How long can they get away with it while their debt increases, again?

If you proposed that natives of this land sue the government of the USA for trillions I'd say ABOUT TIME.

But unless they're content with a lifestyle of welfare where the government of the USA takes care of them (in which case the problem here is that they do not get enough welfare to live in their native land), they need to make changes. I would contend that this is not something any human being should be content with.

I understand the point that it was the invasion of others on their land that resulted in their former way of life not functioning to provide for them anymore. But that's not a new grievance and I don't think an hour and fifteen minutes is THAT far from their "native land."

I was mostly just schooling the youngsters because my education is economics is sadly lacking.

I'm a reasonable enough individual. I'm sure I'm just being modest and can match most of these 15 year olds, but I don't take it upon myself to post my relative ignorance of economics much. I was talking about the credit/housing crash 5 years ago. Common sense goes a long way. It's important to educate that common sense with the many factors which influence such a large (understatement of the day) economy as ours. Leaving any of them short circuits common sense. But in the end, though there are many factors, it's not inherently complicated. (Yeah I know, massive number of factors but not complicated. I must be drinking.) I mean that it is in and of itself rational. Nobody is giving money away screwing up the logic of the system. Everyone is doing what they have to and what they judge will benefit them the most. So when government takes or talks about taking X action, one can use their damn head and tell what the many far reaching effects of this action would be.

That's why children who do not grasp the fundamentals but post (and, much worse, vote, for that matter!) anyway are so disappointing to me. Deficit spending to create economic prosperity! Someone needs to stand up and shout NIGGA WHAT!?

On a more serious note. We do need radical change to avoid throwing all of our prosperity in the toilet. But any radical change will be guided by the same powerful interests who've pillaged our current system. Someone else would be on top.

A10:

I read it. Only an [ ] would submit a post to the thread if they were not interested in the thread. OH SNAP!

- - - - -

Gladiator:

He's arrogant because you're too arrogant to read his post and post what you disagree with? Why don't you try reading his post and then posting what you disagree with and why next time instead of calling him a name which perhaps better suits you?

- - - - -

[RPA] Arandur:

It's not a matter of opinion that massive debt spending only increases inflation. Printing money [whether actually producing currency and introducing it to the world or just spending on debt] and spending it gives the printer the power to command labor and resources, but the labor and resources don't actually materialize out of thin here. Society pays for it with the devaluing of their currency; inflation. It's not a matter of opinion that President Obama is about to spend ANOTHER trillion+ dollars that the US government doesn't have. This is a fact. Bush's spending was bad. Bush isn't President now. Obama is. Obama's spending is going to increase inflation. I think that's the topic here? Simple fact. One could argue that it's worth it. He obviously does. [Well, not really. He doesn't address the facts to an educated public. We're his sheep. Bahhhh] Why not try discussing the benefits of his inflation-increasing spending which make it not the biggest "problem" causing inflation? Because no one's going to support the claim that President Obama isn't going to increase inflation. That'd just be ignorant.

- - - - -

[TI] Sitting Duck:

LOL. Yeah I would have liked to see where his % values were coming from. I give him credit for his poorly organized and structured list of sources of inflation. It's something upon which we've built! And I do believe we were lacking inflation education in this elementary classroom of the IC politics forum. And the LOL is for your list of his predictions hahahaha. I take it for what it's worth. I do not believe all of the "contributing factors" to inflation are necessarily as he says they are (oversimplication, factors left out), but fortunately Zarf BeebleBrix responded to those points better than I could have.

- - - - -

Red_Rooster:

You racist ignorant twat-waffle! Bush created Katrina, a racist storm to kill african Amerikans. Nevermind the fact that the governor refused offered National Guard assistance (and they can't just do what they want. the Governeror has to allow their actions) and Bush would have had to be a fascist and break laws to do more. That would be an INCONVENIENT TRUTH. Ha ha ha. Al Gore is a tool. But I digress. Bush made Katrina. Katrina was a racist storm. And anyone who says otherwise is an insensitive, ignorant racist. Period.

- - - - -

[RPA] Arocalex:

Hey! I went to school for [WAY TOO MANY] years for my degree in bullshitting. They hand them out in the streets now? Damn I got suckered. THEY TOOK MY WALLET. :'( Does theft increase inflation? No? Just sucks to be me? Figured.

- - - - -

Zarf BeebleBrix:

Are you on crack? Bush and Obama don't use a Xerox machine. Those $1000 toilets seats have produced a much more awesome inflation machine. And yes, it blasts Michael Jackson's "Bad" as it prints trillions of dollars.

- - - - -

avogadro : HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA. Thank you.

- - - - -

Einstein:

"To bad there are no leftists in this forum who can make sound arguments and stand by them"

hahahahahahahahahaha. So true. So sad.

- - - - -

Wild Flower Soul

It's a matter of extent. He's arguing all of the reasons present it may [very likely] happen. Giving an example of one nation for a few decades [or less?] does not offer any insight or reasons he's wrong. Every nation has a multitude of specific conditions of resources, culture, surroundings, etc that affect its economy. There's also the fact that that debt just may eventually have to be repaid. Significant differences there between a nation with massive debt and another without.

- - - - -

Avo: You're right. He's a wanker. They disagree, but wishing cannot make it so!

- - - - -

And now you have my ten cents. My two cents is free! Deal with it.

>>"Hey, why dont we just leave this out..."<<
>>The symbol adds nothing to the information or directions given by the sign.<<

It adds nothing? Get an education.

>>People dont get married to pro-create<<

The position that heterosexual unions serve a fuction in society which homosexual unions do not is not dependant upon heterosexual unions being purely for the sake of procreation.

>>Its wrong to say they cant love whoever they want.  <<

Nobody's saying they can't.

What makes it a "right" to create an insitution that the government recognizes and taxes differently? I thought that the government decided that stuff through its democratically elected representatives. I didn't know we had the "right" to create any institution we wanted and the government had to recognize it and tax it analagous to things our randomly created institution is not analagous to.

Why would anyone without a stable income take out a high interest loan? Or any loan at all? The government already gives "JUST enough aid to help people stay afloat." Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, social security, unemployment, section 8 housing, foodstamps, and the list goes on. They don't cost the government much money? That was a joke, right?

Giving a "little bump" does not help anyone accumulate wealth. Giving a small amount of tax money to everyone of low income just gives them a little of the reward for their labor back they already paid in taxes. With an administrative cost in having to support the massive government that taxed them and rerouted their money before returning some of. What kind of solution is this? Don't reduce their taxes, but give them less of their money they wouldn't have had to pay if their taxes were reduced back? As a proposed solution it doesn't make any sense. They could get more at less cost no matter how you sugar coat it or what hollow rhetoric you surround the idea of "give all the poor a little bit of money" with.

There are 0 "oppositional points."

There are no safety arguments because 0 signs remotely connected with safety contain apostrophes.

There are no economic arguments because signs do not increase in price with the inclusion of apostrophes. Additionally, any changes to existing signs only increases cost. Any economic argument is against the removal of apostrophes.

There is no convenience arguments because it does not, in fact, take a high school diploma to read a sign with an apostrophe. Printing accurate signs does not make them unreadable to anyone not familiar with the grammar of apostrophes. FYI, apostrophe usage is elementary education, not secondary. Nor complicated.

This is just silly.

I'm sticking with the classic definition of equality. Ignorant people don't even know they're redefining the word. I do not like them.

You're right. Your schoolboard has no control over the education it controls. Every school system is as bad as the one you described.

>>government can facilitate wealth creation by making sure the right people get the right resources at the right time; it is not easy to determine who, what and when that is exactly, but that's a matter of establishing good governance<<

It's better a matter of the private sector in the free market. When banks decide who to give loans to, they judge each lone on a case by case basis by who they believe will be able to pay them back at a profit for the bank (when the venture the loan is paying for turns a profit for the person seeking the lone). Investors choose where to invest the same way. Government does not have this free market motivation to make good decisions that private citizens have had which has given the USA the most powerful economy in the entire world. Government has bankrupted everything it has ever run. Why would making investments be any different than everything else in the history of government?

>>simply issuing more money <<

There aren't risks involved with inflation. It's just like taxing more; it costs everyone to do it. It's not a "risk," it's a fact.

>>as I pointed out the bank is scared in times of crisis and will be less willing to take economic risk <<

They should have been taking less risk years ago. We wouldn't have this crisis if everyone wasn't so credit crazy to begin with. The market will take care of itself as everyone minimizes their losses and gets back to the business of making a profit. Government spending increasing debt, taxes, and causing huge inflation will just hurt everyone more. People are defending massive credit spending as a cure to a problem which is the result of abusing credit. Yeah. That's reasonable.

>>people will still be poor..focus on fixing the long term<<

The question is whether welfare or a thriving economy is better for the prosperity of a people. I would contend that a thriving economy is far better for everyone who wants to give their children a better life than they had to work hard through. I would contend that every ounce of evidence in the history of man supports this proposal. When government's solution is more taxes, inflation, debt, and welfare, I would rather choose the alternative of government getting out of the way and being less of a burden on the prosperity of its people, not more.