BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Lv99 Slacker said:
:lol
No more Uncle Fluffy.
Unfortunately, if Obama only locked up the West Wing's national audience, he'd probably lose 75% to 25%.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of cunning stunts and desperate punts
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
:lol
No more Uncle Fluffy.
Unfortunately, if Obama only locked up the West Wing's national audience, he'd probably lose 75% to 25%.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Cheebs said:
But! But! But his wife! She's rich!
Tim the Wiz
Banned
Lv99 Slacker said:
I'd watch that show. Sorkin is entirely right. Time for Obama to take the election to McCain. Make him fight for every one of his off-base "home truths" and twisted statements.
And, oh yeah...
Aaron's still got it.
MaddenNFL64
Member
Heh, Sorkin.
Obama may have had that dream. He's got that ironic humor he does so well flowing out the yin-yang. Nasty jabs everywhere. Gotta keep it up.
Obama may have had that dream. He's got that ironic humor he does so well flowing out the yin-yang. Nasty jabs everywhere. Gotta keep it up.
soul creator
Member
It's weird how I never really fully agree with all of Ron Paul's policies, but I wish more politicians had a little Ron Paul voice in the back of their heads when making decisions :lol
Lv99 Slacker
Member
Confession time: If this election came down between Ron Paul and Obama, I would likely vote for Ron Paul.
teiresias said:
Media translation:
Obama lead of 15 points or less in national polls: 'Dead heat, tight, statistically insignificant Obama lead.'
Actual poll tie: 'Sustained lead by John McCain, John McCain poll surge, The Sarah Palin effect.'
McCain lead of 1 to 2 points: 'Sell your Husseins it's all over.'
Well Ron Paul is extremely anti-regulation and de-regulation lead us into this crisis so I assume you would want a second great depression then. As most economic advisors would tell you, this new crisis has proved libertarianism can't function as a form of government such as Paul Kruggman.Lv99 Slacker said:
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Cheebs said:
Go back to gold!
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Cloudy said:
Don't forget the voting machines. You know you need questionable voting machines after the events of eight years ago right?
It's a direct attempt at manipulating the results, 100% certain.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Any predictions for today's Gallup? I'll say O:50 M:44.
Cheebs said:
Yes. Certain regular posters have avoided discussing the economy in this thread entirely, since it doesn't correspond neatly with their world view. As a matter of fact, I agree with you - it starkly depicts the kind of failure that would happen in a Libertopian world. When they do get around to talking about it, they will try to play off the spending in Iraq as the main contributing factor - and claim that the deregulation wasn't extensive enough.
ralexand said:
Motivated ex pat Cubans still think the Republicans are going to magically get them all their land and money back when Communism falls in Cuba. We are talking about a meme that's been propogated in Cuban American politics since Castro took power. And ironically one of the main factors that allowed Castro's regime to continue this long. Had we loosened restrictions in the Seventies, Cuba would be the Dominican Republic right now. Or better, even.
Lv99 Slacker
Member
Cheebs said:
There's a significant part of me that is strongly sympathetic to the ideas and sentiments of: "Fuck Georgia. Fuck Isreal. Fuck Afghanistan. Just 'no' to nation building and entangling alliances and trade agreements that compromise our sovereignty." I'd feel that we'd save so much money and American lives if we had this mentality. So, that's where I'm coming from with my partial support of Ron Paul.
maximum360
Member
capslock said:
Fixed.
Cheebs said:
Fun fact, under the hyper regulation era that we have had since the Federal Reserve's creation we've had the Great Depression and the current crisis. We didn't have anything CLOSE to that prior to the federal reserve's creation, though we did see a minor depression during Martin Van Buren's term.
capslock said:
Bush wasn't regulating, but as long as the money supply is regulated by the fed that's a HUGE ammount of regulation. As long as we see artificial inflation adversely affecting the market there's regulation. As long as we're in the era of corporate welfare and corporate bailouts, there's regulation.
Edit: well, I should say, Bush wasn't regulating much... unless you count the steel tariffs of course.
Gaborn said:
Of course there's Central Bank control, that's what you get if you get rid of the gold standard, I am sure you are aware of the restrictions on banking that were lifted by Phil Gramm among others that led to the current mess, that's the deregulation I am talking about.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Gaborn said:
Another fun fact:
Regulating the banks worked up until 1980 when congress passed the Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act. Government had to bail them out after the bank's short term gains.
'No, my guy will be worse.' 'No, mine!'
:lol
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD93B6PEG0
:lol
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD93B6PEG0
ryutaro's mama
Member
JavyOO7 said:
So then I take it your family would be positively affected by supporting McCain then?
capslock said:
Sure, what I'm saying is that you can't deregulate part of the market, and constrain and regulate another part and expect it to work well. The goals of regulation and deregulation are inherently contradictory and haven't worked well together. We should deregulate the whole thing and let it work itself out, of course the federal reserve has done so much damage we ultimately can't avoid some pain but then we can't avoid it now anyway.
Avaya - Oddly, you didn't contradict me there.
Price Dalton
Member
Gaborn said:
To clarify the Libertarian position: so the problem - theoretically - is that while the market was mostly deregulated and allowed to run wild, they still had the regulatory prospect of the federal bailout to fall back on, which indirectly encouraged the bad behavior?
Just trying to understand what you mean.
Stoney Mason
Banned
ryutaro's mama said:
Florida unfortunately is just a tough demographic nut to crack. Hispanics in Florida because of the Cuban population don't skew the same as Latinos on a national basis. Its all about Castro and the power base that has been built up via Republicans.
avaya said:
The reality of today shows WHY we need to deregulate. Businesses no longer believe in consequences and that risky investments are risky. There's such a safety net that more and more well respected companies are willing to take risks. We need to allow companies to fail because they've shown an unwillingness to be responsible and we can't keep rewarding that behavior with a bailout. Ultimately, that just creates more risk, more speculation, and more collapses. Before the rules constraining businesses were created (and later repealed) it's not like huge numbers of businesses were engaging in this type of speculation, those that were taking risks would quickly fail and be replaced.
Businesses need to learn responsibility again.
Dalton - twofold, ultimately the underlying federal reserve issue, but also the willingness to take more risks believing they're too big, too invincible to be ALLOWED to fail. In other words, the previous years of regulation in specific areas made businesses forget WHY that safety net was created. So businesses started speculating and taking risks they shouldn't have when they were able to. Again, loss of responsibility.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Hootie said:
Eh. -1 for Obama and +1 for McCain. I guess it was expected. Isn't there always a trend like this for Obama towards the end of the week?
Stoney Mason
Banned
Hootie said:
Gaf freakout incoming...
Revengeance
Member
OH GOD WHY DO THE NUMBERS FORSAKE US??!!!?!?!Stoney Mason said:
:'(put me on suicide watch, cause this thing's over.
Really though, national poll numbers are more entertainment than anything else. Wait until after the debates to start the real meltdowns.
Just makes me sad for the US all around
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21kristof.html?ref=opinion
I've said this before, and I will say this again, as morally repulsive as I find this issue, Obama needs to address it publically. Similar to how he dealt with the Reverand Wright issue in the primaries, with a big Religion speech, and in it, he needs to villify the people who would have you believe it is okay to be bigoted towards Muslims while simultaneously affirming his Christianity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21kristof.html?ref=opinion
I've said this before, and I will say this again, as morally repulsive as I find this issue, Obama needs to address it publically. Similar to how he dealt with the Reverand Wright issue in the primaries, with a big Religion speech, and in it, he needs to villify the people who would have you believe it is okay to be bigoted towards Muslims while simultaneously affirming his Christianity.
speculawyer
Member
OuterWorldVoice said:
This is why I've never agreed with the hardcore extremist Libertarian view. Markets are always artificial constructs to some degree. If you want real free markets then you should make murder and theft legal too, right?
But no, we make things like fraud illegal and not depend on the market to handle it alone. And things like insurance have to be heavily regulated since they are ripe for being abused by fraud. (Just collect premiums for a while and then leave the country with all the cash when you feel you've collected enough.)
But markets are great ways to deal with issues and thus should be used when ever possible. For example, the CAFE standards are a terrible way of improving fuel economy standards . . . they just create an artificial mandate of improved efficiency by requiring 'fleet averages' to meet some number. The real way to improve fuel economy (a legit goal for the nation considering pollution, trade imbalance, global warming, etc.) is to raise gas taxes. The problem is that it is political suicide.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
Lv99 Slacker said:
Woodrow Wilson would be turning over in his grave. However, I would say the real cause lies with the likes of Kissinger that have tainted US foreign policy with realpolitik: coercive, agenda-driven policy not within the domain of the country's ideological pursuits of influence, but rather in its self-interest. It's time there was more balanced decision-making, and if not a return to isolationism, rather more conclusions made on long-term effects to international relations and domestic consequences.
Gaborn said:
Again: how did the Federal Reserve - by the way, is it independent in the US as well? If not, political constraints (and thus the current administration) are another weakness of the US system - fail America here? Interest rates were too low, leading to a liquidity trap where investment confidence was shaken. De-regulation to the extent where the operation of financial systems were compromised by the crippling effects of self-interest.
I'm all for a competitively-based market economy, but rules are needed to stop people for acting in interests that could possibly bring it all crashing down. I know how 1984-ish that sounds, but the Masters of the Universe you find in these financial institutions look out for number one, and often readily dismiss the long-term effects of their decisions based on immediate profit.
GhaleonEB said:
I understand where economic conservatives are coming from, but why can't they see that a complete free market system simply would not work in the current environment? A true free market system would allow for anything but a smooth transition between the boom-bust structure of the business cycle, and the political and social effects of unstable economic growth and an un-assured standard of living would be outside the tolerance of most people.
Without regulations, situations like the current credit crunch, and the other great liquidity and debt trap uprisings of the 20th century would be normal, not abnormal occurrences. Without regulations, the growth of an oligarchy/monopoly-driven society not unlike the immediate effects seen with the Russian "shock therapy" of the 1990s probably wouldn't be off the cards as a possible scenario.
The Keynesian system, that allows for government intervention in fisical and monetary terms, stabilizes inflation, credit, interest rates and budgetary concerns with the effect of minimizing the impact of the business cycle and maximizing sustainable output, employment and growth in the economy.
Furthermore, don't strike the chains of regulations surrounding credit... demolish those of protectionism! Trade liberalization and micro-economic reform will be the main avenues of economic success in the globalizing era of the 21st century.
Revengeance
Member
Some people like her, but Maureen Down has always annoyed me. Krugman and Kristof all the way.Deku said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked