We're on the brink; where will it go?

[maat55]

Actually, with Bush and the Neocons, we moved way too far right. President Obama is not really a liberal, he is a centrist Democrat (don't laugh, the country has gone so far to the right, he only looks liberal).

Sorry, I'll respond later when I can catch my breath.

[sweeps]

It is said...

You've done this a couple of times now. Who is saying? Do you have a source?

Then you'll be begging for the missile shield Obama just axed.

The missile shield sounds great, love to have one. But we've already shown repeatedly that we can't even shoot down our own missiles in a controlled test. Without some serious improvements in technology, the "missile shield" is an expensive false sense of security.

[Angio333]

Actually, with Bush and the Neocons, we moved way too far right. President Obama is not really a liberal, he is a centrist Democrat (don't laugh, the country has gone so far to the right, he only looks liberal).

Bush was not conservative in many areas. For example, he grew the size of government and drastically increased government spending (not even counting war funding).

Obama not far left? That is a joke. How can anyone say he is a centrist with a straight face? Just look at his voting record. He was even rated the most liberal senator in 2007.

NATIONAL JOURNAL: 2007 Vote Ratings (03/07/2008)

[sweeps]

Bush was not conservative in many areas. For example, he grew the size of government and drastically increased government spending (not even counting war funding).

I think there's truth to that. Bush had the opportunity to cut spending and was a big contributor leading us to this mess.

Unfortunately Obama is screwed. He doesn't have the opportunity to cut spending and balance the budget right now. He has to grease the wheels of this economy -- at a cost to our budget and our long-term debt. The suggestion that we should be tightening the reins now when private industry is in a nosedive is ridiculous.

Obama's problem is the Republicans are going to capitalize on this -- they'll keep throwing out the "tax and spend" and "socialism" boogeyman labels, and eventually it'll stick. The Republicans will win back a lot of seats in Congress (although I don't think they'll succeed in unseating Obama in 2012).

[GREENBACK]

Actually, with Bush and the Neocons, we moved way too far right. President Obama is not really a liberal, he is a centrist Democrat (don't laugh, the country has gone so far to the right, he only looks liberal).

You don't really believe this do you? He is barely appealing to the most liberal members of the GOP. He can't even get his buddy John McCain to reach across the aisle. He's an eloquent speaker and he claims that he's trying to change the "culture" of Washington politics and it's nothing but smoke and mirrors for his real agenda which is big gov't. You need only look at the ridicolously pork filled stimulus to see that. It's filled with projects that the dems could never get done when they didn't have full control. Many of these projects have nothing to do with economic recovery.

The Bush admin. spent money like drunken sailors. What's "far right" about that? Obama is an influential speaker advancing the ideas of the far left that comprises most of those around him. Centrist, he definitely is not.

[sweeps]

I looked at the DOW's closing and it looks like 6000 territory is eminent with only less than 100 points to go. Any bets on the direction we're heading. I think we'll be under 7000 next week but who know's at this point.

Back to the original post, well, we are under 7000 now. This is some scary sh... err, stuff.

[GREENBACK]

Dang, No one took my bet!

[sweeps]

Below 6900

[cptacek]

The missile shield sounds great, love to have one. But we've already shown repeatedly that we can't even shoot down our own missiles in a controlled test. Without some serious improvements in technology, the "missile shield" is an expensive false sense of security.

There have been at least 9 successful tests so far (I didn't search for any more once I found this article):
Raytheon Standard Missile-3 Achieves Ninth Hit-to-Kill Intercept In Space

[sweeps]

There have been at least 9 successful tests so far (I didn't search for any more once I found this article)

Sure, there are successes. But they tend to fail 1/4 to 1/3 of the time. Try searching: missile defense shield test failures

One article from CNN amuses me:

Eight of the 13 tests have now been deemed a success by the Pentagon.

Put another way, 5 of the 13 tests FAILED.

And, even more to the point, these are known, expected, controlled tests. Usually of just one missile at a time. Woopty friggin doo. Also the missile shield has trouble telling the difference between a decoy and a real warhead. That's a bit of a problem.

Someone attacking us with missiles is probably not going to do the following:
- Fire one missile at a time
- Announce to us in advance they are firing said missile
- Use an approach to fire the missile that we are expecting and have tested for
- Avoid the use of decoys and other tactics that may confuse our missile defense system

[GREENBACK]

Sure, there are successes. But they tend to fail 1/4 to 1/3 of the time. Try searching: missile defense shield test failures

One article from CNN amuses me:

Put another way, 5 of the 13 tests FAILED.

And, even more to the point, these are known, expected, controlled tests. Usually of just one missile at a time. Woopty friggin doo. Also the missile shield has trouble telling the difference between a decoy and a real warhead. That's a bit of a problem.

Someone attacking us with missiles is probably not going to do the following:
- Fire one missile at a time
- Announce to us in advance they are firing said missile
- Use an approach to fire the missile that we are expecting and have tested for
- Avoid the use of decoys and other tactics that may confuse our missile defense system

Do you suggest we abandon any programs like this entirely? This may hardly be a perfect perfect program but maybe we need work toward making it so. There very well may come a time when we'll be glad we did. You can bet that terrorists aren't abandoning the technology to shoot missiles at us and our interests aroung the world.

[sweeps]

Do you suggest we abandon any programs like this entirely? This may hardly be a perfect perfect program but maybe we need work toward making it so. There very well may come a time when we'll be glad we did. You can bet that terrorists aren't abandoning the technology to shoot missiles at us and our interests aroung the world.

No, of course not. But here is the gist of what I am saying...
First, maybe there is more to the story of why Obama (if in fact he really does) might want to cut the missile shield funding. "Missile defense shield" sounds really good but it's one of those things that causes people to glaze over and not really think about cost vs. benefit as well as unintended consequences.

Second, defense technologies -- while extremely important -- are far from the total answer. Being jerks on the global stage (i.e. cowboy diplomacy: "it's our way or the highway") is going to get us all killed. Putting up a buggy, limited defense shield just to p!ss someone off may not necessarily be the right answer, right now.

[GREENBACK]

No, of course not. But here is the gist of what I am saying...
First, maybe there is more to the story of why Obama (if in fact he really does) might want to cut the missile shield funding. "Missile defense shield" sounds really good but it's one of those things that causes people to glaze over and not really think about cost vs. benefit as well as unintended consequences.

Second, defense technologies -- while extremely important -- are far from the total answer. Being jerks on the global stage (i.e. cowboy diplomacy: "it's our way or the highway") is going to get us all killed. Putting up a buggy, limited defense shield just to p!ss someone off may not necessarily be the right answer, right now.

Interesting argument that could go either way. I do have to wonder about these "tests" having worked for the gov't at different levels. Things aren't always as they seem. The accuracy of the actual testing versus what's reported could vary quite a bit.

[GrimJack]

People are not spending. When prices fall to where they will, the economy begins to roll again, this in turn will slowly inflate prices.

The government subsidizing the economy will only lead to massive debt with no results. IMO.

A deflationary cycle is when no one spends because they believe that the price will be cheaper tomorrow. If no one buys, business lay off workers (or go out of business); when workers have no jobs, they do not spend money or wait until the price is cheaper which means that business have to cut back employees because they are not selling.

Yadda,yadda,yadda - it is a cycle which is why it is called a deflationary cycle; it is pretty much the opposite of an inflationary cycle. Both require some sort of intervention to break the cycle. An inflationary cycle is where everyone borrows money now thinking that they will repay the loan with cheaper money later; as more money enters the system, prices go up and people borrow more money knowing that today's dollar will only be worth .50 next year.

Yadda,yadda,yadda. I understand that i have grossly simplified how this works (and that, since I am not an economist, I do not have a complete grasp of the details).

[Scanner]

I defined this debate on the other forum.

The Plutocrats cry Socialism and the Socialists cry plutocracy.

Frankly, the whole discussion has to come out of "ideology" of the 90's (Baby Boomer driven) and into something more pragamatic (Gen. X driven). If a solution is "socialist" and you think it will work, then by all means, use it. If it is "capitalist", great!

No idea should be left off the table. Especially for idealistic reasons.

I know I will be lamblasted for this but by certain metrics, socialism does work. Look at the country with the healthiest populations - Sweden, Cuba, Japan, Iceland and Sinapore (a city, not a country) - all low infant mortality rates and other than Japain, kinda socialistic.

Now. . .if the health of your people is waying down business expansion. . .like I don't know. . .for instance, let's say auto companies were suffering because of healthcare for retirees and pensions. . .then a move to nationalization may make sense. All of the sudden, companies have the "albatross" of healthcare off their necks and they are able to expand.

Now. . .before I activate the forum paranoia and you all think I am here from the Kremlin and will be telling you Jesus preached communism on the Sermon on the MOunt. . .by some metrics, capitalism does better. It produces less unemployment, more extremely wealthy individuals, and perhaps less poverty.

Standard of living is a toss up - Luxemborg and Sweden I think have the highest, followed by US and Ireland so who knows. . .it may depend on your size of people.

The answer isn't "either or" - it's what to apply what when and where.

Unless you are Rush Limbaugh fan. . .then. . .it's never apply socialism and Democrats are socialistic and blah, blah, blah, I don't know how people can suffer through that guy.

EDIT: BTW, I googled "highest standards of living" in the world and there is a mix of socialist and capitalistic countries. . .

Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia