Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 02-23-2009, 03:18 AM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

@May: As usual, right, except... I have issues with your views on spending and saving. You're right, people should save, keep some money for themselves, but they also need to spend. Last I checked our national debt is through the roof, the government can't be the only one spending. In the thirties and the Depression, they didn't owe their souls to China.

Which is why I believe I have the better idea than that: save and spend. atm, I don't worry about saving because I don't get or need that steady a flow of money, and as such don't spend it. On the other hand, when I do eventually have a steady job, I'm going to divide every paycheck. Half to save and half to spend on both essentials and luxuries. That way, some of my money is getting sent back into the economy, and half is going into my pocket so I can have it for later. If you just spend, then you have nothing to fall back on if you get screwed to hell, but if you focus on saving, that's money out of the economy sitting stagnant in a bank somewhere.

So yeah, once again you wow us all with your economic and financial prowess, but you fall just a little short of perfect.

@Kenny and Geoffrey: Pessimism much?
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.

Last edited by Lord Fedora; 02-23-2009 at 03:21 AM.
  #17  
Old 02-23-2009, 03:23 AM
Elrond's Avatar
Elrond Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somewhere in the USA
Posts: 2,465
Send a message via AIM to Elrond
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khajmer View Post
@May: As usual, right, except... I have issues with your views on spending and saving. You're right, people should save, keep some money for themselves, but they also need to spend. Last I checked our national debt is through the roof, the government can't be the only one spending. In the thirties and the Depression, they didn't owe their souls to China.

Which is why I believe I have the better idea than that: save and spend. atm, I don't worry about saving because I don't get or need that steady a flow of money, and as such don't spend it. On the other hand, when I do eventually have a steady job, I'm going to divide every paycheck. Half to save and half to spend on both essentials and luxuries. That way, some of my money is getting sent back into the economy, and half is going into my pocket so I can have it for later. If you just spend, then you have nothing to fall back on if you get screwed to hell, but if you focus on saving, that's money out of the economy sitting stagnant in a bank somewhere.

So yeah, once again you wow us all with your economic and financial prowess, but you fall just a little short of perfect.
Well, the hope is, that if you put money in a bank, they'll be lending it out to people, which keeps the economy flowing. Then, you get interest back. The obvious problem is that people aren't lending. It's not necessarily saving that's the problem (unless you're actually putting the money in a personal safe in your house or whatever), it's the fact that so many banks are scared out of moving the money around.

And now, I'm leaving, because I know that I will never be able to compete with May in a debate about this, no matter how hard I try, and I don't want to get myself in too deep to back out peacefully. :)
__________________

Quote:
SotaOMG (10:05:46 PM): i think stunky is sexy
iamnotyou11 (10:05:54 PM): Soda stop being gay
supermonkey07@cox.net (10:06:03 PM): ironic statement?
<URPG>
I can probably take some grading requests now. But don't all rush me at once. :/
  #18  
Old 02-23-2009, 03:23 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

May, is there actually potentially a solution if we think of the financial crisis using a non-economic way of thinking? I'm just thinking under the lines of a possibility that perhaps the reason why things aren't working is simply because we don't have the understanding of factors outside of our own hegemony, that perhaps it has to deal with that? Or is it as simple as Bird and Fortune?
  #19  
Old 02-23-2009, 04:24 AM
Orthar's Avatar
Orthar Offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Away from Crusties.
Posts: 5,506
Send a message via AIM to Orthar Send a message via MSN to Orthar Send a message via Skype™ to Orthar
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starkipraggy View Post
The banks are really corrupt as it is though. Maybe we should just abandon the concept of private banks and save our money with the government instead, such that the country's reserves are literally our own reserves.
Okay, then I guess we aren't going to change much. The United States government holds so many shares in our banks that they essentially own and operate them.

As for his Stimulus Package...I'm not sold. I was never completely sold on Obama in the first place, albeit I thought he would do better than McCain. But honestly, if any of you thought that he would be able to fix the economy in 4 years it's sad, that's impossible. And the only way this will even work later along the line, is by a fluke miracle.
  #20  
Old 02-23-2009, 07:18 AM
Snow Fairy Sugar's Avatar
Snow Fairy Sugar Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 5)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of the Blue Roses
Posts: 5,865
Send a message via AIM to Snow Fairy Sugar Send a message via MSN to Snow Fairy Sugar Send a message via Yahoo to Snow Fairy Sugar
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
I have major issues with the 1930's economic meltdown's conclusion. Is it REALLY about those factors? Or does the second world war actually have more to do with it?

The second issue is that we should look at the 1970's and how that bubble's collapse has anything to do with it, shouldn't we?

Thirdly, isn't it counter productive to even bother a stimulus package like this when people are just going to be laid off anyway, considering that this is the vicious cycle we speak of (where people spend less, causing more lay-offs in all sectors, which in turn cause people to spend even less as a population, causing more lay-offs, etc.)? This has been shown in more concentrated areas (read: rural economies) in places such as Iroquois Falls (example taken from "contingent work, disrupted lives"), so can this actually be applied in a multinational scale?

There are way more questions that I don't think anybody is considering as potential problems with the financial situation, including myself. I don't think that any plan Obama has would work, unless under some miraculous fluke.
The second world war did help to boost the economy somewhat(well a lot actually to the world economy), but the government(Franklin Roosevelt followed Keynesian policies) helped to kickstart it by easing credit and injecting more money into the markets to free them up. Otherwise, there would have been some problem somewhat. (Like the way the government demand led Industrial growth in 1950s...was somewhat based on the 1930's, but more credit can be given to the 1950s government, since the world economies were more in a "reeling from the shock" state).

1970s...was more of that idiot Nixon's fault. He devalued the dollar, defaulted on the gold trading window, spooked everyone, and in order to cover up his mistakes, blamed other factors. While his economic policies were disputable, the gold standard thing was...uncalled for. :l

And thirdly...its somewhat counter-productive. Instead of making the government take the initiative...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keynes
The solution to depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates, and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment

This accelerator effect meant that government and business could be complements rather than substitutes in this situation. Second, as the stimulus occurs, gross domestic product rises, raising the amount of saving, helping to finance the increase in fixed investment. Finally, government outlays need not always be wasteful: government investment in public goods that will not be provided by profit-seekers will encourage the private sector's growth. That is, government spending on such things as basic research, public health, education, and infrastructure could help the long-term growth of potential output.
...They're trying to make people take the initiative nstead. So either he's trying to take a gamble by tring to balance a number of things and throw them all into the ring together, or, its some random blind gamble he's willing to take, the consequences he doesn't know. I'm willing to bet ts the second opion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khajmer View Post
@May: As usual, right, except... I have issues with your views on spending and saving. You're right, people should save, keep some money for themselves, but they also need to spend. Last I checked our national debt is through the roof, the government can't be the only one spending. In the thirties and the Depression, they didn't owe their souls to China.

Which is why I believe I have the better idea than that: save and spend. atm, I don't worry about saving because I don't get or need that steady a flow of money, and as such don't spend it. On the other hand, when I do eventually have a steady job, I'm going to divide every paycheck. Half to save and half to spend on both essentials and luxuries. That way, some of my money is getting sent back into the economy, and half is going into my pocket so I can have it for later. If you just spend, then you have nothing to fall back on if you get screwed to hell, but if you focus on saving, that's money out of the economy sitting stagnant in a bank somewhere.

So yeah, once again you wow us all with your economic and financial prowess, but you fall just a little short of perfect.
I know I'm farf rom perfect...I still have a long way to go before I can call myself any level above amateurish.

However, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesi...interest_rates

Keynes re-analyzed the effect of the interest rate on investment. In the classical model, the supply of funds (saving) determined the amount of fixed business investment. That is, since all savings was placed in banks, and all business investors in need of borrowed funds went to banks, the amount of savings determined the amount that was available to invest.

Secondly, don't forget about the spiralling deficit that we have. If we overspend, more than what we should save- (thats why we actually need a gold standard but the bozos removed it) Deficits and inflation can negate any growth we're trying to achieve. And fi spending's so great...why didn't spending Almost Five Trillion on wars help us, rather than putting us in such a big mess?

Or do you think China/Eastern countries are stupid?

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P139885.asp

Quote:
Fewer dollars in China's 'SAFE'
That our patience might, in fact, be rewarded is no mere baseless hope. According to a recent Bloomberg story, the country's central bank will now start to concern itself with some sort of risk protection on all that paper it owns. Meaning: China might be buying hard assets -- including precious metals and possibly other commodities.
They're trying to buying up all the gold, so they'll have a more solid backing to their economy. Ever since we let our central bank be controlled on a "speculative value of dollar" system, the dollar's devalued almost 97%. So the dollar note you're holding in your hands actually worth four cents, compared to ninety years ago. And don't forget what started the subprime crisis in the first place. Overspending, and liqiuidity crunches in the wrong places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
May, is there actually potentially a solution if we think of the financial crisis using a non-economic way of thinking? I'm just thinking under the lines of a possibility that perhaps the reason why things aren't working is simply because we don't have the understanding of factors outside of our own hegemony, that perhaps it has to deal with that? Or is it as simple as Bird and Fortune?
Yep, I saw that video too. One of the main factors that caused this was herd instinct. (By both, banks and countries). Some of these (current problems may be partly solved by issuance of government statements about the economy, aggressive government investments...however, a lot of recent things [Madoff, Stanford] scams, and similar collapses don't seem to be helping in restoring people's confidence...

-Insert motivatonal poster about vicious cycle here-

PS: I'm out of this thread, till I find something new about which direction this is headed..
__________________
  #21  
Old 02-23-2009, 06:25 PM
Ayotui's Avatar
Ayotui Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: im guessing you know by now
Posts: 1,832
Send a message via AIM to Ayotui
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

i think we need to give the money to the people. cause then they can pay they,re loans and then the banks get money, and then the market gets money, and then the government gets money, and then the people get money. i saw it on Jon Stewart but its actually true
__________________


URPG VPP
Quote:
BlueJelloJelly (21:16:43): Alex walked into the woods with his trusty Magikarp. Suddenly, OMFG a Porygon-Z appeared! Magikarp used Splash! The Porygon-Z fainted! Alex threw a Pogeyballz and it wobbled like two Diglett at a night club.
Quote:
lord khajmer (20:38:29): Bubble KO gg
  #22  
Old 02-23-2009, 06:50 PM
Vincent_Valentine_4's Avatar
Vincent_Valentine_4 Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 3)
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Federal Way,WA
Posts: 3,153
Send a message via AIM to Vincent_Valentine_4
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

Well seeing to how America has reacted to Obamas plan after becoming president it is very clear that America is indeed as racist as ever. Throughout his entire campaign everyone was excited about change and now that he is president everyone in America is shooting him down man oh man I thought America was more mature than this. Okay so this plan may end up putting us in more debt in the end but right now we need a change we need help there are so many people in the world who need a job right now and Obama is trying to help but no one will give him a chance.
__________________
Fc:1332-5847-5462
http://www.perfectworld.com.
My current Character is ItzPaine
www.myspace.com/thomashoyt I are awesome
http://www.pokemonelite2000.com/foru...ostcount=19347
Brawl FC:1633-3939-2142
"Put this in your sig if religion is just used to manipulate and control people."
  #23  
Old 02-23-2009, 10:13 PM
Snow Fairy Sugar's Avatar
Snow Fairy Sugar Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 5)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of the Blue Roses
Posts: 5,865
Send a message via AIM to Snow Fairy Sugar Send a message via MSN to Snow Fairy Sugar Send a message via Yahoo to Snow Fairy Sugar
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/stimulus.spending.chart/index.html

How the stimulus will be spent (Piechart form) Lol pie. Tax breaks are in a different category altogether or something...its a bit too confusing to comprehent at the moment, so I'll get back here later. x_x
__________________

Last edited by Snow Fairy Sugar; 02-23-2009 at 10:20 PM.
  #24  
Old 02-25-2009, 11:33 AM
Buizel410's Avatar
Buizel410 Offline
Amateur Trainer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 57
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

Personally, I hate the concept of this bill.

We're already in trillions of dollars of debt. Doesn't Obama realize that you can't get out of a hole by digging a deeper one?

Second of all, yes, a large portion of the money is going to alternative energy, and that's great. But my problem is that the money going to the states is just going to be given in bailouts. Then it's the same old routine: they don't pay the money back, and we pay it with our taxes. USA is becoming more socialist every day...

Bottom line: It's not the government's job to take care of you.
__________________
The clear reason why household appliances can't be trusted.
My Sprite Shop
Please join my forums! http://s4.invisionfree.com/Buizels_Island_Forum
  #25  
Old 02-27-2009, 05:30 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buizel410 View Post
Personally, I hate the concept of this bill.

We're already in trillions of dollars of debt. Doesn't Obama realize that you can't get out of a hole by digging a deeper one?

Second of all, yes, a large portion of the money is going to alternative energy, and that's great. But my problem is that the money going to the states is just going to be given in bailouts. Then it's the same old routine: they don't pay the money back, and we pay it with our taxes. USA is becoming more socialist every day...

Bottom line: It's not the government's job to take care of you.
Socialism, economically, deals with redistribution of wealth to all people within a state as a mechanism to even out wealth amongst its members. You know, something along the lines of taxing more of the 2% that holds 50% of the US's wealth, so the other 98% of the people get something out of this.

Bailouts do none of that sort. Of course, bailouts mean "no strings attached". >.>

It IS the government's job to take care of its people. It would be absolute anarchy if that is the case.
  #26  
Old 03-01-2009, 05:43 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

@May: I wasn't referring to the government when I said spend and save, I was talking about the people. We need to balance spending and saving, that way there is money in the banks so that when they finallly start loaning again and people start borrowing again, they'll actually be able to, you know, do so. At the same time, we need to spend in order to help keep the economy moving.

@Ayotui: You know, if we were to divide the trillion dollars of the stimulus bill amongst every family in America, we would all get almost thirteen million dollars. I don't know why that hasn't occured to anyone yet.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
  #27  
Old 03-01-2009, 11:27 PM
Black Hawk's Avatar
Black Hawk Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bibarel?
Posts: 2,058
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khajmer View Post
@May: I wasn't referring to the government when I said spend and save, I was talking about the people. We need to balance spending and saving, that way there is money in the banks so that when they finallly start loaning again and people start borrowing again, they'll actually be able to, you know, do so. At the same time, we need to spend in order to help keep the economy moving.

@Ayotui: You know, if we were to divide the trillion dollars of the stimulus bill amongst every family in America, we would all get almost thirteen million dollars. I don't know why that hasn't occured to anyone yet.
Actually it would only be about three and a half thousand per person.$3,333.33 going by exactly one trillion divided by 300 million

Those are some big families o.O
__________________
URPG

PiEaNdChIpS678 (10:48:49 PM): I found one
Mikey94028 (10:49:14 PM): is that
Mikey94028 (10:49:17 PM): who I think it is
husnainisme (10:49:25 PM): wailord
Mikey94028 (10:49:29 PM): o
Mikey94028 (10:49:34 PM): I thought it was dead
  #28  
Old 03-15-2009, 06:11 PM
Buizel410's Avatar
Buizel410 Offline
Amateur Trainer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 57
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
Socialism, economically, deals with redistribution of wealth to all people within a state as a mechanism to even out wealth amongst its members. You know, something along the lines of taxing more of the 2% that holds 50% of the US's wealth, so the other 98% of the people get something out of this.

Bailouts do none of that sort. Of course, bailouts mean "no strings attached". >.>

It IS the government's job to take care of its people. It would be absolute anarchy if that is the case.
Nope. What it does is give astronomical amounts of money to the lower class, who don't pay taxes, and tax the middle and upper classes, who work much harder to earn their money. Socialism also encourages laziness: if you're going to get around the same amount of money anyway, why work as hard as you are working now? That's not "stimulating" the economy.

Bailouts do have strings attached for the hard workers who have to pay them back in the form of taxes rather than the receivers who don't use the money to get themselves back on track.

What I mean by that last statement is that yes, the government is supposed to apply a system of rules and grant rights to people, but the government is not responsible for you going to college, getting a job, or owning a house. That should be something YOU are responsible for. Yet, many Americans think otherwise...
__________________
The clear reason why household appliances can't be trusted.
My Sprite Shop
Please join my forums! http://s4.invisionfree.com/Buizels_Island_Forum
  #29  
Old 03-15-2009, 06:41 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buizel410 View Post
Nope. What it does is give astronomical amounts of money to the lower class, who don't pay taxes, and tax the middle and upper classes, who work much harder to earn their money. Socialism also encourages laziness: if you're going to get around the same amount of money anyway, why work as hard as you are working now? That's not "stimulating" the economy.
The bailout gives money to the corporations such as the automotive industry like Ford and banks. What you said here is doesn't follow from what I just said.

The second thing is that the lower class are the people that work the hardest. Period. If you don't believe me, go to your local library and pick up Jone's Minimal: Low-wage Labor in the United States by David Griffith or even Contingent Work, Disrupted Lives by Anthony Winson and Belinda Leach. The former shows the exploitation of the lower class by industries to keep the industries' costs down. The latter documents how people who are in the middle class that fell into the lower class sector because of globalization. The easiest conclusion to be made here is VERY simple: "The less you make, the harder you work" (Winson and Leach 2002:140).

The third is that wealth redistribution is not a bad thing. Take any third world country and show me how the lack of wealth redistribution helped the people come out of abject poverty. Take any skid row in any country and show me how the lack of wealth redistribution has helped them get out of abject poverty. What you are saying is a justification to continue exploitation of people already in poverty by linking wealth redistribution, even a tiny amount, to socialism, which is a different idea altogether, because it is a much larger expanse of ideas.

I don't agree in particular with socialism, but it is clear that there are ideas within socialism that is worth exploring. Widening the gap between the rich and the poor is not the solution. By the way, my guess is that you don't like taxation of any sort then, considering that taxation is one form of wealth redistribution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buizel410 View Post
Bailouts do have strings attached for the hard workers who have to pay them back in the form of taxes rather than the receivers who don't use the money to get themselves back on track.
It's no strings attached for the corporations, silly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buizel410 View Post
What I mean by that last statement is that yes, the government is supposed to apply a system of rules and grant rights to people, but the government is not responsible for you going to college, getting a job, or owning a house. That should be something YOU are responsible for. Yet, many Americans think otherwise...
The government is responsible for your education, including college. The United States made college expensive instead of free specifically because it runs on a debt economy, so their people need a source of debt, whether it is from higher education or from a lack of education. It's stupid to think that going to college is not education, and it's stupid to think that the United States and Canada can't do what the European Unions have been doing for decades. So yes, it did apply a system of rules in this case, just one that makes sure that you will be in debt no matter what you do.

In any case, the government's role in a country goes far beyond just applying systems of rules and granting rights to people, but that's again beyond the scope of this debate.

It is not the government's responsibility for the people to get jobs or owning a house, this much I agree on. However, this has also nothing to do with wealth redistribution.
  #30  
Old 03-16-2009, 02:43 PM
Leoblaze's Avatar
Leoblaze Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 1)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Some Where, everyone is some where.
Posts: 1,084
Send a message via AIM to Leoblaze
Default Re: Obama's Stimulus Package: Direct Translation

I just want to make a very superficial comment. Would you think itsbetter that more moeny be spent on rebuilding the inffastructures, and possibly try to create and maintain a certain amount of jobs, like the 3.5 million "to be created" from the stimulus?

Also we can't forget, the stimulus is not going to take effect immediately, lie any stimulus to the body it takes sometime before it responds, granted the response may vary. So there you have the US and the stimulus. We cant jump the gun and find every foible with Obama just yet, can we ?
__________________
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com