9/12 project
#3
The weird thing is that I didn't even hear about it today.
The media silence is deafening...I didn't know about it until cornercarvers started talking about it.
4.4 million people, supposedly, nationwide. Wow.
Loved that the "Who is John Galt?" poster made it up into some videos...
I'm going to Appleseed later this month, something people in this thread might be interested in: http://www.appleseedinfo.org/
The media silence is deafening...I didn't know about it until cornercarvers started talking about it.
4.4 million people, supposedly, nationwide. Wow.
Loved that the "Who is John Galt?" poster made it up into some videos...
I'm going to Appleseed later this month, something people in this thread might be interested in: http://www.appleseedinfo.org/
#5
I'm so confused by this. These people are so angry, but I don't understand what they want. I get that they are mad about stim spending, but I can't find a single economist that thinks we over spent on trying to prevent total worldwide financial collapse.
Many economists say we didn't do enough. I guess we could argue for a long time about where the money was spent.
I'm also really confused about people saying they are now paying more taxes. No they aren't! The threat of higher taxes is there, certainly, but nobody has paid more yet. But we've got choices we could make to change that. We could eliminate our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan to reduce the burn rate, but we aren't even talking about that.
I would sure like to hear some well articulated proposals instead of just anger and slogans. Both sides have sucked at that.
Many economists say we didn't do enough. I guess we could argue for a long time about where the money was spent.
I'm also really confused about people saying they are now paying more taxes. No they aren't! The threat of higher taxes is there, certainly, but nobody has paid more yet. But we've got choices we could make to change that. We could eliminate our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan to reduce the burn rate, but we aren't even talking about that.
I would sure like to hear some well articulated proposals instead of just anger and slogans. Both sides have sucked at that.
#6
This....
And this...
These thoughts seem contradictory to me. Are we trying to help the rest of the world, or aren't we? Also, as I understand it those countries that chose not to have a stimulus are now firmly on their way out of the recession while those that did (us, and the UK) are still in one.
And this...
These thoughts seem contradictory to me. Are we trying to help the rest of the world, or aren't we? Also, as I understand it those countries that chose not to have a stimulus are now firmly on their way out of the recession while those that did (us, and the UK) are still in one.
#7
I'm so confused by this. These people are so angry, but I don't understand what they want. I get that they are mad about stim spending, but I can't find a single economist that thinks we over spent on trying to prevent total worldwide financial collapse.
Many economists say we didn't do enough. I guess we could argue for a long time about where the money was spent.
Many economists say we didn't do enough. I guess we could argue for a long time about where the money was spent.
People who fail, failed for a reason. When GM is going to pieces and Toyota isn't, it's not a worldwide issue causing failure, it's incompitance.
Socialism does not work for countries. It rewards failure and punishes success. Why do anything but fail?
In small terms, if you have a friend who keeps getting fired, quitting, not being able to pay his rent, kicked out of his house for stupid reasons... should you give him money to "get back on his feet" without changing why he failed in the first place?
Not only are we giving trillions to failures for sake of their failing, we're taking trillions from people who are trying desperately not to fail. My company gave no raises this year directly because of these laws. Because of that, the company is losing good people who felt cheated. People who find that their money doesn't go as far (due to inflation caused by printing off trillions of dollars) can spend less, so we get less buisiness, so we get less raises, so success turns into stagnation... so we can pump blood into a cadaver of companies who killed themselves. If a manager of a McDonalds mismanages a store into the ground, giving terrible food, jacking up the prices, dirty store, unhealthy food... do we fire him or give him a million dollars?
I'm also really confused about people saying they are now paying more taxes. No they aren't! The threat of higher taxes is there, certainly, but nobody has paid more yet. But we've got choices we could make to change that. We could eliminate our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan to reduce the burn rate, but we aren't even talking about that.
The 9/12 project wasn't about republicans or democrats, it was about government spending. Bush, Obama and more.
#9
Nagase,
Thanks for that. That's the kind of discussion I would like to hear, not the silly talk that's been out there. I would love to see less government, not more. I also agree that the negative aspect of socialism is that it is market inefficient. True capitalism is the most market efficient system, but it is also brutal in its efficiency. So we end up trying to soften the harsh sides of capitalism with socialist support structures.
farvernugen -reducing war spending versus increasing healthcare spending is a classic guns versus butter economic decision. If we have a dollar to spend, we could spend it on healthcare, or on global military engagements. We have been trying to spend the same $1 twice (well, more than that, but you get the point).
These are not contradictory thoughts, they are policy decisions.
Thanks for that. That's the kind of discussion I would like to hear, not the silly talk that's been out there. I would love to see less government, not more. I also agree that the negative aspect of socialism is that it is market inefficient. True capitalism is the most market efficient system, but it is also brutal in its efficiency. So we end up trying to soften the harsh sides of capitalism with socialist support structures.
farvernugen -reducing war spending versus increasing healthcare spending is a classic guns versus butter economic decision. If we have a dollar to spend, we could spend it on healthcare, or on global military engagements. We have been trying to spend the same $1 twice (well, more than that, but you get the point).
These are not contradictory thoughts, they are policy decisions.
#11
Nagase,
Thanks for that. That's the kind of discussion I would like to hear, not the silly talk that's been out there. I would love to see less government, not more. I also agree that the negative aspect of socialism is that it is market inefficient. True capitalism is the most market efficient system, but it is also brutal in its efficiency. So we end up trying to soften the harsh sides of capitalism with socialist support structures.
Thanks for that. That's the kind of discussion I would like to hear, not the silly talk that's been out there. I would love to see less government, not more. I also agree that the negative aspect of socialism is that it is market inefficient. True capitalism is the most market efficient system, but it is also brutal in its efficiency. So we end up trying to soften the harsh sides of capitalism with socialist support structures.
I'm sorry I wasn't all too clear, it's dawn and I've been up all night playing GT4... had some arbor mist some time in there too. ^_^;
I'd very much debate that there is no brutality to capitalism, but that's a very long subject. I'd simply point out that equating justice (you make as much as you deserve) to brutality is an attack against justice, that there is no way to attack competition in true capitalism as there is no government force in the marketplace (special interest groups are a bunch of companies trying to club each other over the head to get something... take away the power of the politicians to make laws that act as weapons, and there is no way to attack... other than force, but that's why courts and police exist). Also, I'd point out that the more free a country is, historically the more charity exists (for the very few who cannot earn for themselves... very few people can't get a job these days, deaf people, wheelchairbound people, even people with MS can change the world in the case of Hawking).
#12
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,650
Total Cats: 3,011
If GM was left alone they would fail and be released from the strangling union contracts and top heavy corporate bureaucracy. Leaner companies would then pick up the manufacturing facilities and brand names and move forward. And the workers would start building cars again.
#14
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
I feel there needs to be a post from me in this thread.
to counter the "media silence" issue, the front page of the washington post was a pic of the capitol building with a bunch of protestors.
other than that, i didn't notice any disturbance from the crowds. none of my friends living in dc said anything about traffic or w hatnot.
to counter the "media silence" issue, the front page of the washington post was a pic of the capitol building with a bunch of protestors.
other than that, i didn't notice any disturbance from the crowds. none of my friends living in dc said anything about traffic or w hatnot.
#17
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
the govt estimate was 2M for whatever reason. I haven't seen an official report. I can tell you from personal experience that the crowd in the youtube videos is nowhere near 2 million.
the youtubes show one street full of people walking for 9/12
during the inauguration, ALL streets were full of people for blocks and blocks when everyone started walking home. during the ceremony, the entire mall was covered from the dome to lincoln and that was shoulder to shoulder.
when I ran the bay to breakers run in SF, the "line" was a few dozen blocks long solid people. that's ~100k or so standing shoulder to shoulder.
I'd say 60k is a reasonable guess at crowd size.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post