Live 8 and Africa
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8746
Printed Date: July 19 2025 at 18:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Live 8 and Africa
Posted By: maani
Subject: Live 8 and Africa
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 10:47
|
Following on our discussion in another thread about the actual socio-political value of events like Live8, I thought this article might interest you:
July 15, 2005
All Rock, No Action
By JEAN-CLAUDE SHANDA TONME
Yaoundé, Cameroon
LIVE 8, that extraordinary media event that some people of good intentions in the West just orchestrated, would have left us Africans indifferent if we hadn't realized that it was an insult both to us and to common sense.
We have nothing against those who this month, in a stadium, a street, a park, in Berlin, London, Moscow, Philadelphia, gathered crowds and played guitar and talked about global poverty and aid for Africa. But we are troubled to think that they are so misguided about what Africa's real problem is, and dismayed by their willingness to propose solutions on our behalf.
We Africans know what the problem is, and no one else should speak in our name. Africa has men of letters and science, great thinkers and stifled geniuses who at the risk of torture rise up to declare the truth and demand liberty.
Don't insult Africa, this continent so rich yet so badly led. Instead, insult its leaders, who have ruined everything. Our anger is all the greater because despite all the presidents for life, despite all the evidence of genocide, we didn't hear anyone at Live 8 raise a cry for democracy in Africa.
Don't the organizers of the concerts realize that Africa lives under the oppression of rulers like Yoweri Museveni (who just eliminated term limits in Uganda so he can be president indefinitely) and Omar Bongo (who has become immensely rich in his three decades of running Gabon)? Don't they know what is happening in Cameroon, Chad, Togo and the Central African Republic? Don't they understand that fighting poverty is fruitless if dictatorships remain in place?
Even more puzzling is why Youssou N'Dour and other Africans participated in this charade. Like us, they can't help but know that Africa's real problem is the lack of freedom of expression, the usurpation of power, the brutal oppression.
Neither debt relief nor huge amounts of food aid nor an invasion of experts will change anything. Those will merely prop up the continent's dictators. It's up to each nation to liberate itself and to help itself. When there is a problem in the United States, in Britain, in France, the citizens vote to change their leaders. And those times when it wasn't possible to freely vote to change those leaders, the people revolted.
In Africa, our leaders have led us into misery, and we need to rid ourselves of these cancers. We would have preferred for the musicians in Philadelphia and London to have marched and sung for political revolution. Instead, they mourned a corpse while forgetting to denounce the murderer.
What is at issue is an Africa where dictators kill, steal and usurp power yet are treated like heroes at meetings of the African Union. What is at issue is rulers like François Bozizé, the coup leader running the Central Africa Republic, and Faure Gnassingbé, who just succeeded his father as president of Togo, free to trample universal suffrage and muzzle their people with no danger that they'll lose their seats at the United Nations. Who here wants a concert against poverty when an African is born, lives and dies without ever being able to vote freely?
But the truth is that it was not for us, for Africa, that the musicians at Live 8 were singing; it was to amuse the crowds and to clear their own consciences, and whether they realized it or not, to reinforce dictatorships. They still believe us to be like children that they must save, as if we don't realize ourselves what the source of our problems is.
Jean-Claude Shanda Tonme is a consultant on international law and a columnist for Le Messager, a Cameroonian daily, where a version of this article first appeared. This article was translated by The Times from the French.
|
Replies:
Posted By: JrKASperov
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 10:56
All that live8 mumbo jumbo makes me mildly nauseous.
Thanks for the opposite (and TRUE) view maani 
-------------
Epic.
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 11:13
|
Although this maybe true, the aims of Live8 were to stop children dying as soon as possible. This is laudlble. If poverty can be alleviated then obviously other issues can be resolved.
It is unlikely though that musicians will get involved in changing Governments. Its too political!
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: JrKASperov
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 12:13
No, the aims of Live8 were to let some famous people show how much they
'care' about those children, entertaining lots of people, and not
pointing to the REAL problems; which are lack of free trade, lack of
respect for dialogue with those contries, lack of critique to the
leaders there and lack of action from 'moralistic' countries like the
VS et al. Why 'liberate' Iraq if countries like Darfur are having WORSE
problems!
-------------
Epic.
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 13:09
Wel I disagree with you. It's not just about ego's.
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 14:19
 Snow Dog wrote:
Although this maybe true, the aims of Live8 were to stop children dying as soon as possible. This is laudlble. If poverty can be alleviated then obviously other issues can be resolved.
It is unlikely though that musicians will get involved in changing Governments. Its too political! |
Sorry Snow, to alleviate poverty, you have to start at the top, not the bottom. Ever heard of trickle down? Helping people at the bottom is fine for short term. But for the long run, you have to start at the top.
Thanks for posting that Maani. My sentiments from the start.
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 14:26
How could one possibly start from the top and install Democracy throughout Africa? Can't be done! ridding thgird World Debt will help though, plus free trade wth Africa.
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 14:48
But who controls the trade? The top, right? And yes it can be done unfortunately with war. These people in Africa want liberation, not a handout. Ever heard of South Korea? Look how they are now compared to what they were 50 years ago. What has history taught us?
I got nothing against debt relief. That's fine again for the short term. But as long as those dictators are still in power, we're just going to back to the same problem.
|
Posted By: Syzygy
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 16:05
|
[Ever heard of trickle down? Helping people at the bottom is fine for short term. But for the long run, you have to start at the top.
Thanks for posting that Maani. My sentiments from the start.
[/QUOTE]
Trickle down is the system whereby the already wealthy are not taxed so that their wealth 'trickles down' to Swiss bank accounts, offshore businesses registered in the Cayman Islands and similar worthy recipients.
Classic conservativism - take nothing from the rich and give it to the poor.
As I understood it, Live 8 was about raising awareness of the problems caused by poverty in Africa. Unfortunately, it helped to perpetuate the myth that Africa is poor (which it isn't) as opposed to poverty ridden (which much of it is). In most cases, the 'debt' being repaid by poor countries has nothing to do with the original sum (which in most cases has been repaid many times over) and everything to do with interest rates that would make a Mafia loan shark blush. Cancelling those repayments would be a start to creating a wealthy continent. Another good move would be to allow Africans to implement changes themselves, rather than selling the rights to their utilities to Western corporations as a pre condition of giving aid. Most of all, realise that it is a staggeringly diverse, multi cultural and sophisticated continent and not some enormous dust bowl with no resources.
Anyway, weren't Pink Floyd amazing?
-------------
'Like so many of you
I've got my doubts about how much to contribute
to the already rich among us...'
Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom
|
Posted By: Hangedman
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 16:34
|
Although I found live 8 to be noble, I have to agree, these people need help overthrowing corrupt governments before any permanent positive changes can be made. (notice how I said Help overthrow, not do it for them)
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 17:44
Syzygy wrote:
[Ever heard of trickle down? Helping people at the bottom is fine for short term. But for the long run, you have to start at the top. Thanks for posting that Maani. My sentiments from the start. |
Trickle down is the system whereby the already wealthy are not taxed so that their wealth 'trickles down' to Swiss bank accounts, offshore businesses registered in the Cayman Islands and similar worthy recipients.
Classic conservativism - take nothing from the rich and give it to the poor.
As I understood it, Live 8 was about raising awareness of the problems caused by poverty in Africa. Unfortunately, it helped to perpetuate the myth that Africa is poor (which it isn't) as opposed to poverty ridden (which much of it is). In most cases, the 'debt' being repaid by poor countries has nothing to do with the original sum (which in most cases has been repaid many times over) and everything to do with interest rates that would make a Mafia loan shark blush. Cancelling those repayments would be a start to creating a wealthy continent. Another good move would be to allow Africans to implement changes themselves, rather than selling the rights to their utilities to Western corporations as a pre condition of giving aid. Most of all, realise that it is a staggeringly diverse, multi cultural and sophisticated continent and not some enormous dust bowl with no resources.
Anyway, weren't Pink Floyd amazing? [/QUOTE]
Funny, I'm listening to Floyd at Live 8 right now on mp3. Not bad, I'd just rather see a whole concert of all 4 of them than just a 4 song showup. And Roger's voice sounded a bit shot.
Anyway, but excuse me, since our illustrious president who seems to be very popular here in this forum, has implemented his tax cuts even on the rich, our unemployment rate has dropped from 6.5% when he took over to 5%. We now have record homeownership here as well. Also, revenue to the government has now increased to where our deficit is shrinking by 1/3 more. These stats just came in. Ever gotten a job from a poor person? Sure, there are some greedy types who just pocket the tax savings. But most of them re-invest and expand their businesses. Ronald Reagan did the same thing 20 yrs ago and the results were unemployment down by almost 7%. Inflation at almost none. Want to go further back? JFK dropped taxes on the rich in '62 and again economic up swing.
I can go on and on about trickle down, but the record speaks for itself. Being envious of the haves when you're a have-not just creates pessimism and negativity, which is not constructive. You just end up sinking deeper with that kind of thinking. I know, I used to think that way too.
Anyway, you're right about a number of things especially of course about the debt relief. As for them implementing their changes, it's just a matter of the whether their own governments would allow that and not stifle it. They need freedom, not regulation.
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 18:34
|
Mark:
When Clinton took office, the unemployment rate was the highest it had been in years: almost 7.5 percent. This was a direct result of Bush I's disastrous tax cuts, which sent the unemployment rate from 5.5 to 7.7 in less than three years. Clinton refused to introduce new tax cuts, and the unemployment rate fell from 7.7 to 4.0. Since Clinton left Bush II with a 4.0 unemployment rate, Bush's first tax cuts caused that rate to jump from 4.0 to 6.0 during his first term. And while it is true that the unemployment rate has fallen in his second term, it has fallen only one percent - from 6.0 to 5.0. Hardly something to crow about. And many economists believe that this occurred despite, not because of, the tax cuts.
With regard to home ownership rates, during Bush's first term, they grew only slightly depending on demographics, but in most cases less than 3% - which is about average, and certainly nothing to put out a press release about. During the first year of Bush's second term, home ownership has remained basically stagnant - though this, too, is average rather than "bad."
As for the deficit, the following link speaks to it far better than I could. But the news is anything but pretty:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/ - http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/
I don't know where you are getting your information, but most of this stuff is easily found on the Net. And not from "partisan" sites, but from federal agencies, independent agencies, and in mainstream media articles.
Peace.
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 19:17
|
In lieu of anything interesting or intelligent to add to this discussion:
here's some dancing Bush!!!
  
"I'm the master of low expectations."
"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
"One reason I like to highlight reading is, reading is the beginnings of the ability to be a good student. And if you can't read, it's going to be hard to realize dreams; it's going to be hard to go to college. So when your teachers say, read—you ought to listen to her"
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 19:23
maani wrote:
Mark:
When Clinton took office, the unemployment rate was the highest it had been in years: almost 7.5 percent. This was a direct result of Bush I's disastrous tax cuts, which sent the unemployment rate from 5.5 to 7.7 in less than three years. Clinton refused to introduce new tax cuts, and the unemployment rate fell from 7.7 to 4.0. Since Clinton left Bush II with a 4.0 unemployment rate, Bush's first tax cuts caused that rate to jump from 4.0 to 6.0 during his first term. And while it is true that the unemployment rate has fallen in his second term, it has fallen only one percent - from 6.0 to 5.0. Hardly something to crow about. And many economists believe that this occurred despite, not because of, the tax cuts.
With regard to home ownership rates, during Bush's first term, they grew only slightly depending on demographics, but in most cases less than 3% - which is about average, and certainly nothing to put out a press release about. During the first year of Bush's second term, home ownership has remained basically stagnant - though this, too, is average rather than "bad."
As for the deficit, the following link speaks to it far better than I could. But the news is anything but pretty:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/ - http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/
I don't know where you are getting your information, but most of this stuff is easily found on the Net. And not from "partisan" sites, but from federal agencies, independent agencies, and in mainstream media articles.
Peace. |
Excuse me Maani, but daddy Bush DID NOT LOWER taxes, he increased them which was his nail in the coffin on re-election (that and Perot). And yes unemployment did reach a high of 6.5% in 2002 as a result from a cyclical recession that neither Clinton or Bush can be blamed for not to mention an attack here. Unemployment rate was going up 3 mos before Bush II took office. Get your dates right. And lets not forget who controlled the purse strings during Clinton's term. The Republicians. I've never been one to blame a pres for a recession, they're going to happen no matter what. But just look at the big picture. Where are we compared to the 70s? You miss my whole point here. I'm not talking out of a textbook here. I'm a self-employed mortgage broker who's managed to to hire 14 more employees just in the last year, yes because of my tax savings through expansive advertizing. Been through some blood, sweat and tears to get where I'm at.
All I know is, I'm talking from the front lines here. Where are you talking from? Berkely or Oxford University? Give me a break! Oh, and CNN (the Clinton News Network) is anything but non-partisan! You're looking at the past 13 years, I'm looking at the past 25! You're 20-20 hindsight vision is so limited!
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 20:05
marktheshark wrote:
maani wrote:
Mark:
When Clinton took office, the unemployment rate was the highest
it had been in years: almost 7.5 percent. This was a direct
result of Bush I's disastrous tax cuts, which sent the unemployment
rate from 5.5 to 7.7 in less than three years. Clinton refused to
introduce new tax cuts, and the unemployment rate fell from 7.7 to
4.0. Since Clinton left Bush II with a 4.0 unemployment rate,
Bush's first tax cuts caused that rate to jump from 4.0 to 6.0 during
his first term. And while it is true that the unemployment rate
has fallen in his second term, it has fallen only one percent - from
6.0 to 5.0. Hardly something to crow about. And many
economists believe that this occurred despite, not because of, the tax
cuts.
With regard to home ownership rates, during Bush's first term,
they grew only slightly depending on demographics, but in most cases
less than 3% - which is about average, and certainly nothing to put out
a press release about. During the first year of Bush's second
term, home ownership has remained basically stagnant - though this,
too, is average rather than "bad."
As for the deficit, the following link speaks to it far better than I could. But the news is anything but pretty:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/ - http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/
I don't know where you are getting your information, but most of
this stuff is easily found on the Net. And not from "partisan"
sites, but from federal agencies, independent agencies, and in
mainstream media articles.
Peace. |
Excuse me Maani, but daddy Bush DID NOT LOWER taxes, he increased
them which was his nail in the coffin on re-election (that and Perot).
And yes unemployment did reach a high of 6.5% in 2002 as a result from
a cyclical recession that neither Clinton or Bush can be blamed for not
to mention an attack here. Unemployment rate was going up 3 mos before
Bush II took office. Get your dates right. And lets not forget who
controlled the purse strings during Clinton's term. The Republicians.
I've never been one to blame a pres for a recession, they're going to
happen no matter what. But just look at the big picture. Where are we
compared to the 70s? You miss my whole point here. I'm not talking out
of a textbook here. I'm a self-employed mortgage broker who's managed
to to hire 14 more employees just in the last year, yes because of my
tax savings through expansive advertizing. Been through some blood,
sweat and tears to get where I'm at.
All I know is, I'm talking from the front lines here. Where are you
talking from? Berkely or Oxford University? Give me a break! Oh, and
CNN (the Clinton News Network) is anything but non-partisan! You're
looking at the past 13 years, I'm looking at the past 25! You're 20-20
hindsight vision is so limited! |
That's the only thing I remember MtS saying that is true: CNN is NOT
non-partisan, they're clearly conservative. It confuses many people
because they seem moderate compared to, say, FOX News Network...
LOL, recessions are "going to happen no matter what"...just a force of
nature that has nothing to do with economic policy or commercial
activity, right? That must be the financial acumen that catapulted you
to the top of the mortgage broker heap. 
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi"> 
|
Posted By: Borealis
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 20:13
I believe it only was to make the biggest musical event since a long time. The Africa thing was just to show that the rich countries of G8 'care' about the misery of some more unfortunate country then themself. Intersting article though.
-------------
Vive le Québec libre!...
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: July 15 2005 at 20:42
James Lee wrote:
marktheshark wrote:
maani wrote:
Mark:
When Clinton took office, the unemployment rate was the highest
it had been in years: almost 7.5 percent. This was a direct
result of Bush I's disastrous tax cuts, which sent the unemployment
rate from 5.5 to 7.7 in less than three years. Clinton refused to
introduce new tax cuts, and the unemployment rate fell from 7.7 to
4.0. Since Clinton left Bush II with a 4.0 unemployment rate,
Bush's first tax cuts caused that rate to jump from 4.0 to 6.0 during
his first term. And while it is true that the unemployment rate
has fallen in his second term, it has fallen only one percent - from
6.0 to 5.0. Hardly something to crow about. And many
economists believe that this occurred despite, not because of, the tax
cuts.
With regard to home ownership rates, during Bush's first term,
they grew only slightly depending on demographics, but in most cases
less than 3% - which is about average, and certainly nothing to put out
a press release about. During the first year of Bush's second
term, home ownership has remained basically stagnant - though this,
too, is average rather than "bad."
As for the deficit, the following link speaks to it far better than I could. But the news is anything but pretty:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/ - http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/
I don't know where you are getting your information, but most of
this stuff is easily found on the Net. And not from "partisan"
sites, but from federal agencies, independent agencies, and in
mainstream media articles.
Peace. |
Excuse me Maani, but daddy Bush DID NOT LOWER taxes, he increased
them which was his nail in the coffin on re-election (that and Perot).
And yes unemployment did reach a high of 6.5% in 2002 as a result from
a cyclical recession that neither Clinton or Bush can be blamed for not
to mention an attack here. Unemployment rate was going up 3 mos before
Bush II took office. Get your dates right. And lets not forget who
controlled the purse strings during Clinton's term. The Republicians.
I've never been one to blame a pres for a recession, they're going to
happen no matter what. But just look at the big picture. Where are we
compared to the 70s? You miss my whole point here. I'm not talking out
of a textbook here. I'm a self-employed mortgage broker who's managed
to to hire 14 more employees just in the last year, yes because of my
tax savings through expansive advertizing. Been through some blood,
sweat and tears to get where I'm at.
All I know is, I'm talking from the front lines here. Where are you
talking from? Berkely or Oxford University? Give me a break! Oh, and
CNN (the Clinton News Network) is anything but non-partisan! You're
looking at the past 13 years, I'm looking at the past 25! You're 20-20
hindsight vision is so limited! |
That's the only thing I remember MtS saying that is true: CNN is NOT
non-partisan, they're clearly conservative. It confuses many people
because they seem moderate compared to, say, FOX News Network...
LOL, recessions are "going to happen no matter what"...just a force of
nature that has nothing to do with economic policy or commercial
activity, right? That must be the financial acumen that catapulted you
to the top of the mortgage broker heap. |
Oh, ok so we have to "blame" a pres 'cause someone decided NOT to buy something or just cut back which DOES happen now and then. Oh yes, Heaven forbid if anybody decides not to invest. I believe it is FREEDOM that allows our people to decide how our economy should be going, not the government. And so far, so good!
BTW, are you mocking my profession? You seem to have a problem about a college dropout, military vet striking out on his own! Is that something that shouldn't be done in this country? Maybe I should've just waited for Uncle Sam to do all the work for me. How's that? Or maybe I should've just gone to Hill and Billary and asked "Oh please help me! I can't do it on my own! Where would I be without the government?". PLEASE!
This is all just another classic case of the left having nothing but moans and groans but no solutions. Attack, complain and bitch, but offer no corrective action what-so-ever. Which is why Kerry lost. A vote for Kerry was just a vote against Bush. It was a de-constructive campaign for the Dems. Roosevelt, Trumann, JFK and Humphrey no doubt must turning over in their graves!
|
Posted By: barbs
Date Posted: July 16 2005 at 00:37
Good article Maani. Jean Claude Shanda Tonme's article succinctly clarifies the plight of most of Africa.
It is difficult to see how his and many Africans can achieve their
dreams of true socio/political freedom and independence, without much
bloodshed:, for that kind of change normally does not come without
revolutionary zeal and the history of socio/political revolution has
always come at great cost and sacrifice, mostly in human lives.
And for what. Often, a power vacuum is filled by another tyrant.
Let us hope then that a country as rich and beautiful as Africa can
rise above its current malaise and become a continent that does not
continue to enslave its people through tyrannical rulers and cruel
militias but can convert its past into a truly democratic future that
offers hope and freedom for all its peoples.
As for live8, IMO we cannot truly judge the motives of the organisers
and participants (I'm sure some were truly honerable in their
motivation) and we will either hope on the positive side that it was an
act motivated correctly by human compassion and hope or we can be
cynically disapproving and unsupportive. People need food in there
stomachs and fresh water in order to live, in order to see a new
tommorrow.
If I say, all that we are is dust anyway, then I may not see the point
in caring to much. But if we are more than this, if we are in some way
connected by a common thread of humanity that says at the height of
human existence, we are transformed and this transformation lets us see
humanity for what it really is, living spirits in clay temples, then I
might just see a stronger motivation for fighting (at least on the
inside) for the collective survival of a group of people.
One man is an island but many can make a nation.
-------------
Eternity
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: July 16 2005 at 13:06
marktheshark wrote:
James Lee wrote:
marktheshark wrote:
Excuse me Maani, but daddy Bush DID NOT LOWER taxes, he increased
them which was his nail in the coffin on re-election (that and Perot).
And yes unemployment did reach a high of 6.5% in 2002 as a result from
a cyclical recession that neither Clinton or Bush can be blamed for not
to mention an attack here. Unemployment rate was going up 3 mos before
Bush II took office. Get your dates right. And lets not forget who
controlled the purse strings during Clinton's term. The Republicians.
I've never been one to blame a pres for a recession, they're going to
happen no matter what. But just look at the big picture. Where are we
compared to the 70s? You miss my whole point here. I'm not talking out
of a textbook here. I'm a self-employed mortgage broker who's managed
to to hire 14 more employees just in the last year, yes because of my
tax savings through expansive advertizing. Been through some blood,
sweat and tears to get where I'm at.
All I know is, I'm talking from the front lines here. Where are you
talking from? Berkely or Oxford University? Give me a break! Oh, and
CNN (the Clinton News Network) is anything but non-partisan! You're
looking at the past 13 years, I'm looking at the past 25! You're 20-20
hindsight vision is so limited! |
That's the only thing I remember MtS saying that is true: CNN is NOT
non-partisan, they're clearly conservative. It confuses many people
because they seem moderate compared to, say, FOX News Network...
LOL, recessions are "going to happen no matter what"...just a force of
nature that has nothing to do with economic policy or commercial
activity, right? That must be the financial acumen that catapulted you
to the top of the mortgage broker heap. |
Oh, ok so we have to "blame" a pres 'cause someone decided NOT to
buy something or just cut back which DOES happen now and then. Oh yes,
Heaven forbid if anybody decides not to invest. I believe it is FREEDOM
that allows our people to decide how our economy should be going, not
the government. And so far, so good!
BTW, are you mocking my profession? You seem to have a problem
about a college dropout, military vet striking out on his own! Is that
something that shouldn't be done in this country? Maybe I should've
just waited for Uncle Sam to do all the work for me. How's that? Or
maybe I should've just gone to Hill and Billary and asked "Oh please
help me! I can't do it on my own! Where would I be without the
government?". PLEASE!
This is all just another classic case of the left having nothing
but moans and groans but no solutions. Attack, complain and bitch, but
offer no corrective action what-so-ever. Which is why Kerry lost. A
vote for Kerry was just a vote against Bush. It was a de-constructive
campaign for the Dems. Roosevelt, Trumann, JFK and Humphrey no doubt
must turning over in their graves! |
Not mocking your profession- just amused that someone who makes a
living at finance (and seems to take an interest in history and
politics) can say that recessions "are going to happen no matter what".
Doesn't exactly match your take-charge, personal-responsibility,
every-man-for-himself ethos...or the detailed policy behind a
controlled recession cycle that is the single most significant
institutional interference with pure laissez-faire capitalism.
For the record, I agree with your assessment of the 2004 race (a house
plant would have been just as compelling a candidate) and I am neither
a Democrat nor even a liberal in the accepted sense. You seem to assume
a great many things about your imagined opposition...or, I could say:
'this is all just a classic case of the right having nothing but quick
assumptions, hidebound kneejerk reactions, and implicit distrust of
anything that they see as at all intellectual.'
(I'll bet you didn't turn down any of them pinko small-business incentives or vet benefits, huh?  )
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: July 16 2005 at 13:47
James Lee wrote:
marktheshark wrote:
James Lee wrote:
marktheshark wrote:
Excuse me Maani, but daddy Bush DID NOT LOWER taxes, he increased
them which was his nail in the coffin on re-election (that and Perot).
And yes unemployment did reach a high of 6.5% in 2002 as a result from
a cyclical recession that neither Clinton or Bush can be blamed for not
to mention an attack here. Unemployment rate was going up 3 mos before
Bush II took office. Get your dates right. And lets not forget who
controlled the purse strings during Clinton's term. The Republicians.
I've never been one to blame a pres for a recession, they're going to
happen no matter what. But just look at the big picture. Where are we
compared to the 70s? You miss my whole point here. I'm not talking out
of a textbook here. I'm a self-employed mortgage broker who's managed
to to hire 14 more employees just in the last year, yes because of my
tax savings through expansive advertizing. Been through some blood,
sweat and tears to get where I'm at.
All I know is, I'm talking from the front lines here. Where are you
talking from? Berkely or Oxford University? Give me a break! Oh, and
CNN (the Clinton News Network) is anything but non-partisan! You're
looking at the past 13 years, I'm looking at the past 25! You're 20-20
hindsight vision is so limited! |
That's the only thing I remember MtS saying that is true: CNN is NOT
non-partisan, they're clearly conservative. It confuses many people
because they seem moderate compared to, say, FOX News Network...
LOL, recessions are "going to happen no matter what"...just a force of
nature that has nothing to do with economic policy or commercial
activity, right? That must be the financial acumen that catapulted you
to the top of the mortgage broker heap. |
Oh, ok so we have to "blame" a pres 'cause someone decided NOT to
buy something or just cut back which DOES happen now and then. Oh yes,
Heaven forbid if anybody decides not to invest. I believe it is FREEDOM
that allows our people to decide how our economy should be going, not
the government. And so far, so good!
BTW, are you mocking my profession? You seem to have a problem
about a college dropout, military vet striking out on his own! Is that
something that shouldn't be done in this country? Maybe I should've
just waited for Uncle Sam to do all the work for me. How's that? Or
maybe I should've just gone to Hill and Billary and asked "Oh please
help me! I can't do it on my own! Where would I be without the
government?". PLEASE!
This is all just another classic case of the left having nothing
but moans and groans but no solutions. Attack, complain and bitch, but
offer no corrective action what-so-ever. Which is why Kerry lost. A
vote for Kerry was just a vote against Bush. It was a de-constructive
campaign for the Dems. Roosevelt, Trumann, JFK and Humphrey no doubt
must turning over in their graves! |
Not mocking your profession- just amused that someone who makes a
living at finance (and seems to take an interest in history and
politics) can say that recessions "are going to happen no matter what".
Doesn't exactly match your take-charge, personal-responsibility,
every-man-for-himself ethos...or the detailed policy behind a
controlled recession cycle that is the single most significant
institutional interference with pure laissez-faire capitalism.
For the record, I agree with your assessment of the 2004 race (a house
plant would have been just as compelling a candidate) and I am neither
a Democrat nor even a liberal in the accepted sense. You seem to assume
a great many things about your imagined opposition...or, I could say:
'this is all just a classic case of the right having nothing but quick
assumptions, hidebound kneejerk reactions, and implicit distrust of
anything that they see as at all intellectual.'
(I'll bet you didn't turn down any of them pinko small-business incentives or vet benefits, huh? )
|
You misunderstood what I said about recessions. What I meant was that the people, me included, are the major force behind the economy not necessarily the government. The government can only give incentives and tax relief to help. The people can boost it and bring it down as well. So there's your personal accountability.
And BTW the only government assistance I ever used in my entire life was the VA loan to get my first house. Which I believe I earned! Talk about quick assumptions my friend! Oh! That's right. You're not a liberal, you're a "progressive" right? Ironic isn't it?
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: July 16 2005 at 17:58
Not a 'progressive' either, but keep trying.
So though the government and wall street have instituted cyclic periods
where the economy will be worse for the people, the people retain their
greater ability to influence the economy? Do you feel that you (or even
thousands of you) have as much influence on the economy as Joshua Bolten or Carlos Gutierrez?
I must not be understanding your points today...are you saying that
those tax laws and incentives weren't any assistance to you in building
your business, or that the VA loan was not generated by taxpayer funds
and dispensed at the discretion of the government? I'm not belittling
your achievements or work, I'm just trying to figure out if you are
saying that government should or shouldn't provide assistance to
people...and if they should, then only to certain people?
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: barbs
Date Posted: July 16 2005 at 21:23
GREED
If our economic systems really worked as well as it is argued they do, no one would be living in poverty and there would be a far greater sharing of economic resources. What does a billionaire pay as a percentage in tax to the government as opposed to the percentage that a low to middle class wage employee pay (the greatest percentage of the workforce)
Who for example is getting the economic benefits out of military spending?
The world is a stage and we are but little 'bit' players in it.
Most great wealth is about 'good fortune' - being in the right place at the right time. Most billionaires were born into family wealth, they didn't earn it at all.
The richest person in our country thinks nothing about dropping a cool 30 million dollars or so at the casinos around the world when it suits his fancy. What does that trickle down to. A rich Japanese, American or Saudi businessman?
The idea that most rich people are philanthropic, like Bill Gates, is laughable, and even what he gives, which is a great amount, is but a small segment of his overall wealth. There are a few who give, but they are in the minority.
If the weathiest people in the world, got together tomorrow and made a decision to 'give' five percent of their personal wealth, and it was responsibly and humanely distributed amongst those in greatest need including job creation, the economic (not political) crisis in Africa would be turned around tomorrow.
It is greed and a lack of will on the part of the richest and most powerful people in the world that continues to undermine the poorest. The richest countries in the world have benefited greatly from the 'cheap' resources they have taken from their former 'colonies' and any 'decent' response would be that they 'give' back just a little of what they have taken.
There is no justification for ignoring the incredible destitution of people when you have even a small amount to spare, let alone the disgustingly rich. The disgustingly wealthy derive their riches from the masses and it is to the masses that they should return some of the spoils of their prosperity.
It is good that the governments of countries are going to increase aid and give from their treasuries, the finances of the people, but the ones with the greatest capacity to give, very rarely give what it is within their capacity to.
What could anyone possibly need with 10, 50 or a 100 billion dollars in personal fortunes. The wealth of the few is a disgusting plight on the poverty of the many. It is totally unjustifiable - except in a greedy, self-centred world that has no true compassion for the most disadvantaged in our societies
-------------
Eternity
|
Posted By: barbs
Date Posted: July 16 2005 at 21:30
One last thing.
Giving is not just about what it is doing for the reciever.
It is good for our own souls. (believe/justify what you will about that)
IMO...
...Giving is like exercise.
It is only doing you good when it starts to hurt a little.
-------------
Eternity
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: July 19 2005 at 14:45
James Lee wrote:
Not a 'progressive' either, but keep trying.
So though the government and wall street have instituted cyclic periods
where the economy will be worse for the people, the people retain their
greater ability to influence the economy? Do you feel that you (or even
thousands of you) have as much influence on the economy as <font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" face="arial, helvetica, sans serif" size="2">Joshua Bolten or <font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" face="arial, helvetica, sans serif" size="2">Carlos Gutierrez?
I must not be understanding your points today...are you saying that
those tax laws and incentives weren't any assistance to you in building
your business, or that the VA loan was not generated by taxpayer funds
and dispensed at the discretion of the government? I'm not belittling
your achievements or work, I'm just trying to figure out if you are
saying that government should or shouldn't provide assistance to
people...and if they should, then only to certain people?
|
Basically all I'm saying is that you can't hold a President necessarily accountable for the CAUSE of a recession. Like most people do. You can only hold them accountable for taking action when one occurs. I've never looked at the last recession as the "Bush" recession like Maani does. But I don't call it the Clinton recession either even though it did initially start on his watch when the stock market started to plummett in March of 2000. Layoffs in the steel industry right here in Ohio were going down in July 2000. I know, I remember reading about it in the papers. Steel mills were closing down left and right here.
I guess if you really want to point fingers at anybody, it would be Greenspan. He should of lowered the Fed at the first sign of trouble. And he didn't.
And BTW Barbs, the best giving a rich person can do to a poor person is not just simply giving money but giving the tools for that person get themselves out of poverty. Which is what is needed in Africa. The only thing stopping that is the oppressive governments there.
We tried the old "lets just give them money" routine right here in our own country for over 40 years. It was called Johnson's Great Society and it was a total failure. 90 and even 70 percent tax brackets don't help at all.
|
Posted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: July 19 2005 at 21:32
1837 was DEFINATELY Andrew Jackson's recession (Van Buren was blamed)
-------------
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: July 20 2005 at 11:33
marktheshark wrote:
Basically all I'm saying is that you can't
hold a President necessarily accountable for the CAUSE of a recession.
Like most people do. You can only hold them accountable for taking
action when one occurs. I've never looked at the last recession as the
"Bush" recession like Maani does. But I don't call it the Clinton
recession either even though it did initially start on his watch when
the stock market started to plummett in March of 2000. Layoffs in the
steel industry right here in Ohio were going down in July 2000. I know,
I remember reading about it in the papers. Steel mills were closing
down left and right here.
I guess if you really want to point fingers at anybody, it would
be Greenspan. He should of lowered the Fed at the first sign of
trouble. And he didn't.
And BTW Barbs, the best giving a rich person can do to a poor
person is not just simply giving money but giving the tools for that
person get themselves out of poverty. Which is what is needed in
Africa. The only thing stopping that is the oppressive governments
there.
We tried the old "lets just give them money" routine right here in
our own country for over 40 years. It was called Johnson's Great
Society and it was a total failure. 90 and even 70 percent tax brackets
don't help at all. |
Imagine that, a MtS post that I totally agree with!
The president does have an impact on the state of the economy, but I
agree that one cannot blame him exclusively for it. There are so many
constantly evolving factors that affect the economy that it would be
silly to lay the blame solely on one person, or even on one
administration in general. The only thing we can be sure of is that
when the economy is good, everyone wants their guy to get credit...and
when it is bad, they want to blame the other guy. It's all part of
desperately trying to understand the world with an artificial, imposed
sense of duality.
And I even agree with you about Africa, and even somewhat about the US-
'aid and assistance' does not mean money. I see most world leaders as
absentee parents, who hand their children a wad of cash and then leave
to 'take care of business', thinking that their hard work and money
will automatically guarantee that their children grow up properly (if
they think about it at all). Not that Africa is our child, of course,
but then again most metaphors don't bear close examination...
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: July 20 2005 at 19:56
James Lee wrote:
marktheshark wrote:
Basically all I'm saying is that you can't
hold a President necessarily accountable for the CAUSE of a recession.
Like most people do. You can only hold them accountable for taking
action when one occurs. I've never looked at the last recession as the
"Bush" recession like Maani does. But I don't call it the Clinton
recession either even though it did initially start on his watch when
the stock market started to plummett in March of 2000. Layoffs in the
steel industry right here in Ohio were going down in July 2000. I know,
I remember reading about it in the papers. Steel mills were closing
down left and right here.
I guess if you really want to point fingers at anybody, it would
be Greenspan. He should of lowered the Fed at the first sign of
trouble. And he didn't.
And BTW Barbs, the best giving a rich person can do to a poor
person is not just simply giving money but giving the tools for that
person get themselves out of poverty. Which is what is needed in
Africa. The only thing stopping that is the oppressive governments
there.
We tried the old "lets just give them money" routine right here in
our own country for over 40 years. It was called Johnson's Great
Society and it was a total failure. 90 and even 70 percent tax brackets
don't help at all. |
Imagine that, a MtS post that I totally agree with!
The president does have an impact on the state of the economy, but I
agree that one cannot blame him exclusively for it. There are so many
constantly evolving factors that affect the economy that it would be
silly to lay the blame solely on one person, or even on one
administration in general. The only thing we can be sure of is that
when the economy is good, everyone wants their guy to get credit...and
when it is bad, they want to blame the other guy. It's all part of
desperately trying to understand the world with an artificial, imposed
sense of duality.
And I even agree with you about Africa, and even somewhat about the US-
'aid and assistance' does not mean money. I see most world leaders as
absentee parents, who hand their children a wad of cash and then leave
to 'take care of business', thinking that their hard work and money
will automatically guarantee that their children grow up properly (if
they think about it at all). Not that Africa is our child, of course,
but then again most metaphors don't bear close examination...
|
Thank you! But you also need to know how VA loans work. A VA loan is not a loan originated and underwritten by the government. They are done by just about any private lender. What the government does is guarantee the loan to the lender in case of default. So basically it only costs the taxpayers when a default occurs. But even on a default, that doesn't mean that a loss would result. A lot of times the government will just pay the balance and turn around and sell the property and even make money!
|
|