Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 109 of 109

Thread: democracy preservation

  1. #101  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Cosmo; Yes, INVESTOR Confidence has been lost on a National and International level. This IMO for our leaders calling 'wolf' when no apparent wolf exist. The Housing Issue, is quite a different story. Your welcome to check out any site, where home delinquency/defaults are broke down. Southern California, Florida and urban areas (except NYC) are running 8-12% where 95%+ of the remaining country is running 1-2% or about normal. Home values, the average persons accumulated wealth, has been effected almost in line with these areas.

    Of course, if 10% are not paying the taxes (property/school/local), purchasing goods or service and are lost to a local economy, people will lose jobs. Government who collects at best 2.7T in a 15T economy, investors having lost to date around 10T in asset values, is not capable of propping up anything and in trying are giving additional aid to the problem. Our argument, if you might recall is investor/government ability to stimulate economy.

    I agree, every person, every business or any investor that participated in the housing bubble should accept the loss, which by any logical conclusion would have been 100 Billion combined. Most of this had already been lost and some signs of a recovery in many areas happening. The problem is/was in an election year to so called lower incomes were as hurt and any other social group and homes up in the millions were as inappropriate bought as the shack...but again in certain areas and many where retirees were involved.

    Jobs are created from the top down, some one with an idea and the backing to chance some business. When you convince me that the reverse is even possible...well you can't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Jackson

    You admit yourself that government should not intervene in the private sector, but it did and I will admit that you did not support this welfare going to the private loan businesses.

    But my ideas is for government to intervene in the government sector like the states, cities and any other government agencies that are being forced to 'cut' jobs to balance their budgets.
    So this is critical because reducing jobs, reduces the mass purchasing power of the people (workers).

    So the private sector crying for help, is not my idea of boosting the economy.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Knew we would end up here...Why I said w/o" getting specific"....

    It gets complicated, with an end result of socialism in the US, which you should like. I have no idea WHY Bush. McCain and most of the Republican Congress is going along with any of this 'Bailout" nonsense. Elsewhere I have speculated a Chinese connection, since Paulson in his business life (CEO of GS) had traveled to China near a hundred times, possibly why China has bought up so much of the US National Debt. If China has threatened to call in this debt, the actions may be justified, but in the end results no less damaging. Whatever Bush/Paulson have in mind, they will turn the program to another Administration (very possibly Obama and a Democratic Congress) and people to administer will be from them. What ever they had in mind, to prevent socialism then lost...

    Your hearing a lot of true nonsense on Liquidity or that banks 'won't even loan to other banks'. Banks simply don't barrow from other banks. They are members of the Federal Reserve, via there FDIC and barrow from them, with equities (home loans) they should be gladly turning over and have (thats the problem). Then banks have plenty of cash TODAY, but requirement to barrow have gone back to 1990 measurements. This has taken 3/4 of the public out of the market, most business and probably every local government. GM, Ford and hundreds of large business are nearing junk bond status on simple valuations of the company. People, even with some cash are not spending and those that have borrowed (credit card/open credit accounts) are reluctant to use. This called confidence and with the pending elections are creating a false premise of doom and gloom...IMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Jackson

    The only solution I can see is for government to urge the ulthra wealthy to start releasing or spending that HOARDED wealth to the masses and that means higher wages and benefits.
    But your free enterprise system is forcing the businesses to cut wages and benefits to remain competitive.

    So like I said, it is a suicidal economy because the UW are stuffing all the wealth into their own portfolios and now they are suffering huge losses and that results in all the people having losses also.
    Your free enterprise system is a lose/lose situation.
    Besides, your FES is acquired by influencing the politicians with those corruptive dollars.

    My long term solution is to promote the PUBLIC FINANCING OF OUR ELECTIONS to shut out those influence dollars.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Jackson

    The only solution I can see is for government to urge the ulthra wealthy to start releasing or spending that HOARDED wealth to the masses and that means higher wages and benefits.
    But your free enterprise system is forcing the businesses to cut wages and benefits to remain competitive.

    So like I said, it is a suicidal economy because the UW are stuffing all the wealth into their own portfolios and now they are suffering huge losses and that results in all the people having losses also.
    Your free enterprise system is a lose/lose situation.
    Besides, your FES is acquired by influencing the politicians with those corruptive dollars.

    My long term solution is to promote the PUBLIC FINANCING OF OUR ELECTIONS to shut out those influence dollars.

    Cosmo
    Obviously, you are not paying attention...The wealthy, YOU KNOW, have lost trillions from investment made in the corporate structure. How can you continue to think those trillions were not playing a role in economics.

    I agree, if any person wanting to run for office were given the same amount of money to voice their opinion and that if we dropped the 1st Amendment, making it impossible for any one else to disagree, we would have a perceived more fair election. Two little bitty problems; There would be 2-10 Million running for President every election. 2 Million times the 84M currently allowed would cost more than the total GDP of the WORLD for several years (OR) restrictions would be placed on who could qualify (defeating the purpose) and the party in control making those choices.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Jackson

    The only solution I can see is for government to urge the ulthra wealthy to start releasing or spending that HOARDED wealth to the masses and that means higher wages and benefits.
    But your free enterprise system is forcing the businesses to cut wages and benefits to remain competitive.

    So like I said, it is a suicidal economy because the UW are stuffing all the wealth into their own portfolios and now they are suffering huge losses and that results in all the people having losses also.
    Your free enterprise system is a lose/lose situation.
    Besides, your FES is acquired by influencing the politicians with those corruptive dollars.

    My long term solution is to promote the PUBLIC FINANCING OF OUR ELECTIONS to shut out those influence dollars.

    Cosmo


    Obviously, you are not paying attention...The wealthy, YOU KNOW, have lost trillions from investment made in the corporate structure. How can you continue to think those trillions were not playing a role in economics.

    I agree, if any person wanting to run for office were given the same amount of money to voice their opinion and that if we dropped the 1st Amendment, making it impossible for any one else to disagree, we would have a perceived more fair election. Two little bitty problems; There would be 2-10 Million running for President every election. 2 Million times the 84M currently allowed would cost more than the total GDP of the WORLD for several years (OR) restrictions would be placed on who could qualify (defeating the purpose) and the party in control making those choices.
    First of all, those stagnant 'surplus' dollars of the wealthy that was lost, adds up to just 30% that is currently quoted in the news. You know they diversify.
    So if I have a million dollars and lost only 300,000, that does not mean I will be reduced to a pauper.
    So they (wealthy) will not suffer any real hardships.
    As usual, it would only be the people at the lower levels of future retitements.

    Your 1st Amendment only allows 'free' speech, not 'bought' speech.
    So this bought speech could be allowed if the buyer allows a 'rebuttal'
    Then their bought speech can be allowed.

    Since bought speech would be outlawed, it would be replaced with a newspaper platform of all the politicians programs and changes to represent the citizens as their representatives.
    With a written platform of those running for office, they could make a more intelligent vote rather then just one issue like those of the same race, nationality, gender, rather then real issues like jobs, healthcare, pensions and etc.

    With this long drawn out campaign, the TV 's are cluttered with boring advertisements that are as repititious as the regular commercials.
    With these free enterprise system, we are being buried with advertising. You see it everywhere.

    I prefer Natures scenery.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Think about what you said; Those "stagnant dollars"...Those are dollars invested in one or more ventures, at at risk. Thats economy and what gives the corporate structure a value. If lost for whatever reason, the specific company will lay off workers, cut back upgrading the firm and a host of issues furthering an economical decline. Our discussion is on what/why creates an economy. You feel its the working man and NOT the investor or business itself.

    Actually the better investors have been pulling back for two years. By law mutual funds and other investment vehicles (ETF's) must have a very high percentage of whatever capital that is available INVESTED and in the specialty of the fund. The reality is all stocks are currently down about 40% and many sector stocks down up to 80%. Those that are losing the most are not the rich, but those funds which trade for 401K's, Unions or directly with individuals. Average people. As I have suggested many times, those big dealers have converted to money markets, cash or some low risk vehicle. In October 2007 the SP 500 (most common used stocks in Mutuals/Funds) was at 1550.00, ten minutes ago it was at 950.

    No, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that 'Free Speech' includes the means to present that speech. I or any person, group or organization can pay the advertising cost and promote anything legal and in taste to the medium (TV, Radio, Mag or print media). What you are thinking is the old 'Fairness Doctrine' which no longer exist (think 1985 or so) where Congress dictated that all media had to offer rebuttal to any POLITICAL opinion (advertised, editorial or whatever).
    There has been talk to bring this back, but would ruin to many of the mainstream media currently broadcasting or printing who cater to a specific audience.

    Those interested can always google RNC, DNC and read the actual 2008 platform for their party. For the first 150 years of this country, that was how most elections were determined. Remember though, for the most part, white males were the voters. What they advertise in Michigan, is probably important to your fellow citizens. Down here in NM, the issue seems to still be change, whatever that means.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson
    Those interested can always google RNC, DNC and read the actual 2008 platform for their party. For the first 150 years of this country, that was how most elections were determined. Remember though, for the most part, white males were the voters. What they advertise in Michigan, is probably important to your fellow citizens. Down here in NM, the issue seems to still be change, whatever that means.
    Well, like I said before, the only change I want to see is the 'Financing of Our
    Elections by the Government to get a government into office that would then represent the citizens as it is supposed to do.

    And those phoney citizens that refute our Constitution as socialism is a .
    weak argument against that great document as it stands now with all its Amendments.

    The ony thing those conservatives want to protect is those hoarded dollars thast the workers have created for them.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3
    [quote="jackson33"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    timel; Where on this planet do you live. .
    It seems he lives in a civilised place like Europe where we take our responsibilities to our fellow man a little more seriously than you. (And that is not an anti-American observation. I noticed at least one American expressing similar views the other day. What was his name? Obama something or other. :wink: )
    He complimented Sen. McCain, mentioning the phone call he had received earlier in the night.

    He thanked "the love of my love" Michelle Obama as well as daughters Sasha and Malia, "I love you both more than you can imagine. You have earned the puppy that is coming with us."

    And he took a moment to remember his grandmother.
    He promised, "I will listen to you... I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation... Block by block, brick by brick, callused hand by callused hand."

    President-Elect Obama had a message for those listening around the world, "A new dawn of American leadership is at hand."
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •