Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author | ||||
marktheshark 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: April 24 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1695 |
 Topic: Live 8 and AfricaPosted: July 20 2005 at 19:56 |
|||
Thank you! But you also need to know how VA loans work. A VA loan is not a loan originated and underwritten by the government. They are done by just about any private lender. What the government does is guarantee the loan to the lender in case of default. So basically it only costs the taxpayers when a default occurs. But even on a default, that doesn't mean that a loss would result. A lot of times the government will just pay the balance and turn around and sell the property and even make money! Edited by marktheshark |
||||
 |
||||
|
James Lee
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 05 2004 Status: Offline Points: 3525 |
Posted: July 20 2005 at 11:33 |
|||
Imagine that, a MtS post that I totally agree with!  The president does have an impact on the state of the economy, but I agree that one cannot blame him exclusively for it. There are so many constantly evolving factors that affect the economy that it would be silly to lay the blame solely on one person, or even on one administration in general. The only thing we can be sure of is that when the economy is good, everyone wants their guy to get credit...and when it is bad, they want to blame the other guy. It's all part of desperately trying to understand the world with an artificial, imposed sense of duality. And I even agree with you about Africa, and even somewhat about the US- 'aid and assistance' does not mean money. I see most world leaders as absentee parents, who hand their children a wad of cash and then leave to 'take care of business', thinking that their hard work and money will automatically guarantee that their children grow up properly (if they think about it at all). Not that Africa is our child, of course, but then again most metaphors don't bear close examination... Edited by James Lee |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
NetsNJFan
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: April 12 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3047 |
Posted: July 19 2005 at 21:32 |
|||
|
1837 was DEFINATELY Andrew Jackson's recession (Van Buren was blamed)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
marktheshark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 24 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1695 |
Posted: July 19 2005 at 14:45 |
|||
Basically all I'm saying is that you can't hold a President necessarily accountable for the CAUSE of a recession. Like most people do. You can only hold them accountable for taking action when one occurs. I've never looked at the last recession as the "Bush" recession like Maani does. But I don't call it the Clinton recession either even though it did initially start on his watch when the stock market started to plummett in March of 2000. Layoffs in the steel industry right here in Ohio were going down in July 2000. I know, I remember reading about it in the papers. Steel mills were closing down left and right here. I guess if you really want to point fingers at anybody, it would be Greenspan. He should of lowered the Fed at the first sign of trouble. And he didn't. And BTW Barbs, the best giving a rich person can do to a poor person is not just simply giving money but giving the tools for that person get themselves out of poverty. Which is what is needed in Africa. The only thing stopping that is the oppressive governments there. We tried the old "lets just give them money" routine right here in our own country for over 40 years. It was called Johnson's Great Society and it was a total failure. 90 and even 70 percent tax brackets don't help at all. Edited by marktheshark |
||||
|
||||
|
barbs
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 04 2005 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 562 |
Posted: July 16 2005 at 21:30 |
|||
|
One last thing. Giving is not just about what it is doing for the reciever. It is good for our own souls. (believe/justify what you will about that) IMO... ...Giving is like exercise. It is only doing you good when it starts to hurt a little. Edited by barbs |
||||
|
Eternity
|
||||
|
||||
|
barbs
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 04 2005 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 562 |
Posted: July 16 2005 at 21:23 |
|||
|
GREED If our economic systems really worked as well as it is argued they do, no one would be living in poverty and there would be a far greater sharing of economic resources. What does a billionaire pay as a percentage in tax to the government as opposed to the percentage that a low to middle class wage employee pay (the greatest percentage of the workforce) Who for example is getting the economic benefits out of military spending? The world is a stage and we are but little 'bit' players in it. Most great wealth is about 'good fortune' - being in the right place at the right time. Most billionaires were born into family wealth, they didn't earn it at all. The richest person in our country thinks nothing about dropping a cool 30 million dollars or so at the casinos around the world when it suits his fancy. What does that trickle down to. A rich Japanese, American or Saudi businessman? The idea that most rich people are philanthropic, like Bill Gates, is laughable, and even what he gives, which is a great amount, is but a small segment of his overall wealth. There are a few who give, but they are in the minority. If the weathiest people in the world, got together tomorrow and made a decision to 'give' five percent of their personal wealth, and it was responsibly and humanely distributed amongst those in greatest need including job creation, the economic (not political) crisis in Africa would be turned around tomorrow. It is greed and a lack of will on the part of the richest and most powerful people in the world that continues to undermine the poorest. The richest countries in the world have benefited greatly from the 'cheap' resources they have taken from their former 'colonies' and any 'decent' response would be that they 'give' back just a little of what they have taken. There is no justification for ignoring the incredible destitution of people when you have even a small amount to spare, let alone the disgustingly rich. The disgustingly wealthy derive their riches from the masses and it is to the masses that they should return some of the spoils of their prosperity. It is good that the governments of countries are going to increase aid and give from their treasuries, the finances of the people, but the ones with the greatest capacity to give, very rarely give what it is within their capacity to. What could anyone possibly need with 10, 50 or a 100 billion dollars in personal fortunes. The wealth of the few is a disgusting plight on the poverty of the many. It is totally unjustifiable - except in a greedy, self-centred world that has no true compassion for the most disadvantaged in our societies Edited by barbs |
||||
|
Eternity
|
||||
|
||||
|
James Lee
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 05 2004 Status: Offline Points: 3525 |
Posted: July 16 2005 at 17:58 |
|||
|
Not a 'progressive' either, but keep trying.
 So though the government and wall street have instituted cyclic periods where the economy will be worse for the people, the people retain their greater ability to influence the economy? Do you feel that you (or even thousands of you) have as much influence on the economy as Joshua Bolten or Carlos Gutierrez? I must not be understanding your points today...are you saying that those tax laws and incentives weren't any assistance to you in building your business, or that the VA loan was not generated by taxpayer funds and dispensed at the discretion of the government? I'm not belittling your achievements or work, I'm just trying to figure out if you are saying that government should or shouldn't provide assistance to people...and if they should, then only to certain people? |
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
marktheshark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 24 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1695 |
Posted: July 16 2005 at 13:47 |
|||
You misunderstood what I said about recessions. What I meant was that the people, me included, are the major force behind the economy not necessarily the government. The government can only give incentives and tax relief to help. The people can boost it and bring it down as well. So there's your personal accountability. And BTW the only government assistance I ever used in my entire life was the VA loan to get my first house. Which I believe I earned!  Talk about quick assumptions my friend! Oh! That's right. You're not a liberal, you're a "progressive" right? Ironic isn't it?
Edited by marktheshark |
||||
|
||||
|
James Lee
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 05 2004 Status: Offline Points: 3525 |
Posted: July 16 2005 at 13:06 |
|||
Not mocking your profession- just amused that someone who makes a living at finance (and seems to take an interest in history and politics) can say that recessions "are going to happen no matter what". Doesn't exactly match your take-charge, personal-responsibility, every-man-for-himself ethos...or the detailed policy behind a controlled recession cycle that is the single most significant institutional interference with pure laissez-faire capitalism. For the record, I agree with your assessment of the 2004 race (a house plant would have been just as compelling a candidate) and I am neither a Democrat nor even a liberal in the accepted sense. You seem to assume a great many things about your imagined opposition...or, I could say: 'this is all just a classic case of the right having nothing but quick assumptions, hidebound kneejerk reactions, and implicit distrust of anything that they see as at all intellectual.' (I'll bet you didn't turn down any of them pinko small-business incentives or vet benefits, huh? ) |
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
barbs
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 04 2005 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 562 |
Posted: July 16 2005 at 00:37 |
|||
|
Good article Maani. Jean Claude Shanda Tonme's article succinctly clarifies the plight of most of Africa. It is difficult to see how his and many Africans can achieve their dreams of true socio/political freedom and independence, without much bloodshed:, for that kind of change normally does not come without revolutionary zeal and the history of socio/political revolution has always come at great cost and sacrifice, mostly in human lives. And for what. Often, a power vacuum is filled by another tyrant. Let us hope then that a country as rich and beautiful as Africa can rise above its current malaise and become a continent that does not continue to enslave its people through tyrannical rulers and cruel militias but can convert its past into a truly democratic future that offers hope and freedom for all its peoples. As for live8, IMO we cannot truly judge the motives of the organisers and participants (I'm sure some were truly honerable in their motivation) and we will either hope on the positive side that it was an act motivated correctly by human compassion and hope or we can be cynically disapproving and unsupportive. People need food in there stomachs and fresh water in order to live, in order to see a new tommorrow. If I say, all that we are is dust anyway, then I may not see the point in caring to much. But if we are more than this, if we are in some way connected by a common thread of humanity that says at the height of human existence, we are transformed and this transformation lets us see humanity for what it really is, living spirits in clay temples, then I might just see a stronger motivation for fighting (at least on the inside) for the collective survival of a group of people. One man is an island but many can make a nation. Edited by barbs |
||||
|
Eternity
|
||||
|
||||
|
marktheshark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 24 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1695 |
Posted: July 15 2005 at 20:42 |
|||
Oh, ok so we have to "blame" a pres 'cause someone decided NOT to buy something or just cut back which DOES happen now and then. Oh yes, Heaven forbid if anybody decides not to invest. I believe it is FREEDOM that allows our people to decide how our economy should be going, not the government. And so far, so good! BTW, are you mocking my profession? You seem to have a problem about a college dropout, military vet striking out on his own! Is that something that shouldn't be done in this country? Maybe I should've just waited for Uncle Sam to do all the work for me. How's that? Or maybe I should've just gone to Hill and Billary and asked "Oh please help me! I can't do it on my own! Where would I be without the government?". PLEASE! This is all just another classic case of the left having nothing but moans and groans but no solutions. Attack, complain and bitch, but offer no corrective action what-so-ever. Which is why Kerry lost. A vote for Kerry was just a vote against Bush. It was a de-constructive campaign for the Dems. Roosevelt, Trumann, JFK and Humphrey no doubt must turning over in their graves! Edited by marktheshark |
||||
|
||||
|
Borealis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 06 2005 Location: Neutral Zone Status: Offline Points: 599 |
Posted: July 15 2005 at 20:13 |
|||
|
I believe it only was to make the biggest musical event since a long time. The Africa thing was just to show that the rich countries of G8 'care' about the misery of some more unfortunate country then themself. Intersting article though.
|
||||
|
Vive le Québec libre!...
|
||||
|
||||
|
James Lee
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 05 2004 Status: Offline Points: 3525 |
Posted: July 15 2005 at 20:05 |
|||
That's the only thing I remember MtS saying that is true: CNN is NOT non-partisan, they're clearly conservative. It confuses many people because they seem moderate compared to, say, FOX News Network... LOL, recessions are "going to happen no matter what"...just a force of nature that has nothing to do with economic policy or commercial activity, right? That must be the financial acumen that catapulted you to the top of the mortgage broker heap. Edited by James Lee |
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
marktheshark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 24 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1695 |
Posted: July 15 2005 at 19:23 |
|||
Excuse me Maani, but daddy Bush DID NOT LOWER taxes, he increased them which was his nail in the coffin on re-election (that and Perot). And yes unemployment did reach a high of 6.5% in 2002 as a result from a cyclical recession that neither Clinton or Bush can be blamed for not to mention an attack here. Unemployment rate was going up 3 mos before Bush II took office. Get your dates right. And lets not forget who controlled the purse strings during Clinton's term. The Republicians. I've never been one to blame a pres for a recession, they're going to happen no matter what. But just look at the big picture. Where are we compared to the 70s? You miss my whole point here. I'm not talking out of a textbook here. I'm a self-employed mortgage broker who's managed to to hire 14 more employees just in the last year, yes because of my tax savings through expansive advertizing. Been through some blood, sweat and tears to get where I'm at. All I know is, I'm talking from the front lines here. Where are you talking from? Berkely or Oxford University? Give me a break! Oh, and CNN (the Clinton News Network) is anything but non-partisan! You're looking at the past 13 years, I'm looking at the past 25! You're 20-20 hindsight vision is so limited! Edited by marktheshark |
||||
|
||||
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: July 16 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 11979 |
Posted: July 15 2005 at 19:17 |
|||
|
In lieu of anything interesting or intelligent to add to this discussion: here's some dancing Bush!!!
"I'm the master of low expectations." "See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." "One reason I like to highlight reading is, reading is the beginnings of the ability to be a good student. And if you can't read, it's going to be hard to realize dreams; it's going to be hard to go to college. So when your teachers say, read—you ought to listen to her"
Edited by Tony R |
||||
|
||||
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator Joined: January 30 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2632 |
Posted: July 15 2005 at 18:34 |
|||
|
Mark: When Clinton took office, the unemployment rate was the highest it had been in years: almost 7.5 percent. This was a direct result of Bush I's disastrous tax cuts, which sent the unemployment rate from 5.5 to 7.7 in less than three years. Clinton refused to introduce new tax cuts, and the unemployment rate fell from 7.7 to 4.0. Since Clinton left Bush II with a 4.0 unemployment rate, Bush's first tax cuts caused that rate to jump from 4.0 to 6.0 during his first term. And while it is true that the unemployment rate has fallen in his second term, it has fallen only one percent - from 6.0 to 5.0. Hardly something to crow about. And many economists believe that this occurred despite, not because of, the tax cuts. With regard to home ownership rates, during Bush's first term, they grew only slightly depending on demographics, but in most cases less than 3% - which is about average, and certainly nothing to put out a press release about. During the first year of Bush's second term, home ownership has remained basically stagnant - though this, too, is average rather than "bad." As for the deficit, the following link speaks to it far better than I could. But the news is anything but pretty: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/ I don't know where you are getting your information, but most of this stuff is easily found on the Net. And not from "partisan" sites, but from federal agencies, independent agencies, and in mainstream media articles. Peace. Edited by maani |
||||
|
||||
|
marktheshark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 24 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1695 |
Posted: July 15 2005 at 17:44 |
|||
Trickle down is the system whereby the already wealthy are not taxed so that their wealth 'trickles down' to Swiss bank accounts, offshore businesses registered in the Cayman Islands and similar worthy recipients. Classic conservativism - take nothing from the rich and give it to the poor. As I understood it, Live 8 was about raising awareness of the problems caused by poverty in Africa. Unfortunately, it helped to perpetuate the myth that Africa is poor (which it isn't) as opposed to poverty ridden (which much of it is). In most cases, the 'debt' being repaid by poor countries has nothing to do with the original sum (which in most cases has been repaid many times over) and everything to do with interest rates that would make a Mafia loan shark blush. Cancelling those repayments would be a start to creating a wealthy continent. Another good move would be to allow Africans to implement changes themselves, rather than selling the rights to their utilities to Western corporations as a pre condition of giving aid. Most of all, realise that it is a staggeringly diverse, multi cultural and sophisticated continent and not some enormous dust bowl with no resources. Anyway, weren't Pink Floyd amazing? [/QUOTE]Funny, I'm listening to Floyd at Live 8 right now on mp3. Not bad, I'd just rather see a whole concert of all 4 of them than just a 4 song showup. And Roger's voice sounded a bit shot. Anyway, but excuse me, since our illustrious president who seems to be very popular here in this forum, has implemented his tax cuts even on the rich, our unemployment rate has dropped from 6.5% when he took over to 5%. We now have record homeownership here as well. Also, revenue to the government has now increased to where our deficit is shrinking by 1/3 more. These stats just came in. Ever gotten a job from a poor person? Sure, there are some greedy types who just pocket the tax savings. But most of them re-invest and expand their businesses. Ronald Reagan did the same thing 20 yrs ago and the results were unemployment down by almost 7%. Inflation at almost none. Want to go further back? JFK dropped taxes on the rich in '62 and again economic up swing. I can go on and on about trickle down, but the record speaks for itself. Being envious of the haves when you're a have-not just creates pessimism and negativity, which is not constructive. You just end up sinking deeper with that kind of thinking. I know, I used to think that way too. Anyway, you're right about a number of things especially of course about the debt relief. As for them implementing their changes, it's just a matter of the whether their own governments would allow that and not stifle it. They need freedom, not regulation. Edited by marktheshark |
||||
|
||||
|
Hangedman
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 03 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1261 |
Posted: July 15 2005 at 16:34 |
|||
|
Although I found live 8 to be noble, I have to agree, these people need help overthrowing corrupt governments before any permanent positive changes can be made. (notice how I said Help overthrow, not do it for them) |
||||
|
||||
|
Syzygy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 16 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 7003 |
Posted: July 15 2005 at 16:05 |
|||
|
[Ever heard of trickle down? Helping people at the bottom is fine for short term. But for the long run, you have to start at the top. Trickle down is the system whereby the already wealthy are not taxed so that their wealth 'trickles down' to Swiss bank accounts, offshore businesses registered in the Cayman Islands and similar worthy recipients. Classic conservativism - take nothing from the rich and give it to the poor. As I understood it, Live 8 was about raising awareness of the problems caused by poverty in Africa. Unfortunately, it helped to perpetuate the myth that Africa is poor (which it isn't) as opposed to poverty ridden (which much of it is). In most cases, the 'debt' being repaid by poor countries has nothing to do with the original sum (which in most cases has been repaid many times over) and everything to do with interest rates that would make a Mafia loan shark blush. Cancelling those repayments would be a start to creating a wealthy continent. Another good move would be to allow Africans to implement changes themselves, rather than selling the rights to their utilities to Western corporations as a pre condition of giving aid. Most of all, realise that it is a staggeringly diverse, multi cultural and sophisticated continent and not some enormous dust bowl with no resources. Anyway, weren't Pink Floyd amazing? |
||||
|
'Like so many of you
I've got my doubts about how much to contribute to the already rich among us...' Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom |
||||
|
||||
|
marktheshark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 24 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1695 |
Posted: July 15 2005 at 14:48 |
|||
|
But who controls the trade? The top, right? And yes it can be done unfortunately with war. These people in Africa want liberation, not a handout. Ever heard of South Korea? Look how they are now compared to what they were 50 years ago. What has history taught us?
I got nothing against debt relief. That's fine again for the short term. But as long as those dictators are still in power, we're just going to back to the same problem. |
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Live 8 and Africa
Topic Options
James Lee wrote:
