• United States Presidential Election 2012 MEGATHREAD
    2,907 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Swebonny;37607262]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] 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.[/QUOTE] People are like that? [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] Holy shit how is filing a tax return self-incrimination? This is fascinating. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;37606961]Well yea, I don't think the problem is inflation, I think the problem is our plutocracy. But the problem is still there. 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.[/QUOTE] I don't see how paying proportionate taxes is some kind of massive redistribution of wealth. The tax money goes to funding the government, not every dime of a rich man's tax is somehow handed to poor people. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;37606947]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] I'm not bothered by the rest of your post, but you're saying you don't care if a program is gutted simply because it doesn't affect you? Do you apply the same line of thinking to other government funds as well?
[QUOTE=person11;37605774] Market price, ie faith. [/QUOTE] Is that really a good system?
[QUOTE=Tigster;37607632] I don't see how paying proportionate taxes is some kind of massive redistribution of wealth. The tax money goes to funding the government, not every dime of a rich man's tax is somehow handed to poor people. [/QUOTE] It's not. Democrats say redistribution of wealth to stir liberal support, while Republicans say it to stir conservative support. It's pretty similar to how both Moscow and D.C. referred to the USSR as "socialist", even though their centrally-planned socialist system was in itself a perversion of the ideals of "true" socialism. I would certainly prefer a progressive tax system to a regressive tax system, but neither are preferable and neither address the root cause of inequality.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37607746]It's not. Democrats say redistribution of wealth to stir liberal support, while Republicans say it to stir conservative support. It's pretty similar to how both Moscow and D.C. referred to the USSR as "socialist", even though their centrally-planned socialist system was in itself a perversion of the ideals of "true" socialism. I would certainly prefer a progressive tax system to a regressive tax system, but neither are preferable and neither address the root cause of inequality.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately the inequality will never really be sorted out, I imagine. Our graduated tax system isn't perfect, but it still has it's benefits. Certain filing statuses are helpful to those in need, given they qualify. At the same time, you're only taxed to a certain point within each bracket using particular percentages, meaning excesses are more liable. I think one common misconception people have about the whole system is this weird idea that rich people pay 35% or whatever on all income, when that's obviously not true. The big issue is our complicated tax code. Efforts are made to address loopholes and what have you, but as new additions are made, new loopholes emerge.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;37607262]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] 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.[/QUOTE] And to think I wasted all that time typing. I guess I can shrug it off as extra-curricular research for my governmental and tax courses.
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;37597858]obama 2012, or America is fucked[/QUOTE] The way our system works, more than likely, no one is going to see any major change in their daily lives no matter who is elected. That's how it always is. People on every side predict doom and gloom if the other is elected and it never happens.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;37607901]The way our system works, more than likely, no one is going to see any major change in their daily lives no matter who is elected. That's how it always is. People on every side predict doom and gloom if the other is elected and it never happens.[/QUOTE] I think gay people will have better odds under obama
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;37607901]The way our system works, more than likely, no one is going to see any major change in their daily lives no matter who is elected. That's how it always is. People on every side predict doom and gloom if the other is elected and it never happens.[/QUOTE] I guess because the world didn't literally end after 8 years of Bush, we're not doing bad at all then?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;37608088]I think gay people will have better odds under obama[/QUOTE] It's strange how whenever you ask someone why Obama is better than Romney they give you some vague "well gays will do better". There are one or two human rights issues(out of many), the only legitimate advantages that Obama has. That's a sorry state of affairs right there.
[QUOTE=MadPro119;37607729]Is that really a good system?[/QUOTE] Worst one besides all the others Things should be bought and sold at the prices that people think are just [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;37608453]It's strange how whenever you ask someone why Obama is better than Romney they give you some vague "well gays will do better". There are one or two human rights issues(out of many), the only legitimate advantages that Obama has. That's a sorry state of affairs right there.[/QUOTE] Obama's positions on literally everything are better than that of any of the other candidates, at least in my opinion. He is healthily liberal, but does not make too many promises to keep. He advocated peace over war, but will not hesitate to use espionage, drones, viruses, or pure force to get things done. Every piece of legislation he has endorsed has been based on sane and true principles of macreconomics, etc. People think I am, naive for my unwavering support for Obama, but I support him because he lacks the naive way of thinking that the other candidates seem to posess.
[QUOTE=person11;37608455] Obama's positions on literally everything are better than that of any of the other candidates, at least in my opinion. [/quote] It's not that different, to be honest. It's mostly rhetoric. I mean if you listen to Romney and Obama speaking their words might seem different at first, but if you listen closely, it's mostly the same essence. Like I said before, both are essentially arms of financial America. They aren't going to implement any change that does not benefit their backers. That means the state of the average American can only increase so much, and the people in the undeveloped world will likely be hit hard no matter who is elected.
The electorate college is amazingly dumb in our current environment. But it was made back when only the wealthy could vote and less than 200 people had the ability to vote for president. I mean, in the 80's election, Reagan had like 55 percent popular vote, I think, and yet he had every state on the electorate vote, but one.
Why the fuck is Virgil Goode on this poll?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37608453]It's strange how whenever you ask someone why Obama is better than Romney they give you some vague "well gays will do better". There are one or two human rights issues(out of many), the only legitimate advantages that Obama has. That's a sorry state of affairs right there.[/QUOTE] I guess it's kind of a big deal because Obama is the first sitting president to endorse same sex marriage. He's also better on rape, abortion, and torture than romney is. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DamagePoint;37608682]Why the fuck is Virgil Goode on this poll?[/QUOTE] because I told person11 to include third party candidates
[QUOTE=Lambeth;37608691]because I told person11 to include third party candidates[/QUOTE] I thought Goode had retired from politics after he was defeated by Tom Perriello. I had no idea he was still actively involved in politics.
vermin supreme 2012
[QUOTE=Ybbats;37608290]I guess because the world didn't literally end after 8 years of Bush, we're not doing bad at all then?[/QUOTE] Well it's going to seem that way to the people like you who attribute every single problem to the president because they don't know anything else about our government other than who the president is.
[QUOTE=person11;37605774]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] 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] It's not just inflation, it's the federal reserve as a whole. And those of you posting bogus stats on inflation and salaries, well inflation is based on CPI, they make it so that food and energy are not calculated. To add to that, the Fed artificially sets interest rates which hurts the economy. You're not accounting for the harmful affects of lag time. And thisisspain, you're arguing something completely other than my point of why inflation is bad, like i said you simply can't understand. But think of this: People that listen to media and rhetoric from Washington don't question the paradigm that we are in that has a REPEATED pattern of boom-burst cycles, instead they want to do exactly what got us into this mess to fix it: Government spending. You can throw this progressive stuff at me trying to explain income tax, but I chose to support austerity, something that's been around much longer and has worked numerous times vs. some progressive Keynesian economic policies. I mean hell, people that support Keynesian THEORY don't even know that Keynes himself explicitly stated that his theory was to be used in a GREAT DEPRESSION instance, when prices are STUCK in the short run. Not for recessions. Unfortunately, government has the motive to spend, and the Fed enables it. History lesson: [url]http://www.freebanking.org/2011/08/18/an-austere-recovery/[/url] [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] I mean, democrats brag about creating more jobs than republicans (Clinton's speech at the DNC), but lets look at something for a minute. The stimulus plan created <1% growth in real GDP, government spending is through the roof, and we find out that some of this money actually went towards outsourcing of jobs. Now I'm by no means an expert but <1% growth in real GDP isn't much of an accomplishment. Meanwhile we have negative net exports, which is also calculated in GDP. If you promote the cronies, corporate greed, deficit spending, on going wars, etc etc.. Then vote Obama, and even Romney. I choose to not have that blood on my hands. I'll vote Paul or Johnson, not that either will win, but the honest politicians who's tying to wake up the public are the one's that deserve my vote. I'm not tying to stir up trouble in here, I just want people to at least hear something other than the day old media / political rhetoric that they repeat and don't even understand what it means. You're deceived if you think Obama will bring any more "change" than what has been done, ESPECIALLY because (as someone stated) republicans are cloing their grasps on senate. Oops looks like Obama can put more power behind the (Republicans won't let me do shit) argument when he fucks up more this term. I mean honestly. 1% growth in GDP, continued inflation, continued foreign policy and growing gap, NDAA, etc etc... You have to just be plain delusional to think shit will change. But don't even get me started on making a case against Romney. The ONLY thing I can say in favor of Romney is that at least "balanced budget" is part of his vocabulary. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] Oh one last thing: you asserted "Gold standard is dead". How is gold standard dead? Are you simply saying it's no longer used, or are you saying that since it's no longer used, so even if it works we will not accredit it and simply dismiss it on the premise that it's no longer in use. Confused.
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37610088]It's not just inflation, it's the federal reserve as a whole. And those of you posting bogus stats on inflation and salaries, well inflation is based on CPI, they make it so that food and energy are not calculated. To add to that, the Fed artificially sets interest rates which hurts the economy. You're not accounting for the harmful affects of lag time. And thisisspain, you're arguing something completely other than my point of why inflation is bad, like i said you simply can't understand. But think of this: People that listen to media and rhetoric from Washington don't question the paradigm that we are in that has a REPEATED pattern of boom-burst cycles, instead they want to do exactly what got us into this mess to fix it: Government spending. You can throw this progressive stuff at me trying to explain income tax, but I chose to support austerity, something that's been around much longer and has worked numerous times vs. some progressive Keynesian economic policies. I mean hell, people that support Keynesian THEORY don't even know that Keynes himself explicitly stated that his theory was to be used in a GREAT DEPRESSION instance, when prices are STUCK in the short run. Not for recessions. Unfortunately, government has the motive to spend, and the Fed enables it. History lesson: [url]http://www.freebanking.org/2011/08/18/an-austere-recovery/[/url] [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] I mean, democrats brag about creating more jobs than republicans (Clinton's speech at the DNC), but lets look at something for a minute. The stimulus plan created <1% growth in real GDP, government spending is through the roof, and we find out that some of this money actually went towards outsourcing of jobs. Now I'm by no means an expert but <1% growth in real GDP isn't much of an accomplishment. Meanwhile we have negative net exports, which is also calculated in GDP. If you promote the cronies, corporate greed, deficit spending, on going wars, etc etc.. Then vote Obama, and even Romney. I choose to not have that blood on my hands. I'll vote Paul or Johnson, not that either will win, but the honest politicians who's tying to wake up the public are the one's that deserve my vote. I'm not tying to stir up trouble in here, I just want people to at least hear something other than the day old media / political rhetoric that they repeat and don't even understand what it means. You're deceived if you think Obama will bring any more "change" than what has been done, ESPECIALLY because (as someone stated) republicans are cloing their grasps on senate. Oops looks like Obama can put more power behind the (Republicans won't let me do shit) argument when he fucks up more this term. I mean honestly. 1% growth in GDP, continued inflation, continued foreign policy and growing gap, NDAA, etc etc... You have to just be plain delusional to think shit will change. But don't even get me started on making a case against Romney. The ONLY thing I can say in favor of Romney is that at least "balanced budget" is part of his vocabulary. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] Oh one last thing: you asserted "Gold standard is dead". How is gold standard dead? Are you simply saying it's no longer used, or are you saying that since it's no longer used, so even if it works we will not accredit it and simply dismiss it on the premise that it's no longer in use. Confused.[/QUOTE] Okay, so you advocate cutting government spending, but how do you decide what to cut? also what do you mean by [Quote]Unfortunately, government has the motive to spend, and the Fed enables it[/quote]? The government has motive to spend, because it's not a business, the money it takes in from taxes have to be expended, or allocated to appropriate holding funds. A government is not a for-profit entity.
I'm not talking about taxes specifically. Say we had the motive to spend, but couldn't print money when we wanted, then we'd have no money to spend other than what revenue was made. But since we want to spend, we theoretically can spend with no limits due to printing of currency. This touches on something known as "moral hazard" in the economic circle. Thus, we have a 16 trillion dollar budget because we can spend more than we make to to printing of money. Oh and your first question, well, for starters, foreign policy. We fund foreign policy with EXTRAVAGANT amounts of money, that we don't even have. i once heard (haven't verified this) that every 1 out of 6 dollars goes towards foreign policy. We have over 136 different military bases in many different countries. We fund foreign countries, when people here, domestically need help. We are too concerned with strategic interests. We have neglected the sovereignty of our own people, at the expense of meddling around in corrupt ass wars, and funding other countries. I'm not against helping other people out per say, but if we were to do so we need to take care of the people here and make sure our economy is healthy enough to do so.
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37610372]I'm not talking about taxes specifically. Say we had the motive to spend, but couldn't print money when we wanted, then we'd have no money to spend other than what revenue was made. But since we want to spend, we theoretically can spend with no limits due to printing of currency. This touches on something known as "moral hazard" in the economic circle. Thus, we have a 16 trillion dollar budget because we can spend more than we make to to printing of money.[/QUOTE] have you ever taken an economics class? You simply cant print more money. When you print more money the value of it decreases.
[QUOTE=areolop;37610397]have you ever taken an economics class? You simply cant print more money. When you print more money the value of it decreases.[/QUOTE] Yes, but obviously you haven't. The dollar inflates at about 3-4% annually (because of inflation). The fed has printed about 2.1 trillion via quantitative easing since the economic meltdown. Troll. Oh and t doesn't necessarily have to be green paper, some other methods include electronic credits, reserve balances, etc..
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37610372]I'm not talking about taxes specifically. Say we had the motive to spend, but couldn't print money when we wanted, then we'd have no money to spend other than what revenue was made. But since we want to spend, we theoretically can spend with no limits due to printing of currency. This touches on something known as "moral hazard" in the economic circle. Thus, we have a 16 trillion dollar budget because we can spend more than we make to to printing of money. Oh and your first question, well, for starters, foreign policy. We fund foreign policy with EXTRAVAGANT amounts of money, that we don't even have. i once heard (haven't verified this) that every 1 out of 6 dollars goes towards foreign policy. We have over 136 different military bases in many different countries. We fund foreign countries, when people here, domestically need help. We are too concerned with strategic interests. We have neglected the sovereignty of our own people, at the expense of meddling around in corrupt ass wars, and funding other countries. I'm not against helping other people out per say, but if we were to do so we need to take care of the people here and make sure our economy is healthy enough to do so.[/QUOTE] I support reducing our heavy hitter budgets as well, specifically the military budget, although I haven't studied that budget enough to say what could or couldn't be hypothetically cut. And in response to printing money, it's not something the government just does. The treasury will print currency in response to economic trends, they don't print it just to add to the budget. When a budget is signed off for a new year, the 2012 budget for instance, it's concrete, and the government can't spend more than has been allotted to them. I think a lot of people (not saying you are one of them) get confused thinking that, during the year, we just spend more than we are budgeted, which isn't actually the case. The problem really arises when our approved expenditures surpass our approved inflows, which is a common thing nowadays. Even the competing budget proposals from both sides of the aisle had a fairly minimal difference in annual deficit, and both still would have led to a deficit anyway. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] I'll clarify before anything I say regarding money printing is torn apart that I don't study economics.
Then how do you explain the 16 trillion dollar deficit spending? Obviously we have an allotted amount, but does that amount operate within a balanced budget, or non-balanced budget? Obviously a non-balanced budget.
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37610590]Then how do you explain the 16 trillion dollar deficit spending? Obviously we have an allotted amount, but does that amount operate within a balanced budget, or non-balanced budget? Obviously a non-balanced budget.[/QUOTE] You could call it a non-balanced budget. A post up above showed that the enacted budget for 2012 approved cash inflows of $2.469 trillion, but approved outflows for the year are $3.796 trillion, which is how we get deficit spending. It's not that we are going over budget, it's just that our budgets lead to more outflows than inflows, which is paid for through loans. You may remember the big scare last year when our debt ceiling was almost not raised. If we hit the debt ceiling, and it wasn't raised, we'd default on our loans, which for a country, is a terrible thing to happen. I'll say that us continuing to raise the debt ceiling isn't a great thing, but until we can cut spending enough to offset the deficit spending each year, there's no avoiding it, unless we want our credit rating to fall apart. If that happens, potential investors will back away, and it's going to hurt us in a lot of different ways.
I see, and you make valid points. Check out this graph, it makes me pessimistic about making cuts to spending: [url]http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg[/url] But about inflows and outflows, we spend more than we take in. I realize this may not have much to do with the point you're making, BUT it definitely will not hurt, in fact it'll help if we operate on a balanced budget. Byzantine empire is a great example of what I'm talking about, the fact that they couldn't just make debt based currency when they needed made them think about moral hazard, and they disregarded it. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] Which ultimately lead to their fall as far as the sector of foreign policy goes.
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37610700]I see, and you make valid points. Check out this graph, it makes me pessimistic about making cuts to spending: [URL]http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg[/URL] But about inflows and outflows, we spend more than we take in. I realize this may not have much to do with the point you're making, BUT it definitely will not hurt, in fact it'll help if we operate on a balanced budget. Byzantine empire is a great example of what I'm talking about, the fact that they couldn't just make debt based currency when they needed made them think about moral hazard, and they disregarded it. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] Which ultimately lead to their fall as far as the sector of foreign policy goes.[/QUOTE] The major obstacle in getting on a balanced budget is deciding what to cut, and whether or not to increase taxes. The way we operate now, there is no chance for a balanced budget. And I'm not arguing for a sudden change in one year, but a gradual, incremental change over the years. This isn't a problem we can fix in a year, not even four, for a presidential term. This is why American politics is so frustrating, because both parties likely know that this isn't a one or two term presidential fix, it's something that requires a combined effort to figure out. It's possible though. We need to figure out what it is we are spending money on, and be more conservative when it comes to approvals for additional budget expenditures. But as I said, it's all about finding what we can afford to trim. That's an incredibly difficult thing to do. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] I think my biggest frustration with the whole deficit debate is how easy everyone makes it seem to solve. Everyone just says "Slash the budget", but very few people want to take into account what that really entails, so a truly intellectual, and unbiased discussion is hard to come by, especially between elected officials, who just want to play the blame game while secretly sliding in their own inflated budget proposals.
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37610700]I see, and you make valid points. Check out this graph, it makes me pessimistic about making cuts to spending: [url]http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg[/url] But about inflows and outflows, we spend more than we take in. I realize this may not have much to do with the point you're making, BUT it definitely will not hurt, in fact it'll help if we operate on a balanced budget. Byzantine empire is a great example of what I'm talking about, the fact that they couldn't just make debt based currency when they needed made them think about moral hazard, and they disregarded it. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] Which ultimately lead to their fall as far as the sector of foreign policy goes.[/QUOTE] Actually deficit spending is quite possible for nearly indefinite periods of time. Since an economy is always growing, revenue is constantly increasing, which lowers the amount of money you pay in interest relative to revenue. If you continue to keep interest payments at 5% of your budget, for example, you can borrow indefinitely and your lenders will be plenty happy since they have an incredibly reliable source of long term revenue. [editline]10th September 2012[/editline] The problem is when debt or inflation gets out of control. That's when serious financial collapses happen and civilizations come apart.
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37610088] I mean, democrats brag about creating more jobs than republicans (Clinton's speech at the DNC), but lets look at something for a minute. The stimulus plan created <1% growth in real GDP, government spending is through the roof, and we find out that some of this money actually went towards outsourcing of jobs. Now I'm by no means an expert but <1% growth in real GDP isn't much of an accomplishment. Meanwhile we have negative net exports, which is also calculated in GDP. If you promote the cronies, corporate greed, deficit spending, on going wars, etc etc.. Then vote Obama, and even Romney. I choose to not have that blood on my hands. I'll vote Paul or Johnson, not that either will win, but the honest politicians who's tying to wake up the public are the one's that deserve my vote. [/QUOTE] You keep bringing up this point of low GDP growth during his presidency, but you seem to have forgotton he arguably pulled us out of a major economic crisis? We should be lucky that isn't an extremely high [b]negative[/b] number. Do you honestly think that Romney's economic policies would have done better than Obama's?
Well we are in debt, and with creating money our of thin air comes inflation. We are exhausting options to borrow as well. Tigster, I agree with what you have to say. Now I do think that the greatest effort isn't made, and I do think that the fact that wallstreet can play boom-burst cycles, and the the Fed encourages crony capitalism does not offer incentive. About deciding what to cut, I mentioned foreign policy and putting the peoples' sovereignty first. Plans of attrition are the key, and yes it will take a good bit of time, but continuing Keynesian economics is not even making an effort to balance the budget. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DanTehMan;37611279]You keep bringing up this point of low GDP growth during his presidency, but you seem to have forgotton he arguably pulled us out of a major economic crisis? We should be lucky that isn't an extremely high [b]negative[/b] number. Do you honestly think that Romney's economic policies would have done better than Obama's?[/QUOTE] Well they say he avoided a depression BECAUSE GDP had dropped 8 or 9 points (can't remember the number) but let's think about this for a second. He essentially froze the economy where it's at (<1% growth in real GDP). So he froze it in a shitty state, all while the dollar took a hit due to inflation, which in turn hurts his very own target market. Also, I've read before that it's not even conclusive that the spending is the cause of <1% GDP growth. I mean pumping 1.2 trillion + into the economy for nearly no GDP growth isn't avoiding anything, if at all I'd say it's prolonging the inevitable UNLESS we have some sort of reform. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] So yes, I do think the exact opposite of government spending would have helped a little more (or at least less spending). [url]http://www.freebanking.org/2011/08/1...tere-recovery/[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.