• United States Presidential Election 2012 MEGATHREAD
    2,907 replies, posted
I am happy neither Obama nor Romney support Austrian Economics. All hail the Federal Reserve!
Also, what is the reasoning for the Federal Reserve causing the recession? To pretty much everyone, the Recession was caused by deregulated banks giving out toxic loans and subprime mortgages on the housing market, and then bundling them into more toxic derivatives, etc.
[QUOTE=person11;37615906]Also, what is the reasoning for the Federal Reserve causing the recession? To pretty much everyone, the Recession was caused by deregulated banks giving out toxic loans and subprime mortgages on the housing market, and then bundling them into more toxic derivatives, etc.[/QUOTE] It's more complicated than that, but that is a major problem. Monetary policy set by the fed was also partially responsible. "Lower interest rates encouraged borrowing. From 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%.[72] This was done to soften the effects of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and the September 2001 terrorist attacks, as well as to combat a perceived risk of deflation.[73] As early as 2002 it was apparent that credit was fueling housing instead of business investment as some economists went so far as to advocate that the Fed "needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble".[74]... ...The Fed then raised the Fed funds rate significantly between July 2004 and July 2006.[77] This contributed to an increase in 1-year and 5-year adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) rates, making ARM interest rate resets more expensive for homeowners.[78] This may have also contributed to the deflating of the housing bubble, as asset prices generally move inversely to interest rates, and it became riskier to speculate in housing.[79][80] U.S. housing and financial assets dramatically declined in value after the housing bubble burst.[81][82]" [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932012_global_financial_crisis#Easy_credit_conditions[/url]
I have been informed. It is still wrong to say that the Fed is the only entity responsible for this mess, even if it was a part of the process.
Gallup's poll has held steady today, still Obama 49%, Romney 45%
Excellent. Do you guys think the debates will change anything? I personally think that Obama will be more successful.
[QUOTE=person11;37621576]Excellent. Do you guys think the debates will change anything? I personally think that Obama will be more successful.[/QUOTE] Seeing how Obama at times is not afraid to tell it as it is.. yea, I think it'll help him
I can't wait till the 4th. Nothing beats a good debate, especially when your guy is one of the greatest speakers of the generation.
[quote]If you are outside of the United States, laugh uncontrollably at us and our politics, and then sob quietly as you realize that everything that happens in the USA will impact your lives somehow.[/quote] Aha, not for long! This is the Australo-Chinese century! [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;37621576]Excellent. Do you guys think the debates will change anything? I personally think that Obama will be more successful.[/QUOTE] I think everyone who watches will have their political views and views of the candidates further entrenched. [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;37615906] To pretty much everyone, the Recession was caused by deregulated banks giving out toxic loans and subprime mortgages on the housing market, and then bundling them into more toxic derivatives, etc.[/QUOTE] I doubt anything would have been different if commercial and investment banks remained separate in the States.
just to remind people, bush didnt cause the recession, deregulation from regan,bush,clinton, and finaly bush era policies coupled with sub-prime mortgages and hedge funds, caused the recession, NOT the top 1% of america, also china's debt is about to crash them, because their banks and the insurance for those banks is dependent on constant growth of the Chinese economy, and austrailia, heard of global warming? you guys are gonna have it rough down there with no fresh water supplys, and increasing prices of energy,
[QUOTE=Sableye;37622866]just to remind people, bush didnt cause the recession, deregulation from regan,bush,clinton, and finaly bush era policies coupled with sub-prime mortgages and hedge funds, caused the recession, NOT the top 1% of america,[/QUOTE] The top 1% owns our government, yea it was caused by the top 1%.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37622903]The top 1% owns our government, yea it was caused by the top 1%.[/QUOTE] ya, down with the Bourgeoisie, then we must take down the officers and generals in the military because they wont obey the 1%, then when we're done we can kill all the intellectuals, and finally we can wallow in poverty, hunger, and fall 10 years behind in technology before we stabilize, but lets do it, lets redistribute.... what happened to this country, where did the drive to achieve go, we went to the moon, now nasa can barely BARELY squeek by budget for probes to mars or the outter planets, with their budget constantly in danger
Hasn't every election been around the line of "If republicans win world will end" shit? Or at least with just facepunch? Obama is better tho.
[QUOTE=cdr248;37623022]Hasn't every election been around the line of "If republicans win world will end" shit? Or at least with just facepunch? Obama is better tho.[/QUOTE] [url]http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win[/url]
I'm voting for Obama. This is going to be my first time voting. Kinda pissed off though. In Virginia, we have Voter ID's and as soon as I got mine in the mail, I accidentally ripped it. Stupid things. But I'm voting mainly because he's mostly honest. I like the medicare, and I liked the help with financial aid I got to get into the college I'm in now.
I really believe the re-distribution of wealth in the long run is probably one of the best things we can do. I'm not sure it should be in the form of wel-fare exactly, but more like paying for people's expenses (Medical stuff, school, clothing, food) so that they can focus on setting them selves up, making a plan, getting their education without putting themselves in a trench of dept and spending all their time working when they could be making progress. And when they have their education, their house, their job, etc. They will be able to re contribute more money than they would ever been able to.
[QUOTE=Contag;37622332]Aha, not for long! This is the Australo-Chinese century! [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] I think everyone who watches will have their political views and views of the candidates further entrenched. [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] I doubt anything would have been different if commercial and investment banks remained separate in the States.[/QUOTE] 1. Possibly, but the USA is nowhere near decline. 2. That is a good point. I look forward to mine getting entrenched. 3. I am sure the damage would not have been as bad, at least. [editline]10th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=cdr248;37623022]Hasn't every election been around the line of "If republicans win world will end" shit? Or at least with just facepunch? Obama is better tho.[/QUOTE] That is why I pointed out in the OP that that is not the case. The world will not end, even if the EVIL FASCIST ROMONEY WINS
Romney's pretty bad, but he's just a republican counterpart to Obama. He will do a very minimal amount of stuff compared to what he actually says he will do.
[QUOTE=Sableye;37622980]ya, down with the Bourgeoisie, then we must take down the officers and generals in the military because they wont obey the 1%, then when we're done we can kill all the intellectuals, and finally we can wallow in poverty, hunger, and fall 10 years behind in technology before we stabilize, but lets do it, lets redistribute....[/QUOTE] sounds good to me
Honestly, I would rather see Romney win the election, but I don't think it is the end of the world if Obama wins it. Plus, I plan on living abroad when I get the money/ job training to do so.
[QUOTE=Sableye;37622980]ya, down with the Bourgeoisie, then we must take down the officers and generals in the military because they wont obey the 1%, then when we're done we can kill all the intellectuals, and finally we can wallow in poverty, hunger, and fall 10 years behind in technology before we stabilize, but lets do it, lets redistribute.... what happened to this country, where did the drive to achieve go, we went to the moon, now nasa can barely BARELY squeek by budget for probes to mars or the outter planets, with their budget constantly in danger[/QUOTE] The problem isn't with rich people. The problem is with people that are so filthy rich and refuse to share with the rest of society. In a society, we should strive to provide the opportunity for everybody to succeed. Give the ability for students who wish to go to college have the opportunity to acquire loans as long as they apply themselves, no matter their financial situation. We should pay teachers higher salaries and encourage more advanced degrees in order to help change our education system. We SHOULD fund NASA more, as for every dollar we put in, I believe it was 10 or 100 that we got back out. We should strive to provide for the betterment of ALL people, no matter what sex, race, sexual orientation, or amount of wealth they were born into. The problem is, we cannot tax the middle and lower classes any more. Constant lobbying by more wealthy people and corporations has contributed to the amount of deregulation that has assisted in creating this depression. A depression that primarily effects the lower and middle class. People in top 1% oftentimes have higher wages despite this economic slump. It's completely understandable to the majority of people to feel frustration at the top 1%, as they have a much louder voice than ours, which leads to them getting more benefits and not paying more taxes to help us out. After all, society should strive so that those with more can help those with less (within reason, of course). I'm not saying everybody in the top 1% is bad, of course that'd be preposterous. The problem is, a large amount of people in that wealth division tend to own large corporations and evade taxes and outsource jobs. There's a good reason why many people are frustrated.
My first opportunity to vote in an election, and I don't even want to pick a president. I wish our system wasn't so broken. And this isn't something we'd be able to change without a complete overhaul (probably paired with an overthrow) of the current system, some wild (nonviolent or violent) revolution that we'd never have enough supporters to pull off because so many Americans think the [I]system isn't that broke[/I] and [I]we can still fix it[/I] or are just too comfortable voting for an ideal, not a leader. Our government election system was based on a country that couldn't communicate well, where not everyone could hear both sides of the presidency, where we voted for people to vote for us. But now that we have the power and ability to understand both sides and make an accurate vote, we still haven't changed to accommodate that. Plus, the current bipartisan system is terribly inaccurate at reflecting the people's views. Two groups of people can't represent a nation's entire beliefs. And while those whose beliefs differ from the Democrats and Republicans [I]can[/I] form their own party, said party will [I]never[/I] have a chance at the presidency, both because the electoral college is pretty much guaranteed to never vote anything besides Democrat and Republican, and because the people don't see any hope in those parties, even if they do believe in everything the parties stand for. However, I do know I will be voting for my senators and representative. I agree with them and know that my vote actually counts towards their election.
I think a lot of people in here do not realize the moral and philosophical issues with taking money from someone that earned it, and giving it to someone who didn't. Let alone the economical issues. Here's the most BASIC explanation there is: Tax the rich (less job's will created and spurs economic growth) and give it to the poor, or lower taxes for the the rich, which in turn gives them more job opportunities. I don't understand how people praise regulation, I mean look at what it's done: It has pushed work out of the country (outsourcing) due to the USA having the highest corporate tax known to mankind, creating less jobs for the middle / lower class. It makes the 'trap' very one-sided. Regulate everything and increase taxes so poor people won't have to work and the rich can just pay for everybody. Now add socialized healthcare onto that, fuck, they are getting everything free. Yet they wonder why we have this growing gap.. Well there's obviously NO incentive for people to get off their ass. Not to mention the case for liberty when you start talking about regulation! All this being said, we can have a healthy economy, where no one is being forced to pay for someone else, and none of our liberties are hindered. If you look at Obama's plan for his next term, he plans to spend 6 trillion in the next 10 years. Republicans on the other hand plan to spend 2.7 trillion (cut spending) AND lower taxes for upper class, including corporate tax. This will create more jobs and spur economic growth. [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;37615906]Also, what is the reasoning for the Federal Reserve causing the recession? To pretty much everyone, the Recession was caused by deregulated banks giving out toxic loans and subprime mortgages on the housing market, and then bundling them into more toxic derivatives, etc.[/QUOTE] Well first off, the Fed has artificially set low interest rates. But one thing I want to address here: You're mistaken in saying the banks were "deregulated". This is rhetoric that comes from media, making you feed into the classic "we need more regulation!" In fact I know of at least 3 pieces of legislation that set the 'rule book' if you will, for the requirements to give a loan. So before I give a valid explanation, know this: It WAS NOT a matter of more or less regulation, but instead the QUALITY of the regulation. The 'rule book' to give out a mortgage loan made loans super liberal, and on top of that, the fed had set really low interest rates. So what happened? People, that were in no position to by the houses they were buying were jumping all over these loans? Why? Because A.) they knew they could get them and B.) low interest! But there's a catch! Many of these wealthy bank owners, and the people that worked at this bank said "well, these are sub-prime mortgages, we shouldn't be giving these out!" But guess what? It still happened. Wanna know why? Because they knew that the government would bail them out even if they made bad business decisions! Regulation has made it so businesses are too big to fail. As evidence, wealthy people on wall street were buying up bad mortgage notes, they knew what would ensue. But what's the importance of this? In a free market, businesses are punished for bad business decisions. Hell, if it was a free market banks would have never given out bad loans in the first place! This is one of the ways small businesses are not encouraged, their competition is un-beatable and backed by the government.
Your republicans also plan to strong arm everyone who has so much as sneezed in the wrong direction toward the USA. If you want to avoid more conflict, Romney is not a very good choice.
"your republicans" I am not republican. By any means. I'm simply comparing economic policies. For another example, Clinton was successful and he balanced the budget. Romney is trying to balance the budget, which will be a feat after what Obama has done, but it's a step in the right direction. Clinton was pure win IMO. [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] Also as I've posted before, Obama has engaged in more "strong arming" than did bush.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37623168][url]http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win[/url][/QUOTE] Flip Flopney didn't seem that bad until he picked Ryan. He wasn't good, civil rights would take a temporary hit, at worse end up in another war, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. And then there was Ryan, that guy lies out the ass about everything, and his views are terrible. If Romney won and then something happened to him, we'd have to deal with that crazy ass Ryan running the country, and that would really suck.
News flash: Politician's lie. A lot. Flip flopping? Look at any politician's voting record. Few are consistent.
Stop calling it redistribution of wealth and pretending the government literally just steals money from the rich and hands it to the poor. People who say that clearly have no idea how a government functions.
we haved and are all human bengs and shud be deservd to haved an vote for obarmer or rummy
Either way israel is going to announce a redline on iran anyday now and attack which will lead to iran attacking our ships with whatever soviet/chinese counter theyve bought, That aside, when putin supports obama, you know we have a problem [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] Go twigster, you like me have taken a goverment class befor!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.