It's business as usual in Washington after all

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Yes because GWB's administration was all sorts of successful with business leaders running just about everything.

I didn't realize Bush was in office or had the power to do anything about this crisis.

Something happen that I don't know of?

Bush's administration was a failure. He's just as much to blame for this crisis as every member of Congress, including Obama.

But he's NOT in a position to fix it. So quit with the 'but Bush did it too' crap.

Obama is POTUS. Obama was elected by the people to fix this problem. Obama is the one not doing to well. Probably because he refuses to take a market orientated approach.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123671107124286261.html

[The Goon]

[Ronald Pagan]

Good god you are dense.

You're like that 'FIX IT' guy on SNL.

My recommendation, read a book on macroeconomics, not right wing newspapers.

The amount of people running around lately playing economist is damn annoying.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Good god you are dense.

You're like that 'FIX IT' guy on SNL.

My recommendation, read a book on macroeconomics, not right wing newspapers.

The amount of people running around lately playing economist is damn annoying.

*laugh*

The Washington Post is not a 'right wing' newspaper.

Nice try though.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Azure

I didn't realize Bush was in office or had the power to do anything about this crisis.

Something happen that I don't know of?

Bush's administration was a failure. He's just as much to blame for this crisis as every member of Congress, including Obama.

But he's NOT in a position to fix it. So quit with the 'but Bush did it too' crap.

Obama is POTUS. Obama was elected by the people to fix this problem. Obama is the one not doing to well. Probably because he refuses to take a market orientated approach.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123671107124286261.html

Your argument was that he is missing the business expertise to make correct decisions, I was pointing out where business expertise got us with the Bush admin.

Market orientated approach is better why? Seems to me that one of the major problems here is Wall Street trying to desperately act like nothing is wrong that this is downturn would end if you just relaxed regulation of the market. When really out of control markets are what caused this in the first place.

Obama is doing the right thing by upping spending and taking a tighter, more transparent approach to market regulation. The naivety of libertarians is getting ridiculous. It's like watching CNBC: Everything's fine! BUY BUY BUY!

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, if things are put through the proper channels, you reduce spending, because you won't have an insane amount of science grants going out every year. But by funding these 'projects' with earmarks, the grants that would get turned down are being funded anyways.

I'm not sure what you mean about proper channels. Proper channels to me means letting people spend their own money.

From what I understand, if these 'projects' are not earmarked, the money is wasted elsewhere.

Ron Paul on earmarks:

[Azure]

There is a difference in over-regulating the market, and making changes that would keep something like this from happening.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,7219436.story

Article talking about regulatory reform that would supposedly keep something like this from happening again.

He also called for an end to the Balkanized manner in which bank holding companies are regulated, with different federal agencies regulating various parts of the business. The central banker urged consolidating much of the oversight to prevent risky bank practices from falling through the cracks.

Rather interesting.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by badnarik

I'm not sure what you mean about proper channels. Proper channels to me means letting people spend their own money.

There is a federal science grant foundation that funds a lot of projects throughout the US.

A 'projector' for a planetarium should be funded through there. Not through federal earmarks.

From what I understand, if these 'projects' are not earmarked, the money is wasted elsewhere.

Which is a problem within itself that needs to be fixed too.