• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to Repeat FDR's Scam

Read the intro and vote accordingly


  • Total voters
    14

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This visionary column by Dick Morris hits the nail on the head:

TheHill.com

As Obama uses the recession to justify wildly expanding the nanny state-to European proportions-under the guise of "recovery," while the policies he enacts actually drag it out and worsen it, he will fundamentally weaken the US and cripple its economy, permanently, with irreversible welfare programs, as FDR did with things like Social Security.

He will also use this insane government expansion to stack the deck for generations against those who prefer individuality, personal responsibility, and self-reliance to nanny state welfare programs and no right to choose.

And like FDR, for his assault on America, Obama will be revered-at least by all who control the flow of information in this country. And the free market enabling this country to still inch its way towards recovery despite liberal policies will be misrepresented for all time as liberals fixing Republican policy failures.

So the question is, will America be the least bit distinguishable from the stagnant, mediocre economies of Europe, with their double-digit unemployment rates and government-run everything by the time this charismatic serpent is done smiling his way past our common sense?
 
This visionary column by Dick Morris hits the nail on the head:

TheHill.com

As Obama uses the recession to justify wildly expanding the nanny state-to European proportions-under the guise of "recovery," while the policies he enacts actually drag it out and worsen it, he will fundamentally weaken the US and cripple its economy, permanently, with irreversible welfare programs, as FDR did with things like Social Security.

He will also use this insane government expansion to stack the deck for generations against those who prefer individuality, personal responsibility, and self-reliance to nanny state welfare programs and no right to choose.

And like FDR, for his assault on America, Obama will be revered-at least by all who control the flow of information in this country. And the free market enabling this country to still inch its way towards recovery despite liberal policies will be misrepresented for all time as liberals fixing Republican policy failures.

So the question is, will America be the least bit distinguishable from the stagnant, mediocre economies of Europe, with their double-digit unemployment rates and government-run everything by the time this charismatic serpent is done smiling his way past our common sense?

He is building upon the infrastructure already in existence. It takes critical thinkers to judge a man wisely and that is not what the electorate is made of.
 
Wouldn't you just love to buy in cash one of those kick ass BMW's or Mercedes?
 
I was just reading about FDR and the New Deal and the events leading to the Great Dep.

They are all just way too reminiscent to today's standing.

...Scary...history repeats itself (like I've never heard that one before..;))...
:afraid:

Yes, I think after this whole ordeal, the line between the US and Europe will be much more of a blur.

America is becoming too socialist for me. Progressivism is ok, but socialism - :2no4:
that is what makes America, America, and not Europe.

I'll tell you what though, Europe is rejoicing these moves. It's hard to read The Economist magazine after they fell in love with American socialism
 
I was just reading about FDR and the New Deal and the events leading to the Great Dep.

They are all just way too reminiscent to today's standing.

...Scary...history repeats itself (like I've never heard that one before..;))...
:afraid:

Yes, I think after this whole ordeal, the line between the US and Europe will be much more of a blur.

America is becoming too socialist for me. Progressivism is ok, but socialism - :2no4:
that is what makes America, America, and not Europe.

I'll tell you what though, Europe is rejoicing these moves. It's hard to read The Economist magazine after they fell in love with American socialism

I listen to news on my local npr station and when they bring economists they are always Keynesians. Practically all mainstream economists make me want to pull my hair out.


Wouldn't you just love to buy in cash one of those kick ass BMW's or Mercedes?

What?:shrug:
 
McCain was also all for massive spending as some sort of remedy to the situation.

The phony cons can shut up anytime IMO.
 
McCain was also all for massive spending as some sort of remedy to the situation.

The phony cons can shut up anytime IMO.

Yea, when he was nominated it was a huge head slap. During the entire campaign he embraced populist bull and never called out Obama on the obvious fallacies.
 
I don't understand what the problem is. The economy has shown once again that it cannot survive without the government.
 
How did you come to that conclusion?

Horrible management on the executive levels? Shady dealings with untrustworthy individuals in the market place? Spending money that does not exist? Corporations "losing" billions of dollars?
 
Horrible management on the executive levels? Shady dealings with untrustworthy individuals in the market place? Spending money that does not exist? Corporations "losing" billions of dollars?

Exxon has been doing great. They got enough cash in the bank to last for eons.
 
The economy will survive just fine without the government. In fact, bail-outs are not constitutional, as it interrupts the free market. The Constitution's General Welfare Clause requires that all the federal government's expenditures be for the general welfare, such as a highway, or a national park, or a military installation; something from which everyone can directly benefit. Shareholders of Freddie, Fannie, and Bear Stearns are a small limited class of persons whose well-being hardly enhances the general welfare. Besides, the government cannot decide which businesses can survive and let others fail.

What the economy needs, is no privatized central bank system like we have with the Federal Reserve Bank.

But this started with Henry Paulson and the Bush administration. The man behind helping to decide which banks got bail-outs while others did not, such as Lehman Brothers, was Tim Geithner. He also helped to kill deriviatives. That snake needs to go. So does Larry Summers. Larry Summers helped to repeal the Glass-Steagall act which kept banks off Wall Street and from monopolizing other banks. With that act gone, and then JP Morgan Chase getting bail-out (aka free) money, they bought Washington Mutual; their competitor.

This is all to make us like Europe, and Europe is now a union. Just like we will be. All part of the evil plan. It's just business, after all. :(
 
Horrible management on the executive levels? Shady dealings with untrustworthy individuals in the market place? Spending money that does not exist? Corporations "losing" billions of dollars?

So you have a private enterprise business that makes a costly mistake, you should increase regulation?
...

The subprime mortgage issue could not have been helped with more regulation. Government would have still let the loans go out.
No one forsaw what was going to happen.
No one forsaw a real estate bubble that was about to burst.
And I doubt the government could have forseen that with more regulation.

People/businesses learn from there mistakes, not if you give them bailouts though. Then it takes away a bit of the incentive to redress your wrongs.
 
Horrible management on the executive levels? Shady dealings with untrustworthy individuals in the market place? Spending money that does not exist? Corporations "losing" billions of dollars?

Umm, sounds like you're describing the government
 
Horrible management on the executive levels? Shady dealings with untrustworthy individuals in the market place? Spending money that does not exist? Corporations "losing" billions of dollars?

The entire point of government is to assist in the perpetuation of the extraction of capital. When a crisis in capitalism threatens to destroy the entire system, the government can step in and "bail them out," which is what we're seeing governments trying to do now.

The problem is that the amount of fictitious capital in existence cannot be reconciled with government subsidization due to the fact that government funding is largely fictitious as well. This is why we're seeing the reckless printing of money; they certainly can't get a loan, anymore!

The Constitution's General Welfare Clause requires that all the federal government's expenditures be for the general welfare, such as a highway, or a national park, or a military installation; something from which everyone can directly benefit. Shareholders of Freddie, Fannie, and Bear Stearns are a small limited class of persons whose well-being hardly enhances the general welfare. Besides, the government cannot decide which businesses can survive and let others fail.

These actions are actually justified by the General Welfare Clause by claiming that without such "bailouts" the economic crisis would be much more profound.

No one forsaw a real estate bubble that was about to burst.

How could you miss it?
 
Last edited:
I do agree with others that McCain wasn't much of a better choice. The thing that really worries me about Obama is that he'd start down the FDR road right quickly and infuse into it his own personal brand of socialism.

Should have voted for Ron Paul if y'all didn't want this ****.
 
Umm...the entire market missed the fact that the bubble was going to pop...until it happened...
that's the reason why it is a bubble

So it's only a bubble if you don't know about it until it "pops"? So because I knew of the credit bubble, for example, before it "popped" does that mean it wasn't a bubble?
 
So it's only a bubble if you don't know about it until it "pops"? So because I knew of the credit bubble, for example, before it "popped" does that mean it wasn't a bubble?

Well if people (the majority) knew it was going to "pop" then they would pull out, thus making it 'pop'. (But I am not familiar with the credit bubble.)

And of course you will always have the people on the side warning about it. But the majority go along with it.
 
Well if people (the majority) knew it was going to "pop" then they would pull out, thus making it 'pop'. (But I am not familiar with the credit bubble.)

And of course you will always have the people on the side warning about it. But the majority go along with it.

Ok, well you said "the entire market" and not "the majority of people". Thanks for clarifying. Although I would argue that a good portion of the market knew of the housing bubble; I remember either reading an article or hearing a story on NPR talking about some brokers at one of the leading investment firms who were openly talking with each other about how they hoped they were out before it popped. Basically, they knew it was going to pop some time soon but didn't know when, and were hoping that they would be out before it happened.

So I think claiming that "the entire market" missed it is incorrect; they knew it was going to happen, they just didn't know when.
 
Ok, well you said "the entire market" and not "the majority of people". Thanks for clarifying. .
:3oops: sorry about that mix-up

So I think claiming that "the entire market" missed it is incorrect; they knew it was going to happen, they just didn't know when.
But the idea is the majority of people don't know it is a bubble. Or if they did, no one like to be in a bubble, so it pops
Like the internet bubble, people couldn't possibly imagine why internet would not be big. (sorry about the double negatives). But have you ever heard of Etoys?...well I think it ended up going bankrupt.
 
But the idea is the majority of people don't know it is a bubble. Or if they did, no one like to be in a bubble, so it pops

My point is that the employees at these firms knew that this whole house of cards was going to collapse; from their perspective you would have to be completely blind not to see it. Where it wasn't noticeable was from the perspective of the people taking out the loans. So we have a situation where the people issuing the loans knew about it but those taking out the loans didn't.

So the people "in the market" - i.e. those that grant loans as a profession, and end up making money off of it - knew it was going to collapse. The reason they didn't stop doing what they were doing/care/act to prevent it is because they were making a lot of money off it. The reason it collapsed wasn't because "everyone realized it was a bubble" but because so many people started defaulting on their loans.
 
Back
Top Bottom