No, I really want to hear someone defend Obama's actions.

 

What did he accomplish by sitting and listening to Ortega slam us.

 

Run...

You do realize that free trade benefits the poor of foreign countries, right?

 

The US getting cheap oil from Iraq by propping up a dictator who practiced genocide is not good for the poor of the country.

 

Period -

 

Having free an open trade that ALLOWS people to work for 60.00 PER MONTH in Guatemala to produce goods that we can buy cheaply in Wal-Mart is not good for the poor of that country.

 

Period -

The US getting cheap oil from Iraq by propping up a dictator who practiced genocide is not good for the poor of the country.

 

Period -

 

Having free an open trade that ALLOWS people to work for 60.00 PER MONTH in Guatemala to produce goods that we can buy cheaply in Wal-Mart is not good for the poor of that country.

 

Period -

 

The first point:

 

It was not good for the poor of the country, however as their lives were probably dramatically shortened I suspect it wouldn't affect them for long. That aside with a dictator running a nationalized industry there was little incentive for him to want the people to prosper. A true free market is much more inductive to raising all.

 

To the second:

 

We harp on 60.00 per month, but are we looking at it in terms of what we make here or are we looking at it in the sense of true purchasing power? There was a time in the U.S. that 60.00 a month would have been more than enough to get by, what is to say that the inflationary bug that hit us has not hit them?

 

I am more curious than anything on that one.

 

Also are you for total communism? I am not talking like "YOU PINKO COMMIE!!!" I am speaking in terms of total equality of wages, possessions and so on. Use a command economy as opposed to a demand economy and the like.

Edited April 29, 200917 yr by PepRock01

The first point:

 

It was not good for the poor of the country, however as their lives were probably dramatically shortened I suspect it wouldn't affect them for long. That aside with a dictator running a nationalized industry there was little incentive for him to want the people to prosper. A true free market is much more inductive to raising all.

 

To the second:

 

We harp on 60.00 per month, but are we looking at it in terms of what we make here or are we looking at it in the sense of true purchasing power? There was a time in the U.S. that 60.00 a month would have been more than enough to get by, what is to say that the inflationary bug that hit us has not hit them?

 

I am more curious than anything on that one.

 

Also are you for total communism? I am not talking like "YOU PINKO COMMIE!!!" I am speaking in terms of total equality of wages, possessions and so on. Use a command economy as opposed to a demand economy and the like.

 

To the first point: The USA propped up that dictator as opposed to helping insurgents, simply for the cheap gas. He may have fallen were it not for the Dick Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the 1980s.

 

When would 60.00 PER MONTH, 2 dollars per day been enough to get by? The 1800s??

 

60.00 per month did not afford the biological mother of my daughter to raise her - so I would say her true purchasing power was poor. 2 dollars a day does not even allow you to eat much in Guatemala, and if you have ever visited Guatemala City or Antiqua, Guatemala you would understand how silly that point was.

 

What I support is a living wage for people ALL AROUND THE WORLD which may mean a smaller bottom line for Phil Knight and the like and it might mean that I start wearing Buddy Shoes instead of NIKEs. It might also mean that I buy fewer cheap shirts from Wal-Mart and only get 1 or 2 decent fair traded shirts.

To the first point: The USA propped up that dictator as opposed to helping insurgents, simply for the cheap gas. He may have fallen were it not for the Dick Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the 1980s.

 

When would 60.00 PER MONTH, 2 dollars per day been enough to get by? The 1800s??

 

60.00 per month did not afford the biological mother of my daughter to raise her - so I would say her true purchasing power was poor. 2 dollars a day does not even allow you to eat much in Guatemala, and if you have ever visited Guatemala City or Antiqua, Guatemala you would understand how silly that point was.

 

What I support is a living wage for people ALL AROUND THE WORLD which may mean a smaller bottom line for Phil Knight and the like and it might mean that I start wearing Buddy Shoes instead of NIKEs. It might also mean that I buy fewer cheap shirts from Wal-Mart and only get 1 or 2 decent fair traded shirts.

 

Thank you for the information, that is all I was looking for.

Mainly this is just another attempt to slam Obama. The way I see it he actually has some good, if not necessary things. You are mad that he is diplomatic, apologizing for the wrongs we as a nation have done to other countries. Well that's fine if you want to live in the fairy tell world that tells you that we always do things the right way and for the right reason. Slavery, racism, anti-catholic/southeastern Europeans movements, women's rights, taking land from the native Americans, any of that ring a bell? And that is just in our country. But I guess with all those problems we've had in the past I guess we just always did the diplomatic thing in foreign affairs. Well, do a little research on how we took control of the Philippines in the late 19th century early 20th century. We do have things to apologize for.

 

As for the economy you have two options. Expansionary Fiscal Policy...cough cough stimulus plan. Or what republicans have wanted to do which is basically contractionary fiscal policy. Well, if you want out of a recession, and ask any certified and credible economist (not one from any of the biased networks), you increase government spending and lower taxes on the working class.

The first point:

 

It was not good for the poor of the country, however as their lives were probably dramatically shortened I suspect it wouldn't affect them for long. That aside with a dictator running a nationalized industry there was little incentive for him to want the people to prosper. A true free market is much more inductive to raising all.

 

To the second:

 

We harp on 60.00 per month, but are we looking at it in terms of what we make here or are we looking at it in the sense of true purchasing power? There was a time in the U.S. that 60.00 a month would have been more than enough to get by, what is to say that the inflationary bug that hit us has not hit them?

 

I am more curious than anything on that one.

 

Also are you for total communism? I am not talking like "YOU PINKO COMMIE!!!" I am speaking in terms of total equality of wages, possessions and so on. Use a command economy as opposed to a demand economy and the like.

 

The bolded part sounds good in theory as well but is that historically accurate?

 

What was the discrepency between earnings among the factory workers, coal miners, etc. in the Gilded Age versus the Free Economists who owned the companies? Technically speaking I think that was as close to an actual "Free Market" as the US has been (speaking of the time before the Anti-trust Hammer of Teddy Roosevelt appeared at the turn of the 20th century).

Well, if you want out of a recession, and ask any certified and credible economist (not one from any of the biased networks), you increase government spending and lower taxes on the working class.

 

Do you have a link to one of these economist's articles?

Mainly this is just another attempt to slam Obama. The way I see it he actually has some good, if not necessary things. You are mad that he is diplomatic, apologizing for the wrongs we as a nation have done to other countries. Well that's fine if you want to live in the fairy tell world that tells you that we always do things the right way and for the right reason. Slavery, racism, anti-catholic/southeastern Europeans movements, women's rights, taking land from the native Americans, any of that ring a bell? And that is just in our country. But I guess with all those problems we've had in the past I guess we just always did the diplomatic thing in foreign affairs. Well, do a little research on how we took control of the Philippines in the late 19th century early 20th century. We do have things to apologize for.

 

As for the economy you have two options. Expansionary Fiscal Policy...cough cough stimulus plan. Or what republicans have wanted to do which is basically contractionary fiscal policy. Well, if you want out of a recession, and ask any certified and credible economist (not one from any of the biased networks), you increase government spending and lower taxes on the working class.

 

 

You're really parsing here. You lower taxes on all taxpayers, not just the working class. In addition there are real limits to the amount, timing and way government funds are provided in order for the spending to be helpful. This stimulus package is certainly not by the book in any of the parameters.

As for the economy you have two options. Expansionary Fiscal Policy...cough cough stimulus plan. Or what republicans have wanted to do which is basically contractionary fiscal policy. Well, if you want out of a recession, and ask any certified and credible economist (not one from any of the biased networks), you increase government spending and lower taxes on the working class.

 

If you ask any Keynesian economist. If you ask a Classical economist or a Monetarist, they will beg to differ. Personally, I tend to agree with the Classical economists (as well as those from the Austrian School).

 

The recession in 1921 was met with little government intervention, and it gave us the Roaring 20's. The recession in 1929 was met by a huge amount of government intervention and it gave us the Great Depression.

Do you have a link to one of these economist's articles?

 

Let me get back to you, don't have time, at work now.

 

You're really parsing here. You lower taxes on all taxpayers, not just the working class. In addition there are real limits to the amount, timing and way government funds are provided in order for the spending to be helpful. This stimulus package is certainly not by the book in any of the parameters.

If not the stimulus what would you suggest. It is an attempt.

Lowering taxes on the highest tax bracket does little to the economy. The thinking is that corporations will pass on the savings to the consumer but that almost never happens.

 

If you ask any Keynesian economist. If you ask a Classical economist or a Monetarist, they will beg to differ. Personally, I tend to agree with the Classical economists (as well as those from the Austrian School).

 

The recession in 1921 was met with little government intervention, and it gave us the Roaring 20's. The recession in 1929 was met by a huge amount of government intervention and it gave us the Great Depression.

 

The last economist that I really paid attention to was a Conservative. He agreed with what I said.

 

Do some research on the Great Depression, I'm not saying you're wrong but you are missing my point.

If you ask any Keynesian economist. If you ask a Classical economist or a Monetarist, they will beg to differ. Personally, I tend to agree with the Classical economists (as well as those from the Austrian School).

 

The recession in 1921 was met with little government intervention, and it gave us the Roaring 20's. The recession in 1929 was met by a huge amount of government intervention and it gave us the Great Depression.

 

The first government intervention wasn't until Jan. of 1932 with the establishment of the R.F.C. FDR's first intervention came in March of 1933 almost 4 years after the market crash. So I don't think it is very accurate to suggest that government intervention "gave" us the Great Depression. The suggestion that the new deal programs ended the depression are not accurate because I think we can all agree that the war effort untimately ended it; however to suggest that those efforts made it worse and were not beneficial to the country are inaccurate.

 

The GNP increased 5 out of the 6 years after the new deal programs began and unemployment decreased 5 out of the 6 years before the war effort kicked in.

If you ask any Keynesian economist. If you ask a Classical economist or a Monetarist, they will beg to differ. Personally, I tend to agree with the Classical economists (as well as those from the Austrian School).

 

The recession in 1921 was met with little government intervention, and it gave us the Roaring 20's. The recession in 1929 was met by a huge amount of government intervention and it gave us the Great Depression.

 

Deleted because the above poster mentioned the same thing.

 

Don't want to beat a dead horse.

The first government intervention wasn't until Jan. of 1932 with the establishment of the R.F.C. FDR's first intervention came in March of 1933 almost 4 years after the market crash. So I don't think it is very accurate to suggest that government intervention "gave" us the Great Depression. The suggestion that the new deal programs ended the depression are not accurate because I think we can all agree that the war effort untimately ended it; however to suggest that those efforts made it worse and were not beneficial to the country are inaccurate.

 

The GNP increased 5 out of the 6 years after the new deal programs began and unemployment decreased 5 out of the 6 years before the war effort kicked in.

 

 

One other thing I'd add is that while Hoover did little to nothing, he did do one thing in terms of taking Federal action.

 

When the WW I veterans marched on Washington demanding the bonus money they were promised by the government, Hoover sent out Federal troops under a guy named Doug Mcarthur and burned the shacks and huts they were living in I think the Anacosta Flats area.

The last economist that I really paid attention to was a Conservative. He agreed with what I said.

 

Do some research on the Great Depression, I'm not saying you're wrong but you are missing my point.

It doesn't matter if the economist is a conservative or not; he shouldn't let his political views cloud his view of the economy.

 

I appreciate your instructions to "do some research on the Great Depression." I will consider it as I have never done so in the past.

The first government intervention wasn't until Jan. of 1932 with the establishment of the R.F.C. FDR's first intervention came in March of 1933 almost 4 years after the market crash. So I don't think it is very accurate to suggest that government intervention "gave" us the Great Depression. The suggestion that the new deal programs ended the depression are not accurate because I think we can all agree that the war effort untimately ended it; however to suggest that those efforts made it worse and were not beneficial to the country are inaccurate.

 

The GNP increased 5 out of the 6 years after the new deal programs began and unemployment decreased 5 out of the 6 years before the war effort kicked in.

 

First of all, I didn't say anything about FDR. The Great Depression was the fault of Herbert Hoover- see article by Murray Rothbard- and simply exacerbated by FDR. The myth that Hoover was a "free-market capitalist" is bologna.

There is a reason why the Great Depression lasted until 1946. Also, I don't believe that the war ended it; if so, why are we in a recession now?