B.U.S.H. Boycott

While I appreciate the sentiment behind this, I'm confused as to what it is supposed to accomplish.

The government does, after all, print money as needed.

You are correct. I would love it if this could work...

I doubt that. The government prints paper money every day for a variety of needs and reasons, so this won't create a shortage of cash. In order to make a real impact, you'd have to convince a lot (millions) of people to pull everything they've got out of the bank.
This would only hurt the banks, of course. So - I still dont understand what this is supposed to accomplish.

Like I said when you posted this in the Texas group (how many others did you post in?):

This will accomplish nothing.
Most people still think the war was/is a 'good' thing.
Even if 5 million people (about the combined number of people in the US that went to Anti-war demonstrations in 2003) all withdrew their entire savings account (those that even have one), how much money would that take away from investors?

Not a fucking dent's worth.

Also: who is more likely to have accounts they can withdraw from at will?
Right. Not poor people. Not people that oppose the war.

Sounds like that post came from a Trustifarian.

Yet another toy is flung from the liberal pram in the wake of Bush's re-election.

Besides, even if one didn't believe it was right to go to war with Saddam, if the troops were to leave now there's every chance he or someone much worse would take over.

http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/myths_03.htm








oh - and the acronym for "Bring all United States soldiers safely home from Iraq", is BAUSSSHFI not "Bush".

Albion said:
Yet another toy is flung from the liberal pram in the wake of Bush's re-election.

Pram? You know, Maggie could still come back if you believe hard enough.



[Edited on Nov 18, 2004 by tangent23]

And this, of course, justifies the war.

yes

Fuckit; I'll just walk over to Iraq
and carry them all home myself.

that's just what i was coming here to say.

come on.

So, we have traded a hemmed-in dictator for the possibility of an even more destabilizing and dangerous form of rule in Iraq? This hardly seems a great justification for a forcible regime change predicated on the alleged presence, discovery and capture of WMD's.

It's like me forming a group called "CHOosing More Security is Kinder for Iraq" - C.H.O.M.S.K.I

lame

His name is spelled CHOMSKY

yes I know

and the president's name isn't spelled BAUSSSHFI

It was a poor analogy

It was a poor acronym - I was only parodying it. I'm not sure you quite grasped that...never mind

It was also a poor parody...I did indeed grasp the attempt.

of course you did

Good night cutie.

Anyway...

At this point we've got too many chips in the pot to fold. While the beginning the war was pointless and wasteful (except for the profiteers of course), we've gone too far for pulling out to be an option. Kerry himself remained on a platform for establishment of a democratic government in Iraq. The best we can hope for now is the establishment of a self-governing state that can deal with the extremist effectively under its own power sometime in the near future that costs as few lives as possible.

I think the premise behind the bank idea is to withdraw so much money from the bank that it causes a stagnation in the economy, which was a common problem in the early 19th century, particulary with the mishandling of federal money by Andrew Jackson which lead to the Panic of 1837. However, the idea has major flaws:

1. The amount of money in circulation at this time would require the removal of several billion dollars before you even see a difference.

2. The people who would be interested in doing this do not have the money or the flexibility to not spend their money that would be necessary to make a difference.

3. The people who have the money necessary to pull this off only have a small fraction of their total wealth in banks; the remainder lay in investment portfolios, land holdings, offshore accounts, etc.

4. George W. screwed the economy, burned away a economic surplus and left the biggest deficet in decades...and got re-elected. How exactly would it hurt him if someone else did this for him?

Love or hate it, we're stuck with him for the next four years. But he can't run for a third term, and Dick Cheney is about as charismatic as a syphilitic badger with the longetivity to boot. So just sit tight, think rational, and maybe we'll get to the other end of the tunnel in one piece.

No. Private banking companies print the money (of which there is no gold reserve to balance out the system), and loan it to the government.

The banking system is one of the largest problems in our country and in the world, and people are rarely ever talking about it, and the people who stand out against it tend to get killed very quickly.

I highly recomend reading the writings of Joseph Hasslberger and Silvo Gesell.
http://www.hasslberger.com/economy/eco.htm

Bring United States Home? BUSH - use your imagination dude. though they defenitely were stretching it a bit on that one.

I will point out that even before Bush originally obtained office in 2000 that the national debt was already extremely high...we have been "bankrupt" for a long time.