Obama tryin to ban flavored dips!
- Thread starter Gold Deez
- Start date
I wouldn't go that far. BUT, companies like restaurants should take more responsibility and give people what they can eat, rather than serving hamburgers that can feed an entire cul-de-sac. At least fast food restaurants have made attempts at healthier foods.
You go to Europe, you won't ever see super sized shit at a fast food joint. I went to Burger King in Ireland and ordered a large meal, and got what we consider a SMALL here.
But the tobacco thing, c'mon. American Spirit doesn't have all the additives that the major tobacco companies put in their cigarettes. They last longer, you smoke less, and you're not getting thousands of chemicals pumped into your body. If not ban it, there should be some kind of standard to at least HELP! Smoking is harder to kick than HEROIN!
You go to Europe, you won't ever see super sized shit at a fast food joint. I went to Burger King in Ireland and ordered a large meal, and got what we consider a SMALL here.
But the tobacco thing, c'mon. American Spirit doesn't have all the additives that the major tobacco companies put in their cigarettes. They last longer, you smoke less, and you're not getting thousands of chemicals pumped into your body. If not ban it, there should be some kind of standard to at least HELP! Smoking is harder to kick than HEROIN!
The tax cuts had relatively little (almost nothing) to do with the economic contraction that we are in right now.
Our current economic expansion was largely caused by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 followed by relaxation of regulatory rules by the Bush administration in addition to efforts to try to stimulate home buying, even at high risks.
This increased home purchasing was a catalyst in the sustained stimulation of our economy but it game at the expense of unsustainable debt loads
and inflated home prices.
Anyone that knows economics knows that economies operate on a cycle of expansion and contraction. It is impossible to prevent expansion or contraction because the inherent network properties of an economic system.
Therefore, every economic expansion or "boom" period must be succeeded by an economic retraction or "bust" period.
Obama is now trying to limit the swinging of the economic pendulum on it's natural course back to the contraction side, which will create more negative implications than allowing the economy to run its natural course.
Not the least of these concerns is the eventual devaluation of the dollar.
The larger problem which Obama (and Bush) have failed to address is that instead of replacing our current system they are attempting at all costs to perpetuate the existence of our unsustainable model. Our current economic model is based on continued expansion, and infinite expansion in a finite system is impossible.
Also as far as our current economic system is concerned, it is a fact that the Government spends money less efficiently than the private market
Source;
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf
And rather than reading all of it "This study found that the tax multiplier is 3, meaning that each dollar rise in taxes will reduce private spending by $3."
The tax cuts had relatively little (almost nothing) to do with the economic contraction that we are in right now.
Our current economic expansion was largely caused by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 followed by relaxation of regulatory rules by the Bush administration in addition to efforts to try to stimulate home buying, even at high risks.
This increased home purchasing was a catalyst in the sustained stimulation of our economy but it game at the expense of unsustainable debt loads
and inflated home prices.
Anyone that knows economics knows that economies operate on a cycle of expansion and contraction. It is impossible to prevent expansion or contraction because the inherent network properties of an economic system.
Therefore, every economic expansion or "boom" period must be succeeded by an economic retraction or "bust" period.
Obama is now trying to limit the swinging of the economic pendulum on it's natural course back to the contraction side, which will create more negative implications than allowing the economy to run its natural course.
Not the least of these concerns is the eventual devaluation of the dollar.
The larger problem which Obama (and Bush) have failed to address is that instead of replacing our current system they are attempting at all costs to perpetuate the existence of our unsustainable model. Our current economic model is based on continued expansion, and infinite expansion in a finite system is impossible.
Also as far as our current economic system is concerned, it is a fact that the Government spends money less efficiently than the private market
Source;
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf
And rather than reading all of it "This study found that the tax multiplier is 3, meaning that each dollar rise in taxes will reduce private spending by $3."
Our current economic expansion was largely caused by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 followed by relaxation of regulatory rules by the Bush administration in addition to efforts to try to stimulate home buying, even at high risks.
This increased home purchasing was a catalyst in the sustained stimulation of our economy but it game at the expense of unsustainable debt loads
and inflated home prices.
Anyone that knows economics knows that economies operate on a cycle of expansion and contraction. It is impossible to prevent expansion or contraction because the inherent network properties of an economic system.
Therefore, every economic expansion or "boom" period must be succeeded by an economic retraction or "bust" period.
Obama is now trying to limit the swinging of the economic pendulum on it's natural course back to the contraction side, which will create more negative implications than allowing the economy to run its natural course.
Not the least of these concerns is the eventual devaluation of the dollar.
The larger problem which Obama (and Bush) have failed to address is that instead of replacing our current system they are attempting at all costs to perpetuate the existence of our unsustainable model. Our current economic model is based on continued expansion, and infinite expansion in a finite system is impossible.
Also as far as our current economic system is concerned, it is a fact that the Government spends money less efficiently than the private market
Source;
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf
And rather than reading all of it "This study found that the tax multiplier is 3, meaning that each dollar rise in taxes will reduce private spending by $3."
Good shit on this though.
The tax cuts had relatively little (almost nothing) to do with the economic contraction that we are in right now.
Our current economic expansion was largely caused by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 followed by relaxation of regulatory rules by the Bush administration in addition to efforts to try to stimulate home buying, even at high risks.
This increased home purchasing was a catalyst in the sustained stimulation of our economy but it game at the expense of unsustainable debt loads
and inflated home prices.
Anyone that knows economics knows that economies operate on a cycle of expansion and contraction. It is impossible to prevent expansion or contraction because the inherent network properties of an economic system.
Therefore, every economic expansion or "boom" period must be succeeded by an economic retraction or "bust" period.
Obama is now trying to limit the swinging of the economic pendulum on it's natural course back to the contraction side, which will create more negative implications than allowing the economy to run its natural course.
Not the least of these concerns is the eventual devaluation of the dollar.
The larger problem which Obama (and Bush) have failed to address is that instead of replacing our current system they are attempting at all costs to perpetuate the existence of our unsustainable model. Our current economic model is based on continued expansion, and infinite expansion in a finite system is impossible.
Also as far as our current economic system is concerned, it is a fact that the Government spends money less efficiently than the private market
Source;
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf
And rather than reading all of it "This study found that the tax multiplier is 3, meaning that each dollar rise in taxes will reduce private spending by $3."
Our current economic expansion was largely caused by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 followed by relaxation of regulatory rules by the Bush administration in addition to efforts to try to stimulate home buying, even at high risks.
This increased home purchasing was a catalyst in the sustained stimulation of our economy but it game at the expense of unsustainable debt loads
and inflated home prices.
Anyone that knows economics knows that economies operate on a cycle of expansion and contraction. It is impossible to prevent expansion or contraction because the inherent network properties of an economic system.
Therefore, every economic expansion or "boom" period must be succeeded by an economic retraction or "bust" period.
Obama is now trying to limit the swinging of the economic pendulum on it's natural course back to the contraction side, which will create more negative implications than allowing the economy to run its natural course.
Not the least of these concerns is the eventual devaluation of the dollar.
The larger problem which Obama (and Bush) have failed to address is that instead of replacing our current system they are attempting at all costs to perpetuate the existence of our unsustainable model. Our current economic model is based on continued expansion, and infinite expansion in a finite system is impossible.
Also as far as our current economic system is concerned, it is a fact that the Government spends money less efficiently than the private market
Source;
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf
And rather than reading all of it "This study found that the tax multiplier is 3, meaning that each dollar rise in taxes will reduce private spending by $3."
Let me give the cliff notes to your post.
The economy expanded since 1977 because banks gave money to poor people, and bush gave incentives for people to borrow. This created debt.
then you put a graph of credit market debt going up...brilliant
then you put a graph of "price to household income"...with prices in a downturn.
Then you say the economy operates in cycles...well, duh
Then you say obama is trying to limit these cycles, which will be negative in the long run (your opinion)
Then you say the economy wont expand forever, something bush and obama have ignored
Then you regurgitate some libertarian nonsense
wow, what a scholarly, pile of nothingness post!
