Originally posted by leonheartmm
lmao, i started with a non offensice statement. u replied with egotistical/self obsessed bullshit and a non answer, i simply continued the tradition.no1 is disagreeing with what you posted. well not totally. i was merely elaborating on the problem with YOU posting it. and u cant seem to be able to justify yourself or ur habits.
Feel free to use the ignore button then.
It would sorta bother me if he did it.
But I don't think he will. Too much blow back. I mean, Maddow went after him. Freaking Maddow.
Him thinking about considering it doesn't bother me. Of course he's going to think about considering it. He'd be stupid not too, because it's an option, and one that would make things easy. But it would prove him to be a hypocrite to actually do it.
Re: Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan
Originally posted by KidRock
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=4&emc=eta1[B]President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a “preventive detention” system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.
[/B]
Holy shit...,Alex Jones was right 😂
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
You do understand creating even greater public debt and propping up failed companies will only hurt the economy more, right?
Originally posted by King Kandy
So if Obama did nothing, the debt would remain exactly where it is? No, the poor economy would worsen and build up debt no matter what Obama did.
So pretty much "**** it, there is already a fire going, we might as well throw a bunch of gasoline on it, maybe that will put it out?"
Originally posted by King Kandy
So if Obama did nothing, the debt would remain exactly where it is? No, the poor economy would worsen and build up debt no matter what Obama did.
No, the debt would evaporate with the evaporating companies (bankruptcy), business practices would be forced to change rather than their diapers being changed for them, foreign borrowing would be reduced as no money would need to be borrowed from other nations to foot the bill for the companies' mistakes (and there are numerous reasons why you don't want your nation to be in huge debt other nations), the system is allowed to mature from mistakes on it's own in a free market; the companies not bailed out have a chance to restructure, reorganize, file chapter 11, and get rid of contractual agreements that hold them back from fixing their problem (getting rid of their union contracts, stopping pension, etc.); and, finally, tax dollars can be spent on things other than bailing out poisonous asset ridden companies.
(That was a LONG sentence.)
On the downside, there would be many short term job losses, a shift in job types could be observed and that's hard to adapt to on the short term, some companies may ship jobs overseas to save money because of the loss in spending power from the middle class, and...and...I can't think of anything else.
I would love to see some market attrition with other organizations replacing or entirely different organizations replacing the losses. I'm more capitalist, though, and fair is fair. You do crappy business and it bites you in the butt, your business fails.
Some calls this naive as the US banking market is so closely tied in with the rest of the world that it literally affects the rest of the world. Strange, because everything went to shizer anyway...it's not like things would have been that much different. In fact, the stock market may have done better if they didn't drag it out so long...and just went belly up.
Edit- this seems like the wrong thread for this.
Originally posted by KidRock
So pretty much "**** it, there is already a fire going, we might as well throw a bunch of gasoline on it, maybe that will put it out?"
Actually gasoline can be used to put out a small fire in much the same way that water can. It's really only the fumes that are easy to ignite.
Re: Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan
Originally posted by KidRock
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=4&emc=eta1[B]President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a “preventive detention” system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.
[/B]
You should really wait (and read the entire story) to cry until shit actually happens or looks like it will most likely happen. This is just an idea in a list of possibilities, as something has to be done with the shit left from previous administration.
“What it’s not going to be is a prescriptive speech,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser. “The president wants to take some time and put this whole issue in perspective to identify what the challenges are and how he will approach dealing with them.”
If he does do this, you should be happy, it's like having a little bit of Bush-Cheney back, except he's being upfront about it from the start.
Originally posted by King Kandy
So if Obama did nothing, the debt would remain exactly where it is?'
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, the poor economy would worsen and build up debt no matter what Obama did.