I just had to watch Fox News today

[ck4829]

I was surfing through the channels and I spotted a debate on Fox News (R-Too many places) as to whether Democrats and Liberals are obstructing Bush and ruining the economy.

Can't those RW Weirdos ever think of the possibility that maybe, just maybe, that it could be BUSH who is ruining the Economy?

Lot of tin-foil there too, like how Chris Dodd is friends with Fidel Castro and how Karl Rove is a Patriotic American.

Did anybody else see that?

[Cha]

1. They KNOW bush is ruining the economy..

but they can't say that, can they?

They have to blame it on the Liberals.

Mustn't let on that bush does anything wrong or the whole freakin' house of cards will fall. CAn't wait!

[FreedomAngel82]

31. Of course

If they did that then that would mean they failed and were wrong.

[jeff30997]

2. It's FDR's fault with his New Deal.

:silly:

[Fritz67]

3. I can't...

...watch Faux News anytime within six hours before or after eating. It affects my digestion.

[newyawker99]

39. Hi Fritz67!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Rick Myers]

4. Rid the world of liberals, muslims and gays and

the world will be perfect. How could you even watch Faux? I used to be able to do it, and even listen to Rush occassionally in the name of Know Thy Enemy, but I just cannot do it anymore. They are pure evil.

[ck4829]

6. Somebody once called Fox News a 'real' Comedy Central

I forget who it was, but they said the people there were being funny on accident.

Fox News is also reassuring to me in a way.

It reminds me that:

The Tin Foil is on their side

The Hate is on their side

The Lies are on their side

The want to control the media is on their side

[Eric J in MN]

12. Stephanie Miller

http://dailyhowler.com/dh061305.shtml

[NewJeffCT]

20. Jon Stewart called them the American Al-Jazeera

I think that's appropriate... or maybe Republican Al-Jazeera?

[Sydnie]

8. Even that wouldn't make them happy

They would then have to begin picking off all the forms of christianity that didn't agree with the mandatory beliefs. They would create their own commandments, write their own book, and if you don't conform/convert, you will be the next to go. They won't be happy until they get mental clones of themselves.

edited to add - Welcome to DU :hi:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal In Texas]

9. HUH?

[DarkAngel]

10. It's cyclical

It's in a bad cycle right now. We will probably come out of it in a year or so. There was a good cycle from 1997-2000.

[Liberal In Texas]

11. So nothing the government does has the slightest effect on the economy?

[DarkAngel]

13. It can effect change through only one path

Monetary policy.

The looseness or tightness of the money supply that the Fed gives us can do great damage to the economy if they screw it up, like when Hoover did and caused the Great Depression.

This is why I believe that we should return to the gold standard of steady money.

[Liberal In Texas]

16. I think you're being overly simplistic.

[DarkAngel]

17. Why?

I've just never seen proof that tiny adjustments can really effect much change.

[Liberal In Texas]

24. Duplicate, self delete

[Liberal In Texas]

25. Well let's see.

The price of oil has definitely affected the economy, hasn't it? It effects the price of everything you buy.

This government could influence that with changes in policy. They do not encourage alternative energy sources (giving people tax breaks for solar for example). They started a war that is wasting a tremendous amount of resources and energy. They invaded a country and basically stole their resources (including the oil) and gave it to to private contractors and large oil companies that, with OPEC have kept the price of crude artificially high. I recently read that oil companies are puzzled about what to do with the tremendous profits they've made since the price of crude started climbing (like did they consider cheaper prices for the consumer?). I've also heard that we have a shortage of refineries. Again, if this really is a problem, the government could encourage their construction. Instead, we have a republican controlled congress that wants to waste time with a stupid flag burning amendment.

The cost of health care in this country for most people can't help but influence the economy. Again, our gov't has chosen to borrow money for a war instead of instituting a decent health care plan. If people have more money to spend on lower health care, they will put that money back to work making the economy stronger.

Tax cuts for the wealthy also do not encourage a strong economy. The wealthy do not turn their wind-falls back into the economy, it winds up sitting in banks and in investments that don't do anything to improve the economic engine.

The present government is also encouraging the formation of monopolies. Monopolies are not good for the economy.

I'm no economist, but these things seem obvious to me.

By the way, welcome to DU.

[DarkAngel]

27. Well

Putting in place better health care for Americans would not help the economy at all. It is definitely the right and moral thing to do, but you shouldn't use economic arguments when trying to justify it. The moral arguments are more than enough.

As for oil, the government doesn't need to encourage more refinery building. The oil industry will build more when they need more.

And oh yeah, when we start to run low on oil and the price zooms up, the industry will go to alternative energy sources on its own. It doesn't need prodding.

[Liberal In Texas]

29. I strongly disagree.

Yes, not only is it moral, it makes good economic sense. If a family doesn't have to spend an extra $1000/mo on health insurance, what are they going to do with it? Probably spend it.

As with stem cell research, the government definitely can influence what's done by it's policy.

By the time private industry starts a knee-jerk reaction to anything, it's usually too late. Just like the automobile industry in the '70's. By the time they figured out that consumers wanted cars that were more fuel efficient and constructed so they wouldn't need to be replaced every 3 years, the Japanese had practically taken over.

Your Any Randian view of economics was discredited long ago.

[DarkAngel]

30. Let's look at part of it

First of all, what is the big deal that the Japanese took over the car industry? You don't think that Japanese should be allowed to build our cars? They can obviously do it better than our manufacturers. Their engines last a lot longer, and that's why I buy Japanese cars.

As for stem cell research, I have no moral problem with it. But here's my question: if cell research was so promising, then why isn't the biotech industry jumping on it? I know why: because it's not really that promising. It probably can't do all of the things, that its supporters claim it can, like cure diabetes and Parkinson's, etc.

The pharmaceutical industry is always coming out with new and amazing drugs, and the biotech industry is the same with new experimental procedures. If this had a lot of promise, then it wouldn't need government funding.

And btw, this isn't Randian economics. If I was a follower of Rand then I would be totally against the government paying for health care.

I support the government giving each person with income under a certain level a voucher, for them to buy private health insurance with.

[NewJeffCT]

36. let's see

Right now, GM supposedly is paying $1,600 per car in employee health benefits. That is many billions of dollars per year. Add in other top corporations that subsidize health benefits (though not many pay nearly as generously as GM...) and you're talking hundreds of billions of dollars.

If business did not have to pay that money because its covered by government, that would free it up for investments in R&D, money for acquisitions of foreign businesses, and in turn would attract more foreign investment into the US, as those European companies wouldn't have to worry about the added expense of health benefits for their American employees.

[Liberal In Texas]

37. No, they don't see immediate profit.

That's why government has to be involved. To start the research that may take years. A length of time private industry isn't interested in if they can make money doing something else.

It's like the space program. There was no way private industry would have been able to finance a program that took man to the moon and built a space station. What the government funded discoveries have done is to spin off all kinds of technology private industry has adopted to make our economy stronger. And now, recently, we have some private companies actually building and launching their own rockets. That would never have happened without the foundation of the NASA programs of the last 40 some years.

I don't have anything against Japanese cars, I was just citing that example of private industry dropping the ball.

To think that private industry will do it when it's needed is pollyannaish. They also need regulation. As has been demonstrated with Enron and other companies, they will not necessarily do the right thing unless someone is looking over their shoulder.

[FreedomAngel82]

33. LOL

Look at the massive spending of Iraq!!! And don't forget Bush's "tax cuts" on the wealthy! If Bush didn't have any tax cuts during a time of war I'm very confident things would be a lot different. They are purposley making our economy drop because that way more people will HAVE to join the military.

[Eric J in MN]

14. When will the economy be good, again? nt

nt

[DarkAngel]

15. That's impossible to forecast

And anyone who tells you that they can tell you when it will be better is lying.

[Eric J in MN]

22. I think cutting the dividends tax has a negative effect on the

economy, because it encourages corporations to put profits into dividend payouts instead of hiring.

[DarkAngel]

28. Some would say

that it also has a positive effect, because when a company is paying out dividends, they are more accountable to their investors, and this cuts down on corruption.

[0rganism]

19. Funny how that never comes up in conversations about President Carter

Republicans will rant for hours on end about the "cyclical economy" and government's nil-effect on it if the presidency of George W. Bush is the topic, yet still promote the myth that Ronald Reagan's adherence to supply-side theories did a fantastic job in correcting all of Carter's egregious economic mistakes. Amazing stuff, really.

[DarkAngel]

21. Well they're idiots

Carter had as little to do with the economic downturn as Clinton did with the upswing and Bush has done with his downturn.

[KharmaTrain]

32. So What Causes The Cycles?

Destiny?

I think it has a lot to do with the confidence people have in the economy to invest and grow. If there's opportunities, the economy grows and the forward momentum of that growth fuels even greater growth. It's a psychology bred in how people feel about where they are at the time and their view to the future. When you feel good about both, the market responds.

Since 2000 (I could go back to '94) this country has been undergoing on trauma after another. The combination of the "war on terror", 9/11, outsourcing, illegal immigration and defecit have turn this pscychology in the opposite direction. People aren't eager to invest as they don't feel good about the times and the future.

Now who creates that atmosphere of confidence? Yes, the government isn't itimately involved in every financial dealings in the economy but it's a large player...in jobs, services and spending and affects the way our businesses do their jobs.

It's the government that can bail out an entire industry or create special laws that enable it to gobble up larger marketshares, create their own monopolies or artificial markets.

Yes, the government DOES affect the economy in many way.

[DarkAngel]

34. I think you underestimate the power of the market

If you just leave most of it alone and don't tinker with it, it does fine. Kinda like leaving the Native Americans alone.

[KharmaTrain]

38. Try reading your reply again...

Yes, if you leave the market alone and don't tinker with it, the market will seek it's own level. By setting interest rates, protectionist laws and other legislation that can favor a company or industry against a competitor, isn't that market manipulation?

I think your view is very simplisitic. Being an investor and having owned businesses, I can show you how government interference affected what I've done over the years...and my business.

Cheers...

[firefox]

18. Government is 40 percent of the economy

Government has everything to do with the economy. They are the only ones that can raid the treasury like they do and that taking in advance will affect us all for the rest of our lives. The big players have switched the tax burden and we have 7% sales tax in NC where 30 years ago it was 3%.

The government brought us this fascism. We did not vote it in and the call for reality is ignored by the media that the government regulates. We have an institutionalized medical establishment that spends tens of billions on research and cannot cure much more than a bacterial infection and even there they make super bacteria that they cannot control. We are being polluted into sickness. Why do they put flouride in all of the water when you might only drink three or four glasses of water a day?

We are slaves to the corporations and the government is the overseer. The federal government controls everything. That is what the fascist in the Supreme Court keep saying.

[NewJeffCT]

23. I think you're incorrect

You don't think the government investing hundred of billions in defense spending (invading Afghanistan & Iraq), homeland security spending, and giving trillions in tax cuts - mostly to the rich and to big corporations -while running up the deficit had an effect on the economy?

It frightened off foreign investors. Other than investments from Japan, China & Saudi Arabia, we're not getting much foreign investment, as many are scared of potential long-term financial problems in this country. If that money had instead been invested in improving the infrastructure of our country (it seems we have forgotten about the big blackout from a few years back...) and investing in the future, i.e., stem cell research, green technology, upgrading our schools, etc, and also paying down the long term debt, we could be in much better shape for the long-term. That would send the stock market up, businesses wouldn't be afraid to hire anymore, wages wouldn't be going backwards and the middle class wouldn't be evaporating.

[followthemoney]

35. Oh yeah, That right. That is how Hoover ended the depression

Just sit tight. Don't do anything. We are helpless and at the mercy of a great impersonal machine.

Oh, no! My mistake. It was Roosevelt's actions that ended the depression.

[Webster Green]

7. Fox snooze should be just about played out...

Hopefully they will go down with the chimp, and just fucking disappear.

[seabeyond]

26. finally f*in have all the control and STILL blaming dems for everything

i am having a blast saying, hey you have the power, all the power, where is the utopia yawl kept telling me you would make for everyone, if only you had the power

[KharmaTrain]

40. Faux "Newswatch"...A Regular Riot

That's one of the few shows I'll watch a few minutes of. It's the closest that network comes to uttering some truth...and where you hear some of the most obnoxious spin.

The one that got me was some goon defending Edward Klein and how it was a "conspiracy" that he wasn't invited on the morning news shows while Kitty Kelly was interviewed on 3 Today shows on her book about Bunnypants. Yep...the outrage wasn't about the content, but the way this guy was treated (I suspect this Faux-head got a nice dinner from Mr. Klein after the program).

The gem of truth was that the wingnuts were panning the Hillary book (of course they list all the lies) because "it wasn't the RIGHT Hillary book".

Mindmeld television.