[quote]What exactly is your point? You mention three or four different issues that have absolutely no relevance to each other and then just stop. Please explain what your point is.[/quote] You're kidding, right? There was a time of RATIONAL EXUBERANCE, the it became irrational. You do read the papers, don't you?.
[quote]Until the government can actually produce a profit, the best thing for gov't to do is allow the business and people that CAN turn money into profit KEEP more of that money.[/quote] And they sure do keep it, such as 18Bln in bonuses.
[quote]increased consumption vs. investment?[/quote] Been there, done that--trickle down doesn't work.
[quote]You might have had a point there if ALL the Democrats signed it, but apparently some of them thought it was a stinker too.[/quote] I mentioned the bluedogs' dissent. Obama and the party will be losers if they kowtow to them. As for the concern for great grandchildren, where were you eight years ago whe Bush was giving away the store to the wealthy?
[quote]The tax cuts sounded like a measure to (in part) appease republicans, and some 'pork' projects were dropped from what I've heard.[/quote]It's never enough for republicans--the great Rush Limbaugh will see to that!--God forbid Obama win one.
And what is its purpose? However large or small capital and labor, services come into play such as a bank to coordinate an economy in a community. Capital purchases material and labor to kick start and sustain an economy. Yet there is this myth that capital troves alone are responsible for a thriving business activity as though capital were always on reserve for the taking without ever referring to its accumulation predicated on previous labor that had brought
By all means, do as Porkulous says.
The UAW also made damn good cars for some sixty years but they also helped build the middle class. Their big mistake was losing clout by divorcing AFL-CIO.
BTW, With Bill and Steve out of the picture is that why the economy can't pickup?
Sorry to disappoint you techies who think apple before generic jobs.
Yes, a Catch 22. Primarily the need and demand are crucial to supply.
How is it most of the bluedogs always manage to scrounge up dissenting votes for their party, but somehow Republicans always seem to stick to their guns when in opposition? The recovery package vote yesterday was reminiscent of the Clinton tax vote of '93 when there was not a single conservative yes vote in the Senate whereby a tie was unlocked by VP Gore's vote. Not much change over the years. If
Bill Gates on the one hand stated that we are in need of high quality immigrants to meet our technical advances; on the other hand, Microsoft is laying off 5000 workers. That’s not good news for Obama’s quest to save jobs, let alone create more. Furthermore, even if there were a need for more techies, our education system doesn’t fill the need, and if the demand for them from the recovery package became reality the tech companies would simply
Like swimming against the current wherein Obama tries to save jobs at the same time trying to create more. In an economy going no where, there is the danger of managing mere busy work. For instance, to save 30,000 Circuit City workers a new chain of no return would have to start up in face of the drastic reduction in purchasing power—and what’s more brutally realistic is to form a chain gang of retailers doing clean up work. The key,
[quote]Silly and childish if you ask me.[/quote] Yes, it is truly silly and childish for working people of JU to be against unions.
Detroit--alas, 0-16--and you callously want to really rub it in!
[quote]I also feel sorry that you think the only choices in life are being fabulously wealthy or being on public assistance.[/quote] Ah, the blissful middle graound!
According to Newsweek’s reporter on religion, eighty percent of Americans believe in death escorts you to heaven where some kind of self identity endures. However, only[?] 50% believe in a reunion with the flesh—ugh. But don’t despair, there are those who testify "our bodies will be the very same as we had in life, but buff and beautiful." And, of course Victoria thin or Brad Pitt muscular.
The thousands of city dwellers who bought a home in Levittown and millions of others elsewhere was for the purpose of establishing a homestead in which to build a family, or enhance its lifestyle—surely, they were not thinking of making an investment, or furthest from their mind that the $8000 Levitt home in 1948 could be worth $7000 in 1949. Of course, the moneychangers of "irrational exuberance" in ensuing decades saw it differently. Promote the euphoria of suburbia to
Why does the "other" party play into FDR’s "fear in itself"? How can the party of states’ rights object to bailing out the states desperately cutting budgets to the detriment of their financial status? What better way to kick off the economy than to assist locales in Medicaid, school budgets and repairs, community colleges, and a host of other ways to reduce unemployment roles and deterioration of infrastructures? Apparently, the party perceives aid as just another road to perks r
I can't believe Obama is hamstringing the move to digital because a latenik minority didn't get off their ass to purchase a digital TV or at least a converter by now. The forty dollar giveaway was like the foodstamps for electronics. A terribly costly program that was unnecessary. I'll wager the manufacturers of antennas were responsible for lobbying it or those in the sticks still watdh Oprah in snow. If you want an immediate stimulus why not give away HD TVs to the great&nbs
[quote]im always suprised at how lower class people will stick up for a flat tax in the desperate hope that they will one day be rich. [/quote] I fail to see this having anything to do with the thesis of the article.
[quote]That's what they did to the Boat industry - to kill it and put a lot of people out of work.[/quote]Yeah, like there are so many jobs in the yacht industry. Now, you are concerned over job loss but the hell with hundreds of thousands in the auto industry.
[quote]No one here is doing a damn thing to hurt the UAW. [/quote]I'm not saying that, but you can't deny most of you despise unions. Granted the UAW never should have broken away from the parent AFL-CIO and lost control but they have in this crisis been pretty reasonable.
I suppose I should've answered my own question: the bad guys have already been sent to countries that okay torture--so what's the big deal? Seems like a dead issue.
JoeUser Forums
Stardock Forums