|
Post by Death on Mar 5, 2009 13:53:08 GMT -5
What I really would like to know is where Sky expects to find all those accountants to look over every mortgage holder's personal budget and who will pay for said accountants.
********snicker*********
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 5, 2009 13:59:48 GMT -5
What I really would like to know is where Sky expects to find all those accountants to look over every mortgage holder's personal budget and who will pay for said accountants. ********snicker********* That's nothing.... At the start of the paragraph, he said this:
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 5, 2009 14:01:38 GMT -5
Julian, Jonathan, remember that discussion we were having about the proper way to deal with skyfire. I don't even have a job and I can, and thoroughly intend to, pick holes in his arguemnt. You two, paticularly you Jonathan haven't said anything much at all. Which is exactly what we're trying to avoid.
And sky, it is a nice idea to think that the government can have every single person in the US audited and only gove the right amount of aid to the right people but a) auditing isn't free, that'd increase the cost of the stimulus even further an b) for some people the recession is really close on their heels, if they have to wait a month or even just a few weeks to get their stimulus whilst they wait to be audited then they could be out of work, out of home or out of food before help can get to them.
That said I will agree with you that companies recieving stimulus packages should be extraordinarily transparent about how they spend that money, and both congress and corporate executives could survive a salary cut.
Now I'm no expert on federal scholarships or US tax law so I'm not going to comment too much, but it seems to me that 'they could streamline the system' needs soem more detail; how could they streamline it?
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 14:03:41 GMT -5
ok. I'll give you a free pass on that point. So sky, what do you think of the New Deal? The one that got the US out of the Great Depression. What not a lot of people seem to realize is that to this day there is controversy concerning whether the New Deal helped propel America forward or if FDR's efforts inadvertently prolonged the matter. Many of the people who take the latter view also hold that it was the military spending during WWII that finally did the trick, while others hold that it was the exuberance in the post-war years that are to thank. Thus, saying that the New Deal is what pulled the nation out of the Depression is a little misinformed. Likewise, a person can also argue that Hitler single-handed got Germany out of its depression through his own government spending and make-work programs. This would be equally naive, as Hitler's entire purpose was to covertly build the war machine back up while ensuring a loyal populace and so he really didn't quite care what happened beyond that. ** As for the present situation, I simply find it contradictory that Obama announced his intentions to reduce the deficit and rein things in right on the heels of such a ginormous spending proposal getting forced through Congress. In fact, some of the same things Obama could have done to achieve his fiscal responsibility goals are some of the same things that could have benefited the nation as a whole had he taken more time to think things over. Examples: *Encouraging all government agencies to adopt "green" policies and renovate their buildings accordingly. Not only would this reduce pollution and save on the bills, it would also create jobs for people who work in the relevant "green" industries and encourage other companies to adopt green methods. *Encouraging agencies to go "paperless" outside of the necessary archives. Again, this would save expenses and help reduce pollution while still kicking forward money to the relevant industries. *Encouraging the agencies to implement new policies in regards to employee health and welfare with the goal of preventing health problems before they started. The agencies would save on expenses relating to poor employee health (such as sick days and lost productivity), the health care industry would pocket some money by providing services and helping to set up plans / services, and the successful plans could be offered up to corporate America as models they could adopt for their own employees. *Encouraging Congress to take a voluntary 5% pay cut, and promising to take a pay cut of his own if it goes through. The money can be redirected to other parts of the national budget, and seeing the politicians do some belt tightening would have a considerable positive effect on public morale. And since the pay rate of any CEO whose firm is receiving a bailout is tied to Obama's pay rate, those CEOs would have to suck it up as well. How does that all sound?
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 5, 2009 14:09:50 GMT -5
Julian, Jonathan, remember that discussion we were having about the proper way to deal with skyfire. I don't even have a job and I can, and thoroughly intend to, pick holes in his arguemnt. You two, paticularly you Jonathan haven't said anything much at all. Which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. And sky, it is a nice idea to think that the government can have every single person in the US audited and only gove the right amount of aid to the right people but a) auditing isn't free, that'd increase the cost of the stimulus even further an b) for some people the recession is really close on their heels, if they have to wait a month or even just a few weeks to get their stimulus whilst they wait to be audited then they could be out of work, out of home or out of food before help can get to them. That said I will agree with you that companies recieving stimulus packages should be extraordinarily transparent about how they spend that money, and both congress and corporate executives could survive a salary cut. Now I'm no expert on federal scholarships or US tax law so I'm not going to comment too much, but it seems to me that 'they could streamline the system' needs soem more detail; how could they streamline it? I purposely ignored his "points" because he doesn't understand the difference between the stimulus bill and the bailouts. He doesn't understand the reality of the U.S. economy at the moment. His points were irrelevant to any discussion about them. That is why I flamed him. He is attempting to derail this thread, like he did to the China thread. He reduced that to a Hilary bashing exercise. Debating with someone who doesn't understand the basics of the argument, who is merely attempting to derail the thread with vitriol and stupidity is counterproductive and allows him the wiggle room to continue to do it. If he had made a single valid point, I would have congratulated him, or if he had made an informed, intelligent counterpoint to the discussion, I would have attempted to refute it. As it was, his ignorance is blatant, and not worthy of an intelligent response. That was my aim, to point that out using a little sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 14:10:28 GMT -5
Now I'm no expert on federal scholarships or US tax law so I'm not going to comment too much, but it seems to me that 'they could streamline the system' needs soem more detail; how could they streamline it? At present, filling out the FAFSA form (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) is akin to giving your identity and finances a body cavity search. They want to know how much money you have to your name - including frozen assets - down to the last penny. And if you're under 24, they want that same information from your parents as well. If you're broke but your parents have a nice nest egg they've been saving for retirement, then it sucks to be you because you'll have to tell your parents that the government wants them to fry that egg up and serve it to you first before you'll see anything. That's right: the amount a person gets in federal scholarship $$$ is based on a metric that includes both how much the person makes and how much their parents make if under a certain age. The idea is to make the person shell out as much as they possibly can first, which indirectly ends up screwing over a lot of college kids and their parents because it eats up their savings that way. Note that the full FAFSA form is about the size of a small magazine. And that's just the form itself, as the instructions for the FAFSA are seperate.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 5, 2009 14:10:31 GMT -5
Julian, Jonathan, remember that discussion we were having about the proper way to deal with skyfire. I don't even have a job and I can, and thoroughly intend to, pick holes in his arguemnt. You two, paticularly you Jonathan haven't said anything much at all. Which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. And sky, it is a nice idea to think that the government can have every single person in the US audited and only gove the right amount of aid to the right people but a) auditing isn't free, that'd increase the cost of the stimulus even further an b) for some people the recession is really close on their heels, if they have to wait a month or even just a few weeks to get their stimulus whilst they wait to be audited then they could be out of work, out of home or out of food before help can get to them. That said I will agree with you that companies recieving stimulus packages should be extraordinarily transparent about how they spend that money, and both congress and corporate executives could survive a salary cut. Now I'm no expert on federal scholarships or US tax law so I'm not going to comment too much, but it seems to me that 'they could streamline the system' needs soem more detail; how could they streamline it? It would takes reams to refute all the ignorance and assumptions . Where would you even start? Sometimes it really is best just to tell someone to shut up. Not all opinions are of value and worthy of our time.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 5, 2009 14:11:19 GMT -5
ok. I'll give you a free pass on that point. So sky, what do you think of the New Deal? The one that got the US out of the Great Depression. What not a lot of people seem to realize is that to this day there is controversy concerning whether the New Deal helped propel America forward or if FDR's efforts inadvertently prolonged the matter. Many of the people who take the latter view also hold that it was the military spending during WWII that finally did the trick, while others hold that it was the exuberance in the post-war years that are to thank. Thus, saying that the New Deal is what pulled the nation out of the Depression is a little misinformed. Likewise, a person can also argue that Hitler single-handed got Germany out of its depression through his own government spending and make-work programs. This would be equally naive, as Hitler's entire purpose was to covertly build the war machine back up while ensuring a loyal populace and so he really didn't quite care what happened beyond that. ** As for the present situation, I simply find it contradictory that Obama announced his intentions to reduce the deficit and rein things in right on the heels of such a ginormous spending proposal getting forced through Congress. In fact, some of the same things Obama could have done to achieve his fiscal responsibility goals are some of the same things that could have benefited the nation as a whole had he taken more time to think things over. Examples: *Encouraging all government agencies to adopt "green" policies and renovate their buildings accordingly. Not only would this reduce pollution and save on the bills, it would also create jobs for people who work in the relevant "green" industries and encourage other companies to adopt green methods. *Encouraging agencies to go "paperless" outside of the necessary archives. Again, this would save expenses and help reduce pollution while still kicking forward money to the relevant industries. *Encouraging the agencies to implement new policies in regards to employee health and welfare with the goal of preventing health problems before they started. The agencies would save on expenses relating to poor employee health (such as sick days and lost productivity), the health care industry would pocket some money by providing services and helping to set up plans / services, and the successful plans could be offered up to corporate America as models they could adopt for their own employees. *Encouraging Congress to take a voluntary 5% pay cut, and promising to take a pay cut of his own if it goes through. The money can be redirected to other parts of the national budget, and seeing the politicians do some belt tightening would have a considerable positive effect on public morale. And since the pay rate of any CEO whose firm is receiving a bailout is tied to Obama's pay rate, those CEOs would have to suck it up as well. How does that all sound? There is NO FUCKING CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE NEW DEAL.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 14:19:45 GMT -5
There is NO FUCKING CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE NEW DEAL. Way to dodge everything else I said.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 5, 2009 14:21:12 GMT -5
Death, it's a created contreversy. The Republicans, through the 1920's, much like today, created the conditions for the economic meltdown. The Democrats, who got elected three years into the depression, had to deal with the resultant compounding of the problem after three years of inaction. Thankfully, there was an election this time, and the do-nothing Republicans didn't have another three year stretch to exascerbate the situation. It took the Democrats six years to repair the damage done after 1932. Thankfully, this crisis is only 18 months old, and my take only two or three years to correct. The only "contreversy" is amongst hard line conservatives, who still think of Roosevelt as some sort of evil entity of big government. That argument has been refuted, time and again, and is unworthy of debating. Revisionist history at its finest.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 5, 2009 14:25:26 GMT -5
There is NO FUCKING CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE NEW DEAL. Way to dodge everything else I said. (restraining self) Since when is a point blank refutation a dodge. Yes Jon, but since Beck et al say it's so, then it must be.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 14:31:26 GMT -5
Way to dodge everything else I said. (restraining self) Since when is a point blank refutation a dodge. When your "refutation" utterly misses half my post...
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 5, 2009 14:34:35 GMT -5
ok. I'll give you a free pass on that point. So sky, what do you think of the New Deal? The one that got the US out of the Great Depression. What not a lot of people seem to realize is that to this day there is controversy concerning whether the New Deal helped propel America forward or if FDR's efforts inadvertently prolonged the matter. Many of the people who take the latter view also hold that it was the military spending during WWII that finally did the trick, while others hold that it was the exuberance in the post-war years that are to thank. You fail to understand that the SUFFERING of the average American, by 1932, three years after the start of the Depression, was at an all time high. The "New Deal" was an attempt to ease that suffering. In that, it worked. You also fail to see that it was the New Deal that set up the agencies and atmosphere that allowed a recovery to happen. The New Deal was designed to ease the suffering, not necessarily end the depression. Many factors contributed to that. Relief was the prime goal. Thus, saying that the New Deal is what pulled the nation out of the Depression is a little misinformed. You have not earned the right to decide about misinformed history, judging by this ill-informed post. Likewise, a person can also argue that Hitler single-handed got Germany out of its depression through his own government spending and make-work programs. This would be equally naive, as Hitler's entire purpose was to covertly build the war machine back up while ensuring a loyal populace and so he really didn't quite care what happened beyond that. A person could credit Hitler with lifting the world out of a depression by forcing his enemies to spend huge amounts on their militaries. To do so would be bat-shit insane, but what the hell, you're on a roll of stupid right now. ** As for the present situation, I simply find it contradictory that Obama announced his intentions to reduce the deficit and rein things in right on the heels of such a ginormous spending proposal getting forced through Congress. In fact, some of the same things Obama could have done to achieve his fiscal responsibility goals are some of the same things that could have benefited the nation as a whole had he taken more time to think things over. Examples: *Encouraging all government agencies to adopt "green" policies and renovate their buildings accordingly. Not only would this reduce pollution and save on the bills, it would also create jobs for people who work in the relevant "green" industries and encourage other companies to adopt green methods. *Encouraging agencies to go "paperless" outside of the necessary archives. Again, this would save expenses and help reduce pollution while still kicking forward money to the relevant industries. *Encouraging the agencies to implement new policies in regards to employee health and welfare with the goal of preventing health problems before they started. The agencies would save on expenses relating to poor employee health (such as sick days and lost productivity), the health care industry would pocket some money by providing services and helping to set up plans / services, and the successful plans could be offered up to corporate America as models they could adopt for their own employees. *Encouraging Congress to take a voluntary 5% pay cut, and promising to take a pay cut of his own if it goes through. The money can be redirected to other parts of the national budget, and seeing the politicians do some belt tightening would have a considerable positive effect on public morale. And since the pay rate of any CEO whose firm is receiving a bailout is tied to Obama's pay rate, those CEOs would have to suck it up as well. How does that all sound? A Republican neo-con lecturing about fiscal responsibility? You and your party have lost the right to speak about that. Your party and its idealogues are why we are facing this mess. How does all that sound? Like the ramblings of an uniformed, uneducated ditto head, without the benefit of actual historical study and a basic understanding of economics. By the way, thanks for derailing yet another thread with your bullshit. Bravo, well done.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 5, 2009 14:46:30 GMT -5
....so when Bush throws gobs of cash at a problem, it's a solution. When Obama does the same thing, and attaches stuff like limiting spending by the bailed out coperations, capping CEO pay, and making them culpuble to goverment oversight(if anyone can tell me what word I was acutally trying to use that'd be a big help) it's just wasting money.
Ironbite-or was that the gist of your points there Skybaby?
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 5, 2009 14:46:51 GMT -5
Seriously Sky, war spending? Let's be honest, the biggest contribution on the part of America to the allied war effort was the resources it was able to suppluy. A country in a recession cannot expand an field an army in two theatres of war seperated by 6000 miles of ocean, let alone offer importatn financial support to other countries at the same time. The great depression was as near as damn it over by the time the USA entered the war, so either it was the New Deal or magic. I know which one I'd believe.
Also, JonathanE, I understand what you mean about seriously debating his stupid points but simply flaming him only adds fuel to his persecution complex. If we actually react to him as if he had valid points and calmly and clearly disprove them with reasoned application of logic and citations then most of his question dodging techniques will be useless. So far the only reason he can still decieve himself that he's winning the arguments is because he's used the aggression and dismisiveness with which we treat him as a phsycological justification for ignoring our logic. If we don't give him the chance to dismiss us as over-aggressive and not worth talking to then he is going to find himself in a corner that even his own self-deception can't get him out of.
God, I think THIS is the problem, the moment skyfire turns up on a thread not only do a thousand people make responses with varying elvels of politeness but some preachy asshat starts an argument about how to treat Sky.
|
|