Ram Posted September 21, 2010 Posted September 21, 2010 I think you must have been my senior. I passed out 2008. For a popular frame of reference' date=' R.Ashwin's batch and class mate (temp). We might have bumped into each other though.[/quote'] Very good, so we’re two years apart. Was sottai-thala Salivahanan still around when you were there? :--D And btw, you’re first conservative I know who’s less than 85 years old. :D
Patriot_Nikhil Posted September 21, 2010 Posted September 21, 2010 Very good' date=' so we’re two years apart. Was [i']sottai-thala Salivahanan still around when you were there? :--D Of course, the guy was also considered for the post of VC Anna Univ... :omg: the only thing that worked against him was that he vehemently chose not to implement Anna Univ's dress code and all other draconian principles... And btw, you’re first conservative I know who’s less than 85 years old. :D Thats ok, there're more of us. And in MA of all liberal places... :winky:
Clarke Posted September 21, 2010 Posted September 21, 2010 I respect a lot of your posts in this forum Clarke, but i have to disagree here... The best way to get an economy moving is to put money in the hands of the ppl... Private consumption drives GDP way better than Govt spending does... As soon as the stimulus money ran out, look at the current GDP estimates... 3.5 initially, downgraded to 2.5 and now to 1.5. Also, the avenues where the stimulus money was wastefully spent made it even worse... What was the solution then, in terms of handing money to the people ? More tax cuts alone ? A certain percentage of the stimulus was devoted to that. One would hurt the deficit either way, which contradicts your argument of balancing the budget. Call me a socialist, but the suggestions to have a totally free economy without proper checks and balances is total nature, where the fittest (richest) rule and the weaker sections struggle beyond measure to survive. I'm sure you are no anarchist but we shall continue to differ on the level of involvement of the govt in the economy. Actual healthcare reform is still needed in US. Passing a bloated bill is not the solution, in fact it multiplies the problem. Mandating health insurance so illegals can live off of it is not the solution. And the manner in which it was shoved down the ppl's throat was downright disgusting... I was unsure of the effectiveness of the bill as well, but as an independent i would wait for the numbers over the yrs. What the republicans were putting forward was a drop in the ocean, insurance providers across state borders and cutting costs on medical malpractice insurance was analogous to carrying a pea shooter to a gunfight. What's worse, they are keen on repealing the bill once they get into power. Is this how successive govts are supposed to work, push your agenda and nullify what was implemented earlier ?
Patriot_Nikhil Posted September 21, 2010 Posted September 21, 2010 What was the solution then' date=' in terms of handing money to the people ? More tax cuts alone ? A certain percentage of the stimulus was devoted to that. One would hurt the deficit either way, which contradicts your argument of balancing the budget. [/quote'] It wouldnt hurt balancing of the budget, if you follow it up with smaller spending in other avenues. Call me a socialist, but the suggestions to have a totally free economy without proper checks and balances is total nature, where the fittest (richest) rule and the weaker sections struggle beyond measure to survive. I'm sure you are no anarchist but we shall continue to differ on the level of involvement of the govt in the economy. The goal should be to provide equal opportunity to all people so that they can do as they choose with their lives... But what is happening is just taking from the rich to pay the poor, and in a lot of cases the absolute slouch who is content to live off the govt. Why take money from a hard-working citizen to pay someone who's poor only because he chose not to work his back-side off?! I was unsure of the effectiveness of the bill as well, but as an independent i would wait for the numbers over the yrs. What the republicans were putting forward was a drop in the ocean, insurance providers across state borders and cutting costs on medical malpractice insurance was analogous to carrying a pea shooter to a gunfight. What's worse, they are keen on repealing the bill once they get into power. Is this how successive govts are supposed to work, push your agenda and nullify what was implemented earlier ? TBH, Im unsure if I's support total repealing of the Healthcare or any other bill. Only because it will set a very dangerous precedent... But it definitely needs some changes at the very least to reduce the amount of spending it warrants... My 2 cents, I honestly prefer the healthcare system in India (from a few yrs ago which was sans the stupid insurance system).
Clarke Posted September 21, 2010 Posted September 21, 2010 TBH' date=' Im unsure if I's support total repealing of the Healthcare or any other bill. Only because it will set a very dangerous precedent... But it definitely needs some changes at the very least to reduce the amount of spending it warrants... My 2 cents, I honestly prefer the healthcare system in India (from a few yrs ago which was sans the stupid insurance system).[/quote'] India doesn't have a 'healthcare system' :P The rich and upper middle class have access to healthcare while more than half the country doesn't.
Patriot_Nikhil Posted September 21, 2010 Posted September 21, 2010 India doesn't have a 'healthcare system' :P The rich and upper middle class have access to healthcare while more than half the country doesn't. Yes they dont if what you mean by "healthcare system" is "a mandated system". They have a system that works for the common man. Yes it is not without its flaws and there are people without decent access. Just like the "healthcare system" in US or the socialist healthcare system in Canada/Britan et al. Each one has its own faults. I prefer the Indian one.
yoda Posted September 21, 2010 Posted September 21, 2010 Yes they dont if what you mean by "healthcare system" is "a mandated system". They have a system that works for the common man. Yes it is not without its flaws and there are people without decent access. Just like the "healthcare system" in US or the socialist healthcare system in Canada/Britan et al. Each one has its own faults. I prefer the Indian one. This is something we can agree on. :winky:
Clarke Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 Sarah Palin as President, Christine O'Donell as Vice President. Mashallah, that is what the United States of America needs in the 21st century. Sorry guys, but i'm sick of the news this unemployed aunty is generating.
Patriot_Nikhil Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 Sarah Palin as President' date=' Christine O'Donell as Vice President. Mashallah, that is what the United States of America needs in the 21st century. [/quote'] Christine O'Donelle is approximately 6 points behind her liberal opponent. And she is a noobie... So lets not even talk about her as a potential VP candidate... And to a lesser extent, same with Palin... Sorry guys, but i'm sick of the news this unemployed aunty is generating. Oh come on Clarke, weren't u tired of all the hype that unemployed uncle Obama was generating back in '08?! :winky: Or is it just because O'Donell is from the GOP...
Clarke Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 Oh come on Clarke' date=' weren't u tired of all the hype that unemployed uncle Obama was generating back in '08?! :winky: Or is it just because O'Donell is from the GOP...[/quote'] Please enlighten me, who's senate seat was Blagojevich selling late 2008 ? I'm not getting to the proceeds of his books which could have taken care of his expenses.
Patriot_Nikhil Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 Please enlighten me' date=' who's senate seat was Blagojevich selling late 2008 ? I'm not getting to the proceeds of his books which could have taken care of his expenses.[/quote'] My bad, I should have specified my point clearly. "Obama was nothing more than a community organizer and had no real job"
ravishingravi Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 How about reducing govt spending' date= smaller govt and balanced budget for a start. Also, once in a while, listening to the people wont hurt Pres.Obama too... When the economy was screaming for attention, focusing all efforts on a bloated awful healthcare bill was not exactly smart... And just to clarify, Im not saying that the Republicans are the saviors... I am however a conservative and to me conservative principles make more sense. What Pelosi's congress is doing seems to be throwing money at the problem and Interesting that republicans of last 8 years are expecting balanced budget from Obama in 2 years. Okay lets see now. If you have gone through the history of major recessions/ depression in an economy including 1929, it has invariably required greater govt. spending. Now the primary reason for that kind of stimulus is to kickstart the economy which is based on demand and consumption which invariably is down in such periods. The only way to achieve consumption is to save the companies that can create it, which can only be achieved via loans/stimulus. It is called "loosening" the money whereby banks are encouraged to provide the funding to the industry. As for the health care, it was only a matter of time. It can only reduce the govt. spending as it exists and I won't even go into the millions that don't have access to it. I am also a conservative in my beliefs, but do not have an ostrich approach to the situation. So, here is a question a fellow conservative. How will increasing/extending the tax cuts to rich corporations reduce the deficit, as suggested by many senior Republicans. I am curious to know.
Patriot_Nikhil Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 Interesting that republicans of last 8 years are expecting balanced budget from Obama in 2 years. Okay lets see now. If you have gone through the history of major recessions/ depression in an economy including 1929' date=' it has invariably required greater govt. spending. Now the primary reason for that kind of stimulus is to kickstart the economy which is based on demand and consumption which invariably is down in such periods. The only way to achieve consumption is to save the companies that can create it, which can only be achieved via loans/stimulus. It is called "loosening" the money whereby banks are encouraged to provide the funding to the industry. [/quote'] The key difference that you have left out is that it has not worked this time. Moreover, Govt spending is not bad per se, but did you see the projects that this stimulus paid for? The kickbacks it provided to certain states/senators so that they would vote with it?! The manner in which it was done was terrible to say the least... As for the health care, it was only a matter of time. It can only reduce the govt. spending as it exists and I won't even go into the millions that don't have access to it. I have to disagree here, it wont reduce Govt spending, it will increase it... And not just govt spending, the cost of health plans have gone up considerably... You can check my state, MA as an example where a similar system was implemented and the healthcare costs have only rocketed up not down since then... I am also a conservative in my beliefs, but do not have an ostrich approach to the situation. So, here is a question a fellow conservative. How will increasing/extending the tax cuts to rich corporations reduce the deficit, as suggested by many senior Republicans. I am curious to know. Gladly... Who pays most of the taxes?! The "evil corporations" and the "evil rich people"... Who hires people? The poor man on the street? Heck no, its the corporations again... Give them the money to hire ppl, give them tax cuts so that they would take in more... Reduce unemployment, bring down the level of uncertainty, people will spend... Private consumption is the best/fastest way to get an economy back on track, not Govt spending...
Recommended Posts