Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic The obamanation of America Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]Zaxter[/m] at 8:08 pm on July 2, 2009[quote]I'm going to be so pissed if they tske away that amendment[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post gnr90 Posted at 8:07 pm on July 2, 2009 I'm sick of all of the bullshit that Obama is passing through legislature. The cap and trade aka energy tax bill that has recently passed through the house and is waiting to be brought to the floor in the Senate. All this is is funding for his outrageous healthcare plan. He even said himself, and I quote, "energy will skyrocket under my cap and trade policy." It is supposed to tax carbon emissions and raise the cost of producing fuel domestically, which will lead to more imported oil and make us more dependant on foreign oil. Another thing, global warming is a lie. Temperatures have flatlined over the past 11 years. An EPA agent wrote a 300 page report about the fact that human caused global warming is a myth, that was thrown out and cost him his job because they don't want the public to know the truth. "Green energy" is not a plausible alternative to current energy sources, because there is no way to store the power generated by wind and solar energy, ad it costs $1.5 million to create one green energy, and it kills two jobs for every one it creates. Do you still support Obama? Did you hear they are trying to get rid of the 22nd amendment? It's the one that limits a president to two terms... Sorry for the blocks of text. Please discuss

Replies Elm Posted at 7:16 am on July 5, 2009 Quote: from allsmiles at 1:55 am on July 5, 2009 Quote: from gnr90 at 4:15 am on July 3, 2009 Quote: from JustLetMeCry at 10:11 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Rabgix at 11:09 pm on July 2, 2009 People act as if things would have been 100x better under McCain.   They wouldnt be. We would have been fucked either way.   Very true.    We wouldn't be heading to a socialist country, or two trillion dollar defecit... Hate to break it to you, but Obama is not a socialist, and the US is already in a 11 trillion deficit. No, Obama is a fascist the same as Bush. If we used the same accounting principles the government makes corporations use we would be over 73 trillion in debt.  That is over 6 years worth of GDP. allsmiles Posted at 1:55 am on July 5, 2009 Quote: from gnr90 at 4:15 am on July 3, 2009 Quote: from JustLetMeCry at 10:11 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Rabgix at 11:09 pm on July 2, 2009 People act as if things would have been 100x better under McCain.       They wouldnt be. We would have been fucked either way.    Very true. We wouldn't be heading to a socialist country, or two trillion dollar defecit... Hate to break it to you, but Obama is not a socialist, and the US is already in a 11 trillion deficit. Savior Posted at 11:11 pm on July 4, 2009 There are a number of valid reasons to be disappointed with Obama. Your topic manages to include none of them. Elm Posted at 2:30 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Charolastra at 2:01 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 12:53 pm on July 3, 2009 It would also see tremendous investment in the US as we would have the only market stable currency in the world. The amalgamated standard would be a step backwards. If the economy encounters a period of inflation, due to higher productivity or higher innovation, to limit currency circulation based on how much of a said natural good is available is ludicrous, strictly because value is subjective and market equilibrium is often stagnant. You can't expect people to value a resource more than it's worth to account for this higher productivity. Sure, the market equilibrium would take place but there would also be atremendous dead weight loss. It's not a feasible standard in a globalized economy. There has to be something better than this and better than a perpetual debt based cycle. I'm sure there is. They wouldn't value it more than it is worth - thats rather impossible.  The value would be determined by the demand and supply.  When demand increases supply will ramp up to match.  Inflation would be very very very hard to do unless we discover a huge resources of one of those precious metals that costs nothing to mine.  Deflation could happen though historically deflationin a commodity currency occurs at less than .25% a year. Dyreft Posted at 2:14 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from DropsofJupiter at 8:08 pm on July 2, 2009 i love obama... i love how the white string in presidency has been broken... that'll be in history books like 5 years from now :) Its people like this, that caused this country to basically be handed a Death Sentence. Because they thought it would be "cool", "funny" and "awesome" to have a black guy as president to break the "combo". Well guess what, in these 5 months that guy has been in the white house is enough proof for me that White people can run a country much better than minority scum. Charolastra Posted at 2:01 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 12:53 pm on July 3, 2009 It would also see tremendous investment in the US as we would have the only market stable currency in the world. The amalgamated standard would be a step backwards. If the economy encounters a period of inflation, due to higher productivity or higher innovation, to limit currency circulation based on how much of a said natural good is available is ludicrous, strictly because value is subjective and market equilibrium is often stagnant. You can't expect people to value a resource more than it's worth to account for this higher productivity. Sure, the market equilibrium would take place but there would also be atremendous dead weight loss. It's not a feasible standard in a globalized economy. There has to be something better than this and better than a perpetual debt based cycle. I'm sure there is. Elm Posted at 12:53 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Charolastra at 12:47 pm on July 3, 2009 I don't like the Federal Reserve either but something tells me the gold standard may not be the best way of creating currency, especially during a period of globalization and mutual trade. We'll figure it out. Not jsut a gold standard - there isn't enough gold to cover the currency but an amalgamated standard would work fine.  As other countries use the resources and demand our currency for it the valueof our currency would rise to the point it is cheaper to mine or recycle resources - thus balancing the monetary supply. It would also see tremendous investment in the US as we would have the only market stable currency in the world. Charolastra Posted at 12:47 pm on July 3, 2009 I don't like the Federal Reserve either but something tells me the gold standard may not be the best way of creating currency, especially during a period of globalization and mutual trade. We'll figure it out. Elm Posted at 12:38 pm on July 3, 2009 HR 1207 is a good start.  It will call the GAO and CBO to audit the Federal Reserve.  Their findings will likely move public opinion to the point where we can (for the third time in our history) get rid of our (3rd) national bank. Doing that requires the converstion away from a fiat standard currency into a commodity currency (likely some amalgam of a platinum, titanium, palladium, gold, silver, copper standard).  This will stabalize the dollar (after some readjustment) internally and in regards to international markets. The expansion of the money supply will occur at a slower rate (which many people will not like for Keynsian and Chicago based thinking) however what it will do is prevent the willful inflation of the value of the dollar which will force the government to live within a budget and will discourage the kind of rampant malinvestment we have seen lately (both in the early 00's IT crash and the more recent housing bubble). It gets pretty complicated but that is the jist of it.  Once the money supply is controlled by market forces it can self-stabalize and cannot be manipulated by power-brokers for their own gain. Forever Angel Posted at 12:36 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from DropsofJupiter at 10:08 pm on July 2, 2009 i love obama... i love how the white string in presidency has been broken... that'll be in history books like 5 years from now :) I sincerely hope that what it says in those history books isn't that it was the last shining moment for the United States of America. Charolastra Posted at 12:31 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 12:25 pm on July 3, 2009 Government has give monopolistic powers to quasi private entities (like the Fed and Fannie and Freddie) instead of allowing market forces and the yin and yang of supply and demand to naturally regulate money supply. Of course private organizations that control our economy are going to manipulate it for their own benefit. Why our government gives them such unfettered and unmonitired power is beyond me. (Except that likely they receive campaign funding in return). Okay so how would you aim to fix it? Elm Posted at 12:25 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Charolastra at 12:15 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 11:38 am on July 3, 2009 Actually its regulation that caused it. I just laughed. If you're saying it was due to the regulation of the government's ability to properly and not blindly deregulate the economy, then we're probably on the same page. Government has give monopolistic powers to quasi private entities (like the Fed and Fannie and Freddie) instead of allowing market forces and the yin and yang of supply and demand to naturally regulate money supply.  Of course private organizations that control our economy are going to manipulate it for their own benefit.  Why our government gives them such unfettered and unmonitired power is beyond me.  (Except that likely they receive campaign funding in return). Charolastra Posted at 12:15 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 11:38 am on July 3, 2009 Actually its regulation that caused it. I just laughed. If you're saying it was due to the regulation of the government's ability to properly and not blindly deregulate the economy, then we're probably on the same page. Elm Posted at 11:38 am on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Charolastra at 8:16 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from gnr90 at 8:15 pm on July 2, 2009 We wouldn't be heading to a socialist country, or two trillion dollar defecit... We wouldn't be in the mess if we hadn't deregulated the economy to the extent we did. Actually its regulation that caused it. Regulation of the monetary system to the Federal Reserve. Regulation of the prime and sub prime as well as reserve rates to the banks. Regulation mandating making loans to people with bad credit. Regulation making government agencies giving securities to back those bad loans thus lessening perceived risk of the activity. Some regulation was rejected thats true.  In 2003 and 2004 the Bush administration and then head of the Fed Alan Greenspan sought more oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of the above agencies giving securities backing bad mortgages and overleverqaging themselves.  This idea was rejected by the Financial Committee whose ranking members was Barney Frank who expressed outrage at the idea. dm13 Posted at 11:05 am on July 3, 2009 Quote: from DropsofJupiter at 8:08 pm on July 2, 2009 i love obama... i love how the white string in presidency has been broken... that'll be in history books like 5 years from now :) Assuming theres going to be a '5 years from now' Most recent 15 of 44 previous replies displayed.