Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest

Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

503 posts in this topic

Didn't you just say you had an inkling of hope that politicans cared??? =)

And i dunno, i don't see it that way, but i guess i can see what you mean. it is pretty ridiculous.

Sigh. To think i thought of being a politician. but with this enviornment...

And i didn't even want to make it a career, because i don't quite understand how doing that helps people.

maybe my gen. won't be this bad??

Gotta hope, but to be honest, im not so sure.

And I'm pretty sure 999 is 9% sales tax, 9% income tax, and 9%.. something else, but whatever it is, he's promised to pay for it by turning the government into swiss cheese.

And yet the moderate republicans dont get air time. Sheesh. (I actually like huntsman, don't completely agree with him, but with a nicely moderate senate, it could work)

Edited by gvg
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't you just say you had an inkling of hope that politicans cared??? =)

Yes I have hope they are good but then I believe they are 99% scumbags. even those who ge into politics for the right reasons soon realize the most important job of a politician is getting elected. if they arent elected no matter how good their ideas or pure their motives they cant do squat. this is why even the best become well EVIL is perhaps a too strong word lelts just say hypocritical. The faster they learn that most important rule the more succesful they become as a politican. Those who never learn it or are too honorable to bend in the face of adversity rarely make it anywhere in politics. its the leaches the scumbags etc who get ahead.

So glad ya decided against politics, or id probably have to lower my opinion of ya :)

JK actually on a small local level there can be good politicians but at a city sized govt or larger it becomes harder and harder to find one.

Here we have 3 municipal parties (well its convoluted but im not in the city, but i am in the city. i vote for different municipal officials but 50% of my taxes are paid to the guys running the OFFICIAL city, i dont get to vote for them ITS VERY MESSED UP THANK YOU SCUMBAG PROVINCIAL POLITICANS). anyway i digress. The three parties are run by 3 certifiable nut jobs. the guy running the show ATM is detested by all, but the other 2 are even more insane (One keeps talking about aliens and 911 being an inside job). So what do you do? I have no clue! start a new party? takes money and unless youve already been in politics and got a name for yourself (good or bad its irrelevant just as long as people recognize the name) no one will pay any attention to you. So ya gotta join the machine and get transformed by it to have a chance of changing it!

Yeah I know i sound completely cynical but i still think this is the best system ever invented or even imaged by the human race yet!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, truthfully, i just want to, if anything, go in the leg. for a bit, see if i can do anything (but i wouldn't join a political party. I can't stand those. hopefully i wouldn't have to). But anyway, irrelevant.

Yes I have hope they are good but then I believe they are 99% scumbags. even those who ge into politics for the right reasons soon realize the most important job of a politician is getting elected. if they arent elected no matter how good their ideas or pure their motives they cant do squat. this is why even the best become well EVIL is perhaps a too strong word lelts just say hypocritical. The faster they learn that most important rule the more succesful they become as a politican. Those who never learn it or are too honorable to bend in the face of adversity rarely make it anywhere in politics. its the leaches the scumbags etc who get ahead.

disagree slightly. i think having good ideas and motives gets you reelected. For instance, there's a guy (i think i talked about him before) named Bernie Sanders who's been a senator for Vermont for years. He keep getting reelected not because of lobbyists or parties (he's an independent actually, he has no party), but because he has good intentions and ideas. he helped share the fact that the fed gave 15 trillion to every bank and its cousin around the world, which it had before said it didnt. he is quite the whistleblower, and always (well, it seems to me anyway) fights for the little guy. Now, i dont say this because i agree with him always (he's actually a self-proclaimed socialist, and is MUCH MUCH more extreme then i, or actually anyway who's written on this thread, is), but because he actually seems to care. Now of course, this is probably the 1% you were talking about, but still, i think having even one like him is important.

I also think, though, that political parties are a big reason for the 'scumbags' you talk about. i don't know about Canada, but the 2 US parties know they are untouchable most of the time, and so act like they are the only two opinions, end of story, see you later. Which is, of course, ridiculous. Changing that idea a bit, either through an alternative voting method that ranks candidates instead of straight up 'Check one", would probably help. Plus, party lines are a big reason for clusterf***s of the third degree: Go against the party, like some here have done as of late to get the debt committee to do something useful (Obama, some republican guys who's names i cant recall right now), and all of a sudden, you are a political pariah: no one goes near you to keep the parties support of themselves. THis, of course, reduces moderates like you, and hurls up extremists like the Tea Party and the tax em to hell left.

Also, i blame in part (for the US) the electoral college, because it forces politicians, if they want to be elected, to focus on telling certain people what they want to hear and forgetting about the rest. Again, a simple popular vote would address this, and wouldn't leave people out (they wouldnt focus on cities, for instance, bacuase only like 20% of the US pop is in the cities). heck, i saw this one video on Youtube that shows, step by step, how a politician could win an election with only 20% of the popular vote. When a system lets that happen, its time to do away with it.

So yeah, there that.

And do you seriously have 9/11 truthers in Canada? I thought that was only a US phenomena. :blink:

Well thankfully, no party leaders like that here. :thumbsup:

Oh, and your last sentence reminded me of the Churchill quote, 'Democracy is the worst form of government except that all others have been tried.' Love that quote.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
disagree slightly. i think having good ideas and motives gets you reelected. For instance, there's a guy (i think i talked about him before) named Bernie Sanders who's been a senator for Vermont for years. He keep getting reelected not because of lobbyists or parties (he's an independent actually, he has no party), but because he has good intentions and ideas. he helped share the fact that the fed gave 15 trillion to every bank and its cousin around the world, which it had before said it didnt. he is quite the whistleblower, and always (well, it seems to me anyway) fights for the little guy. Now, i dont say this because i agree with him always (he's actually a self-proclaimed socialist, and is MUCH MUCH more extreme then i, or actually anyway who's written on this thread, is), but because he actually seems to care. Now of course, this is probably the 1% you were talking about, but still, i think having even one like him is important.

Um 15 trillion?? Could you provide a link? as the US debt and the US economy are both = 15 trillion (DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER!) I find that number to be well increadible as in i cannot take it creadibly. I am sure there is either an error in your number or Bernie was exaggerating and never did find any actual proof. If this is a real number, about 100000000X less likely than me winning the lottery I apologize but seriously think of these things before you throw numbers out there. i know everyone likes to exagerrate but that is just well... I cant find any words.

As to good ideas, well being close to vermont we hear a bit about Barnie and I cant recall him having much in the way of good ideas. You are right he is a socialist that pretty much starts him off on the wrong side of the scale for good to bad ideas right there. I agree that Barnie cares, but caring and being wrong dont help. I believe that Bush actually believed he was doing the right thing going into IRAK, making the world a better safer place etc... being true to your beliefs when they are wrong even if you are doing it for the right reasons is no excuse.

I also think, though, that political parties are a big reason for the 'scumbags' you talk about. i don't know about Canada, but the 2 US parties know they are untouchable most of the time, and so act like they are the only two opinions, end of story, see you later. Which is, of course, ridiculous. Changing that idea a bit, either through an alternative voting method that ranks candidates instead of straight up 'Check one", would probably help. Plus, party lines are a big reason for clusterf***s of the third degree: Go against the party, like some here have done as of late to get the debt committee to do something useful (Obama, some republican guys who's names i cant recall right now), and all of a sudden, you are a political pariah: no one goes near you to keep the parties support of themselves. THis, of course, reduces moderates like you, and hurls up extremists like the Tea Party and the tax em to hell left.

I agree 2 party system makes it harder but we have sorta a 3 party system (its complicated) and well its only a little better,

As to Obama trying to help the debt crisis? how? when? no offence but this guy is a moron possibly equal in lack of brain cells to your last president. All in all as far as i can tell you keep picking dumber and dumber ones. I know your system makes it hard for an inteeligent person to actually make it even to the finals (ie past the primaries) but sheesh cant ya do a little better?

Also, i blame in part (for the US) the electoral college, because it forces politicians, if they want to be elected, to focus on telling certain people what they want to hear and forgetting about the rest. Again, a simple popular vote would address this, and wouldn't leave people out (they wouldnt focus on cities, for instance, bacuase only like 20% of the US pop is in the cities). heck, i saw this one video on Youtube that shows, step by step, how a politician could win an election with only 20% of the popular vote. When a system lets that happen, its time to do away with it.

yes your electoral college system, though i cant say i am 100% comprehending of it, seems a bit weird, A popular vote seems like a much better system to me but then again it would give California, New York and other large states (actually cities as the rural votes in these states are pretty small) huge power, so I donno something better but it must be thoughly thought out to avoid the inevetable negative effects that crop up when people act without thinking things all the way though and use wishfull thinking on how people/systems/situations will act/react to any new environment, rules or other changes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
disagree slightly. i think having good ideas and motives gets you reelected. For instance, there's a guy (i think i talked about him before) named Bernie Sanders who's been a senator for Vermont for years. He keep getting reelected not because of lobbyists or parties (he's an independent actually, he has no party), but because he has good intentions and ideas. he helped share the fact that the fed gave 15 trillion to every bank and its cousin around the world, which it had before said it didnt. he is quite the whistleblower, and always (well, it seems to me anyway) fights for the little guy. Now, i dont say this because i agree with him always (he's actually a self-proclaimed socialist, and is MUCH MUCH more extreme then i, or actually anyway who's written on this thread, is), but because he actually seems to care. Now of course, this is probably the 1% you were talking about, but still, i think having even one like him is important.

Um 15 trillion?? Could you provide a link? as the US debt and the US economy are both = 15 trillion (DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER!) I find that number to be well increadible as in i cannot take it creadibly. I am sure there is either an error in your number or Bernie was exaggerating and never did find any actual proof. If this is a real number, about 100000000X less likely than me winning the lottery I apologize but seriously think of these things before you throw numbers out there. i know everyone likes to exagerrate but that is just well... I cant find any words.

As to good ideas, well being close to vermont we hear a bit about Barnie and I cant recall him having much in the way of good ideas. You are right he is a socialist that pretty much starts him off on the wrong side of the scale for good to bad ideas right there. I agree that Barnie cares, but caring and being wrong dont help. I believe that Bush actually believed he was doing the right thing going into IRAK, making the world a better safer place etc... being true to your beliefs when they are wrong even if you are doing it for the right reasons is no excuse.

I also think, though, that political parties are a big reason for the 'scumbags' you talk about. i don't know about Canada, but the 2 US parties know they are untouchable most of the time, and so act like they are the only two opinions, end of story, see you later. Which is, of course, ridiculous. Changing that idea a bit, either through an alternative voting method that ranks candidates instead of straight up 'Check one", would probably help. Plus, party lines are a big reason for clusterf***s of the third degree: Go against the party, like some here have done as of late to get the debt committee to do something useful (Obama, some republican guys who's names i cant recall right now), and all of a sudden, you are a political pariah: no one goes near you to keep the parties support of themselves. THis, of course, reduces moderates like you, and hurls up extremists like the Tea Party and the tax em to hell left.

I agree 2 party system makes it harder but we have sorta a 3 party system (its complicated) and well its only a little better,

As to Obama trying to help the debt crisis? how? when? no offence but this guy is a moron possibly equal in lack of brain cells to your last president. All in all as far as i can tell you keep picking dumber and dumber ones. I know your system makes it hard for an inteeligent person to actually make it even to the finals (ie past the primaries) but sheesh cant ya do a little better?

Also, i blame in part (for the US) the electoral college, because it forces politicians, if they want to be elected, to focus on telling certain people what they want to hear and forgetting about the rest. Again, a simple popular vote would address this, and wouldn't leave people out (they wouldnt focus on cities, for instance, bacuase only like 20% of the US pop is in the cities). heck, i saw this one video on Youtube that shows, step by step, how a politician could win an election with only 20% of the popular vote. When a system lets that happen, its time to do away with it.

yes your electoral college system, though i cant say i am 100% comprehending of it, seems a bit weird, A popular vote seems like a much better system to me but then again it would give California, New York and other large states (actually cities as the rural votes in these states are pretty small) huge power, so I donno something better but it must be thoughly thought out to avoid the inevetable negative effects that crop up when people act without thinking things all the way though and use wishfull thinking on how people/systems/situations will act/react to any new environment, rules or other changes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, it the Electoral College were eliminated, then politics would focus more exclusively on the cities, not less. New York City and places like it each house more people than several of the least populous states combined. According to the Wikipedia article, NYC has about 8 million people. That makes it larger in terms of population than the nine least populous states, plus Washington DC. Without the Electoral College, that would make winning a majority in NYC more significant than winning a majority in all but 11 states. So the EC is there as a modulating effect to try to keep some of the more rural interests in balance.

Of course, I agree that there are problems with how the EC works these days, but I think that tweaking it would be far better than eliminating it entirely. I'm not sure what the best answer would be. :unsure:

Regarding Elizabeth Warren, she's not pandering to the base with that speech. Those are her heartfelt beliefs though Quag clearly disagrees with them. She's not a career politician. She has served on several government boards, but she's always been an advocate for consumers against predatory corporate lending practices. She's also a Harvard Law School professor. I guess that just playing that soundbite sort of loses the larger message of her speech without the context. Her point is that the community supported the factory's ability to be profitable and the factory-owners of the world ought to be more like Warren Buffett and embrace their responsibility to their communities, rather than labor under the delusion that their wealth is entirely of their own creation. Because it's not. If they had to build their own roads and educate their own workforce and provide their own emergency services and all the other things that government provides out of the box, they wouldn't be nearly as successful and profitable as they are, so they need to acknowledge the underlying system that exists to support their success. In her opinion (and I'll admit mine), too many believe that they were successful purely on their own merits, without any assistance from outside sources and that simply is not the case.

One thing that I think is often lost in discussions about Socialism is that Socialism != Communism. Communism is a particular strain of Socialism, but there are other ideas in the Socialism tree. And to be precise, Soviet Communism never fully implemented Marx's strategy because the after the dictator nationalizes the industry, he is supposed to willingly step aside so that the people can be their own rulers. Of course, if you ask me, that's the fatal flaw of Communism, the expectation that the dictator that seizes control will be willing to relinquish control once he's served his "necessary" purpose.

Bernie Sanders calls himself a Socialist, but I don't think he calls himself a Communist, so anyone who thinks he's wrong because they don't like Communism is mischaracterizing his positions. As I understand it, it's his belief (though I don't like the term 'belief') that government can and should have a role in helping people live a good life. For the times when you fall down, the government should be there to help you back up. And it can't do that without being properly funded. So someone has to pay taxes. It's just a matter of who pays and what percent they pay.

There's also a misunderstanding of marginal tax rates. (Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article is largely mathematical gobbledegook, so it's not very enlightening.) The highest tax rate in the US is ~35% right now (and if the Bush tax cuts expire, they'll go up to ~39%), but no one pays that much on their entire income. They only pay 35% on the income above the income threshold. I'm not sure exactly how the numbers are calculated, but according the link these are the brackets for 2011 single-filers:

  • 10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus
  • 15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus
  • 25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus
  • 28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus
  • 33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus
  • 35% on taxable income over $379,150.

So, people with income over $379,150 only pay 35% tax on income above that amount. They pay 33% on the income between the previous bracket and so on down the line. So if someone says that their tax rate is 35%, their effective tax rate is going to be lower because they aren't paying 35% on the whole thing. So it's really inaccurate to say that the highest tax rate in the country is 35% because that's the upper limit of the income tax and much of their income is being taxed at a lower rate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Fed thing:

http://sanders.senat...53-62060dcbb3c3

I honestly didn't read the whole report that they used as a source, but it seems reliable enough.

Oh, and there's this: http://www.rawstory....mergency-loans/

And http://www.forbes.co...under-reported/

I think that's enough to prove it.

Now, as for Obama, look, I don't like to play partisan politics, but the republicans didn't let him do s***. He had an American Jobs act (whether it would have worked or not we'll never know) that was denied, I have given links multiple times to show that the bailout (Bush) and stimulus (Obama) did work at preventing and possibly reversing somewhat (we arent in a recession anymore, though Europe's situation may change that) the problem (although if I'm not mistaking you still disagree), and at least he tried to make a compromise (he's been pushing a grand compromise for a while). He is willing to sacrifice some Democrat sacred cows (Medicare, etc.). So yes, he's helped, and no, he's DEFINITELY better then Bush. he isn't worse. And we need him to be elected again or those idiots currently debating every other damn day will be in. Unless it's Huntsman and maybe even Gingrich, that would NOT be good (Romney flip-flops a lot, so i dunno what to make of him).

Electoral College:

And I dunno what to think of the tax thing.

Edited by gvg
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Un f***** believable. I mean seriously I still cannot believe the fed lent 16 trillion, Where did they get the $$ is there even more printing of money going on? Seriously you guys are way way way more screwed that I thought! And when you go down your gonna drag us along with you THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!

according to the article it happened between sept 2007 and July 2010 under both Bush and Obama. I take it back i no longer think Obama might be equally as moronic as Bush I am now convinced of it!

Now, as for Obama, look, I don't like to play partisan politics, but the republicans didn't let him do s***.

umm for 2 years he didnt need a single republican the problem was even Dems were worried about his bad ideas, He had to work his butt of promising crap to them to get enough on board to pass his bad ideas.

He had an American Jobs act (whether it would have worked or not we'll never know) that was denied, I have given links multiple times to show that the bailout (Bush) and stimulus (Obama) did work at preventing and possibly reversing somewhat (we arent in a recession anymore, though Europe's situation may change that) the problem (although if I'm not mistaking you still disagree) and at least he tried to make a compromise (he's been pushing a grand compromise for a while). He is willing to sacrifice some Democrat sacred cows (Medicare, etc.). So yes, he's helped, and no, he's DEFINITELY better then Bush. he isn't worse. And we need him to be elected again or those idiots currently debating every other damn day will be in. Unless it's Huntsman and maybe even Gingrich, that would NOT be good (Romney flip-flops a lot, so i dunno what to make of him).

Yes i disagree 100% and where in this spending of more cash did he try to solve your increasing deficit? hes going the wrong way because again he is a moron just like bush! as to Him making compromises where? the Reps actually made proposals to the supercomitee the dems never did they just said no to the reps and claimed they wanted more taxes. not a peep from them on cuts! come on The Dems are playing party politics even more than the Reps ATM. Name 1 concrete thing Obama has doen to try and solve the deficit problem! (spening more money on usless create temporary jobs bills do not count) it has all been we gotta make the rich pay their fair share (ie class warfare) sorry mr Obama they already pay more than others. If you were talking about getting rid of tax exemptions and not raising taxes ya might just possibly have some points but no, hes a joke! Not that im saying the Reps would be much better but I will wait to see who wins the nomination and listen to them before i say who I would vote for (if i was allowed to vote) ATM Obama is very unlikely to get my vote.

Dawh I never said Elizabeth Warren was pandering to the base i said she stated this isnt about class warfare then used class warfare language to attack the rich! HYPOCRITE! but then what do you expect from a politician.

Her point is that the community supported the factory's ability to be profitable and the factory-owners of the world ought to be more like Warren Buffett and embrace their responsibility to their communities, rather than labor under the delusion that their wealth is entirely of their own creation

I havent heard a single person claim the rich shouldnt pay taxes, ATM they are paying more as individuals in terms of straight $ and as % so what is her freaking point? other than class warfare i see no point in that statement!

One thing that I think is often lost in discussions about Socialism is that Socialism != Communism. Communism is a particular strain of Socialism, but there are other ideas in the Socialism tree. And to be precise, Soviet Communism never fully implemented Marx's strategy because the after the dictator nationalizes the industry, he is supposed to willingly step aside so that the people can be their own rulers. Of course, if you ask me, that's the fatal flaw of Communism, the expectation that the dictator that seizes control will be willing to relinquish control once he's served his purpose

Bernie Sanders calls himself a Socialist, but I don't think he calls himself a Communist, so anyone who thinks he's wrong because they don't like Communism is mischaracterizing his positions. As I understand it, it's his belief (though I don't like the term 'belief') that government can and should have a role in helping people live a good life. For the times when you fall down, the government should be there to help you back up. And it can't do that without being properly funded. So someone has to pay taxes. It's just a matter of who pays and what percent they pay.

I agree they arent the same, in fact there has never been an actual communist country ever, they have all been/are extreme left wing dictatorships. socialist believe that the govt is the solution to ALL problems this is an inherently wrong notion and why i have little time for Bernie Saunders. We have a similar guy here in Quebec Amir Khadr, he's actually a co leader?? of a party and a compelte nut job but he supposedly fights for the littele guy, even when hes stepping all over him for some crazy idea of his. Govt has it place and certain things should/must be done through them but many many areas of govt intervention in life is wrong and usually makes things worse. Not necessarily because they start off wrong but they always get carried away and try to fit the square peg in the round hole.

The red is where i disagree with him 100% govt should be responsible for providing an environment where you can strive for a good life. govt CANNOT provide a good life. Of course i think govt should make sure people dont starve to death etc. but not provide a good life. Sorry you will never ever ever have enough money to do that, there will always be poor people. I have yet to see a system where that can possibly be avoided. Someone has to wash the dishes, clean the toilets etc. These people will never have the same standard of living as people doing work requiring more skill/learning etc. ALL attempts to try and make these people equal to a doctor/mechanic/lawyer/office worker will result in EVERYONE having a lower standard of living, always has always will.&nbsp;This is why I Consider Bernie a nutball.</p>

The yellow is where i agree with the statement but Disagree with him on what it actually means. He wants the govt to not lend a helping hand to get someone back on their feet but provide an elevator with a lazyboy to take the weight off as the govt lifts him back up. It is a matter of degrees here.

As to tax rates no I dont misunderstand them in fact i i took the time to go back over it you would see me trying to explain this point but ill do so again.

Person A 25000$

Person B 100000$

Person C 1000000$

Person D 10000000$ (uber risch guy)

Using your numbers here are taxes and % tax rate.

Person A 3325$ 13.3%

Person B 21617$ 21.6%

Person C 327314$ 32.7%

Person D 3477314$ 34.7%

I rounded down for all % but please note the richer you are the more you pay and the larger % in fact the uber rich guy at 10kk$ is dang close to the actual 35% the 1kk% is even closer to 33% still only 2.3% off the top tax rate the 100k guy (a real decent salary i think we all agree, mid/upper middle class) is 21.5 or 6.4% off his nominal top rate. 25k$ is lower class i think we can all agree. he pays just 1.7% below his nominal top rate but if you compare him to the middle class guy hes only paying 60% of the middle class guys rate.

Now im not advocating a flat tax rate here, in fact I dont know your&nbsp;US system. But roughly the first 10k$ earned is tax free here in Canada so the differences would be even greater here. I would like to know how anyone can look at hese numbers and say the rich are not paying their fair share!&nbsp;To do so is to be advocating class warfare

So, people with income over $379,150 only pay 35% tax on income above that amount. They pay 33% on the income between the previous bracket and so on down the line. So if someone says that their tax rate is 35%, their effective tax rate is going to be lower because they aren't paying 35% on the whole thing.<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> So it's really inaccurate to say that the highest tax rate in the country is 35% because that's the upper limit of the income tax and much of their income is being taxed at a lower rate.

As you can see the more you make the closer you get to that top rate Yeah if you make 1$ over the limit your only paying tax at higher rate on that 1$ but your are very close the the next lower top rate and still paying a larger % than someone making less than you.

Edited by Quag
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, about the Fed: Central Banks /= extension of government. It's its own private entity, which is why no one, and I mean NO ONE (Bush, Obama, or anyone) knew what the hell they were doing, cause no one asked. So the 16 trillion isnt gov money, its fed money (hence why all america dollars are printed by the fed; the government has to get money from the fed to send out, and only then is the government involved in fed activities). So no, this doesnt effect us as much as it does the fed. And it did help kinda, cause at least the whole market didn't enter the depths of hell. But to blame either president for the Feds activities is wrong. because they dont control it.

Now, for the spending: Is the saying not you have to spend money to make money? I've said many times, we can't do sudden slash and burn. Obama's healthcare plan was an attempt (and we'll see if it works or not if it makes it through the supreme court) to fight a major cause of debt, healthcare (this big number aided by Med part D, which was never paid for and cost several hundred billion dollars). TARP (Bush) and the Stimulus (Obama) was not meant to cut debt. Could you imagine if money HADN'T been pumped into the system? i think some pages back i posted a report by and economist showing the stimulus and TARP did wha they were meant to do: plus the hole that was the crashing economy. Think about this: In the Great Depression, when the stock market plunged, Hoover did nothing, instead choosing to rely on charity. In the Great Recession, the stock market plunged, and money got pumped in. The effects were moderated, and it didn't turn into a full scale depression. Job loss (up to hundreds of thousands at one point: chart-020510-update.jpg

reversed, as you can see in the picture. THAT was the point. The debt was secondary, because as long as the interest was being paid, it'd be alright while they tried to end the downward spiral. Debt isn't number one: jobs and the economy are. When those improve, the debt will improve, as more taxes come in. Fixing the tax code (ex. closing loopholes while simultaneously reducing the tax rate for corporations from 35 to 28) will help as well. Its a matter of slow and steady while the economy is down. We have to wait until it can support a sudden loss of government money, or at least until the effects can be minimized.

And many of the reps took Norquist's no-raising-taxes pledge. You can see how well that turned out by looking at the debacle known as the Debt Committee which, to no one's surprise, failed miserably. Obama suggested a huge package of cutting the spending (in med, etc) while closing loopholes and raising taxes slightly (back to Clinton era 39% top rate), which in total would reduce the debt by 4 trillion $. It wasn't even looked at. Both parties are to blame, because the Dems said no cause of the cuts to Medicare and such (which, of course, is necessary; an age raise, some cuts, making a deal w/ drug companies to lower costs, etc.) and the reps said no cause it had the word 'raise' and 'tax' in the same sentence (which isn't accurate, it was just going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, a smart move b/c that is another huge cost). both disagreed with cutting the military, even though we could cut it in half and i would say we could still kick anyone's a** (though i'm not for cutting it by 50%). Obama is ending the war in Iraq (which, to give Bush credit, it was Bush's idea to end the war now at the latest) and has begun a draw-down in Iraq. Obama is TRYING. I doubt anyone outside of the greatest president's of all time could fix this. It's a multi-decade process, and hopefully, after people are finally fully fed up with the carp-throwing contest that is congress, it can begin soon.

Now, just a word on the taxes: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1 http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/chart-of-the-day-do-the-rich-really-pay-less-in-taxes/245531/

Income tax wise, yes, Quag is right. (With very prominent exceptions b/c of the fact that many of the REALLY REALLY wealthy get a HUGE portion of their income from capital gains taxes). and it is partly bc of http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/07top1.gif . More money means more taxes, obviously.

But i think by leaving out payroll taxes (which cap out at 250k of your total income, something which must change if SS and Med and the like are to survive) and other similar taxes, it misses a major thing. Strictly talking income tax, yes, the rich pay more. Why? They make more. but I can't find one that includes payroll, sales, etc. taxes as well, which i think would even out the tax chart above. Also, state by state is different: taxes in my home state of NY is a HELL of a lot different than taxes in, say, Texas. So the issue is much more complex then just income taxes. But from what i can tell, Dawh is refferring to income taxes, and thus, is incorrect: the rich pay more income taxes overall. it just makes sense, after all, they maek more. Now, this is not to say that maybe taxes are too low in general for the current state of things, but that's a separate issue.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as to the stimulous

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/cbo-stimulus-hurts-economy-long-run/

yes short term it could provide some help but long term as i said over and over again it is a detriment to the economy

Reps came up with a plan including tax hikes that dems wouldnt look at so screw them they are a bigger problem than the reps ATM

I know fed is independant but as i understand it the chairman of the fed is appointed by the govt. therefore they have some control. if i am mistaken then well There is no blame to be laid at the politicians feet.

Again here in canada we went through this in the 90's and the govt did slash and burn and that is why we have weathered this storm soo soo much better than you guys. The solution is to slash and burn, yes taxes must go up but ya gotta kill a large number of useless govt jobs.

I am going to make assumptions here but as far as i can tell ALL govt orginizations are the same, I work for a private not for profit corporation that used to be govt. We went from 7 levels of management to 3 i have no doubt you could do the same to most govt depts. Problem is the govt usually leaves it to the beaurocrats to decide on where to cut and they never cut their management staff just the people providing services and that is done on purpose as a way of getting any politician in trouble with the public when he/she proposes govt cuts

So once again slash and burn the beaurocrats stop stimulous spending as it does/has and always will hurt the economy in the long run! get your financial house in order and the economy will pick up. continue to spend and its just gonna get worse down the road.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's more that I want to say, but just quickly, I wouldn't be opposed to turning over some government work to Not-For-Profit corporations, but the Republicans only want to turn government services over to the private, For-Profit sector, so that's one reason I could never even consider supporting the Republicans. Some things need to be done by government and others need to be done without a profit motive.

The private prison industry is the prime example, but Gov. Jan Brewer in Arizona made up a budget shortfall last year by selling the state prisons to private companies (which just happen to be among her largest donors :dry: ), and now they are in a fiscal hole because they are "renting" the buildings they formerly owned in order to send criminals to these private institutions. Private prisons get money from the government per person incarcerated, so the more people arrested and locked up, the more money they make from the taxpayers. It's a huge scam and it is an example of something should never be privatized and monetized. If it's a government service that isn't being done by the government, it needs to be Not-For-Profit. But you'll never hear that argument made by the Republicans. They only want these done for profit, period. "The Market will solve everything."

No, it won't.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you some things should be in govt hands some, not for profit private companies, but there are some things that can just be privatized straight out. You give prisons as examples, I personally dont even think a private not for profit would be a good idea here. On the other side of the coin we have public and private daycare here. it is almost all subsidized by the govt. (7$/day) but there are 100% private ones that charge more, very few left. The WORST daycares are the CPE`s "Centre de petitis enfants", they are the 100% govt ones and the govt subsidized home daycares (*note the home ones can be very good too, they are all different). Basically this is something the govt should get out of. It is a disaster all around. Many people have a near impossible time finding a daycare because the cheap govt subsidized ones forced most private ones to close, but they get same $$ whether regardless of where they are situated. So if you are in a rural area or small town real estate/rent is cheap if you are in the city/well off suburb it is $$. Now the more the over head the closer they need to be near 100% capacity to break even. Leaving many areas short on daycare. Other areas are running at 60% NP. typical govt square peg/round hole problem.

But you'll never hear that argument made by the Republicans. They only want these done for profit, period. "The Market will solve everything."

No, it won't.

You are right the markets will not/cannot solve everything.

Problem is the Dems are the polar opposite they want govt to do everything

"The govt will solve everything" is their mantra

NO IT WONT!

dang you guys are screwed down there!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, a few things.

1. The head of the fed is indeed appointed, but he acts privately, and (before now) hasn't had to explain what or how they were doing it. So yes, its a problem because no one passed a law to get this done. So it's half and half: No one asked the fed about anything, probably because they were afraid that doing so would prevent the fed from carrying out necessary policies, but also no one knew what they were doing. I dunno. All i know is that it is a private bank, and whatever they lend to anyone but the US government has nothing to do with our debt. (Here's the current head: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Ben_Bernanke)

2. That thing you linked says .2 off long term. That doesn't sound horrible when you consider that the stimulus stopped it from all going to hell (it slowed down the down part of the business cycle, so obviously it'd make the upper part moderated a bit. But the fact that it's only .2... that isn't so bad. Another is a no go, though, but i still say Obama's stimulus was necessary).

3. Yes, managerial cutting would be great, but Washington is so goddamn full of lobbyists that that wouldn't happen. But obviously cuts need to come in, I never said they didn't, but slash and burn with a weak economy wouldn't be too good (especially if the situation in Europe goes to hell). The 90's wasn't a time of economic downturn, right? So the slash and burn wasn't as detrimental. Different situation. We should start now, and ease into it: cuts to military, other things, some taxes, etc. But nothing too horrid.

Oh, and yes, those democrats are idiots. Which is why no one likes them actually, and congress has an approval rating of 9% or something like that.

Edited by gvg
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right the markets will not/cannot solve everything.

Problem is the Dems are the polar opposite they want govt to do everything

"The govt will solve everything" is their mantra

NO IT WONT!

dang you guys are screwed down there!

Oh, and yes, those democrats are idiots. Which is why no one likes them actually, and congress has an approval rating of 9% or something like that.

I don't think that the Democrats are really saying that "The govt will solve everything." Bernie Sanders could be construed as saying that, but he's considered the left-wing fringe of the spectrum of electable candidates. Most Democrats are just as corporate-controlled as the Republicans and that's the real problem. They are so beholden to corporate cash that they cannot, or will not, listen to constituent interests since constituents can't afford to give them the amount of cash that corporations can. To clean up politics in the United States, you really need to take the money factor out. If candidates aren't beholden to campaign funding, they can focus on the issues and they are less likely to be swayed by lobbyists, since they don't need the money from them to win another election.

Politics in the US has been twisted over the last 30 years to be extremely right-wing. Bernie Sanders is as close as a politician can be to being a left-wing radical, and he's generally marginalized and ignored by the Democrats, while the right-wing fringe is given center stage in the Republican party. It's the Far-Right party against the Center-Right (with a smidgen of Center-Left) party. But all major solutions offered by either party have a rightward slant.

Obamacare is based off a conservative idea that was floated in the '90s (and more recently from Gov. Romney's Massachusetts' Health care law). Most of the stuff in it was A-OK as far the the Republicans were concerned, until Obama proposed it. The same was true with Cap and Trade legislation. The Left wanted a straight Carbon Tax, so the conservatives offered Cap and Trade as an alternative. When Obama and the Left accepted it, it became an evil, Lefty idea.

Based on their constant moving of the goalposts, I really don't see how you can call the majority of the Republican field anything other than "two-faced," "duplicitous" or "hypocritical" at the very least. Most of the ideas that President Obama and the Democrats have offered to the Republicans were their own ideas, which were perfectly acceptable when the Republicans suggested them, but as soon as they were rebranded by the Democrats, they became persona non grata to the conservatives.

The same thing happened with the Super Committee. Every offer from the Democrats was rejected, no matter how acceptable it had been in the past to both parties. Eugene Robinson, who does political analysis for the Washington Post, wrote about the Super Committee's failure, and he pointed out how the Republican's positions on the committee were unrealistic and how they refused to compromise in any meaningful way.

That's why it failed, not because the Democrats refused to budge. They budged an awful lot, but the Republicans refused to move an inch. When they moved a millimeter, they wanted to be congratulated. That can hardly be considered a reasonable way to govern. If you really want to govern, you work to change the policies to your goals by degrees, not sitting by there holding your breath until you get exactly what you want. The Republicans want the Obama administration to fail. If Obama were to succeed, people might question certain Republican dogma and that would hurt their electoral prospects. So their best chance to win back the presidency (as they see it) is to scuttle the economic recovery and blame the Obama Administration and the Democrats. They aren't interested in actually governing. Like I said, they'd rather see the "Invisible Hand of the Market" do everything. And they see the best chance for that to happen is to stop Obama from doing anything. Which is not at all how the government is supposed to work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawh: Yep, i agree with you (although I do think there are some democrats who are as dawh described (they're in the minority though), and others, not for nothing, that have been given a hell of a lot of union money (im not anti-union per-say, just pointing it out) like pelosi apparently,and they only serve them. But again, thats a minority.)

But, there are many a democrat who refuses to give up their sacred cows like SS age, Medicare, etc. Why do you think Obama's 4.6 trillion idea was rejected outright by both sides? For the republicans, the blasphemous idea was tax raises (aka letting the bush era cuts expire), for some dems (enough to screw his idea), cutting Medicare/Medicaid. These things have to be done. SS and Medicare age must be raised, the ceiling of income that is taxed for SS must be raised, a deal must be made with Big Pharma to reduce the costs of drugs (which is quite possible, and is championed by Bernie Sanders). All these thing must occur, and this is just the start.

What is going to happen now (automatic cuts due to their failure) is actually a good start. It cuts several hundred billion in costs from defense and medicare, 1.2 trillion total, which is a nice start. Couple that with letting the Bush cuts expire (which will probably happen unless the repubs win congress), and that's a GREAT start. Also coupled with the end of the Iraq war on the date Bush set several years ago (Dec 31 of this year, which Obama is following), and the situation is not nearly as bleak. Of course, there are already pushes to reverse the first thing (the automatic cuts) and the second thing (the expiration of the bush tax cuts) and the third thing (for random fears of Iran, which really is kinda dumb cause we'd blow them to hell with half our current military capability). But i doubt theyll get it. Itll be blocked in one way or the other, all these movements.

And if we can get the freakin moderates of the republican party (Huntsman, Gingrich (this dudes smart, but war-hawkish, but hes still moderate elsewhere) to do some more talking, we can get some s*** done.

Anyway, back to the whole thing with campaign money: I say a law should be passed saying that:

1. Campaign contributions are not to come from corporations or unions. it just isn't fair, no one can give more then them.

2. Contributions are limited to, say, 10k per person, so that those who are quite well to do cannot do ask corporations do now.

3. This one i've debated in my head a bit, but I've settled on it: No using one's own money. it isn't fair, for instance, that someone like, say, Reagan, who was an actor and made quite a bit of cash, can go ahead and give more to his campaign then joe shmoe who wants reform. (I think people are allowed right now, correct me if I'm wrong.)

4. Make all contributions to all campaigns available on the internet or in print on request.

These things are a great start no? And it'd cause politicians to pay attention.

Of course, those will never be passed. Ever. Well, not with these a**holes anyway.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawh: Yep, i agree with you (although I do think there are some democrats who are as dawh described (they're in the minority though), and others, not for nothing, that have been given a hell of a lot of union money (im not anti-union per-say, just pointing it out) like pelosi apparently,and they only serve them. But again, thats a minority.)

I think that the union thing is a smear (in part a smear against unions as well) for the most part. I don't think that many Democrats (and Pelosi in particular) are beholden to the Unions and Union money. I can't find an example, but considering we have an all-time low in union membership across the country now, large corporations have far more money available to spend on campaigns than do unions. So with unlimited donations, corporations get the most benefit, then unions, then individuals.

But, there are many a democrat who refuses to give up their sacred cows like SS age, Medicare, etc. Why do you think Obama's 4.6 trillion idea was rejected outright by both sides? For the republicans, the blasphemous idea was tax raises (aka letting the bush era cuts expire), for some dems (enough to screw his idea), cutting Medicare/Medicaid. These things have to be done. SS and Medicare age must be raised, the ceiling of income that is taxed for SS must be raised, a deal must be made with Big Pharma to reduce the costs of drugs (which is quite possible, and is championed by Bernie Sanders). All these thing must occur, and this is just the start.

The problem I have with your statements here is that you use the word "must" a lot. As the saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. SS is supposedly solvent for another 20-30 years if we do nothing. In order to ensure it remains solvent for the long-term we do need to do something, but the things you listed above are not things we "must" do to keep it solvent. There are numerous smaller tweaks that we can apply that will help the problem. But SS isn't even the problem when you want to talk about the deficit.

Medicare is the problem because of ballooning healthcare costs. If healthcare costs came down, then the problems with Medicare would be greatly reduced as well. Ostensibly, Obamacare was supposed to help with costs, but as many of its left-wing critics like to state, it's more health insurance reform than healthcare reform. But that's all they could get through Congress with no help from the Republicans whatsoever. It could have been better, but I think it was a good first step. Once all the litigation subsides, people will be able to improve on it and maybe they would even be able to help bring down costs.

So as it stands, Medicare is the biggest entitlement that is a deficit problem, but there's no one way to fix it. We don't have to raise the eligibility age, though it is one possible way to do it. It's not one I'm found of and I'm sure that there are better ways to keep costs down, but Republicans are blocking most of them. One thing that could have helped that was originally in the healthcare bill would be to test the efficacy of different medical procedures to determine cost-effectiveness to try to phase out expensive, unnecessary procedures, but the conservatives derided that as "Death Panels" and the Democrats had to cut it from the final bill to get enough support to get it out of committee.

What is going to happen now (automatic cuts due to their failure) is actually a good start. It cuts several hundred billion in costs from defense and medicare, 1.2 trillion total, which is a nice start. Couple that with letting the Bush cuts expire (which will probably happen unless the repubs win congress), and that's a GREAT start. Also coupled with the end of the Iraq war on the date Bush set several years ago (Dec 31 of this year, which Obama is following), and the situation is not nearly as bleak. Of course, there are already pushes to reverse the first thing (the automatic cuts) and the second thing (the expiration of the bush tax cuts) and the third thing (for random fears of Iran, which really is kinda dumb cause we'd blow them to hell with half our current military capability). But i doubt theyll get it. Itll be blocked in one way or the other, all these movements.

Obama has promised to veto any bill that comes across his desk that removes the automatic cuts without providing a replacement for those cuts. So he intends to force Congress to accept that pain.

The Bush Tax cuts will expire as of Jan 1, 2013, if I remember correctly. So even if the Republicans win big in the 2012 elections, they won't take power until after they expire. So if they wanted to get the taxes back, they would have to write a new bill and pass it again, instead of just renewing the one they have. As long as enough Democrats run out the clock, the Republicans can't reinstate the Bush tax cuts until after they are gone, if nothing else gets done. But Obama and some Democrats want to keep the Bush rates for the lower categories and let the rates expire for the higher brackets. It wouldn't reduce the deficit as much as letting them all go, but it wouldn't be as big a damper on the economy either.

The poorest people in the country spend the largest percentage of their paychecks each month, while the richest take a higher percent out of the economy. So giving money back to poorer people has a much more stimulative effect than giving it to the richest groups (who just reinvest it in things like the stock market, which doesn't help small and local businesses). The poor and middle class are buying food and visiting local restaurants and buying merchandise with their money, so it immediately is going back into the economy and helping the community.

The neo-cons (and some neo-liberals) have always been salivating over war in the Middle East. They feel (for one reason or another) that the US has to interfere to stabilize the region (some do it for Israel, some do it for the "End Times" and some do it just to get themselves and their friends rich off the spoils). I don't foresee Obama ever intervening, but if you let Gingrich get in there, beware.

And if we can get the freakin moderates of the republican party (Huntsman, Gingrich (this dudes smart, but war-hawkish, but hes still moderate elsewhere) to do some more talking, we can get some s*** done.

Gingrich can bloviate on most any subject and "sound good," but he's a pathological liar who says whatever he thinks the listener wants to hear. As recently as 2005 and 2008, he was a champion of the health insurance mandate. Only now that it's a negative among the GOP electorate is he reneging his support. He was intensely disliked by Right and Left when he was Speaker of the House and many people think that the Republicans made gains in the '90s in spite of Gingrich, rather than because of him. He was fined $300,000 in an ethics probe and he resigned in disgrace as Speaker after the House impeached President Clinton. in my opinion, he is one of the last people you want as Commander-in-Chief.

Anyway, back to the whole thing with campaign money: I say a law should be passed saying that:

1. Campaign contributions are not to come from corporations or unions. it just isn't fair, no one can give more then them.

2. Contributions are limited to, say, 10k per person, so that those who are quite well to do cannot do ask corporations do now.

3. This one i've debated in my head a bit, but I've settled on it: No using one's own money. it isn't fair, for instance, that someone like, say, Reagan, who was an actor and made quite a bit of cash, can go ahead and give more to his campaign then joe shmoe who wants reform. (I think people are allowed right now, correct me if I'm wrong.)

4. Make all contributions to all campaigns available on the internet or in print on request.

These things are a great start no? And it'd cause politicians to pay attention.

Of course, those will never be passed. Ever. Well, not with these a**holes anyway.

Well, it sounds nice and simple, but lawyers excel at taking nice, simple rules and running loopholes right through and around them. With the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, it allowed the formation of Super PACs which can accept unlimited donations (displayed publicly), but they can't coordinate with a candidate. However what's happening now is they are forming a separate group that can accept unlimited donations, but doesn't have to release it's donor list, and then they funnel the money from the new group to the Super PAC. So the Super PAC lists the second group as a donor, but the people who contributed to the second group remain secret.

Second, now the Super PACs are trying to allow "uncoordinated coordination." If that's not twisted, I don't know what is. It would allow them to run ads for a candidate, featuring the candidate, just so long as the candidate doesn't ask for your vote and the ad doesn't either. Stephen Colbert thinks this "uncoordinated coordination" should be allowed, so long as you kidnap the candidate, blindfold them, drag them off somewhere, hand them a script and force them to read it. That's the only way that you could feature a candidate in a Super PAC ad and still call it "uncoordinated."

So while your ideas sound good, there are myriad ways that corporations and people could run around the rules you list, while still obeying the letter of the law, even if that isn't the intent of the law. Unfortunately, I don't know what the right answer is in terms of Campaign Finance Reform. :(

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to reply more in length later, but I think you should see this:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/pelosi-jobs-less-important-than-unions/

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/31/pelosi-south-carolina-boeing-plant-should-unionize-or-shut-down/

http://brianekoenig.com/2011/11/nancy-pelosi-on-unions-south-carolina-boeing-plant-should-shut-down/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pelosi-s-carolina-boeing-plant-should-be-closed-if-it-doesn%E2%80%99t-go-union/

Yeah, i have a feeling her and union bosses have a special relationship there. but again, that's just her, and of course Corporations have more money available.

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/1550-obama-thanks-his-friends-government-spending-and-union-support

Ignoring the obvious conservative rhetoric, the numbers are real. I can't find a corporate one, but I am going to look.

Ill make a larger response later.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to reply more in length later, but I think you should see this:

http://www.outsideth...nt-than-unions/

http://blog.heritage...e-or-shut-down/

http://brianekoenig....ould-shut-down/

http://www.theblaze....0%99t-go-union/

Yeah, i have a feeling her and union bosses have a special relationship there. but again, that's just her, and of course Corporations have more money available.

http://www.aier.org/...d-union-support

Ignoring the obvious conservative rhetoric, the numbers are real. I can't find a corporate one, but I am going to look.

Ill make a larger response later.

All of those are from conservative sources. OutsideTheBeltway clearly has a conservative bias, the Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank, Brian Koenig is a conservative blogger and the Blaze is Glenn Beck's blog. And so far as I can see, they are all referring to the same incident. I don't know much about the American Institute for Economic Research, but the rhetoric was slanted to the right. School vouchers and "school choice" are just bad ideas, plain and simple. So who cares if the Democrats get support from the NEA?

There's a lot more nuance in the situation with the Boeing factory in South Carolina than just what they posted. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), filed suit against Boeing for moving production of a certain part from Washington state to South Carolina. Normally, this would be perfectly legal for them to do, but there are emails that state that they moved the operation specifically to retaliate against strikes at the Washington plant. As I understand it, had they not said it was retaliation, it would have been legal, but it breaks their contract with the union if they did it for the reasons they've been accused.

So Pelosi supports moving the manufacturing back to the Washington plant to fulfill Boeing's obligation to the union there. It sounds like she in-artfully answered the question about what should happen to the SC plant if the part does move back to Wash. Based on current law and Boeing's contract with the union, the right thing to do might require the SC plant to close (though Boeing should have an incentive to keep it open doing something else since they already have the plant anyway).

She's not saying the plant should close because it's non-union. She's saying it might need to close because the NLRB says that Boeing violated their contract with the union in Wash. None of those sources were providing the context of her comments (and I'm sure they all disagree with the NLRB's suit).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gvg this is in reply to your previous post

1. I knew it was private, i thought that the president chose the chairman, seems i was wrong

2. surprise surprise i disagree with you here, The positive effects are minor compared to the long term negative effects. I do not believe that the workd would have imploded if there had been no first stimulous. There is no way to prove this but historically recessions have come and gone with or without govt interference. The great depression was the first massive attempt at stimulous and ended up being one of the longest and deepest recessions ever. In fact hte US came out of it pretty much after the rest of the world did despite the govt spending.

Clear cut case of stimulous failure!

3. early 90s was am economic downturn and that is when we started the cutting, so nope gotta disagree with you here again. Instead of wasting $$$ on stimulous that has negigible short term and negative long term effects you should be cutting govt, this causes negligible short term andf positive long term effects on the economy. Of course ya gotta do it smart and well that is the challenge!

lets do simple math to show you how stimulous fails. Govt creates a job at say 100k/year. This returns roughly 21600$, see my previous post.

Now that leaves a shortfall of 78400$ or roughly 3.5 more people need ot make 100k each to have the govt break even. Everywhere i looked online suggest that every 10-20 jobs created create 1 more spinoff job but lets use the 10 or be generous and say 5. (note these are usually lower paying jobs but for maths sake lets say they all earn 100k) so govt spends 500k and creats 5 jobs (truth we know is its more like 1.5kk to create 5 100k jobs cause govt wastes $ like a drunken sailor in las vegas) so they get back 108k$ but only 1 job is created giving the govt another 21.6k or a total of 129.6k and it cost them 500k (again really 1.5kk) thus govt is farther in the hole than before there is less money circulating due to fears of govt overspending making it harder to start/improve/maintain buisnesses.

This is why i say the short term is negligible and long term is negative. worse thing is after 2-3 years those govt jobs are gone along with any SLIGHT boost they may have given but the nation as a whole is more in debt and spening an even larger % of their $ on servicing that debt leading to a downward spiral, think greece here. The only way the govt can help the economy is for there to be 3.5 jobs created for every govt job. It is actually worse as the stimulous jobs arent usually 100k but much less giving even less in terms of % return in taxes.

sorry it that is kinda convoluted but read it a few times im sure you will get the gist.

4. those dems being idiots, which ones arent? same can be said for reps i agree but since you and Dawh seem to have taken the democrat side i feel obliged tyo point out that they are just as bad as the reps and often worse depending on the subject.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itics in the US has been twisted over the last 30 years to be extremely right-wing. Bernie Sanders is as close as a politician can be to being a left-wing radical, and he's generally marginalized and ignored by the Democrats, while the right-wing fringe is given center stage in the Republican party. It's the Far-Right party against the Center-Right (with a smidgen of Center-Left) party. But all major solutions offered by either party have a rightward slant.

I disagree i have always found your politics to be more right wing than here in canada but the dems have now gone far left and are on par with our left wing party the NDP (new democratic party) As to the reps becoming more right wing i dont agree tooo much there, the right wing pundits have gone more to the right but the actual politicians have moved more to the centre. please look at where both parties were in the past, they have all moved more to the left, reps still strongly right wing but dems have left the center and racing full speed to the left, at least the vocal and prmonent ones.

Obamacare is based off a conservative idea that was floated in the '90s (and more recently from Gov. Romney's Massachusetts' Health care law). Most of the stuff in it was A-OK as far the the Republicans were concerned, until Obama proposed it. The same was true with Cap and Trade legislation. The Left wanted a straight Carbon Tax, so the conservatives offered Cap and Trade as an alternative. When Obama and the Left accepted it, it became an evil, Lefty idea.

It doesnt matter whos idea it was first it is a terribel idea.How politicians can look around the world and instead of taking the good ideas and trying to make them better they try to come up with something even worse is beyond me. Cap and trade? when were the reps behind that? i thought they were all global warming deniers? again irrelevant because both cap and trade and carbon taxes are stupid ideas based on wishful thinking instead of actual effort ot do something about the problem.

Based on their constant moving of the goalposts, I really don't see how you can call the majority of the Republican field anything other than "two-faced," "duplicitous" or "hypocritical" at the very least. Most of the ideas that President Obama and the Democrats have offered to the Republicans were their own ideas, which were perfectly acceptable when the Republicans suggested them, but as soon as they were rebranded by the Democrats, they became persona non grata to the conservatives.

retype same sentence with democrate in place of republican and it is just as true all parties in all countries swap ideas on what they believe, happened here 3-4 times on free trade over our history and we arent nearly as old as you guys are!

The same thing happened with the Super Committee. Every offer from the Democrats was rejected, no matter how acceptable it had been in the past to both parties. Eugene Robinson, who does political analysis for the Washington Post, wrote about the Super Committee's failure, and he pointed out how the Republican's positions on the committee were unrealistic and how they refused to compromise in any meaningful way.

That's why it failed, not because the Democrats refused to budge. They budged an awful lot, but the Republicans refused to move an inch. When they moved a millimeter, they wanted to be congratulated. That can hardly be considered a reasonable way to govern. If you really want to govern, you work to change the policies to your goals by degrees, not sitting by there holding your breath until you get exactly what you want. The Republicans want the Obama administration to fail. If Obama were to succeed, people might question certain Republican dogma and that would hurt their electoral prospects. So their best chance to win back the presidency (as they see it) is to scuttle the economic recovery and blame the Obama Administration and the Democrats. They aren't interested in actually governing. Like I said, they'd rather see the "Invisible Hand of the Market" do everything. And they see the best chance for that to happen is to stop Obama from doing anything. Which is not at all how the government is supposed to work.

hmm I only ever heard of any actual plans coming from the reps no plan at all from the dems and of course the dems rejected the reps plans EVEN those with tax increases because they wanted only to continue their class warfare crap and raise the top marginal rate. dang it rates are high enough attack the exemptions! (personally i think the politicians keep the exemtions because they and their friends are the major beneficiaries)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so Dawh first:

1. I do realize they are conservative sources. I ignored the writing and looked at the numbers. And by saying 'who cares if they are supported by [insert]', lemme flip it: who cares if the Republicans are supported by the Koch brothers? Or corporations? I agree that school choice isnt the best idea, but why do the Dems need money from a big union like that to know that? Oh, and I'd also want to point out: http://online.wsj.co...s%3Dinteractive

I'm sure you knew that already, but it isn't a major difference between contributions to Reps vs Dems for corporations, when I cannot think of a union that'd want to give to Reps. Again, I'm not a 'unions should die' person, but the numbers don't lie.

And i went back and realized that they probably took it out of context, but Pelosi has to learn to term it better then, cause i watched that and got the same vibe.

Now, Quag:

1. I think he does actually, and I'm mad at Obama for reinserting Bernanke, but Bush chose him during the initial crisis.

2. I want to see some evidence for that Great Depression statement that shows it was slowed due to the New Deal and all that, b/c I'm pretty sure that it helped, although I do realize economists are split on it. But again, I linked a report from some economist guy some pages back that showed his evidence for it. But whatever, something seems to be working, at least that's what i assume from http://online.wsj.co...2136930544.html and http://www.ibtimes.c...rcent-obama.htm

Apparently your gov job cutting is working, but again, it isnt cut and burn, and it was a major improvement (though im left wondering where 140k jobs suddenly appeared from in the private sector). Oh, and i thought id point out (and i could be wrong in the interpretation of what you wrote), but the stimulus wasnt meant to hire people to the gov (in fact, Obama's been downsizing that for a while), but to make private sector ones and keep the economy from plummeting into a new great depression.

3. They aren't as bad as the reps (and no, I'm not a democrat, I hate political parties actually, and would rather see all independents in the gov),and they are much more moderate. The republicans are currently allowing the tea party and Grover Norquist to control their actions. This could have been solved a while ago if it wasnt for those two groups (in the mid 90's, if im right, Clinton got some stuff done with a republican congress). And actually, the way the supercommitee was set up, now their inability to do something is causing cuts in proper places, like military.

4. No no nononononono. We have NOT been moving to the left, we've been moving right. A lot of people i talk to think you guys are those idiot socialists up north (although I'm surprised how many think otherwise, but anyway). No one wants ANYTHING to do with left wing concepts, and liberal is an evil word. We are far from left., We are right. The dems are center, the repubs center to far right. I dunno how you thought otherwise, but i promise you that isnt the case. (Consider what Dawh said: A similar thing to obamacare was a conservative idea. Now its 'socialist', and no rep (although to be fair rep != conservative. EDIT: And dems != liberal.) would go near it. THAT should show you that we arent moving left.) And what vocal democrats? Obama? He's not left, hes center at most.

5. Obviously Obamacare isn't the best idea, but we couldn't do anything more 'left'. Again, the reps refused a system like Canda's, France's, England's... universal stuff. Couldn't consider it at all. So that was the best Obama could get passed. I personally think we should go with something like what the UK has: A base universal coverage with non-gov touched healthcare (vs what the US has now, gov-subsidized healthcare that costs 7200$ a person) that can be bought if wanted. France has a multi-tier system too. I'm actually not a fan of complete gov run health care with no private allowed, but i think we do need a basic thing.

6. Obama had a plan that cut 4.6 trillion from the deficit. You're right though, thats all i could think of.

Edited by gvg
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ARGHHH!!!!!

typed a big long response then lost it all!

crap too bummed to start again will try maybe 2morrow

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate when that happens =)

I'll be looking for it tomorrow.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so Dawh first:

1. I do realize they are conservative sources. I ignored the writing and looked at the numbers. And by saying 'who cares if they are supported by [insert]', lemme flip it: who cares if the Republicans are supported by the Koch brothers? Or corporations? I agree that school choice isnt the best idea, but why do the Dems need money from a big union like that to know that? Oh, and I'd also want to point out: http://online.wsj.co...s%3Dinteractive

I'm sure you knew that already, but it isn't a major difference between contributions to Reps vs Dems for corporations, when I cannot think of a union that'd want to give to Reps. Again, I'm not a 'unions should die' person, but the numbers don't lie.

Sure, the graph shows that Labor is overwhelmingly supporting Democrats. That's not really important. What is important is how much money the parties get from each source, something that the graphs don't show. I don't know where to find that information, but if the Democrats are getting 90% of labor support, which is say $100,000,000, and Republicans are getting 60% of Financial sector support, which is $400,000,000, the financial sector is still having a far larger effect on the outcome of the election, even though the labor groups are far and away supporting the Democrats over the Republicans. So the percent of support is really only a small piece of the puzzle. Percent is a number, but it's a relative number. What's far more important is the absolute number which isn't mentioned anywhere in that graph. I don't know what those numbers are, but in general, corporations have far more capital available to them than do labor groups.

Up until recently, many of the Police and Firefighter's unions supported the conservatives as they usually are associated with being "tough on crime." Of course, the across the board cuts that Republican governors are forcing through without permitting a renegotiation of terms has soured many Law Enforcement unions to the GOP brand.

In discussion of class warfare, I like to go back to the quote from Warren Buffett back in 2006. I ran into that Op-Ed from Ben Stein (of all people) talking about taxes and deficits back in 2006. Ben Stein isn't usually my source for financial advice, but he sounded very reasonable in the article, talking about the insanity of the arguments of his conservative brethren. In the article he mentioned this quote from Warren Buffett, “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Talking about "Class Warfare" in this country is supposed to be verboten, but when you see bigger and bigger slices of the government's pie going back to the people who already have the most, it certainly seems like class warfare is happening already. Only it's the reverse of the kind invoked by anti-communists. It's the shift of wealth from the poor to the rich (more accurately the middle-class to the rich, but the MC is poor compared to the rich). That's the taboo subject that Buffett and Elizabeth Warren are arguing against. The fact that those who are already well-to-do are benefiting more from government subsidies than the real "small businesses" and "the people" they are supposed to support.

GE, one of the largest companies in the world, made record profits last year, and yet they reportedly paid no income tax. In fact, they got a refund from the government because their financial services division lost money in the market crash. In a sane financial world, one would imagine that such an immensely successful company like GE wouldn't be getting a rebate check from the government. So if you are worried about "class warfare," I would say that it's already upon us. It's just a stealth campaign moving things in the other direction than the generally expected definition. :dry:

And I reiterate that the US has been dragged to the Right, politically. When Cap and Trade and Health Insurance mandates (both conservative ideas originally) are the only remotely acceptable political position offered from the "Left," how can the political environment be described as anything but shifted to the Right? :huh: If we had shifted Left, I would expect the Republicans to be suggesting "HillaryCare" as an alternative to Universal coverage/single-payer. :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.