2012 Presidential Election

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

2012 Presidential Election

Post by Mandalore the Nifty on Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:20 am

As everyone likely knows, President Obama will be up for reelection in 2012. There are already a large amount of candidates in the race who are opposing him, as well as some that have yet to enter that are being touted by supporters as potential candidates. Who are you supporting (or would you support if you could) in the upcoming election and why?

Mandalore the Nifty

Posts : 14
Points : 26
Join date : 2011-07-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by JokerHound on Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:14 pm

I will probably be supporting Obama again. I am more liberal on most issues, and i belevie he has made changes for the better. Despite what people on both sides may say, the man is not a wizard, and he cannot magically fix everything, but i feel that he has pushed us in the right direction, and he has dramatically improved our standing across the world. I do not want to return to being the nation the entire earth despised back in the Bush years. I like having a leader i feel like i can trust, as opposed to one who wants permission to violate the bill of rights and torture me. John McCain used to be a man i felt i could trust, but he sacraficed too many of his principles during the last election. I feel like i can trust Ron Paul, but i know he won't be nominated, even though he is the only person who actually represents what the principles of the republican party are supposed to be.
avatar
JokerHound

Posts : 54
Points : 68
Join date : 2011-07-03
Age : 28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by Mandalore the Nifty on Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:40 pm

Of the candidates that are in the race right now, there are only a few that I'd vote for over Obama. Otherwise, I'll be voting for the President, whom I think has done a decent job and has tried his best to help this country.
Jon Huntsman is running a civil campaign, one based on authenticity, and his resume is incredibly impressive to me. I'd support him in an instant, but I'm afraid he's being seen as too moderate for the current political climate.
Romney I could see myself supporting too, but his integrity is the biggest concern to me. He's got an impressive resume as well, and as governor he was fairly moderate which is appealing to me. He'd be close to Obama.
Gary Johnson is someone I greatly respect and would get behind if he had a chance, but the media is now excluding him from debates.

I'm not a big Tea Party fan. The only one I could stomach is Herman Cain probably, because he seems at least intelligent. But if one of them get the nomination I'm voting Obama for sure. Or for Mike Bloomberg, if he launches an independent bid. (Which I'd love)

Mandalore the Nifty

Posts : 14
Points : 26
Join date : 2011-07-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by #1SithLord on Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:59 pm

Tyler, you're an idiot. Obama's one of the shitiest presidents we've ever had. Just name a subject and I'll tell you how he's fucked up and how it should have really been done. Maybe, if he wasn't trying to force his own agenda on everyone and actually focus on what America wants and needs, he would've done alright.

Anyway, as far as my pick for the 2012 election, I don't have a single favorite. Newt Gingrich is smart and despite popular belief, it was him and the Republican congress in 94 that balanced the budget, not clinton. I just don't see him as a man of principle and is just another politician. Ron Paul got his principles right, but he just doesn't have the bang needed to even get a nomination. Herman Cain is a very good choice, having that business knowledge, which is what a president really needs. He's also a tea party candidate which makes him the highest on my list. None of the current republican candidates really reach my standard, most are too moderate, but any one of them would be better than Obama.
avatar
#1SithLord
Administration

Posts : 133
Points : 6178
Join date : 2011-06-23
Age : 28

View user profile http://revolution.forumsmotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by JokerHound on Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Whoa now, debate means no name-calling. Lets keep it civil here.

I agree with Obama on most issues, and that doesnt make me an idiot, it just means our opinions are different. Pretty much every complaint i have ever heard leveled at the Obama administration has been baseless, or at least debatable. Business experience does not, in my opinion, make someone suited to be a president. Too many politicians are businessmen already. Businessmen only serve the needs of other businessmen. The gap between the rich and the poor is constantly widening, and i think it needs to stop while we still have a middle class left. Businessmen are the last thing we want as president. I want a dreamer. I want an idealist. Someone who puts the American people and the ideals the country stands for ahead of the corporations and the richest 1%
avatar
JokerHound

Posts : 54
Points : 68
Join date : 2011-07-03
Age : 28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by #1SithLord on Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:43 pm

Yeah, we all want these 'idealist' where we live in a perfect world. That's a naive and wrong viewpoint. Obama's 'idealism' had him bow down to other nations leaders and lose the respect of other countries. If anything, a president has to have a backbone, some balls.

What this country needs is a businessman and a leader who puts the wants and needs of America first. The president should run the country like a business. A good businessman would create a balanced budget and actually help our economy. Not spend trillions and cause a massive increase in debt.

You want an idealist? A dreamer? Someone who stands with the American people? That's not Obama my friend, let's see his achievements that compeletly negates your comment:

-Obama, Pelosi, and Reid shoved the Healthcare law down our throats, behind closed doors, when most of the country didn't want it, and gave 1/6th of the economy over the the govt. (yep, he was standing by the American people then, especially when most of America didn't want it)
-Used taxpayer money to fund the failed stimulus and bailout many corporations. (That's really someone who stands ahead of corporations.)
-Raised taxes when he said he wouldn't, he just snuck around it through peripheal means other than income tax.
-He sided with Mexico over Arizona because they were actually doing something about illegal aliens. (yep, that's siding with the American people of course, especially when most of the state and most of the nation agreed with Arizona.)

Those are just to name a small few.

And don't give me that crap about a widening gap between the incomes. You keep a flat tax and loosen regulations and you'll see that middle class reappear. The top 10% of income earners pay around 69% of federal income taxes while the bottom 50% pay only 3% of federal income taxes. That's plenty fair enough for you. and you have to realize that people also having personal financial responsibilities. The gov't isn't supposed to try and fix everything. You wanna help the American people? You give them more responsibility to handle themselves and the benefit of the doubt.
avatar
#1SithLord
Administration

Posts : 133
Points : 6178
Join date : 2011-06-23
Age : 28

View user profile http://revolution.forumsmotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by #1SithLord on Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:57 pm

Besides, why do epople think that the Middle Class is disappearing? People say that but the facts point in completely the opposite direction. Curious.
avatar
#1SithLord
Administration

Posts : 133
Points : 6178
Join date : 2011-06-23
Age : 28

View user profile http://revolution.forumsmotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by JokerHound on Tue Jul 05, 2011 7:10 pm

The top 10% of people have over 90% of the money, so no, it still is not fair. A flat tax is hands down, without a doubt, the single worst idea i have ever had someone propose to me with a straight face.

I supported the healthcare bill, and i think it did'nt go far enough. i would rather have socialized healthcare. Taxes need to be raised. That seems pretty obvious considering your other complaint about the deficit. They can and should be raised on the wealthiest 10% of Americans, the ones who had the largest hand in crashing the economy in the first place.

You will have to be more specific on the Arizona issue. I know Sheriff Joe Arpaio (sp?) has actually been bad for the state overall, and that he has, at least once, attempted to frame a man for attempting to assassinate him to make it look as though the criminals are afraid of him, even though crime has gone up sicne he took office. He is the one "doing something about illegal immigration." The fact of the matter is that without a wall at the border, we cannot, and absolutely will not solve the illegal immigration problem.

And bailing out the companies, as much as i hated it, had to be done, otherwise there would be nothing left of the economy to rebuild.

The past several years have seen a huge drop in home ownership rates and employment in the country. What about that exactly points to the middle class growing?
avatar
JokerHound

Posts : 54
Points : 68
Join date : 2011-07-03
Age : 28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by #1SithLord on Tue Jul 05, 2011 7:59 pm

Once again, wrong. the top 10% don't have 90% of the money, Their income represents only 44% of the total income. A flat tax is a great idea, it's fair and puts a certain percentage, flat across the board to you income. It's proportionate to how much you earn. example 9% income tax, you earn $100, you pay 9$, you earn $1,000, you pay $90. it's easy, it's fair, and it works.

The healthcare bill was one of the worst pieces of legislation in US History. For one, it will bankrupt this country, second, what americans would have to pay to keep this healthcare going would actually be higher than their premiums. Quality will go down, as anything does in any public sector. Not to mention that you're trying to squeeze an extra 30 million people into a system that doesn't have extra doctors to compensate, thus, longer waits for surgeries. The gov't can ration supplies if they need to. Doctors will spend more time filling out paperwork cause it's ultimately more redtape. Not to mention that it goes against the principles of America. Not only will it not work, it's unconstitutional.

So, you want to raise taxes huh? Raising taxes to try to get out of debt is like trying to lift yourself while standing in a bucket. You want greater federal revenue? lower taxes. Just like Bush did in 2003 in which federal revenues grew by about 745 Billion, the largest increase in US History in that short period of time. increasing taxes means people spend less. Also, our low tax rates is one of the reason why we are economically powerful but sadly, because of people like you, we have the second highest coporate tax rate in the world. Which means corporations move overseas, and take their jobs with them. we used to have low rates compared to other industrial nations but not anymore. The unions are also a big burden on american industry and commerce. and people complain about jobs going overseas.

I don't care bout that sheriff. Obama stood by Mexico instead of Arizona's immigration law. Do you know what Mexico does to Guatemalans sneaking into Mexico? forget about it, and the mexican president wants to criticize us? he can piss off! several sections have had a wall built and I agree that a wall needs to be built. but areas where a wall is built, it's easy to get across and modifications aren't made to the wall because we don't want to 'offend' mexico. a liberal trait.

No, the bailout was a terrible idea. It a waste of taxpayer money and weakened the dollar because the feds had to print extra money for the bailouts and stimulus. First of, it causes corruption in washington cause when politicians gain allocation of economic resources, it allows them to play the 'quid pro quo' when it comes to elections. Second, it's bad for the economy, bad government policy resulted in the housing bubble collapse. If the situation had been left alone, it would have created a stronger more vibrant economy. That's what happens in capitalist economies like ours. but because of the bailout, it slowed this process and reduced economic efficiency. Third, history has shown that gov't intervention has been bad for the country. look at Japan in the late 80's and how is faced a decade of stagnation where protectionism, higher taxes, increased gov't spending, and intervention turned a stock market correction into the Great depression. Fourth, it rewards the companies that helped cause it. And promotes poor choices in the future. if an entreprenuer figures out a way to provide goods wisely, they will succeed. However, if they make mistakes, they will suffer and go bankrupt. investors put their money in a smart company, they make money, they invest in a poorly ran company, the opposite. in short, a free market forces people to make smart decisions otherwise, they will fail. Ironically, it's was the feds intervention that ultimately caused the economic collapse because of policies like 'easy-money.' they drove interest rates way too low, created too much liquidity and thusforth, the fed reserve created the condition for a housing bubble.

Well, all throughout the Bush years you complained of a shrinking middle-class. FALSE!! Here are the facts: The middle Class (between 40th and 60th income percentile) from 1980 to 2004 has actually been getting richer. the low income bound of the middle class has risen about 12,000$ after inflation. Today, well, not really cause Obama's poor economic policies, the middle class has about 45% more buying power than 30 years ago. but today, cause of poor economic policies, your statement is becoming more true.

Oh yeah, did i mention that Obama fucked over the troops aswell? Not only did he give a small wage increase, lower than inflation but he also cut the amount earned for married troops. BAH rates are down just over a $100 dollars than it would of been had he not cut it. to be realistic, Obama lowered the pay for troops.
avatar
#1SithLord
Administration

Posts : 133
Points : 6178
Join date : 2011-06-23
Age : 28

View user profile http://revolution.forumsmotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by Mandalore the Nifty on Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:25 pm

My problem with Herman Cain is his lack of political experience. I do think that having a successful background in business (Romney, Bloomberg, Huntsman) is a good thing for a President to have, but I don't think that alone it is enough. I want to see that translate into actual governance before I vote for the person. Cain should run for Governor of Georgia and then we can see.

For the healthcare bill, I think it would have been better to have approached it in a different way than Obama had. There are 50 states, and I would've preferred some sort of program that would've encouraged states to come up with their own plans and then we could compare the programs based on success. Some states could go singlepayer, some could take a more market based approach; let the laboratories of democracy decide the winner. This bill that was put through addresses one problem (and I would argue the smaller problem) with our healthcare industry: getting universal coverage. I think we should be working harder to address the problem with costs, which is the true issue in my eyes.

I just wish that there would be some alternative solutions put out there by the opposition though. It obviously isn't the best healthcare reform in the world, but where is the Republican solution? (It was RomneyCare, until Obama took it).

As for the tax issue: I'm a deficit hawk. I think the debt is a serious issue and that it needs to be tackled hard through whatever means necessary. That means spending cuts and (as much as I like lower tax rates) temporarily higher tax rates in order to reduce our debt. I do think the corporate tax rate should be lowered, in order to entice businesses with a better economic environment; ours is one of the highest in the world, and I think that it is absurd to put up with that in a time of economic hardship. But personal income tax rates should at least return to Clinton-era levels (in order help deal with the debt). I think taxes should be as low as possible, but we live in a time where I think that we need to have all options on the table.

What do you think of Jon Huntsman, SL?

Mandalore the Nifty

Posts : 14
Points : 26
Join date : 2011-07-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by #1SithLord on Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:54 pm

Well, here's a solution to the healthcare problem. Something that I would have agreed to and would've actually been better for the economy.

1: Allow healthcare companies to cross state lines. Frankily, that was a dumb idea to begin with. eliminating the state borders for healthcare providers encourages competition, which means, lower prices.

2: Get rid of illegal aliens. With nearly 15 million illegals in this country, that's a lot of people using the system, but not paying into it.

3: Police up fraud, i don't remember the actual costs but i think healthcare fraud accounted for like 150 billion dollars.

4: Reduce paperwork, because doctors spend most of their time filling out paperwork instead of seeing patients, efficiency drops and healthcare providers have to pay extra for increased costs because of the inefficiency, those costs then gets put on you.

My wife and I have Tricare, which is the military's healthcare. (it's government healthcare) and most people I know, don't go to the army or VA hospitals. because quality is terrible and frankily, the gov't hires the lowest bidder.

Wanna hear a stupid story?

My wife is preganant, and she had her OB/GYN appointments in Fayetteville, NC. Just outside Fort Bragg. Tricare paid for them. Since I'm currently deployed, she moved back home. But Tricare and the army hospital wouldn't give up HER medical records. So the OB/GYN back home can't just start off where she originally left off, she has to redo all her appointments again, at the cost of Tricare and your tax dollars. First off, they were lucky i wasn't there otherwise I would have yelled at them, saying my wife can't have HER own records, and second, that's just poor fiscal management on the part of Tricare.

You know what? That's a posistion that the fed should have come up with. Instead of doing the big healthcare law, let the states handle it in anyway they choose. That's what the constitution says, any power not granted to the fed becomes the state's power. People would then look at Massachusetts and realize, "Hey, this idea doesn't work!" but you know what, that's okay cause that's the course that state choose and there are two ways to vote, on ballot if you don't like whats going on, and with your feet.

As far an Jon Huntsman goes. I haven't heard too much about him (as far as getting himself recognized for the 2012 election) but his past actions are great. Cutting 400 million dollars from the budget through tax breaks and still had a budget surplus in Utah when he was governor. That something this country needs, he knows how to manage himself and his state.
avatar
#1SithLord
Administration

Posts : 133
Points : 6178
Join date : 2011-06-23
Age : 28

View user profile http://revolution.forumsmotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by JokerHound on Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:27 pm

Scandanavian countries with socialized healthcare have a higher standard of living and longer life expectancy than us.

The top 1% of people in the united states make up, as of 2007, 34.6% of the net value of the united states and control 42.7% of the financial wealth. When you bring it to the top 20% the figure gets even more disturbing, bringing the figures to 81.&% of the net worth and a staggering 93% of the financial wealth. The trend has been going up gradually since at least 1983. This is according to a study by the sociology department of the University of California. According to business insider the top 1% have seen their share of America's income more than double since 1979. The bottom 90% have seen their portion shrink.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-then-youre-getting-a-bum-deal-15#ixzz1RHRZHug0

A flat Tax rate is the most supremely awful idea in the history of terrible ideas. Those who can afford to give more have a responsibility to do so. Besides, with your flat tax rate, we only tax 9% of 93% of our financial wealth. Sure it's easy, but it makes us as a nation incredibly poor immediately. If you had a 10% tax and me and 8 other people have $100 bucks, and one man has 10 million dollars, then we are left with $90, and he has 90 million. If you change our tax to 5% and his to 20% then the government makes $20,000,045 instead of $10,000,090 and we all get 5 extra dollars, and the rich guy still has 80 million bucks, He is going to be totally fine, and we are likely to go out and use our extra five dollars stimulating the economy, whereas he would just save his extra ten million if he were allowed to keep it. Aside from being an easy system to operate there are absolutely no upsides for the country with a flat tax rate.
avatar
JokerHound

Posts : 54
Points : 68
Join date : 2011-07-03
Age : 28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by #1SithLord on Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:53 pm

Ah man, Tyler, you are a very difficult person to argue with. lol sometimes, you just gotta see common sense in use.

I don't why the Cali University came up with that but I received my sources for the United States Department of Treasury.
avatar
#1SithLord
Administration

Posts : 133
Points : 6178
Join date : 2011-06-23
Age : 28

View user profile http://revolution.forumsmotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by JokerHound on Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:43 am

Can i get a link on that? Because business insider and the Wolff foundation and Pew foundation all have figures close to the University's figures.
avatar
JokerHound

Posts : 54
Points : 68
Join date : 2011-07-03
Age : 28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by #1SithLord on Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:57 pm

My bad, I thought it was the Treasury, it's the IRS that is the source. The people who actually take in the money.

avatar
#1SithLord
Administration

Posts : 133
Points : 6178
Join date : 2011-06-23
Age : 28

View user profile http://revolution.forumsmotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by Lanx on Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:01 pm

I find it ironic that you're trusting the government-run IRS's published numbers over published research of the University of California, especially with the anti-big-gov kick. Just wondering how you justify that.

*Cowers, as his my fashion, in fear of all internet "debates"*
avatar
Lanx

Posts : 11
Points : 19
Join date : 2011-07-21
Age : 28
Location : Fargo, ND

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by #1SithLord on Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:38 pm

Because, as with every other gov't program. If there are errors or if it's just plain retarded, people will point it out.

Besides, the information is also backed by many people on both sides. That IRS link was just the first one I found. The info is still the same.
avatar
#1SithLord
Administration

Posts : 133
Points : 6178
Join date : 2011-06-23
Age : 28

View user profile http://revolution.forumsmotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by JokerHound on Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:03 am

I believe your graph only represents annual salary and federal income tax on that. Those who make the most money tend to accumulate it rather than spending it. When you look at percentage of ownership of stocks and whatnot, it gets a lot more one-sided.
avatar
JokerHound

Posts : 54
Points : 68
Join date : 2011-07-03
Age : 28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by #1SithLord on Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:57 pm

So? your point is? You are right about that, the top 10% own 80-90% of stocks. But 50% of the country has some sort of stocks.

Those 'greedy, corporate, assholes?' Yeah, they may be, but they earned their own money.And they are major components of our Economy.

You wanna tax the shit out of them? Fine, they'll just move operations to other countries, then you'll start to complain about outsourcing and unemployment. And they only get richer cause a lot of people are financially irresponsible.

If someone signs up for a shitty credit card with bad interest rates and they end up in debt, who's fault is it? The credit card company or the person who signed up for the credit card? It's the person who signed up for the credit card.

Redistrobuting wealth is not the government's job nor should it be. Otherwise, you're just promoting more financial irresponsibility and the hole will be dig even deeper.

Yeah, you're gonna have a few people and families who are never able to financially recover. oh well, shit happens and nothing is perfect. That's not the government's problem.

That's what liberals fail to see, they seek to create a world where no one fails, and everyone can be happy. Such a world is impossible, and it doesn't give the people the benefit of the doubt. The government has to give people back its freedoms and responsibilities. Because it has no right otherwise.
avatar
#1SithLord
Administration

Posts : 133
Points : 6178
Join date : 2011-06-23
Age : 28

View user profile http://revolution.forumsmotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by JokerHound on Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:44 pm

Well, about half of billionaires didn't earn it. They got it because of how they were born.

80-90% of the nations wealth being controlled by less than 10% of the people drives home exactly the point i am making. They have an insanely disproportionate amount of the money, so taxing them more both makes sense and is completely fair. Yearly income isn't really a factor for the rich, because most of thier money comes from already accumulated wealth.

Then you can factor in that many of those "greedy corporate, assholes' (a term i never used, by the way) "earned" their money, much the same way a shoplifter or a mugger "earns" their profits. Corporate America is an insanely corrupt place. Believe me, if they cant find a way to steal from the people, they will just try to find a way to steal from the government.

What the majority of conservatives fail to see (though i believe those at the top both see it and embrace it) is that by favoring the wealthy you are creating an American Aristocracy. Deregulation of the financial system is something i hear a lot of conservatives advocate (often under the guise of "returning freedoms to the market"), and it is simply outrageous. Deregulating the financial system would be exactly like laying off all prison guards and police.
avatar
JokerHound

Posts : 54
Points : 68
Join date : 2011-07-03
Age : 28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by #1SithLord on Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:40 pm

Like I said, no system will ever be perfect. And our current system works, it's the reason we are the most powerful economy in the world. It's not the government's job to decide what's 'fair' for everyone.It the government's job to stay out of the markets, otherwise, you wouldn't have the recession we are in now, or even the great depression. Government meddling in markets, over regulation chokes us. It kills us in global competition.

and, like I said, since you didn't pay attention to that fact. When Bush enacted the tax cuts in 2003. revenues jumped up 745 Billion, the biggest increase in US history in that short of time. Whether you like it or not, cutting taxes promotes economic growth. It's a proven fact, history tells us that and you can not argue against it.

Trying to raise taxes to earn more money is like trying to lift yourself while standing in a bucket. The kind of economic idea you have i what I call Troll Economics. Raise taxes=more money right? it looks good on paper but history shows that it isn't the case.

All that aside, it's also a matter of principle. Of what the government should and shouldn't be able to do. A government should be as small, as transparent, and as less restrictive as it can possibly be. Frankly, the government has no right redistrobuting wealth, it pisses everybody off except those like you who would want to see the government turned into a mandatory charity and people who aretoo busy living off welfare to go out and get a real job.
avatar
#1SithLord
Administration

Posts : 133
Points : 6178
Join date : 2011-06-23
Age : 28

View user profile http://revolution.forumsmotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by JokerHound on Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:11 pm

Actually it is exactly the governments job to decide what is fair. That is why they exist at all. If there was no regulation then we would live in a fascist corporate fiefdom. Rich people are basically an american aristocracy, and as i already said, that is unacceptable. Staying out of the markets leads to awesome things like adjustable rate mortgages for people who couldn't afford them in the first place because the corporate landscape is so corrupt, which lead to things like the the housing market crashing, which leads to things like the recession we are currently in right now.

Yeah, jump in revenues from tax cuts, and somehow we the national debt still went up. Weird how that works out huh? Except that it isn't. Companies spend their money in other countries. Tax receipts went down from 19.1% of our GDP to 17.9%. Tax cuts for the bottom 80-90% of people make sense. They stimulate the economy, because we spend the money. The people at the top just invest it overseas or put it into their stock portfolios or savings.

Your analogy is just totally incorrect. What you are proposing is called Reaganomics, and it has proven to be the most disasterously terrible ideas in economics, for much teh same reasons i have already listed. If you gave me and fifty other guys just like me $1,000 dollars today, we would spend that money here in the US. give a rich guy $50,000 and at least half of it will be spent overseas. you just threw that money away.

If the government wasn't restrictive on businesses we would all be slaves. Once a company gets to a certain size it loses its soul, and all that ends up mattering at the end of the day is profit. It is Genovese syndrome at its finest (bystander effect). The more people there are involved in something, the less chance there is that someone will take a stand when something wrong is being done. Only it is worse, because in corporations when that brave single soul stands up against the faceless uncaring masses who desire only profit, they are crushed. When a small minority are hoarding the wealth, it is the governments responsibility to redistribute it to some extent.

Making up my opinion for me is a silly way to try to prove me wrong, because i never said i thought the government should be a mandatory charity to help lazy people not have to work. I agree the welfare system needs major reform, because there are far too many people abusing it, but there are more people who use it correctly and genuinely need it then there are people abusing it.

I guess that debate comes down to a matter of philosophy:
would you rather have one man innocent of murder be mistakenly executed or one man guilty of murder be mistaken let free?
avatar
JokerHound

Posts : 54
Points : 68
Join date : 2011-07-03
Age : 28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by #1SithLord on Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:18 pm

Here, I'm going to deconstruct your paragraphs one-by-one.

Now, I'm a fan of small regulation, such as minimum wage, prevention of monopolies. Stuff that prevents single companies from taking over the market, which would prevent any small businesses. I agree with you, regulation is a must, but it, like anything else the government does, just needs a light touch. Not the downpour of regulation that you see from Obama which is actually inhibitng small businesses from growing and begining to even start with. And you're just a complete idiot if you actually think that the housing market crash wasn't caused by the government. It was govn't intervention during the Clinton years that caused it. He thought that everyone should have a home, through government mandated loans. banks were forced to give out loans that people couldn't play. That and the Clinton administration also repealed the form of regulation that shouldn't have been repealed, he allowed commercial and investment banks to merge, allowing for adjustable-rate mortgagaes. Finally, people also need to learn to be financially responsible. You can get a fixed-rate mortgage. People just need to shop around more.

National Debt has been going up ever since anyone can remember. Actually, the only time it went down was during the Clinton years (in which you can thank Newt Gingrich and the Republican congress, not Clinton.) The tax cuts doubled federal revenue, proving that tax benefit everyone. That doesn't mean that spending goes down as well. That was one of Bush's faults, he spent too much money and created a red budget. That tax receipt, while true, doesn't represent the increase in revenue. Besides the GDP is constantly growing, just like revenues and one will outpace another and vice-versa. Using percentages to relate them isn't a real representation of it, which is why you should look at the money. Here's some myths and facts regarding the bush-tax cuts:

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
Also, the unions are a lot of blame as well for sending companies overseas. But since we aren't on the topic of unions, I won't get in to how terrible they are for the US.

You're just plain dumb to think that Reaganomics is bad. Probably cause you are assuming that his increased military spending is part of it. It saw the second biggest economic expansion in history, only to Bush Sr. expansion of Reagan's plans. He lowered unemployment, creating 21 Million jobs. increased revenue while lowering taxes. Poverty percentage remained the same. His major flaw, which he himself regretted was increasing the federal debt considerably, mostly towards military spending. But frankly, it was because of this that the Soviet Union fell. They tried to keep up with the US's major Military expansion, only to collapse because their economy wasn't as strong as ours.

You wanna know why some people invest overseas? Because government regulation. It's that simple, people will invest where they believe they will earn the most money on their returns. That used to be the US, but a growing trend towards socialism have stagnated our economy. The Dollar used to be the most powerful form on currency in the world behind precious metals. That's not the case anymore and the Federal Reserve and public debt are major reasons why.

I agree with regulation, but like I said, only a light touch of it to ensure a balance between large business and small business. Redistrobuting wealth is not the government's job. The way I see, the only form of welfare we should have is Veterans, Disability (with no fraud), and temporary laid-off workers. the way I see it, if you are in poverty, it's your fault you are there. The blame can go no where else. Like I said, individual responsibility.

Welfare needs to be cut nearly completely, like i said, there are those who genuinely need/deserve it, veterans, the disabled, and people who get laid-off. If you are fired, then you don't deserve it. If you don't seek a job or get one, you don't deserve it. So that's why I put that analogy together, because, most of our budget goes to welfare, with defense behind it and interest on our debt in third. Social security is seperate from our budget, it has it's own account and acts as a trust fund. Income from SS is not accounted for in the budget nor is used for against the deficit. However, no more is being taken out than put in. One way to fix that is to raise the retire age. It's the only way it can possibly be fixed, since more and more people are living longer. That, the gov't aganecies who borrowed from it, no have to pay it back and have nothing to do it with. What should happen is that it needs to be pahsed out completely, give people the responsibility to save for their retirement. A gov't mandated IRA isn't necessary.

It's more than just a philosphy, it's also what works and doesn't work. And we have history to show us. Economic policy, ultimately, is about finding that perfect balance of taxes, regulations, etc. So that it doesn't hinder our economy but also the gov't generates revenue and large corporations don't own everything. Until then, I guess we can agree to disagree, cause frankly, i've spend too much time researching for this damn thread and there are other things I need/want to do. lol
avatar
#1SithLord
Administration

Posts : 133
Points : 6178
Join date : 2011-06-23
Age : 28

View user profile http://revolution.forumsmotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by JokerHound on Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:01 pm

If the Republicans are the reason the deficit went down then how are they not also responsible for the housing crash? The housing market crash is both parties' fault.

Reaganomics has nothing to do with military spending. It is trickle down theory, which is just completely stupid. I have already explained this. Rich people invest in themselves. There is a reason that they used to call it "Horse and Sparrow." If you feed a horse enough oats, some will fall on the road for the sparrows.

It is just a fact. The best way to help the economy is to put money in the hands of people who spend it. Trying to build an Economy on Reaganomics is like trying to build an upside down pyramid. Your base needs to be strong.
avatar
JokerHound

Posts : 54
Points : 68
Join date : 2011-07-03
Age : 28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by JokerHound on Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:11 pm

Also, "winning" the Cold War was terrible for us. The Soviet Union kept things neat and organised. It was us and our allies against them and their allies. It was the knight (USA) vs the dragon (USSR). Now we slayed the dragon, and suddenly we are in a jungle full of poisonous snakes. the dragon was easy to keep track of, and he was just as afraid of us as we were of him. We hardly know anything about these snakes, and they can hide anywhere.

Jimmy Carter was on the right path with the detente.
avatar
JokerHound

Posts : 54
Points : 68
Join date : 2011-07-03
Age : 28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum