A Couple Questions for Liberals:
saveuplife
Posts: 1,173
1. Do you honestly think that economy goes into recession because of fiscal policy? Meaning, we all know fiscal policy can affect the economy, but is that the main reason we have recessions? What else affects economic growth? As such, do you think there'll be a large-scale shift in the economic path once Obama is elected? Why?
2. Do you really think that Obama will do much different in terms of foreign policy? For instance, do you think the war in Afghanistan was incorrect? Why? If not, why not? Do you think a war with Pakistan would be incorrect? Why?
3. Do you think increasing the role of government makes things more efficient (think DMV)? Meaning, Obama supports a large amount of spending increases moving more monies to the public sector, and less to from the private sector. Is that good? Could there be problems with that? If so, what could they be?
2. Do you really think that Obama will do much different in terms of foreign policy? For instance, do you think the war in Afghanistan was incorrect? Why? If not, why not? Do you think a war with Pakistan would be incorrect? Why?
3. Do you think increasing the role of government makes things more efficient (think DMV)? Meaning, Obama supports a large amount of spending increases moving more monies to the public sector, and less to from the private sector. Is that good? Could there be problems with that? If so, what could they be?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
1. More people with discretionary income drives the economy, not fewer people with lots and lots of money (they just gamble it away)
2. The ability to listen and comprehend without irrational action is more important with any country and any foreign policy, not just the US and not just the Democrats.
3. I believe we've all had the opportunity to "learn" something lately with the economy, the markets, and the banks. The system isn't working and without some regulations on the corporate and private sector fat cats we'll continue to drift from a society that's supposed to encourage competition in the marketplace thru capitalism.
Excellent.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
For the most part, with a few exceptions, you didn't answer the questions.
at least that's what the right-wing nut jobs are saying...
1. The economy is all about speculation. People will feel more confident if Obama is elected and invest in and buy things. That will improve the economy.
2. Yes, by virtue of not being bush he will do much better dealing with the rest of the world. And the war in Afghanistan is tolerable. The war in Iraq is not.
3. We need regulation and government programs that wont do what private companies can. We share the responsibility for our social security, transportation, and national defense. Anarchy is not the solution.
Here are your answers.
1. Yes, fiscal policy can cause a recession. A policy that favours only the wealthy will eventually "trickle" down and effect everyone. Under obama, I do not expect a drastic change because he too favours the wealthy.
2. I think obama will be more diplomatic than the current admin which in it of itself is a huge step towards garnering support for the mission in afghanistan. Pulling out of Iraq is critical - he says he will do it so I would say that is different. The war in afghanistan was incorrect because the supposed people that pepertrated the act of terrorism was not impacted at all. Only the innocent people of afghanistan.
3. There is definitely a role for gov't in the affairs of it's citizens. In some instances - a private firm may be better in others not. The key here is that the interests of the citizens are the #1 priority - not the ability of a company to profit.
In any case - your fears of obama are understandable however, your belief that mccain/palin is the right choice is well off the mark. Nearly all of your concerns in this post are and will be way worse under a GOP administration as we have seen for the last 8 years.
1) Fiscal Policy has alot to do with it. The current state of the Economy further proves the inept Trickle Down Economics championed Republican's is a huge failure. After 12 years of slumping economy, Clinton turned the Economy around with his Fiscal Policy by restructing the Tax System making it work for the Middle Class and Small Business.
2) I think Obama shows enough of a cool head and understanding to fix alot of the issues we are having not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the world in General. He has the right temperment for the job and will work well with other world leaders.
The Iraq war was a MASSIVE mistake of EPIC proportions. It's time to step back and re-focus and look at how we are failing in the Middle East and how this World is even more dangerous then Pre- 911.
3) Big Government. BIG talking point with the Republican Party yet Bush in 8 years has grown the government more than any previous administration before him. "Department of Faith Based Initiatives"????? I don't think that Obama could ever come close to that. And as for Spending...Please let me know when the last time a Republican actually managed to "Cut Spending".
Obama's talking about putting money into things such as Wind Power which could CREATE 6 MILLION JOBS!!! in the Mid-West alone. Sure there's going to be money spent on such an endevor...But the lasting result could prove to be much more profitable
2-The war in Afghanistan should have already been over. Bush let personal vendetta dictate his 8 years in office tho...and yes, the war in Afghanista was warranted.
3-The government's involvement in the financial sector is needed at this time. Too much money has been directed upward for the past 8 years by the oilmen in the White House. It's time more of it is directed downward to the people.
1. Obama will have a more positive effect than McCain, that's enough for me.
2. Afghanistan was the right move, but poorly executed. Iraq was the wrong move. Pakistan needs to be the worlds problem, not the United States problem. Europe needs to step up. Al Qaeda is supposedly targeting taking that countries government over, and with that it's nukes. If the world doesn't step up, then the U S alone won't be able to stop this. I think Obama will pressure the Europe and others and not take this on alone.
3. If Obama cuts the current fed budget enough to not add to it with any of his proposals, then I'm fine with it. DMV is an example of an area that needs to be cleaned up in some places, but in my area DMV is not an issue. Medicare is very effecient, about 5% of all funding goes to management, far less than the private medical sector. So government isn't the problem, bad government is. I don't want the government to run our healthcare, and that' snot Obama's plan.
In the end, republicans don't have a leg to stand on after the last 7.5+ years. They have abused government. Let's see what the Dem's can do after the mess they made in the early 90's, and watching the republicans self destruct the last 14 years. If the Democrats fail, then a third part should have a better chance, or are country will truly be facing implosion.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
First off, are you giving people here a quiz? Cause it sure sounds like it. Which is just a bit weird. I mean, I get that you have a PhD in economics, but, yeah.
1) You answer your own question. Presidential fiscal policy can have a positive, negative or indifferent affect on the status and stability of the economy. Obviously, there are ebbs and flows to our nation's economy, but the majority of our nation's financial crises, including our most current financial crisis, can be traced in large part to mistakes made by either the Executive or Legislative. So why not vote for the candidate that would make the right decision?
2) No, Afghanistan was the correct war. We needed to capture or kill those who had attacked this country on Sept. 11, 2001. The majority of our nation, and the majority of liberals who are asked about this would agree with that statement. Are there people further left who believe that we should not have attacked Al Qaeda? Sure; there are also conservatives who think we should nuke Iran tomorrow. So I don't see the point of trying to stir up extremists. Yes, Obama will be far different with foreign policy. He will be smarter. On the majority of foreign policy decisions since the onset of the war in Iraq, he's been right. President Bush and Sen. McCain have been wrong.
3) Depends on what we're talking about. I used this example in a different thread, but would you claim that government involvement and investment in the space race hindered the time it took for our nation to develop the technology and means to get a man on the moon? So you can use the DMV, I can use the space program. And we can go back and forth, but even you'd have to admit that there is precedence in modern American history that when used wisely, government involvement has been important and necessary.
Basically, it comes down to this. I'm voting for the smartest candidate. I believe the smarter the person in office, and the smarter the people he surrounds himself with are, the better off we'll be. So, we can talk about liberal and conservative, so on and so forth, but I'm not voting for the liberal candidate. I'm voting for the best candidate.
1) Fiscal policy does effect the economy, but is not the sole factor in creating a recession. As we currently see, a combination of many things have cause this recession. People living outside their means, lack of government regulation or ignoring of policies, and banks and companies becoming too greedy by looking for profit from risky investments. All of these things combined with our current low standing of the US dollar, gold being so high, the high price of goods and services and our massive amounts of growing national debt. This is not a partisan problem as both sides have had their part in causing this mess and are both responsible for it's outcome (or lack their of).
2) I think both candidates are very similar on foreign policy except for the fact that Obama offers more inclusive tactics to try and resolve issues and problems where as McCain is closer to Bush in that he won't sit at the table with "the enemy" (so to speak). Both of their foreign policy plans are extremely faulty and not that far from the line of Bush and the previous administrations before them. As for Afganistan, I personally do not believe that war was a smart move as we attacked a country of mostly innocent people for the work of a small, minor group which currently were in charge. Not to mention, when we did this, our tactics were so far off, we didn't accomplish our goal in getting the guilty group who were responsible and our plans had no chance of success from the get go. Looking towards Pakistan, this is merely a problem now, because of our previous failures. Going into or having battles there now doesn't nor will never resolve any of our security goals and does far more damage than good.
3) The increased roal in government can have many positive effects on society and help efficiency for the citizens. The main problem we see in our society is that as our beaucracy grows, we allow for either too much deregulation or lack of specific and necessary oversight to alter the programs that work and the ones that do not. Just as many argue that too much government involvement screws up programs or industries (which is one extreme of the spectrum), the same goes for the other end of the spectrum (too much private involvement in programs for the good of society - insurance, social security, medicare, education, etc). Both extremes left to their own devices will cause failures - just have different results, but both terrible in their own right.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
What was important or necessary or efficient about going to the moon? The space program has virtually unlimited free investment dollars through taxation--there is no need to be efficient!
You mentioned this before, and I understand your assertion. But I don't see how it is necessary to the argument. Whether or not it was truly 'efficient', the national consensus, overall, became that we must beat the Russians to the moon. And government involvement began. My point is, if you left the moon race solely to the private sector, does anyone really think such gains would have been accomplished as they did with governmental involvement?
The question was posed towards liberals because I wanted to read their response. It's not a generalization whatsoever.
recessions are engineered. Reagan sent the country into a recession to implement his neoliberalism, to redistribute over 1 TRILLION US tax payer dollars to the high tech industry. Bush did the same with a war, was able to send hundreds of billions to his buddies in the private sector. recessions hurt the middle and lower classes, the upper class has corporate welfare to bail them out, so nobody really cares.
Obama has said he will end the war in Iraq-that's huge, not only for our economy at home but for the people of Iraq affected by this shitty war. that's a change in foreign policy-yeah he said he would expand the war in Afghanistan, a crime, but like I've mentioned, small changes in policy can mean life or death for many people.
He's mentioned in a political add that he will not increase nuclear weapon research, in fact will scale it down. that's also a good thing. He said he will make cuts in defense spending to pay for social programs. that also a shift in policy, a good thing. his policy, while overall will remain very similar to what we've seen in 60 years, will not be as aggressive, and he will in fact cut military spending.
Conservatives in power (a very misleading term, since there is nothing conservative about them)-have been responsible for more gov't than liberals in the past 20 years. From Reagan's huge corporate handout program-again over 1 TRILLION dollars shifted to the private sector under his neoliberal policies-to Bush's Homeland Security, which their primary goal seems to be to spy on the American citizenry. There is nothing conservative about their policies, except when it comes to social programs, which account for a small portion of our budget as it is.
I believe Obama understands this, that his motivation seems to be to help the majority of the people in the US, as opposed to the opulent minority-a very significant shift from past leaders.
Well if you let the private sector feed at the public trough, then yes! The problem is the truly private sector has to convince people to invest their own money--they can't take other people's money. Only ultra-nationalist investors would waste their own money in a pissing contest between two flags.
My own experiences with government programs have shown me that efficiency only leads to your budget being cut! If you waste money, you get more!
I know people say I am crazy for saying this... but don't any of you think George Bush and his cronies had atleast something to do September 11th???
Seems funny how the terrorist attacks happened soo early into Bush's term of office, and everything he has passed since into law since then has seem to use 9/11 as it's basis?
The Patriot Act, Iraqi War, economic policies, and his granted re-election... all passed on the basis of using the fear of 9/11 to help Bush and the republicans get by.
So tomorrow after all the different topics and issues have been talked about over and over by the canidates, it all basically funnels into a simple choice...
DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO LIVE IN FEAR FROM YOUR GOVERNMENT, AND THE NEXT TACTIC THEY USE TO SCARE YOU?
or
DO YOU WANNA ACTUALLY HAVE YOUR FREEDOMS BACK, AND LIVE AS YOU WERE BEFORE REPUBLICANS TOOK OVER OFFICE?
Nice 1st post. I thought multiple accounts was verboten.
2. http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?p=5974923#post5974923
naděje umírá poslední