Republicans put cutting spending over aiding tornado victims:
OMG NO NOSECONES
I haven't been on the forum that long, but did this get brought up post-Katrina? (I don't think the Katrina disaster relief was handled very well, for the record.)
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
maybe they all deserve it for living in tornado-heavy areas.By that logic, the US could increase incentives to start using greener cars and public transportation. If you live in an area where it isn't practical to use public transportation, well, isn't that kind of your own fault?
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Tom, you haven't addressed the primary causes of a recession/depression, namely a market bubble that escapes regulatory control and then subsequently crashes. The Great Depression was triggered by runaway real-estate speculation, if I recall. So was the recent recession. The 1920 depression, on the other hand, seems to have been triggered by the abrupt transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy following World War One, combined with the recent adoption of the Federal Reserve system and the transition from a gold standard. I don't see "evil Democratic regulatory policies" listed, although that could just be because Wikipedia insists on an unbiased presentation of data, unlike some of us. It also lasted for a very brief period of time given that it apparently had no "real" causes. I note in addition the following item: "Since the 1920-21 recession was not characterized by any aggregate demand deficiency, fiscal stimulus was entirely unwarranted." The problem now is one of demand, which is not self-correcting quickly enough under the current conditions — namely increased productivity combined with a prolonged slump in housing and tightening of consumer credit. Back on topic, you don't help people recover from a disaster by starving them to death. Investment in disaster recovery is direct investment in economic recovery.
edited 26th May '11 12:16:55 PM by Fighteer
The government should just hand out a shit ton more Unemployment benefits. That'll stimulate the economy. I mean, I'm all for stimulus on building infrastructure and stuff, but as I can't seem to find a job myself, I have more sympathy for stimulus by paying the unemployed to say "Hey economy-I have money!"
I kinda wish I had more taxes. Maybe it's just silly "White Man's Burden" type stuff, but I actually apologized to somebody for the size of my house. And not entirely ironicly either. In fact it would alleviate some headaches around here, since we make a lot, but not enough that paying for college is going to be a breeze. More taxes would mean a slight break in tuition, and since I'll be paying off loans for years either way, it would only make things a little easier.
Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
Eye'm the cutest!
^ People in Colorado pay more taxes since 2004 (or more accurately the state keeps more of it rather than refunding it as required by TABOR) yet tuition in Colorado has spiked 4 times since then. Just some food for thought.
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
What, exactly, does that have to do with anything, Tom? Besides being even more off-topic than we already are.
well obviously, somehow higher taxes increased tuotion costs. nevermind that doesnt even make sense. Like I said before, the ultimate problem is that an unregulated market will boom , and a boom cycle is generally when factors are moving too fast to sustain, The idea in economics is to keep everything as close to economic equilibrium as possible. During a boom, the only way to do that is to tax things to slow down the economy. This is what the fed does all the time. The inflation rate will almost always rise, the tricvk is to make it not rise faster than growth while also not letting growth get so out of hand that it ultimately crashes. also, as Fighteer said, theres absolutely no reason not to fund Joplin. Every dollar spent on transfer payments to citizens tends to pay itself back with extra cash via the government multiplier.
edited 26th May '11 12:56:55 PM by Midgetsnowman
Yes, the ideal of a regulated economy is a steady upwards line, not a seismograph plot.
edited 26th May '11 12:57:04 PM by Fighteer
^ Essentially, yep. Problem is most people who rail about the national debt dont know the first thing about economics. I remember half the time in my economics class last semester the rednecks in the class constantly asked essentially republican talking points only to have our conservative leaning teacher have to tell them how they were talking absolute propagandized bullshit,
I can't tell if we're on topic or not :/ That's not a good sign.
We've been only tangentially on topic since Tom entered the discussion, but really there isn't much to say in this thread other than Facepalming about Republicans. I wonder if it's time to lock.
Wait, wait, before you do, I need to figure out some kind of sunglasses lame pun. DAMNIT WHY IS THIS SO HARD Oh, I know. "It looks like it's time for THIS thread..." /sunglasses "To be cut."
edited 26th May '11 1:07:48 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Okay mister "I got the last word." Oh, wait, you didn't. Ha!
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.