02-13-2009, 06:38 PM
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->If we are to learn from the past, and make current comparisons that we are getting close to repeating that past, it makes perfect sense, and is fully qualified to learn from those whom have obtained wisdom from past similar expierences. To dismiss the president in which you defend so much who so flagrantly utilizes the word depression and then discard someone who lived through it, is foolhearted and silly.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can I put this so you will understand it? If NO ONE is arguing that things are AS BAD as the Great Depression, what does your Grandfather pointing out that it's not as bad as the Great Depression prove? No one is claiming we have 25 percent unemployment, so pointing out that we don't have 25 percent unemployment is useless. No one is claiming we have bread lines, so pointing out we had bread lines back then is useless. Defending that point makes me foolhearted and silly? Really?
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Either back up your arguements with examples AND data, or admit that your simply argueing your opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am telling you I don't have the figures yet. I am telling you that while things that can be measured right now don't prove that things are worse than 82, my guess is that if you give it 6 months the WILL prove that. Your claim would be the equivalent of saying in June 1942 that WW2 wasn't as bad as WW1 because we had lost far fewer men. If you want me to admit that with the data we can see RIGHT NOW, that this data says we are better off than 82, fine, you win. But it's a victory of semantics.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I'm saying that overall both parties have used this tactic quite effectively and considering that Obama is citing "change" so much, I find it a dubious claim...at best...that he represents "change that we can believe in" when he is simply regurgitating the same methods used by one of the most hated presidents of all time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need to define your argument. Is your argument that Obama is a hypocrite because he is scaring people? Because if that's your argument, frankly I don't give a shit. That's a monumentally unimportant partisan argument. And it makes no difference to me if that is how you feel. If your argument is that the economy will be fine and Obama is LYING in order to scare people, I do give a shit. And that is why I keep telling you that everyone else is saying the same thing, include the Bush administration. Not to point out that Bush said it too, but rather to point out that Bush would not have been saying it, if the only reason to say it is to make Obama look good.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I think of them both as typical politicians, and am not blown away by President Obama's ability to give a rousing speech, and then thinking him the savior of America simply because he has figured out how to address the American people as if he were giving a surmon to his church on Sunday.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Boilerplate right wing talking points (which are pretty irrelevant to the argument here), and to be honest, fairly offensive. He has been in office less than a month and I am already tired of being told I am a mindless dolt who falls for Obama's bullshit because he has a purty mouth. Sadly, I don't see that talking point going away any time soon.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->smile.gif I love responses like this.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why is that, exactly? The inference seems to be these responses are beneath you, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean, or how the quote you provided is pertinent? Your original point seemed to be that while we (the great brainwashed masses, mesmerized by the pretty talking President) run around saying the sky is falling, you are seeing OPPORTUNITY! I was simply pointing out how possibly the greatest investor of our lifetimes was saying much the same thing 6 months ago, and was proven categorically wrong. My guess is, had we had this argument 6 months ago, you would have THEN been telling us how we are overreacting.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->-Change in the economy is part of the free market. Free Markets move as should move, up, down, sideways and back again. They grow, they overgrow, and then they contract...then they start growing again. Such is the very nature of the free market. If you would like a recommendation on a wonderful text to read on the subject, I would suggest The Wealth Of Nations - Adam Smith (wonderful but difficult read)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for the book of the month club tip (am I the only one who found the suggestion to "check out this Adam Smith guy" profoundly condescending?), but that quote could just as easily be applied to 1932-1942. I am quite sure that people like your grandfather would find the fact that Adam Smith says "change in the economy is part of the free market" cold comfort when they went to bed hungry every night. Adam Smith may be right, but I don't see how using the "shit happens" policy to run our economy is a particularly helpful insight right now.
How can I put this so you will understand it? If NO ONE is arguing that things are AS BAD as the Great Depression, what does your Grandfather pointing out that it's not as bad as the Great Depression prove? No one is claiming we have 25 percent unemployment, so pointing out that we don't have 25 percent unemployment is useless. No one is claiming we have bread lines, so pointing out we had bread lines back then is useless. Defending that point makes me foolhearted and silly? Really?
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Either back up your arguements with examples AND data, or admit that your simply argueing your opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am telling you I don't have the figures yet. I am telling you that while things that can be measured right now don't prove that things are worse than 82, my guess is that if you give it 6 months the WILL prove that. Your claim would be the equivalent of saying in June 1942 that WW2 wasn't as bad as WW1 because we had lost far fewer men. If you want me to admit that with the data we can see RIGHT NOW, that this data says we are better off than 82, fine, you win. But it's a victory of semantics.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I'm saying that overall both parties have used this tactic quite effectively and considering that Obama is citing "change" so much, I find it a dubious claim...at best...that he represents "change that we can believe in" when he is simply regurgitating the same methods used by one of the most hated presidents of all time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need to define your argument. Is your argument that Obama is a hypocrite because he is scaring people? Because if that's your argument, frankly I don't give a shit. That's a monumentally unimportant partisan argument. And it makes no difference to me if that is how you feel. If your argument is that the economy will be fine and Obama is LYING in order to scare people, I do give a shit. And that is why I keep telling you that everyone else is saying the same thing, include the Bush administration. Not to point out that Bush said it too, but rather to point out that Bush would not have been saying it, if the only reason to say it is to make Obama look good.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I think of them both as typical politicians, and am not blown away by President Obama's ability to give a rousing speech, and then thinking him the savior of America simply because he has figured out how to address the American people as if he were giving a surmon to his church on Sunday.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Boilerplate right wing talking points (which are pretty irrelevant to the argument here), and to be honest, fairly offensive. He has been in office less than a month and I am already tired of being told I am a mindless dolt who falls for Obama's bullshit because he has a purty mouth. Sadly, I don't see that talking point going away any time soon.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->smile.gif I love responses like this.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why is that, exactly? The inference seems to be these responses are beneath you, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean, or how the quote you provided is pertinent? Your original point seemed to be that while we (the great brainwashed masses, mesmerized by the pretty talking President) run around saying the sky is falling, you are seeing OPPORTUNITY! I was simply pointing out how possibly the greatest investor of our lifetimes was saying much the same thing 6 months ago, and was proven categorically wrong. My guess is, had we had this argument 6 months ago, you would have THEN been telling us how we are overreacting.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->-Change in the economy is part of the free market. Free Markets move as should move, up, down, sideways and back again. They grow, they overgrow, and then they contract...then they start growing again. Such is the very nature of the free market. If you would like a recommendation on a wonderful text to read on the subject, I would suggest The Wealth Of Nations - Adam Smith (wonderful but difficult read)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for the book of the month club tip (am I the only one who found the suggestion to "check out this Adam Smith guy" profoundly condescending?), but that quote could just as easily be applied to 1932-1942. I am quite sure that people like your grandfather would find the fact that Adam Smith says "change in the economy is part of the free market" cold comfort when they went to bed hungry every night. Adam Smith may be right, but I don't see how using the "shit happens" policy to run our economy is a particularly helpful insight right now.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.