At 1/6/13 12:49 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
Depends on who it benefits most. When it benefits one group over another, it becomes a problem
So you think it's fine for the government to coerce people into doing things?
No, supermarkets and chains out do farmer's markets
Not really. The quality doesn't tend to match Farmer's Markets and they also tend to be more expensive.
The hundreds of oil companies are owned by either Shell, BP, Exxon and Chevron. They all work together as well. Watch a documentary called "Gashole"
I'd assume they would work together anyway, that's pretty normal. But to say that it's some monopoly is a bit much.....
They didn't deliver a product, that's why they were in trouble in the first place. We're they moving products, they wouldn't have needed TARP
So let me get this straight, they paid back their government loans ALL of them, with government loans and it could not possibly be because they changed what they were doing and became solvent again. Do you seriously not see how absurd that is?
He literally made it illegal to own gold and silver. Back then that was money.
He made it illegal to trade it in at your local bank and confiscated it yes but then payed it back. He loosened the dependence on the gold standard which was dragging down the economy. But this was not stealing, it was compensated. Nixon would complete the whole currency thing by removing the Gold Standard.
This of course does not address how he fixed the economy and got people jobs and therefore money back into their pockets.
Exactly. And that's why FDR was a problem. Benefit of one group at the expense of others.
No, what you described as "Libertarianism" is exactly FDR's ideology, FDR was a bit biased against business yes but he did not make them weak they had merely become too powerful and incompetent and discredited themselves. I pointed out that this is nothing like what Libertarianism is defined as so I don't really think you are one.
Please...look up the cultural revolution. Just...do it.
Exactly. The Communists weren't able to motivate enough people so had to use violence and indoctrination to do so. The Cultural Revolution targeted precisely the people who weren't supporting Communism of which there were many. It's true that groups of youth got excited, but it did not mean that the rest of the population was like that, that would be like assuming the US was going to elect a Socialist President in 1968 because there were so many Left wing protests that year.
Hoover was the BIGGEST perpetrator of government welfare when he started taking over private farms as government property. Fail.
Uh what? All he did in terms of government was raise taxes on the wealthy and try to made it easier to pay off your house. He didn't take over private firms and he tried to gather with the leaders of many of the biggest corporations to work together to fix the economy and that didn't work out so well.
Libertarian encourages CHOOSING to sacrifice, if you choose, for your OWN good.
The problem is when people become too powerful.
History. Check it out
Yah you should.
It's pretty self explanatory. Had the government not gotten involved in say, Rockefeller's bullshit, he wouldn't have gotten the foothold he got.
The government sold land to him, lowered rates and de-regulated his industry, that's perhaps the most Libertarian you can be.
No. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed during Carter.
But the worst parts were from Bush and Clinton.
Did you really just say bleach and E.Coli are not in food? Are you fucking dumb or just pretending?
There are occasional contaminations but they get removed asap.
It is not fucking irrelevant, it's directly related to what we're talking about.
It is. We were talking about if money wins elections, while the Bush family has a good fundraising scheme it doesn't mean that just because you have alot of money that you will win. Like I said, if the candidate does not have popular idea's it doesn't matter how much money he has he won't win.
The economy would not have tanked.
Great Depression, and the whole bunch of Panics before that prove you wrong.
On the other hand, we gave them the money, and guess what. STILL TANKING!
Lolz. We're not tanking at all, we're just making a slow recovery.
Did he, or did he not work for the military. If he did, he earned the money. If not, then he didn';t...
Oh great 2033, that's exactly what I said.mmhmm. I will not be able to collect. So shouldn't I be able to not pay?
That doesn't mean that it will actually go away in 2033. The CBO had for example predicted back in the early 2000's that by 2012 we would have a surplus again but politics got in the way. There will be a reform for Social Security which will push back the date of its collapse until politics finds a solution.
Except I didn't
Oh right de-regulation is corporate welfare.
Oh. So it's okay. Murder and war is okay...as long as it's "temporary". BTW, if it's "temporary" why is it the longest conflict the US has ever been involved in?
Libya is not the longest conflict we've ever been in, it lasted a couple months. I think you're talking about Afghanistan, if that's the case then we're scheduled to leave in 2014.
LOL. You don't know me, or the people I know. Trust me on this. I'm not military. My friends are though. High level too. I've heard and seen things that'd make your head spin
That's nice, doesn't mean it means anything, like at all.
Tell that to the parents of the kids killed in drone strikes :)
You do realize Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya are not the same country right?
The Bill of Rights always applies.
Only if you're a US citizen on US soil.
Also, how can you prove someone is "hanging out with terrorists" if you don't give them a trial?
When you can quite clearly see they're in terrorist organizations?
Didn't order him dead, but sure bragged about it enough
Because that's the normal thing to do. People were going to the streets about this, if he was sad about it he would've lost popularity.
Actually, inflation is the opposite of "growth"
Wow learn Economics. If you're experiencing economic growth you probably also experience a higher rate of inflation because more money is going through the economy (i.e. if people's incomes rise businesses will raise prices to get more profit as well as needing to raise their wages to meet inflation for their workers etc. etc.), that's fine if its controllable like at say 2-3%, if the economy grows too rapidly then you get high inflation. Deflation on the other hand is the word you were looking for, if you experience that it means that your economy is contracting, that happened during the Great Depression and it happened in the worst of the econ crisis back in 2009. Now the only case where you're right is in Stagflation, but that only happens if there is a huge shock in energy i.e. OPEC raises prices, businesses therefore produce less decreasing supply and thus increasing prices, news of higher oil prices in the future increases demand also increasing prices. It'll be much easier to explain if you can read a Demand-Supply graph.
Yeah, that's my point. Coming up with an idea doesn't mean shit unless you make it into something. Those who take the idea to the mainstream, deserve credit.
And they did. The government did that, Cambridge did that. The Private Sector merely profited off of them.
I have literally been saying the 180* opposite this entire time. WTF are you talking about?
No you haven't, re-read your posts. You think Seniors and Veterans deserve Welfare, while corporations don't.
YES IT FUCKING DID!
The cuts in Medicare were going to Insurance companies. The idea being that the money going to them would bring rates down which it didn't and it's exactly what Obamacare does. Thus it would be a waste of money to keep funding that portion of Medicare.
That's where consumers come in.
The real world is contrary to theory yet again!