• United States Presidential Election 2012 MEGATHREAD
    2,907 replies, posted
You simple don't understand that there's too great of a gap when we wait til then end of the year to factor in inflation.
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37599907] About taxes, go look at the actual percent of government revenue comes from income tax. I'm not going to throw out a random number, but i remember it's surprisingly low. But I want to ask you this to also answer your question: Has a government ever not been able to function when there is no income tax? Let me give you a hint, the U.S. has not always had an income tax. [/QUOTE] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png[/img] It can't funciton without taxes now though.
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37600557]You simple don't understand that there's too great of a gap when we wait til then end of the year to factor in inflation.[/QUOTE] what does that mean, "factor in inflation"? if you think inflation is measured by the year then uh: [url]http://www.bls.gov/cpi/[/url] it's an aggregate generated from reports that are compiled every month [quote]i think by now i'm just going to dismiss your arguments nothing personal, it's just you don't really know what you're talking about[/quote] why oh why do i not follow my own advice omg
I'd vote for Stein since I'm a Centrist. But since third parties are garbage in the US elections, I'll go with Obongo.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37598964]Obama supports the patriot act and stricter gun control and wants to continue raising the debt ceiling. I think Romney might support the patriot act too though. Doesn't matter because Johnson doesn't and that's who I'd actually like to see in office.[/QUOTE] Obama does not support gun control, at all. Him supporting it is a myth created by the leader of the NRA who gets funding from the same people the tea party does.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37602241]Obama does not support gun control, at all. Him supporting it is a myth created by the leader of the NRA who gets funding from the same people the tea party does.[/QUOTE] Romney voted [I]for[/I] the Assault Weapons ban.
I'm actually pretty happy with the way Obama is waging the war in Afghanistan. He's using drones to pursue our enemies in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan. He's surged the number of troops in Afghanistan to increase security and stabilize the local government. He authorized the capture of Bin Laden, which ended in a killing, denying our enemies a figurehead. He also withheld the photos and disposed the body to avoid jihaddist propaganda. His administration is becoming increasingly critical of the Pakistani government for their actions regarding UBL and the Haqqani network. He's increased the use of Special Forces to conduct targeted operations throughout Afghanistan. He's compromised with the Afghan government on a multitude of issues including the controversial (but effective) night raids.
alright guys why isn't ron paul on the poll options
[QUOTE=thisispain;37600150]except they aren't poorer, that's the point of controlling the monetary supply. if the dollar would lose 10% of its value the federal reserve would respond with an action that would increase or decrease the value of the dollar on international markets. you're squeezing complex systems into terrible simplifications without even understanding the point of controlling the monetary supply. you also don't seem to actually understand economics when it comes to the role of the dollar. inflation is good for the economy, it increases US exports because it makes our prices more competitive. it is then the federal reserve's job to control the money supply in order to keep credit at a reasonable level. what happened in the economic crisis is that the value of the dollar went up due to lack of demand and people could buy less goods with the same US dollar and had less money to spend which destroyed the housing market. the Fed then had to save the economy by rapidly increasing the amount of money and reducing the value of the dollar which would allow people to get confidence and start buying and selling again. [URL]http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Monetary_policy.htm[/URL][/QUOTE] You blame him for squeezing complex systems into terrible simplifications and then do the exact same thing. The financial meltdown was caused [I]in large part[/I] by the Fed itself. Bad policy resulted in a bubble that collapsed. This isn't even getting into cutting back reform like the Glass-Steagall Act and the predatory lending that went with it. No, it's a pretty complex issue, and the government/fed is mostly to blame for the entire fiasco. This isn't an argument against either the government or the fed, but to say "the fed had to save the economy" is misleading since they were basically cleaning up what was their own fucking mess. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] Cleaning up their own mess by handing bankers billions of dollars to spend on their fucking bonuses, to boot.
Today's Gallup poll was just released. Obama maintains 49% while Romney drops to 44 [img]http://puu.sh/13xfn[/img]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ey__4-CvAM&feature=relmfu[/media] This is an interesting quick video and very relevant to our election.
[QUOTE=Crimptor;37602607]alright guys why isn't ron paul on the poll options[/QUOTE] because Ron Paul will never win. Even if he was popular enough one year, neither the republicans nor the democrats would ever let him run in the primaries because he is too radical. He would need to run independent. And again, regardless of how popular he is even then, the republican and democrats STILL wouldn't let him win via the representative votes because he is just too radical. with our current 2 party setup and voting system there is no way an independent or radical thinker like Ron could ever win. That is why the outcome of Independents is to raise awareness and hope for change rather than actually spending tons of money on campaigning and trying to get in office.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;37600584][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png[/img] It can't funciton without taxes now though.[/QUOTE] Except one problem bro, you're looking at how taxes are broken down, not the total % they count as for government revenue as a whole(and i only mention INCOME tax). It's funny you find a chart just with taxes and assume you know what you're talking about. But to think taxes matter, because we deficit spend anyways is absurd. So you're saying, that with the 3 or so billion the government makes from taxes, our government would no longer function, even though we are in a deficit, and if no one paid it would just inflate the dollar, and according to some of you in here inflation is good. What i'm trying to say is the fact that we can go into debt 16 trillion dollars, and you think that if income tax isn't paid (which would dock on like 3billion extra) that our country wouldn't operate just shows you lack understanding of the federal reserve and fiscal policy. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;37602746]You blame him for squeezing complex systems into terrible simplifications and then do the exact same thing. The financial meltdown was caused [I]in large part[/I] by the Fed itself. Bad policy resulted in a bubble that collapsed. This isn't even getting into cutting back reform like the Glass-Steagall Act and the predatory lending that went with it. No, it's a pretty complex issue, and the government/fed is mostly to blame for the entire fiasco. This isn't an argument against either the government or the fed, but to say "the fed had to save the economy" is misleading since they were basically cleaning up what was their own fucking mess. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] Cleaning up their own mess by handing bankers billions of dollars to spend on their fucking bonuses, to boot.[/QUOTE] Finally someone that understands! To add to your comment, something I found funny is that people on wall street were buying up "bad" mortgage notes before the bubble even burst, because they knew the silly amounts of sub-prime mortgage loans being given. Needless to say they profited.
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37604973]Except one problem bro, you're looking at how taxes are broken down, not the total % they count as for government revenue as a whole(and i only mention INCOME tax). It's funny you find a chart just with taxes and assume you know what you're talking about. But to think taxes matter, because we deficit spend anyways is absurd. So you're saying, that with the 3 or so billion the government makes from taxes, our government would no longer function, even though we are in a deficit, and if no one paid it would just inflate the dollar, and according to some of you in here inflation is good. What i'm trying to say is the fact that we can go into debt 16 trillion dollars, and you think that if income tax isn't paid (which would dock on like 3billion extra) that our country wouldn't operate just shows you lack understanding of the federal reserve and fiscal policy. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] Finally someone that understands! To add to your comment, something I found funny is that people on wall street were buying up "bad" mortgage notes before the bubble even burst, because they knew the silly amounts of sub-prime mortgage loans being given. Needless to say they profited.[/QUOTE] Where exactly do you think the government gets money? Do they just print it and magically have some? They are funded by taxes, the largest of which is the Income tax. for the 2012 US Federal Budget, $2.496 trillion in receipts was authorized, and $3.796 in outlays was authorized. A breakdown of the receipts is as follows: Income Tax:$1.165 trillion Corporate Income Tax: $237 billion SS and other Payroll Tax: $841 billion Excise Tax: $79 billion Customs Duties: $31 billion Estate and Gift taxes:$11 billion Deposits of Earnings and Federal Reserve System: $81 billion Other Misc Receipts: $24 billion So tell me again about how the income tax doesn't make up a major portion of annual government revenue, seeing as this clearly shows the income tax accounting for roughly 47%. Taxes fund the government, I'd hoped you'd have such a basic concept largely pegged, but clearly not, you're just assuming you know what you're talking about without understanding how a government functions. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] And here's a source on that information, by the way: [url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=BUDGET-2013-BUD]Budget of the U.S. Government[/url]
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37599777]Well, you asked some good questions. How does inflation create the gap? The gap is caused by two things, inflation and price adjustment. If I asked you to borrow 100$, and i said I'd pay you back in 1 year, and I payed you back the money, then you actually LOST money because the dollar inflates as you said, around 3-4% per a year. Now, the top 1% are wealthy, that is the class in which a lot of wealth is created. When the dollar inflates, and you make 20 grand a year (salaries hardly adjust to inflation) vs. someone that has a lot of money, the poor are more affected. Secondly, the top of the chain gains more fair prices, but lower down the chain the poor end up paying more for a product aka we lack trickle affect, this ties into inflation and is why the gap doesn't remain the same distance between, and explains why the gap isn't growing proportionally. Next, I have serious problems with the following statement: "also inflation has been a steady 3 to 4 percent in recent years as far as I can tell, not that big a deal. taxes are needed for the government to spend money on things. progressive taxation allows the rich to pay proportionally more than the less rich. easy and novel and simple concept" Well, as shortsighted and horribly written this statement is, I'll attempt to address every part, even though I could provide an answer 50 pages long. You are right about inflation, but you're mistaken in thinking it's not that big of a deal. Now take this answer as an "easy and novel and simple concept" because it is rudimentary economics: The most immediate effects of inflation are the decreased purchasing power of the dollar and its depreciation. Depreciation is especially hard on retired people with fixed incomes because their money buys a little less each month. This helps explain the gap also. But understand that inflation comes with governments continuation of the Federal Reserve, and has nothing to do with political party. About taxes, here's a little history lesson and something I touched on in the original post I made in this thread. In 1913 income tax was made legal via the 16th amendment. The federal reserve was also established in 1913. Majority of our founding fathers were against income taxes. Now, understand that this 3-4% inflation is controlled, the Federal Reserve controls inflation down to the 3-4% range, and also note that income tax is one of the functions the government uses to control this inflation, because the more money they take from the people the less they have to print via the Fed. Now think of this, income tax was originally illegal, but made legal just so our currency doesn't fail because of the means we have to just make currency whenever we want.[/QUOTE] I don't need to write well when all I am saying is that the hold standard is dead, progressive taxes are just, higher taxes are needed for the wealthy, & inflation of 3 to 4 percent is not a big deal. You are right in how inflation can harm the poor, but that can be solved by minimum wages ad bank accounts that are tied to the inflation rate. You write well because you have to mask your untruth in a veil of well written words. Sort of like a politican who speaks very well but does. It make a lick of sense. Sort of like Santorum. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=MadPro119;37599752]idk much but but what is a good way to value currency?[/QUOTE] Market price, ie faith. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] Also Relaxation I would like to thank you for single handedly pumping much needed conflict into this thread with your wrong opinions
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37604973] according to some of you in here inflation is good. [/QUOTE] according to economists yeah do we need to go through it again or is it just going to end up in "they make it up at the end of the year dude"
[QUOTE=person11;37605774] You are right in how inflation can harm the poor, but that can be solved by minimum wages ad bank accounts that are tied to the inflation rate. [/QUOTE] This is a problem when it doesn't happen, though. I mean the poorest 90% of Americans are making less than they were decades ago, while the rich make way more. This isn't just inflation, of course. This is just having two political parties that are nothing but arms of private financial institutions in the United States.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37606697] I mean the poorest 90% of Americans are making less than they were decades ago[/QUOTE] no as i pointed out before they're making more
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37606697]This is a problem when it doesn't happen, though. I mean the poorest 90% of Americans are making less than they were decades ago, while the rich make way more. This isn't just inflation, of course. This is just having two political parties that are nothing but arms of private financial institutions in the United States.[/QUOTE] Minimum wage increases based on inflation should be a thing
[QUOTE=thisispain;37606732]no as i pointed out before they're making more[/QUOTE] And you are incorrect. [img]http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z152/UCLABruinKid/ColbertClassWarfare-graph.jpg[/img] [img]http://depts.washington.edu/wcpc/sites/default/files/poverty%20basics/avgincomebyquintile_0.jpg[/img]
i didn't say it was a lot: [quote]what was the average salary in 1975? $10,218 average salary in 2010? $47,022 $10,218 adjusted for inflation today: $43,479[/quote] but the average salary has gone up.
[QUOTE=thisispain;37606810]i didn't say it was a lot: but the average salary has gone up.[/QUOTE] Not as a percentage of total wealth in the economy. It's gone down. The bottom class of the USA gets a smaller piece of the pie than they did decades ago. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] [img]http://www.morriscountybankruptcyattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Screen-shot-2010-11-15-at-12.21.46-PM.png[/img]
yeah but i guess the point i was trying to refute was Relaxation's idea that inflation was made-up at the end of the year to screw over the lower class or something
How about we just agree that we should increase redistribution of wealth and institute a higher minimum wage based on inflation and cost of living? Whether we are making more, the same, or less than before, I think the above statement would be a good solution. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] Also, Putin has come out in his support for Obama. Does this matter? Has any world leader not endorsed Obama?
i would love to see that graph extended back into oooh say 1950? how many people here really are going to go out and vote or are too young to even vote in november? i dont think romney is perfect, but thats ok, i think someone who has had gubernatorial experience and has had success with fiscal conservatism is better than what we have also i dont care that paul ryann wants to gutt medicare because theres like a 99% chance that its going to be gone by the time i can even claim medicare benefits anyway you can now flame me for being one of the 22 who voted for romney in the poll
[QUOTE=thisispain;37606878]yeah but i guess the point i was trying to refute was Relaxation's idea that inflation was made-up at the end of the year to screw over the lower class or something[/QUOTE] Well yea, I don't think the problem is inflation, I think the problem is our plutocracy. But the problem is still there. [QUOTE=person11;37606893]How about we just agree that we should increase redistribution of wealth and institute a higher minimum wage based on inflation and cost of living? Whether we are making more, the same, or less than before, I think the above statement would be a good solution. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] Also, Putin has come out in his support for Obama. Does this matter? Has any world leader not endorsed Obama?[/QUOTE] I don't think redistribution of wealth is a good term. The connotations are just that poor people will make more money, which is missing the point entirely. Capitalism is a system where political power is in itself tied to capital, where the person who has access to the most capital has the most political power. So really what we need is a redistribution of political power. This isn't just making the poor less poor, it's designed specifically to make the incredibly rich and powerful institutions less rich and powerful.
Redistribution of things
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37604973]Except one problem bro, you're looking at how taxes are broken down, not the total % they count as for government revenue as a whole(and i only mention INCOME tax). It's funny you find a chart just with taxes and assume you know what you're talking about. But to think taxes matter, because we deficit spend anyways is absurd. So you're saying, that with the 3 or so billion the government makes from taxes, our government would no longer function, even though we are in a deficit, and if no one paid it would just inflate the dollar, and according to some of you in here inflation is good. [/QUOTE] I just posted a chart. Also learn to read and how to use data from charts, don't expect everyone to provide calculations to you. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bentham;37605331]Where exactly do you think the government gets money? Do they just print it and magically have some? They are funded by taxes, the largest of which is the Income tax. for the 2012 US Federal Budget, $2.496 trillion in receipts was authorized, and $3.796 in outlays was authorized. A breakdown of the receipts is as follows: Income Tax:$1.165 trillion Corporate Income Tax: $237 billion SS and other Payroll Tax: $841 billion Excise Tax: $79 billion Customs Duties: $31 billion Estate and Gift taxes:$11 billion Deposits of Earnings and Federal Reserve System: $81 billion Other Misc Receipts: $24 billion So tell me again about how the income tax doesn't make up a major portion of annual government revenue, seeing as this clearly shows the income tax accounting for roughly 47%. Taxes fund the government, I'd hoped you'd have such a basic concept largely pegged, but clearly not, you're just assuming you know what you're talking about without understanding how a government functions. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] And here's a source on that information, by the way: [url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=BUDGET-2013-BUD]Budget of the U.S. Government[/url][/QUOTE] He's one of those people: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_(United_States)[/url] He even mentioned that amendment thing. Aka a conspiracy nut.
Does anybody think the idea of the electoral college looks a bit silly?
We should re elect bush. :suicide:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.