It's a shame my history teacher was such an ignorant ass-bag. Otherwise, I may know these dates a tad better. Apparently getting to detailed of a history lesson is beyond anyone's ability. They'd rather waste time on the early development of the country, which is important, but completely irelevant.

Not a single history class has gotten to the Reagan administration. We get up to 60's and then the year is over...



/rant


Sorry about that.


I have to disagree that our problems were that idelogically motivated. It's more the party strategy and the human pursuit of riches. It's a universal abanonment of conservativitism (true conservatism) and personal responsibility along with the confluence of past and preasent mistakes.

It's not simple greed. It's much more then that.


That's criticism I have heard before and wouldn't mind hearing a debate on.

As I understand it, the infustructure additions will be nice, but in the end, the labor used to employ workers won't generate any actual wealth cause any taxes generated is just money saved. The competing argument, I guess, is that since we don't need to pay the annuity for the maintnence of failing hardware, we can save money from the federal budget.

But is it enough?

Well, first of all, we're not in a World War. We're also not the "Global Bread Basket" we were then, so we can't fix our economic turmoil with industry capital. Second of all, the reasons for this possible depression aren't the same as they were then, which means we can't rely on old models. Third of all, banks that survived the last depression didn't survive 2 weeks into the mere realization that we might have one.

Doesn't sound pretty similar to me.


Again, I'm not saying it's a bad idea or that it won't work but that making the ad hoc statement that will work cause FDR's did misses many subtle but important differences between where we are today and where we were then.

That's all I'm saying.

I only remember about 2 or 3 years ago me and my room mate arguing "American made" vs. "Foreign made" and I used failing stock figures of American companies to make my point.

I'll have to do some research myself, so I retract my last comment until I can prove it.

This economic crisis has been 20 to 30 years in the making... and you want Obama to fix it in 2? Or 8?

If people don't learn anything from this, it'll even take more then 50...

Ford's been losing since before now, which I think shows that up till now and the global economic crisis, it has been Toyota vs. The Big 3.

It is shocking nonetheless, though. If anything, it shows the scope of the economic crisis we're in - as if the failing of 65 banks wasn't enough...

We should avoid comparing this to the New Deal. There were a lot of different things going on then and now.

I'm not saying Obama's plan is bad... I just don't think it's appropriate to say Obama's plan will work cause FDR's did.

I agree with you... to a point.

Another angle of what happened is that intelegence gathering agencies were competing, hoping to be "the one" that cracks the case. This isn't healthy competition, as we can see from what happened.

Part of this IS an issue with intelegence collection and dissemination, but yes, political leaders weren't there when we needed them most.








lol

I was, actually. Not a lot, but apparently enough to make me lash out, and looking back, I didn't mean to sound like a such douche. Sorry.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Even if we actually pretend like Reaganite's statement is true... what has he proven? That a guy with an inconvienient middle name doesn't mind being called by it?

Congrats, Reaganite... on not actually making a point at all...

QFT.

You're wrong. Neue is right.

Economies around the world can't buy materials they need to expand and industrialize, so global consumption is down. As a result, the supply is high and the demand is low, which as result causes low prices. Off-shore drilling hasn't done a thing... but I'm sure some idiot like Limboagh, Hannity, Huckabee or O'Reilly would like you to believe it has (even though it hasn't even started yet).

Well, I think the reason we went is actually very important considering the outcome. Calling muligan on a bad putt is one thing. Invading a country and destabalizing an entire region because of incompotent data collection and understanding is quite another.


lol

I was, actually. Not a lot, but apparently enough to make me lash out, and looking back, I didn't mean to sound like a such douche. Sorry.

Too bad that's not why we invaded... or we would have done it a heckuva lot sooner. At the very least, we wouldn't have helped that man gas Iranians and Kurds...

... but who am I to stand in the way of America's valiant charge in the name of energy futures democracy? Oh yeah, I'm an honest voter!

So tell me Captain Morality: what country will we yearn to save next? Darfur? Zimbabwe? Taiwan? Nothing of real value there, but who cares? We're doing this stuff for freedom and all that jazz... and they should be grateful!


To Americans that attempt to appeal morality, I offer this ... don't. We know our sins, and by all accounts you do too. Try not to forget them when you lecture people on the great things we've accomplished for Iraq, cause there are 2 sides to that coin.

Too bad that's not why we invaded... or we would have done it a heckuva lot sooner. At the very least, we wouldn't have helped that man gas Iranians and Kurds...

... but who am I to stand in the way of America's valiant charge in the name of energy futures democracy? Oh yeah, I'm an honest voter!

So tell me Captain Morality: what country will we yearn to save next? Darfur? Zimbabwe? Taiwan? Nothing of real value there, but who cares? We're doing this stuff for freedom and all that jazz... and they should be grateful!


To Americans that attempt to appeal morality, I offer this ... don't. We know our sins, and by all accounts you do too. Try not to forget them when you lecture people on the great things we've accomplished for Iraq, cause there are 2 sides to that coin.

I'm with neue on this.

The bailouts, ALL OF THEM, have been the failed solutions of Bush, Congress and that idiot Paulson. We're on the edge of a decision that could have extremely devastating results on how we get out of this crisis.

We're not the protectors of failed buisness models because we're not that stupid... and we're not the benevolent care-givers we want to be because we can't afford it... and we're not the guardian angels of "white collar" buisness man because we're not that callousse.

We're like a swarm of cockroaches that has been suddenly exposed to light. As a collective we can't decide whether to hide under the fridge or go for that crack under the counter. We're lost, blind, stupid, scared and completely unaware of what our next move should be...

But all a bailout for the auto industry does is introduce the uncomfortable question of, "who do we help" and "why do we help them". Do we help the airline industry? Or the restaraunt industry? Or do we help the thousands of people who had their home forclosed on? Or do we help the millions of peole that have already lost their job? Or do we help the thousands of students who might not be able to afford to go to school because their tuition suddenly went up?

Or do we simply deny that uncomfortable and crippling discussion from taking place and do the right thing here by setting an example?

We can't save them all, but what we can do is help the people who are effected. We can push Honda and Toyota to pick up workers and we can funnel others into infustructure projects - something Obama is proposing in bulk. Because if "The Big 3" fail, the US industrial base will not go with it (we've got PLENTY of weapons manufacturers) and we won't be suddenly thrown into a Great Depression-esque economy.

We'll manage, like we always do, and hopefully my generation especially can walk away having learned the valuable concept of what happens when a society tollerates living beyond its means.

Well, we all just know you're not a d-bag - a quality most fraternities seem to aquire... at least the ones around here, do.