Teh Ricer Civic!

Why are we even arguing? i mean there are like 10-15 people who participate in these "arguments" and i would say every one of them has made up, or is near to making up their mind. its rather pointless other than for the entertainment value.

It seems as futures people are putting commodities away in favor of keeping the dollar strong. Sounds good in the long term to me.

I finally managed to dig up a long term chart of money supplies. The money supply nearly doubled under the Clinton era... so your argument is moot. It would appear as though Bush era money supplies are just following the same line Clinton era ones were (just with lower taxes to accompany them). Perhaps it is contribution to inflation (And im quite sure it is), but the fact remains that it also doubled under Clinton era which is/was largely though to be a strong economy era. This seems to reflect that our current predicament was emplaced by Clinton, and handled incorrectly by the Fed under the Bush administration (although i believe the fed tends to act rather independently anyways).

You know, everyone always claims FDR as the greatest, but there has been evidence to support the claims that his "new deal" while it worked, when they eased off of it it diminished nearly all the gains. His bank holiday, however, was an excellent idea. So, in reality, other than provide hope for people, he didn't really improve all that many things until WW2 hit. And i think regardless of who was president, they would have struck back at Japan and the Axis. and the economy would have improved due to... well the war. So the question boils down to this, since WW2 would have undoubtedly made any president very popular due to the huge expansion of government as the war machine ramps up, would history really have been any different with a different president instead of FDR? However, i do appreciate what FDR did to try and keep America afloat during the Great Depression, even if i dont completely agree with his methodology. Additionally, he did get us through WW2. I just like playing devils advocate with the above states.

D'oh! your right, but they did require registration of machine guns in the National Firearms Act of 1934. my favorite "machine gun" law has to be DCs, which states that any weapon that CAN THEORETICALLY accept more than 10 rounds is a machine gun. And its still legal to sell or buy fully automatic guns in most states. But since there is only a limited supply of them, they are very very costly to do so.

not quite, the constitution provides wording to support that slaves are in fact free men born equally (as its a matter of interpretation). The founding fathers wanted a united state, so they couldnt go and alienate the south. So they left wording in there to clarify at a later time, but they didnt want to settle the matter at the beginning. So, you could argue that a constructionist would have voted slavery unconstitutional.

Most people are still racists, they just wont admit it... although people from the younger generations are definitely less apt to be racist.

You know, if Obama had pledged to install constructionist judges on the supreme court (even if they were liberal ones) i would be more comfortable if he won. But since he is not, and will likely install judges who judge based on "fairness" instead of what the constitution actually states (cause if you listen to a democrat it damn near sounds like abortion is a constitutional right). Such behavior is totally unamerican and only panders to the uneducated masses looking for whatever they can get from the government. Essentially it is discarding the constitution in my opinion. Remember the old saying "Ask not what your government can do for you, but what YOU can do for your government" It is not the governments job to save its own citizens who make bad decisions, its to provide a field so that people can make their own decisions, and if they make good ones then good for them. If they make bad ones they should learn from them. But in todays "oh its someone elses fault" mentality, such self-responsibility is diminishing quicker than a puddle of water on a scorching hot sunny day.

I agree that Bush 43 inherited a bad problem, and blame definitely lies within the fed at some levels. However i think many of these "stimulus packages" the constant band-aids that his administration used to keep prodding the economy along, has led to... well now. We have, essentially, a maimed long overdue economic cycle that he has managed to keep somewhat alive. Our economy needed to have gone into recession a few years ago. That would have cooled off the housing markets and the finance markets. We would likely be starting to emerge from it by now stronger than we were. This just adds to my belief that government intervention in the economy is a bad thing (usually). It led to the 70s and 80s thanks to the framework laid down by JFK/LBJ, and now its leading to... well now. ::edit:: i come from a generation after the 70s and 80s, so all i know of it is heresay and what i have read about it. That will of course leave my views on the subject to seen differently than from someone who actually lived through it.

Well since were heading in a recession anyways, we might as well just raise the taxes and eliminate our debt. The economy will eventually rebound on its own so might as well make it as strong a rebound as possible. As the dust in Iraq begins to settle and we see the Iraqis themselves taking over, our expenditures will likely begin to fall sharply, plus we are selling them a sizable amount of arms, which is some welcome revenue. I'm sure some of our oil companies will be able to negotiate to drill in Iraq which should also bring in a bit more revenue. While raising taxes here at home will likely be very unpopular, it is probably in the best interest of our country and its economy to repay our debts and then drop taxes afterwords. The biggest problem i have with Obama's tax plan is that he intends to increase corporate taxes. And, as i think we all well know, corporations are very good at passing costs on to their customers. This will also put somewhat more strain on the wages they decide to pay their employees. It may also discourage people to start businesses, unless S-Corps are excluded from his corporate tax hikes. Or it may discourage smaller businesses from incorporating and growing. To further compound matters, Obama is in favor of raising the federal minimum wage if i do recall. During a very slow/recessed economy this will probably do a lot more harm than good. Not that it ever does any good anyways (other than contribute to inflation and encourage farmers to use illegal labor).

Yes it is. We had poor oversight/regulations over it. But that still doesn't make the principle behind it wrong.

Perhaps you will want to go look at Bill Clintons strategy regarding the economy then. You might be plesantly suprised. The only difference is that Bill inherited a strengthening economy from Bush Sr. as well as the framework for surpluses, whereas bush inherited a weakening economy that was badly hurt by 9/11 and compounded further by poor congressional oversight of the finances, which is, of course at least somewhat the fault of his administration and others.

And rich people save their money in banks do they not? That provides banks with the ability to make LOANS to poor/middle class people which allows them to BUY more. besides in poor economic situations, the cheapo stores like Wal*Mart 99cent stores etc tend to rise in value. And no, Obamas tax plan is nothing more than a disguised welfare plan for the lowest classes, courtesy of the upper classes.

Olds, many of the people in the lower tax brackets, after filing their tax returns receive money back. In the end they are not exactly paying all that much in income taxes. All Obamas program does is creates another layer of welfare where the government writes these people a check ESPECIALLY in that lowest bracket. besides, poor people dont create businesses usually do they? And when people dont create businesses, they dont create jobs. That being said, i still think when whoever gets into office, they will just end up raising taxes anyways to start paying off the debt, they could do a Clinton style tax increase with an accompanying increase in money printed up... its tricky, but its possible to do it without making inflation worse.

by 2004, our government was pulling in more money than it was under Clinton. That was before the bad inflation. course the chart im looking at also includes state and local governments... but still. Besides, inflation has very little to do with anything if wages aren't rising proportionately within our own country, other than increased sales tax i suppose. Plus you have to consider that our economy was rather hammered after 9/11. But poor congressional oversight over the banking industry has definately left us in a poor spot going into the next presidency, i dont see how raising taxes is avoidable.

Well your against the Gun Control Act of 19 thirty something then. and how on earth are you going to hold a .308 automatic still?

Yes the extreme right is just as intolerant/hypocritical as the extreme left. Want to make any other obvious comments?

Bush's tax cuts actually increased government revenue ya know. and caprice, what do you mean by more gun regulations? are you in favor of the nearly useless assault weapons ban (considering these types of guns are used in less than 2% of gun related crimes, i would consider it a useless banning of rifles because they look "scary") or just forcing people to register their guns? As our economy quickly fails, government revenue will certainly fall. Iraq spending will start to fade as we give more and more control to the Iraqis. Short of cutting government spending, i dont know how we can help the economy while reducing our debt. If our congress was not so inept, our oil companies no-bid contracts with Iraq would likely have helped bring in some revenue.

Mr. Teddy Roosevelt. A naturalist and a true american. He served his country, strengthened our global standing, and was committed to serving the public. And the creation of our National Park System.

Britain has a few gun rights groups that are spring up in an attempt to get firearms back in the hands of citizens. It is rather funny to see them cite AMERICA for proof that guns are needed. The statistics they use are interesting anyways. Its a hallmark of an authoritarian government though, disarm your citizens so they cannot defend themselves from you. Those poor blokes.

Well yes, but given wording in the constitution, this is a well defined right. Abortion is a tad bit more grey (in scope and depth)

well given that views differ by state, lets say, theoretically, in one state 75% of the population opposes abortion. Now, to them, having abortions mandatory legal by the federal government may be unconscionable. Whats your view on that?

You guys realize that all overturning Roe Vs Wade would do is return abortion rights to individual states right? Its not like it would make abortion illegal de facto.

Well it still may be, my memory is very hazy from exactly who all helped us. I made Nick a sick sig, but its been lost to the annals of time. Very sad.

Well dodgefan didnt you help NOS, Satty, Nick, and myself (way back in the days when i was Open Minded) postwhoring a few years back?