisfied with the administrations policies.
[quote] so because someone has more money they should be punished much harder. I wonder, should this concept be applied to everything? Shoul people pay the same amount for a Whopper with cheese? [/quote] How is that applying the same concept? If you break the law, you should face a punishment that will deter you from doing it again. Buying whoppers with cheese is perfectly legal and doesn't need a deterrant. [quote] I think the concept here is that they want the punishment to
Unfortunately most new PCs automatically come with Vista. No choice about XP - you have to have Vista whether you want it or not. It's one of the things putting me off getting a new PC, I'm just hoping that if/when I do upgrade my old computer most of the issues will have been ironed out. From the sound of it I may even be better off waiting for the next version of windows to come along :(.
[quote] On April 1, 2009, all Americans are asked to send a TEABAG to Washington , D.C. [/quote] Should say on the morning of April 1 - after noon and it doesn't count right?
[quote] In Finland, how much you make determines the amount of a fine...It creates a society that punishes achievement [/quote] The reverse - it creates a society that properly punishes lawlessness. If you're a millionaire, then paying say a 100EUR fine isn't going to bother you in the slightest - there's just no deterrant effect. Prison time for the lesser offences might similarly be a poor use. Far better to punish someone an equal amount, and to achieve that with a fine, it needs t
[quote] Thou shalt not commit chastity [/quote] Still waiting to hear any evidence that supports this. Supporting sex education and/or abortion and/or using birth control when having sex is not the same thing as opposing chastity. Can you point me to anywhere where Obama has said Abstinence itself is bad and/or shouldn't be done?
[quote] if the government begins to do things to the movers and shakers of our society, you can be sure that it will “trickle down” to everyone else...You think a new type of human will evolve that doesn't operate on the basis of self interest? [/quote] It depends, because the original point was very general - if you increase taxes on the rich for example, you would still have it in the movers+shakers best interest to make as much money as they can, even though they won't
[quote] Obama claims he's Christian, yet instead of Almighty God, he relies on Government to bring hope, consolation and peace of mind...and expects us to do the same. Hope can only come from the Word Incarnate [/quote] So anyone who tries to bring hope to people through any other method is anti-God? What a depressing outlook to have - I'd be grateful to have people providing hope to others (assuming it's not a false hope). Why not just go with the clinging to guns+religion
[quote] Are you willing to eat mac and cheese three times a week in lieu of steak? Are you willing to get an occasional pizza takeout (better yet make homemade) and skip eating out at restaurants? [/quote] Nah, cheese is too expensive - I have to try and settle for (non-cheese) spaghetti/pasta based meals! I do sometimes make my own pizzas as a treat though (although it takes so long I usually just settle for the takeaway ones). I'm betting the recession has another 2 or
In a recession the standard economic prescription is for the government to increase spending (the only main difference between economists is then about whether increased government spending or tax cuts are the best way of doing that).
Allow them to fail. Just look to help people retrain to make footballs to make the transitional period between baseballs and footballs a bit easier. To prop up failing industries is to throw good money after bad, and in the long term will make things far worse. Better a bit of short term pain for long term gain than short term gain for long term pain. Unfortunately politicians are only typically interested about the next election and hence will care most about the short term.
[quote] where can you smoke where it doesn't affect anyone else? [/quote] Outside the pub instead of inside. [quote] If you have a legal activity that also harms people and has been banned from privately owned businesses then you have a valid comparison, but to my knowledge no such thing exists. [/quote] Throwing bottles at yourself is legal. [quote] "If something is banned, then it is illegal to do it." Wrong [/quote] Right, I think I'll give up
All better now? [e digicons]:)[/e]
[quote] Just the fact that your money isn't going out the window when you pay rent is worth something [/quote] It'll go on mortage payments instead! If you're a first time buyer then you're not going to have the savings to buy the house, so you're going to have to borrow to buy it. It's definitely more attractive if you've got lots of savings, since the interest on your savings is much lower than the interest on money you borrow, effectively meaning that the comparison between renting
[quote] If you want them to dig holes and then fill them in, who's going to pay for that? [/quote] The government, taking money from people and spending it on something that doesn't cause harm to everyone involved. You'd lose some of the money due to the inefficiency of the method, but there's a chance that that would be outweighed by the alternative. Regardless the better (long term) method to both of them would be to leave those people to get jobs in the private sector in whatever p
If I buy a game, it's for the game rather than the 'frills' like a fancier box, a nice manual, a poster, etc. If I want that, then I'd look for a special/limited edition version or something. If I forego all of that however, I can get the game for significantly less, meaning much more enjoyment for the money I've spent. You're comparing a game now with a game before, but several big differences: Firstly, costs+quality - your average 'AAA' title now will cost more to make than
Not worth it IMO - yes, $8k is a nice boost, but what if house prices fall further? The way things are looking currently I'd think it more likely that they'd fall by that amount than rise (in the short term that is, rather than the long term). Then you have to consider the cost of renting against the cost of borrowing money to buy a house. Last I looked (it could well have changed though) it was cheaper to rent than buy. Finally, as you mentioned, you have job security. If you borrow a lot of
[quote] So what would you have all those people who depend(ed) on the tobacco industry for a job do? [/quote] Dig holes in the ground and fill them in again - at least then no-ones being harmed. That or just have them look for jobs in other markets where they can provide a benefit to society. I can't see the tobacco industry as requiring such specific skills that it's really hard for people to switch jobs anyway. [quote] based on this argument the first case would be in suppor
[quote] If you read what he wrote- he said: "and since elected in November, the stock market has lost well over 2000 points " [/quote] If you read what he wrote- he said "with just over a month of Obama officially being President, and since elected in November, the stock market has lost well over 2000 points". I've no wish to get into a semantics fight though, so just switch "are you" to "you are" in my post if you want.
[quote] So with just over a month of Obama officially being President, and since elected in November, the stock market has lost well over 2000 points [/quote] In the last month it's lost ~1200 - are you including time that bush was president to get your figure? Looking at the response of the stock market on the day of a massive policy annoucement is one thing, but to look at a period of a month, and equate any changes in the stock marget as a reflection on Obama is another altogether.