QUOTE(psychø @ Jan 23 2009, 10:33 AM) [snapback]1480288[/snapback]
And...you shouldn't have had them in the first place
Great logic. So if the law abiding citizens don't have their guns, but all the murderous thugs do, then how do we protect ourselves from them? This is what happened in Australia and the rate of homocides with firearms shot up 300 percent in some states
He wants to do alot more than that. He even said himself "only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy" . LOL. He also promised to double the amount spent on schools, while he forgets about the ten trillion dollar debt.
He's voted with the house democrats most of the time he was in the senate, but lets hope he does whats best for everyone; learns how to say "VETO!"
That is because there is a recession, there is no demand for a lot of thing that doesn't mean that people won't want new cars, kitchens, bathrooms etc. at some point.
The recession will go on for years; at least that's what people were saying before it happened (well, the non interventionists knew about it anyway, no liberals had a clue). Businesses that fail should fail, that's how things work. Not to mention companies have been producing way more than they should have (the fake economy that even the mega-libs like yourself agree was behind the recession).
That is because it does, ever heard of 125% mortgages...
I love how people love bringing up problems in the housing market that started with Fannie/Freddy, completely ignoring the fact that they are government sponsored entities. Meaning if the government stayed out of things like they should have, these institutions would have never existed and things would be fine. Imagine that.
Excellent idea, now no one can trade money with you on the open market and the exchange rate system doesn't work
People can trade on the open market when the money has value, you're going to have to give some elaboration there. And the exchange rate system would still operate, except instead of comparing the dollar to another foreign currency, you compare the value of gold to it. Plus, we would use Ron Paul's plan, which is to have the banks start using a gold standard and keep the federal reserve in operation until it fails to compete with it's unstable, worthless fiat currency.
Another amazing idea, so when people go to work they don't actually earn enough to own a house/car/food despite however many hours a week they work
Job value is determined by supply and demand, not what the government says (have you ever wondered why we don't all get minimum wage and nothing else), this only makes it impossible for larger firms to hire enough employees, and they end up shipping the jobs overseas, while smaller firms can't afford to compete where they are paying a few employees a large amount, and other firms are paying millions of workers next to nothing.
Yes, with all the excess capital the banks are willing giving away at a low interest rate...
Actually, gold standards can insure for lower interest rates. Look at what happened with these gold denominated loans:
oh no with all their savings they have earn from workign in a state with no minimum wage.
Do you know what welfare dependent areas are? They are areas in the middle of no where full of black people who don't' work because they collect welfare; they don't' work because they have no incentive to do so, they think mummy government as their backs. Reform welfare and people will have incentive to do some work and stop living off the taxpayer. They won't be working in a state with no minimum wage, because they aren't working at all, because there are no businesses when everyone is on welfare! Get a clue. They can afford collateral for a loan if they want, they can go fishing/hunting and sell that, but having entire communities with only one or two stores in the whole county is completely unacceptable. Although I suppose you bleeding heart libs will disagree on the grounds that "meh, if they don't want to work and only live off money from me AND the working poor, then let them - here we have freedom in this nation, freedom to other people's money!"
Then you can spend all the money on stopping crime
This analysis doesn't make much sense. If drugs/prostitution are legal, then there are no prostitute or drug dealers to catch, and there are no mobsters controlling them that we have to spend billion arresting. As it is, we are tying up our judicial system as well as our police force catching non violent offenders such as prostitutes and drug dealers, but if they weren't they could work on catching those who commit violence, fraud or coercion.
What so the farmers can no longer make enough money to make a living and just give up making
ROFLMAO!!! This is typical or a liberal (or a market socialist, whatever you are) - always only looking at things on their face, with no analysis on what actually happens:
So if all the subsidies go to people who already make more money than the average farmer, then how are farmers going to go out of business if this is stopped? AND if New Zealand can do BETTER in their farming business after removing the subsidies, then why are farm subsidies necessary?
big business doesn't want the minimum wage
Of course they do. Small firms can't afford workers, while they can by going overseas. If the minimum wage was removed, we would be able to buy products made locally - big businesses don't want that.
the gold standard or legalisation of prostitution, gambling and drugs.
Exactly, that was the point I just made thanks for agreeing with me. >>
Good to see your at least well researched... oh wait, no you're not, you just spouted off in theory and opinion, without any real world examples like the ones I provided.
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 24 2009, 10:04 AM) [snapback]1480434[/snapback]
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Jan 21 2009, 08:26 AM) [snapback]1479976[/snapback]
This assumes that what he wants to do is good for the country to begin with. A weapons ban? Then all the law abiding citizens hand over their guns, while them murderous thugs hold onto them.
I think, due to a huge blairing problem with the Constitution ( the second amendment) and the fact that Republicans are stauchly against this, and the fact that many Democrats are against the idea too, and the fact that a lot of American Citizens are against a weapns ban, means this will be extremely difficult to get enacted into law.
Not a complete weapons ban, but the democrats will come up with something - just like they did last time they controlled the houses. Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban. As for the republicans, they are out of it out the moment, they are quite scarce in positions of power in the federal government... just like the last big weapons ban in america.
The subprime mortgage crisis occured because financial companies OVERSTATED the value of "paper" (which caused artificially inflated profits)...
Read what I wrote above to psycho. Fannie/Freddy are GOVERNMENT Sponsored Enterprises.
That means your mummy government is responsible for their existence. Too bad we don't have laissez faire, then these companies would have never existed. And people have the nerve to claim laissez faire is responsible for the crisis... ROFL!
On the other hand if you believe that if you chose to invest that money in a house for 1 year, and the value of the house dropped by 10,000 to 90,000 then your rate of return would be -10%.
100 years ago, a $20 gold piece would buy you four loaves of bread. one hundred years ago, a $20 federal reserve note would do the same, but today, the gold piece would still buy you 400 loaves of bread, where as the federal reserve note would only buy you 10. You tell me which is more stable.
The value of gold doesn't change very often, regardless of how much more of it enters the market. Where as with a house, the value constantly changes depending upon variables in the location it's in. So you're way off with that analogy.