BF2S Forums Never let a serious crisis go to waste.

Kmarion wrote:

Things you need to pay attention to in the mass media.

http://i39.tinypic.com/rm5t0p.jpg


You know exactly what you are getting with them. Just like I know what I'm getting with Air America, Micheal Moore, Olberfuherer ..etc.

Well to be honest you're the one that presented it as

Wall Street Journal wrote:

Maybe Turq didn't see that it was an op-ed, whatever.  The thing that really turns me off from this type of editorial is that he doesn't blame politicians - he blames Democrats.

The blame game is really getting old.  Politicians do it all the time.; it's as if they (political elite) want us to think there is a fundamental difference between the two political parties when there isn't one.  That's probably the main reason I don't really read main stream media.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2009-01-28 16:15:09)

Kmarion wrote:

Nit picking is what I want. This country has gone insane with spending. ANOTHER $650 million in digital TV coupons in a time that we should be tightening our belts is lame. So is arguing for hidden pork.

Have you read the entire bill?

No I haven't read the close to 700 pages document of spending. Have you?

ANOTHER $650 million in digital TV coupons in a time that we should be tightening our belts is, lame?

It's helping the people who can't afford digital tv to be able to get digital tv so that the sales of digital tv continues. I'm not going to go through the supply chain here, it should be obvious that this helps a large number of people.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Sure they should be more considerate during an economic downturn, but you don't cut spending for the sake of cutting spending, ever.

Sure you do.  It's called trimming the fat.  It's exactly the opposite of what the US is about to do.

Trimming the fat is what I want to see. More considerate spending.

But it doesn't mean you cut spending on something simply because it isn't going to be profitable.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Things you need to pay attention to in the mass media.

http://i39.tinypic.com/rm5t0p.jpg


You know exactly what you are getting with them. Just like I know what I'm getting with Air America, Micheal Moore, Olberfuherer ..etc.

Well to be honest you're the one that presented it as

Wall Street Journal wrote:

Maybe Turq didn't see that it was an op-ed, whatever.  The thing that really turns me off from this type of editorial is that he doesn't blame politicians - he blames Democrats.

The blame game is really getting old.  Politicians do it all the time.; it's as if they (political elite) want us to think there is a fundamental difference between the two political parties when there isn't one.  That's probably the main reason I don't really read main stream media.

Maybe Turq should follow some of your advice.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Read the story linked in the OP.  .....  I know, links are hardly ever read by people posting in topics, but a 2 minute read isn't too much to ask.

I was obviously giving you fellas too much credit. An oped piece is easily identified.

As far as blame I agree. If you noticed I didn't say "the dems totally suck, the republicans are so much better". I've also been critical of the last administrations spending.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Nit picking is what I want. This country has gone insane with spending. ANOTHER $650 million in digital TV coupons in a time that we should be tightening our belts is lame. So is arguing for hidden pork.

Have you read the entire bill?

No I haven't read the close to 700 pages document of spending. Have you?

ANOTHER $650 million in digital TV coupons in a time that we should be tightening our belts is, lame?

It's helping the people who can't afford digital tv to be able to get digital tv so that the sales of digital tv continues. I'm not going to go through the supply chain here, it should be obvious that this helps a large number of people.

647, and yes, twice.

Forcing people to give up thier income to pay for a digital TV project is fucking lame. It is not freedom, it's something closer to slavery. Or do you believe this money is infinite? Your plans are grand until you have to come to the realization that funding them requires that you take money from someone else by force. Your view of economic policy is quite simply saying that the government should take your money because they can spend it better than you. Why should I believe that a third party, one of the most inefficient and wasteful institutions ever created, can make better economic decisions for me? No thanks.

Yes the economy is broke. However, advocating spending for the sake of spending will not fix it. There has to be reinvestments, but it is imperative that we invest in areas that will yield good fast results. Digital TV is a great advancement and all, but it doesn't mean shit when you can't pay your electric bill.

I guess devaluing our currency by printing more money and dropping the interest rate to virtually nill isn't enough. Inflation will soon be out of control. AND THAT is the worst possible scenario. Unemployed and underpaid while the cost of goods and services are spiraling upwards out of control.

Yellowman03 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I guess devaluing our currency by printing more money and dropping the interest rate to virtually nill isn't enough. Inflation will soon be out of control. AND THAT is the worst possible scenario. Unemployed and underpaid while the cost of goods and services are spiraling upwards out of control.

Our currency is too valuable to the global economy. The market will not allow our currency to run away. However, the decay of our businesses and workers is the main priority. There's no reason to worry about inflation when our corporations fail, our people are out of work, and our Government cannot do anything about it. THAT is the worst scenario because fixing a currency is must less time and resource consuming than fixing literally everything.

It will and it has before. Last spring we got a wiff of things to come. Our currency is the foundation of our economic model.. and it literally is everything.

I've said it before;

stockpile weapons, ammo, food, water, batteries, tobacco and booze.

You'll remember this post when you are hungry and your internets don't work.

ATG you forgot porn

Kmarion wrote:

san4 wrote:

zomg politics. Has there ever been a bill passed without crap in it?

THi$$ much? No.

Big bill, big load of pork. It's an inherent part of politics. It always has been and always will be.

line by line... i will go through everything that comes across my desk and cut out earmarks... Barack Obama. (I'm paraphrasing but thats basically what he said on the campaign trail)  that went out the window i guess

This bill is not an economic stimulus...  The name has been changed to the Baconator stimulus...lol

I guarantee come the 2010 and 2012 elections all the people that voted against the stimulus pork bill
will be in a very strong position to get elected. Consumer confidence is the only thing that will get things back on track...

I live in the wealthiest county(Fairfax County,Va...might be 2nd or 3rd now?) and the people around here have loads of money but they are sitting on it. So in the meantime the service industry and the entertainment places(movies etc) are way down. The people that dont make a lot of money get hurt the most... but go ahead and add 850 billion to our taxes...  anyone know what the rules were for the first 350 billion...anyone?

Kmarion wrote:

san4 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

THi$$ much? No.

Big bill, big load of pork. It's an inherent part of politics. It always has been and always will be.

Some Presidents have actually succeeded in cutting spending.. some in my lifetime.

Perhaps, but none of them can stop pork. It's the lifeblood of politics.

Kmarion wrote:

san4 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Some Presidents have actually succeeded in cutting spending.. some in my lifetime.

Perhaps, but none of them can stop pork. It's the lifeblood of politics.

So long as we have a lobbyist dilemma yes.

I don't think it has much to do with lobbyists. Representatives stay in office when they get stuff for their constituents.