Economics 101 (Not the Twilight Zone)

[Hellbent]

[Technician]

Sigh.

[Xaser]

I'll let our friend Barry narrate my response here.

WHAT? WHAT IS THIS?

[Xeros612]

Was this supposed to be funny?

[Mr. Freeze]

This sucks so bad, I feel myself being drawn to my monitor as if the video was some kind of internet-based black hole.

[Vaporizer]

.

[Csonicgo]

After some research some of this is kinda wrong.

[Snakes]

Hellbent, you seem like you mean well, I don't have anything against you... but goddamn it, there's a lot of dumb shit you've posted here.

[eargosedown]

[bytor]

EDIT: removed yt link
Ben Bernanke and The Federal Reserve.

[Hellbent]

Xeros612 said:

Was this supposed to be funny?

it was meant to illustrate what is really going on as far as how the financial crisis is being handled, and how it's a racket. @Csonicgo: care to share what is wrong about the video?

[Hellbent]

Snakes said:

Hellbent, you seem like you mean well, I don't have anything against you... but goddamn it, there's a lot of dumb shit you've posted here.

Feel free to show me how the video is dumb or wrong or oversimplified. I posted it because I don't understand our economic system, and someone sent me this video and I wanted others opinions on its validity or if someone really understands our economic system and how the financial crisis is being handled to rebut it or to agree with it etc.

[hobomaster22]

The end of the video really made me laugh. I'm glad people are waking up and realizing Obama's change was not the change we really wanted or needed. The Republicans gained how many seats? 64? When was the last we saw anything like this? 1938 after FDR's failed policies. I wonder many more times liberal policies need to fail before we stop voting in FDRs and Obamas. Ugh.

Sadly enough, like FDR, Obama may also be voted back in.

[Quasar]

hobomaster22 said:

1938 after FDR's failed policies. I wonder many more times liberal policies need to fail before we stop voting in FDRs and Obamas. Ugh.

Heh. Better we have the Bushes and Reagans who at least have the guts to make it 100% clear that they're only protecting the interests of their own class, right?

Which of FDR's policies are you referring to here btw? I'd be interested in hearing your version of history from 1930's - you know, the one where Hoover's non-interventionist do-nothing policies didn't contribute to the creation and continuance of the Depression and where FDR's recovery efforts didn't manage to help thousands of people.

Comparing Obama to FDR is an insult to the latter anyway. Obama's "recovery" plan was to give more money to the people who caused the disaster in the first place. That anybody actually bought this and went along with it is kind of insane. In this country it's ok to give trillions to the rich while they act entitled to it, but it's a sin to give anything to the poor who actually need it.

[Xeros612]

Hellbent said:

it was meant to illustrate what is really going on as far as how the financial crisis is being handled, and how it's a racket.

There are better ways to get the point across than text-to-speech and models ripped from some half-assed 3D kid's show.

[hobomaster22]

Quasar said:

Which of FDR's policies are you referring to here btw?

I'm not referring to any policies in particular. I was simply drawing a parallel that the American people essentially rejected FDR's policies by voting overwhelmingly Republican; just like we saw this month. If you want an example policy, how about the Wealth Tax Act? This was eliminated by 1939.

Similarly I don't think the American people are happy with Obama's health care reform, among other things.

it's a sin to give anything to the poor who actually need it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Should we tax rich people more and give it to the poor?

[Quast]

hobomaster22 said:

I was simply drawing a parallel that the American people essentially rejected FDR's policies by voting overwhelmingly Republican

Which election? What are you talking about? FDR was president for 3 consecutive terms before he died in office. He was pretty much beloved aside from his declining health. The man guided the united states out through the dust bowl and great depression and world war 2. The man had a lot on his plate.

Obama instituted a corporatist health care policy and WASPs bitched about it for the wrong reasons...

Your comparison is really really bad.

[Csonicgo]

hobomaster22 said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Should we tax rich people more and give it to the poor?

Well, the bullshit notion of "charity" being the only part of positive liberty the rich fucks care about, and they don't do it... seems almost sane to me! We'll just call it.... "patriotic tithing". ;)

[Quasar]

The same people who are the loudest about government programs that help the less fortunate, assuming that everyone with less money or other means than their own family is that way because of choice or sloth or some other vice are the same ones who illogically want to vote for Republicans, the party out of the two which demonstrates the least shame when it comes to conducting open acts of class warfare, doing things that will, in the years to come, further degrade the position of the middle class in America.

Once they're all poor enough to need those government programs, maybe we'll hear a change of tune, huh.

[Csonicgo]

I say we call the GOP "The Bootstrap Party"... too bad the poor can't even afford the "bootstraps" needed to pull oneself up....

[hobomaster22]

Quast said:

Which election? Your comparison is really really bad.

No. Google 1938 midterm elections. It's pretty simple.

Quasar said:

The same people who are the loudest about government programs that help the less fortunate, assuming that everyone with less money or other means than their own family is that way because of choice or sloth or some other vice are the same ones who illogically want to vote for Republicans

Entitlement programs are not solution. Taxing rich people more is not the solution. Obama was originally considering extending tax cuts for everyone making less than 500k. Who makes more than 500k? Small businesses... well pretty much all businesses. Small businesses are responsible for the up to two thirds of private sector jobs. If there's no job creation then there's less people working, and more people. Seems pretty obvious to me. Rich people are evil because they make money? Boo hoo. It's not fair. Sorry, I'd rather work for my money and get paid by those evil rich people than take it from the tax payers who actually work.

But what am I doing? Maybe if we tax rich people enough I can get laid off and collect unemployment for 2 whole years! Maybe Obama will help me out and extend unemployment even longer because 2 years is not nearly long enough. What a deal! I can sit around, eat Cheetos, and watch DVDs for two years all paid for by my unemployment checks.

[Mr. T]

So people are meant to starve if they get laid off?

I love this video, seeing teabaggers reactions to it make me lol

[Gez]

hobomaster22 said:

I wonder many more times liberal policies need to fail before we stop voting in FDRs and Obamas. Ugh.

Here's a little lesson in politics and economics. Economists are full of shit. That's why they keep advocating models that just don't work. Politicians are also full of shit. That's why they spend most of their time talkin' the talk that pleases their voter base, but don't generally do anything that actually improve the situation.

You say that liberal policies fail -- well, yeah, they're not magic wands. But are you really thinking that con policies are working any better? Do you think the messes the USA are in have nothing to do with Bush's reign from 2000 to 2008?

So, here's the lesson: people vote for the left when they're fed up with the incompetence of the right. Then they vote for the right once they're fed up with the incompetence of the left. If you're a partisan hack, you can manage to be blind to the failures of your favorite party and think they're always wonderful; but the majority of the electorate will just go with the party that has pissed them off the least in the last couple of years.

This is why there's an alternation between the two main party, neither generally lasting more than two terms in a row.

[Csonicgo]

hobomaster22 said:

But what am I doing? Maybe if we tax rich people enough I can get laid off and collect unemployment for 2 whole years! Maybe Obama will help me out and extend unemployment even longer because 2 years is not nearly long enough. What a deal! I can sit around, eat Cheetos, and watch DVDs for two years all paid for by my unemployment checks.

Do you really think 10+% of the USA is sitting around eating Cheetos? That's a serious question, by the way.

[Sharessa]

hobomaster22 said:

No. Google 1938 midterm elections. It's pretty simple.



Entitlement programs are not solution. Taxing rich people more is not the solution. Obama was originally considering extending tax cuts for everyone making less than 500k. Who makes more than 500k? Small businesses... well pretty much all businesses. Small businesses are responsible for the up to two thirds of private sector jobs. If there's no job creation then there's less people working, and more people. Seems pretty obvious to me. Rich people are evil because they make money? Boo hoo. It's not fair. Sorry, I'd rather work for my money and get paid by those evil rich people than take it from the tax payers who actually work.

But what am I doing? Maybe if we tax rich people enough I can get laid off and collect unemployment for 2 whole years! Maybe Obama will help me out and extend unemployment even longer because 2 years is not nearly long enough. What a deal! I can sit around, eat Cheetos, and watch DVDs for two years all paid for by my unemployment checks.

Shut up you idiot.

For your information, taxes are at an ALL TIME LOW right now. Meanwhile, I can't catch a bus around here because they cut 80% of the runs due to lack of funding. I have no healthcare and can't afford to get any. The corporations are now all making profit, bringing the DOW above 11,000 again, yet we still have over 10% unemployment in most places.

You sound like an overprivileged fuckwit who has never had to decide between eating or becoming homeless. Half of my friends are unemployed right now, and it's not due to lack of trying. They spend half their free time looking for jobs and still can't find anything because the country is fucked up right now due to the corporations tiking our money and mismanaging that shit.

So please take your upper class cocksucking elsewhere.

[Manc]

hobomaster22 said:

Entitlement programs are not solution. Taxing rich people more is not the solution.

Actually, these are not the solutions only if you believe that expiration of a temporary tax cut is considered an "obama tax hike". Keeping a minimum safety net funded is essential to growth. How do you expect these people that are going to work for the rich folks to get said work if they don't have the minimum resources to do so? Not to mention how will they survive? This horrible notion that simply removing these safety nets will remove some bizarre incentive for people to not get a job (as if all the jobs are just there and people are too lazy or ignorant to get them, nevermind a 1:5 or higher job to applicant ratio) does nobody any good. If it were not for these systems, you would not have seen the domestic and international expansion of the United States in the latter half of the 20th century.

Obama was originally considering extending tax cuts for everyone making less than 500k. Who makes more than 500k? Small businesses... well pretty much all businesses. Small businesses are responsible for the up to two thirds of private sector jobs. If there's no job creation then there's less people working, and more people. Seems pretty obvious to me. Rich people are evil because they make money? Boo hoo. It's not fair. Sorry, I'd rather work for my money and get paid by those evil rich people than take it from the tax payers who actually work.

Ah yes, the classic idea of "small business". What is "small business" anyway? I guess that depends on who you ask. Is a business small by revenue, by employee count, or both? "Conservative" nuts like our friend hobomaster22 would seem to suggest that employee size is all that matters. A law firm of 12 people that brings in millions of dollars in gross revenue per year would be considered a "small business" under these terms.

However, what if we stop to really think about what "small businesses" contribute? Do you think that simply because income tax rates on income over $250,000 would return to the previous sane rates of the 90s (remember, economic growth and budget surplus), these "small businesses" are going to start hiring like crazy? I would place my money on no, because it hasn't happened so far.

The REAL engines of new jobs are NEW, INNOVATIVE business. It's the ability to create new business that fuels new jobs. This is where the idea of "small business" as the engine of growth comes from. It's not simply the size but rather the business itself. There are lots of ways to provide tax breaks to small businesses besides a paltry income tax break. These alternative tax relief methods will then help existing small business have the capital to hire. The 110th congress tried to pass some of these, but were deflected many times from even getting these bills to the floor, because debate will not be had with people so strong in their convictions that were bought for them by lobbyists.

There is no moral, let alone logical, argument for providing obscene tax relief on upper income to the wealthy. Remember, these are tax brackets that look at monies above and beyond the 250k cap.

But what am I doing? Maybe if we tax rich people enough I can get laid off and collect unemployment for 2 whole years! Maybe Obama will help me out and extend unemployment even longer because 2 years is not nearly long enough. What a deal! I can sit around, eat Cheetos, and watch DVDs for two years all paid for by my unemployment checks.

The above paragraph has been pointed to already - it's vile and disgusting. Clearly you have no empathy beyond your narrow point of view. It is americans like you that make me ashamed sometimes of my fellow countrymen. To think that some in this country have grasped this notion of "all for one and none for you", that attempts to bring normalcy back to our economy have been blocked based on some ideology that only NOW really kicks in, or was it January 20th, 2009, when we had that strange new guy come in to the white house?

My personal view is that all the bush tax cuts should expire, but that will not happen of course. It's too hot politically to do so. But those that frame this as an obama tax hike forget that we are not at zero level right now, we are at -1. We need to get back to zero level. It's not about going from 0 to 1, it's about going from -1 to 0. What does this mean? Simply put, as a nation we've been living above our means with too little revenue coming in to support all the bullshit the last guy did. Who cuts taxes and then goes on to two wars and medicare expansions? We cannot simply get back to fiscal solvency with increasing revenue, but we cannot do it simply by cutting spending. You cannot say that you are a "fiscal conservative" and not think that we need to get the revenues coming back in. Taxes are not fines, we do not pay the government just for our existence - we pay INTO the government so they have the ability to do the things that governments do, including national security and public safety (two of the pillars of conservative values).

The government does not owe us a tax extension. We owe it to ourselves as a nation and a people to make a small sacrifice to make our nation great again. Bush never asked such a thing before he ripped into his agenda, and Obama has not yet made the case strong enough. It is sad when people with so much care so much about a few percent of upper revenue in taxes so that kids can eat and learn, so others can find the jobs that will let them bring more money in for the rich folks. This is what we were doing in the 90s. It seems almost crazy to NOT think, as a rich person, that if the poor are able to at least have a minimum safety net, they will continue to spend that money directly into the private sector - essentially giving tax dollars back to those that put them in. This is how economics CAN work - a cycle that still allows the wealthy to be wealthy. How can you disagree with that?

[Craigs]

There's no way I am going to listen to six minutes of this text to speech shit. I almost fell asleep a minute into the video.

[Mattfrie1]

Xaser said:

I'll let our friend Barry narrate my response here.

WHAT? WHAT IS THIS?

[Hellbent]

Does anyone want to respond to specifics in the video?

Basically, umm... maybe someone can respond to the point in the video about the fed and Bernanke being in bed with Goldman Sax?

[Quast]

hobomaster22 said:

Entitlement programs are not solution. Taxing rich people more is not the solution. Obama was originally considering extending tax cuts for everyone making less than 500k. Who makes more than 500k? Small businesses... well pretty much all businesses. Small businesses are responsible for the up to two thirds of private sector jobs. If there's no job creation then there's less people working, and more people. Seems pretty obvious to me.

I hope for your sake you never start a business.

Less than 5% of the the population make 6 figures or more. Lower tax rates for business small or large have never resulted in higher employment rates. Additional employment does not correlate 1:1 to increased productivity. In fact, nationally, productivity is at an all time high despite the 'recession' and high unemployment. And you honestly think lower tax rates will...i don't know, through the power of magic turn business owners into altruistic souls that will hire people for the sake of hiring them? They're not going to do that, they never have and they never will. They won't do this because it doesn't make sense financially.

I'm sure you seen in the news of some place laying off 500 or 1000 people or more. And you think, well shit the recession, that sucks. But the bad part is, is that those jobs are gone forever. No amount of tax reduction is going to make the place that laid off 1000 people rehire the same amount of people some time later.

But what am I doing? Maybe if we tax rich people enough I can get laid off and collect unemployment for 2 whole years! Maybe Obama will help me out and extend unemployment even longer because 2 years is not nearly long enough. What a deal! I can sit around, eat Cheetos, and watch DVDs for two years all paid for by my unemployment checks.

Only fucking fools that eat cheetos and watch dvds think people live like kings off of social welfare programs. You cannot support a family and pay a mortgage and heating bills off of unemployment. And you're a goddamn idiot to paint everyone using them as doing nothing more than taking advantage of the system. The fact of the matter is people want to work as opposed to sitting around and feeling worthless.