Masterdan's logic:

People who work their ass of to make a million dollars a year should only take home 400k so we can give free health care to potheads.

Damn, should have came back early to post...seems Dan already answered my question xD

Strawgate wrote:

His wife is retarded? Are you 12? You sir are an idiot. Hillary Clinton is 61 years old, I know you probably like older women, but don't flatter yourself, she stopped menstruating a long time ago. Bill Clinton wasn't a democrat, he was a centrist.

As a matter of fact I am not 12. As a matter of fact I am not an idiot. As a matter of fact I do not "like" 61 year old woman.

Learn to debate properly, because you just sound like a fool. If you have to retort to calling someone an idiot because you do not agree with them, then you honestly have nothing to say about the topic, so do not bother responding. The word "idiot" could have been replaced with an intelligent response to add to the debate.

*EDIT: I also have to add (because this just made me laugh) that I stated "Hilary Clinton is retarded" and you responded with "I know you like older woman but don't flatter yourself". I was not aware that retarded meant "I like".

You're easy to laugh at.

Masterdan wrote:
> You make a good argument. Its not so black and white wether or not conservative politics or more left wing politics work in terms of economic growth.

I think you are close to hitting it right on the nose. When it comes to economic policy, there really shouldn't be a "left" or "right" divide on it. We should retrace history (e.g. FDRs "New Deal", Nixon's banishment of the gold standard, Reagan's dip into the SS fund, Bush I's dip into the SS's future, Clinton's raise of the debt ceiling, Bush II's foreign/economic debacle) and basically heal 60 years of unsustainable and ferociously devastating economic policies and decisions of the past. If by 2020 each US citizen is responsible for $400,000 in Federal Government debt, this issue is not a partisan one; it is a one about SURVIVAL.

I think its a balance, i think the government should regulate the credit institutions to keep them from issuing debt in such a way that they are basically pulling one over the consumer, you regulate them simply because when they mess up big time it also hurts the rest of the economy and keeping credit institutions from having full reign of control i dont think is necessarily good policy.

There have been two primary abuses to the credit market: the generic citizen's and our federal government. The Bush Administration has haphazardly issued 100s of billions in debt, most of it sold to China, to fund an unsustainable economic and foreign policy.

The generic citizen's one is a bit more tricky. In the 70's, two pieces of legislation were passed to allow for equitable access to mortgages: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act acted as a counterbalance to discriminatory lending practices, and the Community Reinvestment Act prevented "redline" discrimination. So all lenders who want to operate in the US must abide by those rules.

The collateral effect of those laws, coupled with the recent escalation of home prices, and the natural predatory nature of capitalism is a disproportional number of undereducated people falling victim to the loans that were created.

So how could this have been prevented? Honestly, none of the politicians are even close to touching the issue. Pragmatically, adding checksteps in the lending process won't overcome cases where the consumer is highly motivated to buy a house or get "quick money". If the US takes a harsher route by requiring an education level, this can be immediately struck down as discriminatory. It's a rock and a hard place with this situation.

They messed up this subprime situation and i think some government controls in place could have prevented it. However now we are debating something that i am less sure about, once you get to the issues and start talking about what will yeild a higher success.. well its interesting. Getting out of iraq and cutting spending and focusing on financial responsibility by reducing debt... thats a policy i would be for. If John mccain wasnt pro-iraq and pro world-police foreign policy then i would have a lot more respect for him.


100% agree with you on McCain. He's basically running of Bush II's foreign and economic policy. While I definitely applaud him for his centrist efforts in the Senate; his policies are gonna run the US into the ground. At least Obama has the Iraq issue over him.

But we have to face a grim reality, even if you choose to vote for Obama; there will be no reduction in the national debt with any of the three remaining candidates.

However im a centrist and im always uncertain when it comes to what helps the economy the most. I believe more money in schools is a sure thing worth the investment though.

I agree with you. The pragmatist in me says that compromise and centrism is the only way that legislation can be passed; the constitutionalist and economist in me gets furious at a lot of the legislation that gets passed.

About education, Bush II pretty much demonstrated how stupid federally managed standards for public education can be with the "No Child Left Behind" debacle. And even with the Department of Education, they still couldn't stop the Kansas board of education from pretty much teaching astrology... erm creationism in the public classrooms. Hence, why not simply abolish the department of education and let the states decide how they want to operate.

I dont 100% know if universal health care is a good idea for the US but i know the current system sucks too. I still like a lot of barack obamas policy compared to anybody else, doing nothing is not always the most conservative approach, not when your current system is wasteful and broken and terribly organized.

I think I'm understanding you better. While adding universal health care is a recipe for accelerated economic disaster; the base GOP platform is doing nothing to remedy the Medicare catastrophe. It's pretty much hypocritical on the GOP for not going addressing it.


And i never, EVER understood why tax breaks were given to the rich under the bush administration.


Again I agree with you here, but probably for different reasons. When we talk about paying for Medicare, SS, and national debt interest; the US and its citizens should be preparing for larger tax increases... but it MUST be coupled with reduced spending!

On that note, after looking at Obama's initiatives i dont think anything he plans on doing is wasteful spending. I believe they are investments into the country that to me seem wise and i believe will yield growth and future cash inflows in the future.

I'm a hard line fiscal conservative... Don't believe for a second that deficit spending is true economic growth. The US Dollar is continually declining; causing inflation that does not register on the CPI (i.e. that measure is in units of dollars).

The best way for economic growth to occur is encouraging a free market. The microeconomies of Hong Kong and Singapore have thrived under nearly no economic regulation from its national government (though HK has had problems since becoming part of China). And it's not that restrictions aren't bad... it's that the restrictions make the US uncompetitive internationally.

Good discussion BTW, Id love for future economic and political arguments to turn into this convo with Bootyboy.

how do you know all that is true?

Obama is most likely going to win. He would have my vote if I was 2 years older Xd

Bakasensei wrote:

Well Obama wants change in the white house. Thats the last thing we need, a black guy in the white house begging for change.

Sorry, I had to say that ^^, though Obama would get my vote.

That wasn't racist or anything Zuzu Xd

Strawgate wrote:

I almost forgot about this one, dont forget, Barrack Obama is a racist black, as seen in the news.

Thank the lord for Fox news eh.

Hahahahhahah