Huston

Andrew Jackson is such a pro.

Yeah, good luck working in those jobs when you have rent and a student loan to pay off, and other debt from schooling.

Good points, Jerry J. Fortin. I have found a string of videos on youtube with Lyndon LaRouche, I have heard his name before and can't quite picture who said it, or where I found it, I will soon look into that. It is all very informative, and well structured arguments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DVFc1fl2M While it says one of four, there is a whole string of them on countless topics, putting most of the issues together. They all start with "Lyndon LaRouche | 011609"

The questio is... how does that increase consumer spending?

A so speculation! Unfortunately, the problem is not about infrastructure, unless it is to decentralized power. Of course, and that is why the government should not do anything, or be expected to. We are just asking for problems from the bubble. Which would be anouther bubble, just like every other form of bubble the Government created. Even if the infrastructure went to ethanol (possibly, but is a big mistake), solar, wind, and whatever. That does not do anything for the economy/ So that bubble will burst until people realise the financing, liberal arts, and fun are not sustainable in how we run them today, which is tourism and service. People just expect too much money for those services. It is said by Austrian economists say that we live beyond our means and burden the rest of the world. This is the whole service base "western" economy, and growing service base economies in otherplaces, like Dubai. Of of this has been a specualtive bubble, that came with the baby boomer population. It is like building infrastructure without the industries to use it. The economy is not suffering from the infrastructure now. It is a financial mess. Pumping money into it will only inflat the currency, to get it going the way it is of the fake 3% GDP growth every year. That number doesn't mean anything. NetDP might say more., perhaps, look at Germany. They are smart with their money. Although they may have caved... I'll have to check into that again. I forgot about the Germans.

This couldn't have happened when we were not in debt? If the infrastructure is implemented so that we don't need to rely of the government, or fine, but it is not possible in any way. Still don't understand the infrastructure bit.

Huh, what miracle? Are you sure that is why the sun worshipper worship the sun? There are way more than two type in your silly little head. Atheists worship the sun? Huh? Replacement? Humanity provides culture, tradition and hope, as it defines what it is. WTF are you on?

Isn't this finacnial fiasco the result of people enjoying their lives through cheap money? I know god is merely a concoction of the human mind, but there are still many thing to worry about.

His sentence will still not be that much. life in prison, whoopdido, a lot of investors will still be shafted. Justice, I thought was to pay the victims back, but his jailing will cost those investors, along with everyone else more money for his jailing.

Well, the state has pulled the ponzi scheme on every single tax payer. So obviously justice will not come from the courts.

... and what would this infrastructure be for, exactly? That does not create real sustainable jobs, as it would only be short term jobs, and then how would that be paid off? The infrastructure word is meaningless.

What would infrastructure do anyways? That is not the problem. I guess you have been listening to Obama too much, or the bunch of other incompetent fools who have taken that bad advice going around lately. This is a money problem that will result in further consolidation of banking power to the few. Oh, and that will do what exactly? It will only centralize industrial power to the few. Man I dislike the Prometheus myth.

No, government spending will make people think it is not their problem. What we need to the government to get out of the way and live within our means. If that require substantially lower property costs and goods and wages, then so be it. If there is absolutely no way oil can be remove from the tar sands with lower prices, well, other solutions must be made. The government can only create desk jobs and waste money. People should focus more on their local economies. Find ways to live with less money. Farmers markets, public transit, local breweries schools and professionals. They say don’t play with fire.. well lets take that torch of liberty back in our own hands. If you want the centralize power of the government hold onto that torch and bring you things for your service base economy then so be it, but don't make it the dictatorship of the majority. Go try an live in your expensive houses, expensive car, and expensive lifestyles that result from needing to take you time driving to and from work or to the grocery store or various other takes like expensive labels. Yes, it is all a lifestyle choice, and the very few who don't like it are forced to use it (from lack of choice or opportunities) and pay for it (through the government).

Isn't that the Patriot Act? Well the Dems/Obama will not do anything about that. They probably want it. The two parties are essentially the same.

Well that was no surprise.

It is embarrasing at the criteria people use or explect. Such low expectations by these people.

No, if you take Freddie and Fannie, they were created by the government regulated so that loans were easy to get. The Fed made interest rates artificially low. There is an economic formula (or so I am told by the experts) to determine the real rate in a free market, but is always superceded by central banks wanting to stimulate the economy. Oh, by the way, 'Bush' regime never deregulated anything. They certainly manipulated it though.

You buy into the deregulation bit huh? There were not deregulation, only more government interference that made it possible to make high-risk loans, and poor monetary policy. Banks didn't want to do it, but laws passed under Carter and Clinton administrations (while these were not Democrat bills, democrats certainly supported them, but hey easy credit is what they want) required them to do so. The banks had meet high-risk loan quotas. That's regulation! While there was also commericial bank deregulation in 1999, in which Ron Paul rejected to support. <http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr110899-glb.htm>. The repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act merely made it possible for the bad insentive created by other regulations possible. As a note: There was no deregulation on the side of the federal reserve or central banking, in which the federal reserve made artificially low interest rates. Also, the government still held the risk. If the banks held the risk they would have been more smart at managing money, but like I said, the Carter administration accepted regulations that puched for dangerous loans You can use the Obama "deregualtion is the problem" mantra or shun the McCain "deregulation is a good" mantra all you want.

I find the public education a huge road block in person 'class' movement. It is structured for the few, and at higher levels of post-secondary level too expensive a bubble forming. Essentially that bubble is lack of real world experience, too theoritical, and provides a false market, with limited options requiring more money. The money and the risk involved is far too much for most people. In fact, I would prefer a limited the education system (especially the indoctrination part of it) and let the market decide. But hey.. but that's a free-market. We can't have that.

Boy, are you daft. It is the complaint about a treasury secretary making mistake. Duh! There is a reason why libertarians want small government. I already gave those, so I will not repeat it again. The whole Obama policy is for bigger government. Massive stimulus. What if they are wrong, or make a mistake? That would be up to 300 million tax payers problem to pay off.

If one person can make a mistake and everyone makes mistake, then should international, global, or powerful organization be limited to minimize the impact of a mistake. Like the too large to fails, hahaha!!!! Imagine if the whole world was under one organization for food.. or in the treasury section, a global currency. What if it fails? We be fucked, since any alternative would be illegal or black market.

I don't care about global wamring, I just care about pollution. At the moment, the notion of global warming is too inconsistent and has too many variables that seem out of our control, i.e. the sun. Respiratory ailments however from smog emission, paints, and other certain building materials are.

Interesting. Peter Schiff (on his radio show, and tells people to get out of USD, and one of the alternatives being the CAD) was asked a question regarding the Amero. And he always pushes such things off. Saying, why would Canada give up their dollar when it is only the USD that is going to collapse. If Canada does try to keeps its dollar lower than the U.S., I guess that would make Canada adopt the Amero, as the CAD will be even more worthless. Although, Schiff did say that all the currancies world wide are sabatoging their own currency for the sake of the USD. Which he said was also stupid.

Of course tax breaks will not do anything. There must be less government all together. The fruadulant economy they built by becoming service base, and a speculative investment strategies, all supported by a market controling education system that puts ... or well, supports and encourgaes people to spend big bucks on a useless philosophy degrees, plus all the culture that comes out of the ivory towers. Most graduates traveling after finishing school, building up higher debts and relizing there is no market for them, or have no clue how to establish a maket for that particulart thing. They have lived in a pampered bubble of consumption. That's the problem. Anymore controls, and we have communism or facism.

What do you mean, they have already done it once. It was a couple of years ago.