|
Title: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mem on August 21, 2012, 12:27:35 PM Im an aussie so I just watch the show from the outside, but Id say Obama could say nothing for the next ~2+ months and still win - Romney is just so... ugh.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on August 21, 2012, 12:37:55 PM Since the current polling data shows them neck and neck, I'd say you're just making the demonstrably false assumption that everyone sees them the same way you do.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-presidential-race-remains-close-obama-romney-each http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on August 21, 2012, 12:43:12 PM They're both a joke... But I almost hope Obama wins, just so the biggest collapse in history is at the hands of the socialist, rather than the faux-free market Romney and fake libertarian Ryan.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mem on August 21, 2012, 12:51:24 PM Since the current polling data shows them neck and neck, I'd say you're just making the demonstrably false assumption that everyone sees them the same way you do. Im an aussie so I just watch the show from the outside Sorry did I not make that abundantly clear for you ? ;D regarding said polls, as in most elections it is the swing voter demographic that really counts, unfortunately you cannot poll specifically for swing voters so the polls are useless as are all polls. Just asking for individuals opinions ok :) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on August 21, 2012, 12:51:40 PM John Jackson: "It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates."
Jack Johnson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said." John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far." Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough." Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mem on August 21, 2012, 12:53:14 PM John Jackson: "It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates." Jack Johnson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said." John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far." Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough." *sigh* Pretty much :P but come on who are you voting for an independent ! ? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Taz on August 21, 2012, 02:10:43 PM From the outside Obama seems to have been a rather kick ass president.
People are always gonna be pissed of with whoever's in power. We all expect our leaders to look after us specifically, who cares about the rest of the population. Besides being blamed for the wall street crash what else stands against everyone revoting for him? It may be opposition propaganda, but it does seem like Romney will say anything to get elected. And he seems to think he's smarter than the entire country: You want to see my tax returns? You'll have to elect me first. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Fiyasko on August 21, 2012, 03:50:09 PM They are all bad candidates, But if i HAD to pick one, It would be Obama, Atleast he's Trying to do something about USA's population.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mem on August 21, 2012, 03:59:34 PM Atleast he's Trying to do something about USA's population. That sounds rather ominous :P Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: skinturtle on August 21, 2012, 04:11:52 PM I'm in philippines and I know that romney is a nutjob.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SgtSpike on August 21, 2012, 04:15:33 PM They're both a joke... But I almost hope Obama wins, just so the biggest collapse in history is at the hands of the socialist, rather than the faux-free market Romney and fake libertarian Ryan. Hah... now that's a good point. Was going to vote Romney, now voting Obama!Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: BoardGameCoin on August 21, 2012, 04:19:51 PM I'm seriously considering not voting... a very sad thing.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on August 21, 2012, 04:32:46 PM There are other options to vote for. I plan on voting for Johnson. (but if I had to pick between Obama and Romney I would pick Romney)
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on August 21, 2012, 04:46:51 PM I'm seriously considering not voting... a very sad thing. Anyone considering not voting, should simply vote for someone other than establishment candidates. Check your state's rules. Some don't count write-ins. If your state doesn't Gary Johnson is on the ballet in all 50 states. EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIKE HIS PLATFORM, you will help send the message that we are tired of the status quo. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: ShireSilver on August 21, 2012, 06:40:56 PM Yeah, Johnson isn't going to win but I'm going to vote for him anyway. It'll at least send a message that maybe a few people will hear.
Romney isn't going to win either. A vote for him is just pointless. (I do admit a very tiny chance that Obama screws up massively several times causing a Romney win, but the likelihood is so small I'd rather chance money on the lottery.) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: BrightAnarchist on August 21, 2012, 06:43:12 PM They're both a joke... But I almost hope Obama wins, just so the biggest collapse in history is at the hands of the socialist, rather than the faux-free market Romney and fake libertarian Ryan. Exaaaaactly! So few people get this... I really hope Obama wins so he can take the blame. Good ol' sheeple, they always blame the figurehead, no matter what they actually do or don't do. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: theymos on August 21, 2012, 06:54:06 PM There's no significant difference between them. I'm not going to vote.
I think Obama will win. Romney isn't very likeable, and a lot of people still like Obama. Anyone considering not voting, should simply vote for someone other than establishment candidates. This is a waste of time. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: AndrewBUD on August 21, 2012, 07:14:59 PM Anyone considering not voting, should simply vote for someone other than establishment candidates. This is a waste of time. I agree It works differently if you have a Canadian style governing system. Votes equals seats. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: terrytibbs on August 21, 2012, 07:20:30 PM There's no significant difference between them. I'm not going to vote. That's the spirit!Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: evolve on August 21, 2012, 07:38:13 PM I'm either voting third party (probably green) or for obama again (even though it kills me a little inside).
Romney can eat a Dick. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: drakahn on August 21, 2012, 07:45:03 PM I get my information from the daily show and colbert report ... so its solid :p
I would like to see that libertarian guy win the US elections and the greens to win the next Aussie elections .... What a world lol Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Electricbees on August 21, 2012, 08:03:02 PM R. Money has my vote. ;D
And all of our money! Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Explodicle on August 21, 2012, 08:51:44 PM Voting for a libertarian will be a "waste of time" until so many people do it that people like you feel like their vote matters.
If you want that day to come sooner, vote anyways to send a message: "we haven't given up". Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Imagine on August 22, 2012, 06:29:58 AM Obama over Romney any day but odds are I will end up voting a third party as somelse mentioned green party probably.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on August 24, 2012, 12:10:09 PM Im an aussie so I just watch the show from the outside, but Id say Obama could say nothing for the next ~2+ months and still win - Romney is just so... ugh. Obama win: terrible Romney win: awful, but not quite as terrible Doesn't look promising for the country.. unless people wake up and vote for a non politician for once. It's still possible, albeit unlikely, that Paul secures the republican nomination. Then we'll have REAL debates and the country can see some real choices, instead of blue tyranny vs red tyranny. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: muyuu on August 24, 2012, 12:22:39 PM There's no significant difference between them. I'm not going to vote. That's the spirit!Yes it is. You legitimate the two horse race farce by taking part in it. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: barbarousrelic on August 24, 2012, 12:33:06 PM The most important issues to me are not addressed by either mainstream candidate:
1) Balancing the budget (especially through cutting defense spending). (Romney/Ryan does not even pretend to plan to balance the budget for many decades) 2) End the drug war. 3) Stop using the tax system to micromanage everyone's lives, trying to pressure them into taking out student debt, getting married, having kids, buying a house, etc. Replace the current tax system with one that can be explained with no more than 100 pages. 4) Stop invading other countries. 5) Respect civil liberties, the need for warrants for all searches, the prohibition on torture, and due process. 6) Ending legal tender laws I am voting for Johnson. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: RB26DETT on August 24, 2012, 02:20:27 PM you guys should try Mr Gordon Brown,
hes a right laugh Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: pekv2 on August 24, 2012, 02:29:54 PM Neither, they're both monkeys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpLXrpcjJGI Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: hashman on August 24, 2012, 04:19:21 PM Since the current polling data shows them neck and neck, I'd say you're just making the demonstrably false assumption that everyone sees them the same way you do. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-presidential-race-remains-close-obama-romney-each http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html Why should I think any of these three bought and paid for ad selling shops are any better at telling me accurately and truthfully peoples opinion than a bought and paid for vote counting shop? The first one has a nice glossy ad for Romney right away popping up. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: beetlebrow on August 25, 2012, 01:38:53 PM They're both a joke... But I almost hope Obama wins, just so the biggest collapse in history is at the hands of the socialist, rather than the faux-free market Romney and fake libertarian Ryan. I understand your thinking and I agree. It's a comfortable thought that he can get the blame and then be forced to pay pennance by,say, going on tv every day to apologise, thus reminding everyone all the time and driving the message home. The reality, unfortunately is vastly different. Take the UK, for example. After years of a socialist party dominance, the finances have been left in tatters and the country changed by thousands of inane laws that are designed to criminalise everyone. The main players have been blamed and found responsible but no action will ever realistically be taken. They are all now sitting pretty in jobs-for-the-boys. The new bunch took over (not much difference) and a couple of years on, people are crying that they want the old bunch back again because the new ones are giving away less free stuff. Rinse and repeat. My point is that people have incredibly short memories and won't demand or be serious about blame and consequence as long as there is still electricity to run their gadgets and meat comes in nice plastic packaging from a convenient supermarket. There needs to be an immense fark up on a huge scale, enough to seriously disrupt the status quo and turn the emperor's clothes to cinders. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jasinlee on August 25, 2012, 01:45:27 PM Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bb113 on August 26, 2012, 02:02:38 AM From the outside Obama seems to have been a rather kick ass president. People are always gonna be pissed of with whoever's in power. We all expect our leaders to look after us specifically, who cares about the rest of the population. Besides being blamed for the wall street crash what else stands against everyone revoting for him? It may be opposition propaganda, but it does seem like Romney will say anything to get elected. And he seems to think he's smarter than the entire country: You want to see my tax returns? You'll have to elect me first. What has obama done? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on August 26, 2012, 02:12:04 AM From the outside Obama seems to have been a rather kick ass president. People are always gonna be pissed of with whoever's in power. We all expect our leaders to look after us specifically, who cares about the rest of the population. Besides being blamed for the wall street crash what else stands against everyone revoting for him? It may be opposition propaganda, but it does seem like Romney will say anything to get elected. And he seems to think he's smarter than the entire country: You want to see my tax returns? You'll have to elect me first. What has obama done? He didn't do anything. Someone else made that happen. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Coincomm on August 26, 2012, 02:19:30 AM From the outside Obama seems to have been a rather kick ass president. People are always gonna be pissed of with whoever's in power. We all expect our leaders to look after us specifically, who cares about the rest of the population. Besides being blamed for the wall street crash what else stands against everyone revoting for him? It may be opposition propaganda, but it does seem like Romney will say anything to get elected. And he seems to think he's smarter than the entire country: You want to see my tax returns? You'll have to elect me first. What has obama done? He didn't do anything. Someone else made that happen. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Littleshop on August 26, 2012, 03:43:47 AM Voting for a libertarian will be a "waste of time" until so many people do it that people like you feel like their vote matters. If you want that day to come sooner, vote anyways to send a message: "we haven't given up". Many can vote libertarian or other third party but are too stubborn to do so. Take a solidly democratic state like Maryland..... Republicans do not have a chance of winning. They can vote libertarian instead if they are unhappy with their party of the two party system. Democrats in solidly republican states like Utah and Idaho can do the same. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on August 26, 2012, 03:48:22 AM Voting for a libertarian will be a "waste of time" until so many people do it that people like you feel like their vote matters. If you want that day to come sooner, vote anyways to send a message: "we haven't given up". Many can vote libertarian or other third party but are too stubborn to do so. Take a solidly democratic state like Maryland..... Republicans do not have a chance of winning. They can vote libertarian instead if they are unhappy with their party of the two party system. Democrats in solidly republican states like Utah and Idaho can do the same. Something like that happens, the Libertarian party might just take popular vote. :D Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Kluge on August 26, 2012, 04:03:22 AM Worth noting there are thresholds third parties must meet to receive automatic ballot access. This varies by state, but generally requires a .5%-10% showing. Without obtaining this, candidates generally need tens or hundreds of thousands of signatures in each state way before the election, which dries up third-party candidates' coffers faster than they can replenish at such an early stage.
Third-party presidential candidates don't have a chance in '12, but they do have the ability to allow future candidates to actually spend resources on campaigning instead of paying swarms of people to collect enough signatures to get on a ballot. That's good for spreading ideas, and looks to be the best to reasonably hope for within the next couple decades. As is, state laws have more-or-less created a duopoly for Dems and Reps. Though... I think the USG is too far gone at this point, and there are plenty of opportunities to spread liberty faster than reversing government control over our lives through politics, and I think the % of US citizens not voting speaks more powerfully than a relatively good run by a LP pres. candidate in a particular year... though this assumes the candidates will spend a very large chunk of resources just buying signatures. Third parties, I found in 2008, appear to frequently bicker about trivial shit, too -- drama in politics, which itself is pretty much glorified drama - not a very productive environment. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Bitcoin Oz on August 26, 2012, 04:10:29 AM You should try living in Australia where the current prime minister got only 30% of the vote at the last election but is still running the country into the ground. This was after a US coup of getting her the job by taking down the last guy because he was too close to china. I dont know anyone who has ever voted for her. We now have a permanent US military base here with thousands of US troops.
Go figure. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on August 26, 2012, 04:25:12 AM You should try living in Australia where the current prime minister got only 30% of the vote at the last election but is still running the country into the ground. This was after a US coup of getting her the job by taking down the last guy because he was too close to china. I dont know anyone who has ever voted for her. We now have a permanent US military base here with thousands of US troops. Go figure. Sorry, we needed the lebensraum. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: legolouman on August 26, 2012, 04:33:22 AM I'm in for Romney, I'm normally anti big-business, and often lean a little towards the left, however I think the only way to fix the economy is with business. Someone who made a fortune running businesses (even the ones he closed) can fix the economy, and work on the debt. You can run a business with money you don't have, just like you can't run a country with money you don't have. I stand by Romney, even though I can't vote, and the people's vote doesn't matter in an election.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bb113 on August 26, 2012, 04:59:20 AM I'm in for Romney, I'm normally anti big-business, and often lean a little towards the left, however I think the only way to fix the economy is with business. Someone who made a fortune running businesses (even the ones he closed) can fix the economy, and work on the debt. You can run a business with money you don't have, just like you can't run a country with money you don't have. I stand by Romney, even though I can't vote, and the people's vote doesn't matter in an election. What exactly do you expect him to do? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: evolve on August 26, 2012, 06:15:22 AM We now have a permanent US military base here with thousands of US troops Really? Ive heard about the AFB in Alice springs, but that's supposed to be a tiny base in the middle of the outback (and hardly thousands large).....what other bases do we have there? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: ShireSilver on August 26, 2012, 01:01:27 PM I'm in for Romney, I'm normally anti big-business, and often lean a little towards the left, however I think the only way to fix the economy is with business. Someone who made a fortune running businesses (even the ones he closed) can fix the economy, and work on the debt. You can run a business with money you don't have, just like you can't run a country with money you don't have. I stand by Romney, even though I can't vote, and the people's vote doesn't matter in an election. The problem with this is that Romney's business experience is all in government-connected big-businesses. He has very little understanding of how small businesses, the engine of job growth, work. He'll do a great job ensuring profits for large companies with lobbyists, but won't be able to solve the real problems. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on August 26, 2012, 01:15:57 PM I'm in for Romney, I'm normally anti big-business, and often lean a little towards the left, however I think the only way to fix the economy is with business. Someone who made a fortune running businesses (even the ones he closed) can fix the economy, and work on the debt. You can run a business with money you don't have, just like you can't run a country with money you don't have. I stand by Romney, even though I can't vote, and the people's vote doesn't matter in an election. Like most others in government, he's a politician. He's there for his own pocketbook and ego, and he'll be more than happy to do the bidding of his corporate sponsors. Only once we take the money/career aspect out of government will the power hungry greedy psychos leave. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: AndrewBUD on August 26, 2012, 01:18:45 PM Government should be set up like in Canada..... Nothing ever get's accomplished because no one ever agrees on anything... :P
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: fornit on August 26, 2012, 02:06:03 PM The most important issues to me are not addressed by either mainstream candidate: 1) Balancing the budget (especially through cutting defense spending). (Romney/Ryan does not even pretend to plan to balance the budget for many decades) 2) End the drug war. 3) Stop using the tax system to micromanage everyone's lives, trying to pressure them into taking out student debt, getting married, having kids, buying a house, etc. Replace the current tax system with one that can be explained with no more than 100 pages. 4) Stop invading other countries. 5) Respect civil liberties, the need for warrants for all searches, the prohibition on torture, and due process. 6) Ending legal tender laws i think you are right on all points. but you are missing some every important issues, mostly that the us economy is extremely energy-inefficient and highly dependent on oil. as long as no us government is willing to admit to its people that the country is on its way into economic collapse and has to implement some rather drastic measures, you are fucked no matter how you handle all the other issues. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: legolouman on August 26, 2012, 04:55:51 PM I'm in for Romney, I'm normally anti big-business, and often lean a little towards the left, however I think the only way to fix the economy is with business. Someone who made a fortune running businesses (even the ones he closed) can fix the economy, and work on the debt. You can run a business with money you don't have, just like you can't run a country with money you don't have. I stand by Romney, even though I can't vote, and the people's vote doesn't matter in an election. What exactly do you expect him to do? I'm hoping here's there with a patriotic agenda. I know he will make a lot of moves that protect big business, but at the same time, having tax cuts for the rich and businesses will bring more businesses back to America. In turn creating jobs and boosting economy. I hope that his history with Bane Capital will help him balance the budget like a business (being in the green). My only worry is if he is there to cause damage to our rights, by protecting businesses too much. That couples with the thought he could be there only for his own gains.[quote Like most others in government, he's a politician. He's there for his own pocketbook and ego, and he'll be more than happy to do the bidding of his corporate sponsors. Only once we take the money/career aspect out of government with the power hungry greedy psychos leave. M That is one of my big concerns, see the rest of my post. Bidding in the name of business could help the economy. Obama taxed business higher, with the theory that we get more money from them. By lowering the taxes of business, I think many will come back to America from countries they outsourced to/countries with little tax rate. Instead of taking a business for a ride with taxes, it would be better to get a smaller amount from MANY more businesses. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bb113 on August 26, 2012, 05:26:37 PM So you hope for Romney to cut taxes on businesses and the rich in an effort to balance the budget via increased economic activity and therefore increased tax revenue?
1) He is not directly in control of this. Levying taxes is up to congress. 2) If they tax less they will just borrow more. 3) What taxes will be cut by how much, and which businesses do you expect this to bring back to america? How long will it take to get these tax cuts through, and how long until the businesses return? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on August 26, 2012, 05:29:48 PM I'm in for Romney, I'm normally anti big-business, and often lean a little towards the left, however I think the only way to fix the economy is with business. Someone who made a fortune running businesses (even the ones he closed) can fix the economy, and work on the debt. You can run a business with money you don't have, just like you can't run a country with money you don't have. I stand by Romney, even though I can't vote, and the people's vote doesn't matter in an election. The problem with this is that Romney's business experience is all in government-connected big-businesses. He has very little understanding of how small businesses, the engine of job growth, work. He'll do a great job ensuring profits for large companies with lobbyists, but won't be able to solve the real problems. Here is another way Johnson is better than Romney. Johnson has plenty of business experience at the other end of the scale, he built up his own company from the ground floor. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: barbarousrelic on August 26, 2012, 05:55:26 PM 2) If they tax less they will just borrow more. I come from the future. This man speaks the truth. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on August 26, 2012, 06:05:32 PM 2) If they tax less they will just I come from the future. This man speaks the truth. fixed. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Coincomm on August 26, 2012, 06:13:23 PM The Fed prints the money then lends it to the government at interest. It's both.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on August 26, 2012, 06:15:07 PM The Fed prints the money then lends it to the government at interest. It's both. True 'nuff.Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: fornit on August 26, 2012, 06:28:03 PM none of which matters.
in the end, money is just an organisational tool. the important thing is what you tax and how you spent the money on. the usa spends way too much money on military and neglects social investments and infrastructure. and when the shit really hits the fan, you will be living in a country with unreliable electricity and internet, no public transport infrastructure, cities planned for high mobility with no fuel, houses with bad isolation, too many uneducated people, powerplants for very expensive fossil fuels and a reliability on imported goods which cant be transported cheaply anymore. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: barbarousrelic on August 26, 2012, 07:12:22 PM The Fed prints the money then lends it to the government at interest. It's both. To be extremely accurate, the government borrows money by issuing bonds which are purchased by both the market and the Fed. In 2011 the Fed purchased 61% (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450004577279754275393064.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) of federal debt. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: nedbert9 on August 26, 2012, 07:16:20 PM bingo Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on August 26, 2012, 08:19:56 PM none of which matters. in the end, money is just an organisational tool. the important thing is what you tax and how you spent the money on. the usa spends way too much money on military and neglects social investments and infrastructure. and when the shit really hits the fan, you will be living in a country with unreliable electricity and internet, no public transport infrastructure, cities planned for high mobility with no fuel, houses with bad isolation, too many uneducated people, powerplants for very expensive fossil fuels and a reliability on imported goods which cant be transported cheaply anymore. Hence the inherent danger of fiat money. Government can not be trusted to leave the printing presses alone. It's far too tempting to buy votes by promising things that can't be paid for aside from borrowing from the future. The piper will be here soon to collect his due. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: fornit on August 27, 2012, 02:52:24 AM Hence the inherent danger of fiat money. Government can not be trusted to leave the printing presses alone. It's far too tempting to buy votes by promising things that can't be paid for aside from borrowing from the future. The piper will be here soon to collect his due. M i think thats a very widespread misconception. how exactly do you borrow from the future by spending money? you borrow from people, not the future. they could just give it back, future saved. the problem with countries being indebted is that its a debt evenly spread among the population. you share it with everyone else. so when countries become indebted more and more it just means that the poor are actually even poorer than they appear. its just another thing increasing the gap between rich and poor. and thats the actual problem. i dont envy the rich, but a world with finite ressources just doesnt allow for infinite wealth. for every rich guy wasting ressources on multiples houses, boats or a trip into space, something else doesnt get build. like essential infrastructure. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bb113 on August 27, 2012, 03:39:00 AM Hence the inherent danger of fiat money. Government can not be trusted to leave the printing presses alone. It's far too tempting to buy votes by promising things that can't be paid for aside from borrowing from the future. The piper will be here soon to collect his due. M i think thats a very widespread misconception. how exactly do you borrow from the future by spending money? you borrow from people, not the future. they could just give it back, future saved. the problem with countries being indebted is that its a debt evenly spread among the population. you share it with everyone else. so when countries become indebted more and more it just means that the poor are actually even poorer than they appear. its just another thing increasing the gap between rich and poor. and thats the actual problem. i dont envy the rich, but a world with finite ressources just doesnt allow for infinite wealth. for every rich guy wasting ressources on multiples houses, boats or a trip into space, something else doesnt get build. like essential infrastructure. You borrow from the future by creating the illusion of extra wealth. People act on this illusion to consume additional resources, etc. The future people then need to work harder to extract and use those resources than they would have needed to otherwise. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Domrada on August 27, 2012, 04:01:14 AM none of which matters. in the end, money is just an organisational tool. the important thing is what you tax and how you spent the money on. the usa spends way too much money on military and neglects social investments and infrastructure. and when the shit really hits the fan, you will be living in a country with unreliable electricity and internet, no public transport infrastructure, cities planned for high mobility with no fuel, houses with bad isolation, too many uneducated people, powerplants for very expensive fossil fuels and a reliability on imported goods which cant be transported cheaply anymore. Hence the inherent danger of fiat money. Government can not be trusted to leave the printing presses alone. It's far too tempting to buy votes by promising things that can't be paid for aside from borrowing from the future. The piper will be here soon to collect his due. M The US Treasury is the new pirateat40. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on August 27, 2012, 09:27:26 AM You borrow from the future by creating the illusion of extra wealth. People act on this illusion to consume additional resources, etc. The future people then need to work harder to extract and use those resources than they would have needed to otherwise. Well, and also by creating national debt that children are born into. Usually this is justified by arguing that the children will get the benefit of what the debt purchased, so it's only fair that they pay part of it.Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on August 27, 2012, 10:47:00 AM Hence the inherent danger of fiat money. Government can not be trusted to leave the printing presses alone. It's far too tempting to buy votes by promising things that can't be paid for aside from borrowing from the future. The piper will be here soon to collect his due. M i think thats a very widespread misconception. how exactly do you borrow from the future by spending money? It's not just spending money, it's spending money that was just made up out of thin air. Since the federal reserve (which is neither federal, nor a reserve) was instated, the US dollar has lost 95%+ of its value. That's called inflation. It comes about by making money out of thin air. Politicians love it because they can spend it to buy votes and future generations pay for it. It also causes horrendous debts that can never be paid off. No, it wasn't the citizens that did it, it was an out of control federal government that did it. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on August 27, 2012, 10:59:33 AM It's not just spending money, it's spending money that was just made up out of thin air. Since the federal reserve (which is neither federal, nor a reserve) was instated, the US dollar has lost 95%+ of its value. That's called inflation. It comes about by making money out of thin air. Politicians love it because they can spend it to buy votes and future generations pay for it. The Federal reserve was created to stabilize the value of the US dollar. Prior to the creation of the Federal reserve, the dollar was bouncing up and down by 30% or so in 40 year cycles. Since the creation of the Federal reserve, the dollar has lost value consistently, halving in value every 30 years or so.Of course, this doesn't prove anything's wrong with the Federal reserve. In fact, if anything, it shows that we need a few more Federal reserves to stabilize the dollar as one hasn't stabilized it nearly enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dollar_value_chart.gif Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Domrada on August 27, 2012, 01:57:39 PM Of course, this doesn't prove anything's wrong with the Federal reserve. In fact, if anything, it shows that we need a few more Federal reserves to stabilize the dollar as one hasn't stabilized it nearly enough. Rarely do I actually laugh out loud at a post. Thank you. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: fornit on August 27, 2012, 02:57:42 PM You borrow from the future by creating the illusion of extra wealth. People act on this illusion to consume additional resources, etc. The future people then need to work harder to extract and use those resources than they would have needed to otherwise. i think you mix things up here. you can spend all the ressources in the world without the government getting indebted (like saudi-arabia for example) or you can have a government going broke despite a perfectly sound, indefinitely sustainable use of ressources. money is a purely organisational problem and can be solved at any time. by laws, by violence etc. using up finite ressources however and not creating alternatives in time is what will really fuck future generations. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: hashman on August 27, 2012, 03:07:05 PM It's not just spending money, it's spending money that was just made up out of thin air. Since the federal reserve (which is neither federal, nor a reserve) was instated, the US dollar has lost 95%+ of its value. That's called inflation. It comes about by making money out of thin air. Politicians love it because they can spend it to buy votes and future generations pay for it. The Federal reserve was created to stabilize the value of the US dollar. Prior to the creation of the Federal reserve, the dollar was bouncing up and down by 30% or so in 40 year cycles. Since the creation of the Federal reserve, the dollar has lost value consistently, halving in value every 30 years or so.Of course, this doesn't prove anything's wrong with the Federal reserve. In fact, if anything, it shows that we need a few more Federal reserves to stabilize the dollar as one hasn't stabilized it nearly enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dollar_value_chart.gif lol nice :) I thought it was closer to halving every 10 years, corresponding to ~7% annual inflation? Gold went from 20 to 2000 in 100 years, so that's well more than the double every 30 years but a bit less than double every 10 years. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bb113 on August 27, 2012, 04:40:35 PM You borrow from the future by creating the illusion of extra wealth. People act on this illusion to consume additional resources, etc. The future people then need to work harder to extract and use those resources than they would have needed to otherwise. i think you mix things up here. you can spend all the ressources in the world without the government getting indebted (like saudi-arabia for example) or you can have a government going broke despite a perfectly sound, indefinitely sustainable use of ressources. money is a purely organisational problem and can be solved at any time. by laws, by violence etc. using up finite ressources however and not creating alternatives in time is what will really fuck future generations. I tried to phrased that specifically to premempt this response. Government debt (in addition to the organizational issues) encourages excess use of resources. So even if you hand wave away the organizational issues that can be solved at any time ::), we are still left with future generations with fewer resources and more waste sitting around because the illusion of extra wealth encouraged wasteful consumption. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on August 27, 2012, 10:44:00 PM You borrow from the future by creating the illusion of extra wealth. People act on this illusion to consume additional resources, etc. The future people then need to work harder to extract and use those resources than they would have needed to otherwise. i think you mix things up here. you can spend all the ressources in the world without the government getting indebted (like saudi-arabia for example) or you can have a government going broke despite a perfectly sound, indefinitely sustainable use of ressources. money is a purely organisational problem and can be solved at any time. by laws, by violence etc. using up finite ressources however and not creating alternatives in time is what will really fuck future generations. I tried to phrased that specifically to premempt this response. Government debt (in addition to the organizational issues) encourages excess use of resources. So even if you hand wave away the organizational issues that can be solved at any time ::), we are still left with future generations with fewer resources and more waste sitting around because the illusion of extra wealth encouraged wasteful consumption. Another thing not mentioned here is government spending is inherently inefficient and anti market based, as politicians spend it to pay favors and buy votes. Hence the renowned $1,000 hammers and toilet seats. So not only is the government stealing wealth from those who earned it (don't forget, governments don't make money ANYWHERE ANYHOW, they only forcibly take it from others), they are spending it incredibly inefficiently. I remember last year with a the american reinvestment act, a perfectly good parking lot was repaved at a park'n'ride, and the highway had the middle piece of the lanes (2 lane on each side, middle of the two) torn out and replaced, only to have the whole thing repaved later on. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: fornit on August 27, 2012, 11:31:54 PM I tried to phrased that specifically to premempt this response. Government debt (in addition to the organizational issues) encourages excess use of resources. So even if you hand wave away the organizational issues that can be solved at any time ::), we are still left with future generations with fewer resources and more waste sitting around because the illusion of extra wealth encouraged wasteful consumption. Another thing not mentioned here is government spending is inherently inefficient and anti market based, as politicians spend it to pay favors and buy votes. Hence the renowned $1,000 hammers and toilet seats. So not only is the government stealing wealth from those who earned it (don't forget, governments don't make money ANYWHERE ANYHOW, they only forcibly take it from others), they are spending it incredibly inefficiently. I remember last year with a the american reinvestment act, a perfectly good parking lot was repaved at a park'n'ride, and the highway had the middle piece of the lanes (2 lane on each side, middle of the two) torn out and replaced, only to have the whole thing repaved later on. M you can have the exact same thing with private spending. if the government doesnt borrow money, the lender still has it. he might do something exactly equally meaningful or equally stupid and wasteful with it as the government. its true that governments projects have the tendency to be inefficient. on the other hand, private projects are often more efficient but do not care about the greater good at all. the patent and copyright laws are pretty much only there to protect profit against the greater good, which would be free access to art, scientific results or medicine for example. building infrastructure is often only profitable if you reduce redundacies and safeguards. or look at private prisons trying to maximize the number of inmates for profit. how perverse is that? in my opinion, critical infrastructure should never be in private hands. the same goes for any official duties. that is something companies will never do right. the very thought is as absurd as it gets, trying to extract profit from a function thats essentially necessary for a society. its like playing russian roulette for money. lifelong profit guaranteed, literally... and if a government cannot perform those duties, its failing. it either needs to raise taxes or efficiency. reducing the government to a talk club is not the solution. improving its mechanisms to make decisions as democratic, well-informed and rational and efficient as possible is. i know the existing social democracies are very far from being ideal. but you dont throw a good idea away because its not working well yet. you improve it. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on August 27, 2012, 11:41:04 PM in my opinion, critical infrastructure should never be in private hands. In my opinion, critical infrastructure should never be in monopoly hands.you dont throw a good idea away because its not working well yet. you improve it. True, true. When you find a good idea, let me know. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on August 27, 2012, 11:59:37 PM Another thing not mentioned here is government spending is inherently inefficient and anti market based, as politicians spend it to pay favors and buy votes. Hence the renowned $1,000 hammers and toilet seats. So not only is the government stealing wealth from those who earned it (don't forget, governments don't make money ANYWHERE ANYHOW, they only forcibly take it from others), they are spending it incredibly inefficiently. I remember last year with a the american reinvestment act, a perfectly good parking lot was repaved at a park'n'ride, and the highway had the middle piece of the lanes (2 lane on each side, middle of the two) torn out and replaced, only to have the whole thing repaved later on. M you can have the exact same thing with private spending. if the government doesnt borrow money, the lender still has it. he might do something exactly equally meaningful or equally stupid and wasteful with it as the government. Not quite. There is no detriment to government to being wasteful. In fact, their solution is usually to throw more money at it! It's really easy to spend someone else's money. Where as in the private industry, if you are wasteful, you go out of business. Which, BTW, is part of the reason why the Fed was created. (Don't listen to the official version, follow the money.) The first part was so that the large banks that own the fed can get endless profits by charging interest to greedy politicians who want an endless supply of money. The second part is to protect careless and wasteful banks. Quote its true that governments projects have the tendency to be inefficient. on the other hand, private projects are often more efficient but do not care about the greater good at all. the patent and copyright laws are pretty much only there to protect profit against the greater good, which would be free access to art, scientific results or medicine for example. building infrastructure is often only profitable if you reduce redundacies and safeguards. or look at private prisons trying to maximize the number of inmates for profit. how perverse is that? What utopian society do you live it? The vast majority of government is not for the greater good of all. Until government is run by selfless individuals who are indeed there for the good of the people, nothing will change. If you look around you, society is full of selfish busy body control freaks. Today's government, including the alphabet acronym agencies, are full of such individuals, which is why we have the problems we have today. Greed and corruption exist everywhere, it just makes itself more evident in large corporations like governments. The underlying cause of it all is a lack of morals. Morals come from godliness. Godliness tends to come from religion, but isn't required. We have a lack of morals today, and it shows. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: 420 on August 28, 2012, 12:03:16 AM GOV should collapse under Obama or else people will have more ammo to blame the 'free market' (if it collapse under Romney and 'Free Market' republicans)
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: fornit on August 28, 2012, 01:14:23 AM Not quite. There is no detriment to government to being wasteful. In fact, their solution is usually to throw more money at it! It's really easy to spend someone else's money. Where as in the private industry, if you are wasteful, you go out of business. you might have noticed, companies go out of business all the time. you have to put those in the equation too. you cant just look at all the successful companies and compare them to that superwasteful government. Quote What utopian society do you live it? The vast majority of government is not for the greater good of all. i agree. but companies arent even intended to be. so how can you improve something you dont even see as a goal? Quote Until government is run by selfless individuals who are indeed there for the good of the people, nothing will change. If you look around you, society is full of selfish busy body control freaks. Today's government, including the alphabet acronym agencies, are full of such individuals, which is why we have the problems we have today. Greed and corruption exist everywhere, it just makes itself more evident in large corporations like governments. thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive. Quote The underlying cause of it all is a lack of morals. Morals come from godliness. Godliness tends to come from religion, but isn't required. We have a lack of morals today, and it shows. as an agnostic i might feel insulted. fortunately i consider truly religions people to be either too uneducated or too estranged form reality to properly judge their actions and statements, so i dont hold them accountable. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: 420 on August 28, 2012, 01:16:35 AM thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive. so whats that solution? four branches of government, more speration of powers? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on August 28, 2012, 01:20:22 AM thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive. What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: dree12 on August 28, 2012, 01:24:44 AM thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive. What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on August 28, 2012, 01:29:51 AM Not quite. There is no detriment to government to being wasteful. In fact, their solution is usually to throw more money at it! It's really easy to spend someone else's money. Where as in the private industry, if you are wasteful, you go out of business. you might have noticed, companies go out of business all the time. you have to put those in the equation too. you cant just look at all the successful companies and compare them to that superwasteful government. Quote So... you're comparing governments that almost always have epic fail policies with companies that rarely do? Great argument. Quote Quote What utopian society do you live it? The vast majority of government is not for the greater good of all. i agree. but companies arent even intended to be. so how can you improve something you dont even see as a goal?Google's motto was "don't be evil" until they went public. Then they did just that. Companies can be good. It's corporations that tend to be like governments. Again, you're comparing something with has the possibility, perhaps even a tendency to be good (a company) with something that is almost always bad (a government). Quote Quote Until government is run by selfless individuals who are indeed there for the good of the people, nothing will change. If you look around you, society is full of selfish busy body control freaks. Today's government, including the alphabet acronym agencies, are full of such individuals, which is why we have the problems we have today. Greed and corruption exist everywhere, it just makes itself more evident in large corporations like governments. thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive. Governments that distribute ANYTHING are inherently bad. The ideal government is one that protects the rights of the people, nothing more. Anything else leads to self serving career politicians. Quote Quote The underlying cause of it all is a lack of morals. Morals come from godliness. Godliness tends to come from religion, but isn't required. We have a lack of morals today, and it shows. as an agnostic i might feel insulted. fortunately i consider truly religions people to be either too uneducated or too estranged form reality to properly judge their actions and statements, so i dont hold them accountable.I was referring to organized religion. Most as corrupt and inept as most governments and corporations are. I'm talking about godliness, not religious zeal. The various wars fought over religion have nothing to do with religion, it's the intolerance of other people's beliefs that causes it. There is no right answer outside of inherently good individuals. Corporations aren't inherently evil, it's the people that run them, and the greedy "give me something for nothing" shareholders. Governments aren't inherently evil, it's the career politicians that lie through their teeth and sell themselves to the highest bidders. Unions were created to protect employees from "evil" employers. Now we have self serving unions that cause more problems than the solution they are supposed to provide. It's not the union itself, however, it's the greedy self serving individuals in it. Guns aren't bad, it's the individual that pulls the trigger. Organized religion isn't inherently bad, it's the individuals who seek to put themselves between people and god. Only animalistic "carnal" man is evil. Only once man (generalistic term, not sexist) realizes his true nature will things change. Let's hope that happens sooner rather than later, else this world is doomed. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on August 28, 2012, 01:32:11 AM thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive. What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy? I think you may need to review your textbook. Anarchy means no rulers. That's all. No kings, no Presidents, no Prime Ministers or Parliament. Just people. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: dree12 on August 28, 2012, 02:32:39 AM thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive. What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy? I think you may need to review your textbook. Anarchy means no rulers. That's all. No kings, no Presidents, no Prime Ministers or Parliament. Just people. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Snapman on August 28, 2012, 02:36:40 AM Both puppets...
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on August 28, 2012, 02:49:45 AM thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive. What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy? I think you may need to review your textbook. Anarchy means no rulers. That's all. No kings, no Presidents, no Prime Ministers or Parliament. Just people. That's an interesting view of AnCap, and it goes to the very definition of the word "State." On Dictionary.com, the pertinent definition is "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation. " Which, of course, AnCap decidedly does not meet. Even if you allow that the customers of each individual defense agency are "politically unified", they don't occupy a definite territory. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on August 28, 2012, 07:00:09 AM Anarchy has many different meanings. I define it as a society without states, which neither AnCap (voluntary association with a state) nor Bitcoin (miners) meet. AnCap is not "voluntary association with a state" because no single entity or hierarchical chain of entities has a socially-accepted, regional monopoly on drawing and enforcing the rules regulating the acceptable uses of force. If your association with the entity is voluntary, it has no regional monopoly on the acceptable use of force, so it's not a state.The key difference between AnCap and other systems is that entities don't have socially-accepted regional monopolies on the accepted use of force. One of the ways people commonly try to refute AnCap systems is to show that they would inevitably soon result in such monopolies and thus AnCap is unstable. If such an argument were accepted, that would refute AnCap as a political system. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: fornit on August 28, 2012, 03:17:50 PM So... you're comparing governments that almost always have epic fail policies with companies that rarely do? Great argument. sorry, but i live in a country with pretty good roads & public transport, rockstable electricity, water quality above that of most bottled water brands, close to 100% dsl avaibility, health insurrance, low crime rate and mostly free education. there is still lots of problems and fuckups i can blame the government for. but all in all i cant call our government an epic fail and i am sure companies wouldnt have done better. in fact, i can see it in the usa that they dont. Quote Google's motto was "don't be evil" until they went public. Then they did just that. Companies can be good. It's corporations that tend to be like governments. Again, you're comparing something with has the possibility, perhaps even a tendency to be good (a company) with something that is almost always bad (a government). you just claim its like that. i disagree. Quote Governments that distribute ANYTHING are inherently bad. The ideal government is one that protects the rights of the people, nothing more. Anything else leads to self serving career politicians. i dont think i understand what you talk about. so the country is law, judge, police and thats it? zero infrastructure? if thats what you mean, id rather pass on it. i dont really want to live in the wilderness. Quote I was referring to organized religion. Most as corrupt and inept as most governments and corporations are. I'm talking about godliness, not religious zeal. The various wars fought over religion have nothing to do with religion, it's the intolerance of other people's beliefs that causes it. while i have no problem with people being spiritual, every religion that claims some absolute truths is intolerant by design. Quote There is no right answer outside of inherently good individuals. Corporations aren't inherently evil, it's the people that run them, and the greedy "give me something for nothing" shareholders. Governments aren't inherently evil, it's the career politicians that lie through their teeth and sell themselves to the highest bidders. Unions were created to protect employees from "evil" employers. Now we have self serving unions that cause more problems than the solution they are supposed to provide. It's not the union itself, however, it's the greedy self serving individuals in it. Guns aren't bad, it's the individual that pulls the trigger. Organized religion isn't inherently bad, it's the individuals who seek to put themselves between people and god. Only animalistic "carnal" man is evil. Only once man (generalistic term, not sexist) realizes his true nature will things change. i dont do "good" and "evil". everybody acts and judges from his own perspective and thinks he is the good guy. ethics are made by man and contain no inherit truth. which one we choose is not a decision between good and evil but a choice about the society we would like to live in. take abortion for example. most people argue about when life "officially begins" and stuff like that. to me that doesnt matter at all. i prefer pro-choice, because women are living, conscient and acting people and their rights have an immediate effect on the society i live in, while the existence or nonexistence of rights for a fetus has no consequence at all. there is no right and wrong in that decision. just actions and consequences that i deem desirable or undesirable. and yes i know that a worldview like that is pure evil to any (likely religious) person with eternally codified moral rules. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: RodeoX on August 28, 2012, 03:39:47 PM I'm either voting third party (probably green) or for obama again (even though it kills me a little inside). I'm also looking at the greens. The dems are way to conservative for my likes. Romney can eat a Dick. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on August 29, 2012, 12:48:23 AM Quote Governments that distribute ANYTHING are inherently bad. The ideal government is one that protects the rights of the people, nothing more. Anything else leads to self serving career politicians. i dont think i understand what you talk about. so the country is law, judge, police and thats it? zero infrastructure?if thats what you mean, id rather pass on it. i dont really want to live in the wilderness. Why did the US government make the highway system? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't for the citizens. Quote while i have no problem with people being spiritual, every religion that claims some absolute truths is intolerant by design. There are absolute truths. Quote i dont do "good" and "evil". everybody acts and judges from his own perspective and thinks he is the good guy. ethics are made by man and contain no inherit truth. which one we choose is not a decision between good and evil but a choice about the society we would like to live in. take abortion for example. most people argue about when life "officially begins" and stuff like that. to me that doesnt matter at all. i prefer pro-choice, because women are living, conscient and acting people and their rights have an immediate effect on the society i live in, while the existence or nonexistence of rights for a fetus has no consequence at all. there is no right and wrong in that decision. just actions and consequences that i deem desirable or undesirable. and yes i know that a worldview like that is pure evil to any (likely religious) person with eternally codified moral rules. There is right, and there is wrong. In betweens lead to the gray society we are in today. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on August 29, 2012, 01:41:11 AM Perhaps this will help you find Good and Evil without asking God:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#upb Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Bjork on August 29, 2012, 01:57:29 AM I don't like either of them but Obama is lightyears better. That said, Jill Stein or Ron Paul would be much better than either.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: BoardGameCoin on August 29, 2012, 03:40:54 AM I looked into Gary Johnson, and a lot of his stances are interesting to me, but being proud of privatizing prisons and the 0% capital gains part of the fair tax policy are a no-go for me. I'm tempted to vote for him in protest, but I'll probably just write in 'unowned candidate'.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kwoody on October 14, 2012, 01:49:06 AM In 2008, Obama ran on a campaign largely centered around the idea of "hope and change" and that these things were possible with current political structuring. Today most of us realize this is an utter and blatant contrived farse; the smile of a politician, wrapped in succulent lie tainted bacon. And I like my bacon, don't go tainting it!
Ahem, I digress. More recently in September 2012 during the Democratic National Convention, Obama states to the public that "The change is you!"... and as mind-blowing as this is, it's only a half truth. For hope to be viable and plausible, you must first believe in it, and fewer people are, as the days of bitter monetary oppression continue to pass. I was taught long ago that change, no matters its form, comes from within. The vast majority of people are not "from within", quite the contrary, for the most part we are unenlightened sheep who remain docile just as our oppressors would wish us to be. We have no ability to change the system from within because there is no political will to do so. People are much happier just living their lives and not rocking the proverbial boat. If change is to occur, it must happen on the level of social-elitists who think themselves better than their fellow man just because of some relatively worthless fancy green ink printed on equally fancy paper. Problem is, the rich have 1 priority above all else, and that is to remain rich. Not easy to "rock the boat" with that crowd, but if we are to free ourselves from financial tyranny, I feel this is an absolutely necessary step along the way. Convince the rich that they will no longer be rich if they put so much faith in a dying currency. Not all voices are equal in this country, far from it. The more money you have, the more power you have, the more power you have, the more influence you have, etc etc etc... Do not believe a word that any politician would choose to have seeded in your ear, for behind that word is some unknown clandestine agenda which will likely come back and haunt you from your early grave for having listened. Voting one way or the other is another way of saying "I'm okay with being told half-truths and empty promises by corrupt entities over whom I have zero control." Politics are a rigged game, the house wins either way, be they Republicrat or Democans. There is but one way and one way only to beat a rigged game; don't play it. Don't vote. Watch as the powers that be realize how utterly fucked they are when only 1% of the population goes out to vote. Don't fuck with my bacon. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: girlsgonebitcoin on October 14, 2012, 03:51:44 AM Romney is going to win as he should. Obama is a joke and a commie and Grandpa Paul is an idiot.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 14, 2012, 03:53:02 AM Romney is going to win as he should. Obama is a joke and a commie and Ron Paul is an idiot. lol Romney is a war monger and another big government guy. Things won't change much with him. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: girlsgonebitcoin on October 14, 2012, 03:54:33 AM Romney is going to win as he should. Obama is a joke and a commie and Ron Paul is an idiot. lol Romney is a war monger and another big government guy. Things won't change much with him. M War monger? LOL that is cute .... It can't get any worst then Obama so I suspect Romney just has to show up to do better. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on October 14, 2012, 04:01:03 AM Romney is going to win as he should. Obama is a joke and a commie and Ron Paul is an idiot. lol Romney is a war monger and another big government guy. Things won't change much with him. M War monger LOL that is cute .... It can't get any worst then Obama so I suspect Romney just has to show up to do better. Romney has repeatedly stated that the US needs to spend more money on the military, never mind that the US spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined. Obama is not much better on this topic, but at least he admits that when the country is ending wars the military budget should go down, not up. Personally, I prefer Johnson on this issue (and on many other issues): Cut military spending by ending foreign entanglements. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: tiberiandusk on October 14, 2012, 04:08:41 AM Anyone who votes for the compulsive liar that is Mitt Romney and isn't extremely wealthy is an idiot. Since we are only given two choices with a chance of winning in this great country of ours it would be the obvious decision to vote for Obama because he isn't a crazy person. I don't agree with some things Obama has done or hasn't done but I also agree with some things he has or hasn't done. Mitt Romney is just a dishonest person. Whether this is related to the Mormon teachings of lying to people for the greater good or just his greed and desire for the power? Only Mitt knows that. That's why their budget math DOES NOT WORK and they want to tear down church state separations. They are just telling their base what they want then telling the moderates an entirely different story every day. They stuck Ryan on the ticket to suck in some young voters. Everything they do is a plan to mislead and dazzle enough ignorant people into letting their buddies get back to the Bush days of stuffing their pockets and shitting on the country. Jesus fuck people, it's only been 4 years since Bush and Co. decimated this country and it's constitution. Things are starting to get better in reality and not the GOP bubble. Don't go back to that clusterfuck.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on October 14, 2012, 04:12:41 AM ... this is related to the Mormon teachings of lying to people for the greater good ... You need to brush up on you Mormon teachings. From the Mormon "Articles of Faith": "We believe in being honest". Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: tiberiandusk on October 14, 2012, 04:15:13 AM ... this is related to the Mormon teachings of lying to people for the greater good ... You need to brush up on you Mormon teachings. From the Mormon "Articles of Faith": "We believe in being honest". To other Mormons. http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: yjacket on October 14, 2012, 06:29:59 AM Anyone who votes for the compulsive liar that is Mitt Romney and isn't extremely wealthy is an idiot. Since we are only given two choices with a chance of winning in this great country of ours it would be the obvious decision to vote for Obama because he isn't a crazy person. I don't agree with some things Obama has done or hasn't done but I also agree with some things he has or hasn't done. Mitt Romney is just a dishonest person. Whether this is related to the Mormon teachings of lying to people for the greater good or just his greed and desire for the power? Only Mitt knows that. That's why their budget math DOES NOT WORK and they want to tear down church state separations. They are just telling their base what they want then telling the moderates an entirely different story every day. They stuck Ryan on the ticket to suck in some young voters. Everything they do is a plan to mislead and dazzle enough ignorant people into letting their buddies get back to the Bush days of stuffing their pockets and shitting on the country. Jesus fuck people, it's only been 4 years since Bush and Co. decimated this country and it's constitution. Things are starting to get better in reality and not the GOP bubble. Don't go back to that clusterfuck. Amen brother. I don't see how anyone could vote for someone who is blatantly lying and deceiving for his own personal gain. Both his tax plan and his military spending plan are complete bullshit. I've never seen a politician lie like this man just because he knows low information voters won't sort it out. Then, look at Ryan in the debate: "our plan doesn't spend more on the military, it just doesn't cut like Obama". That is a bold faced lie! Romney wants military spending at 4% of GDP, which is certainly higher than it is now. These blatant lies piss me off soooooo fucking much. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: dirtycat on October 14, 2012, 07:15:01 AM just sent in my early ballot.. Romney all the way! just wouldn't feel right voting for a commie.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Jimmy Chang(y) on October 14, 2012, 09:56:05 AM just sent in my early ballot.. Romney all the way! just wouldn't feel right voting for a commie. Facepalm Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Kluge on October 14, 2012, 12:14:56 PM just sent in my early ballot.. Romney all the way! just wouldn't feel right voting for a commie. Gah. I hope you were talking about the Communist Party candidate. Obama could hardly even be called a progressive. The only real difference between Obama and Romney is black and white.... or blue and red - the rest is all marketing. One wants to continue (and/or has a history of continuing) social and corporate welfare, while expanding military adventurism, and the other wants to continue (and/or has a history of continuing) social and corporate welfare, while expanding military adventurism - and neither has a comprehensive plan to pay for these programs (less "by 2020, my plan will have eliminated our deficit... (but when the people who aren't grandfathered into their welfare being cut are about to feel it, politicians revert, and nothing changes."). - And that's not even the worst of it. When these fucks are compromising, the end product is corporatism -- government funding select corporations for welfare/warfare handouts... because having the government do the work is "Communism," so that's the great accomplishment Republicans have given the US: instead of citizens paying the government to direct money, citizens pay the government to pay the corporations to direct money. Great. I swear - the only thing going for Obama is that he isn't Romney - and the only thing going for Romney is that he isn't Obama. We've got this.... fucking......... - and..... ugh - out of whiskey, again.Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: dirtycat on October 14, 2012, 12:19:08 PM just sent in my early ballot.. Romney all the way! just wouldn't feel right voting for a commie. Facepalm no need for facepalm I'm just not part of the obama zombie bandwagon. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 14, 2012, 12:42:39 PM Anyone who votes for the compulsive liar that is Mitt Romney and isn't extremely wealthy is an idiot. Since we are only given two choices with a chance of winning in this great country of ours it would be the obvious decision to vote for Obama because he isn't a crazy person. I don't agree with some things Obama has done or hasn't done but I also agree with some things he has or hasn't done. Mitt Romney is just a dishonest person. Whether this is related to the Mormon teachings of lying to people for the greater good or just his greed and desire for the power? Only Mitt knows that. That's why their budget math DOES NOT WORK and they want to tear down church state separations. They are just telling their base what they want then telling the moderates an entirely different story every day. They stuck Ryan on the ticket to suck in some young voters. Everything they do is a plan to mislead and dazzle enough ignorant people into letting their buddies get back to the Bush days of stuffing their pockets and shitting on the country. Jesus fuck people, it's only been 4 years since Bush and Co. decimated this country and it's constitution. Things are starting to get better in reality and not the GOP bubble. Don't go back to that clusterfuck. Never again will I vote for the lesser of two weevils, and they are BOTH weevils!! They are both liars and both career politicians (that's redundant, I know). They're both clowns from competing circuses. What the establishment tries to hide is both circuses are run by the same powers, so people think they're getting a choice, but not really, as a weevil is a weevil. Both will lead to further destruction and ruin of the US. I'm a Ron Paul fan, but because of republican shenanigans, I don't believe he's on the ballot in all states like Gary Johnson is. So I'm voting for Gary. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Fiyasko on October 14, 2012, 01:29:19 PM Im going to freaking cry if Romney wins,
Im Canadian Roight, So i have no vote in this matter, But when FUCKING HARPER was elected, It was pure bullshit Seriously, He tried as hard as he could to rig the election, Even Routing RoboCalls throgh the Liberal party telling expected NDP voters that "This is service canada, Your voting ballot location has changed to XYZ bullshitspot" So now we have a Liberalistic Conservative goverment, Seriously, The son of a bitch sold Enbridge Pipleline shares to china, When the pipleline is being fucking protested against and getting railroaded everychance we can get at it. So the asshole goes "Oh i'll just sell a Chunk of it to china so that China has a say in the matter of weather or not the pipleline gets built, I CANT CONTROL CHINA GUISE!" Fucking idiot doesnt understand what he's done. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: firefop on October 14, 2012, 01:44:30 PM From the outside Obama seems to have been a rather kick ass president. People are always gonna be pissed of with whoever's in power. We all expect our leaders to look after us specifically, who cares about the rest of the population. Besides being blamed for the wall street crash what else stands against everyone revoting for him? It may be opposition propaganda, but it does seem like Romney will say anything to get elected. And he seems to think he's smarter than the entire country: You want to see my tax returns? You'll have to elect me first. From the inside Obama has been ineffective, that's according to both sides. He's been largely unable to cram legislation through since his healthcare bill was legislated away (and it should be noted that he's had a democratic majority - his own party - and still couldn't get anything passed). The USA is gearing up for a cultural war (my person opinion) It's going to center around tax policy, government spending and the 'failed wars mentallity' (war on drug / poverty / education / the rich / etc) It's a testament to how bad Obama actually is that Romeny, who is really a very weak candidate in general is neck-in-neck with him. I think most Americans are starting to figure out that we probably won't get sanity out of any president. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Explodicle on October 14, 2012, 07:14:06 PM just sent in my early ballot.. Romney all the way! just wouldn't feel right voting for a commie. Facepalm no need for facepalm I'm just not part of the obama zombie bandwagon. If you're convinced that the best vote against socialism is for someone who is slightly less socialist, then I'm sad to inform you that you are indeed a zombie. People like you are directly responsible for corporatism and our endless cycle of war. You are a useful idiot. Title: Voting: the slave's suggestion box Post by: Arto on October 14, 2012, 09:16:01 PM https://i.imgur.com/BRgNn.png (http://imgur.com/BRgNn)
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 14, 2012, 09:35:08 PM Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: dirtycat on October 14, 2012, 09:48:28 PM just sent in my early ballot.. Romney all the way! just wouldn't feel right voting for a commie. Facepalm no need for facepalm I'm just not part of the obama zombie bandwagon. If you're convinced that the best vote against socialism is for someone who is slightly less socialist, then I'm sad to inform you that you are indeed a zombie. People like you are directly responsible for corporatism and our endless cycle of war. You are a useful idiot. it happens Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 14, 2012, 11:07:30 PM Actually.. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson do, and would keep their promises. That's why the establishment is so scared of them! M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jasinlee on October 14, 2012, 11:36:55 PM Until money is not an influence on campaigns / parties the media will ignore idealists since they are not going to help them out later with legislation. Ron Paul probably would have crapped all over Fox and MSNBC if he were to become president. And with good reason too, but the media outlets are run by people with political opinions that they prefer, and would rather one person or the other to win to further their companies goals.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 15, 2012, 12:30:26 AM Until money is not an influence on campaigns / parties the media will ignore idealists since they are not going to help them out later with legislation. Ron Paul probably would have crapped all over Fox and MSNBC if he were to become president. And with good reason too, but the media outlets are run by people with political opinions that they prefer, and would rather one person or the other to win to further their companies goals. +1 Bingo! Unfortunately in today's state of affairs, if you the government says one thing, the reality is something else. If the media supports a politician, run, don't walk, run as far as you can from that person! M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jasinlee on October 15, 2012, 12:34:35 AM Didnt you know that Money = Speech, so the more money you have the more you can talk! Hurray for democracy.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Littleshop on October 15, 2012, 12:39:52 AM just sent in my early ballot.. Romney all the way! just wouldn't feel right voting for a commie. Gah. I hope you were talking about the Communist Party candidate. Obama could hardly even be called a progressive. The only real difference between Obama and Romney is black and white.... or blue and red - the rest is all marketing. One wants to continue (and/or has a history of continuing) social and corporate welfare, while expanding military adventurism, and the other wants to continue (and/or has a history of continuing) social and corporate welfare, while expanding military adventurism - and neither has a comprehensive plan to pay for these programs (less "by 2020, my plan will have eliminated our deficit... (but when the people who aren't grandfathered into their welfare being cut are about to feel it, politicians revert, and nothing changes."). - And that's not even the worst of it. When these fucks are compromising, the end product is corporatism -- government funding select corporations for welfare/warfare handouts... because having the government do the work is "Communism," so that's the great accomplishment Republicans have given the US: instead of citizens paying the government to direct money, citizens pay the government to pay the corporations to direct money. Great. I swear - the only thing going for Obama is that he isn't Romney - and the only thing going for Romney is that he isn't Obama. We've got this.... fucking......... - and..... ugh - out of whiskey, again.Obama is almost as republican as Regan. Even the healthcare plan so many are calling 'commie/socialism' is to the right of Regan proposals. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Bitware on October 15, 2012, 12:55:41 AM Gary Johnson 2012 (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com)
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 15, 2012, 01:34:51 AM There are several issues that makes Obama a deal breaker for me, not that I really like Romney, but right now, Romney looks a million times better than Obama:
* Obama supports AA, Romney is against * Obama supports legalizing tens of millions of illegals, Romney is against * Obama increased the national debt by 6T in 4 years, I don't think anyone else in the Republican party can top that. I mean even the supposedly bad president GWB only increased the debt by 4.4T in 8 years, and he fought 2 wars. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Littleshop on October 15, 2012, 02:32:07 AM There are several issues that makes Obama a deal breaker for me, not that I really like Romney, but right now, Romney looks a million times better than Obama: * Obama supports AA, Romney is against * Obama supports legalizing tens of millions of illegals, Romney is against * Obama increased the national debt by 6T in 4 years, I don't think anyone else in the Republican party can top that. I mean even the supposedly bad president GWB only increased the debt by 4.4T in 8 years, and he fought 2 wars. What the heck is AA? Alcoholics Anonymous? The level of Illegals we have are good for the economy (we may not have enough right now) and contrary to media reports commit fewer crimes then average. The debt should be cut. Neither has a realistic plan for dealing with it. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: dirtycat on October 15, 2012, 02:38:11 AM The level of Illegals we have are good for the economy (we may not have enough right now) and contrary to media reports commit fewer crimes then average. I live on a border state and yes they do commit the majority of crimes. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: firefop on October 15, 2012, 02:48:55 AM The level of Illegals we have are good for the economy (we may not have enough right now) and contrary to media reports commit fewer crimes then average. I live on a border state and yes they do commit the majority of crimes. Every illegal is by definition a criminal - 100% of the illegal population is here illegally. ;D Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 15, 2012, 03:16:48 AM The level of Illegals we have are good for the economy (we may not have enough right now) and contrary to media reports commit fewer crimes then average. I live on a border state and yes they do commit the majority of crimes. Most of what you're seeing is crime which is created by the border - smuggling, and it's attendant violence, for instance, or crimes which the illegals cross the border specifically to commit. I remember reading about Mexican gangs crossing over to kidnap wealthy Americans, for example. Away from the border, the illegals you see mostly just want to work and send money back home. Committing crimes over here only gets in the way of that. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Littleshop on October 15, 2012, 03:30:26 AM The level of Illegals we have are good for the economy (we may not have enough right now) and contrary to media reports commit fewer crimes then average. I live on a border state and yes they do commit the majority of crimes. There is no state in the US where illegals commit the majority of crimes. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jasinlee on October 15, 2012, 05:16:32 AM The illegals I have met, usually abide by the law far more than anyone else since they have more to lose, its like having 2 strikes in a 3 strike state, but without having done anything yet. And how do you know that the person committing the crimes where you live are illegal, did you go ask them, hey are you illegal cause I just noticed that you were speeding heyuk. I lived in a border state, what I saw was there were almost no illegals living there, they get out of dodge hella fast since thats like the only area where they have checkpoints.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: dirtycat on October 15, 2012, 05:40:09 AM The level of Illegals we have are good for the economy (we may not have enough right now) and contrary to media reports commit fewer crimes then average. I live on a border state and yes they do commit the majority of crimes. There is no state in the US where illegals commit the majority of crimes. If you live nowhere near a border town you get that type of misinformation. If you live here you know and thats why its a big deal with people on/near the border. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: dirtycat on October 15, 2012, 05:47:54 AM The illegals I have met, usually abide by the law far more than anyone else since they have more to lose, its like having 2 strikes in a 3 strike state, but without having done anything yet. And how do you know that the person committing the crimes where you live are illegal, did you go ask them, hey are you illegal cause I just noticed that you were speeding heyuk. I lived in a border state, what I saw was there were almost no illegals living there, they get out of dodge hella fast since thats like the only area where they have checkpoints. The majority of the friends I have who are illegal are great people and abide by the laws (other than being here illegally and identity theft) and are just too lazy to apply for citizenship cause of how long it takes. They are not scared of check points or background checks or all the immigration yadda yadda cause they have a nice care package that was bought when they came over. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jasinlee on October 15, 2012, 06:25:38 AM The illegals I have met, usually abide by the law far more than anyone else since they have more to lose, its like having 2 strikes in a 3 strike state, but without having done anything yet. And how do you know that the person committing the crimes where you live are illegal, did you go ask them, hey are you illegal cause I just noticed that you were speeding heyuk. I lived in a border state, what I saw was there were almost no illegals living there, they get out of dodge hella fast since thats like the only area where they have checkpoints. The majority of the friends I have who are illegal are great people and abide by the laws (other than being here illegally and identity theft) and are just too lazy to apply for citizenship cause of how long it takes. They are not scared of check points or background checks or all the immigration yadda yadda cause they have a nice care package that was bought when they came over. I lived in the "Valley" Mission Tx for a long time. I have never witnessed anything to make me think illegals do anymore of any type of crime than anyone else. Actually, the majority of the entitled people who think they will not be caught are generally white people that I would meet (though there were not many) and I don't think I saw a single black or asian person in the town. My wife is mexican, none of her family is illegal, but the amount of ignorance I see from people in relation to illegals is staggering. The people who believe and repeat the stereotypes of illegals being lazy, lawbreakers are usually like my backasswards family in Georgia. And the type of idiotic things I hear them say are "Hey those mexicans (they were not mexican, probably puerto ricans taller darker) are stealing all our watermelons ( they had just harvested their leased field in GA)." Ideas like this make me want to punch a baby since the word illegals is a replacement word for mexican usually. And most of these ignorant backwoods people forget that there is no such thing as white. Where does your family come from? Oh they were immigrants? Did they get here legally? What country? Oh your german so you must be "pure blood nazi" right? My wife is Mexican, but is not really, shes whiter than me and has more spaniard blood than anything, shoot her grandmother was white as a ghost with red hair. I am cherokee indian, german, scottish, welsh, which means I am closer to mexican than she is since I have cherokee which were at least on the same continent as mexico before her family moved there. Generalizations do not reinforce a point, you should say according to this source: http://wikipedia.org illegal aliens from xxxx country tend to perpatrate crime in border cities at an alarmingly higher rate. I disagree with the whole concept. Lazy has nothing to do with it, go look up the laws to apply for citizenship, they are nuts and they require the immigrant to learn things people born here with college degrees never learned in school. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jasinlee on October 15, 2012, 06:28:26 AM BTW, I would not vote for any of them, I think they are all corrupt and should be replaced with idealists, which will never happen so I will never vote.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: dirtycat on October 15, 2012, 06:46:28 AM The illegals I have met, usually abide by the law far more than anyone else since they have more to lose, its like having 2 strikes in a 3 strike state, but without having done anything yet. And how do you know that the person committing the crimes where you live are illegal, did you go ask them, hey are you illegal cause I just noticed that you were speeding heyuk. I lived in a border state, what I saw was there were almost no illegals living there, they get out of dodge hella fast since thats like the only area where they have checkpoints. The majority of the friends I have who are illegal are great people and abide by the laws (other than being here illegally and identity theft) and are just too lazy to apply for citizenship cause of how long it takes. They are not scared of check points or background checks or all the immigration yadda yadda cause they have a nice care package that was bought when they came over. I lived in the "Valley" Mission Tx for a long time. I have never witnessed anything to make me think illegals do anymore of any type of crime than anyone else. Actually, the majority of the entitled people who think they will not be caught are generally white people that I would meet (though there were not many) and I don't think I saw a single black or asian person in the town. My wife is mexican, none of her family is illegal, but the amount of ignorance I see from people in relation to illegals is staggering. The people who believe and repeat the stereotypes of illegals being lazy, lawbreakers are usually like my backasswards family in Georgia. And the type of idiotic things I hear them say are "Hey those mexicans (they were not mexican, probably puerto ricans taller darker) are stealing all our watermelons ( they had just harvested their leased field in GA)." Ideas like this make me want to punch a baby since the word illegals is a replacement word for mexican usually. And most of these ignorant backwoods people forget that there is no such thing as white. Where does your family come from? Oh they were immigrants? Did they get here legally? What country? Oh your german so you must be "pure blood nazi" right? My wife is Mexican, but is not really, shes whiter than me and has more spaniard blood than anything, shoot her grandmother was white as a ghost with red hair. I am cherokee indian, german, scottish, welsh, which means I am closer to mexican than she is since I have cherokee which were at least on the same continent as mexico before her family moved there. Generalizations do not reinforce a point, you should say according to this source: http://wikipedia.org illegal aliens from xxxx country tend to perpatrate crime in border cities at an alarmingly higher rate. I disagree with the whole concept. Lazy has nothing to do with it, go look up the laws to apply for citizenship, they are nuts and they require the immigrant to learn things people born here with college degrees never learned in school. Just because you don't go out much to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't need any biased news article to tell me what I see everyday. My wife is Asian it disgusts her just as much as me to see these people leeching off the system and not doing what they can to become citizens because she did the work and learned everything to become a citizen. Yes they are lazy when they aren't willing to learn those "things" and become a legal citizen of this great country. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: dirtycat on October 15, 2012, 06:54:22 AM I love this part of the forum you guys have great opinions I love reading them even if they differ from my own.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jasinlee on October 15, 2012, 06:58:53 AM The illegals I have met, usually abide by the law far more than anyone else since they have more to lose, its like having 2 strikes in a 3 strike state, but without having done anything yet. And how do you know that the person committing the crimes where you live are illegal, did you go ask them, hey are you illegal cause I just noticed that you were speeding heyuk. I lived in a border state, what I saw was there were almost no illegals living there, they get out of dodge hella fast since thats like the only area where they have checkpoints. The majority of the friends I have who are illegal are great people and abide by the laws (other than being here illegally and identity theft) and are just too lazy to apply for citizenship cause of how long it takes. They are not scared of check points or background checks or all the immigration yadda yadda cause they have a nice care package that was bought when they came over. I lived in the "Valley" Mission Tx for a long time. I have never witnessed anything to make me think illegals do anymore of any type of crime than anyone else. Actually, the majority of the entitled people who think they will not be caught are generally white people that I would meet (though there were not many) and I don't think I saw a single black or asian person in the town. My wife is mexican, none of her family is illegal, but the amount of ignorance I see from people in relation to illegals is staggering. The people who believe and repeat the stereotypes of illegals being lazy, lawbreakers are usually like my backasswards family in Georgia. And the type of idiotic things I hear them say are "Hey those mexicans (they were not mexican, probably puerto ricans taller darker) are stealing all our watermelons ( they had just harvested their leased field in GA)." Ideas like this make me want to punch a baby since the word illegals is a replacement word for mexican usually. And most of these ignorant backwoods people forget that there is no such thing as white. Where does your family come from? Oh they were immigrants? Did they get here legally? What country? Oh your german so you must be "pure blood nazi" right? My wife is Mexican, but is not really, shes whiter than me and has more spaniard blood than anything, shoot her grandmother was white as a ghost with red hair. I am cherokee indian, german, scottish, welsh, which means I am closer to mexican than she is since I have cherokee which were at least on the same continent as mexico before her family moved there. Generalizations do not reinforce a point, you should say according to this source: http://wikipedia.org illegal aliens from xxxx country tend to perpatrate crime in border cities at an alarmingly higher rate. I disagree with the whole concept. Lazy has nothing to do with it, go look up the laws to apply for citizenship, they are nuts and they require the immigrant to learn things people born here with college degrees never learned in school. Just because you don't go out much to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't need any biased news article to tell me what I see everyday. My wife is Asian it disgusts her just as much as me to see these people leeching off the system and not doing what they can to become citizens because she did the work and learned everything to become a citizen. Yes they are lazy when they aren't willing to learn those "things" and become a legal citizen of this great country. Well, so is every single mom, dad and person who had to work instead of going to school to get more education to get a better paying job. Which would keep them off food stamps, medicaid, lifeline, and a bunch of other assistance programs. So I guess they are all earning your disgust too since they are not bettering themselves? Like I said generalizations wont prove your point. Give sources. The US Citizenship tests may as well require you to sit down and do 2 semesters of college courses (or equivalent since many illegals never had an opportunity to go to school) and if they dont use that time to get citizenship and instead provided food for their kids, shelter, clothing all of which I think take precedent. Try looking at things from some other point of view than rose colored glasses, there are other shades to each argument and it disgusts me just as much as your wife to see a person leeching off everyone else. You know, like banks, hedge fund managers, people who pay less in taxes per year on millions of dollars than someone who makes under 100,000 a year. Or corporations like GE who usually pays no taxes in the USA. There are lots of leaches out there. Take your pick, but focusing on the guy working 60 hours a week at 5-6 dollars an hour to support his family in a (basically) 3rd world country I think is commendable that they would put out so much effort to support their families and themselves. But hey they are just lazy illegals who are too lazy to do anything. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: VeeMiner on October 15, 2012, 07:01:42 AM neither
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: dirtycat on October 15, 2012, 07:02:39 AM The illegals I have met, usually abide by the law far more than anyone else since they have more to lose, its like having 2 strikes in a 3 strike state, but without having done anything yet. And how do you know that the person committing the crimes where you live are illegal, did you go ask them, hey are you illegal cause I just noticed that you were speeding heyuk. I lived in a border state, what I saw was there were almost no illegals living there, they get out of dodge hella fast since thats like the only area where they have checkpoints. The majority of the friends I have who are illegal are great people and abide by the laws (other than being here illegally and identity theft) and are just too lazy to apply for citizenship cause of how long it takes. They are not scared of check points or background checks or all the immigration yadda yadda cause they have a nice care package that was bought when they came over. I lived in the "Valley" Mission Tx for a long time. I have never witnessed anything to make me think illegals do anymore of any type of crime than anyone else. Actually, the majority of the entitled people who think they will not be caught are generally white people that I would meet (though there were not many) and I don't think I saw a single black or asian person in the town. My wife is mexican, none of her family is illegal, but the amount of ignorance I see from people in relation to illegals is staggering. The people who believe and repeat the stereotypes of illegals being lazy, lawbreakers are usually like my backasswards family in Georgia. And the type of idiotic things I hear them say are "Hey those mexicans (they were not mexican, probably puerto ricans taller darker) are stealing all our watermelons ( they had just harvested their leased field in GA)." Ideas like this make me want to punch a baby since the word illegals is a replacement word for mexican usually. And most of these ignorant backwoods people forget that there is no such thing as white. Where does your family come from? Oh they were immigrants? Did they get here legally? What country? Oh your german so you must be "pure blood nazi" right? My wife is Mexican, but is not really, shes whiter than me and has more spaniard blood than anything, shoot her grandmother was white as a ghost with red hair. I am cherokee indian, german, scottish, welsh, which means I am closer to mexican than she is since I have cherokee which were at least on the same continent as mexico before her family moved there. Generalizations do not reinforce a point, you should say according to this source: http://wikipedia.org illegal aliens from xxxx country tend to perpatrate crime in border cities at an alarmingly higher rate. I disagree with the whole concept. Lazy has nothing to do with it, go look up the laws to apply for citizenship, they are nuts and they require the immigrant to learn things people born here with college degrees never learned in school. Just because you don't go out much to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't need any biased news article to tell me what I see everyday. My wife is Asian it disgusts her just as much as me to see these people leeching off the system and not doing what they can to become citizens because she did the work and learned everything to become a citizen. Yes they are lazy when they aren't willing to learn those "things" and become a legal citizen of this great country. Well, so is every single mom, dad and person who had to work instead of going to school to get more education to get a better paying job. Which would keep them off food stamps, medicaid, lifeline, and a bunch of other assistance programs. So I guess they are all earning your disgust too since they are not bettering themselves? Like I said generalizations wont prove your point. Give sources. The US Citizenship tests may as well require you to sit down and do 2 semesters of college courses (or equivalent since many illegals never had an opportunity to go to school) and if they dont use that time to get citizenship and instead provided food for their kids, shelter, clothing all of which I think take precedent. Try looking at things from some other point of view than rose colored glasses, there are other shades to each argument and it disgusts me just as much as your wife to see a person leeching off everyone else. You know, like banks, hedge fund managers, people who pay less in taxes per year on millions of dollars than someone who makes under 100,000 a year. Or corporations like GE who usually pays no taxes in the USA. There are lots of leaches out there. Take your pick, but focusing on the guy working 60 hours a week at 5-6 dollars an hour to support his family in a (basically) 3rd world country I think is commendable that they would put out so much effort to support their families and themselves. But hey they are just lazy illegals who are too lazy to do anything. ya but you are forgetting they are legal citizens.. they have the right to leech Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jasinlee on October 15, 2012, 07:08:24 AM So being capable of leeching legally is ok with you, but if you were someone who was born here and does not report income and files for all the state programs would be approved and get them is ok because they are a citizen? Which is far more common than anyone illegal being a drag on the economy.
Give me an example of how an illegal is a leech on society more so than our overly entitled citizens. Something verifiable. (True.) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: dirtycat on October 15, 2012, 08:04:50 AM So being capable of leeching legally is ok with you, but if you were someone who was born here and does not report income and files for all the state programs would be approved and get them is ok because they are a citizen? Which is far more common than anyone illegal being a drag on the economy. Sure why not its their legal right to use government programs to help themselves in hard times.. whether or not they decide to take advantage of it is something they need to live with when the repercussions of doing so eventually catch up to them. Quote Give me an example of how an illegal is a leech on society more so than our overly entitled citizens. Something verifiable. (True.) that is not what is being discussed I never stated illegals overly leech.. its the fact that they are leeching and they are not citizens. Your asking for information that could not exist unless the illegal immigrant population was larger than or as large as the legal population. take a look here it gives a good insight as to how much illegals leech off our system. http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011 http://cis.org/node/3877 Both reports show illegal immigrants using welfare programs which should only be available to US citizens. (leeching) Perhaps a little outdated by a year or more but I am sure you can find up to date information by contacting your local DES office Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 15, 2012, 12:23:11 PM There are several issues that makes Obama a deal breaker for me, not that I really like Romney, but right now, Romney looks a million times better than Obama: * Obama supports AA, Romney is against * Obama supports legalizing tens of millions of illegals, Romney is against * Obama increased the national debt by 6T in 4 years, I don't think anyone else in the Republican party can top that. I mean even the supposedly bad president GWB only increased the debt by 4.4T in 8 years, and he fought 2 wars. What the heck is AA? Alcoholics Anonymous? The level of Illegals we have are good for the economy (we may not have enough right now) and contrary to media reports commit fewer crimes then average. The debt should be cut. Neither has a realistic plan for dealing with it. AA is Affirmative Action, this issue has a pretty big supreme court case going on right now, I thought everyone would know it. Google "affirmative action supreme court case" The vast majority of the illegals are low skill/manual labor population, they can only do manual labor. It's unfair that a Ph.D/Master student can not easily obtain green card (which Romney has proposed to allow these people obtain Green card, google 'advanced degree green card romney'), while Obama propose to legalize these manual laborers. The United States did not become great due to manual labor, it became great due to all the advanced science/technology it has. Why are barbers in China paid $1 for haircut, while barbers in the US are paid $10? because the barber in the US serve a population that has created science/technology that China can not match, NOT because some illegal Mexican can mow lawns for cheap (which is still expensive compared to Chinese labor). As for the debt, Obama squanders money because he has zero business experience nor management experience (all he has ever been was lawyer or senator). Romney on the other hand has almost 30 years of business experience, several successful turnarounds (bain capital, winter olympics) and is known to be good with money. What's important is not what the "plan" is, but experience. When you go to job interviews, does the company care more about your "plan" or do they care more about your experience? As long as you have the necessary experience, you will have the plan and you will make it work. Without the necessary experience, any "plan" you speak of, I would be highly skeptical of it. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: vampire on October 15, 2012, 01:49:38 PM As for the debt, Obama squanders money because he has zero business experience nor management experience (all he has ever been was lawyer or senator). Romney on the other hand has almost 30 years of business experience, several successful turnarounds (bain capital, winter olympics) and is known to be good with money. What's important is not what the "plan" is, but experience. When you go to job interviews, does the company care more about your "plan" or do they care more about your experience? As long as you have the necessary experience, you will have the plan and you will make it work. Without the necessary experience, any "plan" you speak of, I would be highly skeptical of it. Bush increased the national debt by 85%, from 5.73 trillion to $10.63 trillion. Obama increased from 10.63T to 16.1T or 51%.. Also if you adjust for USD inflation, Bush increased the national debt by A LOT more. But I don't expect a republican to be well versed in economics or mathematics. You just lie. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on October 15, 2012, 02:13:18 PM Bush increased the national debt by 85%, from 5.73 trillion to $10.63 trillion. Obama increased from 10.63T to 16.1T or 51%.. Also if you adjust for USD inflation, Bush increased the national debt by ALOT more. But I don't expect a republican to be well versed in economics or mathematics. You just lie. Seriously? You post that shit then call someone else out on lying? Let me know when they start letting us pay off the national debt in bills denominated in percentages... But I don't expect a liberal to be BTW, I'm not a republican, but you're an idiot. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 15, 2012, 02:17:25 PM As for the debt, Obama squanders money because he has zero business experience nor management experience (all he has ever been was lawyer or senator). Romney on the other hand has almost 30 years of business experience, several successful turnarounds (bain capital, winter olympics) and is known to be good with money. What's important is not what the "plan" is, but experience. When you go to job interviews, does the company care more about your "plan" or do they care more about your experience? As long as you have the necessary experience, you will have the plan and you will make it work. Without the necessary experience, any "plan" you speak of, I would be highly skeptical of it. Bush increased the national debt by 85%, from 5.73 trillion to $10.63 trillion. Obama increased from 10.63T to 16.1T or 51%.. Also if you adjust for USD inflation, Bush increased the national debt by A LOT more. But I don't expect a republican to be well versed in economics or mathematics. You just lie. I see you share the same business logic with Obama. Hey if Obama gets another 4 years and increase the debt by another 6T, it'll still be "better", since percentage wise, it's just a 37% increase on 16T, wonderful!!!! Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 15, 2012, 02:24:24 PM As for the debt, Obama squanders money because he has zero business experience nor management experience (all he has ever been was lawyer or senator). Romney on the other hand has almost 30 years of business experience, several successful turnarounds (bain capital, winter olympics) and is known to be good with money. What's important is not what the "plan" is, but experience. When you go to job interviews, does the company care more about your "plan" or do they care more about your experience? As long as you have the necessary experience, you will have the plan and you will make it work. Without the necessary experience, any "plan" you speak of, I would be highly skeptical of it. Bush increased the national debt by 85%, from 5.73 trillion to $10.63 trillion. Obama increased from 10.63T to 16.1T or 51%.. Also if you adjust for USD inflation, Bush increased the national debt by A LOT more. But I don't expect a republican to be well versed in economics or mathematics. You just lie. I see you share the same business logic with Obama. Hey if Obama gets another 4 years and increase the debt by another 6T, it'll still be "better", since percentage wise, it's just a 37% increase on 16T, wonderful!!!! Just crazy libertarian talk, here, but maybe the fact that both parties have continually increased the debt is an indicator that neither one has a fucking clue about what to do with the economy? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: vampire on October 15, 2012, 02:34:27 PM I see you share the same business logic with Obama. Hey if Obama gets another 4 years and increase the debt by another 6T, it'll still be "better", since percentage wise, it's just a 37% increase on 16T, wonderful!!!! And you have nothing to contribute except lies. Romney lies, you lie - what a wonderful company. I don't vote at all, because I can't stand liars and retards. 99% of the elected officials belong in that category. There are several issues that makes Obama a deal breaker for me, not that I really like Romney, but right now, Romney looks a million times better than Obama: * Obama supports AA, Romney is against * Obama supports legalizing tens of millions of illegals, Romney is against * Obama increased the national debt by 6T in 4 years, I don't think anyone else in the Republican party can top that. I mean even the supposedly bad president GWB only increased the debt by 4.4T in 8 years, and he fought 2 wars. AA: Romney didn't pick the side yet about AA: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/09/romney-stays-away-from-affirmative-action-case/ Immigration: He believes that unauthorized immigrants who were brought to the country as minors and have served in the military should be given permanent residency status. Debt: I proved already that you lied. So we got 2 lies out of 3 statements. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 15, 2012, 02:34:48 PM As for the debt, Obama squanders money because he has zero business experience nor management experience (all he has ever been was lawyer or senator). Romney on the other hand has almost 30 years of business experience, several successful turnarounds (bain capital, winter olympics) and is known to be good with money. What's important is not what the "plan" is, but experience. When you go to job interviews, does the company care more about your "plan" or do they care more about your experience? As long as you have the necessary experience, you will have the plan and you will make it work. Without the necessary experience, any "plan" you speak of, I would be highly skeptical of it. Bush increased the national debt by 85%, from 5.73 trillion to $10.63 trillion. Obama increased from 10.63T to 16.1T or 51%.. Also if you adjust for USD inflation, Bush increased the national debt by A LOT more. But I don't expect a republican to be well versed in economics or mathematics. You just lie. I see you share the same business logic with Obama. Hey if Obama gets another 4 years and increase the debt by another 6T, it'll still be "better", since percentage wise, it's just a 37% increase on 16T, wonderful!!!! Just crazy libertarian talk, here, but maybe the fact that both parties have continually increased the debt is an indicator that neither one has a fucking clue about what to do with the economy? Well, GWB wasn't exactly the perfect Republican President, but still he spent far less than Obama. Obama is increasing the debt at a rate that is more than double of GWB. I think Romney represents a real chance to get the debt under control, he has shown that he is the turnaround expert, this is exactly what the country needs, someone that has business sense, good with money and demonstrated turnaround success. The fact that he agrees with me on several important issues (AA, green card for advanced degree etc...) are just icing on the cake. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 15, 2012, 02:44:18 PM I see you share the same business logic with Obama. Hey if Obama gets another 4 years and increase the debt by another 6T, it'll still be "better", since percentage wise, it's just a 37% increase on 16T, wonderful!!!! And you have nothing to contribute except lies. Romney lies, you lie - what a wonderful company. I don't vote at all, because I can't stand liars and retards. 99% of the elected officials belong in that category. There are several issues that makes Obama a deal breaker for me, not that I really like Romney, but right now, Romney looks a million times better than Obama: * Obama supports AA, Romney is against * Obama supports legalizing tens of millions of illegals, Romney is against * Obama increased the national debt by 6T in 4 years, I don't think anyone else in the Republican party can top that. I mean even the supposedly bad president GWB only increased the debt by 4.4T in 8 years, and he fought 2 wars. AA: Romney didn't pick the side yet about AA: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/09/romney-stays-away-from-affirmative-action-case/ Immigration: He believes that unauthorized immigrants who were brought to the country as minors and have served in the military should be given permanent residency status. Debt: I proved already that you lied. So we got 2 lies out of 3 statements. I'm glad Romney doesn't openly speak about AA, it would be too easy to paint him as a "Racist" if he's openly against AA in his campaign. But those of us who care deeply about AA, know what Romney's position really is regarding AA. Well, green card for minors+military service is entirely different from what Obama's proposal of legalizing all illegals, isn't it? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: vampire on October 15, 2012, 02:46:14 PM I'm glad Romney doesn't openly speak about AA, it would be too easy to paint him as a "Racist" if he's openly against AA in his campaign. But those of us who care deeply about AA, know what Romney's position really is regarding AA. Now you can read minds. Wow. Well, green card for minors+military service is entirely different from what Obama's proposal of legalizing all illegals, isn't it? All illegals? That's an another lie. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 15, 2012, 02:58:09 PM I'm glad Romney doesn't openly speak about AA, it would be too easy to paint him as a "Racist" if he's openly against AA in his campaign. But those of us who care deeply about AA, know what Romney's position really is regarding AA. Now you can read minds. Wow. Well, green card for minors+military service is entirely different from what Obama's proposal of legalizing all illegals, isn't it? All illegals? That's an another lie. No because his actions speak louder than his words: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/02/romneys-record-on-affirma_n_1564644.html Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 15, 2012, 03:00:59 PM I think Romney represents a real chance to get the debt under control, he has shown that he is the turnaround expert, this is exactly what the country needs, someone that has business sense, good with money and demonstrated turnaround success. The fact that he agrees with me on several important issues (AA, green card for advanced degree etc...) are just icing on the cake. And in four years, when the economy is still in the shitter, will you finally realize that democrats and republicans vary so little on their policies and politics that they effectively overlap? Will you then finally choose an option other than the two that are spoon-fed to you? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 15, 2012, 03:04:09 PM I think Romney represents a real chance to get the debt under control, he has shown that he is the turnaround expert, this is exactly what the country needs, someone that has business sense, good with money and demonstrated turnaround success. The fact that he agrees with me on several important issues (AA, green card for advanced degree etc...) are just icing on the cake. And in four years, when the economy is still in the shitter, will you finally realize that democrats and republicans vary so little on their policies and politics that they effectively overlap? Will you then finally choose an option other than the two that are spoon-fed to you? What option are you speaking of? Gary Johnson? Mr. cut all income tax and capital gain tax? privatize all prisons? sorry I don't really prefer candidates that are batshit insane. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 15, 2012, 03:06:35 PM I think Romney represents a real chance to get the debt under control, he has shown that he is the turnaround expert, this is exactly what the country needs, someone that has business sense, good with money and demonstrated turnaround success. The fact that he agrees with me on several important issues (AA, green card for advanced degree etc...) are just icing on the cake. And in four years, when the economy is still in the shitter, will you finally realize that democrats and republicans vary so little on their policies and politics that they effectively overlap? Will you then finally choose an option other than the two that are spoon-fed to you? What option are you speaking of? Gary Johnson? Mr. cut all income tax and capital gain tax? privatize all prisons? sorry I don't really prefer candidates that are batshit insane. How, exactly, is he batshit? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 15, 2012, 03:14:40 PM I think Romney represents a real chance to get the debt under control, he has shown that he is the turnaround expert, this is exactly what the country needs, someone that has business sense, good with money and demonstrated turnaround success. The fact that he agrees with me on several important issues (AA, green card for advanced degree etc...) are just icing on the cake. And in four years, when the economy is still in the shitter, will you finally realize that democrats and republicans vary so little on their policies and politics that they effectively overlap? Will you then finally choose an option other than the two that are spoon-fed to you? What option are you speaking of? Gary Johnson? Mr. cut all income tax and capital gain tax? privatize all prisons? sorry I don't really prefer candidates that are batshit insane. How, exactly, is he batshit? I just gave you two areas, he propose to get rid of income tax and capital gains tax. He propose all prison be privatized. Let's see, some other positions he has: * ban student loans (he think student loans increase tuition) * no tariffs (great news China!!!) * he also supports legalizing the illegals (though he does redeem himself by also supporting green card for advanced degrees) * open borders to Mexicans (this is just .... insane) * 23% sales tax (this would be so much in favor of the rich, or does he think the rich buy 1000 beds or 1000 toilets so they could pay a fair share in tax?) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on October 15, 2012, 03:17:56 PM I just gave you two areas, he propose to get rid of income tax and capital gains tax. He propose all prison be privatized. Let's see, some other positions he has: * ban student loans (he think student loans increase tuition) * no tariffs (great news China!!!) * he also supports legalizing the illegals (though he does redeem himself by also supporting green card for advanced degrees) * open borders to Mexicans (this is just .... insane) * 23% sales tax (this would be so much in favor of the rich, or does he think the rich buy 1000 beds or 1000 toilets so they could pay a fair share in tax?) myrkul, it's not worth the time and frustration to argue with a statist. It's no different than arguing religion. It's their own faith, and they would be lost without their savior (the state). Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Pteppic on October 15, 2012, 03:43:25 PM myrkul, it's not worth the time and frustration to argue with a statist. It's no different than arguing religion. It's their own faith, and they would be lost without their savior (the state). And on some liberal website there are posters condemning the free market religion of libertarians. I mean obviously they believe that because they are irrational, brainwashed and dependent, while you believe what you believe cuz it's true. (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=J4h31e_i01IC&pg=PT89&lpg=PT89&dq=cuz+it's+true+constraint&source=bl&ots=4JiRlDoQmd&sig=9rqKeQyJDqMKE7_vxJbOs_tAmXA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Jy18UIOsDcTX0QXOsoGgDw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 15, 2012, 03:46:29 PM myrkul, it's not worth the time and frustration to argue with a statist. It's no different than arguing religion. It's their own faith, and they would be lost without their savior (the state). You're probably right, but it's just not in my constitution to give up without a fight, so I'm going to take at least a few token swings. I just gave you two areas, he propose to get rid of income tax and capital gains tax. He propose all prison be privatized. Let's see, some other positions he has: * ban student loans (he think student loans increase tuition) * no tariffs (great news China!!!) * he also supports legalizing the illegals (though he does redeem himself by also supporting green card for advanced degrees) * open borders to Mexicans (this is just .... insane) * 23% sales tax (this would be so much in favor of the rich, or does he think the rich buy 1000 beds or 1000 toilets so they could pay a fair share in tax?) Open borders and no tariffs would greatly improve our economy by increasing international trade. Removing income tax and capital gains tax likewise would improve the economy by not punishing earning and saving. Student loans do indeed increase tuition, much the same way widespread medical insurance increases medical costs. I'm not well versed on his position on that, but I feel private loans would be acceptable, but government loans and grants would not. As for the sales tax not being "fair," how is 23% of all purchases, across the board, to everyone, not fair? Should the rich pay larger percentages in taxes, just because they have more money? They'd already be paying more in raw numbers. A poor person buying a pack of ramen would pay $1.23, while a rich person buying a tin of caviar would pay $123.00 That's $23.00 in tax instead of $0.23. Seems plenty "fair" to me. I, of course, am not in favor of any taxes, but if there must be tax, you can't get more fair than a sales tax. I'd like some clarification on one point, though... How, exactly is opening the borders "just... insane"? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 15, 2012, 06:53:15 PM myrkul, it's not worth the time and frustration to argue with a statist. It's no different than arguing religion. It's their own faith, and they would be lost without their savior (the state). You're probably right, but it's just not in my constitution to give up without a fight, so I'm going to take at least a few token swings. I just gave you two areas, he propose to get rid of income tax and capital gains tax. He propose all prison be privatized. Let's see, some other positions he has: * ban student loans (he think student loans increase tuition) * no tariffs (great news China!!!) * he also supports legalizing the illegals (though he does redeem himself by also supporting green card for advanced degrees) * open borders to Mexicans (this is just .... insane) * 23% sales tax (this would be so much in favor of the rich, or does he think the rich buy 1000 beds or 1000 toilets so they could pay a fair share in tax?) Open borders and no tariffs would greatly improve our economy by increasing international trade. Removing income tax and capital gains tax likewise would improve the economy by not punishing earning and saving. Student loans do indeed increase tuition, much the same way widespread medical insurance increases medical costs. I'm not well versed on his position on that, but I feel private loans would be acceptable, but government loans and grants would not. As for the sales tax not being "fair," how is 23% of all purchases, across the board, to everyone, not fair? Should the rich pay larger percentages in taxes, just because they have more money? They'd already be paying more in raw numbers. A poor person buying a pack of ramen would pay $1.23, while a rich person buying a tin of caviar would pay $123.00 That's $23.00 in tax instead of $0.23. Seems plenty "fair" to me. I, of course, am not in favor of any taxes, but if there must be tax, you can't get more fair than a sales tax. I'd like some clarification on one point, though... How, exactly is opening the borders "just... insane"? Sorry but if you are seriously thinking that "open borders" is not insane, you are seriously out of touch with reality. There's basically billions of people in the world that would kill to be living in America, once you open your borders, these people will rush in, now instead of tens of millions of unskilled illegals, you'll have hundreds of millions, or even billions. That's a quick path to disaster-ville. With a 23% sales tax, the rich are not really paying the same percentage. Because not all rich person spends a lot, many of them don't. For example Warren Buffet, his life style is very modest. He would be basically paying a 0.1% tax rate on his income, he simply does not spend that much money to buy things. Plus even if the rich person do spend a lot, like I said he still only buys 1 bed to sleep on, unless his bed is 1000 times more expensive than the average joe's, he's not paying his fair share. If I was Warren Buffet, I'd quickly run out of things to buy to achieve even a 5% tax rate, because even a rich person simply does not need 1000 beds or 1000 toilets. Basically, to implement a 23% sales tax, you'll have to look at who are the consumers of the majority of the product in this country? if you find the rich consume majority of products in this country, then 23% sales tax will work. Unfortunately, the truth is the poor/middle class consume the majority of products in this country, not the rich, you'll just be shifting the vast majority of revenue burden on the backs of poor/middle class, and would be giving the rich a huge tax cut, one they don't really need. This would further increase the wealth gap. This path usually leads to violent revolution and forced wealth re-distribution, again a quick path to disaster-ville. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SgtSpike on October 15, 2012, 07:09:18 PM myrkul, it's not worth the time and frustration to argue with a statist. It's no different than arguing religion. It's their own faith, and they would be lost without their savior (the state). You're probably right, but it's just not in my constitution to give up without a fight, so I'm going to take at least a few token swings. I just gave you two areas, he propose to get rid of income tax and capital gains tax. He propose all prison be privatized. Let's see, some other positions he has: * ban student loans (he think student loans increase tuition) * no tariffs (great news China!!!) * he also supports legalizing the illegals (though he does redeem himself by also supporting green card for advanced degrees) * open borders to Mexicans (this is just .... insane) * 23% sales tax (this would be so much in favor of the rich, or does he think the rich buy 1000 beds or 1000 toilets so they could pay a fair share in tax?) Open borders and no tariffs would greatly improve our economy by increasing international trade. Removing income tax and capital gains tax likewise would improve the economy by not punishing earning and saving. Student loans do indeed increase tuition, much the same way widespread medical insurance increases medical costs. I'm not well versed on his position on that, but I feel private loans would be acceptable, but government loans and grants would not. As for the sales tax not being "fair," how is 23% of all purchases, across the board, to everyone, not fair? Should the rich pay larger percentages in taxes, just because they have more money? They'd already be paying more in raw numbers. A poor person buying a pack of ramen would pay $1.23, while a rich person buying a tin of caviar would pay $123.00 That's $23.00 in tax instead of $0.23. Seems plenty "fair" to me. I, of course, am not in favor of any taxes, but if there must be tax, you can't get more fair than a sales tax. I'd like some clarification on one point, though... How, exactly is opening the borders "just... insane"? Sorry but if you are seriously thinking that "open borders" is not insane, you are seriously out of touch with reality. There's basically billions of people in the world that would kill to be living in America, once you open your borders, these people will rush in, now instead of tens of millions of unskilled illegals, you'll have hundreds of millions, or even billions. That's a quick path to disaster-ville. With a 23% sales tax, the rich are not really paying the same percentage. Because not all rich person spends a lot, many of them don't. For example Warren Buffet, his life style is very modest. He would be basically paying a 0.1% tax rate on his income, he simply does not spend that much money to buy things. Plus even if the rich person do spend a lot, like I said he still only buys 1 bed to sleep on, unless his bed is 1000 times more expensive than the average joe's, he's not paying his fair share. If I was Warren Buffet, I'd quickly run out of things to buy to achieve even a 5% tax rate, because even a rich person simply does not need 1000 beds or 1000 toilets. Also agree on the sales tax. Because the poor population is forced to spend a higher percentage of their income in order to survive, whereas the rich can save, the poor would pay a higher effective tax rate than the rich. That said, deductions are ridiculous all across the board. No one should be able to deduct anything. Everyone should pay the same income tax %, regardless of how much they make and how many children they have. And no one should receive tax credits or welfare of any kind. That's what families and charities are for. JMO. On the other points: - Student loans do increase tuition by artificially increasing demand. Banning them would certainly reduce tuition rates as attendance falls. Whether that is good or bad is debatable. - No tariffs WOULD be good for the economy, at the expense of some lost jobs where other countries can produce items more efficiently than the US. Whether that is good or bad for the people overall is debatable. Fewer people with jobs, but goods are cheaper, so fewer people need jobs? - Legalizing aliens is just stupid. Yes, let's reward people who break the law - that'll solve our border problems real quick! - Privatized prisons would be interesting... certainly, they could do it more efficiently than the government if nothing else! Of course, in my opinion, prisoners don't deserve anything more than a 5x5 cell with a drain in the middle and a bowl of mush twice a day. My prison would be incredibly cheap to operate. It's probably a good thing I don't operate one, because it just rubs me the wrong way when prisoners have big screen TV's and Playstation 3's and good hot meals to eat, when many people who actually work for a living can't claim the same. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 15, 2012, 07:22:06 PM - Privatized prisons would be interesting... certainly, they could do it more efficiently than the government if nothing else! Of course, in my opinion, prisoners don't deserve anything more than a 5x5 cell with a drain in the middle and a bowl of mush twice a day. My prison would be incredibly cheap to operate. It's probably a good thing I don't operate one, because it just rubs me the wrong way when prisoners have big screen TV's and Playstation 3's and good hot meals to eat, when many people who actually work for a living can't claim the same. Many prisons in the United States are already privatized. This creates a issue because it is in the corporation operating the prison's best interest to keep their cots full since they get paid per head. To that end they lobby for laws that supply more heads for them to charge the customer (the government) for. For example: http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/10/arizonas_draconian_and_constitutionally_suspect.html Sure, they might be able to house the same number of prisoners for less money, but if they are using their profits to "reinvest" by turning more people into criminals, than that is a problem. In the end, it costs the taxpayer and the economy more because we've moved yet another productive member of society into a position of dependence on the government. The fact (yes, this is a fact) that the "land of the free" has the highest per capita incarceration rate of any country in the world disgusts me. For more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SgtSpike on October 15, 2012, 08:09:07 PM - Privatized prisons would be interesting... certainly, they could do it more efficiently than the government if nothing else! Of course, in my opinion, prisoners don't deserve anything more than a 5x5 cell with a drain in the middle and a bowl of mush twice a day. My prison would be incredibly cheap to operate. It's probably a good thing I don't operate one, because it just rubs me the wrong way when prisoners have big screen TV's and Playstation 3's and good hot meals to eat, when many people who actually work for a living can't claim the same. Many prisons in the United States are already privatized. This creates a issue because it is in the corporation operating the prison's best interest to keep their cots full since they get paid per head. To that end they lobby for laws that supply more heads for them to charge the customer (the government) for. For example: http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/10/arizonas_draconian_and_constitutionally_suspect.html Sure, they might be able to house the same number of prisoners for less money, but if they are using their profits to "reinvest" by turning more people into criminals, than that is a problem. In the end, it costs the taxpayer and the economy more because we've moved yet another productive member of society into a position of dependence on the government. The fact (yes, this is a fact) that the "land of the free" has the highest per capita incarceration rate of any country in the world disgusts me. For more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: firefop on October 15, 2012, 09:48:34 PM Agreed that open borders is insane. I believe it is an eventual inevitability that the world will no longer have countries, but it is something that must be "eased" into. If you let a bunch of 3rd-world people into America all at the same time, it would very quickly turn it into a close-to-3rd-world country. No one wants that. Also agree on the sales tax. Because the poor population is forced to spend a higher percentage of their income in order to survive, whereas the rich can save, the poor would pay a higher effective tax rate than the rich. That said, deductions are ridiculous all across the board. No one should be able to deduct anything. Everyone should pay the same income tax %, regardless of how much they make and how many children they have. And no one should receive tax credits or welfare of any kind. That's what families and charities are for. JMO. On the other points: - Student loans do increase tuition by artificially increasing demand. Banning them would certainly reduce tuition rates as attendance falls. Whether that is good or bad is debatable. - No tariffs WOULD be good for the economy, at the expense of some lost jobs where other countries can produce items more efficiently than the US. Whether that is good or bad for the people overall is debatable. Fewer people with jobs, but goods are cheaper, so fewer people need jobs? - Legalizing aliens is just stupid. Yes, let's reward people who break the law - that'll solve our border problems real quick! - Privatized prisons would be interesting... certainly, they could do it more efficiently than the government if nothing else! Of course, in my opinion, prisoners don't deserve anything more than a 5x5 cell with a drain in the middle and a bowl of mush twice a day. My prison would be incredibly cheap to operate. It's probably a good thing I don't operate one, because it just rubs me the wrong way when prisoners have big screen TV's and Playstation 3's and good hot meals to eat, when many people who actually work for a living can't claim the same. Border Opening has to go hand in hand with elimination of exploitable systems (welfare, mandated healthcare, etc) if there's no way for the illegal to consume public funds - then them being here doesn't matter. And while I think that it's silly to demand open borders (because you'd never get the right services cut or loopholes closed), I really think the best answer to this is enforcement. If a standard check at every government office or police interaction included having to prove citizenship and the penalty was 5 years of hard labor building the new border wall (50 foot high, 4 lanes wide... physical wall) you'd be had pressed to find an illegal anywhere. On higher education: the system is broken - we need to stop funding it and let the institutions sink or swim on their own, right now a college degree is just a path to perpetual debt for most of the kids attending. Prisoners: Bring back the chain gang. I don't care if they're digging holes & moving dirt across the field to fill in the hole they dug yesterday... but work them and work them hard. It's supposed to be punishment, no more cable tv - air conditioning or any sort of luxuries. 3 meals a day, a Cot in a 4x7 cell, pillow/blanket and toilet paper should be it. As for the quality of food - I'd probably use that as an incentive program - you're basic (for someone in solitary) is oatmeal, some sort of meat on bread and soup. Update the food based on job performance. At that point the most profitable prisons would be the ones doing the most useful work. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 15, 2012, 09:49:54 PM I'd like some clarification on one point, though... How, exactly is opening the borders "just... insane"? Sorry but if you are seriously thinking that "open borders" is not insane, you are seriously out of touch with reality. There's basically billions of people in the world that would kill to be living in America, once you open your borders, these people will rush in, now instead of tens of millions of unskilled illegals, you'll have hundreds of millions, or even billions. That's a quick path to disaster-ville. You wouldn't have hundreds of millions of illegals, you would have hundreds of millions of immigrants. The time periods where the US has had lots of immigration have been some of the most prosperous times. And they're hardly all unskilled, either. Now, quit with the fear-mongering, and listen to some reason. As for the tax, yes, rich people can save more. You're neglecting the fact that with no income or capital gains taxes, the poor will also be able to save more. A minimum wage worker would, on average, get a 15-20% larger check. And you cannot deny that the rich consume more. because they consume more, they will be paying more taxes. Being rich, in itself, does not incur a debt to society. Unless that wealth was gotten illegitimately, any debt to society has already been paid, and the wealth is the visible result of paying that debt. Bill Gates, for instance. How did he get his money? Very likely, by putting the operating system that you're currently using onto your computer. (less likely here than elsewhere, but no less true for that) Bill Gates got his money by providing a product that people wanted. If nobody wanted any Microsoft products, Gates would be broke. The same is true for almost every rich person out there. They got rich by providing goods or services. If they had not already served society, they would not have the money. So stop being so jealous that you didn't provide those goods or services. Neither fear nor jealousy are pretty emotions, and you should not be displaying them so openly. That makes sense. I'd say that prisons should be governmentally funded and owned for the reasons you mentioned then. The problem is not the fact that the prisons are private. It's that they are private corporations with government granted monopoly. Since they have no competition (and certainly, their "customers" get no choice in the matter), and their only obligation is to the shareholders, They don't have the prisoners' best interests at heart. The solution, of course, is the same as any other industry dominated by a big monopoly that's fucking it's customers. Open it up to competition, and let the market decide. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bytedisorder on October 15, 2012, 09:55:46 PM Gary Johnson. ;D
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SgtSpike on October 15, 2012, 09:56:41 PM Agreed that open borders is insane. I believe it is an eventual inevitability that the world will no longer have countries, but it is something that must be "eased" into. If you let a bunch of 3rd-world people into America all at the same time, it would very quickly turn it into a close-to-3rd-world country. No one wants that. Also agree on the sales tax. Because the poor population is forced to spend a higher percentage of their income in order to survive, whereas the rich can save, the poor would pay a higher effective tax rate than the rich. That said, deductions are ridiculous all across the board. No one should be able to deduct anything. Everyone should pay the same income tax %, regardless of how much they make and how many children they have. And no one should receive tax credits or welfare of any kind. That's what families and charities are for. JMO. On the other points: - Student loans do increase tuition by artificially increasing demand. Banning them would certainly reduce tuition rates as attendance falls. Whether that is good or bad is debatable. - No tariffs WOULD be good for the economy, at the expense of some lost jobs where other countries can produce items more efficiently than the US. Whether that is good or bad for the people overall is debatable. Fewer people with jobs, but goods are cheaper, so fewer people need jobs? - Legalizing aliens is just stupid. Yes, let's reward people who break the law - that'll solve our border problems real quick! - Privatized prisons would be interesting... certainly, they could do it more efficiently than the government if nothing else! Of course, in my opinion, prisoners don't deserve anything more than a 5x5 cell with a drain in the middle and a bowl of mush twice a day. My prison would be incredibly cheap to operate. It's probably a good thing I don't operate one, because it just rubs me the wrong way when prisoners have big screen TV's and Playstation 3's and good hot meals to eat, when many people who actually work for a living can't claim the same. Border Opening has to go hand in hand with elimination of exploitable systems (welfare, mandated healthcare, etc) if there's no way for the illegal to consume public funds - then them being here doesn't matter. And while I think that it's silly to demand open borders (because you'd never get the right services cut or loopholes closed), I really think the best answer to this is enforcement. If a standard check at every government office or police interaction included having to prove citizenship and the penalty was 5 years of hard labor building the new border wall (50 foot high, 4 lanes wide... physical wall) you'd be had pressed to find an illegal anywhere. On higher education: the system is broken - we need to stop funding it and let the institutions sink or swim on their own, right now a college degree is just a path to perpetual debt for most of the kids attending. Prisoners: Bring back the chain gang. I don't care if they're digging holes & moving dirt across the field to fill in the hole they dug yesterday... but work them and work them hard. It's supposed to be punishment, no more cable tv - air conditioning or any sort of luxuries. 3 meals a day, a Cot in a 4x7 cell, pillow/blanket and toilet paper should be it. As for the quality of food - I'd probably use that as an incentive program - you're basic (for someone in solitary) is oatmeal, some sort of meat on bread and soup. Update the food based on job performance. At that point the most profitable prisons would be the ones doing the most useful work. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 16, 2012, 01:27:11 AM Prisoners: Bring back the chain gang. I don't care if they're digging holes & moving dirt across the field to fill in the hole they dug yesterday... but work them and work them hard. It's supposed to be punishment, no more cable tv - air conditioning or any sort of luxuries. 3 meals a day, a Cot in a 4x7 cell, pillow/blanket and toilet paper should be it. As for the quality of food - I'd probably use that as an incentive program - you're basic (for someone in solitary) is oatmeal, some sort of meat on bread and soup. Update the food based on job performance. At that point the most profitable prisons would be the ones doing the most useful work. +1 M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Transisto on October 16, 2012, 05:28:11 AM Debating Obama vs Romney is a waste of time, if not it's poor entertainment. I would have hoped peoples of this forum knew better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fgFXO522NU&feature=player_detailpage#t=28s Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: vampire on October 16, 2012, 09:33:39 AM Debating Obama vs Romney is a waste of time, if not it's poor entertainment. I would have hoped peoples of this forum knew better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fgFXO522NU&feature=player_detailpage#t=28s I am shitting on both of them. But Romney is MUCH worse than Obama. I prefer status quo over a liar. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: VeeMiner on October 16, 2012, 11:17:06 AM let's hope the economy won't crush so bad that there will be mayhem, because then without internet we wouldn't have much use for BTC...
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on October 16, 2012, 11:47:27 AM Debating Obama vs Romney is a waste of time, if not it's poor entertainment. I would have hoped peoples of this forum knew better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fgFXO522NU&feature=player_detailpage#t=28s I am shitting on both of them. But Romney is MUCH worse than Obama. I prefer status quo over a liar. Obama released the famous "torture memos" in 2009. However, his own legal opinions justifying the drone strikes have never been released and he continues to refuse to release them. http://www.salon.com/2009/02/10/obama_88/ See this article for more on how Obama completely abandoned his most important campaign promise -- to end the abuses Bush started. (Of course, I certainly don't think a Romney administration would fix this.) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: vampire on October 16, 2012, 12:59:14 PM Really you just have your choice of liars. On what is quite possibly the most serious issue where a President can actually make a difference -- Executive invocation of the State Secrets doctrine to hide the Federal Government from public scrutiny -- Obama promised to end the Bush practice of widespread invocation and "run the most transparent administration in history". Instead, Obama has launched a war on whistle blowers, prosecuting people for leaking classified information to the press twice as much in just his first term as all other previous administrations combined. Tell me which president didn't break a single campaign promise? Romney is outright lying. Yes, Obama is status quo, he didn't change much Bush's policies. The change that Obama promised never happened. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 16, 2012, 01:05:42 PM Really you just have your choice of liars. On what is quite possibly the most serious issue where a President can actually make a difference -- Executive invocation of the State Secrets doctrine to hide the Federal Government from public scrutiny -- Obama promised to end the Bush practice of widespread invocation and "run the most transparent administration in history". Instead, Obama has launched a war on whistle blowers, prosecuting people for leaking classified information to the press twice as much in just his first term as all other previous administrations combined. Tell me which president didn't break a single campaign promise? Romney is outright lying. Yes, Obama is status quo, he didn't change much Bush's policies. The change that Obama promised never happened. Q: How can you tell when a politician is lying? A: When his lips are moving. Therefore, don't vote for the politician. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on October 16, 2012, 01:18:18 PM Really you just have your choice of liars. On what is quite possibly the most serious issue where a President can actually make a difference -- Executive invocation of the State Secrets doctrine to hide the Federal Government from public scrutiny -- Obama promised to end the Bush practice of widespread invocation and "run the most transparent administration in history". Instead, Obama has launched a war on whistle blowers, prosecuting people for leaking classified information to the press twice as much in just his first term as all other previous administrations combined. Tell me which president didn't break a single campaign promise? Romney is outright lying. Yes, Obama is status quo, he didn't change much Bush's policies. The change that Obama promised never happened.If you think Obama will continue the same things Bush was doing, then what do you think Romney is going to do? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: vampire on October 16, 2012, 01:26:00 PM If you think Obama will continue the same things Bush was doing, then what do you think Romney is going to do? Romney will try to capitalize on his victory by pushing interests of select few. He will remove payroll tax cut - he will increase tax on all employees. He will try to remove / reduce capital gain and dividends tax cuts. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on October 16, 2012, 01:56:51 PM Based on the exclusive 2-party debate between Obama and Romney (well, the first 45 minutes anyway), I was slightly surprised that Romney did much better than Obama. Based on Internet anecdotes, I was expecting Romney to be more of a "used car salesman" with shiny gold teeth and a twinkle in his eye. It was odd. I watched the entire debate and I didn't think that Romney "won". To me, he came across as a bully and he kept insisting on things that simply couldn't be true.I think Obama was definitely trying to play it safe and be conservative and not risk any major blunder that Romney could capitalize on. As a result, he didn't really appear as strong as he could have. Maybe that's what everyone else was picking up on. Or maybe their expectations for Romney were just insanely low. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on October 16, 2012, 03:42:42 PM In honor of the debate tonight...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=WpMPu5p_QXU Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: firefop on October 16, 2012, 10:58:38 PM It was odd. I watched the entire debate and I didn't think that Romney "won". To me, he came across as a bully and he kept insisting on things that simply couldn't be true. I think Obama was definitely trying to play it safe and be conservative and not risk any major blunder that Romney could capitalize on. As a result, he didn't really appear as strong as he could have. Maybe that's what everyone else was picking up on. Or maybe their expectations for Romney were just insanely low. Granted Obama seemed a bit shy... probably because his advisors are telling him that if he makes any huge mistakes he runs the risk of catapulting Romney into total victory. But when it comes right down to it, Romney actually knew things and Obama didn't. The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jasinlee on October 16, 2012, 11:29:14 PM In honor of the debate tonight... http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=WpMPu5p_QXU Lmao never seen that before, love it. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on October 17, 2012, 12:36:15 AM The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it. Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral.Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 02:38:59 AM The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it. Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral.I don't think Romney said closing loopholes is the only method to achieve his goal. Though he does have a record of closing loopholes in MA, he closed 22 state tax loopholes while he's governor of MA, as a result MA has a rather balanced budget while most other states were doing quite poorly in terms of budget. Romney is a business genius, I'd rather believe he has a few tricks up his sleeves. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Littleshop on October 17, 2012, 03:22:05 AM The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it. Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral.I don't think Romney said closing loopholes is the only method to achieve his goal. Though he does have a record of closing loopholes in MA, he closed 22 state tax loopholes while he's governor of MA, as a result MA has a rather balanced budget while most other states were doing quite poorly in terms of budget. Romney is a business genius, I'd rather believe he has a few tricks up his sleeves. He has said he will not raise taxes for anyone, even the high earners. He has said what he will not cut in terms of the budget, leaving no room to balance the budget. Getting rid of big bird is not going to be enough. Obama has not outlined a plan that will do it either. A combination of taxing higher earners 39% , a 10% defense cut, stopping subsidy money to oil and farming interests as well as moderate cuts throughout the budget could do it. Neither side has the balls to do it. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 04:52:33 AM LittleShop/JoelKatz
If you were a one-issue voter, debt-reduction was your single issue, and you had to vote for Obama or Romney, who would you vote for? I'm asking because I'm legitimately curious. I was planning on not voting this election but decided that even though neither is a good candidate, their outlooks are sufficiently different that it *might* impact the debt situation. Just curious to hear what your opinions are, and anyone else who feels they have a well-researched opinion on the matter. As for me, I'm weighing a four year period where Obama did nothing to address the $1 trillion dollar deficits he inherited from bush in his entire four year term, vs. Romney clearly lying about the net effect of his 20% across the board tax cut and his litmus test of 'not adding to the deficit' as a freakishly low bar given our deficit spending rate these days. On the plus side for Romney, he did balance the budget in Mass. but its not as impressive as it sounds. Massachusetts, like most US states, has a balanced budget law that requires the budget to balance every year. Thoughts? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 17, 2012, 10:24:43 AM He has said he will not raise taxes for anyone, even the high earners. He has said what he will not cut in terms of the budget, leaving no room to balance the budget. Getting rid of big bird is not going to be enough. Obama has not outlined a plan that will do it either. A combination of taxing higher earners 39% , a 10% defense cut, stopping subsidy money to oil and farming interests as well as moderate cuts throughout the budget could do it. Neither side has the balls to do it. The government shouldn't subsidize ANYTHING. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jojo69 on October 17, 2012, 12:20:05 PM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc&list=PL96675BDF95286773&index=1&feature=plcp
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 12:38:49 PM The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it. Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral.I don't think Romney said closing loopholes is the only method to achieve his goal. Though he does have a record of closing loopholes in MA, he closed 22 state tax loopholes while he's governor of MA, as a result MA has a rather balanced budget while most other states were doing quite poorly in terms of budget. Romney is a business genius, I'd rather believe he has a few tricks up his sleeves. He has said he will not raise taxes for anyone, even the high earners. He has said what he will not cut in terms of the budget, leaving no room to balance the budget. Getting rid of big bird is not going to be enough. Obama has not outlined a plan that will do it either. A combination of taxing higher earners 39% , a 10% defense cut, stopping subsidy money to oil and farming interests as well as moderate cuts throughout the budget could do it. Neither side has the balls to do it. Closing loopholes would have the equivalent effect of raising tax on the high income earners, without actually raising tax. The top 5% pays 60% of the income tax, as stated in the debate. It's quite brilliant actually, so brilliant that Obama actually stole Romney's idea in the debate, saying HE will close loopholes, which I thought was pretty shameless, Obama has had the job for 4 years, and closed 0 loopholes. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on October 17, 2012, 01:16:25 PM The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it. Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral.I have to make much the same point with his comment about cutting government funding of public broadcasting. I think he's right and that's a good example of government spending that could be cut, largely a subsidy to the rich. But if that's the best example he can come up with -- something that won't make any difference to the bottom line -- it suggests he has no better ideas and has no plan for things to actually cut that will make an actual difference. LittleShop/JoelKatz That's a really good question. Based on long-term party history, you have to favor the Republicans on this. But based on short-term party history, neither party has done much when they were in power. It used to be that you could at least figure that if Congress and the President are from opposite parties, compromise will hold down spending. But a lot of the recent compromise has been "you spend money where I want, and I'll let you spend money where you want". Honestly, I'd say it's a pretty close tie with maybe a slight edge to Romney because he might actually return to old-school Republican reductions in government spending. But if you want tax increases to be part of the solution over cutting government services, then you may prefer Obama, even if you don't think he'll cut the deficit quite as much.If you were a one-issue voter, debt-reduction was your single issue, and you had to vote for Obama or Romney, who would you vote for? I'm asking because I'm legitimately curious. I was planning on not voting this election but decided that even though neither is a good candidate, their outlooks are sufficiently different that it *might* impact the debt situation. Just curious to hear what your opinions are, and anyone else who feels they have a well-researched opinion on the matter. As for me, I'm weighing a four year period where Obama did nothing to address the $1 trillion dollar deficits he inherited from bush in his entire four year term, vs. Romney clearly lying about the net effect of his 20% across the board tax cut and his litmus test of 'not adding to the deficit' as a freakishly low bar given our deficit spending rate these days. On the plus side for Romney, he did balance the budget in Mass. but its not as impressive as it sounds. Massachusetts, like most US states, has a balanced budget law that requires the budget to balance every year. Thoughts? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 02:06:54 PM The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it. Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral.I have to make much the same point with his comment about cutting government funding of public broadcasting. I think he's right and that's a good example of government spending that could be cut, largely a subsidy to the rich. But if that's the best example he can come up with -- something that won't make any difference to the bottom line -- it suggests he has no better ideas and has no plan for things to actually cut that will make an actual difference. LittleShop/JoelKatz That's a really good question. Based on long-term party history, you have to favor the Republicans on this. But based on short-term party history, neither party has done much when they were in power. It used to be that you could at least figure that if Congress and the President are from opposite parties, compromise will hold down spending. But a lot of the recent compromise has been "you spend money where I want, and I'll let you spend money where you want". Honestly, I'd say it's a pretty close tie with maybe a slight edge to Romney because he might actually return to old-school Republican reductions in government spending. But if you want tax increases to be part of the solution over cutting government services, then you may prefer Obama, even if you don't think he'll cut the deficit quite as much.If you were a one-issue voter, debt-reduction was your single issue, and you had to vote for Obama or Romney, who would you vote for? I'm asking because I'm legitimately curious. I was planning on not voting this election but decided that even though neither is a good candidate, their outlooks are sufficiently different that it *might* impact the debt situation. Just curious to hear what your opinions are, and anyone else who feels they have a well-researched opinion on the matter. As for me, I'm weighing a four year period where Obama did nothing to address the $1 trillion dollar deficits he inherited from bush in his entire four year term, vs. Romney clearly lying about the net effect of his 20% across the board tax cut and his litmus test of 'not adding to the deficit' as a freakishly low bar given our deficit spending rate these days. On the plus side for Romney, he did balance the budget in Mass. but its not as impressive as it sounds. Massachusetts, like most US states, has a balanced budget law that requires the budget to balance every year. Thoughts? Home mortgage interest deduction is not a loophole, please look up what a loophole is. Here are some example loopholes Romney closed in MA while he's governor: * Removed tax shelter status for fake "real estate lenders", (because banks were posing as real estate lenders to exploit this tax loophole) * Computer software purchased in Massachusetts stores was subject to sales tax, but the same product downloaded from the Internet was not. * Trusts were used as intermediaries in the sale of businesses to limit taxes on the transactions. * Companies like WorldCom Inc., headquartered in low-tax states, charged subsidiaries located in MA royalty fees for business ideas coming from the home office. That moved money from MA to another low tax state, lowering taxes. * Increased fee for use of Public land/facility, instead of subsidized by tax-payer. Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate. Of course Obama has no idea which loopholes to close, since Obama has ZERO record of closing them after having the job for 4 years. Romney has the experience and the record, and that's good enough for me to believe him. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on October 17, 2012, 04:34:23 PM Home mortgage interest deduction is not a loophole, please look up what a loophole is. Why is it not a loophole? Other loan interests aren't deductible but home mortgage interest is. Why isn't the special treatment for this one type of interest a loophole? But the point is that there is no objective test for whether something is a loophole. Roughly speaking, it's something that is given a special break relative to other things that are similar and objectively should have similar treatment perhaps as a social engineering way to encourage things, perhaps as a special gift to a privileged group. Objectively, home mortgage interest is essentially no different from credit card interest and there's no reason taxes should treat them differently.Quote Here are some example loopholes Romney closed in MA while he's governor: I'm not sure why it's a loophole that you pay Massachusetts tax for a purchase made in a store in Massachusetts but not for a purchase not made in a store in Massachusetts. If that's a "loophole" then so is mortgage interest being deductible if it's for a home but not for a car. At least in the sales tax case, it's the absence of a State nexus that controls taxability, not the product purchased.* Removed tax shelter status for fake "real estate lenders", (because banks were posing as real estate lenders to exploit this tax loophole) * Computer software purchased in Massachusetts stores was subject to sales tax, but the same product downloaded from the Internet was not. Quote * Trusts were used as intermediaries in the sale of businesses to limit taxes on the transactions. Okay, fine. So what *Federal* loopholes would he close?* Companies like WorldCom Inc., headquartered in low-tax states, charged subsidiaries located in MA royalty fees for business ideas coming from the home office. That moved money from MA to another low tax state, lowering taxes. * Increased fee for use of Public land/facility, instead of subsidized by tax-payer. Quote Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate. Of course Obama has no idea which loopholes to close, since Obama has ZERO record of closing them after having the job for 4 years. Romney has the experience and the record, and that's good enough for me to believe him. If Romney is going to keep his plan a secret, there is no way I can evaluate whether it's a good plan or not. Bluntly, it seems *impossible* -- they're just aren't the kinds of loopholes that would create enough revenue, other than loopholes that would hit the middle class and small businesses heavily.Is the earned income tax credit a "loophole"? I don't know if Romney considers it one. Is the home mortgage interest deduction a loophole in Romney's eyes? What about the self-employed health insurance deduction? Frankly, I have no idea what his plan is, and I can't reliably assess who it will help and who it will hurt. This is a huge *negative* against Romney to me. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jojo69 on October 17, 2012, 05:47:39 PM Bluntly, it seems *impossible* -- they're just aren't the kinds of loopholes that would create enough revenue, other than loopholes that would hit the middle class and small businesses heavily. there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on October 17, 2012, 06:09:32 PM Bluntly, it seems *impossible* -- they're just aren't the kinds of loopholes that would create enough revenue, other than loopholes that would hit the middle class and small businesses heavily. there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenuenot defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest On an unrelated note, I was thinking about more about Kokojie's "Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate." That sounds almost treasonous to me. Is winning the election really more important to him than balancing the budget? If Obama will commit to the key elements of Romney's super-awesome tax plan, that means the country probably gets it no matter which candidate wins. Putting winning the election ahead of the country's best interests would totally disqualify him, IMO. I hope that's not what he's thinking. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 06:12:05 PM Quote there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 06:52:31 PM Bluntly, it seems *impossible* -- they're just aren't the kinds of loopholes that would create enough revenue, other than loopholes that would hit the middle class and small businesses heavily. there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenuenot defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest On an unrelated note, I was thinking about more about Kokojie's "Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate." That sounds almost treasonous to me. Is winning the election really more important to him than balancing the budget? If Obama will commit to the key elements of Romney's super-awesome tax plan, that means the country probably gets it no matter which candidate wins. Putting winning the election ahead of the country's best interests would totally disqualify him, IMO. I hope that's not what he's thinking. The best plans means nothing if it's implemented by an imbecile. Obama simply don't have the necessary experience and business sense to implement Romney's plan, this is why in the business world, as a fresh college grad you don't usually get good jobs, because you lack experience. Obama can steal Romney's idea to win the election, but he can't actually implement them correctly due to his inexperience and incompetence. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 06:57:27 PM Bluntly, it seems *impossible* -- they're just aren't the kinds of loopholes that would create enough revenue, other than loopholes that would hit the middle class and small businesses heavily. there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest When Romney got elected to MA governor in 2002, MA was also facing a huge budget deficit, few would even lend money to MA anymore, the state was nearly insolvent. 4 years later, MA had a balanced budget almost every single year under Romney, the financial situation certainly turned around. Sure it's not enough to just close loopholes, and that's not what Romney is saying, this is just one method to help achieve his goal. In MA, closing the loopholes created $1.5B new revenue, it was not enough to erase the deficit, but these little things add up, and they do help. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 17, 2012, 07:02:38 PM Quote there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible. We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt. Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 07:04:17 PM Quote there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible. We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt. Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians. That's mostly thanks to Obama, increasing the debt from 10T to 16T in a matter of 4 years. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on October 17, 2012, 07:04:58 PM I'm going with the honest man. The liar pisses me off.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 07:06:21 PM I'm going with the honest man. The liar pisses me off. Both candidate has to lie about certain things in the campaign, that's just the way it is. Otherwise you simply won't get elected. The most honest president in the past 100 years was Jimmy Carter, and he wasn't really that great as President. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 17, 2012, 07:06:33 PM I'm going with the honest man. The liar pisses me off. Nobody for president 2012? Now that's a vote I can get behind. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on October 17, 2012, 07:08:23 PM I, for one, am tired of voting for the lesser of two weevils. ;D
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 17, 2012, 07:08:35 PM Quote there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible. We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt. Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians. That's mostly thanks to Obama, increasing the debt from 10T to 16T in a matter of 4 years. Right... it couldn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the economy and getting us involved with two wars. Sure, Obama's very far from perfect, but I doubt you could have done better given the same situation. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 17, 2012, 07:14:49 PM Quote there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible. We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt. Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians. That's mostly thanks to Obama, increasing the debt from 10T to 16T in a matter of 4 years. Right... it couldn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the economy and getting us involved with two wars. Sure, Obama's very far from perfect, but I doubt you could have done better given the same situation. Well, closing Gitmo (like he said he would), bringing the troops home (like he said he would), and legalizing marijuana (Like he said we should) would have helped. If he'd done anything but fly around and make more campaign speeches, he would have done better. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jojo69 on October 17, 2012, 07:16:06 PM Quote there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible. The public sector is such a large part of the economy now that cuts of a magnitude that would actually address the debt in a meaningful way would cripple growth...thus reducing tax input. We are over the event horizon. The gravitational pull of this black hole of debt can not be escaped. Gold, food, BTC, 12Ga buckshot, brace for impact. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 07:16:39 PM Quote there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible. We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt. Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians. That's mostly thanks to Obama, increasing the debt from 10T to 16T in a matter of 4 years. Right... it couldn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the economy and getting us involved with two wars. Sure, Obama's very far from perfect, but I doubt you could have done better given the same situation. The wars started in 2003, and they only had a tiny effect on deficit or debt, the defict and debt didn't increase so dramatically until 2009 when Obama took office. So I don't think it's the wars. https://i.imgur.com/20614.png Bush didn't fuck up the economy, the two biggest recessions in the past 20 years, were caused by dotcom bubble and the housing bubble, correct? Both are actually caused by Bill Clinton. The dotcom bubble is pretty evident, it happened entirely within Clinton's administration, and Clinton did nothing, he was the biggest cheerleader for the dotcom bubble. When the bubble went crashing down, he simply handed the recession to Bush. The housing bubble is a little more complicated, as housing cycles are very slow. But I think most people who investigated the cause, can agree that Clinton's huge expansion of the "Community Re-investment Act", allowing Fannie and Freddie to blindly guarantee subprime mortgages, played a big part in forming that bubble. Bush actually asked for regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but the proposal got shot down by democrats in Congress. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 17, 2012, 07:27:59 PM Quote there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible. We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt. Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians. That's mostly thanks to Obama, increasing the debt from 10T to 16T in a matter of 4 years. Right... it couldn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the economy and getting us involved with two wars. Sure, Obama's very far from perfect, but I doubt you could have done better given the same situation. The wars started in 2003, and they only had a tiny effect on deficit or debt, the defict and debt didn't increase so dramatically until 2009 when Obama took office. So I don't think it's the wars. https://i.imgur.com/20614.png Bush didn't fuck up the economy, the two biggest recessions in the past 20 years, were caused by dotcom bubble and the housing bubble, correct? Both are actually caused by Bill Clinton. The dotcom bubble is pretty evident, it happened entirely within Clinton's administration, and Clinton did nothing, he was the biggest cheerleader for the dotcom bubble. When the bubble went crashing down, he simply handed the recession to Bush. The housing bubble is a little more complicated, as housing cycles are very slow. But I think most people who investigated the cause, can agree that Clinton's huge expansion of the "Community Re-investment Act", allowing Fannie and Freddie to blindly guarantee subprime mortgages, played a big part in forming that bubble. Bush actually asked for regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but the proposal got shot down by democrats in Congress. Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart. Obama called BS and started counting it. That's why it looks so much worse after he took office. http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/55667611.aspx Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 07:29:51 PM Bush didn't fuck up the economy I voted for him... twice. And I believe this statement to be totally wrong. He wasn't the only one responsible, but his 'increase government while decreasing taxes' strategy is a huge part of why we had $1 trillion deficits once the housing bubble crashed. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 07:30:52 PM Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart. Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 17, 2012, 07:31:31 PM Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart. Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =) I edited my post above already. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jojo69 on October 17, 2012, 07:32:55 PM This got lost in all the back and forth
I'm going to drop it in again, well worth watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc&list=PL96675BDF95286773&index=1&feature=plcp Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SgtSpike on October 17, 2012, 07:40:31 PM Quote there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible. We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt. Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians. That's mostly thanks to Obama, increasing the debt from 10T to 16T in a matter of 4 years. Right... it couldn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the economy and getting us involved with two wars. Sure, Obama's very far from perfect, but I doubt you could have done better given the same situation. The wars started in 2003, and they only had a tiny effect on deficit or debt, the defict and debt didn't increase so dramatically until 2009 when Obama took office. So I don't think it's the wars. https://i.imgur.com/20614.png Bush didn't fuck up the economy, the two biggest recessions in the past 20 years, were caused by dotcom bubble and the housing bubble, correct? Both are actually caused by Bill Clinton. The dotcom bubble is pretty evident, it happened entirely within Clinton's administration, and Clinton did nothing, he was the biggest cheerleader for the dotcom bubble. When the bubble went crashing down, he simply handed the recession to Bush. The housing bubble is a little more complicated, as housing cycles are very slow. But I think most people who investigated the cause, can agree that Clinton's huge expansion of the "Community Re-investment Act", allowing Fannie and Freddie to blindly guarantee subprime mortgages, played a big part in forming that bubble. Bush actually asked for regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but the proposal got shot down by democrats in Congress. Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart. Obama called BS and started counting it. That's why it looks so much worse after he took office. http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/55667611.aspx I don't know what part of that $150B/year is claimed to be "off the books", but even if all of that number is off the books, Bush's deficits still look a heck of a lot better than Obama's. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 17, 2012, 07:53:54 PM The total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is only $1.4T (http://costofwar.com/). I believe it was under $1T when Obama took office. That's less than $150B/year. I don't know what part of that $150B/year is claimed to be "off the books", but even if all of that number is off the books, Bush's deficits still look a heck of a lot better than Obama's. From that site: http://costofwar.com/about/notes-and-sources/ Quote Spending includes only incremental costs – those additional funds that are expended due to the war. For example, soldiers' regular pay is not included but combat pay is included. Potential future costs, such as future medical care for soldiers and veterans wounded in the war, are not included. These figures also do not include additional interest payments on the national debt that will result from higher deficits due to war spending. These numbers are based on an analysis of legislation in which Congress has allocated money for war and research by the Congressional Research Service (latest report) which has access to Department of Defense financial reports. An article offered by the Strauss Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information offers greater insight into the problems of truly knowing how much has been spent on the Iraq War or other military operations. During the Bush administration, the majority of war funding was allocated through emergency supplementals. Beginning with the FY2010 budget, most of the war funding was included in the core budget appropriations process. In July 2010, Congress passed additional supplemental appropriations to fund the 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan announced by President Obama in December 2009. In other words, they are only counting what is on the books. Also, they aren't counting the base pay for the additional soldiers needed, only the combat hazard pay. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 08:01:39 PM Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart. Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =) I edited my post above already. Sorry notme, took a look and the information in your link is not relevant or substantive. A correct way to say what you might mean by 'off the books' is that we haven't finished paying for all of the wars costs, and only past costs are accounted for in the deficit graph posted. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 17, 2012, 08:10:21 PM Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart. Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =) I edited my post above already. Sorry notme, took a look and the information in your link is not relevant or substantive. A correct way to say what you might mean by 'off the books' is that we haven't finished paying for all of the wars costs, and only past costs are accounted for in the deficit graph posted. The deficit graph is based on budget deficits. If the spending is funded by "emergency measures" it is not included in the budget, thus not included in the deficit. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 08:15:10 PM Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart. Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =) I edited my post above already. Sorry notme, took a look and the information in your link is not relevant or substantive. A correct way to say what you might mean by 'off the books' is that we haven't finished paying for all of the wars costs, and only past costs are accounted for in the deficit graph posted. The deficit graph is based on budget deficits. If the spending is funded by "emergency measures" it is not included in the budget, thus not included in the deficit. Deficits for past years are based on actual rather than projected receipts and expenditures. Differences being discussed in the current campaign largely have to do with how to project ongoing receipts and expenditures. If I'm wrong on this, please point me to something substantive that shows how the government can invent money off the books via 'emergency expenditures', as that would certainly be relevant. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 08:16:57 PM Quote there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible. We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt. Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians. That's mostly thanks to Obama, increasing the debt from 10T to 16T in a matter of 4 years. Right... it couldn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the economy and getting us involved with two wars. Sure, Obama's very far from perfect, but I doubt you could have done better given the same situation. The wars started in 2003, and they only had a tiny effect on deficit or debt, the defict and debt didn't increase so dramatically until 2009 when Obama took office. So I don't think it's the wars. https://i.imgur.com/20614.png Bush didn't fuck up the economy, the two biggest recessions in the past 20 years, were caused by dotcom bubble and the housing bubble, correct? Both are actually caused by Bill Clinton. The dotcom bubble is pretty evident, it happened entirely within Clinton's administration, and Clinton did nothing, he was the biggest cheerleader for the dotcom bubble. When the bubble went crashing down, he simply handed the recession to Bush. The housing bubble is a little more complicated, as housing cycles are very slow. But I think most people who investigated the cause, can agree that Clinton's huge expansion of the "Community Re-investment Act", allowing Fannie and Freddie to blindly guarantee subprime mortgages, played a big part in forming that bubble. Bush actually asked for regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but the proposal got shot down by democrats in Congress. Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart. Obama called BS and started counting it. That's why it looks so much worse after he took office. http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/55667611.aspx Not true, the graph wouldn't be much different even if you add the war costs that were omitted from budget. Also the national debt can't lie, Bush increased the debt by 4.5T in 8 years, Obama increased the debt by 6T in 4 years, with wars that are supposedly has been winding down, I don't think it can be explained by war costs. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 08:34:05 PM Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart. Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =) I edited my post above already. Sorry notme, took a look and the information in your link is not relevant or substantive. A correct way to say what you might mean by 'off the books' is that we haven't finished paying for all of the wars costs, and only past costs are accounted for in the deficit graph posted. The deficit graph is based on budget deficits. If the spending is funded by "emergency measures" it is not included in the budget, thus not included in the deficit. Deficits for past years are based on actual rather than projected receipts and expenditures. Differences being discussed in the current campaign largely have to do with how to project ongoing receipts and expenditures. If I'm wrong on this, please point me to something substantive that shows how the government can invent money off the books via 'emergency expenditures', as that would certainly be relevant. As an example so you can work out the details yourself, here's an emergency appropriation bill that passed in 2005: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr1268 Here is a record of estimated vs. actual expenditures in the budget for that year: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_estimate_vs_actual_2005_XXbs1n_30 Notice how $450 billion was budgeted for military, but $495 billion was actually spent that year. The difference is largely made up of emergency appropriations. Notice also that the ACTUAL deficit from that table ($318 billion) is what shows up in the chart kokojie linked. Deficits for past years don't have stuff 'off the books'. They can have structural deficits, but that's a whole different discussion. Not true, the graph wouldn't be much different even if you add the war costs that were omitted from budget. Shame on you kokojie, you obviously don't understand the figures you're linking, and if you didn't understand them, you have no business making assertions about how they would or wouldn't be different. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SgtSpike on October 17, 2012, 08:42:47 PM Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart. Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =) I edited my post above already. Sorry notme, took a look and the information in your link is not relevant or substantive. A correct way to say what you might mean by 'off the books' is that we haven't finished paying for all of the wars costs, and only past costs are accounted for in the deficit graph posted. The deficit graph is based on budget deficits. If the spending is funded by "emergency measures" it is not included in the budget, thus not included in the deficit. Deficits for past years are based on actual rather than projected receipts and expenditures. Differences being discussed in the current campaign largely have to do with how to project ongoing receipts and expenditures. If I'm wrong on this, please point me to something substantive that shows how the government can invent money off the books via 'emergency expenditures', as that would certainly be relevant. As an example so you can work out the details yourself, here's an emergency appropriation bill that passed in 2005: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr1268 Here is a record of estimated vs. actual expenditures in the budget for that year: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_estimate_vs_actual_2005_XXbs1n_30 Notice how $450 billion was budgeted for military, but $495 billion was actually spent that year. The difference is largely made up of emergency appropriations. Notice also that the ACTUAL deficit from that table ($318 billion) is what shows up in the chart kokojie linked. Deficits for past years don't have stuff 'off the books'. They can have structural deficits, but that's a whole different discussion. Not true, the graph wouldn't be much different even if you add the war costs that were omitted from budget. Shame on you kokojie, you obviously don't understand the figures you're linking, and if you didn't understand them, you have no business making assertions about how they would or wouldn't be different. Keep FUDing please, this is getting entertaining. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on October 17, 2012, 09:19:25 PM There are several issues that makes Obama a deal breaker for me, not that I really like Romney, but right now, Romney looks a million times better than Obama: * Obama supports legalizing tens of millions of illegals, Romney is against What Obama says and what he does do not always intersect. Obama has overseen the largest number of deportations of any presidency. Yet he makes token movements toward allowing undocumented immigrants who have been here since they were children to remain. I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally. You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Littleshop on October 17, 2012, 09:26:50 PM Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate. Of course Obama has no idea which loopholes to close, since Obama has ZERO record of closing them after having the job for 4 years. Romney has the experience and the record, and that's good enough for me to believe him. This post highlights the problem with politics in America. Ideas on how to fix the country cannot be stolen. If it is a good idea I do not care of Ron Paul, Romney or Obama it. There is no secret sauce, there is no secret idea that Romney has to fix the country. The problem is not the ideas, it is the resolve of getting them done. This requires BOTH sides to co-operate. So far they do not seem to be able to do that. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 09:29:13 PM I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally. You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted? ++ I'm glad my family immigrated when Ellis Island was open, it helped us a lot. I want others to have that same freedom. We obviously need to find ways to more productively integrate immigrants. Each person represents a tremendous potential both economically and socially. Only seeing the potential downsides to immigration seems un-american to me. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on October 17, 2012, 09:33:45 PM - Privatized prisons would be interesting... certainly, they could do it more efficiently than the government if nothing else! Of course, in my opinion, prisoners don't deserve anything more than a 5x5 cell with a drain in the middle and a bowl of mush twice a day. My prison would be incredibly cheap to operate. It's probably a good thing I don't operate one, because it just rubs me the wrong way when prisoners have big screen TV's and Playstation 3's and good hot meals to eat, when many people who actually work for a living can't claim the same. Many prisons in the United States are already privatized. This creates a issue because it is in the corporation operating the prison's best interest to keep their cots full since they get paid per head. To that end they lobby for laws that supply more heads for them to charge the customer (the government) for. For example: http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/10/arizonas_draconian_and_constitutionally_suspect.html Sure, they might be able to house the same number of prisoners for less money, but if they are using their profits to "reinvest" by turning more people into criminals, than that is a problem. In the end, it costs the taxpayer and the economy more because we've moved yet another productive member of society into a position of dependence on the government. The fact (yes, this is a fact) that the "land of the free" has the highest per capita incarceration rate of any country in the world disgusts me. For more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate I propose we eliminate federal prisons altogether. Keeping people locked up in cages is just a waste of resources. Instead, we should use alternate forms of punishment. Fines, wage garnishments, etc. For henious crimes, just use a quick capital punishment and get it over with. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 09:36:54 PM Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate. Of course Obama has no idea which loopholes to close, since Obama has ZERO record of closing them after having the job for 4 years. Romney has the experience and the record, and that's good enough for me to believe him. This post highlights the problem with politics in America. Ideas on how to fix the country cannot be stolen. If it is a good idea I do not care of Ron Paul, Romney or Obama it. There is no secret sauce, there is no secret idea that Romney has to fix the country. The problem is not the ideas, it is the resolve of getting them done. This requires BOTH sides to co-operate. So far they do not seem to be able to do that. Sure it can be. In business, people steal ideas all the time, and Romney is 100% aware of it, this is why he don't want to give specifics. I disagree that idea is not important, idea is very important, it differentiates between the right way and the wrong way, if ideas are not important, then it's like saying being right or wrong is not important. Also even if everyone agrees on the right idea, it's still important who implements it. If Obama just steals Romney's idea and try to implement, I would say it'll probably fail, because Obama simply don't have the business sense, experience and intelligence to successfully implement Romney's ideas. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on October 17, 2012, 09:54:16 PM Quote there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible. While the debt servicing is still lower than the tax revenue there is still a posibility of reducing the debt by cutting spending. Once the debt payments rise higher than the tax revenue the only way to eliminate the debt would be to raise taxes or print more money. To anybody who is familiar with math, it should be obvious that we only have a short time to fix things (balance the budget, pay down debt, etc.) before the situation gets completely out of control. What I would like to see happen: income tax should be flattened, exemptions and credits eliminated so there is a single tax rate for all income. At the same time, the spending should be drastically cut: Close oversea military bases, increase minimum social security receiving age, sell off national parks (preferably to states to make state parks or to non-profits who will care for them), raise the interest rate on student loans, give all federal employees a 10% paycut, and whatever else can be cut. After the tax revenue rises above the spending, the surplus can be used to pay down the debt, eliminating that huge chunk of the budget that goes to debt servicing. After the debt is eliminated, taxes should be lowered (still keeping it as a flat income tax so everybody benefits from the lowering) and governemnt services can be expanded. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 18, 2012, 12:11:41 AM I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally. You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted? ++ I'm glad my family immigrated when Ellis Island was open, it helped us a lot. I want others to have that same freedom. We obviously need to find ways to more productively integrate immigrants. Each person represents a tremendous potential both economically and socially. Only seeing the potential downsides to immigration seems un-american to me. Immigration, illegal or otherwise, is only a problem when: a) the country is getting too full b) immigrants come for a free lunch a isn't happening b is happening from mexico because of government handouts. get rid of the handouts "stealing from peter to pay paul" and you won't have this problem anymore. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jojo69 on October 18, 2012, 12:15:32 AM Quote there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible. While the debt servicing is still lower than the tax revenue there is still a posibility of reducing the debt by cutting spending. Once the debt payments rise higher than the tax revenue the only way to eliminate the debt would be to raise taxes or print more money. To anybody who is familiar with math, it should be obvious that we only have a short time to fix things (balance the budget, pay down debt, etc.) before the situation gets completely out of control. What I would like to see happen: income tax should be flattened, exemptions and credits eliminated so there is a single tax rate for all income. At the same time, the spending should be drastically cut: Close oversea military bases, increase minimum social security receiving age, sell off national parks (preferably to states to make state parks or to non-profits who will care for them), raise the interest rate on student loans, give all federal employees a 10% paycut, and whatever else can be cut. After the tax revenue rises above the spending, the surplus can be used to pay down the debt, eliminating that huge chunk of the budget that goes to debt servicing. After the debt is eliminated, taxes should be lowered (still keeping it as a flat income tax so everybody benefits from the lowering) and governemnt services can be expanded. thanks for the reasoned post...but per my post above, the rubicon has been crossed, the time for these bold measures was two administrations ago, now the only exit is inflation Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Littleshop on October 18, 2012, 12:24:02 AM I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally. You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted? ++ I'm glad my family immigrated when Ellis Island was open, it helped us a lot. I want others to have that same freedom. We obviously need to find ways to more productively integrate immigrants. Each person represents a tremendous potential both economically and socially. Only seeing the potential downsides to immigration seems un-american to me. Immigration, illegal or otherwise, is only a problem when: a) the country is getting too full b) immigrants come for a free lunch a isn't happening b is happening from mexico because of government handouts. get rid of the handouts "stealing from peter to pay paul" and you won't have this problem anymore. M B is irrelevant. Yes, people have been given handouts, but Mexicans are not getting anywhere near what they put in. They are a net positive to the economy. We are FUCKING ourselves by encouraging hard workers to leave. Maybe I am in an usual area (Maryland) but I have only seen Mexicans working hard on roads, picking crops and doing outdoor work. I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Littleshop on October 18, 2012, 12:30:29 AM Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate. Of course Obama has no idea which loopholes to close, since Obama has ZERO record of closing them after having the job for 4 years. Romney has the experience and the record, and that's good enough for me to believe him. This post highlights the problem with politics in America. Ideas on how to fix the country cannot be stolen. If it is a good idea I do not care of Ron Paul, Romney or Obama it. There is no secret sauce, there is no secret idea that Romney has to fix the country. The problem is not the ideas, it is the resolve of getting them done. This requires BOTH sides to co-operate. So far they do not seem to be able to do that. Sure it can be. In business, people steal ideas all the time, and Romney is 100% aware of it, this is why he don't want to give specifics. I disagree that idea is not important, idea is very important, it differentiates between the right way and the wrong way, if ideas are not important, then it's like saying being right or wrong is not important. Also even if everyone agrees on the right idea, it's still important who implements it. If Obama just steals Romney's idea and try to implement, I would say it'll probably fail, because Obama simply don't have the business sense, experience and intelligence to successfully implement Romney's ideas. Sorry. The only magic that Romney has is magic underwear. Romney is lying when he says he can do this without more taxes and without defense cuts. It IS possible to balance the budget and not kill the economy but cuts need to be across the board including defense. And you can not do it while keeping both the middle class tax cut Obama gave us (the 2% off of fica) AND keeping the Regan cuts for the rich (top rate at 35% vs 39%). Math is math. This can only be done if both sides give in SUBSTANTIALLY. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 18, 2012, 12:34:03 AM I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. Maryland is not unique. The same can be said about practically every state. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 18, 2012, 12:37:25 AM I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. Maryland is not unique. The same can be said about practically every state. What are Mexicans doing this job? If they can "make a living" from it, why can't Americans? What's different? M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jojo69 on October 18, 2012, 12:43:19 AM What are Mexicans doing this job? If they can "make a living" from it, why can't Americans? What's different? M they can, all they have to do is put down the bong and go bust fucking ass in the field for 14 hours a day Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Atlas on October 18, 2012, 12:45:19 AM I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. Maryland is not unique. The same can be said about practically every state. What are Mexicans doing this job? If they can "make a living" from it, why can't Americans? What's different? M Americans will not settle for working $7 an hour, in a hot field for 14 hours. If the wage was higher, the business would be unprofitable. Everyone has their price and the price of an American is too high. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Littleshop on October 18, 2012, 12:45:29 AM I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. Maryland is not unique. The same can be said about practically every state. What are Mexicans doing this job? If they can "make a living" from it, why can't Americans? What's different? M Americans do not want to pick fields. The hourly price has exceeded $10 an hour here. Higher then that and it gets too expensive to farm. Mexicans=food security. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 18, 2012, 12:46:48 AM I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. Maryland is not unique. The same can be said about practically every state. What are Mexicans doing this job? If they can "make a living" from it, why can't Americans? What's different? M Americans do not want to pick fields. The hourly price has exceeded $10 an hour here. Higher then that and it gets too expensive to farm. Mexicans=food security. There's something wrong with this picture. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Littleshop on October 18, 2012, 12:49:16 AM I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. Maryland is not unique. The same can be said about practically every state. What are Mexicans doing this job? If they can "make a living" from it, why can't Americans? What's different? M Americans do not want to pick fields. The hourly price has exceeded $10 an hour here. Higher then that and it gets too expensive to farm. Mexicans=food security. There's something wrong with this picture. M Maybe so, but it is reality in many places. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Atlas on October 18, 2012, 12:54:10 AM I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. Maryland is not unique. The same can be said about practically every state. What are Mexicans doing this job? If they can "make a living" from it, why can't Americans? What's different? M Americans do not want to pick fields. The hourly price has exceeded $10 an hour here. Higher then that and it gets too expensive to farm. Mexicans=food security. There's something wrong with this picture. M No, there's nothing wrong at all. Different cultures have different tolerances. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 18, 2012, 01:01:25 AM No, there's nothing wrong at all. Different cultures have different tolerances. Differences exist even from person to person. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 18, 2012, 01:21:38 AM Quote there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible. While the debt servicing is still lower than the tax revenue there is still a posibility of reducing the debt by cutting spending. Once the debt payments rise higher than the tax revenue the only way to eliminate the debt would be to raise taxes or print more money. To anybody who is familiar with math, it should be obvious that we only have a short time to fix things (balance the budget, pay down debt, etc.) before the situation gets completely out of control. What I would like to see happen: income tax should be flattened, exemptions and credits eliminated so there is a single tax rate for all income. At the same time, the spending should be drastically cut: Close oversea military bases, increase minimum social security receiving age, sell off national parks (preferably to states to make state parks or to non-profits who will care for them), raise the interest rate on student loans, give all federal employees a 10% paycut, and whatever else can be cut. After the tax revenue rises above the spending, the surplus can be used to pay down the debt, eliminating that huge chunk of the budget that goes to debt servicing. After the debt is eliminated, taxes should be lowered (still keeping it as a flat income tax so everybody benefits from the lowering) and governemnt services can be expanded. Fuck you. We're already paying 6% variable and the only likely direction is already up. Your talking about a group of people for which 50% can't find employment that actually uses the skills they were promised were valuable. Older people are working longer because of the tough economic times and so fresh graduates can't find jobs. How much more burden do you expect us to bear? Our "elders" have already given us a pile of steaming shit for a country when they were handed a land of opportunity. We won't take much more abuse before you start seeing violence. I personally am more anti-violence than almost anyone my age I know, but I can't control my peers. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 18, 2012, 01:32:03 AM I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally. You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted? ++ I'm glad my family immigrated when Ellis Island was open, it helped us a lot. I want others to have that same freedom. We obviously need to find ways to more productively integrate immigrants. Each person represents a tremendous potential both economically and socially. Only seeing the potential downsides to immigration seems un-american to me. Immigration, illegal or otherwise, is only a problem when: a) the country is getting too full b) immigrants come for a free lunch a isn't happening b is happening from mexico because of government handouts. get rid of the handouts "stealing from peter to pay paul" and you won't have this problem anymore. M B is irrelevant. Yes, people have been given handouts, but Mexicans are not getting anywhere near what they put in. They are a net positive to the economy. We are FUCKING ourselves by encouraging hard workers to leave. Maybe I am in an usual area (Maryland) but I have only seen Mexicans working hard on roads, picking crops and doing outdoor work. I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. They might be a net positive for the near term, but what about the future. The slave owners 200 years ago also thought it was a net positive to own black slaves, they didn't think their sons and daughters will one day be wage slaves to support a 25% unemployed black population that rely on welfare/food stamps. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jojo69 on October 18, 2012, 01:33:59 AM Fuck you. We're already paying 6% variable and the only likely direction is already up. Your talking about a group of people for which 50% can't find employment that actually uses the skills they were promised were valuable. Older people are working longer because of the tough economic times and so fresh graduates can't find jobs. How much more burden do you expect us to bear? Our "elders" have already given us a pile of steaming shit for a country when they were handed a land of opportunity. We won't take much more abuse before you start seeing violence. I personally am more anti-violence than almost anyone my age I know, but I can't control my peers. whoa buddy, agree with you on the generational warfare, agree that times are tough, where exactly do you propose the money comes from? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 18, 2012, 01:34:27 AM I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. Maryland is not unique. The same can be said about practically every state. What are Mexicans doing this job? If they can "make a living" from it, why can't Americans? What's different? M Americans will not settle for working $7 an hour, in a hot field for 14 hours. If the wage was higher, the business would be unprofitable. Everyone has their price and the price of an American is too high. That's false, if they can't find anyone to work the fields, that's because their pay is too low. It won't be unprofitable if everyone was paying higher wages and raising prices. Food is too cheap in this country, the waste of food is pretty disturbing to be honest (estimated 40% food produced go to waste). Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 18, 2012, 01:37:13 AM They might be a net positive for the near term, but what about the future. The slave owners 200 years ago also thought it was a net positive to own black slaves, they didn't think their sons and daughters will one day be wage slaves to support a 25% unemployed black population that rely on welfare/food stamps. The problem there is not the former slaves (or their descendents), but the programs themselves. Before welfare, Harlem was a relatively affluent area: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mlPoGU4VqSk/S19BKAGkiqI/AAAAAAAAG1o/MQfcW6e_YzQ/s400/apollo.jpg Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: firefop on October 18, 2012, 01:43:30 AM Americans will not settle for working $7 an hour, in a hot field for 14 hours. If the wage was higher, the business would be unprofitable. Everyone has their price and the price of an American is too high. That's false, if they can't find anyone to work the fields, that's because their pay is too low. It won't be unprofitable if everyone was paying higher wages and raising prices. Food is too cheap in this country, the waste of food is pretty disturbing to be honest (estimated 40% food produced go to waste). Exactly correct. The problem with illegal migrant labor is that farming shouldn't be leverage business - a farmer should farm as much as he, his family and employees can farm. We shouldn't be turning a blind eye to them importing 1000 illegals for harvest at slave wages. But we also need to remove subsidy programs that pay farmers to now grow crops - they're only in place to keep food prices up... Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 18, 2012, 01:50:31 AM Fuck you. We're already paying 6% variable and the only likely direction is already up. Your talking about a group of people for which 50% can't find employment that actually uses the skills they were promised were valuable. Older people are working longer because of the tough economic times and so fresh graduates can't find jobs. How much more burden do you expect us to bear? Our "elders" have already given us a pile of steaming shit for a country when they were handed a land of opportunity. We won't take much more abuse before you start seeing violence. I personally am more anti-violence than almost anyone my age I know, but I can't control my peers. whoa buddy, agree with you on the generational warfare, agree that times are tough, where exactly do you propose the money comes from? I'm okay with the other suggestions made by bitcoinbear. In fact, I'm all for reform of the student loan industry. But raising interest rates on one of the groups that is struggling the hardest is outrageous. Yes, we absolutely need to put restrictions on who can take out student loans (GPA requirements, minimum # of hours, no alcohol related offenses, etc). I hate all forms of government guaranteed loans, but you can't fuck over those of us who have worked hard to better ourselves so we can provide useful labor. I am in grad school now, and my education is paid for by my GTA position, but I have about $20k debt still to be paid down from undergraduate. I graduated early with a 3.4 GPA from a great engineering school. I have made every payment on time or early and I have even made several extra payments on my loans. How am I rewarded? By paying more interest than someone who takes a mortgage out on their home. By suggestions that I should be paying more. By suggestions that my friends, who are still smart but not quite as talented as me, who are struggling to pay the bills each month because they can't get a job outside of retail of food, pay more. Whoa buddy yourself. That shit pisses my off. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on October 18, 2012, 02:16:09 AM Fuck you. We're already paying 6% variable and the only likely direction is already up. Your talking about a group of people for which 50% can't find employment that actually uses the skills they were promised were valuable. Older people are working longer because of the tough economic times and so fresh graduates can't find jobs. How much more burden do you expect us to bear? Our "elders" have already given us a pile of steaming shit for a country when they were handed a land of opportunity. We won't take much more abuse before you start seeing violence. I personally am more anti-violence than almost anyone my age I know, but I can't control my peers. whoa buddy, agree with you on the generational warfare, agree that times are tough, where exactly do you propose the money comes from? I'm okay with the other suggestions made by bitcoinbear. In fact, I'm all for reform of the student loan industry. But raising interest rates on one of the groups that is struggling the hardest is outrageous. Yes, we absolutely need to put restrictions on who can take out student loans (GPA requirements, minimum # of hours, no alcohol related offenses, etc). I hate all forms of government guaranteed loans, but you can't fuck over those of us who have worked hard to better ourselves so we can provide useful labor. I am in grad school now, and my education is paid for by my GTA position, but I have about $20k debt still to be paid down from undergraduate. I graduated early with a 3.4 GPA from a great engineering school. I have made every payment on time or early and I have even made several extra payments on my loans. How am I rewarded? By paying more interest than someone who takes a mortgage out on their home. By suggestions that I should be paying more. By suggestions that my friends, who are still smart but not quite as talented as me, who are struggling to pay the bills each month because they can't get a job outside of retail of food, pay more. Whoa buddy yourself. That shit pisses my off. The point is that everybody will have to give a little for this to work. If everybody says "Ok, the list is good except for the one point that effects me", then everything will get taken off the list and nothing will get done. Once we pay down the debt we can go back to subsidizing student loans (although perhaps not quite so much, we don't want to get back into debt as a country). If you cannot afford to pay back the student loans after you get out of college, perhaps you should reconsider taking them in the first place. (and by "you" I am not talking to you specifically, but the general you of all the people considering taking out student loans.) Many people take out student loans and then study subjects that will not help them pay back those loans. I even saw an article that says a "computer science" degree is basically worthless, companies are more interested in actual experience than a piece of paper. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Littleshop on October 18, 2012, 02:32:43 AM I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally. You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted? ++ I'm glad my family immigrated when Ellis Island was open, it helped us a lot. I want others to have that same freedom. We obviously need to find ways to more productively integrate immigrants. Each person represents a tremendous potential both economically and socially. Only seeing the potential downsides to immigration seems un-american to me. Immigration, illegal or otherwise, is only a problem when: a) the country is getting too full b) immigrants come for a free lunch a isn't happening b is happening from mexico because of government handouts. get rid of the handouts "stealing from peter to pay paul" and you won't have this problem anymore. M B is irrelevant. Yes, people have been given handouts, but Mexicans are not getting anywhere near what they put in. They are a net positive to the economy. We are FUCKING ourselves by encouraging hard workers to leave. Maybe I am in an usual area (Maryland) but I have only seen Mexicans working hard on roads, picking crops and doing outdoor work. I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. They might be a net positive for the near term, but what about the future. The slave owners 200 years ago also thought it was a net positive to own black slaves, they didn't think their sons and daughters will one day be wage slaves to support a 25% unemployed black population that rely on welfare/food stamps. racist much? Black unemployment is not 25%. It is not even 15%. For 2012 food stamps are less then 80 billion dollars (projected) , defense is 1000 to 1400 billion dollars. And while it is silly to break down into race, the 85% employees blacks are paying taxes to support those on the food stamps. Get over the race bullshit, that is not the problem with the budget. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 18, 2012, 02:40:31 AM Fuck you. We're already paying 6% variable and the only likely direction is already up. Your talking about a group of people for which 50% can't find employment that actually uses the skills they were promised were valuable. Older people are working longer because of the tough economic times and so fresh graduates can't find jobs. How much more burden do you expect us to bear? Our "elders" have already given us a pile of steaming shit for a country when they were handed a land of opportunity. We won't take much more abuse before you start seeing violence. I personally am more anti-violence than almost anyone my age I know, but I can't control my peers. whoa buddy, agree with you on the generational warfare, agree that times are tough, where exactly do you propose the money comes from? I'm okay with the other suggestions made by bitcoinbear. In fact, I'm all for reform of the student loan industry. But raising interest rates on one of the groups that is struggling the hardest is outrageous. Yes, we absolutely need to put restrictions on who can take out student loans (GPA requirements, minimum # of hours, no alcohol related offenses, etc). I hate all forms of government guaranteed loans, but you can't fuck over those of us who have worked hard to better ourselves so we can provide useful labor. I am in grad school now, and my education is paid for by my GTA position, but I have about $20k debt still to be paid down from undergraduate. I graduated early with a 3.4 GPA from a great engineering school. I have made every payment on time or early and I have even made several extra payments on my loans. How am I rewarded? By paying more interest than someone who takes a mortgage out on their home. By suggestions that I should be paying more. By suggestions that my friends, who are still smart but not quite as talented as me, who are struggling to pay the bills each month because they can't get a job outside of retail of food, pay more. Whoa buddy yourself. That shit pisses my off. The point is that everybody will have to give a little for this to work. If everybody says "Ok, the list is good except for the one point that effects me", then everything will get taken off the list and nothing will get done. Once we pay down the debt we can go back to subsidizing student loans (although perhaps not quite so much, we don't want to get back into debt as a country). If you cannot afford to pay back the student loans after you get out of college, perhaps you should reconsider taking them in the first place. (and by "you" I am not talking to you specifically, but the general you of all the people considering taking out student loans.) Many people take out student loans and then study subjects that will not help them pay back those loans. I even saw an article that says a "computer science" degree is basically worthless, companies are more interested in actual experience than a piece of paper. Every suggestion you gave other than "cut federal employee pay by 10%" affects me. As for the student loan issue, like I said, I am all for being drastically more restrictive on who can take them out. But that won't change the past where dumbasses thought it was a good idea to hand them out like candy and children were told that borrowing money to go to college was the only way to succeed. The reason they have to be subsidized just to get it down to 6% is because the default rate is high due to the ongoing structure of the program. But punishing me, who has paid as much or more than I owe every month since graduation is not fair. First, fix the problem by adding restrictions, then maybe we can work something out. By the way, when I decided to take them out, the rate was 4%. It's already up to 6% and slowly rising. As far as I can see, it is the only credit based industry in this country where interests rates are rising. They have gone down for everyone else. Oh, and while you're at it, let the housing market bottom instead of spending $40 billion/month subsidizing it. That's about $130 per person per month in case you haven't done the math. And yes, I'm a homeowner, so that would hurt me too, but it's more fair than raising interest rates on student loans. Oh, and how about not bailing out corporations. We may have privatization of profits, but way too many losses are publicized. We left capitalism behind a long time ago. Hopefully one day we can make it back to it. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Atlas on October 18, 2012, 02:44:52 AM I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. Maryland is not unique. The same can be said about practically every state. What are Mexicans doing this job? If they can "make a living" from it, why can't Americans? What's different? M Americans will not settle for working $7 an hour, in a hot field for 14 hours. If the wage was higher, the business would be unprofitable. Everyone has their price and the price of an American is too high. It won't be unprofitable if everyone was paying higher wages and raising prices. Food is too cheap in this country, the waste of food is pretty disturbing to be honest (estimated 40% food produced go to waste). That's not for you to decide. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Littleshop on October 18, 2012, 02:46:35 AM What I would like to see happen: income tax should be flattened, exemptions and credits eliminated so there is a single tax rate for all income. At the same time, the spending should be drastically cut: Close oversea military bases, increase minimum social security receiving age, sell off national parks (preferably to states to make state parks or to non-profits who will care for them), raise the interest rate on student loans, give all federal employees a 10% paycut, and whatever else can be cut. After the tax revenue rises above the spending, the surplus can be used to pay down the debt, eliminating that huge chunk of the budget that goes to debt servicing. After the debt is eliminated, taxes should be lowered (still keeping it as a flat income tax so everybody benefits from the lowering) and governemnt services can be expanded. Why would you cut taxes for the rich (or punish horribly the middle class) while you are trying to balance the budget. The only balanced budget in recent memory came from a 39% tax rate for the upper bracket. It is simple, we have done it before, it WORKS. Combine the additional revenue with modest across the board cuts including defense and you can get a balanced budget. Leave student loans as they are, as the rate is ALREADY ABOVE PRIME. Education is a cost for a functioning society and pays dividends later. Changes need to be made to how colleges operate and to the very high costs but that is a separate issue. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on October 18, 2012, 02:58:04 AM What I would like to see happen: income tax should be flattened, exemptions and credits eliminated so there is a single tax rate for all income. At the same time, the spending should be drastically cut: Close oversea military bases, increase minimum social security receiving age, sell off national parks (preferably to states to make state parks or to non-profits who will care for them), raise the interest rate on student loans, give all federal employees a 10% paycut, and whatever else can be cut. After the tax revenue rises above the spending, the surplus can be used to pay down the debt, eliminating that huge chunk of the budget that goes to debt servicing. After the debt is eliminated, taxes should be lowered (still keeping it as a flat income tax so everybody benefits from the lowering) and governemnt services can be expanded. Why would you cut taxes for the rich (or punish horribly the middle class) while you are trying to balance the budget. The only balanced budget in recent memory came from a 39% tax rate for the upper bracket. It is simple, we have done it before, it WORKS. Combine the additional revenue with modest across the board cuts including defense and you can get a balanced budget. Leave student loans as they are, as the rate is ALREADY ABOVE PRIME. Education is a cost for a functioning society and pays dividends later. Changes need to be made to how colleges operate and to the very high costs but that is a separate issue. I think you misunderstood what I was saying about taxes. My suggestion includes raising the taxes on the wealthy (by removing all the exemptions). I am not suggesting any taxes get cut, until after the budget is balanced and the debt is payed down. Student loans are already above prime, because they are high risk, and they would be higher if not subsidized. Think about it, we are giving money to people on the hope that they will be able to earn money later. This is very different from most loans, which are given to people who demonstrate they are able to pay on those loans now. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 18, 2012, 03:05:23 AM What I would like to see happen: income tax should be flattened, exemptions and credits eliminated so there is a single tax rate for all income. At the same time, the spending should be drastically cut: Close oversea military bases, increase minimum social security receiving age, sell off national parks (preferably to states to make state parks or to non-profits who will care for them), raise the interest rate on student loans, give all federal employees a 10% paycut, and whatever else can be cut. After the tax revenue rises above the spending, the surplus can be used to pay down the debt, eliminating that huge chunk of the budget that goes to debt servicing. After the debt is eliminated, taxes should be lowered (still keeping it as a flat income tax so everybody benefits from the lowering) and governemnt services can be expanded. Why would you cut taxes for the rich (or punish horribly the middle class) while you are trying to balance the budget. The only balanced budget in recent memory came from a 39% tax rate for the upper bracket. It is simple, we have done it before, it WORKS. Combine the additional revenue with modest across the board cuts including defense and you can get a balanced budget. Leave student loans as they are, as the rate is ALREADY ABOVE PRIME. Education is a cost for a functioning society and pays dividends later. Changes need to be made to how colleges operate and to the very high costs but that is a separate issue. I think you misunderstood what I was saying about taxes. My suggestion includes raising the taxes on the wealthy (by removing all the exemptions). I am not suggesting any taxes get cut, until after the budget is balanced and the debt is payed down. Student loans are already above prime, because they are high risk, and they would be higher if not subsidized. Think about it, we are giving money to people on the hope that they will be able to earn money later. This is very different from most loans, which are given to people who demonstrate they are able to pay on those loans now. That's just the issue. I have excellent credit, have never had an account in default, and yet I pay the same rate as someone who has shitty credit and pays late constantly. Lumping all students together is retarded. We are not all equal. My loan should be considered very low risk, but there is no market I can take it to that will asses me for what I am. They see "student loan" and throw it in the pile with all the others. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: firefop on October 18, 2012, 03:09:31 AM Why would you cut taxes for the rich (or punish horribly the middle class) while you are trying to balance the budget. The only balanced budget in recent memory came from a 39% tax rate for the upper bracket. It is simple, we have done it before, it WORKS. Combine the additional revenue with modest across the board cuts including defense and you can get a balanced budget. Leave student loans as they are, as the rate is ALREADY ABOVE PRIME. Education is a cost for a functioning society and pays dividends later. Changes need to be made to how colleges operate and to the very high costs but that is a separate issue. I think you misunderstood what I was saying about taxes. My suggestion includes raising the taxes on the wealthy (by removing all the exemptions). I am not suggesting any taxes get cut, until after the budget is balanced and the debt is payed down. Student loans are already above prime, because they are high risk, and they would be higher if not subsidized. Think about it, we are giving money to people on the hope that they will be able to earn money later. This is very different from most loans, which are given to people who demonstrate they are able to pay on those loans now. I'd agree to a spending freeze + percentage cuts across the board to balance the budget. This would need to be combined with some sort of fair tax... meaning a single rate which is the same for every American. I personally don't care what that rate is but we need to end the class warfare being instigated by the liberal media and start evaluating on the basis of 'an equal share' instead of being selfish and wanting more for ourself and screw everyone else who isn't me. Personally I think the rich and the poor both suffer from this form of greed. Otherwise there wouldn't be any traction with the 'eat the rich' crowdthink being pushed by the news outlets. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SgtSpike on October 18, 2012, 03:28:51 AM If you cannot afford to pay back the student loans after you get out of college, perhaps you should reconsider taking them in the first place. (and by "you" I am not talking to you specifically, but the general you of all the people considering taking out student loans.) Many people take out student loans and then study subjects that will not help them pay back those loans. I even saw an article that says a "computer science" degree is basically worthless, companies are more interested in actual experience than a piece of paper. Now this I definitely agree with. I've had at least one job since I was 16, gaining experience in a variety of positions. By the time I graduated college, I already have a position lined up with my (then) current employer in the field that I studied. I took out plenty of student loans while I was in college, but I knew I would have the capabilities to pay them back when I graduated.Certainly, it sucks to be in a position without a job, and I know the job market is incredibly tough for new graduates, but it's not as if they haven't had chances to gain experience and better themselves as job candidates along the way. It's survival of the fittest, and those who screwed around in high school and college are the ones who aren't surviving. Generally, people are just reading what they sow. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on October 18, 2012, 03:36:33 AM I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally. You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted? ++ I'm glad my family immigrated when Ellis Island was open, it helped us a lot. I want others to have that same freedom. We obviously need to find ways to more productively integrate immigrants. Each person represents a tremendous potential both economically and socially. Only seeing the potential downsides to immigration seems un-american to me. Immigration, illegal or otherwise, is only a problem when: a) the country is getting too full b) immigrants come for a free lunch a isn't happening b is happening from mexico because of government handouts. get rid of the handouts "stealing from peter to pay paul" and you won't have this problem anymore. M B is irrelevant. Yes, people have been given handouts, but Mexicans are not getting anywhere near what they put in. They are a net positive to the economy. We are FUCKING ourselves by encouraging hard workers to leave. Maybe I am in an usual area (Maryland) but I have only seen Mexicans working hard on roads, picking crops and doing outdoor work. I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. They might be a net positive for the near term, but what about the future. The slave owners 200 years ago also thought it was a net positive to own black slaves, they didn't think their sons and daughters will one day be wage slaves to support a 25% unemployed black population that rely on welfare/food stamps. racist much? Black unemployment is not 25%. It is not even 15%. For 2012 food stamps are less then 80 billion dollars (projected) , defense is 1000 to 1400 billion dollars. And while it is silly to break down into race, the 85% employees blacks are paying taxes to support those on the food stamps. Get over the race bullshit, that is not the problem with the budget. You are really out of touch with reality, actually 25% is already a generous estimate, I think it may be as high as 50%. The 13% official black unemployment figure is only for those who are "actively seeking work but can't find work". How many blacks are not actively seeking work and just live on welfare/food stamps? foodstamps is not the only program, there are also housing, medicaid, prison (55% prison population are blacks), which together cost almost a trillion and would probably erase the deficit overnight if these programs were abolished. Btw, defense is big, but not that big. For example defense was 895B in 2011, while welfare 565B + Medicaid 275B = 840B just on the federal level, remember the states don't spend anything on defense, but do have their own state level welfare programs, that's another hundreds of billions on welfare. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 18, 2012, 04:00:17 AM I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally. You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted? ++ I'm glad my family immigrated when Ellis Island was open, it helped us a lot. I want others to have that same freedom. We obviously need to find ways to more productively integrate immigrants. Each person represents a tremendous potential both economically and socially. Only seeing the potential downsides to immigration seems un-american to me. Immigration, illegal or otherwise, is only a problem when: a) the country is getting too full b) immigrants come for a free lunch a isn't happening b is happening from mexico because of government handouts. get rid of the handouts "stealing from peter to pay paul" and you won't have this problem anymore. M B is irrelevant. Yes, people have been given handouts, but Mexicans are not getting anywhere near what they put in. They are a net positive to the economy. We are FUCKING ourselves by encouraging hard workers to leave. Maybe I am in an usual area (Maryland) but I have only seen Mexicans working hard on roads, picking crops and doing outdoor work. I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. They might be a net positive for the near term, but what about the future. The slave owners 200 years ago also thought it was a net positive to own black slaves, they didn't think their sons and daughters will one day be wage slaves to support a 25% unemployed black population that rely on welfare/food stamps. racist much? Black unemployment is not 25%. It is not even 15%. For 2012 food stamps are less then 80 billion dollars (projected) , defense is 1000 to 1400 billion dollars. And while it is silly to break down into race, the 85% employees blacks are paying taxes to support those on the food stamps. Get over the race bullshit, that is not the problem with the budget. You are really out of touch with reality, actually 25% is already a generous estimate, I think it may be as high as 50%. The 13% official black unemployment figure is only for those who are "actively seeking work but can't find work". How many blacks are not actively seeking work and just live on welfare/food stamps? foodstamps is not the only program, there are also housing, medicaid, prison (55% prison population are blacks), which together cost almost a trillion and would probably erase the deficit overnight if these programs were abolished. Btw, defense is big, but not that big. For example defense was 895B in 2011, while welfare 565B + Medicaid 275B = 840B just on the federal level, remember the states don't spend anything on defense, but do have their own state level welfare programs, that's another hundreds of billions on welfare. I don't think you can count prisoners in your unemployment figures. Especially for African Americans who have faced decades of racial profiling. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Transisto on October 18, 2012, 05:31:51 AM Do you know of efforts made to expose how biased and irrelevant the election process has become ?
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on October 18, 2012, 05:34:21 AM That's just the issue. I have excellent credit, have never had an account in default, and yet I pay the same rate as someone who has shitty credit and pays late constantly. Lumping all students together is retarded. We are not all equal. My loan should be considered very low risk, but there is no market I can take it to that will asses me for what I am. They see "student loan" and throw it in the pile with all the others. You can certainly just take out a personal loan then rather than a student loan. You lose the benefit of the Federal guarantee but you also don't get lumped in with all the other student loans.The unfortunate reality is that student's ability to pay is one of the biggest factors holding down the cost of higher education. A college simply cannot charge more than their students can pay or they won't have many students. Any attempt to get people more student loans or lower rates will be significantly undone by increase in the cost of higher education. That will either mean students have to pay more or the government will have to pay more, and they won't necessarily get anything additional for their money. Title: Superb press coverage from The Onion Post by: Arto on October 18, 2012, 10:44:57 AM Quote from: http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-tunes-in-to-see-which-sociopath-more-likabl,29946/ HEMPSTEAD, NY--According to reports, millions of viewers across the country are expected to tune in to tonight's town-hall-style presidential debate at Hofstra University in order to determine which complete and utter sociopath they find more likable this time around. "I'm very curious to see which one of these two clinically sociopathic individuals will present the most convincing and authentic approximation of an actual human conscience tonight," said Cincinnati-area voter Miranda Harrick, 40, adding that both candidates, like all successful politicians, were undeniably skilled at such calculated artifice. "I think whoever is able to best manipulate me into thinking they experience normative emotional states such as empathy and regret will probably have my vote come November, so I'm excited to see what happens." The debate figures to be especially important for undecided voters, 91 percent of whom said in a pre-debate poll that they were still waiting for one sociopath to win them over with the perfect combination of superficial charm, deluded grandeur, and pathological lying. According to polls, viewer consensus following the first debate suggested Mitt Romney had performed a far more convincing impersonation of someone with real feelings and a capacity for human compassion. Voters praised the former governor's ability to conceal his complete social disconnection and underlying hostility behind a wall of colloquial rhetoric and an approximation of warmth they described as "much more realistic" than Obama's. "Last debate, Romney was a great sociopath," said Florida voter Jeff Yu, 28, who remarked that the Republican candidate's impressive ability to simulate the appearance of caring had improved markedly since the beginning of the campaign. "He looked very comfortable and confident up there, even against a seasoned sociopath like Obama. He really helped me ignore the reality that to him, as to any politician, social interaction is nothing but a never-ending game of deception and psychological subterfuge, the only object of which is personal gain." Following Obama's noticeable hesitancy during the first debate, many of his supporters expressed worry that he was struggling to effect emotional normalcy with the same single-minded cunning and feigned humanity he exhibited in 2008. They agreed the pressure is now on the president to show that he has not forgotten how to callously manipulate the American public into thinking he is anything at all like them. "I want to see that same beguiling sociopath who, four years ago, conned me into believing his psyche was somehow differently wired from every other charming, sociopathic politician who had ever lived," said Obama supporter Phoebe Greenwald, 43. "What happened to all his seemingly earnest, though of course meticulously contrived, rhetoric about hope and change that made us all like him and think he was in some way psychologically healthy and well-adjusted, which of course no human being in the history of modern politics ever has been?" "Obama just needs to do what [sociopathic Vice President] Joe Biden did last week," Greenwald added. "I mean, he masterfully out-sociopathed Paul Ryan, which is no easy task, believe me." No matter the outcome of tonight's debate, sources agreed that the most talented sociopath will likely be elected in November and, depending on what kind of support he might receive from like-minded sociopaths in Congress, will then spend the next four years satisfying his malformed brain's ceaseless thirst for power and glory. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 18, 2012, 11:03:13 AM I'd agree to a spending freeze + percentage cuts across the board to balance the budget. This would need to be combined with some sort of fair tax... meaning a single rate which is the same for every American. I personally don't care what that rate is but we need to end the class warfare being instigated by the liberal media and start evaluating on the basis of 'an equal share' instead of being selfish and wanting more for ourself and screw everyone else who isn't me. Personally I think the rich and the poor both suffer from this form of greed. Otherwise there wouldn't be any traction with the 'eat the rich' crowdthink being pushed by the news outlets. 95% percentage cuts across the board, 100% tax on politicians, that is, any money you "make" by being a politician goes into the coffers and is unreachable by you. That would change the face of government. Then the people there would be those who want to be there for the betterment of the nation, instead of the betterment of their wallet. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SgtSpike on October 18, 2012, 03:58:39 PM I'd agree to a spending freeze + percentage cuts across the board to balance the budget. This would need to be combined with some sort of fair tax... meaning a single rate which is the same for every American. I personally don't care what that rate is but we need to end the class warfare being instigated by the liberal media and start evaluating on the basis of 'an equal share' instead of being selfish and wanting more for ourself and screw everyone else who isn't me. Personally I think the rich and the poor both suffer from this form of greed. Otherwise there wouldn't be any traction with the 'eat the rich' crowdthink being pushed by the news outlets. 95% percentage cuts across the board, 100% tax on politicians, that is, any money you "make" by being a politician goes into the coffers and is unreachable by you. That would change the face of government. Then the people there would be those who want to be there for the betterment of the nation, instead of the betterment of their wallet. M I wouldn't say it's cultural differences, but rather I suspect it's at least partly about exchange rates. The US dollar still has a lingering good perception, which props up the exchange rate over and above what would be expected from 'rational' market forces. A similar thing happens in parts of Europe where people travel across borders to work. That work may be minimum wage where they're temporarily staying, but they typically save or send money back to their family where, thanks to the exchange rate, those dollars or euros buy a lot more. A fair amount of work for putting food on the table? You mean something other than a 40+ hour workweek? I certainly hope we don't come to the point where we have to work, on average, a longer week than 40 hours just to put food on the tableMany US people don't seem to understand (or somehow refuse to accept) that this is part of the reason why they have had such an easy life for so many decades. With endless wars and coups propping up the petro-dollar, together with "the American Dream" helping create a virtuous circle of irrational currency strength, if this situation collapses, people will have to completely re-evaluate what they thought was a fair amount of work for putting food on the table. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on October 18, 2012, 04:04:31 PM 95% percentage cuts across the board, 100% tax on politicians, that is, any money you "make" by being a politician goes into the coffers and is unreachable by you. Umm, no. The only people who would be there would be wealthy people who can afford to work without pay, perhaps mixed with a few conniving people who expect to make a killing in the future by brokering their contacts and influence after they leave government. The only people would wouldn't be there are the smart, honest, normal family folks just trying to make the country a better place. They couldn't afford to be there.That would change the face of government. Then the people there would be those who want to be there for the betterment of the nation, instead of the betterment of their wallet. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 18, 2012, 04:13:40 PM 95% percentage cuts across the board, 100% tax on politicians, that is, any money you "make" by being a politician goes into the coffers and is unreachable by you. Umm, no. The only people who would be there would be wealthy people who can afford to work without pay, perhaps mixed with a few conniving people who expect to make a killing in the future by brokering their contacts and influence after they leave government. The only people would wouldn't be there are the smart, honest, normal family folks just trying to make the country a better place. They couldn't afford to be there.That would change the face of government. Then the people there would be those who want to be there for the betterment of the nation, instead of the betterment of their wallet. And... that's different from what we have today how? Since when do we have "smart, honest, normal family folks" there today? Those that are wealthy are probably the brightest and most capable of running for public office. They wouldn't be there to increase their wallet size, which should weed out a lot of the miscreants we have today. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on October 18, 2012, 04:15:09 PM ...The only people who would be there would be wealthy people who can afford to work without pay, perhaps mixed with a few conniving people who expect to make a killing in the future by brokering their contacts and influence after they leave government... With few exceptions, that appears to be what we have right now. ;) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 18, 2012, 04:36:33 PM ...The only people who would be there would be wealthy people who can afford to work without pay, perhaps mixed with a few conniving people who expect to make a killing in the future by brokering their contacts and influence after they leave government... With few exceptions, that appears to be what we have right now. ;) As I've stated elsewhere here and in other threads... Just about every government structure will work when run by selfless god fearing individuals. And.. Those same government structures will fail when run by selfish greedy lying psychopaths. My question to everyone who reads this is... Would YOU do different? Do you have a price? M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on October 18, 2012, 04:48:42 PM 95% percentage cuts across the board, 100% tax on politicians, that is, any money you "make" by being a politician goes into the coffers and is unreachable by you. Umm, no. The only people who would be there would be wealthy people who can afford to work without pay, perhaps mixed with a few conniving people who expect to make a killing in the future by brokering their contacts and influence after they leave government. The only people would wouldn't be there are the smart, honest, normal family folks just trying to make the country a better place. They couldn't afford to be there.That would change the face of government. Then the people there would be those who want to be there for the betterment of the nation, instead of the betterment of their wallet. And... that's different from what we have today how? Quote Since when do we have "smart, honest, normal family folks" there today? I never said we did.Quote Those that are wealthy are probably the brightest and most capable of running for public office. They wouldn't be there to increase their wallet size, which should weed out a lot of the miscreants we have today. Why wouldn't they be there to increase their wallet size? I think a lot of wealthy people join government for just that reason, expecting that they'll have much more lucrative careers when they leave government. (That doesn't always make them bad people or bad politicians, of course.)All reducing politician's salaries will do is make it harder for people who have more financial obligations and less personal wealth to enter politics. If you think that's a good thing, then you're welcome to advocate for lower salaries for politicians. But it won't make politicians more honest and could do the reverse. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 18, 2012, 05:31:10 PM I'm not the one claiming this would "change the face of government". If you think it won't make any difference, then you agree with my criticism. Not really. My way would decrease the likelihood of career politicians getting in. Quote Quote Those that are wealthy are probably the brightest and most capable of running for public office. They wouldn't be there to increase their wallet size, which should weed out a lot of the miscreants we have today. Why wouldn't they be there to increase their wallet size? I think a lot of wealthy people join government for just that reason, expecting that they'll have much more lucrative careers when they leave government. (That doesn't always make them bad people or bad politicians, of course.)All reducing politician's salaries will do is make it harder for people who have more financial obligations and less personal wealth to enter politics. If you think that's a good thing, then you're welcome to advocate for lower salaries for politicians. But it won't make politicians more honest and could do the reverse. As stated in my other post, the problem is the mentality of the individuals. Politics is the problem. If you had selfless individuals, they'd be statesmen. Politicians = money and lies. Statesmen = serving the country. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 18, 2012, 06:03:55 PM As stated in my other post, the problem is the mentality of the individuals. Politics is the problem. If you had selfless individuals, they'd be statesmen. Politicians = money and lies. Statesmen = serving the country. Find me an election process that selects for selfless individuals, rather than those best at lying through their teeth, and I will heartily support that governing system. Until then, I'll stick to market anarchy. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: BoardGameCoin on October 18, 2012, 06:10:32 PM Find me an election process that selects for selfless individuals, rather than those best at lying through their teeth, and I will heartily support that governing system. Until then, I'll stick to market anarchy. Term-limited random selection from qualified individuals. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 18, 2012, 06:23:13 PM Find me an election process that selects for selfless individuals, rather than those best at lying through their teeth, and I will heartily support that governing system. Until then, I'll stick to market anarchy. Term-limited random selection from qualified individuals. Well, that's a step in the right direction, in that it fails to select for sociopathy, but unfortunately, it also fails to select for altruism. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 18, 2012, 07:00:59 PM As stated in my other post, the problem is the mentality of the individuals. Politics is the problem. If you had selfless individuals, they'd be statesmen. Politicians = money and lies. Statesmen = serving the country. Find me an election process that selects for selfless individuals, rather than those best at lying through their teeth, and I will heartily support that governing system. Until then, I'll stick to market anarchy. Today's elections are rigged. At the national level (US) you're told you have two choices, one clown, or another, both from competing circuses run by the same corporation. The joke's on anyone who participates! It's all money and power related of course. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 18, 2012, 07:49:14 PM I'm not the one claiming this would "change the face of government". If you think it won't make any difference, then you agree with my criticism. Not really. My way would decrease the likelihood of career politicians getting in. Quote Quote Those that are wealthy are probably the brightest and most capable of running for public office. They wouldn't be there to increase their wallet size, which should weed out a lot of the miscreants we have today. Why wouldn't they be there to increase their wallet size? I think a lot of wealthy people join government for just that reason, expecting that they'll have much more lucrative careers when they leave government. (That doesn't always make them bad people or bad politicians, of course.)All reducing politician's salaries will do is make it harder for people who have more financial obligations and less personal wealth to enter politics. If you think that's a good thing, then you're welcome to advocate for lower salaries for politicians. But it won't make politicians more honest and could do the reverse. As stated in my other post, the problem is the mentality of the individuals. Politics is the problem. If you had selfless individuals, they'd be statesmen. Politicians = money and lies. Statesmen = serving the country. M If career politicians are an issue, why not just add term limits? Limiting our representatives to those with independent (or family) wealth is not a good plan IMO. Speaking of representation, did you know the house of representatives used to grow with the population? There used to be an upper limit of 60k people per representative. In order to be that close to direct representation today would require 30,000 representatives rather than the measly 435 we have today. It seems to me that this is why only the powerful can influence politics... each representative has too much to handle to deal with the issues of the average constituent. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: timeshareafrica on October 18, 2012, 08:33:52 PM Im an aussie so I just watch the show from the outside, but Id say Obama could say nothing for the next ~2+ months and still win - Romney is just so... ugh. Are this free elections you talking about, what is the chance of a 50/50 votes like we had it with Bush first election?If we talk statistics the chance are this elections were 95% rigged. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on October 18, 2012, 08:44:15 PM I may very well end up voting for Romney. As a hardcore anarcho-capitalist, that's hard to admit. Mainly, I see opportunity to make money off the public perception of the economy in a Romney term. Secondly, I like some of Romney's rhetoric. He is at least talking about some capitalist ideals, and decentralization of government.
That being said, they're both puppets. It's far too late to recover. Hyperinflation is the only way out. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on October 18, 2012, 09:00:25 PM I'm hedged financially. An economic screwing of the middle class is going to happen no matter who is elected. I'm going for Obama since I refuse to go back to the 1950s on human/gay/women's rights.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 18, 2012, 09:03:22 PM I'm hedged financially. An economic screwing of the middle class is going to happen no matter who is elected. I'm going for Obama since I refuse to go back to the 1950s on human/gay/women's rights. That's his strongest point for me as well. Romney can school him in domestic economics, but his economic approach to esp. China would be a disaster. Romney: Hey China, quit printing currency... it's not fair. China: You first asshole. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: RicRock on October 18, 2012, 09:04:23 PM Today's elections are rigged. At the national level (US) you're told you have two choices, one clown, or another, both from competing circuses run by the same corporation. The joke's on anyone who participates! It's all money and power related of course. M QFT Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on October 18, 2012, 09:04:48 PM I'm going for Obama since I refuse to go back to the 1950s on human/gay/women's rights. Yeah, better to kill Americans with drones without trial. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Atlas on October 18, 2012, 09:05:01 PM I'm hedged financially. An economic screwing of the middle class is going to happen no matter who is elected. I'm going for Obama since I refuse to go back to the 1950s on human/gay/women's rights. What restrictions will Obama reduce for gays and women? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on October 18, 2012, 09:09:26 PM Continue to refuse to enforce and work for the elimination of DOMA. Most importantly, chose the next two or three supreme court justices.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on October 18, 2012, 09:11:07 PM ...gays and women? It is amazing to me that the country can be $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, and the big stories of the year are Chick-fil-a and Planned Parenthood. "Pay no attention to the impending doom, watch these dancing monkeys!" Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Atlas on October 18, 2012, 09:11:56 PM ...gays and women? It is amazing to me that the country can be $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, and the big stories of the year are Chick-fil-a and Planned Parenthood. "Pay no attention to the impending doom, watch these dancing monkeys!" Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on October 18, 2012, 09:18:22 PM ...gays and women? It is amazing to me that the country can be $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, and the big stories of the year are Chick-fil-a and Planned Parenthood. "Pay no attention to the impending doom, watch these dancing monkeys!" It becomes much more personal (and important) when you're one of the monkeys. I can understand throwing the gays under the bus from a percentage of population standpoint, but women? The neocons have lost their mind. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on October 18, 2012, 09:21:35 PM ...gays and women? It is amazing to me that the country can be $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, and the big stories of the year are Chick-fil-a and Planned Parenthood. "Pay no attention to the impending doom, watch these dancing monkeys!" That equates to about 50,000 usd per person in the US. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Atlas on October 18, 2012, 09:27:10 PM ...gays and women? It is amazing to me that the country can be $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, and the big stories of the year are Chick-fil-a and Planned Parenthood. "Pay no attention to the impending doom, watch these dancing monkeys!" It becomes much more personal (and important) when you're one of the monkeys. I can understand throwing the gays under the bus from a percentage of population standpoint, but women? The neocons have lost their mind. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on October 18, 2012, 09:32:48 PM It becomes much more personal (and important) when you're one of the monkeys. I can understand throwing the gays under the bus from a percentage of population standpoint, but women? The neocons have lost their mind. The state has no business in marriage. Period. I will not support any legislation that defines anything to do with marriage, as it will only legitimize the states domain over it. I'm not sure how you think women are under attack by anyone. Abortion is a matter of belief of when a person/body/fetus has enough rights to be protected against destruction. I don't fault either side for their belief in the matter. The whole "war on women" is a fabrication. It's playing to the emotional nature or women. Don't fall for it. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on October 18, 2012, 09:33:49 PM That equates to about 50,000 usd per person in the US. I can cover my part, how about you! ;D Actually, over 40% of that debt is owed to American citizens and corporations (no, they are not the same). Love my T-Bills Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on October 18, 2012, 09:35:13 PM Actually, over 40% of that debt is owed to American citizens and corporations (no, they are not the same). Love my T-Bills You do know it's a negative equity investment, right? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on October 18, 2012, 09:37:23 PM Of course. Backed by my faith in the American taxpayers.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on October 18, 2012, 09:40:05 PM Actually, over 40% of that debt is owed to American citizens and corporations (no, they are not the same). Love my T-Bills You do know it's a negative equity investment, right? This means the return interest rate is lower than the rate of inflation, so it is worth less at the end than at the beginning, right? Why would anybody buy such a thing? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 18, 2012, 09:40:41 PM If career politicians are an issue, why not just add term limits? Limiting our representatives to those with independent (or family) wealth is not a good plan IMO. Speaking of representation, did you know the house of representatives used to grow with the population? There used to be an upper limit of 60k people per representative. In order to be that close to direct representation today would require 30,000 representatives rather than the measly 435 we have today. It seems to me that this is why only the powerful can influence politics... each representative has too much to handle to deal with the issues of the average constituent. Term limits are a good idea. Especially with lifelong appointed judges. That, speaking of which, should be elected, not appointed. I know about the house deal. That's one of my responses to people who claim the census is for adequate representation of the masses. I personally think we should have 30,000 reps. Then absolutely NOTHING would get done unless it had to. That'd be awesome! No more feel good legislation!! M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Atlas on October 18, 2012, 09:43:09 PM That equates to about 50,000 usd per person in the US. Actually, over 40% of that debt is owed to American citizens and corporations (no, they are not the same). Love my T-Bills The Federal Reserve debt is certainly not nationalized but owed to shareholders of the NY bank. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on October 18, 2012, 09:49:10 PM This means the return interest rate is lower than the rate of inflation, so it is worth less at the end than at the beginning, right? Why would anybody buy such a thing? Capital preservation. Minimizing risk during economic upheaval may be more important than outperforming inflation. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 18, 2012, 09:50:18 PM Of course. Backed by my faith in the American taxpayers. ...Pretty much what I would expect from someone who uses methamphetamine as their username. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on October 18, 2012, 10:04:49 PM That equates to about 50,000 usd per person in the US. Actually, over 40% of that debt is owed to American citizens and corporations (no, they are not the same). Love my T-Bills The Federal Reserve debt is certainly not nationalized but owed to shareholders of the NY bank. That 6% statutory dividend looks pretty good right now. Of course. Backed by my faith in the American taxpayers. ...Pretty much what I would expect from someone who uses methamphetamine as their username. Makes a great first impression. ;) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 18, 2012, 10:16:41 PM If career politicians are an issue, why not just add term limits? Limiting our representatives to those with independent (or family) wealth is not a good plan IMO. Speaking of representation, did you know the house of representatives used to grow with the population? There used to be an upper limit of 60k people per representative. In order to be that close to direct representation today would require 30,000 representatives rather than the measly 435 we have today. It seems to me that this is why only the powerful can influence politics... each representative has too much to handle to deal with the issues of the average constituent. Term limits are a good idea. Especially with lifelong appointed judges. That, speaking of which, should be elected, not appointed. I know about the house deal. That's one of my responses to people who claim the census is for adequate representation of the masses. I personally think we should have 30,000 reps. Then absolutely NOTHING would get done unless it had to. That'd be awesome! No more feel good legislation!! M I disagree about the judges, unless maybe if the term limit is one term with a really long length. Elections of people who are supposed to be objective and fair is a recipe for disaster. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Littleshop on October 18, 2012, 10:34:34 PM Actually, over 40% of that debt is owed to American citizens and corporations (no, they are not the same). Love my T-Bills You do know it's a negative equity investment, right? Tbills are less risk then gold (many people will disagree with that but my opinion), safer then cash and they do stop some of the loss of inflation. Tbills are a reasonable choice forsomeone with cash savings. I personally feel real estate is better right now due to it being undervalued but that is a risk just like gold. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 18, 2012, 10:43:56 PM I disagree about the judges, unless maybe if the term limit is one term with a really long length. Elections of people who are supposed to be objective and fair is a recipe for disaster. Using that logic, we should have appointed congressmen and presidents too. Atleast we have a choice between two clowns for president. We have no choice on federal judges, or the supreme court. Once they're in, they're in. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on October 18, 2012, 10:57:59 PM I disagree about the judges, unless maybe if the term limit is one term with a really long length. Elections of people who are supposed to be objective and fair is a recipe for disaster. Using that logic, we should have appointed congressmen and presidents too. Atleast we have a choice between two clowns for president. We have no choice on federal judges, or the supreme court. Once they're in, they're in. M Where does it say congress or the president should be fair and objective? ;) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Transisto on October 19, 2012, 12:01:22 AM You guys should really listen to today's No Agenda show.
http://feed.nashownotes.com/rss.xml Watching these debates, so you don't have to. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on October 19, 2012, 06:51:13 PM Using that logic, we should have appointed congressmen and presidents too. That way people would understand they have no say in the matter. This is little more than a pretense of choice these days. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 19, 2012, 07:08:36 PM Using that logic, we should have appointed congressmen and presidents too. That way people would understand they have no say in the matter. This is little more than a pretense of choice these days. Actually, we still DO have a choice. Most are led to believe that they do not. Unlike countries like china, the people still have a say in the matter, if they choose to do so, and are educated enough to know so. The latter is the problem right now. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: RicRock on October 19, 2012, 09:35:58 PM Using that logic, we should have appointed congressmen and presidents too. Atleast we have a choice between two clowns for president. We have no choice on federal judges, or the supreme court. Once they're in, they're in. M Every representative/senator/president should be chosen randomly from "real" people... they'd do less damage on accident than a career politician does on purpose. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on October 19, 2012, 10:04:39 PM Using that logic, we should have appointed congressmen and presidents too. Atleast we have a choice between two clowns for president. We have no choice on federal judges, or the supreme court. Once they're in, they're in. M Every representative/senator/president should be chosen randomly from "real" people... they'd do less damage on accident than a career politician does on purpose. I like that idea! M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on October 19, 2012, 10:08:25 PM Every representative/senator/president should be chosen randomly from "real" people... they'd do less damage on accident than a career politician does on purpose. +2 Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: 420 on October 26, 2012, 04:32:27 PM Newest documentary of 1000 showing romney flip flop:
(it also gets into Obama and their similarities interestingly enough): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eERIU4JC6s Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SaintDevil on October 26, 2012, 08:51:09 PM Voting for Obama.
But isn't american voting system is kind of screwed up. They should have a scoring system, where you score every candidate and then the person with most scores win. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 26, 2012, 08:56:11 PM Voting for Obama. Mind if I ask why? Especially if you live in a "red" state? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SgtSpike on October 26, 2012, 08:57:48 PM Voting for Obama. If you mean scoring in the same sense that a glassworker does, then I'm all for it!But isn't american voting system is kind of screwed up. They should have a scoring system, where you score every candidate and then the person with most scores win. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jasinlee on October 26, 2012, 09:01:48 PM Voting for Obama. But isn't american voting system is kind of screwed up. They should have a scoring system, where you score every candidate and then the person with most scores win. They do use a system like that, thats why they visit certain states only when they campaign. Those states have more potential points so they can win the game. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SaintDevil on October 26, 2012, 09:06:57 PM Voting for Obama. Mind if I ask why? Especially if you live in a "red" state? I support his views on how we should plan for the future and now just for now. I like that he supports green energy, woman rights to be equal, end war, free healthcare. I like the idea when I was in Russia I could go see a doctor for free, right now I cannot afford health insurance and I cannot see a doctor. :-\ I know some ppl don't like him because they blame him for ruining the economy, but after what has been happening I believe collapse was inevitable. I do not understand what do you mean by "red" state? They do use a system like that, thats why they visit certain states only when they campaign. Those states have more potential points so they can win the game. I guess I mean when you actually go inside and you mark points for each candidate. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SgtSpike on October 26, 2012, 09:08:49 PM Voting for Obama. Mind if I ask why? Especially if you live in a "red" state? I support his views on how we should plan for the future and now just for now. I like that he supports green energy, woman rights to be equal, end war, free healthcare. I like the idea when I was in Russia I could go see a doctor for free, right now I cannot afford health insurance and I cannot see a doctor. :-\ I know some ppl don't like him because they blame him for ruining the economy, but after what has been happening I believe collapse was inevitable. I do not understand what do you mean by "red" state? They do use a system like that, thats why they visit certain states only when they campaign. Those states have more potential points so they can win the game. I guess I mean when you actually go inside and you mark points for each candidate. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SaintDevil on October 26, 2012, 09:12:58 PM You don't get to see a doctor for free in Russia, you get to see a doctor, and the taxpayers get to foot the bill for you. If that's the sort of system you want, then vote for it. It's not the sort of system I want, and I wish the people who like that sort of system would simply move to a country that already has it than ruin one of the few that doesn't. I guess I look at it more in a way of everyone being healthy and that is important. I wish that everyone would be wealthy, happy and healthy. I believe in education, I think you should have a right to learn and make a better of yourself. If we don't care about each other then who will? I pay taxes and I would like then to pay for my health too and not just for people who are old. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: vampire on October 26, 2012, 09:20:22 PM I like the idea when I was in Russia I could go see a doctor for free. Did you actually see any doctor aside from a general practitioner (yxo, гopлo, нoc) in Russia? Seems that you just like the idea, in reality the healthcare in Russia is pretty much non existant. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 26, 2012, 09:24:13 PM Voting for Obama. Mind if I ask why? Especially if you live in a "red" state? I support his views on how we should plan for the future and now just for now. I like that he supports green energy, woman rights to be equal, end war, free healthcare. I like the idea when I was in Russia I could go see a doctor for free, right now I cannot afford health insurance and I cannot see a doctor. :-\ I know some ppl don't like him because they blame him for ruining the economy, but after what has been happening I believe collapse was inevitable. The collapse may have been inevitable, but what he did was the equivalent of sitting down in the pilot's chair of a falling airplane, and shoving the stick as far forward as it can go. Nearly everything he did hurt the economy. I do not understand what do you mean by "red" state? Coming from Russia, I can see how that would be confusing. Some political pundit a few years back marked states on a map in red and blue to show their support for one of the two candidates. Red for Republicans, blue for Democrats. It stuck, so now we call states which consistently vote Republican (like Texas) "red" states, and states which consistently vote Democrat (Like California) "blue" states.Voting Democrat in a red state is effectively a wasted vote, so I was curious as to why you would do such a thing. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Richy_T on October 26, 2012, 09:30:26 PM I guess I look at it more in a way of everyone being healthy and that is important. I wish that everyone would be wealthy, happy and healthy. I believe in education, I think you should have a right to learn and make a better of yourself. If we don't care about each other then who will? I pay taxes and I would like then to pay for my health too and not just for people who are old. Don't take this the wrong way but why did you leave Russia? I suspect those reasons and the differences in healthcare are not completely unrelated. As an immigrant myself, I can say I definitely prefer the freedom and such here (for what it is and for as long as it lasts) compared to where I come from and the difference in healthcare is a small price to pay. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SgtSpike on October 26, 2012, 09:32:26 PM Voting Democrat in a red state is effectively a wasted vote, so I was curious as to why you would do such a thing. Ehhh, voting Democrat in a blue state is effectively a wasted vote as well. The only states where voting makes a difference is in the "battleground" states.Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SaintDevil on October 26, 2012, 09:35:28 PM I like the idea when I was in Russia I could go see a doctor for free. Did you actually see any doctor aside from a general practitioner (yxo, гopлo, нoc) in Russia? Seems that you just like the idea, in reality the healthcare in Russia is pretty much non existant.Of course I also visited clinics that are paid, and met one of the most nicest doctors. I guess when I phrased free I over exaggerated, Obama system wants to make insurance affordable or actual doctors. Paying $500 just to visit a doctor is way to much, or a decent insurance that is about $250/month. I mean if you have a full-time job with benefits than yes, it's very cheap. I used to have work with benefits, but when you don't. I don't see any proof that he supports any of that. I hear him saying he does, but one of his central campaign promises was that he would shut down Guantanamo Bay. Still running strong. He said he'd bring all the troops home. Still plenty over there, and no plan to change that drastically. As has been pointed out, "free" healthcare, isn't. The collapse may have been inevitable, but what he did was the equivalent of sitting down in the pilot's chair of a falling airplane, and shoving the stick as far forward as it can go. Nearly everything he did hurt the economy. I do not understand what do you mean by "red" state? Coming from Russia, I can see how that would be confusing. Some political pundit a few years back marked states on a map in red and blue to show their support for one of the two candidates. Red for Republicans, blue for Democrats. It stuck, so now we call states which consistently vote Republican (like Texas) "red" states, and states which consistently vote Democrat (Like California) "blue" states.Voting Democrat in a red state is effectively a wasted vote, so I was curious as to why you would do such a thing. I thought WA was always a blue state. Did I miss out on the news :o I know that he said things, but some things things takes time. I am pretty sure if any of us would have become a president we would have to go through congress/ or other places like that before we make a change. Green energy is a big investment I agree, and it will pay off itself in a decade or so. But it is good for us, for environment. Same reason electric cars gaining popularity. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jasinlee on October 26, 2012, 09:35:59 PM Voting at all is wasted votes, since the only difference between the 2 candidates that will actually be on the ballot is that one is black and one is white. One says he will do idiotic things, the other performs idiotic things. So I suggest writing in votes for Stephen Colbert, at least he is funny when he is at their podium.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SaintDevil on October 26, 2012, 09:38:48 PM I guess I look at it more in a way of everyone being healthy and that is important. I wish that everyone would be wealthy, happy and healthy. I believe in education, I think you should have a right to learn and make a better of yourself. If we don't care about each other then who will? I pay taxes and I would like then to pay for my health too and not just for people who are old. Don't take this the wrong way but why did you leave Russia? I suspect those reasons and the differences in healthcare are not completely unrelated. As an immigrant myself, I can say I definitely prefer the freedom and such here (for what it is and for as long as it lasts) compared to where I come from and the difference in healthcare is a small price to pay. Don't take this wrong, I am not saying that I absolutely love how the life is in Russia. There are some things that I miss. I do love living in US and I so used to it, going back would be pointless. You could call it americanized. As sad to say don't even have russian friends. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 26, 2012, 09:47:06 PM Voting Democrat in a red state is effectively a wasted vote, so I was curious as to why you would do such a thing. Ehhh, voting Democrat in a blue state is effectively a wasted vote as well. The only states where voting makes a difference is in the "battleground" states.True, but to a lesser degree. After all, those blue states have to stay blue somehow. To sum-up: (note that the opposites of each statement are also true) Voting Democrat in a blue state: supporting the status quo. Voting Democrat in a red state: shouting into the wind. I thought WA was always a blue state. Did I miss out on the news :o No, I just didn't know where you were. ;)I know that he said things, but some things things takes time. I am pretty sure if any of us would have become a president we would have to go through congress/ or other places like that before we make a change. Green energy is a big investment I agree, and it will pay off itself in a decade or so. But it is good for us, for environment. Same reason electric cars gaining popularity. For the first two years, he had a Democrat controlled congress. Both houses. He could have put through anything he wanted. The fact that he didn't is what won the republicans back their seats. I agree that renewable energy sources are important. Throwing good money after bad, however, is stupid. If the gov't wants clean, abundant energy, LFTR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR) is the way to go. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Richy_T on October 26, 2012, 09:56:08 PM Voting Democrat in a blue state: supporting the status quo. It's even worse than that. By helping make sure it's a landslide in your state, you ensure that the candidate will pay zero attention to your state next time around. If you love your state, try and make it a swing state. :D Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: 420 on October 26, 2012, 10:00:11 PM Voting for Obama. But isn't american voting system is kind of screwed up. They should have a scoring system, where you score every candidate and then the person with most scores win. instant runoff voting; a lot of us have been talking about that lately Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SaintDevil on October 26, 2012, 10:06:10 PM Voting for Obama. But isn't american voting system is kind of screwed up. They should have a scoring system, where you score every candidate and then the person with most scores win. instant runoff voting; a lot of us have been talking about that lately I was actually thinking range voting. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: 420 on October 27, 2012, 12:44:11 AM Voting for Obama. But isn't american voting system is kind of screwed up. They should have a scoring system, where you score every candidate and then the person with most scores win. instant runoff voting; a lot of us have been talking about that lately I was actually thinking range voting. what's range voting? sorry I'd look it up but busy and want you to tell me hah Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on October 27, 2012, 12:49:12 AM Voting for Obama. But isn't american voting system is kind of screwed up. They should have a scoring system, where you score every candidate and then the person with most scores win. instant runoff voting; a lot of us have been talking about that lately I was actually thinking range voting. what's range voting? sorry I'd look it up but Fixed? ;) Quote Range voting (also called ratings summation, average voting, cardinal ratings, score voting, 0–99 voting, the score system, or the point system) is a voting method for one-seat elections under which voters score each candidate, the scores are added up, and the candidate with the highest score wins. Quote A form of range voting was apparently used in some elections in Ancient Sparta by measuring how loudly the crowd shouted for different candidates; rough modern-day equivalents include the use of clapometers in some television shows and the judging processes of some athletic competitions. Sounds like a fine way to pick a president. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Explodicle on October 27, 2012, 01:08:30 AM The funny/sad thing is pretty much every other voting system is superior to plurality. I'm a big fan of the Schulze method, but since most people find it confusing I jump on the IRV bandwagon. IRV can fail too (they all can) but not as much as plurality has already failed. Score voting would be a great improvement too.
Part of the reason I'm leaning towards Jill Stein is her clear support of IRV, even though I agree with Gary Johnson on most other issues. IMHO the third party supporters need to stick together long enough to say "we need a better way". Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: 420 on October 27, 2012, 04:27:38 AM haha, score voting written down sounds like instant runoff but with less benefits
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: firefop on October 31, 2012, 11:38:08 PM Why would you cut taxes for the rich (or punish horribly the middle class) while you are trying to balance the budget. The only balanced budget in recent memory came from a 39% tax rate for the upper bracket. It is simple, we have done it before, it WORKS. Combine the additional revenue with modest across the board cuts including defense and you can get a balanced budget. Leave student loans as they are, as the rate is ALREADY ABOVE PRIME. Education is a cost for a functioning society and pays dividends later. Changes need to be made to how colleges operate and to the very high costs but that is a separate issue. Here's my # step plan designed to save the US economy. #1. Freeze all Spending at current level. #2. Remove Capital Gains tax. #3. Remove Income Tax & associated employment related taxes. #4. Install Flat (sales) Tax at 20%. Convert IRS into regulating entity for monitoring, collecting and reporting on income from this new tax. #5. Open Borders. Remove tarifs. #6. Wait a month. #7. Look at the new report from the converted IRS - do the math on deficit new tax income. #8. Reduce all government spending by the percentage needed to balance the budget + double the cost of interest on the national debt. #9. Repeat 6-9 until nation is out of debt. Simple easy and effective. It would take all the downward pressure off the economy. We'd have an initial 30-50% reduction in government spending and the total on collected taxes would rise to make up the lost income in under 2 years... aided by all the former illegals now paying sales taxes and the massive growth the economy would under go by making it much cheaper to employ someone. And as soon as that happened then we can start growing entitlement programs and spending in all areas to consume the surplus. Being happy with a 10 or 20 or 50 year plan to pay off the debt. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Lethn on October 31, 2012, 11:54:25 PM That's all you've got? Here's what I'd do
1. Default on the debt ( There's no way it's going to be paid back so don't even bother trying because that will just lengthen the depression ) 2. Make it illegal for any government employee to borrow in the taxpayers name, no more borrowing at the expense of others or to get re-elected 3. introduce laws removing any restrictions on competing currencies 4. Make one self-defense law stating "If you are attacked then you have a right to defend yourself as long as you do not kill the attacker or attackers" 5. 5% flat tax rate to take care of the genuinely helpless who can't fend for themselves 6. Arrest all known board members of the Federal Reserve and shut the place down 7. Almost forgot, legalise prostitution and all drugs, for prostitution though I would make it so that pimping wouldn't be allowed to prevent the women in that situation being abused As for Romney and Obama, they are both the same to me, nothing more than Imperialists wearing different symbols, they both want to expand the empire and they both support the military industrial complex. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on November 01, 2012, 12:26:21 AM 4. Make one self-defense law stating "If you are attacked then you have a right to defend yourself as long as you do not kill the attacker or attackers" This one's not good. Not unless you add another one about getting rid of all the lawyers. There are many cases of whacked out attackers suing their victims. Dead people can't sue. If someone poses an immediate threat to my life or my family's life, they'd better be prepared to meet their maker. Dead people can't pull triggers either. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Lethn on November 01, 2012, 12:39:07 AM An attacker is an attacker, it doesn't matter how a lawyer puts it, if someone attacks another person then they should be in jail because they are a threat to society, if they have mental hospital then they should be in a there own separate cell with care. Also if someone breaks into your home to attack you then that's just another case of self-defense, he's trying to attack you, you can defend yourself, it's when you shoot him and then shoot him again while he's running that I would make that against the law because then you're just murdering him.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on November 01, 2012, 12:50:20 AM #4. Install Flat (sales) Tax at 20%. Convert IRS into regulating entity for monitoring, collecting and reporting on income from this new tax. Good luck. No government has ever been able to successfully enforce such a high sales tax.Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on November 01, 2012, 01:05:13 AM An attacker is an attacker, it doesn't matter how a lawyer puts it, if someone attacks another person then they should be in jail because they are a threat to society, if they have mental hospital then they should be in a there own separate cell with care. Also if someone breaks into your home to attack you then that's just another case of self-defense, he's trying to attack you, you can defend yourself, it's when you shoot him and then shoot him again while he's running that I would make that against the law because then you're just murdering him. You didn't say anything here I disagree with. Shooting someone while they are running away is not self defense, that is murder. Shooting someone dead who breaks into your house with clear intent of bodily harm is self defense. Scenario #1: For example, hearing noises in your house in the middle of the night, you go to investigate, armed and prepared for the worst. You find an intruder, aim your gun and tell him to drop to the ground and keep his hands where you can see them. If he turns, and starts to pull a gun, you shoot, he dies, self defense. If he turns, and starts running toward you with a knife drawn, you shoot, he dies, self defense. If he turns, sees you means business, slowly raises his hands and gets down on his knees, then belly, with his hands outstretched, you'd better do nothing other than call 911, and hope he didn't come with a buddy. Scenario #2: Wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of your daughter screaming for help. You investigate and find someone molesting your daughter. You point your gun and tell him to stop. If he turns and runs towards you. You shoot, he dies, self defense. If he stops, and runs away, you'd better leave him alone, even though you're seething that someone was molesting your daughter. Scenario #3: This one actually happened not too long ago. Your 12 year daughter is home alone. Some stranger knocks at the door. She wisely leaves it alone. He goes around back and starts pounding on the back door. She calls 911, then you. You tell her to get the family gun and hide. She does just that, hiding a closet. He breaks in, and she can hear him going through the house searching for her. He comes to the room she is in, and starts to open the closet door she is in. She fires. Clear self defense. In this case he got away wounded. If she had chased him down, that'd be murder. If she had killed him with the first shot, that'd be self defense. If he didn't run after being shot and started to assault her, and she manages to get another shot off that ends his life, self defense. I hope this proves my point that your statement about "not killing your attacker" doesn't fly. Changing it to "killing your attacker is clear self defense is fine, otherwise you're no better off than the attacker" would be better. The key is clear intent of bodily harm. M Edit: Put another way, if I have every reason to believe it's going to me (or family member), or the attacker, I going to do my best to make sure it's the attacker that loses. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: TheButterZone on November 01, 2012, 03:42:06 AM Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 01, 2012, 05:06:24 AM Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on November 01, 2012, 03:50:17 PM Misleading, Obama has several deal breaker stance on issues for me, AA, STEM and legalization of illegals. There are huge differences on issues between Obama and Romney, to say they are the same, is highly misleading. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 01, 2012, 04:10:25 PM Misleading, Obama has several deal breaker stance on issues for me, AA, STEM and legalization of illegals. There are huge differences on issues between Obama and Romney, to say they are the same, is highly misleading. http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php Maybe you'll eventually convince yourself. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: RodeoX on November 01, 2012, 06:00:09 PM 4. Make one self-defense law stating "If you are attacked then you have a right to defend yourself as long as you do not kill the attacker or attackers"
Where should I shoot them then? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on November 01, 2012, 06:27:30 PM 4. Make one self-defense law stating "If you are attacked then you have a right to defend yourself as long as you do not kill the attacker or attackers" Where should I shoot them then? Why even put a self-defense law in a plan to reduce the deficit? That makes no sense. Also, self-defense is handled at the state level. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Lethn on November 01, 2012, 06:28:01 PM If you knew anything about the nervous system like I do you'd know where, in martial arts you get taught where the most vital points of a body are so you can avoid killing them by accident, as for guns well, of course the person is going to bleed to death anyway if you just leave them there, but you can't be that much of an asshole you'd just leave them to die right?
Having self-defense laws that make sense would mean you wouldn't have to waste as much money on a police and military while providing a lot of clarity for the people who are kept so it would drastically reduce the amount of money involved in law. Did you attack this person? Yes? Then you're going to jail, it's that simple. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Richy_T on November 01, 2012, 07:07:14 PM If you knew anything about the nervous system like I do you'd know where, in martial arts you get taught where the most vital points of a body are so you can avoid killing them by accident, as for guns well, of course the person is going to bleed to death anyway if you just leave them there, but you can't be that much of an asshole you'd just leave them to die right? Having self-defense laws that make sense would mean you wouldn't have to waste as much money on a police and military while providing a lot of clarity for the people who are kept so it would drastically reduce the amount of money involved in law. Did you attack this person? Yes? Then you're going to jail, it's that simple. The whole "proportional force" thing is a crock anyway. If you fear for your life, you shoot* to stop. The logic follows from there. *(In England, you wave a toilet brush or pull a scary face and hope the attacker has a heart attack) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: RodeoX on November 01, 2012, 07:16:21 PM If you knew anything about the nervous system like I do you'd know where, in martial arts you get taught where the most vital points of a body are so you can avoid killing them by accident, as for guns well, of course the person is going to bleed to death anyway if you just leave them there, but you can't be that much of an asshole you'd just leave them to die right? I spent 7 years studying martial arts 3 times a week. What I learned is that no one is a super hero. Fighting is risky stuff. So I would not use my martial arts training if I have my gun. Having self-defense laws that make sense would mean you wouldn't have to waste as much money on a police and military while providing a lot of clarity for the people who are kept so it would drastically reduce the amount of money involved in law. Did you attack this person? Yes? Then you're going to jail, it's that simple. I learned to shoot from my Dad, who learned it in the FBI. I do know what to do if attacked. If during the attack my life is in danger then the attacker will die before he/she ever see the gun. Even if your law were in effect I would do this. I would rather live in jail than be dead. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SysRun on November 01, 2012, 07:21:59 PM http://archive.org/details/COMW_20121024_063000_The_Colbert_Report#start/587/end/617
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SgtSpike on November 01, 2012, 07:38:26 PM If you knew anything about the nervous system like I do you'd know where, in martial arts you get taught where the most vital points of a body are so you can avoid killing them by accident, as for guns well, of course the person is going to bleed to death anyway if you just leave them there, but you can't be that much of an asshole you'd just leave them to die right? If they attacked me in the first place with intent to rob or kill, then yeah, I'd be pretty guilt-free letting them die.Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Richy_T on November 01, 2012, 07:53:15 PM If you knew anything about the nervous system like I do you'd know where, in martial arts you get taught where the most vital points of a body are so you can avoid killing them by accident, as for guns well, of course the person is going to bleed to death anyway if you just leave them there, but you can't be that much of an asshole you'd just leave them to die right? If they attacked me in the first place with intent to rob or kill, then yeah, I'd be pretty guilt-free letting them die.It depends. If I lived somewhere that didn't have strong recognition of self defense, I might be tempted to finish the job, dispose of the body and pretend nothing had happened. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 01, 2012, 07:58:53 PM If you knew anything about the nervous system like I do you'd know where, in martial arts you get taught where the most vital points of a body are so you can avoid killing them by accident, as for guns well, of course the person is going to bleed to death anyway if you just leave them there, but you can't be that much of an asshole you'd just leave them to die right? If they attacked me in the first place with intent to rob or kill, then yeah, I'd be pretty guilt-free letting them die.It depends. If I lived somewhere that didn't have strong recognition of self defense, I might be tempted to finish the job, dispose of the body and pretend nothing had happened. That's just prudence, not guilt. ;) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on November 02, 2012, 01:49:04 AM #4. Install Flat (sales) Tax at 20%. Convert IRS into regulating entity for monitoring, collecting and reporting on income from this new tax. Good luck. No government has ever been able to successfully enforce such a high sales tax.Govcoin... Bitcoin, now with mandatory fees! Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 02, 2012, 01:54:16 AM #4. Install Flat (sales) Tax at 20%. Convert IRS into regulating entity for monitoring, collecting and reporting on income from this new tax. Good luck. No government has ever been able to successfully enforce such a high sales tax.Govcoin... Bitcoin, now with mandatory fees! Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: notme on November 02, 2012, 02:00:54 AM #4. Install Flat (sales) Tax at 20%. Convert IRS into regulating entity for monitoring, collecting and reporting on income from this new tax. Good luck. No government has ever been able to successfully enforce such a high sales tax.Govcoin... Bitcoin, now with mandatory fees! I suppose the usual "you need it to pay taxes" doesn't hold here :P Large coorporations could be forced to use it though. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: 420 on November 02, 2012, 04:43:05 AM Why would you cut taxes for the rich (or punish horribly the middle class) while you are trying to balance the budget. The only balanced budget in recent memory came from a 39% tax rate for the upper bracket. It is simple, we have done it before, it WORKS. Combine the additional revenue with modest across the board cuts including defense and you can get a balanced budget. Leave student loans as they are, as the rate is ALREADY ABOVE PRIME. Education is a cost for a functioning society and pays dividends later. Changes need to be made to how colleges operate and to the very high costs but that is a separate issue. Here's my # step plan designed to save the US economy. #1. Freeze all Spending at current level. #2. Remove Capital Gains tax. #3. Remove Income Tax & associated employment related taxes. #4. Install Flat (sales) Tax at 20%. Convert IRS into regulating entity for monitoring, collecting and reporting on income from this new tax. #5. Open Borders. Remove tarifs. #6. Wait a month. #7. Look at the new report from the converted IRS - do the math on deficit new tax income. #8. Reduce all government spending by the percentage needed to balance the budget + double the cost of interest on the national debt. #9. Repeat 6-9 until nation is out of debt. Simple easy and effective. It would take all the downward pressure off the economy. We'd have an initial 30-50% reduction in government spending and the total on collected taxes would rise to make up the lost income in under 2 years... aided by all the former illegals now paying sales taxes and the massive growth the economy would under go by making it much cheaper to employ someone. And as soon as that happened then we can start growing entitlement programs and spending in all areas to consume the surplus. Being happy with a 10 or 20 or 50 year plan to pay off the debt. Great, whats the name of your cult that will follow and vow to implement and strive for this? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: VeeMiner on November 02, 2012, 05:17:23 PM neither
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: kokojie on November 03, 2012, 12:02:59 PM Maybe you'll eventually convince yourself. I do not need to convince myself because it's a fact Romney and Obama are provably different on the issues I care about. For example, as governor of MA, Romney signed an executive order to ban AA in MA. Obama never did anything like that, Obama on several occasions publicly said he support AA policies, including siding with the university on the current ongoing supreme court case. How much different, do you need to get? and these are just on issues I care about, I'm sure they are completely different on many other issues as well. So I tell you again, to say they are the same, is completely misleading and untrue. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Richy_T on November 03, 2012, 01:06:09 PM Maybe you'll eventually convince yourself. I do not need to convince myself because it's a fact Romney and Obama are provably different on the issues I care about. For example, as governor of MA, Romney signed an executive order to ban AA in MA. Obama never did anything like that, Obama on several occasions publicly said he support AA policies, including siding with the university on the current ongoing supreme court case. How much different, do you need to get? and these are just on issues I care about, I'm sure they are completely different on many other issues as well. So I tell you again, to say they are the same, is completely misleading and untrue. What is AA? I tried three different searches and turned up nothing. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on November 03, 2012, 01:23:51 PM Maybe you'll eventually convince yourself. I do not need to convince myself because it's a fact Romney and Obama are provably different on the issues I care about. For example, as governor of MA, Romney signed an executive order to ban AA in MA. Obama never did anything like that, Obama on several occasions publicly said he support AA policies, including siding with the university on the current ongoing supreme court case. How much different, do you need to get? and these are just on issues I care about, I'm sure they are completely different on many other issues as well. So I tell you again, to say they are the same, is completely misleading and untrue. What is AA? I tried three different searches and turned up nothing. I assume it's affirmative action. It's basically a euphemism for reverse discrimination. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 03, 2012, 01:43:16 PM Maybe you'll eventually convince yourself. I do not need to convince myself because it's a fact Romney and Obama are provably different on the issues I care about. For example, as governor of MA, Romney signed an executive order to ban AA in MA. Obama never did anything like that, Obama on several occasions publicly said he support AA policies, including siding with the university on the current ongoing supreme court case. How much different, do you need to get? and these are just on issues I care about, I'm sure they are completely different on many other issues as well. So I tell you again, to say they are the same, is completely misleading and untrue. Well, if affirmative action is the single issue you'll be voting on, Virgil Goode is as good a choice as Romney. For that matter, so are Ron Paul, and Andre Barnett. (Johnson supports equal employment for women, but I don't see a voting record for affirmative action. I assume he'd be similar in stance to Dr. Paul.) Know who and what you're voting for (http://www.ontheissues.org/Civil_Rights.htm). Romney and Obama are provably identical on many issues. That's why Political compass places them so close. Your saying "I'm sure they are completely different" just shows how completely unsure you are about it. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: luffy on November 03, 2012, 02:04:21 PM apart from the color, what is the difference? :D
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 03, 2012, 02:25:17 PM apart from the color, what is the difference? :D Well, clearly it's the logos. One is a red, white, and blue O, the other is a red, white, and blue R. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Richy_T on November 03, 2012, 06:42:21 PM I assume it's affirmative action. It's basically a euphemism for reverse discrimination. M Ah, that makes sense. I'm no fan of Affirmative Action but it's really a sideshow to the main issues, sad to say and only one of those "wedge topics" to make people think there's any real difference between the two. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 03, 2012, 09:15:36 PM Just for funsies, I looked up the "world leaders" chart on Political Compass
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2) http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.png Both Barack and Mitt are less liberty respecting than Herman van Rompuy and Angela Merkel. Let that sink in for a minute. Haiku Herman is more libertarian than either of the two major candidates in the US. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SysRun on November 03, 2012, 09:29:06 PM I was surprised to find an endorsement for Obama from the Salt Lake Tribune! "Too many Mitts" lol.
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: timeshareafrica on November 04, 2012, 11:24:28 AM Politics is like a muppet show, the people are the spectator, the politicans the muppets and the big companys the guys who move the muppets arround and than there is someone who controls the whole muppet show, they put the muppets in place give them names like Obama and Romney, they replace, manipulate, kill, brainwash muppets, spectators and companys. To keep the muppet show going people pay tax because they are to scared the muppet show will stop one day and the whole setup will be exposed.
Who is running the US muppet show? ??? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Richy_T on November 04, 2012, 04:03:39 PM Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 04, 2012, 05:15:24 PM No, but I get a kick every time I hear her name. :D Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: JoelKatz on November 05, 2012, 04:27:05 AM Credit to the American people Well, he can't be an atheist either, nor can he be bald.Give credit to the American people. I realized that they really don't mind if their president is a Mormon. They would not mind if the president is pagan or Satan worshiper, as long as he/she is not a Muslim. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: zvs on November 05, 2012, 11:36:37 AM Ron Paul!
wait... Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: dree12 on November 07, 2012, 04:35:54 AM Ron Paul! Who is neither an atheist nor bald.wait... Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: tiberiandusk on November 08, 2012, 01:53:02 AM In your smug face Mitt Romney!
Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on November 08, 2012, 01:59:48 AM In your smug face Mitt Romney! I can't believe so many people voted for either of these guys. America, you deserve what you're getting. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SaintDevil on November 08, 2012, 02:04:17 AM I can't believe so many people voted for either of these guys. America, you deserve what you're getting. That is what I have been trying to explain earlier, with american voting system in place there is really no chance for other candidates. M And as I wanted to vote for someone else the choice really stood up between 2. :-\ Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: mdude77 on November 08, 2012, 02:43:02 AM I can't believe so many people voted for either of these guys. America, you deserve what you're getting. That is what I have been trying to explain earlier, with american voting system in place there is really no chance for other candidates. M And as I wanted to vote for someone else the choice really stood up between 2. :-\ Gary Johnson (libertarian) was on the ballot. I voted for him. There ARE other choices. The media won't tell you that, but the media is bought and paid for like most of the federal government. M Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: TheButterZone on November 08, 2012, 03:49:42 AM I voted for M'Johnson. M'Johnson can slip past the taint of corruption and into the flowery land of goodness better than Obama or Romney.
Dirty joke for dirty tyrants. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SaintDevil on November 08, 2012, 09:21:57 AM That is what I have been trying to explain earlier, with american voting system in place there is really no chance for other candidates. Gary Johnson (libertarian) was on the ballot. I voted for him. There ARE other choices. The media won't tell you that, but the media is bought and paid for like most of the federal government.And as I wanted to vote for someone else the choice really stood up between 2. :-\ M But since we have colonized all possible space on this planet, we shall move to another planet and spit it into other political parties. Thus everyone could live where they would feel closer to their views. ' I really believe colonizing another planet could be in our lifetime..(my lifetime???) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on November 08, 2012, 03:06:22 PM Thus everyone could live where they would feel closer to their views. That was the idea in the US. The Federal government was to do little more than protect our rights. You could pick a state that more more closely reflected your views. That all basically ended with the civil war. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 08, 2012, 03:07:59 PM Thus everyone could live where they would feel closer to their views. That was the idea in the US. The Federal government was to do little more than protect our rights. You could pick a state that more more closely reflected your views. That all basically ended with the civil war. You mean the Second American Revolution? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on November 08, 2012, 05:34:53 PM Thus everyone could live where they would feel closer to their views. That was the idea in the US. The Federal government was to do little more than protect our rights. You could pick a state that more more closely reflected your views. That all basically ended with the civil war. You mean the Second American Revolution? The Failed revolution? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 08, 2012, 05:46:30 PM Thus everyone could live where they would feel closer to their views. That was the idea in the US. The Federal government was to do little more than protect our rights. You could pick a state that more more closely reflected your views. That all basically ended with the civil war. You mean the Second American Revolution? The Failed revolution? Mmmhm. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SaintDevil on November 08, 2012, 07:52:12 PM Thus everyone could live where they would feel closer to their views. That was the idea in the US. The Federal government was to do little more than protect our rights. You could pick a state that more more closely reflected your views. That all basically ended with the civil war.Well most people are also voting on the lack of knowledge. It seems to me that whenever president talks about religion ppl like him. Shouldn't be the government controlled by logical assumptions? Also so many people want a president who could create jobs. Well. I believe there will be a point where all labor jobs will be completely eliminated. This is why I believe education should be important and those people who worked in labor could study something else and get a higher level job. Interesting point not everyone wants to do that. I worked in retail for minimum wage (still do not as much though) while going to school because obviously I couldn't get anything better. I've met so many people who doesn't want education and they just want to work where they don't have to think. O_o It seems that with progression of our technology we are just moving closer to that line. One day we could possibly create ai as ours, I could see ai controlling the government (people) because everything they do will be based on logic and it's results. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Richy_T on November 08, 2012, 08:18:23 PM Thus everyone could live where they would feel closer to their views. That was the idea in the US. The Federal government was to do little more than protect our rights. You could pick a state that more more closely reflected your views. That all basically ended with the civil war. You mean the Second American Revolution? Not really so much a revolution as arguably seceding was a legal option. "Federal conquest" maybe? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 08, 2012, 08:27:53 PM Thus everyone could live where they would feel closer to their views. That was the idea in the US. The Federal government was to do little more than protect our rights. You could pick a state that more more closely reflected your views. That all basically ended with the civil war. You mean the Second American Revolution? Not really so much a revolution as arguably seceding was a legal option. "Federal conquest" maybe? Well, the first revolutionary war wouldn't have happened if George had simply said, "OK, you guys do your thing, and we'll do ours. Good luck, and all that." Neither would the second if Abe had said the same. It is the nature of rulers to rule. Allowing people to do their own thing, if it so pleases them, is the nature of leaders. When Abe said "No, you're part of the union, you're not going anywhere," he effectively ended the experiment in freedom which was the United States. The irony is that he did it, ostensibly, in the name of freedom. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on November 08, 2012, 09:21:46 PM I believe there will be a point where all labor jobs will be completely eliminated. This is why I believe education should be important and those people who worked in labor could study something else and get a higher level job. Don't confuse education with intelligence. I know a lot of well educated idiots, that would more more useful doing manual labor. Education should be no more important than it is useful. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Richy_T on November 08, 2012, 10:30:19 PM Well, the first revolutionary war wouldn't have happened if George had simply said, "OK, you guys do your thing, and we'll do ours. Good luck, and all that." Neither would the second if Abe had said the same. It is the nature of rulers to rule. Allowing people to do their own thing, if it so pleases them, is the nature of leaders. When Abe said "No, you're part of the union, you're not going anywhere," he effectively ended the experiment in freedom which was the United States. The irony is that he did it, ostensibly, in the name of freedom. True. It's probably just a matter of semantics but George (amongst others) "owned" the colonies whereas the Union was a union of the individual states. At least until ol' Abe got going. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 08, 2012, 11:01:56 PM Well, the first revolutionary war wouldn't have happened if George had simply said, "OK, you guys do your thing, and we'll do ours. Good luck, and all that." Neither would the second if Abe had said the same. It is the nature of rulers to rule. Allowing people to do their own thing, if it so pleases them, is the nature of leaders. When Abe said "No, you're part of the union, you're not going anywhere," he effectively ended the experiment in freedom which was the United States. The irony is that he did it, ostensibly, in the name of freedom. True. It's probably just a matter of semantics but George (amongst others) "owned" the colonies whereas the Union was a union of the individual states. At least until ol' Abe got going. Owned in the sense that they had drawn lines on a map. Did anyone ask the people who were already there? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on November 09, 2012, 02:58:42 PM I believe there will be a point where all labor jobs will be completely eliminated. This is why I believe education should be important and those people who worked in labor could study something else and get a higher level job. Don't confuse education with intelligence. I know a lot of well educated idiots, that would more more useful doing manual labor. Education should be no more important than it is useful. To a point. Gates, Jobs, (the jury is still out on Zuckerberg) are the exceptions, not the rule. For most, to be intelligent and uneducated is to not realize your maximum potential. I want my brain surgeon to be both intelligent AND highly educated. ;D Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 09, 2012, 03:03:07 PM I believe there will be a point where all labor jobs will be completely eliminated. This is why I believe education should be important and those people who worked in labor could study something else and get a higher level job. Don't confuse education with intelligence. I know a lot of well educated idiots, that would more more useful doing manual labor. Education should be no more important than it is useful. To a point. Gates, Jobs, (the jury is still out on Zuckerberg) are the exceptions, not the rule. For most, to be intelligent and uneducated is to not realize your maximum potential. I want my brain surgeon to be both intelligent AND highly educated. ;D Do not confuse "educated" with "schooled." Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Richy_T on November 09, 2012, 03:24:56 PM Owned in the sense that they had drawn lines on a map. Did anyone ask the people who were already there? Owned in the sense that they had the guns and would exercise violence if anyone declined to agree (at least until other people with guns & violence objected). And I'm sure that the people who were already there were pretty well informed of the change of "ownership". Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Richy_T on November 09, 2012, 03:25:52 PM I believe there will be a point where all labor jobs will be completely eliminated. This is why I believe education should be important and those people who worked in labor could study something else and get a higher level job. Don't confuse education with intelligence. I know a lot of well educated idiots, that would more more useful doing manual labor. Education should be no more important than it is useful. To a point. Gates, Jobs, (the jury is still out on Zuckerberg) are the exceptions, not the rule. For most, to be intelligent and uneducated is to not realize your maximum potential. I want my brain surgeon to be both intelligent AND highly educated. ;D However, one does not have to receive an education to be educated. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on November 09, 2012, 03:43:05 PM For most, to be intelligent and uneducated is to not realize your maximum potential. To be unintelligent and highly educated is a waste. There is a lot of that going around, and at HIGHLY inflated prices. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 09, 2012, 03:47:09 PM For most, to be intelligent and uneducated is to not realize your maximum potential. To be unintelligent and highly educated is a waste. There is a lot of that going around, and at HIGHLY inflated prices. The excess demand is itself a large part of what's driving up the price. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on November 09, 2012, 03:55:18 PM For most, to be intelligent and uneducated is to not realize your maximum potential. To be unintelligent and highly educated is a waste. There is a lot of that going around, and at HIGHLY inflated prices. Education is an investment - not all investments are good or pay as well as we would like. Everyone, colleges included, is selling something (just like the bitcoin world). I know this forum is full of intelligent people of varying degrees (no pun intended) of education. No matter how intelligent you are, many career opportunities and advancement levels will be closed to you without a given level of education. Everyone is free to go their own way and make their own life, but statistically, your peers with college degrees will do better. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 09, 2012, 04:01:23 PM For most, to be intelligent and uneducated is to not realize your maximum potential. To be unintelligent and highly educated is a waste. There is a lot of that going around, and at HIGHLY inflated prices. Education is an investment - not all investments are good or pay as well as we would like. Everyone, colleges included, is selling something (just like the bitcoin world). I know this forum is full of intelligent people of varying degrees (no pun intended) of education. No matter how intelligent you are, many career opportunities and advancement levels will be closed to you without a given Once again, you're confusing education with schooling. I could learn everything I need to know about how to perform heart surgery from the library. That still wouldn't get me a medical degree. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: Richy_T on November 09, 2012, 04:01:46 PM Education is an investment - not all investments are good or pay as well as we would like. Everyone, colleges included, is selling something (just like the bitcoin world). I know this forum is full of intelligent people of varying degrees (no pun intended) of education. No matter how intelligent you are, many career opportunities and advancement levels will be closed to you without a given level of education. Everyone is free to go their own way and make their own life, but statistically, your peers with college degrees will do better. However, education is in a bubble right now. The investment capital is becoming not worth the return for many. Not only are you having to pay large sums of money and waste several years worth of earning and on-the-job learning potential but at the end of it all, you have to compete with many others who have the same level of education. One should think seriously about the direction of one's career before jumping into "I gots ta get me an education" Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on November 09, 2012, 04:15:18 PM One should think seriously about the direction of one's career before jumping into "I gots ta get me an education" You are corect and this is always been the case. An art or history degree is not going to do much for you unless you pursue it to the Ph.D level and teach it. A medical/science/engineering degree is not going to leave you without a job. I can't find experienced mechanical and electrical engineers right now without paying top dollar (market forces at work). Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on November 09, 2012, 05:00:36 PM ...statistically, your peers with college degrees will do better... Recently went to a college reunion of sorts... Out of 25 or so friends, I was the only one still in the field of my education... and I consider 95% of the college education I got "in my field", to be worthless. This is after less than 10 years. People with a desire to be knowledgeable will do better than those that don't. Those with a desire to be skilled will do better than those that don't. It has nothing to do with a formal education. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: SgtSpike on November 09, 2012, 05:04:17 PM ...statistically, your peers with college degrees will do better... Recently went to a college reunion of sorts... Out of 25 or so friends, I was the only one still in the field of my education... and I consider 95% of the college education I got "in my field", to be worthless. This is after less than 10 years. People with a desire to be knowledgeable will do better than those that don't. Those with a desire to be skilled will do better than those that don't. It has nothing to do with a formal education. All of that said, I do agree that the education itself is largely useless - I think we would be much better served doing apprentice-style schooling. Work on real-world problems instead of stuff out of textbooks, etc. Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: jasinlee on November 09, 2012, 05:21:48 PM ...statistically, your peers with college degrees will do better... Recently went to a college reunion of sorts... Out of 25 or so friends, I was the only one still in the field of my education... and I consider 95% of the college education I got "in my field", to be worthless. This is after less than 10 years. People with a desire to be knowledgeable will do better than those that don't. Those with a desire to be skilled will do better than those that don't. It has nothing to do with a formal education. All of that said, I do agree that the education itself is largely useless - I think we would be much better served doing apprentice-style schooling. Work on real-world problems instead of stuff out of textbooks, etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxkHM4DUDKM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxkHM4DUDKM) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on November 09, 2012, 05:44:29 PM People with a desire to be knowledgeable will do better than those that don't. Those with a desire to be skilled will do better than those that don't. It has nothing to do with a formal education. In an attempt to put this derailed thread back on track, you realize both Obama and Romney have degrees from Harvard. As did/do: John Adams John Quincy Adams Rutherford B. Hayes Theodore Roosevelt Franklin D. Roosevelt John F. Kennedy George W. Bush Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: bitcoinbear on November 09, 2012, 05:53:24 PM People with a desire to be knowledgeable will do better than those that don't. Those with a desire to be skilled will do better than those that don't. It has nothing to do with a formal education. In an attempt to put this derailed thread back on track, you realize both Obama and Romney have degrees from Harvard. As did/do: John Adams John Quincy Adams Rutherford B. Hayes Theodore Roosevelt Franklin D. Roosevelt John F. Kennedy George W. Bush So, if you want to be president, your best bet is to go to Harvard? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 09, 2012, 05:58:31 PM So, if you want to be president, your best bet is to go to Harvard? Actually, by raw numbers, you're better off with no college, than any specific one: George Washington (The death of his father ended Washington's formal schooling; however, he believed strongly in formal education. In his will, he left money and/or stocks to support three educational institutions.) Andrew Jackson Martin Van Buren William Henry Harrison (attended college but never received a degree) Zachary Taylor Millard Fillmore Abraham Lincoln (had only about a year of formal schooling of any kind) Andrew Johnson Grover Cleveland Harry S. Truman (went to business college and law school but did not receive a degree) Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on November 09, 2012, 06:06:43 PM ...but Truman was also the last president without a degree.
Dwight D. Eisenhower United States Military Academy John F. Kennedy London School of Economics (General Course Program) Princeton University (transferred to Harvard University) Harvard University University of Michigan (visitor) Lyndon B. Johnson Texas State University-San Marcos Georgetown University Law Center (withdrew) Richard Nixon Whittier College Duke University School of Law Gerald Ford University of Michigan Yale Law School Jimmy Carter Georgia Southwestern College (transferred to the Georgia Institute of Technology) Georgia Institute of Technology (transferred to the United States Naval Academy) United States Naval Academy Ronald Reagan Eureka College George H. W. Bush Yale University Bill Clinton Georgetown University University of Oxford (Rhodes Scholar) Yale Law School George W. Bush Yale University Harvard Business School Barack Obama Occidental College (transferred to Columbia University) Columbia University Harvard Law School Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: myrkul on November 09, 2012, 06:09:41 PM ...but Truman was also the last president without a degree. Which indicates that a job which was originally "of the people, for the people" is getting rather elitist, isn't it? Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: C10H15N on November 09, 2012, 06:13:41 PM ...but Truman was also the last president without a degree. Which indicates that a job which was originally "of the people, for the people" is getting rather elitist, isn't it? It was even then. Truman, the only President ever to order the use of a nuclear weapon, was considered by many to be an ignorant haberdasher. ;D Title: Re: Obama or Romney ? Post by: CoinDiver on November 09, 2012, 07:44:07 PM Seems to me we should avoid electing someone from either Yale or Harvard...
|
