DYHALTO'S PROFILE

author=kentona
I read this in an opinion piece, about Obama's presidency:

"There simply was never going to be a liberal messiah whose powers could transcend the limits set by a democracy this packed with regressive obstructionists."

By any chance, was this a piece aimed at pardoning Obama for his miserable failure in office by blaming it on a sinister evil demographic given a cool label?
Obama is the worst president in US history. He makes Jimmy Carter the humble peanut farmer look like Thomas Jefferson. Just look at his recent reaction to the S&P downgrade. "Although this agency may downgrade us, we'll always be a AAA country in our own eyes."
Don't get me wrong. I like my unicorns and gumdrops and faggoty fairies as much as the next guy, but there's a time and a place.

author=harmonic
Austerity is not a bad idea. It means fiscal discipline. There is no reason to be against fiscal discipline, unless you're insane.

Austerity, the way it's being proposed, is a horribly bad idea. It means prolonged depression and loss of life. It may potentially mean a new Caesar/Napoleon/Hitler and a new war, if people are destitute enough. Long term you're right, we definitely need smaller governments. Just, the solution isn't cut-and-gut right now and let God sort'em out.

Sanity would return itself to government finance if you eliminate the ability to borrow. Tax increases and inflation-via-minting have immediate effect and fiscal irresponsibility would be met with throw-the-bums-out the next day. This is how a good republic or democracy works.

Winner by default :D

author=harmonic
Countries in Europe are dropping like flies, unless their politicians are brave enough to pass austerity measures.

Actually, austerity is a bad idea.
If you pass austerity measures in a recession, you get a depression. Just ask Governor Schwarzenegger and look where California is. During a recession, the government is supposed to increase spending but for appropriate investments. For a successful example, look at FDR's New Deal.
The crisis isn't due to the government borrowing beyond it's means to fund social services. It's because when private banks started to fail, the government stepped in to bail out the "too big to fails". This was most prominent in the USA in 08/09, but it's being done in a little more of a low key manner across Europe.
Extravagant social services were indeed sending the countries into a death spiral, but the combustion spark wasn't for a few decades out.
There are several solutions; some more creative than others. None of them will be taken, though. Politicians now are probably more corrupt than Rome's ever were, and people will be standing in bread lines before long.

author=harmonic
2) Minting

Incidentally, nobody that I'm aware of mints coins or prints certificates right now. Every time a government "issues" money, it has to sell a bond to someone else. Sure, we all have physical change jingling in our jeans, but it's all owed to someone at the end of the day, plus the interest. So really, it's just (1) and (3) at the government's disposal.
Ponzi scheme? Oh yeah.

author=Fallen-Griever
Wrong. The poor and unprivileged are actually fine because the government will still foot the bill for them. Are you really that stupid?

What can I even make of this? How does someone smart enough to formulate a coherent sentence not see the contradiction in your arguments? Are you deliberately trying to not "lose", even if it means running in circles and making me repeat myself until I get frustrated and give up?
We can see that people are upset about the higher cost of tuition. This is undeniable. It's all over the news.
But the tuition could rise to $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and people wouldn't give a crap as long as they don't have to pay it. As we can see, somewhere along the lines, they have to pay it or a part of it, or else they wouldn't be upset about the higher cost of tuition.
So yeah, I guess I'm stupid. There you go. Here's some candy. Now go play.

Awesome :o

Hello Arche :D