Do OWSers understand what they are calling for is tyranny?

[barb019]

Our government clearly does not care about the American Citizens and what they do care about is their elite group that supports their idea of wealth. Our leaders are leading all of us into a third world country and that is a fact.

 

[007]

 

[Intense]

The main and original thrust of the OWS movement is similar to what its name implies and a very valid argument. The banks reduced the value of American homes by engaging in wreckless lending practices and should have to pay for their misdeeds rather than be rewarded.

The Banks and Government conspired to Over Inflate the Value of Homes in the First Place, got caught in a snare, and caused the house of cards to tumble. Isn't that what you meant to say? The Bubble burst and self corrected, or would have, if not for the bail outs on our dime.

Its not what I meant to say because it isn't true.


"self corrected" implies that economic destruction is correct. Homes were obviously overvalued or there would have been no bust, but to assume the price they fall to after the bust is the same price they'd be at if there hadn't been a boom is absurd. Dropping house prices cause more house prices to drop. If my home is underwater and I can't sell it - that means I can't move, which means other folks trying to sell their homes will get a lower price. Its a system of positive feedback resulting in every lower prices - a CRASH. Similar to 1929 when margin calls forced sales - which lowered prices - causing more margin calls and more sales, etc.

Triggered by Gas prices stating too high for too long. Government Policy caused the problem, you drained out pockets, caused us to use up our mad money, drained our reserves. That was about greed and control. It was about not paying attention, and not knowing when to fish or cut bait.

The key is in getting government spending under control, not devising more excuses to justify taking more out of the Economy. You create undue burden and then say there is not enough burden. It's really starting to smell.

 

[Intense]

Our government clearly does not care about the American Citizens and what they do care about is their elite group that supports their idea of wealth. Our leaders are leading all of us into a third world country and that is a fact.

Achievement is not leading us to Third World-ism.

 

[SAT2]

The Banks and Government conspired to Over Inflate the Value of Homes in the First Place, got caught in a snare, and caused the house of cards to tumble. Isn't that what you meant to say? The Bubble burst and self corrected, or would have, if not for the bail outs on our dime.

Its not what I meant to say because it isn't true.


"self corrected" implies that economic destruction is correct. Homes were obviously overvalued or there would have been no bust, but to assume the price they fall to after the bust is the same price they'd be at if there hadn't been a boom is absurd. Dropping house prices cause more house prices to drop. If my home is underwater and I can't sell it - that means I can't move, which means other folks trying to sell their homes will get a lower price. Its a system of positive feedback resulting in every lower prices - a CRASH. Similar to 1929 when margin calls forced sales - which lowered prices - causing more margin calls and more sales, etc.

Triggered by Gas prices stating too high for too long. Government Policy caused the problem, you drained out pockets, caused us to use up our mad money, drained our reserves. That was about greed and control. It was about not paying attention, and not knowing when to fish or cut bait.

The key is in getting government spending under control, not devising more excuses to justify taking more out of the Economy. You create undue burden and then say there is not enough burden. It's really starting to smell.

Lack of government policy. Lack of.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Triggered by Gas prices stating too high for too long. Government Policy caused the problem, you drained out pockets, caused us to use up our mad money, drained our reserves. That was about greed and control. It was about not paying attention, and not knowing when to fish or cut bait.

The key is in getting government spending under control, not devising more excuses to justify taking more out of the Economy. You create undue burden and then say there is not enough burden. It's really starting to smell.

Can you explain in economic terms how reduced spending helps a down economy? That would seem to fly in the face of basic economics.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Lack of government policy. Lack of.

yes we are but one more law away from nirvana

and if we elect those you say are right

 

[OODA_Loop]

Can you explain in economic terms how reduced spending helps a down economy? That would seem to fly in the face of basic economics.

reduced government spending decreases the tax burden freeing up disposable income

 

[Intense]

Its not what I meant to say because it isn't true.


"self corrected" implies that economic destruction is correct. Homes were obviously overvalued or there would have been no bust, but to assume the price they fall to after the bust is the same price they'd be at if there hadn't been a boom is absurd. Dropping house prices cause more house prices to drop. If my home is underwater and I can't sell it - that means I can't move, which means other folks trying to sell their homes will get a lower price. Its a system of positive feedback resulting in every lower prices - a CRASH. Similar to 1929 when margin calls forced sales - which lowered prices - causing more margin calls and more sales, etc.

Triggered by Gas prices stating too high for too long. Government Policy caused the problem, you drained out pockets, caused us to use up our mad money, drained our reserves. That was about greed and control. It was about not paying attention, and not knowing when to fish or cut bait.

The key is in getting government spending under control, not devising more excuses to justify taking more out of the Economy. You create undue burden and then say there is not enough burden. It's really starting to smell.

Lack of government policy. Lack of.

Not exactly. Government Policy creates the shortage which drive up cost.

 

[SAT2]

Lack of government policy. Lack of.

yes we are but one more law away from nirvana

and if we elect those you say are right

I thought we would one tax cut away from Nirvana.

 

[SAT2]

Triggered by Gas prices stating too high for too long. Government Policy caused the problem, you drained out pockets, caused us to use up our mad money, drained our reserves. That was about greed and control. It was about not paying attention, and not knowing when to fish or cut bait.

The key is in getting government spending under control, not devising more excuses to justify taking more out of the Economy. You create undue burden and then say there is not enough burden. It's really starting to smell.

Lack of government policy. Lack of.

Not exactly. Government Policy creates the shortage which drive up cost.

Lack of policy caused a meltdown.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I thought we would one tax cut away from Nirvana.

more of my hard earned money in my pocket = more nirvana

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Can you explain in economic terms how reduced spending helps a down economy? That would seem to fly in the face of basic economics.

reduced government spending decreases the tax burden freeing up disposable income

The tax burden is already the lowest its been in decades. Wealthy individuals and the banks have sidelined their money in low risk investments, its not really doing anything to help the economy. The idea that if they only had more money to do nothing with it would help the economy is absurd.

That's not to say that increased government spending is necessarily the answer. But you can't expect reduced government spending to help a down economy.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Lack of policy caused a meltdown.

policy and bailout removed market forces = meltdown

 

[Dragon]

reduced government spending decreases the tax burden freeing up disposable income

First off, that's not true; at present reduced spending would merely reduce the deficit. Taxes would not be cut.

Second, at present, without justification for investment in the form of consumer demand, more capital would either sit idle or be invested in activities that create no jobs. Reduced government spending = reduced economic stimulus, coupled with a cutback in possibly-necessary government services (depending on where the cuts are made). The net effect would be economically bad, even though reducing the deficit would in itself be a positive.

 

[OODA_Loop]

reduced government spending decreases the tax burden freeing up disposable income

The tax burden is already the lowest its been in decades. Wealthy individuals and the banks have sidelined their money in low risk investments, its not really doing anything to help the economy. The idea that if they only had more money to do nothing with it would help the economy is absurd.

That's not to say that increased government spending is necessarily the answer. But you can't expect reduced government spending to help a down economy.

decrease it more

 

[SAT2]

The tax burden is already the lowest its been in decades. Wealthy individuals and the banks have sidelined their money in low risk investments, its not really doing anything to help the economy. The idea that if they only had more money to do nothing with it would help the economy is absurd.

That's not to say that increased government spending is necessarily the answer. But you can't expect reduced government spending to help a down economy.

decrease it more

You're asking for a depression. In the name of ideological purity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

reduced government spending decreases the tax burden freeing up disposable income

First off, that's not true; at present reduced spending would merely reduce the deficit. Taxes would not be cut.

Second, at present, without justification for investment in the form of consumer demand, more capital would either sit idle or be invested in activities that create no jobs. Reduced government spending = reduced economic stimulus, coupled with a cutback in possibly-necessary government services (depending on where the cuts are made). The net effect would be economically bad, even though reducing the deficit would in itself be a positive.

I agree. Reduced deficits by themselves are good, but the bad outweighs the good in a bad economy.


When our economy recovers our nation needs to focus hard on balancing the budget. In good times nations should pay down their debts. Ironically, the political will to pay down debt is higher in bad times it seems. In the 90's when we had a projected surplus -which would have paid down some debt - the right wing decided it was better to give it back to the taxpayers instead.

 

[Intense]

Triggered by Gas prices stating too high for too long. Government Policy caused the problem, you drained out pockets, caused us to use up our mad money, drained our reserves. That was about greed and control. It was about not paying attention, and not knowing when to fish or cut bait.

The key is in getting government spending under control, not devising more excuses to justify taking more out of the Economy. You create undue burden and then say there is not enough burden. It's really starting to smell.

Can you explain in economic terms how reduced spending helps a down economy? That would seem to fly in the face of basic economics.

Yes. Reduced Government spending allows the Tax Revenue to target existing debt, lowering interest and principle, bringing down costs to get goods and services to market, stimulating commerce. Do you wait for the big sales to shop, when you can afford to, or do you wait for the sales to end before you purchase, and seek to pay List?

When you lower the burden you stimulate commerce, you may receive less per transaction, yet you make up for it in volume, but you know that. Which brings us more to the Truth, .... It is a matter of control, not economics. You risk the Economic factor, to gain control over resource you have neither worked for nor earned. Got it... Chrystal Clear.

 

[SAT2]

Yes. Reduced Government spending allows the Tax Revenue to target existing debt, lowering interest and principle, bringing down costs to get goods and services to market, stimulating commerce. Do you wait for the big sales to shop, when you can afford to, or do you wait for the sales to end before you purchase, and seek to pay List?

When you lower the burden you stimulate commerce, you may receive less per transaction, yet you make up for it in volume, but you know that. Which brings us more to the Truth, .... It is a matter of control, not economics. You risk the Economic factor, to gain control over resource you have neither worked for nor earned. Got it... Chrystal Clear.

You use too many pronouns in these accusations. I can never tell who you are accusing of what.

You have to know that an economy is more complex than just "lower taxes, lower taxes".

High taxes are not our problem right now. Taxes are low. We're still in a mess.